Cancel culture expands to real life in the USA

[dlockers]

The Rugby Football Union has become the latest institution to sign up to the woke agenda in deciding to drop “Saxons” from the name of the England Rugby squad’s second team because it does not reflect racial diversity. The team will now be known rather less inspiringly as England A.

Swing Low Sweet Chariot will be next.

I thought Saxons just meant

"The Saxons (Latin: Saxones, German: Sachsen, Old English: Seaxan, Old Saxon: Sahson, Low German: Sassen, Dutch: Saksen) were a group of early Germanic peoples whose name was given in the early Middle Ages to a large country (Old Saxony, Latin: Saxonia) near the North Sea coast of northern Germania, what is now Germany."

Paging @dowie for explanation?
Edit: and his partner @Nitefly

 

[pp111]

I agree but the issue is the the politics of these topics is impacting the language we use, what is deemed an appropriate opinion and what is now considered hate speech.

Politics have unfortunately become so interwoven with every aspect of society that its almost impossible to talk about one without the other.

The truth is that both far left and far right have very little actual support. The issue is that both ends of the spectrum enjoy far more power than their support base merits.

I think people are making it political when it's not. It's social media that turns every news item into a political drama. There have always been "incidents" in every day life, but now apparently every single one because the topic of heated debate. People also seem to see everything now as absolute black or white, the rainbow has been completely lost! I honestly am tired of all this discussion about stuff that really is of absolutely no consequence by a bunch of people who seem to want to make it important in ways it is not ( I don't mean on this forum, I really mean on the wider social networks ).

 

[Murphy]

How do you adapt to a situation in which someone will take offence if you use an entirely innocuous word without malicious intent and someone else will take offence if you use whatever word the other person orders you to use?

Wow, so many questions.

No one can order you to use a word, well they can but the choice is yours whether you use that word or another. If someone demanded i use a specific word that i knew others found offensive I'd explain why others find the word they're demanding be used is offensive to other people.

How do you adapt to a situation in which the word you are ordered to use is offensive to you?

Again no one can order you to use a particular word, that's a choice each person makes. If you find the word someone is asking you to use offensive then you explain why that's so to them and allow them to judge if you're being reasonable and whether they want to knowingly cause you offence.

How do you adapt to a situation in which someone will take offence to an idea, however you phrase it?

I'm sorry to say it but some ideas are offensive, eugenics for example, discriminating against someone because of the colour of their skin, paedophilia, etc, etc. That doesn't mean those subjects can't be discussed however, it just means holding an opinion in support of offensive ideas is likely to lead rebukes.

How do you adapt to a situation in which someone will take offence to you speaking at all because they consider you to be an inferior group identity?

Well you can't be "an inferior group identity" so i guess you mean if someone takes offence because of the group you belong to? If so they're welcome to take offence, like i said you can't prevent someone taking offence you can only modify your approach or vocabulary so as to put the onus back onto the person who's been offended, what they choose to do after that is entirely on them and out of you control.

How do you adapt to a situation in which someone will take offence to you being alive because they consider you to be an inferior group identity?

Isn't that just a repeat of the above?

Weaponised offence is an extremely powerful political weapon and it both reflects and reinforces a hierarchy of group identities. A serf taking offence at something a noble says is not treated the same as a noble taking offence at something a serf says. The group identities might change. Their relative postions in the hierarchy might change. But the idea, unfortunately, remains the same.

No it's not, it's only powerful because people allow it to be so, because instead of dealing with what someone took offence at passing the ball back to them people get hung up on being and taking offence.

I think we're a little beyond serfs and nobles so that analogy doesn't really apply to modern life, and it doesn't apply because a serf taking offence at something a noble says and a noble taking offence at something a serf says has, just like I'm explaining in these posts, been thoroughly deconstructed and seen as nothing more than people being or taking offence over illogical or unreasonable thoughts and/or ideas. In the case of serfs and nobles that thought or idea being that your place in the socioeconomic stratus has no bearing on how you should be treated.

For example, I consider the word "disabled" to be offensive. I can give a good reason for that - the word means "made useless, having no functionality at all". Calling a person disabled places them below, for example, a chair. A chair is not useless. A chair has a function. "disabled" is probably the most extreme possible insult. Even a corpse is not truly disabled - it can be used for spare parts, it can be used for teaching, it can be food for worms and suchlike. There is no more dismissive word. It's worse than contempt because contempt requires some consideration of the target.

Yet I'm forced to refer to people in such an extremely insulting way because it's demanded and I will (very perversely) be deemed to be causing offence if I don't spew such an insulting label on people. My position is discarded because I am deemed to be lower in the hierarchy of group identities and thus it's deemed to be of no importance if I'm offended.

Sure and by explaining why you find the word disabled offensive you've put the ball in my court, now i can choose to either keep using that term in your presences and knowingly cause you offence, or i can choose to use another word that you find more acceptable.

If i continued to use that word after you given me your reasons not to then i probably wouldn't want to keep talking to me because you've established that i don't care about you so i wouldn't care about what i had to say any more, because i wouldn't be acting in good faith.

 

[FoxEye]

You say that but someone on these very forums took offence at my use of the word "fella", in that situation they didn't tell me that they considered that word offensive or explain why, i only discovered they found it offensive and the reasons they took offence after, i assume, reporting it to a mod. So no there are not very few people and/or few words that can cause offence, the onus is on the person to make it know that they find a word offensive and then it's on the other person whether they choose to either not use that word or find an alternative.

As for ideas causing offence it depends on the idea and another persons idea can only be know or understood through having a conversation. Your example of "trans-women boxing against real women and demolishing them is a travesty" is a perfect example, if you can't explain why you consider a trans-woman having a boxing match with a woman to be unfair without using loaded words like "travesty" then that's on you because rather than using facts, being objective, and being dispassionate you've used emotive words like "demolishing" and "travesty". Your other example of saying that you "refuse to apologise for things that happened well before I was born" is another example of where either through laziness or a lack of vocabulary you've failed to convey why, maybe it's because you hate the people who had these things done to them, maybe you think the people who did it had the right to do it, and an endless list of maybe you "refuse" for *insert reasons here*. You've not conveyed your thoughts to anyone, you've simply attempted to shutdown any further conversations, you've made no attempt to come to some sort of understanding on the issue, you've not helped the person who took offence understand that your intention was not to cause offence and that you bear them no ill will.

I think you'll find that the reasons for holding to an idea are irrelevant, most of the time.

Heck, even intent is supposed to be irrelevant these days. That is to say, if you do not intend to cause offense, but the other person decides to take offense, your lack of intent is not considered to be an "excuse" for the offense taken.

It really doesn't matter how deeply or otherwise you explain your position and ideas. These days, if your ideas do not meet with approval from the other person, they can/will take offense at the very fact that you hold such an idea.

The reasons for thinking that a fully-developed biological man boxing a biological female in a sporting context is a travesty are beyond obvious.

The person taking offense at that statement isn't complaining about my lack of reasoning, or the number of words used, or the vocabulary. They're complaining because they are ideologically wed to the idea that trans women are women, and must be treated the same in all circumstances.

You cannot appease people who are ideologically opposed to reality

Similarly, there are people who expect all white men to feel guilt over European slavery. If you don't, your reasons are hardly important. You are simply "racist". Or "part of the problem."

 

[Pudney]

I thought Saxons just meant

"The Saxons (Latin: Saxones, German: Sachsen, Old English: Seaxan, Old Saxon: Sahson, Low German: Sassen, Dutch: Saksen) were a group of early Germanic peoples whose name was given in the early Middle Ages to a large country (Old Saxony, Latin: Saxonia) near the North Sea coast of northern Germania, what is now Germany."

Paging @dowie for explanation?
Edit: and his partner @Nitefly

Honestly I don't see the issue dropping Saxons, it wasn't very representative even ignoring the obvious racial diversity in this country. It can easily be seen as it doesn't represent:

• Celtic descent in England, e.g. Cornwall.
• The other main German tribes from that period that forced native Celtic tribes Westwards, i.e. Angles and Jutes. They were distinct to the Saxons rather than just different names for the same thing. "Anglo-Saxons" is a reference to the intermingling of the 3 main Germanic tribes on these shores rather than to the people who originally came across.
• The northern regions where the various Norse tribes invaded and settled.
• The Normans (who were an intermingling of mainly Norse and Franks, Normandy being named after the Norse invaders).

Saxons is actually stupidly narrow even if you want to focus on "white English" heritage and doesn't do justice to over 1,000 years of our history.

As an aside to the history lesson, the "Anglo-Saxons" mainly focused in the following areas:

• Saxons - Essex, Middlesex, Wessex, Sussex (you can probably guess where the names come from...).
• Jutes - Kent, Hampshire, Isle of Wight
• Angles - East Anglia, Mercia (i.e. mainly midlands) and Northumbria.

Also as an aside, the etymology of place names is a fascinating insight into the various peoples that invaded these shores and left their marks. This video is interesting (to me because I like things like that...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYNzqgU7na4

Edit: got interested in where the name came from. It was named that in 2006, so not exactly a long history of the name with huge meaning to it... In fact, before being England Saxons they were England A. They've just gone back to the previous name!!!! Trigger culture at its best.

 

[deuse]

Wow, so many questions.

No one can order you to use a word, well they can but the choice is yours whether you use that word or another. If someone demanded i use a specific word that i knew others found offensive I'd explain why others find the word they're demanding be used is offensive to other people.

Again no one can order you to use a particular word, that's a choice each person makes. If you find the word someone is asking you to use offensive then you explain why that's so to them and allow them to judge if you're being reasonable and whether they want to knowingly cause you offence.

I'm sorry to say it but some ideas are offensive, eugenics for example, discriminating against someone because of the colour of their skin, paedophilia, etc, etc. That doesn't mean those subjects can't be discussed however, it just means holding an opinion in support of offensive ideas is likely to lead rebukes.

Well you can't be "an inferior group identity" so i guess you mean if someone takes offence because of the group you belong to? If so they're welcome to take offence, like i said you can't prevent someone taking offence you can only modify your approach or vocabulary so as to put the onus back onto the person who's been offended, what they choose to do after that is entirely on them and out of you control.

Isn't that just a repeat of the above?

No it's not, it's only powerful because people allow it to be so, because instead of dealing with what someone took offence at passing the ball back to them people get hung up on being and taking offence.

I think we're a little beyond serfs and nobles so that analogy doesn't really apply to modern life, and it doesn't apply because a serf taking offence at something a noble says and a noble taking offence at something a serf says has, just like I'm explaining in these posts, been thoroughly deconstructed and seen as nothing more than people being or taking offence over illogical or unreasonable thoughts and/or ideas. In the case of serfs and nobles that thought or idea being that your place in the socioeconomic stratus has no bearing on how you should be treated.

Sure and by explaining why you find the word disabled offensive you've put the ball in my court, now i can choose to either keep using that term in your presences and knowingly cause you offence, or i can choose to use another word that you find more acceptable.

If i continued to use that word after you given me your reasons not to then i probably wouldn't want to keep talking to me because you've established that i don't care about you so i wouldn't care about what i had to say any more, because i wouldn't be acting in good faith.

No one can offend anyone.
It's the people who chose to be offended that get offended.

 

[Tony Edwards]

"England" should be the next target after "Saxons" since they're both named for Germanic peoples who conquered most of Britain around the beginning of the middle ages.

Dont be silly.

 

[fez]

For example, I consider the word "disabled" to be offensive. I can give a good reason for that - the word means "made useless, having no functionality at all". Calling a person disabled places them below, for example, a chair. A chair is not useless. A chair has a function. "disabled" is probably the most extreme possible insult. Even a corpse is not truly disabled - it can be used for spare parts, it can be used for teaching, it can be food for worms and suchlike. There is no more dismissive word. It's worse than contempt because contempt requires some consideration of the target.

Yet I'm forced to refer to people in such an extremely insulting way because it's demanded and I will (very perversely) be deemed to be causing offence if I don't spew such an insulting label on people. My position is discarded because I am deemed to be lower in the hierarchy of group identities and thus it's deemed to be of no importance if I'm offended.

This sort of thing is a complete other kettle of fish where a word has very much taken on a more benign meaning than the dictionary definition. Its a good example of why taking offence at a word is quite silly when its the intent behind it that is relevant. Its a good example of a word that some people hate and other people have 0 issue with and are very happy with in the disabled community. For most people it doesn't covey anything more than the fact they have a disability compared to the average able bodied human. To others it labels them as sub-human or less than others. Who should we listen to? The people who are happy with it or the people that aren't. Some really hate the word "differently-able" because its pandering and saying that they are not strong enough to handle the word "disabled" and we must delicately step around the issue.

Its the same with positive discrimination. Some people like getting an advantage due to their race/sex etc because they feel it is owed to them due to perceived inequalities, others can imagine nothing worse and find it insulting that you would think that they need you to make things easier for them.

This is why we should stop giving words such deep meaning and try to discuss issues with an open mind and look at peoples actions and intent, not nitpick at their use of a given word that one person likes and the other doesn't. When one person in a group likes a word and another doesn't, its quite a good indication that the word isn't that important and someone is just looking to find fault and divert away from the core issue.

 

[Murphy]

I think you'll find that the reasons for holding to an idea are irrelevant, most of the time.

Heck, even intent is supposed to be irrelevant these days. That is to say, if you do not intend to cause offense, but the other person decides to take offense, your lack of intent is not considered to be an "excuse" for the offense taken.

It really doesn't matter how deeply or otherwise you explain your position and ideas. These days, if your ideas do not meet with approval from the other person, they can/will take offense at the very fact that you hold such an idea.

The reasons for thinking that a fully-developed biological man boxing a biological female in a sporting context is a travesty are beyond obvious.

The person taking offense at that statement isn't complaining about my lack of reasoning, or the number of words used, or the vocabulary. They're complaining because they are ideologically wed to the idea that trans women are women, and must be treated the same in all circumstances.

You cannot appease people who are ideologically opposed to reality

Similarly, there are people who expect all white men to feel guilt over European slavery. If you don't, your reasons are hardly important. You are simply "racist". Or "part of the problem."

I don't disagree with what you've said but the only way to know if the person you're dealing with is one of those "most of the time", "probably", "intent", etc, etc. Is to put that to the test by putting the ball back in their court and allowing them to either prove or disprove your assumption.

You can't go around thinking you know what other people are thinking or how they feel because you'll inevitably make mistakes, and when you do you cause offence (you don't like someone accusing you of something you've not done or don't believe i assume?), you either have to confirm or have your assumptions refuted.

No one can offend anyone.
It's the people who chose to be offended that get offended.

Now you're just being silly, are you really suggesting that if i looked through your post history i wouldn't find a single example of you taking offence at what someone said to you, because i have my doubts, just on a statistical nature it's highly likely that you've shown you were offended in one of those 23k odd posts.

 

[dlockers]

Honestly I don't see the issue dropping Saxons, it wasn't very representative even ignoring the obvious racial diversity in this country. It can easily be seen as it doesn't represent:

• Celtic descent in England, e.g. Cornwall.
• The other main German tribes from that period that forced native Celtic tribes Westwards, i.e. Angles and Jutes. They were distinct to the Saxons rather than just different names for the same thing. "Anglo-Saxons" is a reference to the intermingling of the 3 main Germanic tribes on these shores rather than to the people who originally came across.
• The northern regions where the various Norse tribes invaded and settled.
• The Normans (who were an intermingling of mainly Norse and Franks, Normandy being named after the Norse invaders).

Saxons is actually stupidly narrow even if you want to focus on "white English" heritage and doesn't do justice to over 1,000 years of our history.

As an aside to the history lesson, the "Anglo-Saxons" mainly focused in the following areas:

• Saxons - Essex, Middlesex, Wessex, Sussex (you can probably guess where the names come from...).
• Jutes - Kent, Hampshire, Isle of Wight
• Angles - East Anglia, Mercia (i.e. mainly midlands) and Northumbria.

Also as an aside, the etymology of place names is a fascinating insight into the various peoples that invaded these shores and left their marks. This video is interesting (to me because I like things like that...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYNzqgU7na4

Edit: got interested in where the name came from. It was named that in 2006, so not exactly a long history of the name with huge meaning to it... In fact, before being England Saxons they were England A. They've just gone back to the previous name!!!! Trigger culture at its best.

Interesting post thank you for taking the time to write it. Yes I did spot that it was only the name from 2006 and we were just reverting. But how would the far right get offended if that fact was in the headline?

 

[deuse]

Now you're just being silly, are you really suggesting that if i looked through your post history i wouldn't find a single example of you taking offence at what someone said to you, because i have my doubts, just on a statistical nature it's highly likely that you've shown you were offended in one of those 23k odd posts.

Tell me where that statement is factually wrong.
And please stick to what I asked not anything else.

And I didn't ask you to do anything. So stop that nonsense now.

 

[Murphy]

Tell me where that statement is factually wrong.
And please stick to what I asked not anything else.

And I didn't ask you to do anything. So stop that nonsense now.

Well if you insist on this being the hill you die on so be it...

I'm angry
.
.
.
.
.
That they call that music

You being offended at music.

True.

The same thing as the pixi prophet Muhammad killed and sold Jews. Around and around we go.

Why don't these people step back and read from the past to learn that all religions are false.

You being offended that people appear to not have learn from the past.

There is something wrong with you in my opinion.
Enjoy your day.

That's you being offended because someone voiced an opinion.

So answer me and stop being a baby.
To be fair I did ask first. But you came back with a question. Not fair.

You never answered me. I said "Citation needed" you gave no answer FACT.

You being offended that someone didn't do what you demanded of them.

Yes.

The floor was ok-ish but that's it.
I have all the graphic options on full with RTX.
It looked crap and dull.

Look on the ground where it was raining or wet. Any reflection? No.
If this game was called Vampire Hall, it would be slammed.

You being offended at the graphics of a game, of all things, and that's only over the last week or so...You do know what the word "offend" actually means, do you not?

 

[dlockers]

Well if you insist on this being the hill you die on so be it...

You being offended at music.

You being offended that people appear to not have learn from the past.

That's you being offended because someone voiced an opinion.

You being offended that someone didn't do what you demanded of them.

You being offended at the graphics of a game, of all things, and that's only over the last week or so...You do know what the word "offend" actually means, do you not?

Careful, the last time he got schooled he exclaimed he was old and disabled and therefore a protected person.

 

[hurfdurf]

No one can offend anyone.
It's the people who chose to be offended that get offended.

Ive seen you throw your toys out the pram in multiple threads when you’ve been proven demonstrably wrong.

Stop trying to pretend you’re above anything.

 

[Reality|Bites]

examples given aren't him being offended though, just giving an opposing argument.

 

[Tony Edwards]

[edit]
Just seen that the race horse guy has apparently issued a new statement saying "we gave the horse a medication that had the banned substance, that might be the cause of the result".
So again very much not cancel culture, IIRC in any sport it is always considered the sportsperson or animal owner/trainers responsibility to ensure that any medication they take (even over the counter stuff) does not have any banned substances, or if they do to get an exemption in advance which may allow them to have up to certain limits.

Haha thanks for that, that makes it even funnier.

Could have been people touching them in the open, or someone peeing on a bale of hay or it could have been the drugs we gave the horse. Who knows? its a complete mystery.

#cancelculture

 

[deuse]

Well if you insist on this being the hill you die on so be it...

You being offended at music.

You being offended that people appear to not have learn from the past.

That's you being offended because someone voiced an opinion.

You being offended that someone didn't do what you demanded of them.

You being offended at the graphics of a game, of all things, and that's only over the last week or so...You do know what the word "offend" actually means, do you not?

Wrong again.

I'm not offended in any of them.

So back to my question.

deuse said: ↑
Tell me where that statement is factually wrong.

 

[deuse]

Ive seen you throw your toys out the pram in multiple threads when you’ve been proven demonstrably wrong.

Stop trying to pretend you’re above anything.

Go on and knock yourself out.

Show where I say I've been offended.

You won't.

 

[deuse]

NVM

 

[Angilion]

Dont be silly.

What's silly about it? Both names have the same origin. Why treat them so differently?