Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Argive wrote:
Its been a cultural bloodbath for the last 10 or so years now where if people dont like what you are saying, they can simply label you as <insert> Ist/ Phobe and then have their aligned people dogpile on you.

Now those words don't really mean what they are supposed to mean. We have dictionaries and legal definitions for a reason. And we have seen a reckless erosion of these things for years now meaning people are unable to communicate freely.

Say one thing to me today is ok... But as soon as you get on my bad side or or I can get leverage out of it I can accuse you of being XXX tomorrow.

Yeeeeep, it's ad hominem palooza, and not even in the early internet days where people were just edgelords and doing the usual anonymous craposting you get (though that does still exist), if you ever stray from whatever mainstream narrative these people believe nowadays, welcome to the jailhouse.

The most annoying part is how they keep shifting the definitions when you ask them to define them, basically to just suit whoever fits who they're targeting at the time and for some cases, really becomes super circular for things that even a grade school kid could answer.

 Grimskul wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Its been a cultural bloodbath for the last 10 or so years now where if people dont like what you are saying, they can simply label you as <insert> Ist/ Phobe and then have their aligned people dogpile on you.

Now those words don't really mean what they are supposed to mean. We have dictionaries and legal definitions for a reason. And we have seen a reckless erosion of these things for years now meaning people are unable to communicate freely.

Say one thing to me today is ok... But as soon as you get on my bad side or or I can get leverage out of it I can accuse you of being XXX tomorrow.

Yeeeeep, it's ad hominem palooza, and not even in the early internet days where people were just edgelords and doing the usual anonymous craposting you get (though that does still exist), if you ever stray from whatever mainstream narrative these people believe nowadays, welcome to the jailhouse.

The most annoying part is how they keep shifting the definitions when you ask them to define them, basically to just suit whoever fits who they're targeting at the time and for some cases, really becomes super circular for things that even a grade school kid could answer.

Definition shifting is a huge thing, and sometimes laughable if it didn't have so-many bobbleheads nodding in agreement. Here is a summary of a conversation I once had:

Them: Criticizing (insert Middle East country) is racist.
Me: No one is above honest criticism.
Them: It's Islamophobia, and that's racist.
Me: It's not about Islam, and Islamophobia is bad, but it's technically not "racist". Discriminatory, yes. Racist, no.
Them: Prejudice against any culture is racist. You can't discriminate against what someone is born into.
Me: Within the last three pages you have disparaged Christians, people in rural communities, and children born into well-off families. They were all born into these circumstances.
THem: REEEEEEE!!!!

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
Are you black?

Is your position that it's fine to use racial slurs just as long as they're not explicitly directed to a verified member of the race in question then?

Mainly that it is OK to express racism against whites, just not anyone else.

 Orlanth wrote:
If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.

Laughably wrong. Try to have another religion in christian country, or lack of one, then we'll talk. Not only you will find dozens of laws targeted at you (if unintentionally, because whoever wrote them assumed christians are the norm and their customs are the only passable ones, to outright malicious nonsense specifically made by fundies to degrade and target the 'other') but a lot of people will react aggressively to you or even assault you on the spot thanks to religious brainwashing. Hell, there are even polls people would prefer to be ruled by a same-religions mass murderer or terrorist rather than atheist, least offensive (and intrusive) denomination possible. 52% of people in USA outright stated they will not vote for atheist, even if best possibly qualified person ever: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/faith-system/

I have no idea what mental gymnastics people need to believe insane dog whistle by far right claiming that the group that oppresses and bullies everyone else is no longer privileged because (GASP!) bullying and assaults need to be dialed down a bit these days, but to anyone who isn't in imaginary besieged fortress, it's plain BS. And that's with white males, then we have groups such as women and LGBT+ where laws set by fundies in accordance of what someone bored made up 2000 years ago outright try to murder them if they don't conform, such lack of privilege, much wow

 Irbis wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.

