CosmoKramer
Programmer
Is this another example of extreme political correctness?
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Extreme political correctness??? 17
- Thread starter CosmoKramer
- Start date
- Status
CajunCenturion
Programmer
<side note>
The phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is most often attributed to Voltaire, but incorrectly so, as although he felt that way, there has been no proof that he said it. It first appeared in print in the book The Friends of Voltaire (1906) written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre
</end side note>
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
The phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is most often attributed to Voltaire, but incorrectly so, as although he felt that way, there has been no proof that he said it. It first appeared in print in the book The Friends of Voltaire (1906) written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre
</end side note>
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
I just get angry when someone else makes me feel bad for using a term which was used innocently. I hate that now-a-days I have to be so incredibly careful as to how I refer to someone. I'm not racist by any means, but if I use the wrong word, I'm labeled as one. If I need to describe any race anymore, I'm at a loss for words. Does it really matter if I'm respectful about it? (Not that I would use a racist slur, but I don't even now the latest, most correct pc term anymore)
I can understand PC to a certain point. But then we have these ridiculous standards on top of the meaningful ones. For instance, why do we just change the label and not the idea behind it? Why should I feel ashamed because someone says I'm fat? I am! It describes me perfectly! If a friend mentions this to me in a kind or kind joking manner....that's fine. It's when someone uses it derogatively, that's the problem. I don't care about the word, I care about the tone.
Also, why is it not okay for some people to use a term, but others it is okay? e.g. Why is it allowable for a person of a certain race to tell jokes about their race, but not okay for others?
PC I can deal with to a point, but hypocracy? Nuh-uh.
I can understand PC to a certain point. But then we have these ridiculous standards on top of the meaningful ones. For instance, why do we just change the label and not the idea behind it? Why should I feel ashamed because someone says I'm fat? I am! It describes me perfectly! If a friend mentions this to me in a kind or kind joking manner....that's fine. It's when someone uses it derogatively, that's the problem. I don't care about the word, I care about the tone.
Also, why is it not okay for some people to use a term, but others it is okay? e.g. Why is it allowable for a person of a certain race to tell jokes about their race, but not okay for others?
PC I can deal with to a point, but hypocracy? Nuh-uh.
-
1
- #63
sleipnir214
Programmer
Onyxpurr:
Are you speaking rhetorically, or are you honestly asking?
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
Are you speaking rhetorically, or are you honestly asking?
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
Rhetorical. However I'm willing to hear other's opinions.
I guess, for me, honestly I just get frustrated when somebody else tries to restrict my freedom of speech and my ability to honestly express myself. I'm a pretty reasonable person. Is it just me or are the feeble-minded running society here?
I don't know why, but I got a little irked when taking a pc class at work and they said that you have to speak with the most sensitive person in mind. Why don't people care about my feelings on this issue? I feel restricted and offended myself that I have to be the most pc possible in trying to not offend the lowest common denominator. Why can't people just be responsible in coming up to me and saying, "I'm sorry, but I was a little offended by that joke, could you please refrain from taking about that subject around me?" Why is everything defensive? Why can't we just address these issues like adults? Is it just me or are we regressing as a society?
Ok, I'm done. I really got stop reading these things.
I guess, for me, honestly I just get frustrated when somebody else tries to restrict my freedom of speech and my ability to honestly express myself. I'm a pretty reasonable person. Is it just me or are the feeble-minded running society here?
I don't know why, but I got a little irked when taking a pc class at work and they said that you have to speak with the most sensitive person in mind. Why don't people care about my feelings on this issue? I feel restricted and offended myself that I have to be the most pc possible in trying to not offend the lowest common denominator. Why can't people just be responsible in coming up to me and saying, "I'm sorry, but I was a little offended by that joke, could you please refrain from taking about that subject around me?" Why is everything defensive? Why can't we just address these issues like adults? Is it just me or are we regressing as a society?
Ok, I'm done. I really got stop reading these things.
