• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are some words inherently offensive or is context important?

Are some words inherently offensive?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 30.8%

  • No

    Votes: 18 69.2%
  • Total voters
    26
jallman said:
Some people will go out of their way to be offended by anything and everything they can, though. Why is the onus on society to protect their overly tender sensibilities?
Click to expand...

And some people don't go out of their way to be offended by anything and everything. Some people are genuinely offended with good cause. Just thought I'd show the other side.

Anyway, what's so great about being insensitive?
 
Redress said:
Good example. I would add that the problem is, I believe, a historical more than current problem. We have a language that has evolved over thousands of years. You and I both agree that the language treats women differently than men(best way I can think of to phrase it), I think it is more a legacy problem than a problem with modern culture.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the legacy. Seems to be one that lingers a little in some circles, still, I've noticed. Yes, we are in agreement about the way language treats women differently to men, for sure.

I find this area particularly interesting. Amusing, sometimes, too. The odd time, annoying as well.
 
Gwendoline said:
I agree with you about the legacy. Seems to be one that lingers a little in some circles, still, I've noticed. Yes, we are in agreement about the way language treats women differently to men, for sure.

I find this area particularly interesting. Amusing, sometimes, too. The odd time, annoying as well.
Click to expand...

I think the odd part of the whole thing is it seems so self evident to you and I, and yet so many simply do not see it at all. Is the fault of perception on their end, or ours, or both?
 
Redress said:
I think the odd part of the whole thing is it seems so self evident to you and I, and yet so many simply do not see it at all. Is the fault of perception on their end, or ours, or both?
Click to expand...

That's a good question, Redress. Some overlook it, I guess, in terms of it not being important to them. They say it matters / is telling where we focus... and this is definately an area that catches my attention a lot.

I think the fault of perception revolves in some part, around the way that these particular "disparites" were set up / implemented in the first place... and the way that so many took it for granted / didn't question it. I'm probably a little more interested in how these things came about in the first place / more interested in how these things were peddled around as "truth" when they were codswallop. Why it wasn't "seen through" by far more people - is a pretty interesting question...
 
Last edited:
Gwendoline said:
A good example of a "stronger negative term" for women is the word, "slut". There isn't an equivelent in negative terms for men for the same behaviour - in fact, the word/s attributed to men in this scenario, come out as positive terms. "Stud" being one word that comes to mind.

So how is it that "language" came around to finding / conjuring up derogatory words for a woman engaging in the same kind of sexual behaviour as a man - the same sexual behaviour that awarded men positive values / terms?

methinks sexism
Click to expand...

That is an interesting one. A woman sleeps around a bit and she becomes a slut. A man sleeps around some and he becomes a folk hero. How does this work out. I have never been able to understand that. Who is that female sleeping with. Hmmmmm
 
dclxvinoise said:
This is in regards to the discussion going on in this thread.

Personally, I think it's stupid to view any word as inherently offensive when it is just a word. In the proper context it can be completely offensive, but we shouldn't just ban it from being used in any context because some people give the word more power than it should have. It comes off as fear to me, and an irrational one at that. What does everyone else think?
Click to expand...

Here is lesson one from a Course in Miracles.

Lesson 1

Nothing I see in this room [on this street, from this window,
in this place] means anything.

Now look slowly around you, and practice applying this idea very specifically to whatever you see:

This table does not mean anything.
This chair does not mean anything.
This hand does not mean anything.
This foot does not mean anything.
This foot does not mean anything.
This pen does not mean anything.​

Then look farther away from your immediate area, and apply the idea to a wider range:

That door does not mean anything.
This body does not mean anything.
This lamp does not mean anything.
This sign does not mean anything.
This shadow does not mean anything.​

Notice that these statements are not arranged in any order, and make no allowance for differences in the kinds of things to which they are applied. That is the purpose of the exercise. The statement should merely be applied to anything you see. As you practice the idea for the day, use it totally indiscriminately. Do not attempt to apply it to everything you see, for these exercises should not become ritualistic. Only be sure that nothing you see is specifically excluded. One thing is like another as far as the application of the idea is concerned.
Click to expand...

Lesson

Words have no inherent meaning.
 
Birdzeye said:
Some people deliberately use certain words that they know full well will offend a lot of people. The word "nigger" is one example.

When confronted about what they've said, the disingenious defense is often some lame blathering about "context." I once had a boss who said something to me that I found offensive, and I told him so. His response? "You mustn't take offense because no offense was intended." Somehow I was supposed to dredge up some nonexistent psychic powers and figure out that his offensive remark reallly wasn't offensive after all.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point, Birdzeye. A better response would have been for the boss to "acknowledge" that you WERE offended. I think it's because of insensitivity and a lack of empathy that some people make such a good job of negating other people's experiences.
 
Inferno said:
That is an interesting one. A woman sleeps around a bit and she becomes a slut. A man sleeps around some and he becomes a folk hero. How does this work out. I have never been able to understand that. Who is that female sleeping with. Hmmmmm
Click to expand...

You have to accept the premis that men and women are inherantly diferent in more ways than genitalia in order to understand this.

I'm sure you've heard this many times before: Men are the hunters, women are the pray. A sucessfull hunter brings home a lot of game, while a sucessful pray either does not get cought at all or gives the hunter one hell of a run for his money.

When a woman sleeps around, she requires no skill to capture and is not respected because she isn't performing her roll in the game very well.

Generaly speaking, men and women play diferent rolls, so it is compleatly inapropriat to compair them to each other.
 
