|
I was raised to not hit a woman in anger in any situation.
It's the job of a gentleman to look out for the fairer sex.Just my 2 cp.
Good luck with that. But when there is a crazy fury bearing down on you trying her best to claw your eyes out, trust me, you're going to throw a punch as hard as you can.
The existance of a tendency does not mean it is a biological one.
There is a discrepancy of upper body strength among "average" men and women because the female perogative that society as a whole pushes for female fitness (i.e. don't be overweight) does not have anything to do with upper body strength. It is a social tendency.
There is undoubtedly a biological basis for limits on upper-body strength for men and women being different (a man who trains to his peak in upper body strength will in all likelihood be stronger than a woman who does), but said limits isn't likely to come into play when it comes to lethal weapon combat, which doesn't generally employ the sort of training that would reach said limit.
Sports that have separate leagues for different sexes that have been cited as "evidence" that women would be disadvantaged in combat (boxing, football, wrestling, etc) do not resemble armed combat at all, and, as commenters have cited, sports that do resemble it(fencing and other "mock-weapon" sports) seem to on the whole either have a level playing field or favor women statistically.
Sorry but "Those don't count because points" isn't going to cut it. That's not evidence. That's making unprovable guesses to support your preexisting view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The existance of a tendency does not mean it is a biological one.
There is a discrepancy of upper body strength among "average" men and women because the female perogative that society as a whole pushes for female fitness (i.e. don't be overweight) does not have anything to do with upper body strength. It is a social tendency.
There is undoubtedly a biological basis for limits on upper-body strength for men and women being different (a man who trains to his peak in upper body strength will in all likelihood be stronger than a woman who does), but said limits isn't likely to come into play when it comes to lethal weapon combat, which doesn't generally employ the sort of training that would reach said limit.
From what I have seen, there is no biological basis for limits on upper body strength being different.
Part of the problem is that male and female bodies handle building muscle mass differently; this creates a scenario where a woman can appear physically weaker than her male counterpart while actually being stronger. This makes women inherently more dangerous because it's too easy to underestimate a woman's actual strength. It's also easy for a woman to overestimate a man's strength, which can result in some pretty serious injuries that were not intended.
Now, keep in mind the above is entirely personal observation.
Bolded. Not for the individual, but for the reputation of the sex.Perhaps I'm confused, but where did I say that being an exceptional female was a demerit? Or the converse?Everyone is an exception somewhere, someway. Our society isn't about rewarding people who are better than others ? Why being an exceptional male a vantage and an exceptional female a demerit ?
The existence of exceptions does not eliminate the existence of tendencies.However, pcs break the mold anyway.
Still waiting dor somethig that says what you say was said. Differences are not equal to inferiority or superiority. They are just dufferences. There are also things that women tend to better at than men.
|
Still waiting dor somethig that says what you say was said. Differences are not equal to inferiority or superiority. They are just dufferences. There are also things that women tend to better at than men.
There are things that a rock tend to do better than both man and woman. But absolutes is not about tendencies. Who is better at staying immobile between a rock, a man and a woman is different from who tend to do better at staying immobile.
If there are exceptional woman that prove that women can do something we can't say that women can't do something.
Still waiting dor somethig that says what you say was said. Differences are not equal to inferiority or superiority. They are just dufferences. There are also things that women tend to better at than men.There are things that a rock tend to do better than both man and woman. But absolutes is not about tendencies. Who is better at staying immobile between a rock, a man and a woman is different from who tend to do better at staying immobile.
If there are exceptional woman that prove that women can do something we can't say that women can't do something.
And i said they can't do something where?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a bit of gender equality in games, I have hags beat the crap out of the male players.
Fear the old ladies folks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever values the players and GM want have a place in fantasy gaming. Isn't that the point of playing Dungeons and Dragons instead of a linear progression video game?
There are also things that women tend to better at than men.
Have babies? *net swishes* Made it in one try!
Be careful ladies, they are starting to do uterus transplants. Just to women right now, but how long before a guy gets himself a uterus and then your advantage is gone.
