Sorry, you gave your view, but your view is wrong. Better?
You didn’t give a good reason why my analogy was wrong. You didn’t even touch on it.
Let’s consider it a different way. Do you believe someone can claim that any word is a slur against them and demand you not use it? Or just some words? If so, how do you know which words? Who choose them?
I’m not saying you wrote that. That’s why I"m asking the question.
Okay.
So sometimes you get to ignore people who don’t like the message you send.
Sure, but we aren’t obligated to do so, or to satisfy everyone. You just said so, and you’re proof of it.
Okay. Do you ever run into a situation where you think a word isn’t objectionable, but someone else does?
Well, sure, I don’t either.
I wouldn’t say one should never care what others think. Just that one shouldn’t care ONLY what others think. What you think matters too.
You’re welcome. It’s one of many topics on the SDMB that I’m interested in.
This whole discussion is just quibbling about racial slurs, of course.
Nice imaginary example. Now find a real one. In any plausible scenario in which one person told another person, in seriousness, that they had done things to indicate they hate black people, the comeback “some of my best friends are black” would have very little persuasive force.
You read this:
And then you said I “didn’t even touch on” the question of why it is not a good analogy.
I stand by the “if you’re offended then it’s you’re problem to deal with”. I’m not offended so not my problem to solve. Why should I care if someone else feels offended by something? We can feel things all day long, doesn’t stop the world from turning.
Some people here seem to have questioned it.
Does that mean you have never ever complained about being offended by anything ever? And can’t imagine anything you could be offended by?
Yes.
Are you saying such a conversation could never happen and never has happened?
Actually, I’ve had a similar one. Someone on a board like this one, with no hint of a reason, once accused me of hating Jews. I informed him that my Jewish wife would be awful surprised to find that out.
Mine is plausible.
Why? Sounds persuasive to me.
If you hate a group of people, you probably wouldn’t have good friends in that group. If you do, that’s good evidence - not definitive, but good - that you don’t hate them.
Yep. After the requisite overreactions by those who can’t stand quibbling, let alone serious conversation, weighed in. That sucked.
You literally looked at, read each word of I assume, of a passage where reasons were given in support of view X, and then stated that the passage “doesn’t even touch” on the matter of giving reasons in support of view X.
It’s like if I said “Dogs are better than cats because dogs are faithful,” and you said I “hadn’t even touched on” the question of why dogs are better than cats.
Again I say unto you, truly, truly, it is as though you are not taking the matter seriously.
I hate racists. I also am friends with one.
Your having a jewish wife does not in itself make me doubt that you hate jews. Now, i also don’t think you hate jews. i’d have to see why anyone would think that you did, and I haven’t seen anything like that. But if you did things that reasonably indicated you hated Jews, then your having a Jewish wife would have no particular impact on that judgment. Many people who hate women marry–surprise surprise–women! Hating X doesn’t preclude friending or marrying X at all.
My friend, I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.
My only point is that when someone tells you X is offensive to Y people to Z degree, it’s common sense to at least know about it, whether you then choose to disregard it or not.
But that’s not what you said.
You seem to think that to be taking it seriously I have to accept that what you say is a relevant response. I say it wasn’t. Saying “nobody would say chair was offensive” has nothing to do with an analogy. It completely misses the point of the analogy.
Of course.
My point is that I can choose to disregard it, and if I do, that doesn’t mean I’m an evil racist. It could mean that I think Y people don’t have the right to be offended by it. That’s all.
So you don’t hate racists as much as you thought you did.
I mean, come on. You want to carve out this area where it’s possible to hate Jews but also be married to them. I love my wife and our marriage is happy. The idea that you could credibly say I hate Jews is just absurd. The fact that I am married to a Jew is at least extremely strong evidence that I don’t hate them. You’d have to have really strong contrary evidence to say otherwise.
The point is that it is not laughable for me to say that my wife is Jewish as a defense against a claim that I hate Jews. Just like it’s not laughable to say that I have good friends who are black as a defense against a claim that I’m racist.
I know that there are people out there that live double lives, so to speak, who have black friends but then turn around and tell racist jokes, and don’t see the disconnect. That does happen.
I think this is indeed laughable – American history is replete with racists who nonetheless loved (or at least thought they felt love for) people of other races.
As a kid I recall a contractor working on the house (whom my parents soon fired) who would spend most of his time ranting about black people, out of earshot of his trusted second-in-command (who was black), pointing out that he was one of the very rare “good ones” who was honest and could be trusted, and claiming that out of any ten black people nine weren’t worth more than putting against a wall to be shot. That type of racism was and probably still is extremely common, in my experience (this was the suburbs of New Orleans).
The only types of racism that having a friend or even wife of the ‘target’ race is an actual defense of are the types of racism that disallow any association whatsoever with this race. “Most black people/Jews are worthless/inferior/dishonest/stupid” is entirely compatible with having a black or Jewish friend or even spouse. It proves virtually nothing, in my view.
lance, you obviously can read. In this case, though, you’re not reading.
Again, here is what I said:
I know it’s a long sentence, but there is a “because” in it which makes it exactly logically parallel to
“Dogs are better than cats because dogs are loyal.”
Both sentences are of the form “X because Y.”
In the former case, you claim I didn’t touch on the question of why X should be true–even though I had given Y as a reason why X should be true.
Yet in the latter case you acknowledge that the given Y “touches on” the question of why X should be true. So I know you know how “because” works.
Is it clear to you now that you were wrong to say I “didn’t even touch” on giving a reason to think the two scenarios are not analogous?
The reason I gave, to be absolutely clear, is “because for such a thing to happen, so many things would have to be different about how human beings work the situation would no longer be meaningfully analogous to the “thug” situation”.
That is where I “touched on” the issue. Will you admit you misread or failed to read?
This response is basically what I would have said as well, so I’ll just Q it FT.