I think instead of "going to go take a walk outside" taking a break from the thread should be referred to as "go google kittens." And people should actually do it.
Several minutes later, in his conversation with the woman he was with, he opined apropos of nothing that it is ridiculous how we can't use the "good words" any more; that "you can't use those good little words, like nigger...or nappy...they've taken 'em away. It's a shame."
The third gentleman now stepped forth. A mighty man at cutting and drying, he was; a government officer; in his way (and in most other people's too), a professed pugilist; always in training, always with a system to force down the general throat like a bolus, always to be heard of at the bar of his little Public-office, ready to fight all England. To continue in fistic phraseology, he had a genius for coming up to the scratch, wherever and whatever it was, and proving himself an ugly customer. He would go in and damage any subject whatever with his right, follow up with his left, stop, exchange, counter, bore his opponent (he always fought All England) to the ropes, and fall upon him neatly. He was certain to knock the wind out of common sense, and render that unlucky adversary deaf to the call of time. And he had it in charge from high authority to bring about the great public-office Millennium, when Commissioners should reign upon earth.
It has now been
/ _ \
| | | |
| | | |
| |_| |
days since the last
stupid MeFi callout
I too am extraordinarily sensitive and enjoy reminding others of this fact.
Oskar Schindler: I've been speaking to Goeth.
Itzhak Stern: I know the destination. These are the evacuation orders, I'm to help arrange the shipments, put myself on the last train.
Oskar Schindler: That's not what I was going to say. I made Goeth promise to put in a good word for you. Nothing bad is going to happen to you there, you'll receive special treatment.
Itzhak Stern: The directives coming in from Berlin talk about "special treatment" more and more often. I'd like to think that's not what you mean.
Oskar Schindler: Preferential treatment. All right? Do we have to create a new language?
Itzhak Stern: I think so.
In this thread, people have taken offense to metaphorical rape, to hyperbolic mentions of retardation, as well as to the purported ableism of "lame," and to sucks, to ram/cram/jamming down throats. That things have been declared insane doesn't yet seem to have drawn criticism for stigmatizing the mentally ill, but there's no consistent reason not to decry it, save that it didn't trip anyone's personal triggers. Doesn't poor also refer to the monetarily disadvantaged? Who wants to be reminded that they're poor? Aren't the poor often referred to by idiom as broken? That there is good reason to be sensitive about the usage of anything exclusionary does not mean that attempting to turn that into a categorical imperative doesn't quickly reduce to the absurd.
In fact, it makes me say, well, you think I'm an asshole? Fuck you.
Especially when it seems that this isn't something personal, but rather dogma you ascribe to and want to rhetorically cudgel everyone else into obeying.
Likewise, the idea that Metafilter should be inherently a safe space for all is a nice thing to put forth, but frankly, the argument that it's better to have that than have Louis CK here and commenting just doesn't jibe with my priorities.
I hope you didn't read my Mel Brooks comment as if I was trying to point out that certain people wouldn't be aware of dark humour. Or use it as a defense of rape jokes on MetaFilter.
it is the certainty of the "safe environment" people that most gets my GRAR up.
I understood she was sincere and wanting to engage, and started writing a reply to her, but just ran out of energy somewhere along the way. Would you like to continue the conversation, and talk about what you thought were some of her important points? I genuinely would like to understand.
Where does this come from? What kind of world view supports the notion that rape survivors and their loved ones must out themselves, relive the nightmare of it, and leave themselves vulnerable to criticism and judgment in order to be taken seriously? That they shouldn't have the support of others who have been fortunate enough to not have suffered the same? Why try to take even more away from those who have already had so much taken from them?
Someone please explain this to me because I do not get it.
1) well if we have just changed one mind, then we've done worthwhile work here
2) there are some people that just don't want to be educated
3) keep vigilant if we want to build a better world
...read as though the right-thinkers are Freedom Riders, that the morality of their position is indisputable and any who argue against them are the forces of darkness and ignorant souls that need to be brought into the light of the modern world.
Please be aware that there are not just "turd generators", trolls, etc., that are arguing the other side here.
Everything depends on the circumstances of the joke and the callout, but I think it's likely to go better when the callout presumes good intentions and acknowledges the appeal of edgy humor ("I know you didn't mean to hurt anyone, and I appreciate a good joke as much as anybody, but I wanted to let you know that...") than when the callout presumes the person is just being an asshole and seems to take for granted that humor is utterly unimportant compared to people's feelings. The former is likely to produce a "Sorry, I didn't realize!" response; the latter a "Fuck you and your oversensitive sensitivity."