I’m 12 and so is my friend. All I know is that his brother way 15 and that he died of food poisoning last month. I had heard about it from other friends but today while we were playing truth or dare over text I asked “what was the worst day of your life” and he replied “the day my brother died.” ...
@ArthurHv : FWIW, 'fond' means bottom, but in this case, it's more a word for 'fondement' (means 'base'). 'fond' is an extract, concentrated juice (ref. in French here and translated here)
@Tinkeringbell Correction: 12-yo shouldn't acknowledge that they're 12 on SE. There's no actual moral/ethical reasoning that they shouldn't be here, imo. Only a legal one to protect the company - and on the internet, no one knows you're a dog.
@Sarov No, the rule is that 12 year olds shouldn't be on SE, it's indeed a legal thing. That they still can be here and escape moderation by lying about their age is a different thing ;-)
@Tinkeringbell Absent context, 'should' implies moral or ethical, not legal. I can't think of any legitimate reasoning that they shouldn't, ethically or morally, be here. Can you?
I also had someone make me an offer for a similar thing, through the internet... they just got back to me and said it would cost around 7k, but .... I'm not sure if I'll get the same quality from them. I just can't be, they don't have a showroom.
Do you enjoy gambling and are low on money? 7k? Are you rich? 12k? Is quality really important to you? 12k. Is it okay if it's not great but serviceable? 7k.
The 7k would definitely fit the budget better than the 12k, but I hate gambling and since I plan on living there for a long time, I really do want a quality one XD
Well, for example: My mom advised against a sink with very straight corners. A round one, or a square one with rounded corners, is just easier to clean!
There's also, like, a sliding scale, imo. Like, there's a difference between a joke that uses 'gay' as an insult and a joke that... I dunno, insinuates that gay men wear pink? (Okay actually that might be a bad example given Nazi Germany, but...)
@ArthurHv Each person has their own comfort level...
On one hand I'd rather not have folks tiptoe around eggshells
on the other, if folks say hurtful stuff... Having an environment where you can sound that off, and be taken seriously, and have people mindful of it is good.
@JourneymanGeek Yeah, that's the thing. I don't want an environment where I have to excessively censor myself to avoid hurting other people's feelings. But I also don't want an environment where people can't speak up when their feelings are hurt. And I don't see why these desires would have to be mutually exclusive.
@Sarov I once heard an interesting podcast... something about rebels, revolutions... and how much people accept them. I guess most of the principles apply here too: It depends on what you're burning and cultural norms whether it's socially acceptable now, 20 and 200 years in the future.
Rather than telling people "Don't say anything that could be hurtful", tell people: "Don't assume ill intent" "Don't be afraid to speak up when your feelings are hurt" "Listen and respect when someone points out their hurt feelings."
@JourneymanGeek Yes, so you're basically saying that given your cultural context and the time you're living in, right now you're not too bothered by it :P
Who knows what people will think 200 years from now ;)
Maybe this was the beginning of the end, maybe it was just something silly, maybe ...
@Sarov You can't assume good intents when the 1000th neonazi in a row raise questions about ww2. Sometimes, people are playing fool and innocent, but aren't. Sometimes, it's innocent, but it's unfortunately not the first time you hear someone making a bad joke.
@JourneymanGeek Honestly, yeah, I can't say I really condone any book burning. Every single book ever written is going to be considered to contain 'unenlightened' content if you examine it far enough in the future. ...As much as I hate the Categorical Imperative, I think it applies here.
@ArthurHv "Don't assume ill intent as your first reaction"* I should have said.
Yea and there is a thin line between moderation and censorship. Many confuse which is which. I like living in moderated environments. But of course I'm all for people being able to speak openly. There are just very precise things I don't consider acceptable at least not from strangers.
@ArthurHv Everyone moderates and censors their environments these days. Parents do it for their kids by picking ways to raise them, schools to send them too, playdates... As you get older you do it yourself by picking people you do interact with more often than others, allowing some to become friends and others to just remain strangers.
@Sarov Not so sure about this one. If Charlie can be expected to have a totally different motive or 'subtext' than Bob, it can be that the 'same thing' from one person is an innocent joke, while from the other it's an attempt at gaslighting, for example.
@Tinkeringbell Yes but I mean in an overall context. If Act A is okay from Bob because of B but not from Charlie because of C, then you should not have a rule disallowing A. But you might have a rule disallowing C.
@Tinkeringbell I don't really know. It's a sleepy slope. The problem is that I draw a line somewhere but everyone have a different ones. I think if it's just for the matter of giggles that's not worth belittling somoene's identity. So, in some settings, in some contexts, I find moderating them completely acceptable
@Sarov Ah, sure. That makes sense, though then Charlie can argue that Bob does get to do A and he not... but that's a matter of 'driver's licenses' I guess.
@Sarov I would think that someone I've known for say... the last 20 years in person would have different okness levels than say... Tink - who I've known for less than 5 and only online :D
@ArthurHv I mean, there are 'gay' jokes out there that don't really belittle someone's identity.... For example, I once had a gay coworker say that 'I wasn't part of the target audience' (I don't know what the question was or what brought it up, but it became a running gag as he was also involved in marketing XD). It's a joke about him being gay, but it does in no way belittle his identity (at least, not to me!). I like that kind of humor.
But it's your choice, and I'm probably not going to be able to argue you into thinking otherwise (not trying to either, though I'm curious about your thoughts on the matter above and how they fit into your reasoning)
Yeah but there are levels of subjective. "I didn't kill him! I just stabbed him! Blood loss is what killed him!" Yeah okay but social rule still says you go to jail.
@Tinkeringbell Oh ok then I'm doing gay jokes :D But I was more like aiming at people painting us as the cliché. Admittedly it's something very 1990 to do tho
Going back to the 'is it okay to make racist-ish jokes about your own race' (or 'group' or whatever), thing... If we assume that it is okay... how does that relate to cultural appropriation?
@ArthurHv Yeah, okay. I can see how some cliché's aren't funny, especially not when done by 'others' or 'outsiders'.
@Sarov I find cultural appropriation a hard thing to debate about... because the culture I have now didn't come to the point it has without appropriation.
Even my own views on this are a little muddied. I do think that it's (at least more) okay for a member of X to make X-ist jokes. But I also think a lot of 'cultural appropriation complaints are ridiculous. But if you extend that, and 'appropriate' the culture to the point where you identify it (but also to the point that others wouldn't identify you as it), then is it likewise okay or not to make X-ist jokes?
We have christmas trees from some early Germanic cultures, religious holidays off because of Christianity, and we eat pizza :P
@Sarov Ah yes, are you Christian enough if you don't go to church.... Some people will say you are, others will be convinced you'll burn in hell. Some will say it's okay no matter what church you go to, for others it'll have to be a specific denomination too....
In short, if you ever want to create in-fighting in a group, throw them a question like that :P
@Sarov The only extent to which it is more ok to me to make X-ist joke being X, is that you are visibly and publicly X making it obvious you are not first degree. The sad part is some gay people are openly and first degree homophobic.
They create differences like: oh I can't go out with him he is so effeminate (disgusted face)
Yea. And frankly I would make no difference. I would straight tell them that's an offensive behavior. It doesn't matter you are gay or not. This is my point here
I don't really know there are other examples. It's a fashionable thing to say in france I'm not from "le milieu" which is how we refer to gay circles with gay exclusive events/places etc. and form a community
It's another way of marking your difference and distancing yourself from the idea you are being gay. It's also better seen to say you are bi or pan and not completely gay
I guess it's mostly just my brain. I would say someone is 'phobic' if there's a real fear or hatred for a particular group of people that surfaces (quite forcefully) at every opportunity. This example just strikes me more as the kind of one-off, conversational remark you might make about potential dating partners, more a dislike than a true hatred.
@ArthurHv Ah, yeah... that's sort-of the danger of labels I guess. Once they come with certain stereotypes and expectations, some people may not want them anymore. :/
And instead of trying to change the stereotypes that go with the label, they just try to distance themselves as far from it as possible
Are there actual numbers on that? I haven't heard that one before... It makes sense, in a 'movie' kind of way (it's always how these things go in the movies, don't they? Someone uses violence and it later turns out the victim is just a reflection of their own inner demons...)
@ArthurHv Hmm, okay, though I don't see numbers there for violence... the participants were asked how comfortable and anxious they were around gay men... I can speak from experience that if you are attracted to someone, things do get a bit awkward and uncomfortable, and no one needs to measure my penis circumference for that XD
@Tinkeringbell It's a shitty source but I can't manage to find anything more proved. I just have people making theories etc. it sounds very cloudy when I take a closer look indeed.
So I take back what I said but my belief is that you could indistinctly find violent people among gay, hetero or bi man toward any part of the community.
Depends on the specific context and degree, I guess. Like, I have a friend who's stated that she'd never date a black man because she's not attracted to them. I don't see the problem with that.
If there is such a thing as a 'soul', we are incapable of viewing it, and thus incapable of being disgusted by it. And thus there's no distinction between being disgusted by Alice or by a viewable aspect of Alice.
I think differently. I think that when it comes to being e.g. effeminate or romantically interested it's exactly that abstract idea that counts. In reality the guy is a bag of proteins like anyone else
When I talk about Alice, I talk about the phenomena of specific particles that behave in Alice-like fashion that my brain has conceptualized into an aggregate 'Alice', based on all of the aspects of Alice that I have experienced.
I thus don't see a meaningful distinction between that conceptual aggregate 'Alice' and specific aspects of it,
(Unless maybe you make the distinction that being 'disgusted by Alice' means you are disgusted by every last single aspect of Alice, in which case... dayum.)
That is basically my point - Alice is the aggregate root. If you're disgusted by Alice's ___ then you're disgusted by Alice, because Alice is only made up of sub-aggregates; she doesn't have anything to her that isn't a sub-aggregate that you could be disgusted by.
And any distinction between those sub-aggregates would be arbitrary,
