Cancel culture expands to real life in the USA
- Thread starter mmj_uk
- Start date
I tend to go on a bit when I'm tired. According to the advert I've seen approximately a zillion times on Youtube, I should use Grammarly
I'd generally agree with your approach, but I disagree with your position regarding orders. Yes, a person can choose to disobey an order. But not without consequences. It's a choice, but not a free choice.
Those ideas are offensive to you. Other ideas are offensive to other people. Including, for example, not discriminating against someone because of the colour of their skin. Many ideas are offensive to someone.
As long as there are group identities there will be a hierarchy of group identities. So some will be deemed to be inferior to others. The idea of "seperate but equal" is a thing, but it doesn't seem to hold up very well in practice.
Not entirely, although in some ways it's a more extreme form of the same position. But in some cases some people hold the position that people of an inferior group identity should be forbidden to speak in some situations but allowed to live and even to speak in other situations. So it's not entirely a repeat of the previous question.
But that's what happens in reality, so it is powerful.
I used an obsolete group identity hierarchy deliberately in an attempt to address the general idea of group identity hierarchy without it being mired in any that still exist. We no longer have serfs and nobles, but we still have group identities and a hierarchy of group identities. And that's getting worse now, after a period of it getting better.
I would attempt to assess your intentions. I might ask you about them. I wouldn't assume them, so I wouldn't think that I had established that you don't care about me. Maybe you're using the word because you disagree with my position on it. Maybe you're using the word out of habit because it's the word you've been trained to use. Maybe you're using the word for some reason that doesn't immediately come to my mind at the moment. I shouldn't project my own position onto you and I would at least try to not do so.
At least we've established you don't know what the word "offend" means, because those posts clearly show you felt upset, annoyed, or resentful. That you were displeased, or that they'd caused you a problem.
Well i never said there aren't consequences to someone's choices, most things we do or say have consequences to some degree or another.
Not only me, they're general accepted as offensive and they're general accepted because the majority consider them to be so. Sure some ideas that are not generally accepted are offensive to some people but those ideas tend to be fringe ideas for a reason, because the evidence base don't support the idea, much like the idea that the earth is not flat maybe offensive to a flat earther, however because the evidences supports the idea that the earth is not flat the person expressing that idea is not expressing a belief, idea, or opinion. They're stating a generally accepted fact.
We're not talking about "some" though, we're talking about you and I, and what's accepted as the norm, that being the majority. Like i said you can't, or at least shouldn't, assume to know what other people are, or are not, thinking of feeling.
Lots of things happen in reality but just because they do it doesn't make them right or valid.
Personally i don't think it's getting worse but that's an entirely different subject and besides the point. Like I've already said it's only an issue because people allow it to be so, instead of people addressing the issue that's caused offence by modifying their language so the conversation can move on they get hung-up over arguing about things that are either inconsequential or besides the point, i assume because it becomes more about winning and losing than actually coming to some sort of understanding.
Agreed, however I'd venture to say that you understand not everyone would do the same.
The fact you equate Saxons with England highlights why I think it's a stupid name to begin with. England derives from a name that meant "land of the Angles".
The Angles and Jutes get so screwed over. Frisians to an extent too.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
My mum has mentioned the Picts to me before when talking about similar subjects. who kicked who out of Scotland again?
Is it the young ones of today moaning the loudest about human civilization and history and how we should just forget everything from our past? then how do we compare and learn from mistakes?
40 years from now I fear people are going to be laughing at the thought of only two genders lol
Is it the young ones of today moaning the loudest about human civilization and history and how we should just forget everything from our past? then how do we compare and learn from mistakes?
40 years from now I fear people are going to be laughing at the thought of only two genders lol
The Angle kingdom of Northumbria pushed up to roughly Edinburgh, pushing the Gaels back and the Picts even further back to the Northern parts of Scotland. The Latin name for the Gaels was the Scoti, which probably makes it quite clear where the name comes from. The Gaels were also in Ireland, hence the Irish language being Gaelic.