I have to admit I can see discrimination in this issue now. Until an individual actually raised the point earlier about a specific group that was enslaved I didn't see any (and in my opinion ther wasn't any).
Now I can see that they themselves are discrimantory in their connotation of the words "master" and "slave" because they choose to believe that specific events define the words rather than the (correct) method of the words being used during the defination of the events.
As has been said, time and again, the words "master" and "slave" are descriptive words that identify a relationship between two entites. They in no way define the relationship on the basis of race, creed, religion, etc. They only define the relationship between two otherwise un-identified entities.
To single out a group of people and say these terms are discriminating against them is to actually cast the first stone, so to speak. Before that statement there was no discrimination because the words do not refer to any single entity or like group of entites. To actually draw the equals sign between those words and a specific group is to discriminate against that group yourself.
<sidenote>
To the comment about red and blue being discriminatory: red (as has been noted) was actually a discriminatory word describing indians, blue could be considered a discriminatory word against either depression or any of a number of tribes that used blue mud to color themselves. Yellow has had the connotation for both cowardly behaviour and for those of asian descent, to call someone green is to call them inexperienced...I could go on.
I could see someone making a much more solid case for removing colors from our language (because they describe an entity, not a relationship) than removing terms such as "master" and "slave".</sidenote>
<another sidenote>
And for the record I come from a group of people who have been enslaved by probably 25% of the cultures on this planet, who have multiple rememberance holidays fr these acts, who have a history of being pushed around, enslaved, murdered, etc by just about everyone they ran into, and I have never seen those words as discriminatory.
</sidenote>
[sub]01000111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01100110 01100110 01100101 01100101 00111111[/sub]
The never-completed website:
Now I can see that they themselves are discrimantory in their connotation of the words "master" and "slave" because they choose to believe that specific events define the words rather than the (correct) method of the words being used during the defination of the events.
As has been said, time and again, the words "master" and "slave" are descriptive words that identify a relationship between two entites. They in no way define the relationship on the basis of race, creed, religion, etc. They only define the relationship between two otherwise un-identified entities.
To single out a group of people and say these terms are discriminating against them is to actually cast the first stone, so to speak. Before that statement there was no discrimination because the words do not refer to any single entity or like group of entites. To actually draw the equals sign between those words and a specific group is to discriminate against that group yourself.
<sidenote>
To the comment about red and blue being discriminatory: red (as has been noted) was actually a discriminatory word describing indians, blue could be considered a discriminatory word against either depression or any of a number of tribes that used blue mud to color themselves. Yellow has had the connotation for both cowardly behaviour and for those of asian descent, to call someone green is to call them inexperienced...I could go on.
I could see someone making a much more solid case for removing colors from our language (because they describe an entity, not a relationship) than removing terms such as "master" and "slave".</sidenote>
<another sidenote>
And for the record I come from a group of people who have been enslaved by probably 25% of the cultures on this planet, who have multiple rememberance holidays fr these acts, who have a history of being pushed around, enslaved, murdered, etc by just about everyone they ran into, and I have never seen those words as discriminatory.
</sidenote>
[sub]01000111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01100110 01100110 01100101 01100101 00111111[/sub]
The never-completed website:
lionelhill
Technical User
In what way does either (a) changing the terms used for disk-drives, or (b) discussing it at this length change the fate of those people in the world who are still unfortunate enough to work in near-slavery conditions?
Tarwn
I'm not sure which post you're referring to, but what I'm taking from your comments is that you consider it discriminatory to discuss race when dealing with the concept of slavery? I don't follow. You say the words in no way define the relationship on basis of race, creed, religion, etc. And I just don't agree. Slavery in very many instances was in large part defined precisely by differences race, creed and religion. It was a persons race that allowed many to make the argument of why they should/could/needed to be subjagated. To say the term slave does not refer to any single entity or like group of entities is true, to say it never has is farcical. To draw the equal sign sign between the words and a specific group is to discriminate against that group yourself? Again I don't follow... at least not in the way the equal sign can be drawn here.
