mererdog

The owner wants it that way.

Most of the time, I don't believe it is really well meant, nor that it is really about protecting anyone. If it were about protecting people, basic "No harm? No foul" rules would apply. Instead, you just end up with a list of words that can never be said, regardless of context or impact. That tells me it is really about prejudice against people who are seen as prejudiced, and a desire to punish them. Brother Kaman used the word "crippled." I can use that as proof that he is prejudiced against the differently abled, and use that to justify treating him badly. I can impugn his character, his upbringing, his family, or even his entire culture, all while sitting on a throne built out of assumed moral superiority. Its intoxicating stuff...

So were my kidney stones. That doesnt make them worth having, nor does it mean I am a better person for having gone through the experience. My uncle earned an MBA some thirty years ago, but he has never used it. He plays piano professionally, and currently tours the world with a cruise-line act. He poured a ton of money and effort into his degree, because he had been taught that he needed it- that he would end up a failure without it. In hindsight, he wishes he had spent his resources elsewhere. According to him, the only useful things he learned were how to do his own accounting... and that he hates accounting enough to pay someone else to do it for him.

On the other hand, we know there are people who think that atheists "believe in nothing," cannot be spiritual people, and are all strict materialists. Taking the time to hammer out the details can help prevent that sort of confusion and the prejudicial treatment it spawns.

Yeah, sure. But there's a point where people are just upsetting themselves over stuff that has no real impact on their life. It is one thing to care, and another to obsess, you know?

I don't know about that. People are good at compartmentalizing. It seems like it would be easy to take the ideas in Star Wars seriously without actually taking Star Wars seriously. I've known Christians who think most of the stuff in the Bible is silly...

I had a fairly uncomfortable conversation with a guy at GenCon a couple years back. He was absolutely irate about the new movies ignoring the old books. A guy from the 501st was using the ATM behind him, and rolled his eyes at me in sympathy while leaving. When the grown man in the stormtrooper uniform thinks you take Star Wars too seriously...

Are you good with visual arts? You know when people say to close your eyes and visualize something? I can't do that.

I ain't no Kitos. My name is just a boring, old complex, homophonic pun. Interesting note: My phone auto corrected "homophonic" to "homophobic." Glad I caught that.

I have a basic complaint. I do not want to participate in topics in the Debate Area, but many topics I started have been moved there. It is my opinion that debate is an integral part of any serious discussion, but that discussion where debate is the sole purpose is boring.

Hi. I suspected you were Dr.SillyRuca, but I wasn't sure. I always liked that name. The emotional contrast of the Dr. and the Silly was intriguing. Anyway, nice to see you...

I think in words. You?

If you look more closely, you may find that the word is almost exclusively used as a pejorative against what is perceived as false compassion. The literal implication of the term is, after all, that the motive is pilitucal rather than compassionate. Looked at from another angle, to say you are politically incorrect is not to say you are mean, but just that you are not fake-nice.

To my understanding.... A philosophy is an organized system of ideas. It exists as both a way to understand the world and a way to express an understanding. A practice is a set of ritualized actions. These actions can be considered an obligation to be fulfilled, a way to influence the outside world, and/or a way to effect internal change. A religion is an organized system of belief and practice. A church is a religious institution (usually Christian in nature), or a building used by one.

I know. I rarely stick to Standard English. I am trying to put together a punctuational system that fits modern conversational rhythms. I prefer being oblique to being direct. I use slang that stopped being cool when I was in elementary school. I make bad jokes without warning anyone. I think run on sentences are fun and hyphenation is mosty decorative. I put prepositions where ever they seem useful and I occassionally use ellipses like a four year-old uses finger paint. And my spell chek is turned off. I enjoy the process, though. Which is the whole point, no? Because when I stop enjoying it, I'll stop doing it.

You may. That's a misunderstanding on your end. I see where it comes from, though. I am a skeptic. I hold doubt to be an almost sacred thing. I encourage it in myself and in others. I know it can make it seem as if I lack certainty, but that isn't the case. I am able to be both completely convinced that something is true and also full of doubts about it. Not in terms of waffling, but in terms of being of two minds simultaneously. The heart and mind not being in sync, you dig? I think that certainty is an emotional state, rather than an intellectual position, if that makes sense to you. As for being practical, my pacifism is based on simple guilt-aversion. It is entirely practical, it just involves unusual prioritization. I know the effect that being violent has on my ability to be happy over the long term, and I plan accordingly. Make sense?

