The Insane "Social Justice" Thread II

[ArcadiaGP]

Identitarians assume malice. Individuals are free to assume only facts in evidence.

It appears to me that the firing was a sort of socially required virtue signaling.

Alternatively (or combined with) a busybody co-worker that felt good about reporting hearing a word, regardless of context.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The only evidence presented is in favor of non-malicious. We shouldn't negate that, when there's no evidence of malicious intent.

The person who uttered the word, stated that he was "insensitive" in using the word. That's an self-admission of doing something he should not have. Now, one can say "what do you expect him to say," and of course that is a valid argument, but he's still saying that in his belief he did something wrong. Was he, IDK, but it offers a rebuttal to non-evidence of malicious intent. We can't be willing to discount one, and not the other, so we're force to be neutral. We simply don't have enough information to decide for ourselves.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The person who uttered the word, stated that he was "insensitive" in using the word. That's an self-admission of doing something he should not have. Now, one can say "what do you expect him to say," and of course that is a valid argument, but he's still saying that in his belief he did something wrong. Was he, IDK, but it offers a rebuttal to non-evidence of malicious intent. We can't be willing to discount one, and not the other, so we're force to be neutral. We simply don't have enough information to decide for ourselves.

What's said to the public, after the fact, is definitely going to be skewed. Damage control is rarely based on reality.

Insensitive isn't the word I'd use if I called someone the word, or used it with malicious intent in any way. Insensitive is modern social justice speak for wrongthink, using words that are deemed "offensive".

Insensitive is HR nonsense. This isn't evidence that he used it maliciously... neither statement, by him or his boss, implies it was malicious. Both statements imply it was less than that.

It seems silly to assume the worst.

 

[jamil]

No, of course not... unless they have used it, then there's some ownership consistent with the origin. Not to point fingers, because I'm sure most people are guilty of such offenses (note, I said "people")... but regardless, the origin is relevant, as the practice persists to this day.

As generations passed beyond the crux of what was truly harmful about the word, it became less relevant, to the point where it’s relevance is no longer organic, but is synthesized as a perpetual stigma. It will remain a stigma as long as people identify with groups based on skin color. If people really want the word to lose power, people will quit giving it power. So think about who has something to gain by perpetuating the stigma? Not all individuals who happen to have light or dark skin. That’s for sure.

 

[printcraft]

So I want to review the rules I'm sure we all agree upon. (It's like the UN up in here)

1. It's never under any circumstance ok for a white to do.

2. It's always ok for any minority to do, AND it's always ok for the same minorities to do TO the majority.
(majority has the power, they can take it and quite frankly deserve it.)

 

[Kutnupe14]

As generations passed beyond the crux of what was truly harmful about the word, it became less relevant, to the point where it’s relevance is no longer organic, but is synthesized as a perpetual stigma. It will remain a stigma as long as people identify with groups based on skin color. If people really want the word to lose power, people will quit giving it power. So think about who has something to gain by perpetuating the stigma? Not all individuals who happen to have light or dark skin. That’s for sure.

Or people stop identifying groups based on color. That has to happen FIRST before the other can happen. And as we both know, our society is completely inundated with such.

 

[jamil]

The person who uttered the word, stated that he was "insensitive" in using the word. That's an self-admission of doing something he should not have. Now, one can say "what do you expect him to say," and of course that is a valid argument, but he's still saying that in his belief he did something wrong. Was he, IDK, but it offers a rebuttal to non-evidence of malicious intent. We can't be willing to discount one, and not the other, so we're force to be neutral. We simply don't have enough information to decide for ourselves.

No. That’s just the social penance he’s expected to pay, and what he has to say no matter the context, if he’s going to salvage his career. That’s just the social reality of saying something that society has decided is the worst thing someone could say.

Think about it. If he’d have said, hey wait, I didn’t mean it as an offense. You heard what the boss said. You hear what everyone says. There is no context in which it’s okay for any white person to literally say the word. So in any context, he has to say he was in the wrong. There’s no context in which he could have been socially right. It’s silly to say that confession is an admission of malice.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No. That’s just the social penance he’s expected to pay, and what he has to say no matter the context, if he’s going to salvage his career. That’s just the social reality of saying something that society has decided is the worst thing someone could say.

Think about it. If he’d have said, hey wait, I didn’t mean it as an offense. You heard what the boss said. You hear what everyone says. There is no context in which it’s okay for any white person to literally say the word. So in any context, he has to say he was in the wrong. There’s no context in which he could have been socially right. It’s silly to say that confession is an admission of malice.

