Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/12/21 in all areas

  1. If we go back to the topic of C-16, it seems to me - and correct me if I'm wrong, his objection is that by disallowing discrimination of people based on gender identity or expression, that would prevent him from refusing to use a person's preferred pronoun, thus limiting his free speech. 1) There is a non-trivial proportion of humans who are actually born biologically intersexed, or conditions such as androgen insensitivity that will cause an individual's genitals to change from female to male during puberty. Not to mention the significant body of research demonstrating the neurological basis of transsexuality. He is basically asking that his delusional denial of biological reality be protected, which to me, seems pretty fragile and snowflakey. 2) Based on 1), how would he know an individual's sex at birth, or current physiological state? If someone says they are he/her/they, how is he to know the phenotypic or neurological reality of that? Even if it changes mid semester? If you tell me you're a Christian, and I deliberately call you a Muslim and presume you follow the tenets of Islam - that would currently be discrimination and he doesn't seem to have a problem with that. It would appear that applying it to gender identity is cherry picking. 3) No one is forcing him to believe in gender dysphoria, or accept the biological fact that gender is not fixed at birth. They are compelling him not to discriminate against those who do. As such, his right to question the validity of gender fluidity remains protected. The only thing being taken away is his "right" to discriminate against specific individuals based on their identity. Which brings the argument down to "You are denying my "right" to treat people differently based on their gender identity" which, yes - is the intent of the law. Watch me play this tiny violin.
    5 points
  2. You can label it Political Correctness, or whatever you wish. The fact is that our Western societies are now almost at a point where the individual right nt to be offended, trumps society's right to free speech. And where your own personal, subjective reality can be forced, under threat of law, on the rest of society. If it was someone in authority doing this to society, you would all label him a despot, or dictator, or fascist. When it is anyone with a gripe against the rest of society, or a pretentious, virtue signalling university student, who has no clue what being underpriviliged really is, you guys all stand and cheer, while disparaging those who stand up against the nonsense, claiming they are out of their area of expertise, or just in it for popularity and money. You guys need to give your collective heads a shake !
    5 points
  3. I appreciate the sentient, but your words leave me wondering where accountability, personal responsibility, and progress fall in all of this. “Stop being so sensitive. All I did was refer to her as sugar-tits. She’s got a great bosom… it’s a compliment!” ”Stop being so sensitive. All I did was call him a commie. It’s a joke… live a little.” ”Stop being so sensitive. All I did was call him a kraut. He is from Germany, after all.” ”Stop being so sensitive. All I did was call that blackie a nigger. It’s just a word… sticks and stones and whatnot.” What is deemed acceptable to a civilized society rightly evolves with time. We must each ask ourselves if our own ambiguous connection to words from history is somehow more worthy or important than the very real connection others have with cultural acceptance and belonging. After all… Perhaps the world would be a better place for all of us if more people were just a little bit more sensitive. Food for thought.
    4 points
  4. I think you put too much emphasis on labels, and trying to characterize people according to those labels. People don't live their lives according to one specific philosophy, rather, they pick and choose differing philosophies to apply to different aspects of their lives.
    3 points
  5. I've seen his analogies to chimpanzee troupes and lion prides to explain dominance behavior. What these simplistic, "alpha" "beta" scenarios get wrong is that humans are not pack animals. Social hierarchy is dependent vastly more on social cooperation than the threat of force. If you've ever been unfortunate enough to be at a social gathering with an adherent to the "alpha male" philosophy, where they come in and start "negging" and "dominating" everyone, is that they just come across as massive jerks. I had a guy in in my grad school expanded circle who would routinely come to gatherings. The aggressive handshakes, forced eye contact, domineering posturing just made him look like an asshole. We ended up manipulating his own behavior - when someone was grilling, or mixing drinks, etc he would insist they were doing it wrong and take over. We'd let him, then go somewhere else, leaving him cooking our food while we socialized. Once the food/whatever was done he'd come in all puffed out having "alpha'ed" by providing all the resources to us "betas", showing all the womenfolk he was the leader of the pack. In reality, we'd kept him occupied like a toddler so we didn't have to put up with his behavior. Human communities don't have pack leaders who maintain dominance of a harem through threat of force, generally speaking. Our leaders tend to be the best negotiators and diplomats - people who can generate cooperation and influence/convince people. Emotional intelligence, active listening and generating likeability are going to place you at the center of a social dynamic, rather than dominance, in most cases. The analogies are simply too simplistic as to be wrong.