Accidental double-post.

I usually want to be reasonable, and I often fail miserably. I suspect that is at the core of cuchulain's initial question about the apparent hypocrisy in insisting that others be politically correct while failing to be politically correct, one's self. It is easy to take the high road when you have nothing to lose. It is hard to be a pacifist when you are being punched in the gut. The more emotionally involved in an issue we are, the more mental effort it takes to maintain good critical thinking. Strong emotions provoke simplistic thinking, encouraging us to jump to conclusions and embrace stereotypes. When disagreeing about an issue I am passionate about, it is a struggle to refrain from making negative assumptions about the other guy. It is easy to fall into the trap of slapping a negative label on people in order to justify disrespecting them. It can even be fun, and a bonding experience between like-minded people. I believe we are all more than the sum of our bad habits, however, and I don't want to sell someone short. Not so much because I want to be good, as because I hate to leave money on the table. We all have so much potential, and it is such a shame to waste it just because I can't get along with someone...

Not really. Trademark concerns asside, noone owns a word. As such, noone has exclusive right to dictate use of a word. The Pope does not get to define "Catholic" for anyone who does not willingly accept his authority on the subject. He doesn't get to define it for the Baptists, the atheists, or even all the Catholics. Likewise, I don't get to define atheism for you, and you don't have final say on who is and is not a Jew. We each get to adopt the usages that make sense to us. And while we will undoubtedly disagree on some terms, none of us will really be wrong. This is central to Freedom of Speech, which is central to Freedom of Religion. You don't have to accept me as a "real minister," any more than I have to accept the Pope as "infallible." We are entitled to our own opinions. This does mean, of course, that our opinions will be welcomed. Freedom is messy stuff and bound to cause more than a little discomfort. Its totally worth it, though.

Personally, I consider ethical lines to exist independently of opinion. So, if I disagree with someone about where the lines is, I believe that one of us is wrong, and that person would be better off correcting their incorrect opinion. My immediate emotional reaction is almost always to assume the other person is the one who is wrong, but I am usually intellectually honest enough to at least consider the possibility that it is me. As such, on the ethical side, your words there roughly translate, to me, as "Remember that people are often wrong, and that you are a person." That is always good advice. When it comes to the definitions of words, on the other hand, opinions are all that matter, and noone's opinion on the matter matters more than another's. So in terms of definitions, your words roughly translate to "Remember that we do not all share the same biases." Also always good advice.

Also, when we become focused on following rules, we tend to lose sight of the reasoning behind the rules. When that happens, following the rules often becomes counter-productive. This is even more true when it comes to enforcing rules. And perhaps even more true when it comes to judging others based on whether they follow the rules. I have to say, though, that I don't like the phrase "self important." No individual's importance can be overstated, as it is damn near infinite. The problem lies not in having too great a sense of self-worth, but in not having enough of a sense of the worth of others. This is not a huge deal, though. Just something of a pet peeve...

Well, sure. My argument is really a semantic one. I am basically just drawing a line regarding what does and does not qualify as "political correctness". Have you ever considered the concept of a "useful pejorative"? My thinking is that labeling something as politically correct is a way to highlight a fairly thin, but immensely important, ethical line. I am not saying that it is wrong to avoid saying certain things. I am saying that specific motives for that avoidance are harmful. It is good to be compassionate, or even just diplomatic. I consider the term "political correctness to apply exclusively to where we are ostensibly motivated that way, but where the broader social context shows more sinister (for lack of a better word) motives at play.

Right. The difference between being motivated by compassion and being motivated by political correctness. The difference between not wanting to hurt people and not wanting to look bad. The difference between disagreeing with someone's action and demonizing them.

Ironically enough, the Bug Reporting area doesn't seem to allow for new topics. Might just be my weird permissions....

Accidental double-post.