Except the transplants, they are happening, not to men yet though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry but "Those don't count because points" isn't going to cut it. That's not evidence. That's making unprovable guesses to support your preexisting view.
I'm not sure there's any evidence that you'd actually accept - you seem very committed to your position. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter as to how it relates to the Pathfinder game. It seems like everyone agrees that stat differences based on gender only serve to limit concepts. So realistic or not, its a bad game mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is just as sexist as saying her place is in the kitchen getting you a sandwich and ice teaI was raised to not hit a woman in anger in any situation.
It's the job of a gentleman to look out for the fairer sex.Just my 2 cp.
Not at all. I don't assume they either 1) need or 2) want my help.
But, regardless, I say ma'am, open doors, etc.
But, regardless, I say ma'am, open doors, etc.
From personal experience, I know that this will get you accused of sexism by some people. Saying "Ma'am" can also get you shouted at for implying the woman is middle aged or older.
I know men who won't hold the door for their own dates anymore. Dates don't always like it, but to them the idea of being polite just isn't worth risking the argument.
Never been my experience, but it may happen.
There is a discrepancy of upper body strength among "average" men and women because the female perogative that society as a whole pushes for female fitness (i.e. don't be overweight) does not have anything to do with upper body strength. It is a social tendency.
This statement is largely speculative. Men and women do indeed build muscle differently, due largely to the presence of certain hormones. While it is possible for women to build upper body strength, men can do so much more quickly. On average, men are much stronger than women. Women can still make excellent warriors, but that doesn't null sexual dimorphism; they are still weaker on average than their male counterparts. It's not sexist to say so; it's an unbiased observation of the facts. That said, I will reiterate: Strength does not correlate to superior skill in combat. Coordination, mental celerity, etc. are all more important traits, in my opinion. If you can out-think you opponent, you have a tactical edge that will negate much of your opponent's physical advantages.
Ah yes, the old door holding argument.
What do you mean "men who won't hold the door for their own dates"? Do they let it slam in their face? Aren't you usually walking together?
Or is this about pushing past to get there first so you can open the door and let them go through?(And how do you handle those airlock type lobby doors? Hold the outside one until she's through, then jump past her to open the inner one? Is she supposed to stand there and wait?)
I tend to hold the door for whoever's coming if they're close enough. Possibly after I've already gone through. A little more effort if someone's carrying something heavy or would otherwise have trouble.
In a vain attempt to be on topic: in fantasy games, I always let ladies go first. Someone has to find the trap or eat the surprise attack.
If the date isn't quick enough to grab the door? Yes, they let the door slam in their dates' faces. It incites one to roll eyes, but what can you do? Their dates were dumb enough to date them. I just wait for the inevitable fight to result, then give the girl a ride home if I happen to be present.
Strangely, these men I know can't seem to figure out why they can't keep a relationship. Or why it is I turn down so many. But, then, I learned I'm a complete jerk years ago; I'm just waiting for them to figure out their own jerkish actions so they can stop this cycle and move on with their lives.
You make the ladies do that? I usually trick the ranger's animal companion into going first.
What does this have to do with gaming?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a discussion of modern values belonging in the game. However, in order to determine if they belong in the game, we have to discuss what they are. Part of the outcome of this discussion is to show that modern standards are inherently contradictory, with opposing standards existing all of the time, and that there is real-life fallout from those standards that must be considered when deciding whether or not to include them within the game itself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a discussion of modern values belonging in the game. However, in order to determine if they belong in the game, we have to discuss what they are. Part of the outcome of this discussion is to show that modern standards are inherently contradictory, with opposing standards existing all of the time, and that there is real-life fallout from those standards that must be considered when deciding whether or not to include them within the game itself.
No, I'm pretty sure we can talk about this without getting into your, or anyone else's, dating life.
Since, as you point out, "modern values" will never be concretely determined by this august body, I'm pretty sure we can just skip that step.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, yes, skip to the end!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. Never had someone successfully call me out on that reasoning before. I tip my hat to you on that.
Okay, seriously, back on topic...