Here's a statement that I think draws an equal sign.
Blacks in the US were enslaved for many years, for many years following they were treated as second class citizens, and once the legal system made efforts to get past that, institutionalized racism persisted in private industry and other parts of society.
That statement is evidence of me discriminating against blacks in the US? Obviouslly it doesn't cover the world history of slavery, nor it does it make a claim to doing so... hence an equal sign is perhaps a strong phrase. Realizing and discussing history is important, calling people who want to discuss the issue discriminatory because they discuss boundaries and lines that other people drew is something I'm not following, would you care to elaborate?
-Rob
I'm not sure which post you're referring to, but what I'm taking from your comments is that you consider it discriminatory to discuss race when dealing with the concept of slavery? I don't follow. You say the words in no way define the relationship on basis of race, creed, religion, etc. And I just don't agree. Slavery in very many instances was in large part defined precisely by differences race, creed and religion. It was a persons race that allowed many to make the argument of why they should/could/needed to be subjagated. To say the term slave does not refer to any single entity or like group of entities is true, to say it never has is farcical. To draw the equal sign sign between the words and a specific group is to discriminate against that group yourself? Again I don't follow... at least not in the way the equal sign can be drawn here.
Here's a statement that I think draws an equal sign.
Blacks in the US were enslaved for many years, for many years following they were treated as second class citizens, and once the legal system made efforts to get past that, institutionalized racism persisted in private industry and other parts of society.
That statement is evidence of me discriminating against blacks in the US? Obviouslly it doesn't cover the world history of slavery, nor it does it make a claim to doing so... hence an equal sign is perhaps a strong phrase. Realizing and discussing history is important, calling people who want to discuss the issue discriminatory because they discuss boundaries and lines that other people drew is something I'm not following, would you care to elaborate?
-Rob
sleipnir214
Programmer
Connie Willis' short story "Ado" comes to mind. In it, a high school teacher wants her class to read Shakespeare's Hamlet. However, a lot of groups have problems with the content of the play.
The Drapery Hanger's Union has expressed offense at the scene where Polonius hides behind the curtain to spy on Hamlet and Gertrude, so that part of the play can't be included. The Society of Lifeguards has protested the scene where Ophelia drowns herself, so the teacher can't have her students read that part, either. The American Association of Nuns doesn't like the line "Get thee to a nunnery", so that line is excised. Etc., etc., etc.
After three days reviewing with the school principal the content of the play scene-by-scene, the teacher is only allowed to have her students read six discontinuous lines from the play.
And I recall that Ray Bradbury's classic Fahrenheit 451 had to be republished from the original manuscript in the late 80's. Differing publishers had edited out parts of the book to prevent passages from offending readers. Which, of course, is the very thing that the book is warning about in the first place -- the firemen burn books because it was found that no book could be published that would offend no one.
Here's a site with information on Modern NewSpeak ["NewSpeak": from George Orwell's 1984]. Pay particular attention to the "Modern NewSpeak" link in the site:
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
The Drapery Hanger's Union has expressed offense at the scene where Polonius hides behind the curtain to spy on Hamlet and Gertrude, so that part of the play can't be included. The Society of Lifeguards has protested the scene where Ophelia drowns herself, so the teacher can't have her students read that part, either. The American Association of Nuns doesn't like the line "Get thee to a nunnery", so that line is excised. Etc., etc., etc.
After three days reviewing with the school principal the content of the play scene-by-scene, the teacher is only allowed to have her students read six discontinuous lines from the play.
And I recall that Ray Bradbury's classic Fahrenheit 451 had to be republished from the original manuscript in the late 80's. Differing publishers had edited out parts of the book to prevent passages from offending readers. Which, of course, is the very thing that the book is warning about in the first place -- the firemen burn books because it was found that no book could be published that would offend no one.
Here's a site with information on Modern NewSpeak ["NewSpeak": from George Orwell's 1984]. Pay particular attention to the "Modern NewSpeak" link in the site:
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
I don't consider it discriminatory to discuss race, only to say that the terms in question are discriminatory against a specific group (because those terms do not actually refer to a single group by themselves).
The words do not define the relationship on the basis of anything. They are themselves descriptors of a relationship, not the basis for that relationship.
Yes there have been (and are) a multitude of cases were people were enslaved based on certain characteristics, but at no point has anyone been enslaved because they are a slave. The term master or slave is only a description of the state of a relationship after it has been formed, not a cause for said relationship.
Many groups have been given the title of slave, but that doesn't mean the word is therefore defined as that group of people.
If all balloons are made of rubber it is not equally true that all rubber is used to make balloons.
Saying that a particular group was enslaved at one point by no means draws an equal sign between the terms 'master' and 'slave' and a specific group. Those words are descriptors.
I'm of the opinion that no more argument will be of any use in this situation. The meaning of those two words has been explained time and again but it is still being argued that all rubber is made into balloons.
[sub]01000111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01100110 01100110 01100101 01100101 00111111[/sub]
The never-completed website:
The words do not define the relationship on the basis of anything. They are themselves descriptors of a relationship, not the basis for that relationship.
Yes there have been (and are) a multitude of cases were people were enslaved based on certain characteristics, but at no point has anyone been enslaved because they are a slave. The term master or slave is only a description of the state of a relationship after it has been formed, not a cause for said relationship.
Many groups have been given the title of slave, but that doesn't mean the word is therefore defined as that group of people.
If all balloons are made of rubber it is not equally true that all rubber is used to make balloons.
Saying that a particular group was enslaved at one point by no means draws an equal sign between the terms 'master' and 'slave' and a specific group. Those words are descriptors.
I'm of the opinion that no more argument will be of any use in this situation. The meaning of those two words has been explained time and again but it is still being argued that all rubber is made into balloons.
[sub]01000111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01100110 01100110 01100101 01100101 00111111[/sub]
The never-completed website:
Actually I find this quite interesting. One of the advantages to this forum is it seems a lot of people here are very well educated and put out some very interesting points about the subject at hand. I have learned some.
About the point of books, I believe this is a different matter. Books should not be banned as they are a way to learn about culture and not repeating history. Although I may read a book about racism, it does not make me racist, only more knowledgeable about the subject. However if I use a racist term in a derogatory fashion, that does (make me racist). (And even sometimes not in a derogatory fashion)
About the point of books, I believe this is a different matter. Books should not be banned as they are a way to learn about culture and not repeating history. Although I may read a book about racism, it does not make me racist, only more knowledgeable about the subject. However if I use a racist term in a derogatory fashion, that does (make me racist). (And even sometimes not in a derogatory fashion)
sleipnir214
Programmer
And here's an interesting recent incident from my home town:
I find it interesting that the brouhaha seems to be over the word "gay". "Queer" has been used with negative connotations, but as rosieb has said, homosexual people are reclaiming the word. To my experience, "gay" has never held the negative meanings of "queer".
This could also be the answer to Onyxpurr's last question.
Groups use racial epithets within the group to reclaim hateful words. If I hear two people of direct African descent ["direct" (which acknowledges that our species evolved in Africa) as opposed to, for example, my own ancestry, which is from Africa by way of hundreds if not thousands of generations in Europe] using the word "nigger" between themselves, I assume that the word is not loaded with the negative meaning I would infer were I hearing it from a person of European descent -- negative meanings of implied inferiority, etc.
Thus these two people of direct African descent have taken a hateful word, claimed it as their own, stripped it of the hateful connotations, and are using it as a badge of honor.
I have a similar situation in my own home. I'm married to a Cajun, but I am not one. My kids, through my wife, are Cajun. The word "coonass" is used derogatorialy in relation to Cajuns and implies all the negative meanings of "nigger", but with those meanings not quite as strongly. My wife and her family can use the word to reference their heritage. My kids might one day use the word. I can't and don't even try. I haven't earned the right to claim the word, as it has never and can never be used to refer to me.
But to get back on topic, I suggest, since Los Angeles did not supply a replacement, that we replace universally the words "master" and "slave" with "dominant" and "submissive" [with a nod to carrr's earlier post], respectively.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
I find it interesting that the brouhaha seems to be over the word "gay". "Queer" has been used with negative connotations, but as rosieb has said, homosexual people are reclaiming the word. To my experience, "gay" has never held the negative meanings of "queer".
This could also be the answer to Onyxpurr's last question.
Groups use racial epithets within the group to reclaim hateful words. If I hear two people of direct African descent ["direct" (which acknowledges that our species evolved in Africa) as opposed to, for example, my own ancestry, which is from Africa by way of hundreds if not thousands of generations in Europe] using the word "nigger" between themselves, I assume that the word is not loaded with the negative meaning I would infer were I hearing it from a person of European descent -- negative meanings of implied inferiority, etc.
Thus these two people of direct African descent have taken a hateful word, claimed it as their own, stripped it of the hateful connotations, and are using it as a badge of honor.
I have a similar situation in my own home. I'm married to a Cajun, but I am not one. My kids, through my wife, are Cajun. The word "coonass" is used derogatorialy in relation to Cajuns and implies all the negative meanings of "nigger", but with those meanings not quite as strongly. My wife and her family can use the word to reference their heritage. My kids might one day use the word. I can't and don't even try. I haven't earned the right to claim the word, as it has never and can never be used to refer to me.
But to get back on topic, I suggest, since Los Angeles did not supply a replacement, that we replace universally the words "master" and "slave" with "dominant" and "submissive" [with a nod to carrr's earlier post], respectively.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
skiflier,
tarwn's comment about rubber and balloon should show why 'equal sign' is relevant: Do black=slaves and slaves=blacks? No. What the point is that if you draw the equal sign, you are saying both the above are true, and to do so is dicriminating, hurtful, and wrong. And that is what the furor about affirmitive action is about--those initiatives say that the absolutes:
oppressed=blacks AND blacks=oppressed
are true.
Neither are true. some Whites=oppressed and some oppressed=whites are true, as is the case with blacks, asians, and however else you want to break down the ethnic groups.
And while on the subject, how would you define blacks? I have many neighbors who's skin is far darker than the average 'african-american', (those I speak of are of Indian descent). So are they slaves too? They seem to be very well off, should they recieve 'affirmative action' benefits?
Conversely, I know many 'African' Americans who are whiter than I am (whether they be from south-africa or elswhere on the continent--and I find it way to vague to use an entire continent to define a single ethnic group).
--jsteph
tarwn's comment about rubber and balloon should show why 'equal sign' is relevant: Do black=slaves and slaves=blacks? No. What the point is that if you draw the equal sign, you are saying both the above are true, and to do so is dicriminating, hurtful, and wrong. And that is what the furor about affirmitive action is about--those initiatives say that the absolutes:
oppressed=blacks AND blacks=oppressed
are true.
Neither are true. some Whites=oppressed and some oppressed=whites are true, as is the case with blacks, asians, and however else you want to break down the ethnic groups.
And while on the subject, how would you define blacks? I have many neighbors who's skin is far darker than the average 'african-american', (those I speak of are of Indian descent). So are they slaves too? They seem to be very well off, should they recieve 'affirmative action' benefits?
Conversely, I know many 'African' Americans who are whiter than I am (whether they be from south-africa or elswhere on the continent--and I find it way to vague to use an entire continent to define a single ethnic group).
