user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
This ballot was inspired by the discussion on ballot number 115182.
Voted : No
I don't think a group has to be victimized in order to feel a sense of unity,shared values and culture can create a sense of kinship among a group of people
As far as changing classification for races or ethnic groups well that happens because cultures change overtime and people no longer feel that name best represents them.Calling an Asian an Oriental is like calling a Brit an Anglo or a Jew a Semite.Those words are so old them seem almost ridiculous.
Also how is standing up for something you believe in turning yourself into a victim.Wouldn't true victimization be passively agreeing with the majority race has labeled you even when you feel that label is wrong or offends you?
well speaking as an oriental eskimo midget, I think you should blame those who made those names offensive by using them in a derogative manner rather than those people who are offended by them.
by LCD on Sun May 27, 07 6:17pm
[+]
Voted : No
When you can demonstrate to me that you are a member of a minority group that actively and currently experiences discrimination, I will consider this ballot question to be valid. As it stands, it is one of those majority group opinions on how those "pesky little minorities" should act. Quite frankly, I am sick of it. Its always amazing to me how people who are not members of the minority group being referenced want to tell those who are part of that group how to act.
Corrupt in his 2 posts is absolutely correct. I'll add that your last paragraph betrays a certain amount of stereotyping as well.
Voted : No
I think your right. people can judge for themselves what is or isnt offensive.
How about those "small minded pricks who have nothing better to do than tell people what they can or cannot say" Is that offensive? I damned well hope so. Do they feel a sense of unity? of course they do. bigots always stand together until they win. then watch them fracture.
and yes though im loath to agree with corrupt, things do change. Midgets grow taller and oriental people all live in america. ofc eskimos still live in igloos.... dont they?
^Preposterous nonsense. Since when have you had to have experienced something personally to objectively discuss the ramifications?
Thats like saying I cant say Antartica is cold until I've been there. Personal experience may help but, as sentient beings, we have the cerebral wattage to picture trains of thought and lines of consequence, as well as put ourselves in others shoes.
Not to mention the fact that most of us HAVE experienced being part of a "minority" at one point or another, if not necessarily in regards to ethnicity, and as such can translate our personal experience into an empathetic evaluation of a similar situation.
That comment was intended for Tincan.
Voted : Yes
As for your ballot question, several scientific studies have shown the powerful effect membership of a group can have on our judgement,a sort of "mob" mentality, so I would say yes, theres certainly some truth in what you say.
there is a certain amount of truth in it. but i dont feel its strictly necessary KATG.
^ Yeah sorry, you're right. I wasnt exactly answering the question.
Is it *necessary*? I would say probably not.
It seems to me we're talking apples and oranges here (Oh, I'm sorry - citrus fruit of the orange variety). Is the geography of this discussion limited to the US, the UK, Canada, and other white-majoritied countries, or are we going worldwide with this? Everyone's a minority in one form or another, depending on where you are. People like midgets, dwarfs, and albinos, however, are a minority in every society, no matter where they go. Their minority status is permanent. But most other "minorities" can jump on a plane or a boat and be part of a majority if they want to, or if they can. What's my point? I don't know. I find myself rambling right now.
Mixed groups here. "Eskimo" is a noun describing an existing tribe of Alaska Native Americans; "Oriental" is a non-offensive descriptive term applying to a racial group. I have heard no one complain about these names. "Midget" on the other hand is a pejorative term for a small term, and is offensive to all but bigots.
With regard to your separate point about whether feeling victimized allows some people to find common ground and what direction they should take gain acceptance, well victimization does create a certain solidarity -- just like wounded vets, or rape victims, etc. The idea that these groups should take some direction toward gaining acceptance is to presume that they desire such acceptance. My personal experience as a Native American is that we do not desire acceptance by the larger culture, we want primarily to be left alone. I think this is true of most victims.
And unless/until you have been an actual victim, I would refrain from presuming to speak for them.
Voted : Yes
It's also helpful to feel vitimized to explain away the failures of specific groups.
margaret123 how do you know that Oriental is a non offensive term for a racial group?I don't know if your Asian or not but even if you are you can't speak for everyone so how can you categorially say it is non-offensive?
Well, that goes back to the old debate about the relative importance of intent of offender versus right of offendee.
I personally believe its the intent thats important. Its the intent behinds ones actions that determines its morality, not the outcome which is often stochastic in nature. As shown here, the word oriental offends some people and not others. The only thing that can be definitively controlled for is the intent of the person saying the word.
Conbsidering that you could find someone who would be offended by almost ANY word, allowing the offendees to dictate the usage of the offending word would ultimately limit the English language to an unnaceptable degree, with people unable to use the correct words to express themselves due to a fear of causing offence.
Clearly, a balance of some sort needs to be struck between the rights of the two parties. However, as mentioned, the hyper-sensitive attitudes and soft skins of various individuals cannot be allowed undue prominance. Hence, (and as I suspect we also do on some scale anyway, if not consciously) the "offence2 of a word should and probably can only be judged by taking an average of reactions to the words, i.e. some words nearly everyone will find offensive.
and as such a rational, observant human being will not use them. Its basically a case of trial and error, with the wisest of us learning from the errors of others to prevent our own.
That comment was intended (at least partly) for Corrupt, by the way.
Corrupt: I am Native American. I am not offended by someone referring to me as what I am. "Oriental" is quite the same. It's like "Caucasion" or "European," or ... well, we are all something, and so long as it is not used pejoratively, it is fine.
|
|