Honestly, I think that, looking over it, it really should be the groups themselves who sit down and discuss the values and determine what is right for them.
That said, I think that, by this point, the topic has wandered all over the subject to the point that we cannot answer it on here due to how the various answers disagree. We cannot even agree entirely on what the modern standards actually are, so questioning if they belong in a game is a rather pointless discussion.
Then again, it also serves to show how it is that a conversation can range all over a topic and show how the same actions can sometimes get different outcomes, depending on how a person perceives the action. In some cases it can be polite... in others insulting.
So, the ultimate deciding factor should be to talk to the players and figure out where they stand... and pray you don't have two camps that cannot get along.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think there is room for looking at MAJOR differences between previous era's and today. We don't need to cover some of the obvious issues, like slavery or selling daughters, but talking about the concept of privacy could actually be very helpful to better understanding and imagining a medieval world. Things like that we don't really even think about, we just take the modern concept for granted.
Also, I think there's plenty of room to talk about how to talk about this. If that actually happens, I can dig up an old post, or just try and rewrite it for how I deal with this issues (and other touchy subjects) at conventions.
Lastly, I agree with your points. I think the specifics of this topic and how they apply to a gaming table should be tailored to that table. What works for my table might not work for your table, and that's okay.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah yes, the old door holding argument.
What do you mean "men who won't hold the door for their own dates"? Do they let it slam in their face? Aren't you usually walking together?
Or is this about pushing past to get there first so you can open the door and let them go through?(And how do you handle those airlock type lobby doors? Hold the outside one until she's through, then jump past her to open the inner one? Is she supposed to stand there and wait?)
I tend to hold the door for whoever's coming if they're close enough. Possibly after I've already gone through. A little more effort if someone's carrying something heavy or would otherwise have trouble.
In a vain attempt to be on topic: in fantasy games, I always let ladies go first. Someone has to find the trap or eat the surprise attack.
Surprisingly, yes, you can be courteous without your behavior being gender-based. Hold doors for anyone behind you, carrying something, etc.
But I've had guys carrying giant boxes refuse to step through a door I was holding for them because it wouldn't be "appropriate" for a woman to hold the door for them. I have pointed out in each case that if I'm strong enough to hold the door open for them, they should be strong enough to walk through it, but in all those cases they preferred simply to wait until I left, or to start telling me about how inappropriate my behavior was.
In a game, regardless of whether my character is a warrior or a sorcerer, she's both capable of opening her own doors, and appreciate of courtesy for its own sake, not because of some gender roles irrelevant to anyone who can, say, do magic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^ Much more extreme than I've ever seen. Odd behavior, really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I've had guys carrying giant boxes refuse to step through a door I was holding for them because it wouldn't be "appropriate" for a woman to hold the door for them. I have pointed out in each case that if I'm strong enough to hold the door open for them, they should be strong enough to walk through it, but in all those cases they preferred simply to wait until I left, or to start telling me about how inappropriate my behavior was.
Wow, I've never seen that before either. That would definitely be annoying.
I hold doors for everyone, give up my seat for older people, pregnant women, or people with disabilities, let people with a couple groceries skip ahead of my full cart, etc.
If someone is holding the door for me, I usually tell them to go ahead of me and I'll hold the door for anyone else. If they insist, then I'll walk through the door.
Same with elevators. I let everyone get off the elevator before me. But if someone insists, I don't argue with them, I just say thanks and exit.
Lastly, certain dating rituals have died and thankfully. The opening the car door for women seems really silly. She knows how to open a door herself.
Same with asking the father's permission to marry the daughter. That's straight up crazy IMO. That's like confirming a transaction. Oddly enough, a lot of women still seem to like this, not sure why.
|
|
There are things that a rock tend to do better than both man and woman. But absolutes is not about tendencies. Who is better at staying immobile between a rock, a man and a woman is different from who tend to do better at staying immobile.
If there are exceptional woman that prove that women can do something we can't say that women can't do something.
And i said they can't do something where?
I never said you said, i said i understood you said.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah yes, the old door holding argument.
What do you mean "men who won't hold the door for their own dates"? Do they let it slam in their face? Aren't you usually walking together?
Or is this about pushing past to get there first so you can open the door and let them go through?(And how do you handle those airlock type lobby doors? Hold the outside one until she's through, then jump past her to open the inner one? Is she supposed to stand there and wait?)
I tend to hold the door for whoever's coming if they're close enough. Possibly after I've already gone through. A little more effort if someone's carrying something heavy or would otherwise have trouble.
In a vain attempt to be on topic: in fantasy games, I always let ladies go first. Someone has to find the trap or eat the surprise attack.
Surprisingly, yes, you can be courteous without your behavior being gender-based. Hold doors for anyone behind you, carrying something, etc.
But I've had guys carrying giant boxes refuse to step through a door I was holding for them because it wouldn't be "appropriate" for a woman to hold the door for them. I have pointed out in each case that if I'm strong enough to hold the door open for them, they should be strong enough to walk through it, but in all those cases they preferred simply to wait until I left, or to start telling me about how inappropriate my behavior was.
In a game, regardless of whether my character is a warrior or a sorcerer, she's both capable of opening her own doors, and appreciate of courtesy for its own sake, not because of some gender roles irrelevant to anyone who can, say, do magic.
Part of being a gentleman is being curteous, AND giving a damn about what others object to. Some guys miss the second part, I guess.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And part of being courteous is not taking offense where none is intended.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And part of being courteous is not taking offense where none is intended.
I vehemently disagree with this.
I agree that giving people the benefit of the doubt is a noble thing. But not taking offense just because none is meant is going too far.
My grandmother grew up in the south. She pretty much only uses the "N word" to refer to black people/African Americans. That's pretty danged offensive - and just because batty old Grandma doesn't *mean* to hurt anyone's feelings doesn't just give her a pass.
I'll let just about any slight pass once. After I let a person know, though, that their behavior offends me, further slights will draw my ire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And part of being courteous is not taking offense where none is intended.I vehemently disagree with this.
Sheer negligence and disregard for the feelings of another is not particularly courteous, even if it does not rise to deliberate offensiveness.
Everyone is an exception somewhere, someway. Our society isn't about rewarding people who are better than others ? Why being an exceptional male a vantage and an exceptional female a demerit ?
The existence of exceptions does not eliminate the existence of tendencies.However, pcs break the mold anyway.
Average male= 10 kids
Average female= 10 kids.Exceptional male= Dozens of kids.
Exceptional female= 5 kids
Doesn't make it right but it does make it understandable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And part of being courteous is not taking offense where none is intended.I vehemently disagree with this.
I agree that giving people the benefit of the doubt is a noble thing. But not taking offense just because none is meant is going too far.
My grandmother grew up in the south. She pretty much only uses the "N word" to refer to black people/African Americans. That's pretty danged offensive - and just because batty old Grandma doesn't *mean* to hurt anyone's feelings doesn't just give her a pass.
I'll let just about any slight pass once. After I let a person know, though, that their behavior offends me, further slights will draw my ire.
You see, especially for an older person who has lived their entire life one way I'm giving a pass, especially if they aren't actively hurting anyone. They have lived eighty years or whatever. At that point they are not going to change and by being 'offended' you are accomplishing ... What exactly? Really. What is being accomplished? Being offended just for the sake of being offended is useless. Ire is something that should be saved for situations in which it can be leveraged into something useful. Ire is one of those things that looses effectiveness when you dilute it by pouring it out on every single situation that might somehow offend your sensibilities. You don't have an inherent right to not be offended.
It is a problem when you meet people who go into every conversation actively looking for something to be offended by, who aren't happy unless they are unhappy, or offended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sheer negligence and disregard for the feelings of another is not particularly courteous, even if it does not rise to deliberate offensiveness.And part of being courteous is not taking offense where none is intended.I vehemently disagree with this.