Inferno said:
That is an interesting one. A woman sleeps around a bit and she becomes a slut. A man sleeps around some and he becomes a folk hero. How does this work out. I have never been able to understand that. Who is that female sleeping with. Hmmmmm
Click to expand...

Neanderthalistic thinking, Inferno. And a double standard.
Only if fidelity in early man relationships could be verified, so to speak, would a caveman risk life and limb for a woman and her offspring. If he couldn't be sure if the offspring were his, he'd hardly risk his life against predators or protect his woman from rape and worse.
 
Jerry said:
You have to accept the premis that men and women are inherantly diferent in more ways than genitalia in order to understand this.

I'm sure you've heard this many times before: Men are the hunters, women are the pray. A sucessfull hunter brings home a lot of game, while a sucessful pray either does not get cought at all or gives the hunter one hell of a run for his money.

When a woman sleeps around, she requires no skill to capture and is not respected because she isn't performing her roll in the game very well.

Generaly speaking, men and women play diferent rolls, so it is compleatly inapropriat to compair them to each other.
Click to expand...


I have heard it and I understand it but we aren't in the Olduvai Gorge anymore and have evolved beyond Lucy. The reference today is an affront in most circumstances.
 
Jerry said:
You have to accept the premis that men and women are inherantly diferent in more ways than genitalia in order to understand this.

I'm sure you've heard this many times before: Men are the hunters, women are the pray. A sucessfull hunter brings home a lot of game, while a sucessful pray either does not get cought at all or gives the hunter one hell of a run for his money.

When a woman sleeps around, she requires no skill to capture and is not respected because she isn't performing her roll in the game very well.

Generaly speaking, men and women play diferent rolls, so it is compleatly inapropriat to compair them to each other.
Click to expand...

aaronssongs said:
Neanderthalistic thinking, Inferno. And a double standard.
Only if fidelity in early man relationships could be verified, so to speak, would a caveman risk life and limb for a woman and her offspring. If he couldn't be sure if the offspring were his, he'd hardly risk his life against predators or protect his woman from rape and worse.
Click to expand...

Actually in many cultures it is fully expected that Females will be virgins when they get married. Yet men are welcome to do anyone they want. The thing about that that baffles me is that women accept this.
 
Inferno said:
I have heard it and I understand it but we aren't in the Olduvai Gorge anymore and have evolved beyond Lucy. The reference today is an affront in most circumstances.
Click to expand...

Correction. Some have evolved beyond Lucy...others haven't been so fortunate.
They're just not extinct. Perhaps, unfortunately.
 
Jerry said:
You have to accept the premis that men and women are inherantly diferent in more ways than genitalia in order to understand this.

I'm sure you've heard this many times before: Men are the hunters, women are the pray. A sucessfull hunter brings home a lot of game, while a sucessful pray either does not get cought at all or gives the hunter one hell of a run for his money.

When a woman sleeps around, she requires no skill to capture and is not respected because she isn't performing her roll in the game very well.

Generaly speaking, men and women play diferent rolls, so it is compleatly inapropriat to compair them to each other.
Click to expand...

Lord, all this time I thought sex was about recipricol attraction, wanting the other, and such stuff.

But now I find out it's a contest! A game! Capture the prey!

"Ah, you must submit now, my fairest Gertrude!"

"Nay, but for my honour I must send thee away!"

You're a right crack-up, Jerry!
 
Gwendoline said:
Lord, all this time I thought sex was about recipricol attraction, wanting the other, and such stuff.

But now I find out it's a contest! A game! Capture the prey!

"Ah, you must submit now, my fairest Gertrude!"

"Nay, but for my honour I must send thee away!"

You're a right crack-up, Jerry!
Click to expand...

This is why i have sex only with women. It is about love and relationship. It is not about shear numbers.
 
Inferno said:
I have heard it and I understand it but we aren't in the Olduvai Gorge anymore and have evolved beyond Lucy. The reference today is an affront in most circumstances.
Click to expand...

It's human nature, basic psychology, so apparently if this is a matter of evolution (which I don't think it is anyway) we apparently have NOT evolved past it.
 
Inferno said:
Actually in many cultures it is fully expected that Females will be virgins when they get married. Yet men are welcome to do anyone they want. The thing about that that baffles me is that women accept this.
Click to expand...

What baffles me is that MEN accept this. Imagine living in a culture where you aren't expected to live to a higher standard and keep yourself until you're married just because you're a man. I guess these cultures don't value men as much as they value women.
 
Jerry said:
What baffles me is that MEN accept this. Imagine living in a culture where you aren't expected to live to a higher standard and keep yourself until you're married just because you're a man. I guess these cultures don't value men as much as they value women.
Click to expand...

I do agree that we do set the bar low in this era. This is also the problem we have with the abortion numbers. No one keeps themselves for marriage. It is an interesting point thatyou raise.
 
Inferno said:
This is why i have sex only with women. It is about love and relationship. It is not about shear numbers.
Click to expand...

When was I talking about anything even remotely close to "shear numbers"?
 
Jerry said:
When was I talking about anything even remotely close to "shear numbers"?
Click to expand...

That was a combination response that included something someone else said as well. Sorry if i seemed to point that at you.
 
Jerry said:
When was I talking about anything even remotely close to "shear numbers"?
Click to expand...

You did not. It brought something to mind and there was another post as well. i was think of something that I had read about that basketball player Wilt Chamberlain. He bragged in his book about the shear numbers of women he bedded and it was like this was a great badge of pride and honor. I listen during baseball season to a sports radio show and i recall the hosts talking about what a stallion he must have been. I though he was pretty disgusting to think that was so great. Sorry again if i seemed to point that at your mild comment.Sometimes I need a punch in the arm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom