Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:41 am
Spot on, it’s actually got to the point where some people are frightened to speak if you don’t say anything you can’t offend anybody, some people are just purposely waiting to jump on the slightest thing & make a drama out of nothing.
We can both agree that the N-word is vulgar and shouldn't be used to describe black people, right? And I'd hope we can agree that not using it is a good thing? If so, then we agree in principle with the notion of being deliberate, even moderate with our language. So it just comes down to the degree. Let me digress, but first, a question.
What kind of things are people afraid to say, Jakub? Would it not better to try to understand why folks might be upset with certain phrases or words rather than to consign oneself to being mute out of fear of upsetting folks, and if so, can you see how not talking and not interacting might be counter-productive? Let me just quickly establish what I mean when I use the word ignorant: it doesn't mean 'rude', it's not a moral judgement, I don't mean it as a pejorative term, I use it according to its truest definition, from its Latin derivation meaning "not-knowing". I've been ignorant about all sorts of things throughout my life. I still am, and there are things I'm no doubt ignorant about right now where events in my life haven't yet caused me to confront my ignorance. By the very nature of "not-knowing" I don't even know what I don't know until I know just about enough to know that I don't know, you know? And so I remain in ignorance until I get to the point, whatever that is, where it is realised. If ignorance is borne of a lack of interaction, and people withhold from interaction or engagement out of fear, can you see how ignorance coupled with insecurity or fear of upsetting folks might beget further ignorance? Can you see how it takes a bit of boldness and confidence to admit to not knowing, and that that boldness, that humility which allows one to admit to not knowing is the thing that will allow one to overcome one's ignorance?
The simple truth is that whether you or I like it or not, some people
are going to be offended by certain words, stereotypes, ideas etc. They have that freedom as much as you and I have the freedom to say 'ugly' things - within our legal framework, of course. It's a matter of choice, and I believe character, how you deal with that: you can reject it all and turn it back on the offended, claiming you're now offended that they are offended, which is fine, not my jam, but you have that right, however I'm not sure how that actually helps you or anyone else at all. Or you can do what in my opinion is the more practical thing and try to be receptive to ideas about why such and such a turn of phrase is offensive, harmful, or even dangerous, because the cost to you or me of moderating our language is miniscule compared to the damage and harm it can cause by not being considerate. The cost of moderation (or you could call it civility) is so small in fact that I can only be led to believe that persisting in using offensive language in the knowledge of the offence it is causing is a deliberate and purposeful attempt to cause harm, and complaints of the variations seen on here about people being too easily offended are tantamount to a conscious attempt to downplay the harm such words, stereotypes and ideas can cause, which is quite the ballsy and if I may say, arrogant stance considering those people almost unanimously are not the ones such offensive terms are aimed at. By claiming 'this word is not offensive', people using offensive language make a presumption to the right to speak for the target of a slur or a stereotype no different to the presumption for which they deride social justice warriors. By following this logic, to be offended on someone else's behalf is no different than to claim a person is being unreasonable in being offended, because it incorrectly presumes the right to legitimately understand the target, even when the target is demonstrably offended, justly or otherwise. Being offended on someone else's behalf, and claiming people are too easily offended are two sides of the same coin: they both presume a small domain over a part of the psychology of the person the words are aimed at. This is why we delegate to the people at whom the language is aimed and let them determine what is offensive and what is not. As I've mentioned above, nobody really takes issue with ignorance in and of itself; the defiance and persistence in using offensive language while in possession of the knowledge of the nature of an offensive word is a much greater problem, for is typically used to assert dominance - perceived or real - over others.
Clarke's firing isn't an excoriation of his character as a human being, but rather a statement if you will on his lack of competence as a chairman and in his ability to fulfil the duties demanded of him by the role. He's useless, not hateful. But in certain walks of life, especially those where people have a degree of decision making power, folks are held to a higher standard. Surely we can agree on the importance of this?
These 2 users liked this post: Duffer_ longsidepies