Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The reasons make sense to me, the people that apologized and the people that were offended. Like I was saying you can choose to be respectful or not.The beef is that they didnt appreciate white people portraying their culture as a costume. Says so right in the link. Your only job is to figure out if you are going to honor that sentiment or not. If you dont wish to honor it then dont complain about the reaction. If you do your actions will signify to the offended you have a modicum of respect.What is the beef? Its a costume. People wear cultural clothes from around the world, occupations and throughout history. Costumes don't have to be scary or fictional. Were shawls and sombreros never worn? They were the fashion of Mexican bands and restaurants for decades.
Seems everyone is "offended" by something some time. When did people get so thin skinned? Lots of people dress and day of the dead in face and dress. Is that offensive as well?
University should not have to apologise.
If they dressed as Marie Antoinette, should the french be objecting? Its a costume.
And the 'implications' they offered don't make sense.
"We're human. Not a costume."
Dressing in costume doesn't imply that the subject of the costume isn't human. If I dress as a cowboy, I'm not saying that cowboys aren't human. If I dress up as a surfer, I'm not saying that surfers aren't human. Nor would anyone rationally imply otherwise.
If I said or did something, and a colleague of mine was offended by it, I would apologize to them, even if I didn't personally feel that what I did was offensive. Intention doesn't mean anything, in this case.
I don't see why that's hard to understand.
The reasons make sense to me, the people that apologized and the people that were offended. Like I was saying you can choose to be respectful or not.The beef is that they didnt appreciate white people portraying their culture as a costume. Says so right in the link. Your only job is to figure out if you are going to honor that sentiment or not. If you dont wish to honor it then dont complain about the reaction. If you do your actions will signify to the offended you have a modicum of respect.What is the beef? Its a costume. People wear cultural clothes from around the world, occupations and throughout history. Costumes don't have to be scary or fictional. Were shawls and sombreros never worn? They were the fashion of Mexican bands and restaurants for decades.
Seems everyone is "offended" by something some time. When did people get so thin skinned? Lots of people dress and day of the dead in face and dress. Is that offensive as well?
University should not have to apologise.
If they dressed as Marie Antoinette, should the french be objecting? Its a costume.
And the 'implications' they offered don't make sense.
"We're human. Not a costume."
Dressing in costume doesn't imply that the subject of the costume isn't human. If I dress as a cowboy, I'm not saying that cowboys aren't human. If I dress up as a surfer, I'm not saying that surfers aren't human. Nor would anyone rationally imply otherwise.
I don't accept that 'respectful' is defined by sensitivity and perception of 19 year olds. Nor is there any rational implication that say....dressing as a cowboy means that the cowboy isn't human.
The very basis of offense was irrational.
If I said or did something, and a colleague of mine was offended by it, I would apologize to them, even if I didn't personally feel that what I did was offensive. Intention doesn't mean anything, in this case.
I don't see why that's hard to understand.
My standards are different. I'll apologize if there is a rational basis for their perception. But to validate a feeling by its mere *existence* is a bucket with no bottom. Especially when the arbiter of validity is teenagers.
Taking offense is inherently irrational since its an emotion. You dont have to accept anything. You can choose to be respectful of emotions or not. What you accept doesnt carry any weight with anyone other than yourself. Again emotions are not based on rationality. If someone feels dehumanized nothing you can say will change that.The reasons make sense to me, the people that apologized and the people that were offended. Like I was saying you can choose to be respectful or not.The beef is that they didnt appreciate white people portraying their culture as a costume. Says so right in the link. Your only job is to figure out if you are going to honor that sentiment or not. If you dont wish to honor it then dont complain about the reaction. If you do your actions will signify to the offended you have a modicum of respect.What is the beef? Its a costume. People wear cultural clothes from around the world, occupations and throughout history. Costumes don't have to be scary or fictional. Were shawls and sombreros never worn? They were the fashion of Mexican bands and restaurants for decades.
Seems everyone is "offended" by something some time. When did people get so thin skinned? Lots of people dress and day of the dead in face and dress. Is that offensive as well?
University should not have to apologise.
If they dressed as Marie Antoinette, should the french be objecting? Its a costume.
And the 'implications' they offered don't make sense.
"We're human. Not a costume."
Dressing in costume doesn't imply that the subject of the costume isn't human. If I dress as a cowboy, I'm not saying that cowboys aren't human. If I dress up as a surfer, I'm not saying that surfers aren't human. Nor would anyone rationally imply otherwise.
I don't accept that 'respectful' is defined by sensitivity and perception of 19 year olds. Nor is there any rational implication that say....dressing as a cowboy means that the cowboy isn't human.
The very basis of offense was irrational.
Actually, "respectful" is most certainly defined by the sensitivity of the people around you.
Logic and rationality have nothing to do with offense - which is an emotion.
Its just an attempt to invalidate what someone feels. I assume the reference was to the students as if what they feel doesnt matter.If I said or did something, and a colleague of mine was offended by it, I would apologize to them, even if I didn't personally feel that what I did was offensive. Intention doesn't mean anything, in this case.
I don't see why that's hard to understand.
My standards are different. I'll apologize if there is a rational basis for their perception. But to validate a feeling by its mere *existence* is a bucket with no bottom. Especially when the arbiter of validity is teenagers.