--jsteph
Tarwn
Point taken, and I couldn't agree more. To make an argument on the basis you supplied is equivalent to agreeing to the boundary that defined the problem. In hopefully clearer terms, claiming a complete equivalance would be tantamount to agreeing with pro-slavery arguments of racial inferiority or anti women in the workplace arguments of a less capable sex. I guess that's why I was asking which post you were referring to, as I didn't see anyone doing that, however, I'll freely admit that when threads get this long I do alot of skimming.
Sleipnir
I couldn't agree more with 99% of that last post, I would just like to add something about the usage of the word gay as having the negative connotations the word queer used to... this is where the conversation often gets sticky to me, I grew up in a small town where being called gay on the school yard carried all of the negative connotations from weakness to immorality (religious school)... I moved to a place where if someone called me gay now, I would think they'd made an honest commentary on my sexual orientation... and it's just one reason why talking about loaded words is so incredibly difficult, in two places, just 60 miles away I've noticed an incredible difference with this one word, I can't imagine just how differently identical words are interrupted across this country. I haven't had a chance to read your link, and I'm not disagreeing in anyway, just adding that personal experience.
jsteph
As I've hopefully made clear I completely agree about the iff relationship idea, it buys into an agreement of the difference. I do still believe it useful to talk about the fact that at one time greater society certainlly did buy into those comments however.
And since you asked, how would I define blacks... if someone tells me they're black, I say yes you are. Simple as that. I'm not in the business of codifying affirmative action benefits, so I don't need to, I have no interest in confirming or denying someones claim to a heritage, if they tell me it's theirs, I respect that. If I'm befuddled at the claim and I have the appropriate relationship, I may ask for explanation, but I once made the mistake of disputing someones claim of how many generations they'd been American... I learned alot from the response, and the idea that on discussions of this sort, it's not how I define it that really matters. Color of skin certainlly does not play into how I'd define an individuals claims. As to the "are they slaves too" question, I have not and am not making any claim that an individual in todays society who has never been enslaved is a slave based on their ethnicity, I'm not sure what that's talking about. To add a personal sidenote, I don't really enjoy or see the usefuleness of racial claims, it seems baffling to me... cultural claims and claims of ancestery I understand, but racial definition is still something I'm struggling to define personally, especially given so many of its implementations in our society (I'm talking world society now) which I can't quit grasp... in other words, I find the discussion of race in society very interesting, whereas the discussion of race in biology isn't something I've quite signed onto, for exactly some of the reasons you've pointed. You're not comfortable using an entire continent to define a single ethnic group, and I often find an entire country too vague to define an ethnic group and I often find using an entire country to exclusionary to define an ethnic group...
-Rob
Point taken, and I couldn't agree more. To make an argument on the basis you supplied is equivalent to agreeing to the boundary that defined the problem. In hopefully clearer terms, claiming a complete equivalance would be tantamount to agreeing with pro-slavery arguments of racial inferiority or anti women in the workplace arguments of a less capable sex. I guess that's why I was asking which post you were referring to, as I didn't see anyone doing that, however, I'll freely admit that when threads get this long I do alot of skimming.
Sleipnir
I couldn't agree more with 99% of that last post, I would just like to add something about the usage of the word gay as having the negative connotations the word queer used to... this is where the conversation often gets sticky to me, I grew up in a small town where being called gay on the school yard carried all of the negative connotations from weakness to immorality (religious school)... I moved to a place where if someone called me gay now, I would think they'd made an honest commentary on my sexual orientation... and it's just one reason why talking about loaded words is so incredibly difficult, in two places, just 60 miles away I've noticed an incredible difference with this one word, I can't imagine just how differently identical words are interrupted across this country. I haven't had a chance to read your link, and I'm not disagreeing in anyway, just adding that personal experience.
jsteph
As I've hopefully made clear I completely agree about the iff relationship idea, it buys into an agreement of the difference. I do still believe it useful to talk about the fact that at one time greater society certainlly did buy into those comments however.