Laughably wrong. Try to have another religion in christian country, or lack of one, then we'll talk. Not only you will find dozens of laws targeted at you (if unintentionally, because whoever wrote them assumed christians are the norm and their customs are the only passable ones, to outright malicious nonsense specifically made by fundies to degrade and target the 'other') but a lot of people will react aggressively to you or even assault you on the spot thanks to religious brainwashing. Hell, there are even polls people would prefer to be ruled by a same-religions mass murderer or terrorist rather than atheist, least offensive (and intrusive) denomination possible. 52% of people in USA outright stated they will not vote for atheist, even if best possibly qualified person ever: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/faith-system/

I have no idea what mental gymnastics people need to believe insane dog whistle by far right claiming that the group that oppresses and bullies everyone else is no longer privileged because (GASP!) bullying and assaults need to be dialed down a bit these days, but to anyone who isn't in imaginary besieged fortress, it's plain BS. And that's with white males, then we have groups such as women and LGBT+ where laws set by fundies in accordance of what someone bored made up 2000 years ago outright try to murder them if they don't conform, such lack of privilege, much wow

Christianity is still the one religion that's generally okay to be an ass-hat about without being branded by the pearl clutchers. Majority Christian countries have their problems, but unlike other countries, you aren't executed for leaving the church.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Christianity is still the one religion that's generally okay to be an ass-hat about without being branded by the pearl clutchers. Majority Christian countries have their problems, but unlike other countries, you aren't executed for leaving the church.

In the 1990s there was a play called "Corpus Christi" that was about how Jesus and Judas were gay lovers. Christian groups sent protest notes, some picketers showed up, but the show went on and everyone cheered the stunning and brave production company.

In the Aughts, same play opened, but Muslims pointed out that Jesus is also considered a prophet in Islam and that it was therefore blasphemy. The show was canceled.

Draw your own conclusions.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.

Laughably wrong. Try to have another religion in christian country, or lack of one, then we'll talk. Not only you will find dozens of laws targeted at you (if unintentionally, because whoever wrote them assumed christians are the norm and their customs are the only passable ones, to outright malicious nonsense specifically made by fundies to degrade and target the 'other') but a lot of people will react aggressively to you or even assault you on the spot thanks to religious brainwashing. Hell, there are even polls people would prefer to be ruled by a same-religions mass murderer or terrorist rather than atheist, least offensive (and intrusive) denomination possible. 52% of people in USA outright stated they will not vote for atheist, even if best possibly qualified person ever: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/faith-system/

I have no idea what mental gymnastics people need to believe insane dog whistle by far right claiming that the group that oppresses and bullies everyone else is no longer privileged because (GASP!) bullying and assaults need to be dialed down a bit these days, but to anyone who isn't in imaginary besieged fortress, it's plain BS. And that's with white males, then we have groups such as women and LGBT+ where laws set by fundies in accordance of what someone bored made up 2000 years ago outright try to murder them if they don't conform, such lack of privilege, much wow

Christianity is still the one religion that's generally okay to be an ass-hat about without being branded by the pearl clutchers. Majority Christian countries have their problems, but unlike other countries, you aren't executed for leaving the church.

Thank you cuda.

I could give numerous examples of extreme grievances and persecution but wont forsake of forum rules.
Sorry you will have to find your own examples. I wrote one out, but had to think better and deleted it.

What I can say is this:

If you criticise Christianity, you are edgy and cool, or 'stunning and brave', if you criticise other religions to the same degree you are condemned, in many well documented cases in the UK you will be arrested.
Meanwhile if Christians criticise what they dislike they are widely told to bluntly shut up and be more 'tolerant', if certain other religions have criticisms they are listened to with timid silence, and that includes by certain secular pressure groups that are openly confrontational to everyone else. Incidentally the religion in question doesn't need to have a reputation for summary beheadings to gain that respect, though I believe in same cases it is a factor.

You will witness a phenomena that encompasses far more than Christianity though, but Christians are the easiest to define victims of the new societal balance.

What else I can just about say is this:

Ask yourself why. If you look closely enough you will see the connections. You will if you look far enough find gross imbalances between different population groups that violate any protocols on equality; and those imbalances have state sanction.

It isn't hidden, you don't need to delve into 'conspiracy' to find it. Two and a half decades ago it was when I first saw this, but it isn't now.
If you look, you will find. If you do look and are honest about what you find you will likely red pill yourself, so be forewarned.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Christianity is still the one religion that's generally okay to be an ass-hat about without being branded by the pearl clutchers. Majority Christian countries have their problems, but unlike other countries, you aren't executed for leaving the church.

In the 1990s there was a play called "Corpus Christi" that was about how Jesus and Judas were gay lovers. Christian groups sent protest notes, some picketers showed up, but the show went on and everyone cheered the stunning and brave production company.

In the Aughts, same play opened, but Muslims pointed out that Jesus is also considered a prophet in Islam and that it was therefore blasphemy. The show was canceled.

Draw your own conclusions.

Didn't see this as I responded to posts as I saw them.

Yep, Stunning and brave meme again.

This has happened twice with two different artists: depicting urination on the face of a crucified Christ as 'art'. One was a music video in the early 90s the other was more recent a sculpture called 'pisschrist'.
After church protests were milked for lulz both were stopped by non-Christian religious intervention.

 Irbis wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.

Laughably wrong. Try to have another religion in christian country, or lack of one, then we'll talk. Not only you will find dozens of laws targeted at you (if unintentionally, because whoever wrote them assumed christians are the norm and their customs are the only passable ones, to outright malicious nonsense specifically made by fundies to degrade and target the 'other') but a lot of people will react aggressively to you or even assault you on the spot thanks to religious brainwashing. Hell, there are even polls people would prefer to be ruled by a same-religions mass murderer or terrorist rather than atheist, least offensive (and intrusive) denomination possible. 52% of people in USA outright stated they will not vote for atheist, even if best possibly qualified person ever: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/faith-system/

I have no idea what mental gymnastics people need to believe insane dog whistle by far right claiming that the group that oppresses and bullies everyone else is no longer privileged because (GASP!) bullying and assaults need to be dialed down a bit these days, but to anyone who isn't in imaginary besieged fortress, it's plain BS. And that's with white males, then we have groups such as women and LGBT+ where laws set by fundies in accordance of what someone bored made up 2000 years ago outright try to murder them if they don't conform, such lack of privilege, much wow

Since when did discussing religion become okay on this forum?

I would prefer to talk around religion and politics under the current policy.

We can handle this without crossing the line, mostly.

The core issues do need to be discussed as they have passed through political and relgious and into social commentary.

The fact that any one of us can be cancelled at any time in this current age is an issue that has a political root, but is a social day to day that can be experienced by anyone, including Dakka members without having to be part of any religious sect or political group.

This makes the discussion healthy and frankly necessary.

Even now most people don't understand wokeness, and yet it applies to our daily lives.

How to survive cancel culture or baseless accusation 101 is pretty much a necessity now, and an understanding of how society has suddenly got gak and why may be helpful even to someone who has no interest in religion or politics and only wants to play wargames.

Even you are only one contrived misunderstanding away from censure and lasting trouble.

A recent long-winded debate kept doing circles. It boiled down to one side saying "Bad actions are bad actions, regardless of context," and the other side saying "Bad actions aren't bad if the victim deserved it."

I just find it all to easy, and convenient, when people label the other side of an argument as just evil enough to deserve cruelty.

It can be contextual.

In my own peculiar way, as a Scot living in England I’m a minority. Granted it’s the sort of minority nobody can tell unless I open my gob.

And there are slurs about Scots, many of which I’ve been on the receiving end of.

Context is King here. If it’s a fellow Scot or a close friend? I’m fine with it. That to me is just banter.

Anyone else uses those terms? And I’ll be calling them out on it. One doesn’t have to intend offence for offence to be caused.

Consider the apology vs the non-apology.

Actual apology? I’m sorry I offended you.

Non-apology? I’m sorry if you took offence.

The first is apologising for using the offending term or phrase. The second is putting the blame on the offended.

But importantly, whether or not I take offence? Those terms remain racist at all times. No other Scot is required to not take offence just because I didn’t. And what they let fly creates no obligation on me to follow suit.

Just…get your head round that and you’re most of the way there. And the safest play? Just don’t use them. At all. Expunge them from your lexicon. If you have an issue with someone, use your Big Person Words and express your sentiment in a more articulate way.