And? That alters things how? Taking severe umbrage at a minor offense, or inflating a normal one just for the sake of taking offense is still not courteous. And quite often I find that the people who are perpetually offended are guilty of just the thing you are mentioning; showing negligence and sheer disregard for the feelings of others in the pursuit of whatever their particular 'I'm offended' crusade is.
What about the cases where there's no intent to offend but the behavior isn't acceptable anyway? Most serious examples of sexism, racism and homophobia aren't done with the intent to offend, but that doesn't make the behavior any better. Just because someone thinks women are inferior or blacks are all criminals or gay men are all pedophiles, doesn't mean they should get...And part of being courteous is not taking offense where none is intended.I vehemently disagree with this.
I agree that giving people the benefit of the doubt is a noble thing. But not taking offense just because none is meant is going too far.
My grandmother grew up in the south. She pretty much only uses the "N word" to refer to black people/African Americans. That's pretty danged offensive - and just because batty old Grandma doesn't *mean* to hurt anyone's feelings doesn't just give her a pass.
I'll let just about any slight pass once. After I let a person know, though, that their behavior offends me, further slights will draw my ire.
You see, especially for an older person who has lived their entire life one way I'm giving a pass, especially if they aren't actively hurting anyone. They have lived eighty years or whatever. At that point they are not going to change and by being 'offended' you are accomplishing ... What exactly? Really. What is being accomplished? Being offended just for the sake of being offended is useless. Ire is something that should be saved for situations in which it can be leveraged into something useful. Ire is one of those things that looses effectiveness when you dilute it by pouring it out on every single situation that might somehow offend your sensibilities. You don't have an inherent right to not be offended.
It is a problem when you meet people who go into every conversation actively looking for something to be offended by, who aren't happy unless they are unhappy, or offended.
See, I'd probably differ on what constitutes "intent to offend". The eighty year old grandmother casually using a term that was all around her most of her formative years but otherwise treating you as a normal person? Not really intent to offend. Someone completely disregarding your worth and treating you as some sort of lesser being regardless of their 'justification'? Intent to offend.
Also, obviously doesn't apply in "serious" cases - however the problem lies in people that elevate EVERY instance to the level of 'serious'. Every fire is a five alarm fire.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My grandmother grew up in the south. She pretty much only uses the "N word" to refer to black people/African Americans. That's pretty danged offensive - and just because batty old Grandma doesn't *mean* to hurt anyone's feelings doesn't just give her a pass.
My paternal grandfather was a supervisor in a Pittsburgh steel plant (yes, I know) who retired to Alabama where he established himself as the "Fairhope Yankee" (trolling runs in my blood).
I remember back when I was a wee goblin lad, sometime back in the early nineties my family was visiting and I was getting my groove on, listening to some vintage hip-hop when Gramps asked me why I was listening to that XXXXX music.
I yelled at him with the moral smugness that grandchildren habitually confront their grandparents with. He got upset and told me how when he first moved to Alabama, he hired blacks for odd jobs around his house and whatnot and was visited by the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. Getting visibly angered, he told me that the Klan had told him not to hire black people and he told them: "Lissen, you peckerwood crackers, it's 199-! I'm the Fairhope Yankee, I'll hire XXXXX if I want to!"
Yeah, he was a real mixed bag, my father's father.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I'd probably differ on what constitutes "intent to offend". The eighty year old grandmother casually using a term that was all around her most of her formative years but otherwise treating you as a normal person? Not really intent to offend.
It depends.
If you personally can put up with whatever quirk of Grandma's without minding, that's fine. In this case, it may indeed be the courteous thing to just let it pass by.
Lets say you have a friend over who you know is sensitive about the aforementioned "whatever." Then, the courteous thing to do is to try to take a mitigating approach that considers their feelings. Whether that is whispering in Grandma's ears beforehand that this friend is sensitive about that, or having a chat with the friend to actively point out that Grandma doesn't mean any harm and is just no longer changing with the times, sure, whatever, use your judgment as to what will work best. In this case, however, the courteous approach relies on you doing something, not using the same blanket laissez-faire approach to offensiveness that puts all the responsibility on the offended. Go be a good host and create a less offensive situation.
And? That alters things how?And part of being courteous is not taking offense where none is intended.Sheer negligence and disregard for the feelings of another is not particularly courteous, even if it does not rise to deliberate offensiveness.
It alters things because it means that it is sometimes the best approach to take no offense where none is intended. Perhaps particularly so when dealing with the ninety year old grandma who has mostly finished learning new things.
And it is sometimes a better approach to let your offense be known. Maybe you're dealing with a similarly extreme example as yours, but on the other end of life, like the ten year old repeating things he heard on the bus. Similarly lacking in offensive intent, but much more teachable.
Or maybe you're dealing with an ordinary adult who really ought to know better.
There's no rule of courtesy not to take offense where none is intended. If there is a rule of thumb, it's more like "use your best judgment."
And part of being courteous is not taking offense where none is intended.I vehemently disagree with this.
I agree that giving people the benefit of the doubt is a noble thing. But not taking offense just because none is meant is going too far.
My grandmother grew up in the south. She pretty much only uses the "N word" to refer to black people/African Americans. That's pretty danged offensive - and just because batty old Grandma doesn't *mean* to hurt anyone's feelings doesn't just give her a pass.
I'll let just about any slight pass once. After I let a person know, though, that their behavior offends me, further slights will draw my ire.
You see, especially for an older person who has lived their entire life one way I'm giving a pass, especially if they aren't actively hurting anyone. They have lived eighty years or whatever. At that point they are not going to change and by being 'offended' you are accomplishing ... What exactly? Really. What is being accomplished? Being offended just for the sake of being offended is useless. Ire is something that should be saved for situations in which it can be leveraged into something useful. Ire is one of those things that looses effectiveness when you dilute it by pouring it out on every single situation that might somehow offend your sensibilities. You don't have an inherent right to not be offended.
It is a problem when you meet people who go into every conversation actively looking for something to be offended by, who aren't happy unless they are unhappy, or offended.
I have to agree. Progressives refuse to accept that different people to them, come from far different times; they have to change these sinners they are offended by, into themselves as closely as possible (or throw the scorn, and for what?). It gets tiresome, like such people are old church ladies trying to enforce their code of morality.
My grandmother grew up in the south. She pretty much only uses the "N word" to refer to black people/African Americans. That's pretty danged offensive - and just because batty old Grandma doesn't *mean* to hurt anyone's feelings doesn't just give her a pass.My paternal grandfather was a supervisor in a Pittsburgh steel plant (yes, I know) who retired to Alabama where he established himself as the "Fairhope Yankee" (trolling runs in my blood).
I remember back when I was a wee goblin lad, sometime back in the early nineties my family was visiting and I was getting my groove on, listening to some vintage hip-hop when Gramps asked me why I was listening to that XXXXX music.
I yelled at him with the moral smugness that grandchildren habitually confront their grandparents with. He got upset and told me how when he first moved to Alabama, he hired blacks for odd jobs around his house and whatnot and was visited by the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. Getting visibly angered, he told me that the Klan had told him not to hire black people and he told them: "Lissen, you peckerwood crackers, it's 199-! I'm the Fairhope Yankee, I'll hire XXXXX if I want to!"
Yeah, he was a real mixed bag, my father's father.
Great story.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still waiting dor somethig that says what you say was said. Differences are not equal to inferiority or superiority. They are just dufferences. There are also things that women tend to better at than men.
Totally agreed! With the plus side the your comment reminded me of beer!
(...)dufferences.
Hmmm, beer...
About the holding doors and other courteous actions: I'm courteous with anyone, regardless of gender, as thejeff seems to do. But, at least in my country, some men find this very strange (women too, it's very rare this type of behavior in Brazil nowadays).
Some type of odd behavior that i had roleplayed: The first time my character interacted with a black man was with the new character of a friend of mine (who also is black), she thought he might be evil, because drows and duergars she faced were. But then she talked with him and found out he was a nice guy (and her detect evil didn't tinged). She was trilled by the discovery.