The Germanic/Norse invasions of this island effectively pushed native inhabitants Northwards and Westwards (hence Cornwall, Wales and Scotland being closest in ancestry to the Celtic origins). Interestingly this push of native Celts away from Eastern shores also led to the migration into Brittainy in modern day France (if you ever wondered why it sounds like Britain its because of the Bretons from these isles). Cornish and Breton were highly similar languages for hundreds of years.
Anyway, this is massively off topic.
At this point in time in this place. That's not about what ideas are right, it's about what ideas are fashionable. It's also not only partially related to the topic of offense - does it only matter if the majority are offended? Who decides what the majority feels, anyway? Referendums aren't common today and were far less so in the past. But I think it's fair to say that, for example, the majority of people in high medieval England found atheism an offensive idea.
Now you're expressing an idea that's extremely offensive to some people - you're arguing directly against the entire idea of group identity. You'd be deplatformed for that. Maybe assaulted.
But it does make them real.
I don't. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes a matter of faith. Sometimes a matter of principle. Sometimes people who don't agree that what you decide is inconsequential or besides the point is so.
Definitely. I find it hard to do myself and I think it's a good idea.
Unclear. Probably a handful of people.
For starters, it wasn't Scotland until relatively recently. It was a number of different countries, the number of which varied over time. So it's more complicated than anyone kicking anyone out of any one country.
Then there's the lack of surviving contempory internally written accounts as you go back further. The oldest ones we have are Roman. How accurate are the sparse Roman accounts of the area they called Caledonia and of the people there? Definitely not completely accurate and unbiased.
"Picts" is a name some Romans gave to some people in northern Britain. Were they one people? Or were they just perceived that way by some Romans?
Did anyone get kicked out of the northern part of Britain that later became Scotland? The Picts disappeared, but that doesn't mean there was a genocide or that they were kicked out and then died without record somewhere. It's much more likely that customs changed over time. As they did in many places in many times. Some Irish people invaded Britain and had some success in part of what later became Scotland, but AFAIK that took the form that was most common - a hostile takeover at the top. The only people kicked out would have been any survivors from the previous rulers. Or maybe not, if they swore loyalty to the new rulers. Certainly not people en masse. That didn't usually happen. Not even in the more brutal conquests, such as the Norman conquest of England. Which was grotesquely brutal, but still didn't result in more than a few people being kicked out of the country. Many killed (the claims go as high as 5% of the entire population!), but not many kicked out.
What constitutes being kicked out, anyway? For example, the Roman empire ruled part of what later became Scotland for a short period of time. Was it kicked out or did it chose to withdraw because it wasn't worth it? Is there necessarily a difference, anyway?
Which part of this do you think is wrong:
It's not a fact that I equate Saxons with England. You wrote that "fact" and claimed I'd done it. That's not accurate or reasonable.
Given that the usual phrasing is "Anglo-Saxon", I think you're wrong to say that the Angles and Jutes get so screwed over. The Jutes, yes. They're hardly acknowledged. But not the Angles.
Anyway, they were all foreigners so they were all the same
And still you don't answer what I asked many posts ago.
You're nothing but a troll and a fake.
No one decides what the majority of people find offensive, it's just something that naturally develops in any society typical through people having conversations. Take eugenics for example, that used to be rather popular in the early 1900's but Hitler changed all that and now if you're in favour of it your probably going to cause offence.
It's not a matter of what's right or what's fashionable, it's a matter of knowing that the majority of people find something offensive and because of that it if you're not careful in how you approach that subject you're more likely to cause offence to most people, it's about being aware that for the majority of people certain subjects trigger an emotional reaction.
I disagree and suspect you're being slightly hyperbolic there, and I'm not entirely sure idea you think I've expressed there.
Real or not it doesn't make them any more right or valid.