Like I said, you can't disregard the other. Which your doing because of your pre-conceived notions of "how" things work. Is what you say likely? Yes. Do you know that for a fact? No, you don't. I didn't say his confession was an admission or malice, but it could be. Hence my neutral position.

 

[KLB]

Or people stop identifying groups based on color. That has to happen FIRST before the other can happen. And as we both know, our society is completely inundated with such.

They both need to happen in concert. Neither will happen without the other also happening.

Which is more prevalent in society today? Identifying others by the color of their skin or identifying with others based upon the same?

 

[jamil]

Like I said, you can't disregard the other. Which your doing because of your pre-conceived notions of "how" things work. Is what you say likely? Yes. Do you know that for a fact? No, you don't. I didn't say his confession was an admission or malice, but it could be. Hence my neutral position.

Like G said. The dude that fired him gave us the context. The context in which he was fired gives us evidence that it wasn’t malicious. I grant that you’re right, that it’s possible that it was malicious, that the dude who fired him lied about the context, and he really did go off the rails with the n-word in somenkind of racist tirade.

Yeah. White high level guy in a big company speaking in a multirace room really wanting to kick his career to the next level goes off on a racist bent. Totally plausible.

 

[rhino]

No, its not. There is absolutely NO word that is so verboten that it cannot even be uttered in a clinical situation. Well, except One. But we wont mention *Voldemor..... Whew. Almost said it.

Not saying its acceptable to use anywhere else, but to say for instance a white HR director in a training or judge/lawyer/etc in a trial cannot utter it as part of a necessary course of professional business is absurd.

(* Wouldnt it be funny if somebody actually put that in the language filter? )

You know that and we know that and more importantly they know that. They choose to disregard logic and reality because they can effectively make use of their whims as a weapon. I continue to be dumbfounded why enough people tolerate or support this and other SJW absurdities and if people continue to tolerate this abuse of us all and the infringements on our liberty in order to appease them, eventually their whims will become the standard (if it hasn't happened already).

 

[rhino]

So I want to review the rules I'm sure we all agree upon. (It's like the UN up in here)

1. It's never under any circumstance ok for a white to do.

2. It's always ok for any minority to do, AND it's always ok for the same minorities to do TO the majority.
(majority has the power, they can take it and quite frankly deserve it.)

Those are apparently the rules that a significant minority of humans have attempted to thrust upon all of us humans.

And I do not agree with those rules.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Now ice cream is divisive.....must hold the high ground.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mixed-...nclusive/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=53343496

 

[printcraft]

Those are apparently the rules that a significant minority of humans have attempted to thrust upon all of us humans.

And I do not agree with those rules.

You will agree with it and like it.
Otherwise we have to assume, and you know what happens when we assume.

 

[rhino]

Now ice cream is divisive.....must hold the high ground.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mixed-...nclusive/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=53343496

Is it true that only vanilla ice cream can be racist?

 

[rhino]

You will agree with it and like it.
Otherwise we have to assume, and you know what happens when we assume.

In the immortal words of Thor from many 1970s Marvel comics when he was fighting some horrible villains, "I SAY THEE, NAY!"

 

[printcraft]

Now ice cream is divisive.....must hold the high ground.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mixed-...nclusive/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=53343496

She says her son is "talented academically and adores all subjects, but math and history are his favorites."

But he never heard of the continental divide in relation to the settlers? Well, I guess if you are never taught in school outside of a "select" view I can see why he never heard of it.

 

[rhino]

But he never heard of the continental divide in relation to the settlers? Well, I guess if you are never taught in school outside of a "select" view I can see why he never heard of it.

It's clearly the vanilla side in the carton of ice cream that is the source of the obvious racism.

 

[BugI02]

So I want to review the rules I'm sure we all agree upon. (It's like the UN up in here)

1. It's never under any circumstance ok for a white to do.

2. It's always ok for any minority to do, AND it's always ok for the same minorities to do TO the majority.
(majority has the power, they can take it and quite frankly deserve it.)

The Furs were right, you do (or will) have a 'permanent record'

Orwell was right, those who have gained power over people will twist words to mean what they wish them to mean in furtherance and expansion of that power

Keep your powder dry

 

[MCgrease08]

Not exactly what I was saying. If I was using it, then I would have no standing to complain about it. The women in your example should have no place to complain about the use of the word.

Again, either it is taboo or it isn't. If people want to end the use of the word, end it. Stop using it and it will fade away. Keep throwing it around like it is nothing, and it will never go away.

I completely disagree with the second part of this statement. Context matters.

The day a single word is completely banned from use, no matter the context, will be a dark day for free speech, and unfortunately we seem to be heading in that direction.