    3 points
  6. I'm a pantheist, which means I believe in stealing trousers! (pant + heist = pantheist)
    3 points
  7. And that's really all that's being requested here yet, for reasons which IMO don't need saying, MANY people find even that too onerous a burden. In my mind, it's the equivalent of refusing to stop calling someone the N-word or continuing to refer to people as retarded, and suggesting that people who request you do so are simply being too sensitive and ridiculous. They're not. They're on the receiving end of this and are being targeted by these words and subtle rejections every single day they exist... often for months, years, and decades at a time. It's not your place to tell others that these words aren't hurtful to them when misused, and it's not your place to continue hurting them through continued use or out of laziness or sheer refusal to move beyond historical tradition. Language evolves. Misuse of these words has fallen out of favor and their adjusted use now represents acceptable parlance in society for good reason. In much the same way you don't refer to a woman as sugar-tits, you no longer refer to a trans person who identifies as HE by calling them SHE... and thankfully those individuals who continue refusing to take the simple step of respecting pronouns of the trans community are ALSO falling out of favor culturally. You can either get onboard or get out of the way... you can either be a partner in improving society or attempt to stand in its way as an obstacle... but society will continue changing whether one likes it or not. Again here, the arrogance and lack of empathy is astonishing. Nobody is saying you can't or won't slip up... That's fine and WILL happen, but yet again here you dismiss acceptable, polite, and entirely valid requests to stop calling someone SALLY when they identify as JAMES with disparaging language like "whining" and suggesting it's no "big deal." Well, sure... Maybe it's no big deal for YOU, a cis-gendered male who's never had to battle daily slights and discrimination just for being who you are... but you're not the only person living in this world, nor are you the sole arbiter of what is considered important to millions of humans. This is about acceptance and authenticity. People are being shunned simply for being true to themselves. They are being targeted and ostracized, being brutalized and facing violence at unacceptable rates, and fighting daily battles against a culture who still too often treats them as subhuman. Maybe adjusting our own views and being just a bit more sensitive ourselves to their very real plight will help extinguish these disturbing trends.
    2 points
  8. Then do some reading, you lazy so-and-so. Nobody here is going to do your assignment for you. The world doesn't need a dud oncologist who cheated his way through medical school. If, having done your reading, you have specific questions, that's a different matter.
    2 points
  9. Actually no, I asked you to provide evidence there is ample evidence of folks being prosecuted based on Bil C-16 or because of pronouns. So let's the question again before we claim moving the goalpost, shall we? And that was prompted by So after all this outrage all you can come up with is one, and as the links indicated not because of pronouns or offending someone, but because contempt of the court? I mean, if that was such a big deal one would expect to come up with at least a couple of cases where someone was "charged" because someone did not "use their preferred pronoun?" If someone has stretch so much to find one case that is at best tangentially related, why spend so much energy on being offended by the situation? In contrast to clearly documented violence and discrimination against transgender folks this seems rather excessive.
    2 points
  10. Because I like to argue, and get under people's skin ... No seriously, you go through life and you see things in a certain, limited perspective. Sometimes you become 'blinded' to other perspectives, so it's a good idea to open up to differing points of view, and maybe open others eyes as to your point of view. We don't know what we're missing until it is pointed out to us. But mostly, it is because I like science, and learning in general. I have learned quite a bit here, and I like to think I've also disseminated some knowledge.
    2 points
  11. You literally quoted me saying genetically intersex individuals, then cited statistics pertaining to gender dysphoria in the same post.
    2 points
  12. As per my first post in the thread: 1) A significant proportion of humans are born either intersexed or phenotypically gender fluid. Gender dysphoria has physiological basis. Gender/sex is not binary - that's a biological reality. 2) You have no way to determine if an individual is "biologically capable of bearing children" based on physical appearance. 3) You're demanding everyone else conforms to your delusional misunderstanding of biology, even at the expense of real harm to others. I therefore have no sympathy for your, or Peterson's asinine position.
    2 points
  13. I don't need to ask them: they express their sentiments from large and well-funded podia, in mass communications, governor's mansions and senate chambers. Nobody muzzled them. They, too, make their objections known, and make their position on the issue count. Nobody muzzled them. That right is exercised by anyone, with any views, who has the clout to to do so without repercussions. It does not extend to the marginalized and vulnerable who have no public voice. As I don't make any of the legal or policy decisions, who agrees or disagrees with me is very far removed from the allocation of rights. Why? Unarmed foot-soldiers would be rather stupid to stand up against sword-wielding cavalry if they have an option. Peterson has an option to use all the power of white male tradition, academic credentials, money, mass media, free publicity through controversy, right-wing supporters and a credulously adoring, crowd-funding book-buying public - and he makes clever use of those resources. Why shouldn't his opponents make use of the resources available to them? I'm not clear on what "new" ideas have been presented.