If this roleplay was based on modern values, that awesome scene that both me and my friend found extremely fun, couldn't happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you hire goblins to start fires, will they?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a goblin sets a dog on fire in the forest, and nobody sees it, does the goblin get XP?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Darklord Morius
I tried to study how State's racism and Brazil's racism differ and other cultural norms so i could understand better the society behind the game. I guess is hard for them to understand it because we are a lot more exposed to their culture through movies than they are exposed to ours.
Somethings we simply can't argue, like the different stances of feminism. Others no one is really right like their racism vs our classism. But the worst problem is exactly the fact that the "medieval" for them is more about the germanic side and our is more about the roman empire side, so even our option of what are the medieval values are different. The Portuguese were explorers, the Germanic were more warrior like i guess, so should be some inverted values that are normal to us and feel anachronist to them.
The native american, african and european cultures merged a lot more in Brazil, so we are more used to the compromise we do to better adapt to any given sittuation and not create conflicts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And part of being courteous is not taking offense where none is intended.I vehemently disagree with this.
I agree that giving people the benefit of the doubt is a noble thing. But not taking offense just because none is meant is going too far.
My grandmother grew up in the south. She pretty much only uses the "N word" to refer to black people/African Americans. That's pretty danged offensive - and just because batty old Grandma doesn't *mean* to hurt anyone's feelings doesn't just give her a pass.
I'll let just about any slight pass once. After I let a person know, though, that their behavior offends me, further slights will draw my ire.
You see, especially for an older person who has lived their entire life one way I'm giving a pass, especially if they aren't actively hurting anyone. They have lived eighty years or whatever. At that point they are not going to change and by being 'offended' you are accomplishing ... What exactly? Really. What is being accomplished? Being offended just for the sake of being offended is useless. Ire is something that should be saved for situations in which it can be leveraged into something useful. Ire is one of those things that looses effectiveness when you dilute it by pouring it out on every single situation that might somehow offend your sensibilities. You don't have an inherent right to not be offended.
It is a problem when you meet people who go into every conversation actively looking for something to be offended by, who aren't happy unless they are unhappy, or offended.
I'm not even sure how to respond to this.
On one hand I could simply take this as the typical "It doenst offend me so anyone offended by it is thin skinned or looking for an issue." retort that we hear from conservatives / anti-PC people.
I wonder if it were f*gg*t, or b*tch being used if people would be so eager to give it a pass or to agree with you on this one.
Even at 80+ years on the planet it doesn't make you COMPLETELY ignorant. Dont care if youve been calling Black People "Niggers" for your ENTIRE life. At this point and time SHE KNOWS that it's a hurtful statement. If I find it unacceptable to be called that or for my 12 year old son to be called that, or my wife to be called that or my mother to be called that then yes I'm going to speak up.
It's not your place to tell me whether or not I should be offended at being called a nigger or not. I dont care if YOU are black. You are treated the way you ALLOW yourself to be treated. ESPECIALLY as Black person in this country. If you allow yourself to be treated like a doormat? People will continue to treat you like a doormat. If you allow a white person to call you a nigger? they will assume that it's okay to do so and continue to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also part of the problem with your attitude and statement is the common perception by people who are are racially privilaged in this country that if there isnt obvious, BLATANT racism involved (and it seems that only white people can define what that is...) it's just minorities especially black people whining and complaining for no good reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, its funny ... But you are awfully presumptuous about what other peoples ethnicities are. I'll leave it at that.
You know, its funny ... But you are awfully presumptuous about what other peoples ethnicities are. I'll leave it at that.
If that's your ONLY retort? Then:
1) You missed the part where I said:
"It's not your place to tell me whether or not I should be offended at being called a n$*#@% or not. I dont care if YOU are black."
2) Your retort is one that I've heard more than a few times before and doesn't put me off at all. If you were black and wanted to make point you'd just say so, instead of the old "...You dont know my ethnicity!" gambit. So you're not being clever here. That retort is kinda old.
3) It STILL doesn't address anything that you've said as to anyone else's value or worth and why YOU not being offended by something means that anyone who is offended is thin skinned or "looking" to be offended.