As for some of the comments? You may not consider yourself to be racist. But, get this right, it’s wild…..that doesn’t stop certain words and phrases being racist. So, if you use a racist term? What are other folk meant to do or think? You may cite Freedom of Speech, but I’ll point out that has never meant Freedom from Consequence.

Consider what it’s like to be on the receiving end of such language. Because it’s never an isolated thing. Me? Whilst the minority I belong to has it pretty cushy (again, unless I open my mouth, no one is going to know), when we moved to England I was on the receiving end of racist and demeaning language day in, day out. That’s….wearing on one’s tolerance. So I won’t even think of asking your forgiveness if it’s made me quite touchy on certain things, because I don’t have to justify offence received to the person giving the offence, however unintended.

I never imagined you with a Scottish accent when reading your posts in my head doc!


Personally I think demanding an apology for something someone did not mean or intended just to assert moral superiority, deserves a non apology.

Its also worth pointing out that the world is a big place where ones regions majority will be another's regions minority culturally, ethnically and racially.

So unless we all agree that ANY kind of slurs of any kind are unacceptable in a global forum then you will end up with the sort of situation OP has originally outlined. And this will mean stifling communication regardless of familiarity. Which is a bit sad IMO.

It depends.

If someone genuinely or plausibly didn’t know it was a racist term? That’s a teachable moment, and not something to flame them for.

I’m not going to offer any criteria there, because it’s so highly subjective. But if you genuinely didn’t know the term was offensive, then surely there’s no issue in simply apologising, and being a little wiser in your choice of words.

The written word is of course tricky to judge, but context can be gleaned from the overall conversation. But at the end of the day, if OP found cause for offence? It’s not for anyone else to say they shouldn’t have.

I think a good example of unintentional racism was in an episode of Survivor. A White man mentioned something about his Black teammate's du-rag (He was wearing the tribe's buff on his head). Apparently the du-rag fashion has certain racial, cultural, and gang affiliations that even I was unaware of. The two patched it up pretty quickly, but I had no idea that term would offend anyone.

I would point out that referring to a given religion as a privileged or oppressed class as an example in a conversation like this is not generally useful because it is so based on the culture in which one finds itself. Often that culture changes depending on what country, state, or even town one enters.

In the USA for example there are areas where "what church do you go to?" is a common question when you meet someone and there are areas where revealing that one is a regular church-goer might make you somewhat suspect amongst your peers. You just can't generalize about it.

All this to say, I don't think a wider discussion esteem of religion is useful to this discussion and is likely to get the thread closed.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think a good example of unintentional racism was in an episode of Survivor. A White man mentioned something about his Black teammate's du-rag (He was wearing the tribe's buff on his head). Apparently the du-rag fashion has certain racial, cultural, and gang affiliations that even I was unaware of. The two patched it up pretty quickly, but I had no idea that term would offend anyone.

This is a good example.

Issue caused by well meaning ignorance. From the description, both had their Big Boy Pants on, and sorted it out amicably. And the guy who’s words caused the offence is now a wiser man for it. Not exactly “no har, no foul” given the issue, but all sorted to both party’s seemingly mutual satisfaction.

Another example. Around 9 years ago, my career really took off and I ended up as a Mentor, teaching newbies the ropes. The team I was assigned to? Yeah I was the only white bloke in it. That was a first from me, as the towns I’ve lived in babe been very very white. Now, being a child of the 80’s, and a fan of pop culture, I felt the need to really watch my mouth. For instance, “whatchoo talkin’ ‘bout Willis” to me is just a pop culture reference, applicable when a question is asked in unclear terms. To others in my team? It could be seen as racially insensitive or just outright racist. So, I purposefully avoided such things.

The downside was me having to stop and think, and I came across as standoffish and aloof. I got slaughtered in my first Stop, Start, Continue feedback. I took that criticism on the chin, because it was valid. That lead to an open dialogue with all involved, and everything got better. I loosened up, and my team appreciated why I sometimes took a moment to form my response.

