oh boo hoo? you mean like boo hoo I'm offended this person isn't in a constantly pissed off state on my behalf? Other racists exist, and I'm not apologizing on their behalf, so spreading hate and misery is totally okay, after all, I'm only white, so it doesn't count! It's totally okay to judge people because of how other people have treated you, let's just spread hate and misery, because that's totally better, let's just cling to every thing that makes life harder, and what's more, let's measure all of these things and use them to gauge who has the RIGHT to be unhappy with how they were born!
oh, I was born a way, so they can't help bu resent me that sounds very reasonable I should count my lucky stars, I suppose, I was born white, no more problems for me. hooray. I look at this, and all I see is depression. This is a cycle of depression, on a massive scale, focusing, obsessing, lionizing misery. Justifying your actions that only make things worse. I'm never going to be convinced to be ashamed of the fact that I have friends of different races and don't care about that race. I am me, if people want to stick me with the sins of other people and resent me for it, that's their problem. It doesn't affect us? My sister was denied a job because on the grounds that she wouldn't give first nations special treatment. I was told I wouldn't be considered for the job I applied for at the Toys R Us baby department, because they only accept women. Do other cultures have their own problems with this? Of course. Are their problems worse? There's a good chance. Does that justify judging a person based on the colour of their skin? I certainly hope not. I'd prefer it if people just... didn't make judgements based on superficial things. Obviously that won't happen, but justifying hatefulness is't going to make it any better
so it's not oppressive to be judged for your skin colour because other people of the same skin colour did bad things? I'm sorry, but I'm not of the belief that I am responsible for the crimes of people who were born or originate from the same geographic climate as me I wouldn't use the word, outside of using it as an example, but I certainly don't bat an eye when, say @Ars Wumbo uses it on occasion. Words don't exist in a vacuum, and that's why context is important. I am not an advocate of using words as symbols of things, it has a way of reducing huge concepts into easy sound bites. I think oppression is something that should be covered extensively in schools, in history classes... I don't think clinging to a word is healthy. I don't like thinking of groups as collectives based on similarities, either, I find it dehumanizing. It's out and out wrong, as far as I'm concerned, to say white people can't experience oppression in this day and age, when a key argument of this is "you can't do/say/feel x because you're white" it's not as bad as to be even comparable to the horrible things of the past, and certainly there are others that experience far worse things than the average white person but... so what? Are we going to start organizing people by how much misery they have versus their potential misery? It's not a contest, denying small problems because bigger ones exist is a horrible thing to do We've got all of these articles and such saying what white people, or men, or whatever are a certain way because of certain things. I have a very simple test for this. If you took these things, and said it about a minority, would it be considered a HORRIBLY racist or sexist thing? Then it's STILL horrible to say, no matter what. You can defend it by saying "it's not sexism, it's the truth" or whatever, but the fact is it's just justification for negative actions. I'm in favour of teaching the accurate history, and supporting the people who were wronged. I'm never going to be okay with justifying treating someone differently based on things they can't control. I'm also in favour of progress, building things. I'd rather talk about how things can be improved than make a list of things that can't be said or done
your skin colour doesn't determine whether you're right or wrong it determines how your skin reacts to sunlight anyways, as much as it might seem morally right for a group to 'own' a word, it's not really how things work out. Every word is just... a word. You can give or take meaning, but it's a concept, not property. Sorry for bringing up this old point but gay used to mean happy, then sexually promiscuous people, then sexually promiscuous men, then homosexuals, and now it's leaning towards a generic term for "bad" thing change, and nobody can really fight the waves of change. People still hold on to the negative connotation of the word ******, but a lot of youth have adapted it as a general term for a good friend, or someone you agree with. That's the wya the wind is blowing now, and it will probably blow another a few years down the line. Nobody has control of it, it's a collective thing
I'll counter this with "you don't need to be a chef to criticize a bad meal" the idea that a person being born with a certain colour of skin makes them irrelevant is kinda ridiculous coming from groups that are arguing their points BECAUSE of that exact same thing. I am perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion that if offensive words were appropriated and made positive, it would overall make a lot of people happier. You're not really leaving a word in the past if you insist that it retain the exact same offensive meaning it did in the past. That's not letting go, that's the opposite. It's preserving a status quo of offensiveness. it used to say sensitive instead of insensitive, too, overall I should have spent more than the second I did on it :P
well to help give more context about the australia thing, it seems to basically be a casual insult used by friends, like it's not used in a specifically derogatory way (like this person tends to call his (male) friends "ya ****" or something See, I don't think freedom of speech means you're free from criticism, but the context should be able to tell you what the intent was. If he was aggressively using the word to describe women, for example, that's a pretty big dick move, but since he's Australian he uses the word in a very different way additionally, there was no reference made to it being about the internet, but it being sensitive to ALL cultures, and again, this just seems incredibly impractical. It also strikes me as good, surely understanding that another culture finds a word less insulting is PART of being culturally sensitive? But even then... I'm not sure I agree with the notion that apologizing and stopping is an inherently good thing. Smacks too much of either cultural homogenization, censorship, or worse (what are the implications of justifying "you aren't allowed to speak a certain way"?)
This is an argument that got thrown at me today, and I wanted to get some opinions on it, because it seems fundamentally flawed To give it short, a person was arguing to a friend of mine that he's incredibly sexist and the like because he uses the word "****" (the c word if this gets censored) the rub is... he's Australian. Where he lives the word a mild at best insult. But this person argued to me that he shouldn't be talking to people on the internet unless he knows enough about them to be culturally sensitive I don't really get it, isn't that basically impossible on the internet? What's more, this person came to him because they liked his youtube videos and found his twitter... is it now his responsibility to make sure he knows he won't offend the thousand or so people who watch his stuff? like I get the core motive, insulting people isn't really a good thing, but isn't this also kinda washing away a person's cultural identity just to make it fit the standards of some place else? And also a little bit of censorship?
ones with cool designs, scenarios, or a big notable moment or involving a character I enjoy
I used to feel left was more right, but as I got older I realized that the time I did spend on video games I didn't want to spend my time doing the same thing over and over, additionally facing enemies underpowered generally means intentionally missing some of the content in a game, which I really don't like I'd rather a game just have a good difficulty curve, but that's just me, or at least bosses that aren't so reliant on brute force that simply being a certain level means the battle is either really easy or tedious Also in RPGs a lot of the time if you play in a way where you can barely beat most bosses, there'll be a huge difficulty spike around the end that makes the game practically impossible. Like the FF4 DS remake. Went through that having really satisfying tense battles until it reached a certain point where I simply couldn't make progress because I lacked the abilities and items to actually deal with the enemies
I can't wait for the rendition of the Let it Go scene with no music, just sound effects
anybody else off put by how... oldschool the Goblins look?
woah
out of how many
can't wait for the KH3D remake
Let's have a talk about Bob L'eponge, too
uh maybe I'm doing it wrong but if you can rationalize why you don't like something doesn't that make it not irrational?
before anybody considers buying this, you should consult this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_Vita_games make sure what you want is actually compatible, especially since you can't really rely on a company releasing a patch for something like the Vita
hi I'm Daisy
because they're very obtuse
they're really more like a rectangle if anything...
