zapatos

I'm not here to tell people if they "should" or "should not" be offended. People react the way they do. I have no control over that. I can only hope that just as I make an effort to not offend others, that they make an effort to not be offended. For example, I'll try not to use 'woman' as part of an insult, and hopefully they'll see that if I do use "woman" as part of an insult that there is a difference between saying it in a speech, and saying it under my breath to the person standing next to me. Depends. Shouldn't be in the news if it's me, because I'm nobody. If I'm the Pope and say "what the fuck?" though, then yes, it's worth being in the news for a while. If I have no audience then I can say what I want. If my audience is 'new' then I will be on my best behavior. If I am in a room full of cameras and microphones I will try not to be naive enough to think that no one will know what I say.

It is giving the participants a better understanding of the views and perceptions of others, and the impact of language on people. This in turn may result in benefits to us and others. You should be knowledgeable of the impact your language has on people's perception and sensibilities, and the impact their response may have on you. Whether or not you change your behavior or use of language is completely up to you. Personally, I regularly change my behavior and use of language depending on the audience. I find it polite to do so. Why would I use an offensive term in front of someone who I know might be offended when I can modify my language and not offend them? It is easy enough to substitute the phrase "what the hell?" for "what the fuck" if I am in the presence of my aunt and not my friends.

Well, I (and quite a few others who have similar opinions to mine) can't comment on whether it was a sexist comment or not either. Others, who are apparently mind readers, are convinced that it was NOT. If you go back a few pages, page 1 as a matter of fact, you can re-read my opinion on that... "I don't think we can say if it was sexist or not..." No one owns the high ground on this. We're all just expressing our thoughts and exploring the use of language and how it relates to sexism. A good exercise from my perspective.

You may want to read the thread again. We have been talking about many things, including whether or not the comment was sexist, the fact that sexism exists, and why we feelJ Corbyn's comment in particular was sexist, or at least could be construed as sexist.

Huh, and here I thought by saying "you have been mistreated by an unfair system" I was indicating the opposite.

It is a shame that the lousy experience you had to go through has affected you in such a way that you cannot see what is demonstrably true or feel empathy for those who are impacted by inequality. Perhaps you'll one day see them as allies as both you and the women hurt by sexism have both been mistreated by an unfair system.

When someone repeatedly posts nonsense or exhibits poor behavior, I admit to pulling the trigger on a downvote much more quickly than I would for someone who doesn't typically exhibit those behaviors but makes the same post. Also, "not deserved in any way" is totally subjective. That just means it wasn't deserved in your opinion. You cannot know what prompted someone to give a downvote. If someone gets downvotes "because of the person that writes it", then that person should have downvotes on every post. Have you seen that?

That's what we are trying to do. But it would be helpful if when we extend our hand we don't pull back a stump.

I fail to see that anyone is trying to make me think that the comment was not sexist. They are simply making an argument in support of what they believe to be the case.

Wow. So I'm "totally extremist" and people will say I'm "totally out of touch" and "an idiot" and a "crackpot" because I disagreed the language was acceptable and instead found it "inappropriate". It seems as if reasonable, civil conversation is indeed dead in these times.

DrP portraying the response to the 'stupid woman' comment to that of a shooting. Who? I was hoping for a quote or something.

Who made him out to be a disgrace to humanity? Or is this another example of the "misrepresentation" of the facts I was speaking about? And as you may have noticed, I was talking about DrP's "learnt by all" comment, not just teaching the one individual who said it this one time. This entire conversation is about the wider problem surrounding the use of language, not just what one person said.

What you are doing here is acting like you accept the idea of people being informed about the appropriate use of language, but then undercutting that effort in the same sentence by misrepresenting the conversation as being equivalent to "shooting people". There will be no "official change" or "acceptance by all". What we are doing here, and in all similar conversations about this matter in forums or in the press, is teaching people that this type of language is inappropriate. Let's not hinder that effort through misrepresentation or the setting of unrealistic goals.

The internal combustion engine and its impact on economic development, trade, and mobility.

Calm down friend. It's just a discussion. No need to get snarky.

I did. But that was not who you were responding to.

Sorry I was thinking you were only responding to Swansont. In which case I was trying to point out that being a chauvinist doesn't necessarily mean you mistreat anyone. A man believing he is better than women may treat women very well.

Who said he mistreated women?

I didn't notice Alfred judging him. It is not uncommon to want to know personal details about a person you admire or are interested in. What were they like in person? Did they have a good sense of humor? Did they date a lot? I heard they liked single malt scotch with their chocolate chip cookies!

It is also in the Lounge.

You lost me when you referred to the locust as a parasite.

yes

To be fair, most countries don't want other countries to become nuclear powers. I think it has more to do with the desire to limit the significant risk that additional nuclear weapons bring to the world.

"The first firm day after the winter solstice" is not an astronomical event. However, if you want to consider days after astronomical events as candidates for celebrating the new year, then I would like to propose we mark the New Year as the 9th firm day after the winter solstice, since it also has historical significance and coincides with the period named after the God of beginnings. Very appropriate for a new year.

Wait. Which astronomical event happens on December 23?