Ce sujet est fermé
Then you don't look like a person I would like to have anything to do with,
Yep. That's what happens when you enter the deepest and darkest places of tumblr.
but just for your information - the proper and very old English form in such cases is singular they.
Excuse me, they.
Though I like it for better flow in conversations, but w/e I offtopic'd this topic long enough.
Cullen's was definitely the least toxic of the fan reactions, but I think it is because unlike Cassandra, Dorian, and Sera, he had a history of being attracted to females and not males with him only having a crush on the Female Amell/Surana in DAO.
I think it's a combination of that and the fact that Cullen wasn't really a "gay favorite" in the way Cassandra was. He had gay fans, but Dorian pretty much became the gay favorite on reveal, from what I saw, and most gay guys I've seen were still celebrating having their first gay companion. So, they weren't as inclined to pitch a fit about losing the NPC backup choice. On the other hand, Cassandra seemed to heavily stand out as the lesbian favorite.
To me its a degree of scale in truth, there are some words that are made to be offensive, and some words that others take offense to that they really shouldn't, and some words that aren't even offensive that people want to make offensive because of their personal biases. But for me, intent and action is always more important than what a person said, did this person actually have a visceral hatred and potential hazard to the people he was offending, or is he just trying to be a dick, or even just doesn't know?
Regardless, being offended I feel doesn't really mean much, because in our society we make it both valued and valueless. We devalue anyone who is offended by things we aren't offended by, especially us who enjoy video game who mock those offended by the graphic violence or harsh language of our media. But then, we turn around and immediately expect everyone to fold at things we personally feel are offensive.
The double standard devalues the word, and turns it into what my quoted phrase stated, a meaningless whine. We can certainly respect it, sure, but then outside of that, there really isn't much room ti should be allowed to go.
That sounds to me like a manifest of "I should say whatever I like, and no one has the right to say anything about it"
XY and XX exists only in mammals. Not even all of them. There are species of lemmings that have subgroup of fertile females with XY genotype. Many other species already lost Y chromosome.
Also, women with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome have XY chromosomes but they were always referred to as women by scientists, they definitely have female phenotype.
I am speaking about humans which are mammals.
Seem like that would fall in with the intersex[tho not per say] and they do not fucntion as fem and male in terms of thier reproductive sex
To me its a degree of scale in truth, there are some words that are made to be offensive, and some words that others take offense to that they really shouldn't, and some words that aren't even offensive that people want to make offensive because of their personal biases. But for me, intent and action is always more important than what a person said, did this person actually have a visceral hatred and potential hazard to the people he was offending, or is he just trying to be a dick, or even just doesn't know?
Regardless, being offended I feel doesn't really mean much, because in our society we make it both valued and valueless. We devalue anyone who is offended by things we aren't offended by, especially us who enjoy video game who mock those offended by the graphic violence or harsh language of our media. But then, we turn around and immediately expect everyone to fold at things we personally feel are offensive.
The double standard devalues the word, and turns it into what my quoted phrase stated, a meaningless whine. We can certainly respect it, sure, but then outside of that, there really isn't much room ti should be allowed to go.
I agree that intent is important. I was speaking to the continued use of those words after it's been brought to your attention that it's offensive. That changes the context significantly. If you know that using a particular word can be offensive and choose to still use it, then your intent is less valid because you now have knowledge of the word's reception.
Here's an example: I once wrote X-Mas instead of Christmas on a volunteer sign up sheet for a program that I was running. I was told by several of the volunteers, who were Christian, that they found that offensive because I was "taking Christ out of Christmas". Well, that wasn't my intent and, as an atheist, had no idea that it would be received that way. I was only trying to fit it on the top line and was using it as a shorthand. To me, it wasn't offensive. However, you can be absolutely sure that I never used that shorthand again. Why? Because I knew that, regardless of my original intent, people were offended by it. Had I chosen to use that shorthand again, I feel I would have been choosing to offend people.
Nope. I'm describing the simplest biological definition. Male birds are ZZ and female birds are ZW, and female birds certainly don't have a womb. Turtle sex is determined by the heat of the egg. Plant have male parts (anthers) and female parts (stigmata).
Am speaking of humans am well aware its not the same for diff species
I can't agree with any of that. Being offended isn't a meaningless statement. It expresses emotional distress or anxiety towards something said or done. Someone's emotional well being is lessened when they are offended.
People say it is meaningless because it can be so widely applied. Just because it is extremely hard to define, it doesn't become meaningless...
The amount of emotional stress and anxiety stated by those always seemed overblown. Where is the evidence? Where is the scientific documentation showing being offended is worst then, say, the normal stress of a daily commute to work? How much effect does one being offended have on their long term mental state? Is there actual research in this field or just emotional responses only?
Stephen Fry is vocal advocate of LGBT rights (and gay himself). He called out bigots numerous times. As always, that certain quote is taken out of bigger article's context to support certain agenda, in this case, of using degrading language and pretending that anyone that has problem with it is "whining".
I don't see what his sexual orientation has to do with anything. His words carry true for everyone, across all boards. Trying to say his words only apply to one set of people and everyone else can't use them because its not "in context" is prejudice. Just because he's a member of the LGBT community means he has to 100% support all LGBT stances, arguments, and views and hsi words can't be used in a critique of the use of the word "offended" by all? That hardly seems fair to force someone into.
I don't know that much about Fry, but it seems some people think using the quote gives them more legitimacy to excuse their ignorance because Fry happens to be gay. It isn't as if having a certain orientation means you can't be insensitive.
Why must you attempt to bring his sexual orientation into this? Can't he just be a funny human being whose said some very insightful things and not defined by the people he is attracted to?
She said seduced, not had sex with though. Seduce =/= sleep with.
GLBT people being disappointed that a character is not available for them to romance tend to do so because it happens so frequently and the other options are normally not of equal quality (Cassandra and Cullen being, apparently, mandatory characters from the outset at least). When straight men complain that a character is not available for them to romance, it's really hard to care because they have so many choices all the time, and typically the ones that are like Morrigan or Miranda and have high visibility in the plot.
And, admittedly, Cassandra was especially egregious because we've been listening to straight dudes complain about her manly/ugly face for months now, and the moment she's announced as a straight LI she suddenly became a sanctified treasure that no others should dare cast their eyes upon.
Here's an example: I once wrote X-Mas instead of Christmas on a volunteer sign up sheet for a program that I was running. I was told by several of the volunteers, who were Christian, that they found that offensive because I was "taking Christ out of Christmas". Well, that wasn't my intent and, as an atheist, had no idea that it would be received that way. I was only trying to fit it on the top line and was using it as a shorthand. To me, it wasn't offensive. However, you can be absolutely sure that I never used that shorthand again. Why? Because I knew that, regardless of my original intent, people were offended by it. Had I chosen to use that shorthand again, I feel I would have been choosing to offend people.
If somebody wasted my time telling me that they were offended by how I wrote Christmas I'd have no problem offending them with it again.
You shouldn't have to be overly careful about every tiny thing you do in your life in case it offends some overly sensitive person.
I think it was act 1 where you get to save Donnic if you do the quest.
Oooh.
Laughably one of the worst things you can apparently now do in Western society is offend someone.
Causing offence is the new unforgivable sin. Western nations, in embracing relativism, have struggled with how to balance conflicting world views. In what is proving a flawed approach, we have usually chosen to simply remove that which may upset another person.
Take for a example the Christmas season, when the now predictable uproar occurs over nativity scenes and even Christmas itself. Granted, the political correctness police seem to often operate by double standards. After all, we don't hear anyone complaining when the Brisbane City Council helps promote Buddha's birthday at South Bank every year, yet the celebration of the birth of Christ is somehow seen as greatly more offensive.
In the end the whole notion of offense having any real meaning as an argument is ridiculous, arguments are settled by with facts not opinions and offense is not a fact but a personal choice and as such is meaningless as a corner stone of any argument, grammatical or otherwise.
Oooh.
Aveline has a harder time getting to become guard captain, so the other guards/Donnic don't appreciate the change of leadership as much.
If somebody wasted my time telling me that they were offended by how I wrote Christmas I'd see no problem with offending them with it again.
You shouldn't have to be overly careful about every tiny thing you do in your life in case it offends some overly sensitive person.
But here's the thing.....I don't really want to offend people so it costs me about 1.5 seconds to write the word out and it makes sure that someone else doesn't get offended. Cost benefit analysis is pretty clear for me on this one.
If somebody wasted my time telling me that they were offended by how I wrote Christmas I'd have no problem offending them with it again.
You shouldn't have to be overly careful about every tiny thing you do in your life in case it offends some overly sensitive person.
If it exists, someone, somewhere will be offended by it :v
I don't see what his sexual orientation has to do with anything. His words carry true for everyone, across all boards. Trying to say his words only apply to one set of people and everyone else can't use them because its not "in context" is prejudice. Just because he's a member of the LGBT community means he has to 100% support all LGBT stances, arguments, and views and hsi words can't be used in a critique of the use of the word "offended" by all? That hardly seems fair to force someone into.
First of all, he referred to specific situation. Of stating of being offended and that's it. Meanwhile, you've seen here quite excessive TBH explanations why this sort of language is degrading and damaging. Excessive, because even a child should understand why they shouldn't call people as "it", that it's always pejorative. And that it's especially, for specific reasons, hurtul for the trans group.
So, again, you basically use that quote to give yourself a right to offend and degrade anyone, and then pretend that those that are offended are the problem, that they are "whining".
If somebody wasted my time telling me that they were offended by how I wrote Christmas I'd have no problem offending them with it again.
You shouldn't have to be overly careful about every tiny thing you do in your life in case it offends some overly sensitive person.
That sounds to me like a manifest of "I should say whatever I like, and no one has the right to say anything about it"
You can tell me you're offended just fine, but you shouldn't expect the world to fold to your every wish, just because you are offended. Whether I respect your reason/claim or not is entirely up to me, just like its up to you whether you respect my reasoning to do so. We are all free, and nobody is holding anyone elses chains here except those who let the past chain them in the present.I agree that intent is important. I was speaking to the continued use of those words after it's been brought to your attention that it's offensive. That changes the context significantly. If you know that using a particular word can be offensive and choose to still use it, then your intent is less valid because you now have knowledge of the word's reception.
Here's an example: I once wrote X-Mas instead of Christmas on a volunteer sign up sheet for a program that I was running. I was told by several of the volunteers, who were Christian, that they found that offensive because I was "taking Christ out of Christmas". Well, that wasn't my intent and, as an atheist, had no idea that it would be received that way. I was only trying to fit it on the top line and was using it as a shorthand. To me, it wasn't offensive. However, you can be absolutely sure that I never used that shorthand again. Why? Because I knew that, regardless of my original intent, people were offended by it. Had I chosen to use that shorthand again, I feel I would have been choosing to offend people.
Aveline has a harder time getting to become guard captain, so the other guards/Donnic don't appreciate the change of leadership as much.
Which makes sense. But I still got the hardass version even when I helped her in act 1 but didn't hook her up with Donnic =/
Alternatively, if you can't be bothered to add four extra letters to a word because someone has said it's meaningful, you're deep into head-up-ass territory.
Alternatively, if you can't be bothered to add four extra letters to a word because someone has said it's meaningful, you're deep into head-up-ass territory.
Meaningful to them, perhaps. But when you tell other people to change the way they live their lives because of your beliefs... that's something I strongly disagree with. Sure it's only four letters, but I'd deliberately write it again with an even bigger 'X' just to spite them. Maybe I'm not religious and want to take the Christ out of Christmas. Or maybe I follow a different religion. Either way I can call it what I want.
('X'mas" is never used here in the UK, so I'd never call it that in a million years anyway, but thats not the point...)
If you say so
Like you said, it comes down to choice. If in that situation you wanted to be accepted to them, well then you made your choice to change. Its a courtesy you choose to do, and there's nothing wrong about that. At the same time, if you didn't feel like writing the card over again because some people wanted their religious views to be pressed upon you, well didn't they not value your views in the matter at all? And what happens, now that you write christmas from now on, when someone else decides that christmas is an offensive term because it implies a religious meaning to the holiday that has become mostly secular? And the final question, is it really worth you going through the trouble of apologizing and changing and all the stuff just over a card? Why is it a card is suddenly so important in those peoples lives that they have to get all up in arms about it?
My philosophy is to do what it is you want to do, be it to be offensive because its not worth your time changing, or to be courteous and change for their preferences. Because otherwise you're just doing what everyone else does and defining all your choices based on what other people want, and not you. Maybe you'd like to write X-mas and save yourself the time of writing out the full name sometime? Maybe not?
But people don't have the right to make someone change something they're doing when the impact it has on them is so minimal and removed.
This is way off topic by now. The bottom line is: If you know that using a word can offend people and you choose to use that word, then you are choosing to offend people. You might be okay with that, but then own it. Don't fall back on a "Well, they are infringing on my right to say whatever I want" argument that places you as the victim. If you are a big enough boy or girl to use an offensive term, then be a big boy or girl and take the consequences. Don't play the victim when you know up front, full well, the outcomes.
Now, back to romances.......
If you say so
Oh, that's the point. You try to silence every critique your words could face by undermining the voice of person whom you degraded first, by calling it "whining". That's not discourse, but mere eristic.
First of all, he referred to specific situation. Of stating of being offended and that's it. Meanwhile, you've seen here quite excessive TBH explanations why this sort of language is degrading and damaging. Excessive, because even a child should understand why they shouldn't call people as "it", that it's always pejorative. And that it's especially, for specific reasons, hurtul for the trans group.
So, again, you basically use that quote to give yourself a right to offend and degrade anyone, and then pretend that those that are offended are the problem, that they are "whining".
Retour en haut