And since you asked, how would I define blacks... if someone tells me they're black, I say yes you are. Simple as that. I'm not in the business of codifying affirmative action benefits, so I don't need to, I have no interest in confirming or denying someones claim to a heritage, if they tell me it's theirs, I respect that. If I'm befuddled at the claim and I have the appropriate relationship, I may ask for explanation, but I once made the mistake of disputing someones claim of how many generations they'd been American... I learned alot from the response, and the idea that on discussions of this sort, it's not how I define it that really matters. Color of skin certainlly does not play into how I'd define an individuals claims. As to the "are they slaves too" question, I have not and am not making any claim that an individual in todays society who has never been enslaved is a slave based on their ethnicity, I'm not sure what that's talking about. To add a personal sidenote, I don't really enjoy or see the usefuleness of racial claims, it seems baffling to me... cultural claims and claims of ancestery I understand, but racial definition is still something I'm struggling to define personally, especially given so many of its implementations in our society (I'm talking world society now) which I can't quit grasp... in other words, I find the discussion of race in society very interesting, whereas the discussion of race in biology isn't something I've quite signed onto, for exactly some of the reasons you've pointed. You're not comfortable using an entire continent to define a single ethnic group, and I often find an entire country too vague to define an ethnic group and I often find using an entire country to exclusionary to define an ethnic group...
-Rob
Onyxpurr
Sorry I almost forgot, I vehemently agree with your comment about books. In fact, I think it's irresponsible for someone who holds strong views to not make an effort to seek out and read about, listen to those who disagree. Further, I think it's criminal for them to attempt to silence those people such that others do not have access to those view points. Obviouslly, some exceptions made for incitement... but my point stands.
-Rob
Sorry I almost forgot, I vehemently agree with your comment about books. In fact, I think it's irresponsible for someone who holds strong views to not make an effort to seek out and read about, listen to those who disagree. Further, I think it's criminal for them to attempt to silence those people such that others do not have access to those view points. Obviouslly, some exceptions made for incitement... but my point stands.
-Rob
UserFriendly has an interesting take on this:
Chip H.
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
Chip H.
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
MasterRacker
New member
Chip, good one. Problem solved (unless you actually have to set the jumper, since you no longer know.)
Sleipnir, I like dominant and submissive.
Here's a possibility: Change "Master/Slave" to "Beer/Masterracker". Keeps the relationship intact at least.![[cheers]](/data/assets/smilies/cheers.gif "[cheers] [cheers]")
Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...
Sleipnir, I like dominant and submissive.
Here's a possibility: Change "Master/Slave" to "Beer/Masterracker". Keeps the relationship intact at least.
Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...
sleipnir214
Programmer
skiflyer:
Now that you have mentioned it, I remember, too, that a schoolyard accusation of being gay was a dire epithet -- and nearly universally responded to by a scuffle. And this was a public grade school.
jsteph:
You've made a good point about slavery. The Romans kept slaves. The Greeks kept slaves. The Isrealites were slaves in Egypt. There have been numerous cases in history where slaves themselves owned slaves.
Slavery has been (and unfortunately continues to be) so universal an institution that I doubt there is any human alive today who can't count a significant number of ancestors who were slaves. And a significant number of ancestors who were slave owners.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
Now that you have mentioned it, I remember, too, that a schoolyard accusation of being gay was a dire epithet -- and nearly universally responded to by a scuffle. And this was a public grade school.
jsteph:
You've made a good point about slavery. The Romans kept slaves. The Greeks kept slaves. The Isrealites were slaves in Egypt. There have been numerous cases in history where slaves themselves owned slaves.
Slavery has been (and unfortunately continues to be) so universal an institution that I doubt there is any human alive today who can't count a significant number of ancestors who were slaves. And a significant number of ancestors who were slave owners.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
Chip, good one. Problem solved (unless you actually have to set the jumper, since you no longer know.)
Da, comrade!
I wonder what they think of client-server systems?
;-)
Chip H.
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
Da, comrade!
I wonder what they think of client-server systems?
;-)
Chip H.
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
- Status