Says the person who interjected into what was an interesting conversation with childish comments like "No one can offend anyone. It's the people who chose to be offended that get offended." and then proceeded to stamp his feet when show multiple examples of him being offended.
Do you even understand that if, and it's a big if, i have not provided examples of you being offended that your spurious claims of me not having answered and accusations of being a troll and a fake are quiet literally you demonstrating that you're offended.
That is unless you're going to try to suggest that calling some a troll and a fake is not you being upset, annoyed, or resentful. That you're not displeased, or that they'd caused you a problem.
So you won't answer then?
Thought not. Running away is easy for you.
I see you do this in SC A LOT.
Oh well another all talk no action person...
Pretending to yourself that I've not answered doesn't change the fact that i have, multiple times now. Neither does imagining that I'm running away when I'm actually replying to your post. Also learn to use the edit button, i know it's hard to focus when you get yourself so wound-up but it sure would help to keep things concise.So you won't answer then?
Thought not. Running away is easy for you.
I see you do this in SC A LOT.
Oh well another all talk no action person...
Look we've established that you either don't understand what the word "offended" means, still, or that you think calling someone a troll or fake is not you being upset, annoyed, or resentful. That moaning, no matter how misplaced that moaning is, is somehow not you exhibiting displeasure or that you have some sort of problem with what I've posted. So what is it? Do you still not understand what the word "offended" means, or do you not realise that every time you respond that you're showing that you're offended by what you're replying to.
"Offended resentful or annoyed, typically as a result of a perceived insult.
"he sounded rather offended"
I'm not any of them.
I never get upset...ever.
But I can not work out why some people try to worm there way out of an answer.
Now define 'offensive' and I think you'll discover the other half to your conundrum.
40 years from now we will have actual issues to deal with like the environmental disaster caused by our ravaging of the planet and the idea that people thought the most important thing in the world was to make sure everyone knew they didn't identify as a man or a woman will seem a little silly.
I'm pretty sure no one really gives a **** about gender politics or identity now outside of the people involved. Most people simply don't care and you can call yourself whatever you want and dress however you want and look however you want. People would also like it if they are not expected to dedicate the time to learning about your issues/struggles or what you would like to be called. We don't take offence when someone can't remember everyones names so why should we get offended if someone doesn't know what pro-noun you wish to be addressed by.
Maybe we will make the shocking move to not have to label everything and break everyone down into the smallest, most specific group we can possible think of. Perhaps people will just be taken as people and we won't have to know exactly how they feel on every topic because thats their business and not something for anyone else to worry about.
So you're trying to suggest that you were not expressing bitterness or indignation at having been treated unfairly, that you were not slightly angry; irritated when you started moaning about "running away", accusing someone of being a "troll and a fake", when you literally stated "I'm angry
", when you accused someone of being a "baby"? If those aren't you expressing bitterness or indignation at having been treated unfairly, not you expressing that you were not slightly angry; irritated, what would you say they are?So you're trying to suggest that you were not expressing bitterness or indignation at having been treated unfairly, that you were not slightly angry; irritated when you started moaning about "running away", accusing someone of being a "troll and a fake", when you literally stated "I'm angry
I'm never angry or upset. I never lose my temper.
I don't get upset when people call me names. I just smile back.
OCUK members that have been to my place called me a very laid back person
When one lives in 3 different countries.
One learns to be an adult. Stick and stones and all that
There's post of you quiet literally saying you're angry about something, here's one of you saying "It makes me angry that people like a career criminal and riot in his name.", here's another of you saying "The one where he tried to touch a little girls breast makes me very angry.", or how about one where you just say "That makes me angry.", and here's one where you even felt the need to add four mad emotes to show just how angry you were.I'm never angry or upset. I never lose my temper.
I don't get upset when people call me names. I just smile back.
OCUK members that have been to my place called me a very laid back person
When one lives in 3 different countries.
One learns to be an adult. Stick and stones and all that
If those are not you displaying anger then you need to work on those vocabulary skills.I'm angry