That is the facade of PC, and back in the 90's it was what was considered PC. It was the show you put on to imply you were "right thinking" on various topics, which again leads us down the path to the goal of PC, not the show of PC, the goal being avoiding discussion on topics you disagree with, not engaging in said discussion.
Today, the definition of what is offensive has been expanded so greatly that it exposes the true reason behind PC, which is Idea control, not Language control.
When every phrase, term or saying that explains a position you don't like is considered offensive, then again, the true reason behind the whole PC/SJW/Micro-agression thing becomes clear.
That doesnt make sense though. There is no limit to what offends someone. You cant tell someone something doesnt offend them. Youre not them.
Being offended is a fault. It is something to be owned and either accepted or overcome.
Who gave you this rule and how does it foster communcation?
That is the facade of PC, and back in the 90's it was what was considered PC. It was the show you put on to imply you were "right thinking" on various topics, which again leads us down the path to the goal of PC, not the show of PC, the goal being avoiding discussion on topics you disagree with, not engaging in said discussion.
Today, the definition of what is offensive has been expanded so greatly that it exposes the true reason behind PC, which is Idea control, not Language control.
When every phrase, term or saying that explains a position you don't like is considered offensive, then again, the true reason behind the whole PC/SJW/Micro-agression thing becomes clear.
That doesnt make sense though. There is no limit to what offends someone. You cant tell someone something doesnt offend them. Youre not them.
Being offended is a fault. It is something to be owned and either accepted or overcome.
Who gave you this rule and how does it foster communcation?
If you are offended by words then you are unable to communicate rationally with them.
Thats nonsensical. No one is offended by all words.
Yes and no
dilloduck and
Asclepias
Because everyone has our own history, issues and perceptions,
Each of us is GOING to run into words that other people use that we cannot hear if they keep using that.
Some people can't handle saying Creation instead of Universe.
Or the Nword instead of African American.
Or calling the other person a Whiny Bitch instead of just sticking to the content.
Some of this is the language, some is the spirit, and intent.
Both sides are going to run into problem areas, because we are all in process
of resolving sensitive issues that are personal to us. We have our own language
and experience/direction and "comfort zone" and so does the other person.
To try to meet halfway takes stretching out of the regular zone and limits
both sides are used to. it's going to open both sides up to vulnerable areas where we react emotionally.
And YES words and associations with groups TRIGGER these memories and emotions to be expressed.
Unfortunately we are not robots. We cannot separate our logistical "yes/no" logic in one corner,
and our personal emotions about what we are discussing, in another corner, nice and neat,
while discussing this. The emotions will come up while we are talking and even the WORDS can trigger these reactions. (It's like trying to counsel a divorcing couple to stick to legal issues, when their marriage kids and families emotions are involved, of course, the
tears and anger and emotions are going to come up during the process. We are only human.)
The group that does the best job I've found for moderating discussion on
sensitive issues of racial conflicts and experiences is the Center for the Healing of Racism.
If you look at their guidelines for how to facilitate the discussion so that emotions can be
vented WITHOUT assessing or attacking any group or person as "representing" that whole idea,
that is the main thing they help people to avoid, and only speak from their experience and how they felt.
* NOT trying to make statements for or about "all other people or groups" which is where it incites reactions.*
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
I guess,
Asclepias the key is to stick to INDIVIDUAL expression about one's OWN experiences and feelings, and the problem is trying to make COLLECTIVE statements that represent people outside yourself. The minute people start projecting collectively, that's when other people jump up and say "whoa that doesn't apply to me."
Individuals who stick to expressing and representing their feelings and take responsibility individually tend not to get attacked or put others on the defensive.
Collective groups who only represent what their own members agreed to support among themselves tend to come across okay.
But it's when individuals in a group get together and try to dictate to others or the collective public "outside their own" agreed group, that's when it triggers other people who didn't agree to that way of stating or doing it, feel threatened, and then go on a counter-offensive.
This is human nature to organize in groups with likeminded agenda.
And the WORDS we use do segregate us into cliques, where we start reacting since we as humans associate memories, emotions, and events with those words in those contexts.
we are human beings, and we are going to make emotional associations with words,
right or wrong, positive or negative, our brains and neural networks are designed to do this.
Instead of fighting it, or blaming people for their associations and reactions,
why not work with them and try to find common terms that we can both agree to use.