    2 points
  14. Nice condescending style. I always forget to avoid issues of racism and feminism here. It always ends the same. Sorry guys, I'll stay out.
    2 points
  15. Asking someone if they believe in God seems way more than a yes or no question. For example, if I had responded "pantheist" in a more serious vein, that would not exactly be a yes or a no, and take further clarification. I am, BTW, agnostic, due to what I see as uncertainty inherent in any metaphysical knowledge. Especially where a universal consciousness is concerned. Questioning the form of a question is fair play, IMO.
    2 points
  16. It’s literally the situation without immigration skewing the numbers. Immigration is a zero-sum game. You’re talking about the what happens after immigration. But you can’t claim country X is doing a great job because its population is going down, when all that’s happening is that people are leaving in droves. Those people will still impact the environment. It’s just happening somewhere else. My fellow Americans will be relieved to know they have no more of a climate change impact than anyone else in the world. We were being told different.
    2 points
  17. I bet reddit.com/r/Whatisthis/ or reddit.com/r/whatisthisthing/ would figure it out within an hour. I figured it might be part of a tool, like a plane depth adjust, or a proportional divider knob. The closest I've seen is on a horological tool, like in the top left: The knob slides and tightens to lock. A string might fit in the groove, and the part is used to set the tension on it. This one looks like it spins freely though.
    1 point
  18. Surely, if I have misunderstood, you can explain your point in more detail so I can understand ? The flysheet explains the scope of the book, which encapsulates the ongoing debate about the granularity (quantisation) or continuity of space and time and spacetime. Do you need more ?
    1 point
  19. If I were offering an alternative argument, perhaps. What I was doing instead was applying more rigor in the terms being used. BBT is NOT vague and incomplete because of infinities and "the origin of everything". Again, not applicable here. A "god in the gaps" is NOT about having to show where the god's creators came from. But perhaps you didn't mean to use a phrase so similar to "god OF the gaps", and I'm being picky. And I thought you misrepresented "current opinion" as well, but again that could be the difference between science and philosophy. My comments were to clarify in an attempt to keep more misunderstanding from forming on the part of the OP, not as an alternative argument.
    1 point
  20. Their soapbox stances elevate their ears above the discussion, turning them into monologues.
    1 point
  21. Which force predominates depends upon the distance the interaction operates. That is often stated at bit more vaguely as the scale. When considered as 'forces' the scale or distance order ( not strength order) is weak < strong < electromagnetic < gravity. So the weak force predominates at the very shortest scales, smaller than nuclear particles, The strong force predominates at scales the size of the nucleus The electromagnetic force predominates at scales the size of a molecule (ie bigger than an atom) The gravitational force predominatres at the size of galaxies. This Wiki article has readable presentations of all this and more. Note the key word is interactions, not forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction At scales the size of the nucleus and smaller
    1 point
  22. The raised section the threaded part stands on suggests it fits snugly into the same size groove. Maybe a sliding locking nut.
    1 point
  23. Sure, but what if someone purposely told you there was an important reason they didn't want their username capitalized (it's a family thing, or a cultural thing, or a religious thing, or...), and they'd appreciate it if you'd remember not to do it when spelling their name. And if you kept "slipping up" and substituting a y where that person prefers an i, it would be somewhat like the experience of transgenders who place a great deal of importance on how they're addressed, and consider it a matter of respect (or lack thereof). To them, your slip ups may eventually looked planned and purposeful, to insult or otherwise show a lack of respect for their choices.
    1 point
  24. If koti points out the proper spelling of his name to you, yet you insist on capitalizing it and using a y at the end instead of an i for reasons of your own, and continue to do so in spite of his pleas to get it right, I think you're not only being discourteous, you might have some bigoted reason for not using his preferred spelling. After a while, it might seem like you were being purposely disrespectful and had some insulting reason for doing it.
    1 point
  25. But this has nothing to do with optics - you can send any kind of quantum object through the apparatus (with the appropriate components), and get the same behaviour. The outcome isn’t specific to photons/light - the outcome is in fact totally independent of the type of quantum object used.
    1 point
  26. Fundamentally, the world is quantum, irrespective of the size of the system you are looking at. The problem is just that superposition of states can persist only as long as no observation takes place, which means as long as the system does not interact with its environment (‘decoherence’). And the larger the size of a system, the harder it is to keep it isolated, and thus the more rapidly it decoheres. That’s the only reason why you never see quantum effects in the macroscopic world. There is no sharp ontological boundary between quantum and classical - the distinction is a relational one.
    1 point
  27. That will be difficult. For one thing, you don't want to know. For another, it's messy, and very badly reported, because the 'concerned father' publicized his child's situation to just the kind of outlets who distort stories to push their own agenda. He's not a single parent; there is a perfectly functional mother in the picture, and the boy is in Grade 9. He doesn't just have "certain ideas"; he has been convinced of his incorrect gender assignment since 5th grade and that is why he sought help. Typically, gender dysphoria presents before age 10, before the the mis-assigned child has heard any 'ideas' on the subject or been exposed to any "ideology". The father seemed entirely unconcerned with the child's emotional distress. So unconcerned as to refuse the mother's repeated pleas to meet with the health team; instead he went to court against his child. The child won. The unconcerned father was so distraught by this defeat that he set his child up as a target for hate-mongers. His precious right to his precious opinion outweighs his child's welfare? The court disagreed.
    1 point
  28. I've noticed that many folks are pushing back against what's already been built into our societies, which is usually a kind of binary relationship out of convenience and economy. In the US, people are shoehorned into too few categories, and it seems to be that way in many countries. If you're not a circle or a square, you end up getting flagged as different. And these flags, they're persistent and act as a drag on people's prosperity. It's like trying to compete in a race fairly but every flag on you weighs an extra twenty pounds you have to compensate for just to keep pace. Yet science (and especially you, David Attenborough!) tells us that diversity is the key to a vibrant ecosystem. It seems like a poor use of our intelligence to want such homogenization and lack of choices and potentials as are advocated by JP and the far right in this regard. In the modern era, our best accomplishments have involved more diverse use of resources and intellect, and embracing new ideas (especially to help fight the depression many are finally admitting to) to solve old problems is good science. In my society, I try to see from a more collective perspective when I'm dealing with others. The staff at restaurants and shops aren't there to serve me like a lord when I snap my masculine fingers. When I drive, I want all of us to get where we're going safely, not just me quickly. And it's in my best interest to address those I interact with in the way that makes them feel best (if I want to make it all about me). This seems like an easy way to help someone remove a flag that's been holding them back, and the ripple effect can help create more diversity for society to work with.
    1 point
  29. I'm glad to hear you've evaluated their sensitivity to racism and found it appropriate and not excessive. Let me know if they ever get uppity and you need to advise them on that.
    1 point
  30. That Ze really isn't Koti's preferred pronoun... That it's all an attempt to belittle and diminish and dismiss the very real lived experiences of millions in the trans community that Koti considers to be an outgroup not worthy of basic decency and respect nor to be a part of the Koti tribe.
    1 point
  31. It's not a problem. Depression is like cancer, one often doesn't realize one has it until it's suddenly affecting everything in one's life. Respecting how a person wants to be addressed by peers may seem like a little thing, but it can have an enormous effect on self-esteem. And ultimately, if I get a happier, more confident Koti to discuss science or politics with, it benefits me greatly. If I care about the pronouns others use wrt me, I'm not going to set a double standard by ignoring their wishes.
    1 point
  32. I joined because I wanted to broaden my amateur Physics knowledge, people in this forum have done a tremendously good job at doing so over the years. I only wish I could have avoided the pollitics and religion parts of the forum, I've lost significant amount of time in those.
    1 point
  33. But then he specifically said he would respect the choice of the person to whom the pronoun would be applied. So again, what did he do that was hypocritical?
    1 point
  34. Be careful, your'e not using MigL's chosen pronouns (he/him), you might be facing legal consequences.
    1 point
  35. These are great points. A couple of things to add are that the bill amends three sections, the one that seems to spark most discussions is the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act which basically just adds gender-diverse folks to protected groups, which already includes things like race, sex, religion and so on. It does not limit your ability to express yourself, unless it becomes harassment or is part of an act of discrimination (which again, needs to be evidenced by the accuser). The argument against in then really is that folks are against laws that restrict someone's ability to harass others. The big issue why there are protected groups to begin with is not because we wanted laws that force us to be nice, but rather because these groups were disporportionately targeted and have suffered real consequence beyond just being offended. The other areas apparently seem to be less controversial are additions to the criminal code, which basically makes it an offense to advocate genocide or public incitement of hatred and allows for classification of gender-based hate crimes. The reasoning for these additions are in part based of Arete's information on violence against the trans community. The interesting bit is that many provinces already have made amendments by including gender identity or expression into their books for years and this is basically just codifying it on the federal level. That basically shows to me that this is just seizing it to fuel an artificial outrage machine rather than true worries about the impact of the law. "They" as a third-person singular pronoun has been in use since the 14th century. To be fair, it has dropped somewhat in popularity around the 18th century but has seen increases over the years again. This only shows how malleable language really is. Funny bit is that even if language is malleable, it really only changes through broad use (after all, it is communication tool). While I know that there folks trying to redesigning the system, I really doubt that it will have any traction (and I wasn't really aware of any of them). It is a bit like Esperanto, which while in theory had benefits, practically di not really take off. So far I have not heard of anyone ever having made the request for their use. Moreover, if it causes so much pain, surprisingly non-binary folks still actually have names. Real overreach, if you want to call it, are rarely related to laws, most of them is just a group of folks within institutions, corporations and so on and try to brand themselves a certain way or want to make a mark and appear productive. At one point or another there will be a reality check and if it turns out to be nonsense, often it gets dropped. But I am sure that silly policies are not restricted to this topic alone (but generally causes less outrage. Why is that?).
    1 point
  36. To me entanglement is a correlation between measurement outcomes, due to non-separability of the system. Note that non-separability does not equal non-locality. Also note that it is meaningless to talk of ‘correlation’ in a quantum system unless there’s an observer there who measures both parts, and compares results (remember counterfactual definiteness) - thus entanglement is a relationship between parts as much as a relationship of a system with its environment. Lastly, an entangled system seems to me a good example of where reductionism arguably becomes problematic, because knowledge of the system does not imply knowledge of the parts. You need to know the correlation plus at least one measurement outcome on one part.
    1 point
  37. And yet, there's a guy in my town who think he speaks for an invisible sky fairy and asks me to call him Father, even though he's not my dad, and his right to not be discriminated against for it has been law since 1791.
    1 point
  38. Entanglement means the particles can’t be described by separate wave functions. There is a wave function that describes the composite system.
    1 point
  39. There is no such thing as classical entanglement. Entanglement is a purely quantum phenomenon. There are several ways to talk about it. The one I prefer is the most general one. There is entanglement whenever you have two particles in a pure quantum state (maximally determined) and you cannot factor out the common state as a product of one state (for one particle) times another (for the other). The probabilities do not check with those of independent statistical collectivities. Some people call entanglement what really is maximal entanglement (maximum maximal confusion, or equal probabilities between the 1-2 and the 2-1 --exchanged-- states), which is peculiar in and of itself. I see no end to the confusion of terminologies. But as Swansont and Markus have stated before, it's not the hallmark of a distant interaction, but of a past one. Another way people like to characterise it is by saying that the state of both particles is more determined (or exhaustive) than the state of just one of them. It's It checks with what I know. This you cannot do with classical fields, because, eg., the electromagnetic field at one point is just one entity that's built up from the contributions of all the sources in the universe, making one big vector thing at that point. In QM, on the contrary, you have a phase space of "thingies" (1)x(2)x(3)... etc., so it's nothing like the classical case. You can have things like (1)x(2)+(1)'x(2)'. "Identity", so to speak, can be "scrambled". This is very peculiar. Some people talk about "classical entanglement" simply because they confuse the principle of superposition for classical fields with the principle of superposition for quantum states (that only when combined with composite states being so-called "tensor products" produces this situation. Entanglement is a consequence of the fact that the simplest physical systems are particles (the 1-thing, the 2-thing, the 3-thing,...) and fields (their values everywhere) at the same time. I'm not being very clear, and I know it, but I'm ready to be corrected/clarified/completed by other users, including you, of course. I apologise, @studiot, for my handwavy and cursory way to put it, but I find your topic fascinating and I hope to be able to contribute more significantly later --hopefully. One last thing before I say something stupid on account of being too tired today: There is no such thing as the quantum numbers. Quantum systems have incompatible sets of those. None is better than the other. That's why Pauli's definition: doesn't really cut it. Particularly severely for spin. Really looking forward to continuing this discussion.
    1 point
  40. Name-calling with an agenda. It's a dog-whistle to others to insult and categorize you, and also, by doing so, the implication is that nobody needs to engage you on the substance of any topic. It is or at least is a close cousin to an ad hominem argument - "you are wrong because you are <belittling description>"
    1 point
  41. I have similar objections to the recent sarcastic usage of "woke" or "woke brigade" which people on the conservative Right are using. PC, woke, illiberal, social justice warriors -- all terms used to avoid actually addressing the issue raised. It's really just name-calling. I had "woke brigade" used on me recently for making the outrageous suggestion that schoolchildren would survive learning about Jim Crow laws and events like the Greenwood massacre. My interlocutor felt that school history classes should focus entirely on noble men astride magical horses that pooped rainbows.
    1 point
  42. One big problem with this stance is that you become the sole arbiter of what "unnecessarily", "over sensitive", "perfectly clear", "accepted", "alleged", "offending", and "intention" actually mean for all those you interact with. It's far too easy to confirm your own biases in these circumstances, yet want others to take everything YOU do in context. If you're into science, you should be trying to remove subjectivity where you can. And I'm sorry, but I've seen FAR too many folks flat out insult someone else and then claim I didn't know you were so sensitive/I'm just poking fun/I'm just being honest/don't make such a big deal/I call them like I see them/you're taking this wrong. You can't hold yourself blameless when your words cause offense if you aren't trying to maintain objectivity.
    1 point
  43. In certain (rare) circumstances they can. It is an in-vs outgroup situation. Among folks who know you and can contextualize your action certain otherwise egregious behaviour can be accepted and even endearing. E.g. you might use insults among your friends, but that can turn ugly if you use the same with random folks you don't know. The use of words like "nigger" have been specifically used by white folks in order to denigrate and subjugate black folks. Theoretically a group of black folks might be comfortable with having a specific white friend use the term around them, but it is so loaded that even the white person might feel uncomfortable using it (as it invokes a power differential). I am also not sure whether random black folks calling each other that term is acceptable under all circumstances. There is certainly more nuance to it (i.e. slightly more acceptable but still can be used in an insulting way). I think the worst thing about it is that it is tiring. There is always some mental overhead used for navigating these situations where you somehow need to demonstrate you belong (e.g. you need to show competence without appearing uppity) but ignore rather obvious slights (especially if they are done unconsciously). Highlighting issues usually makes things worse, so one needs to keep it bottled up. Of course it is only related to visible characteristics (there are also more subtle social cues in certain areas) but it is often one of the hardest to hide. The thing is that it has become less socially acceptable, which gives rise to the PC nonsense. But again, it is the same thing as it has always been, just the topic and mechanism has changed.
    1 point
  44. And with a snap of the fingers you have managed to summarily dismiss the feelings and pain of millions by telling them they have yet another weakness that isn't even worthy of your consideration. Everyone's feelings are genuine to them whether you care to address them or not. Please try to see things from their perspective.
    1 point
  45. No, it is still possible to use rotation to create artificial gravity. The point is that an object floating free in the depths of space is still within the effects of the gravity originating from the sum of all the massive bodies in the universe. This gravity determines our perception of distance and time. There is no place in the universe that is free of gravity.
    1 point
  46. Perhaps it takes on a different air when you consider that these are likely not one-off events. People are being denigrated on a daily basis, perhaps multiple times a day. I'd imagine I'd get sick of it, too, and here I only have to put up with being called e.g. swansnot on occasion. I typically let it slide. When it keeps happening I have to wonder if it's deliberate, and I say something. If that was my continual existence, though? I imagine it would have a greater impact and wear me down. I can't truly fathom what it would like to be belittled for whatever characteristics of what I look like or how I am. The reality is likely far, far worse than what I can imagine. So maybe characterizing this as petty political correctness is underselling the problem, and perhaps we can recognize that there are issues within this class of problem that are very real and need solving (bullying and harming people because they're different, keeping them from exercising their rights, etc.) so that (as with iNow's examples above) brushing this off is doing a disservice to the effect it has on people.
    1 point
  47. ! Moderator Note Without a model we can't do much in showing where this idea is wrong.
    1 point
  48. I find it perplexing that some/many black folk refer to themselves as "Nigga"; they aren't helping themselves if they want words like that to disappear from the 21st century lexicon. Many blacks have straight blond hair and yet call out white folk for 'blackfishing' (cultural appropriation) when they braid theirs. I read thiis morning Nicki Minaj had to defend a white co-singer for blackfishing. First thing to do is to check for hypocrisy.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.