One really annoying part has to be the destruction of the English language. We’ve seen it with words like niggardly, we’ve seen it in all sorts of false etymologies for various words and phrases and idioms, and here’s a new example with dingo. Not only are they wrong, they are so adamant that they are right that there is no way to convince them otherwise. And the damn things propagate, even more so these days with the internet.
Sure, you could do that, but I was giving suggestions for productive conversations, not just some snappy comeback lines to throw over your shoulder.
“Never wrestle with a pig–the pig likes it and you both get muddy.”
Language always evolves, and always has. English in 100 years will be a bit different than it is now. This has always been true and always will. Complaining about it is like complaining about the weather.
That’s some genuinely Kafkaesque level question-begging right here.
How so?
You may not be a racist, but if you are doing things that people perceive as racist, would it not be better to engage in a dialogue as to why that perception exists, than to shut it down with defensiveness?
You will either learn something about yourself, and why something that you are doing is perceived that way, and how to prevent that, or you may convince others that what you are doing should not be perceived that way, and they will not accuse others of being a racist for performing those actions in the future.
“No I am not.” Does not do either of these things, it just drives in a wedge and makes further discourse more difficult.
Possibly, but there do exist people who use accusations of racism as a weapon to get what they want and/or to draw attention to themselves. Those people aren’t remotely interested in dialogue and it’s a waste of your time to engage with them. They know you’re not racist, but they don’t care. The “perception” doesn’t exist. They’re not genuinely outraged. Their outrage is performative, and the goal of the performance is either to get you to do what they want, or to feel some kind of perverse validation.
For example, I doubt very much that the students at Evergreen flinging spittle-flecked abuse at Bret Weinstein for objecting to being pressured to leave campus (imagine that, a Jew objecting to non-Jews telling him where he is and isn’t supposed to be!) genuinely believe he is a racist. They’re just using the word as a cudgel. Engaging in dialogue with people like that isn’t remotely productive. Indeed, dignifying such spurious accusations with the offer of dialogue is a tactical error. We know this because Weinstein (showing truly heroic patience and diplomacy) actually did try to have a dialogue with his students, and they just told him to go fuck himself.
Here’s another example. Former Islamist turned anti-terror campaigner Maajid Nawaz, explained in his autobiography ‘Radical’ precisely how he used to use false allegations of racism as a way to cow political opponents:
The take-home is this: If a person is accused of racism, the first thing he or she should do is consider whether the person hurling the accusation actually means it. If they do then yes, dialogue may very well be productive. If they don’t, then dialogue just plays further into their hands. Far better to rob them of their soapbox by refusing to engage with them, preferably after telling them to piss off. Based on Squallous’s description of his encounter with the idiot at the vet, I’m guessing he probably made the right call.
Destruction? Yeah, ok. This word you mentioned, it sounds like another very hurtful word, so those who have feelings and are literate enough to know a few synonyms don’t use it. It hurts no one not to use it, and it destroys absolutely nothing. But yeah, the language has been destroyed because some people decide not to say “niggardly”. It’s taken all the hyperbole out of destroyed!
Sorry, but you don’t coddle sub-literate mental patients who have panic attacks over stupid shit like “niggardly.” You just point and laugh at them like the complete societal failures they are.
Perhaps that’s why it’s called the “Kafka Trap”.
I’d say the societal failures would be those people who choose to inflict pain on their fellow citizens for absolutely no reason other than personal amusement. If everyone had your attitude, society would stop functioning.
No it wouldn’t, since words only hurt the non-contributors. Actual useful members of society would be fine.
Heavy.
Here’s a new one from the world of gaming:
Basically, indie development human bicycle Zoe Quinn found out a gamergater was able to do something she never will, develop a game people actually want to play and showcase it to an audience of hundreds of thousands at an international convention. So she mobilized her army of beta faggots to comb through the guy’s twitter history then used her sycophantic “journalist” buddies at the various AIDS gaming sites (i.e., Kotaku, Vice, Polygon, Mic, etc.) to humiliate the guy, all for the monstrous crime of calling social justice the pile of pig shit that it is.
The silver lining in this whole thing is that this guy has a bright future ahead of him in gaming while Quinn is stuck financially dominating the dozen-or-so white knights she has left until her cooch finally falls out from overuse.
Dolly Parton is quite a witty lady. Case in point: she sometime takes written questions from her audience, reads them and answers them. (Maybe not anymore, she plays big-ass venues, but didn’t always…)
Anyways, she is on stage, reading and answering questions, then picks up the next, reads it and says…
“I’m not going to read this one, I’ll just answer it. They are about the size of cantaloupes. And wouldn’t your Mamma be proud of you!”
[Moderating]
Hi, yornmine. Welcome to the SDMB!
Here’s a formal warning for using hate speech. Do it again, we kick you off the boards.
Enjoy your stay.
[/Moderating]
[QUOTE=paraphrasing yornmine]
<a loud angry noise>
[/QUOTE]
Are you on blood pressure meds? You probably should be.
The idea that Evergreen students didn’t (delusionally) believe their professor is racist is ridiculous to me. Having spent massive amounts of time with radical social justice types, I assure you that a majority of them are sincere in their beliefs. Whether they are draconian in implementing those beliefs and irrational and crazy in doing so, in certain contexts, is a much different question. In the case of Squallous’ story, you can be judgmental and superior and close-minded – and still be sincere. (See: Certain expressions of religious conviction.)
So I’d modify your statement to read: If a person is accused of racism, the first thing he or she should do is consider whether the person hurling the accusation is open to a constructive dialog.
You have no way of knowing whether they ‘‘mean’’ it. If both people approach with an open mind, probably it can be a useful exchange. If one of either party is unwilling to consider the opposing view, there’s no point.
He’s just mad he’s still a virgin.
Hey asshole, /r/incels is over there.
If you are jackass initially, you’ll never know if the person was open to discussion. And I argue that an apology, and showing your care about their feelings, can help them be open to discussion. And, as a bonus, if they were trolls, and just wanted to upset you, you’ve not let them.
Plus, just from my observations in online communities: the people who get the most upset about being called racist tend to be those who have actually said racist things. Better to go as far the other way as possible.
And it just follows from the actual underlying ethic for being against bigotry. You need to care about the feelings of others. Try not to be selfish and only care about yourself or people like you. ’
And since most bigoted people don’t know they are bigoted, you have to be open if you want to learn not to be bigoted.