Another work example? During lockdown, I was on the phones taking incoming calls. One “lovely” chap had an issue with his bank. And decided the problem was “The Scotch”. Phrases included “but you know what them Scotch are like. Want it all their own way” and ragging on Scots in general. Now. Having lived in England for well over 30 years, my accent has softened quite a bit, but it’s still there. I calmly explained to this person I myself am a Scot, so if we could put the politics to one side and discuss the actual problem, I’ll see if it’s something we can consider. He. Went. Mental. Wouldn’t shut up. Lumped us all in together, banging on about independence and now he’d disband The Scottish Parliament. I hung up, as we’re allowed to do.

That call genuinely knocked me for six, and genuinely upset me. Many of my colleagues get that on a daily basis, either due to gender, race, religion etc (often more than one). For me it was One Call Out Of Thousands I’ve Fielded In 10 Years. And it still gets you.

There’s no justifying it. Ever. There’s no valid apologist position. Racists are awful people, who’s opinions and actions impact people.

If you’ve caused offence? Especially if it was innocently done? Just apologise and try to learn from it. Don’t try to share the blame by claiming “they’re being over sensitive”. Don’t make comparisons to something someone else once said to you or someone you know. Your words. Your foul. Your harm. Just….apologise, learn and move on.

LoL, "ragging" is an anti woman slur. Just a bit ironic we are discussing unintentional slurs and one accidentally pops out .

A number of years back I hired a man from Orlando. He was Black, gay, 6'5" tall, and 300 pounds. Took a good week working with him to get in the right jovial working mood. At the time we'd joke around and insult each other. "Your mamma " and "Your wife" jokes were the fad at the time. Not wanting to leave him out, I threw a few "Your boyfriend" jokes out there, then looked over and saw his boyfriend was in the building with a super confused look on his face. Looking back at my employee, he was on his knees uncontrollably laughing at me for my look of horror. So, yes even the most horrible thing someone says can have a context.

I wasn’t aware of it being such. But, I accept it is.

This is where we might see cultural differences, as I’ve always considered it to be verbal shorthand for tearing the shirt from a fellow’s back.

And to show I practice what I preach (I know, on the internet and all!) I actually looked it up.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ragging

British Dictionary, as suits my geographic dialect. No match to Cuda’s claim. But dictionary definitions aren’t enough. And so? I will keep their definition in mind and use other phrases in future.

Also, I'm not really wrapping my head around anti Scot racism. That's like me hating Texans. I guess prejudice is a generation phenomenon that takes time and effort to stamp out.

It’s a thing. A thing I can’t really explain.

Just the other week, I had my best mate over for a cuppa, and he was bemoaning that his kids, who live in Wales, have to learn Welsh in school.

To you, I and indeed him, it feels like a wasted effort. But, for those Welsh born and bred it’s an indelible part of their culture. A language which like Scots and Irish Gaelic, was once declared illegal.

Now other than the name of a couple of TV shows from when I was wee, and even then I couldn’t tell you what they translate to English, I don’t know a lick of Scots Gaelic. Never have, never will.

But making it a compulsory lesson? I do get that. I just can’t properly explain it. It’s one of those cultural pride things. A way for a nation to ensure its own peculiar identity survives through the years. And given as I said there were concerted efforts to remove it? An act of cultural defiance.

I cannot and will not attempt to justify it. It simply…is. Like something genetically encoded. It’s part and parcel of cultural identity. And so, at least to my mind, doesn’t require justification to anyone not of that culture.

Learning Welsh in Wales is similar (though with deeper significance) to having to learn Square Dancing (the state dance) in Illinois. It's a location based cultural/historical artifact you'll probably never need but whether for preservation or just to widen the horizons of an outsider, there's nothing wrong with kids doing a bit of that sort of learning for its own sake.

Certainly nothing to get bent out shape about.

The relationship between Scots-as-underclass and Scots-as-exporters-of-Empire is fraught enough (see, Engineering, history of) before you even get near our fascinating history within the Union for special pleading.

Slainte (now you know a lick of the Gaidlig, Doc )

 Orlanth wrote:
I would prefer to talk around religion and politics under the current policy.

We can handle this without crossing the line, mostly.

The core issues do need to be discussed as they have passed through political and relgious and into social commentary.

The fact that any one of us can be cancelled at any time in this current age is an issue that has a political root, but is a social day to day that can be experienced by anyone, including Dakka members without having to be part of any religious sect or political group.

This makes the discussion healthy and frankly necessary.

Even now most people don't understand wokeness, and yet it applies to our daily lives.

How to survive cancel culture or baseless accusation 101 is pretty much a necessity now, and an understanding of how society has suddenly got gak and why may be helpful even to someone who has no interest in religion or politics and only wants to play wargames.

Even you are only one contrived misunderstanding away from censure and lasting trouble.

Avoiding cancel culture is easy. Avoid the cesspool social media sites where they lurk. I'm not on facebook, twitter, or anything else not DIRECTLY hobby or work related. I maintain professional decorum in work-related communication of all sorts. And hobby sites are not high-profile enough to attract the attention of the cancel culture vultures, so by and large we're safe to discuss our toy soldiers in peace.

TL/DR: Avoid the sewers and you won't run into sewage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Also, I'm not really wrapping my head around anti Scot racism. That's like me hating Texans. I guess prejudice is a generation phenomenon that takes time and effort to stamp out.

Ah... there are people in America who really really hate Texans, because of the way Texas state politics is operating. Not exactly racial, but certainly political/cultural.

 cuda1179 wrote:
LoL, "ragging" is an anti woman slur. Just a bit ironic we are discussing unintentional slurs and one accidentally pops out .

A number of years back I hired a man from Orlando. He was Black, gay, 6'5" tall, and 300 pounds. Took a good week working with him to get in the right jovial working mood. At the time we'd joke around and insult each other. "Your mamma " and "Your wife" jokes were the fad at the time. Not wanting to leave him out, I threw a few "Your boyfriend" jokes out there, then looked over and saw his boyfriend was in the building with a super confused look on his face. Looking back at my employee, he was on his knees uncontrollably laughing at me for my look of horror. So, yes even the most horrible thing someone says can have a context.

Ragging does not seem to be of sexist origin, and its origins lie beyond "on the rag", where this misconception seems to lie.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
LoL, "ragging" is an anti woman slur. Just a bit ironic we are discussing unintentional slurs and one accidentally pops out .

A number of years back I hired a man from Orlando. He was Black, gay, 6'5" tall, and 300 pounds. Took a good week working with him to get in the right jovial working mood. At the time we'd joke around and insult each other. "Your mamma " and "Your wife" jokes were the fad at the time. Not wanting to leave him out, I threw a few "Your boyfriend" jokes out there, then looked over and saw his boyfriend was in the building with a super confused look on his face. Looking back at my employee, he was on his knees uncontrollably laughing at me for my look of horror. So, yes even the most horrible thing someone says can have a context.

Ragging does not seem to be of sexist origin, and its origins lie beyond "on the rag", where this misconception seems to lie.

There's a few sayings that in recent years have been labelled as whatever-ist because of a perceived origin that wasn't correct.

 Vulcan wrote:


Avoiding cancel culture is easy. Avoid the cesspool social media sites where they lurk. I'm not on facebook, twitter, or anything else not DIRECTLY hobby or work related. I maintain professional decorum in work-related communication of all sorts. And hobby sites are not high-profile enough to attract the attention of the cancel culture vultures, so by and large we're safe to discuss our toy soldiers in peace.

TL/DR: Avoid the sewers and you won't run into sewage.

.

I'm with you there. I have facebook for just a couple reasons. 1. To be notified of high school reunions. 2. I have a lot of niche hobbies that are hard to find interested people when you live in an urban area, and I live in the rural Midwest. Without facebook groups I'd never find a Warhammer game, battlebots competition, rare aquarium fishery, etc. I have about 30 friends, half of whom are only for my reunion needs.

I have no need to post pictures of a mediocre meal from a diner along a freeway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
LoL, "ragging" is an anti woman slur. Just a bit ironic we are discussing unintentional slurs and one accidentally pops out .

A number of years back I hired a man from Orlando. He was Black, gay, 6'5" tall, and 300 pounds. Took a good week working with him to get in the right jovial working mood. At the time we'd joke around and insult each other. "Your mamma " and "Your wife" jokes were the fad at the time. Not wanting to leave him out, I threw a few "Your boyfriend" jokes out there, then looked over and saw his boyfriend was in the building with a super confused look on his face. Looking back at my employee, he was on his knees uncontrollably laughing at me for my look of horror. So, yes even the most horrible thing someone says can have a context.

Ragging does not seem to be of sexist origin, and its origins lie beyond "on the rag", where this misconception seems to lie.

There's a few sayings that in recent years have been labelled as whatever-ist because of a perceived origin that wasn't correct.

Like the terms "Balls-out" or "Balls to the Wall" were deemed toxic masculinity because people thought it had to do with testicles. Balls-out is a reference to centrifugal speed limiters on steam engines. Balls to the Wall refers to throttles on aircraft.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.

If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.

Depends on where you are. If you're in any historically majority Christian nation, it absolutely is. Even if you remove everything else, cultural touchstones, social convention, calendars, holidays etc are all built around Christian cultural motifs and observations. For a timely one, no one schedules meetings on Christmas day, but I had people organise large (compulsory) meetings on Yom Kippur and in the evening of the last day of Ramadan this year.

To the specific question, I think Uncle Tom is pretty much always an insult, but it's not necessarily an ethnic slur. The speaker does matter. I'd be inclined to edit that if it were me moderating a forum, but I would be seeking the perspectives of POC to help if both the speaker and target are of an ethnicity I am not. I don't think I'm an appropriate arbiter of culturally-specific language used between persons of ethnicities I'm not a part of.

 cuda1179 wrote:
LoL, "ragging" is an anti woman slur. Just a bit ironic we are discussing unintentional slurs and one accidentally pops out .

.

Great example. I think this illustrates perfectly what we have been discussing.
In this case I would 100% disagree with this statement. Just because you say so does not mean it is so.
Just because it may mean ant-woman in your sphere of culture will not apply in other areas of the Anglo sphere.




So is the expectation that now I or others who use the term commonly, must curtail my speech and not use a perfectly valid term in case I offend someone? (Even though the word is absolutely not offensive)
We kind of fall back into the trap of subjective feelings trump reality, legality or intention and this has been where we have been at for the last 10 or so years and its down right absurd..



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.

If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.

Depends on where you are. If you're in any historically majority Christian nation, it absolutely is. Even if you remove everything else, cultural touchstones, social convention, calendars, holidays etc are all built around Christian cultural motifs and observations. For a timely one, no one schedules meetings on Christmas day, but I had people organise large (compulsory) meetings on Yom Kippur and in the evening of the last day of Ramadan this year.

But would this situation have not been reversed if you worked in a country which majority observe Ramadan and not Christmas ?

 Argive wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.

If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.

Depends on where you are. If you're in any historically majority Christian nation, it absolutely is. Even if you remove everything else, cultural touchstones, social convention, calendars, holidays etc are all built around Christian cultural motifs and observations. For a timely one, no one schedules meetings on Christmas day, but I had people organise large (compulsory) meetings on Yom Kippur and in the evening of the last day of Ramadan this year.

But would this situation have not been reversed if you worked in a country which majority observe Ramadan and not Christmas ?

Well, none of my Israeli, Turkish, or Iraqi colleagues have ever done it, and we have met regularly online for years, so I think so, but I do specifically preface my response with the bolded bit.

nfe wrote:

 Argive wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.

If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.

Depends on where you are. If you're in any historically majority Christian nation, it absolutely is. Even if you remove everything else, cultural touchstones, social convention, calendars, holidays etc are all built around Christian cultural motifs and observations. For a timely one, no one schedules meetings on Christmas day, but I had people organise large (compulsory) meetings on Yom Kippur and in the evening of the last day of Ramadan this year.

But would this situation have not been reversed if you worked in a country which majority observe Ramadan and not Christmas ?

Well, none of my Israeli, Turkish, or Iraqi colleagues have ever done it, and we have met regularly online for years, so I think so, but I do specifically preface my response with the bolded bit.

My point was if you change the "Christian" bit to any other religion/culture you would get the same result.. For example, if im in a country that is 99% catholic/christian all national holidays will revolve around that.
Just like if you were in a 99% Muslim country your holidays will revolve around that and not the 1%. I don't really see an issue. It is what it is and that's how countries operate and have always been operating. Every country will base its doings on what the majority of people do or have been doing