Where are you getting this stuff about teenagers?
Respect in of itself has nothing to do with a group. Please show me a definition of respect that says it has to be applied to a group.Actually, "respectful" is most certainly defined by the sensitivity of the people around you.
But not by any given person. If any individual can define 'respectful' for everyone, then you validate any perception. If I walked up to a woman and asked the time and she screamed RAPE!, per the self validating definition, I've done something wrong.
There is such thing as an unreasonable reaction. And self validating definitions preclude the existence of an unreasonable reaction.
Logic and rationality have nothing to do with offense - which is an emotion.
Offense? No. Which is why I give so little concern for 'offense' alone. Offense is a feeling. And feelings are inherently subjective.
If my feelings mandate YOU act, then you're nothing but a meat puppet for my emotional whim. And I have unlimited currency, able to manufacture feelings for nothing and at the speed of thought.
Respectful however is more a product of large group agreement. Not individual perception or small groups.
I never said people shouldnt dress up in whatever they want to wear. The point is that if someone says they are offended then they have the right to say that using freedom of expression. Also the college was not forced to apologize. They respected what the people had to say and apologized.The beef is that they didnt appreciate white people portraying their culture as a costume. Says so right in the link. Your only job is to figure out if you are going to honor that sentiment or not. If you dont wish to honor it then dont complain about the reaction. If you do your actions will signify to the offended you have a modicum of respect.What is the beef? Its a costume. People wear cultural clothes from around the world, occupations and throughout history. Costumes don't have to be scary or fictional. Were shawls and sombreros never worn? They were the fashion of Mexican bands and restaurants for decades.
Seems everyone is "offended" by something some time. When did people get so thin skinned? Lots of people dress and day of the dead in face and dress. Is that offensive as well?
University should not have to apologise.
If they dressed as Marie Antoinette, should the french be objecting? Its a costume.
Costumes are common for many occasions and parties. If they were celebrating indian (country) day women would wear saris. If they were celebrating greek day they might wear anything from toga to a roumeli.
Mexican sombreros can be found in most costume and party store. They are sold to tourists that visit Mexico. Why shouldn't people choose to dress up in a sombrero and serape? People are free to dress however they like. Freedom of expression.
View attachment 53631
Any cinco de mayo they will be dress like these
Taking offense is inherently irrational since its an emotion.The reasons make sense to me, the people that apologized and the people that were offended. Like I was saying you can choose to be respectful or not.The beef is that they didnt appreciate white people portraying their culture as a costume. Says so right in the link. Your only job is to figure out if you are going to honor that sentiment or not. If you dont wish to honor it then dont complain about the reaction. If you do your actions will signify to the offended you have a modicum of respect.What is the beef? Its a costume. People wear cultural clothes from around the world, occupations and throughout history. Costumes don't have to be scary or fictional. Were shawls and sombreros never worn? They were the fashion of Mexican bands and restaurants for decades.
Seems everyone is "offended" by something some time. When did people get so thin skinned? Lots of people dress and day of the dead in face and dress. Is that offensive as well?
University should not have to apologise.
If they dressed as Marie Antoinette, should the french be objecting? Its a costume.
And the 'implications' they offered don't make sense.
"We're human. Not a costume."
Dressing in costume doesn't imply that the subject of the costume isn't human. If I dress as a cowboy, I'm not saying that cowboys aren't human. If I dress up as a surfer, I'm not saying that surfers aren't human. Nor would anyone rationally imply otherwise.
I don't accept that 'respectful' is defined by sensitivity and perception of 19 year olds. Nor is there any rational implication that say....dressing as a cowboy means that the cowboy isn't human.
The very basis of offense was irrational.
You dont have to accept anything. You can choose to be respectful of emotions or not. What you accept doesnt carry any weight with anyone other than yourself. Again emotions are not based on rationality. If someone feels dehumanized nothing you can say will change that.
Evidently the school thought it was necessary and apologized. To further show you how far off base your feellings are the school is actually going to give diversity lessons to the offenders.I never said people shouldnt dress up in whatever they want to wear. The point is that if someone says they are offended then they have the right to say that using freedom of expression. Also the college was not forced to apologize. They respected what the people had to say and apologized.The beef is that they didnt appreciate white people portraying their culture as a costume. Says so right in the link. Your only job is to figure out if you are going to honor that sentiment or not. If you dont wish to honor it then dont complain about the reaction. If you do your actions will signify to the offended you have a modicum of respect.What is the beef? Its a costume. People wear cultural clothes from around the world, occupations and throughout history. Costumes don't have to be scary or fictional. Were shawls and sombreros never worn? They were the fashion of Mexican bands and restaurants for decades.
Seems everyone is "offended" by something some time. When did people get so thin skinned? Lots of people dress and day of the dead in face and dress. Is that offensive as well?
University should not have to apologise.
If they dressed as Marie Antoinette, should the french be objecting? Its a costume.
Costumes are common for many occasions and parties. If they were celebrating indian (country) day women would wear saris. If they were celebrating greek day they might wear anything from toga to a roumeli.
Mexican sombreros can be found in most costume and party store. They are sold to tourists that visit Mexico. Why shouldn't people choose to dress up in a sombrero and serape? People are free to dress however they like. Freedom of expression.
View attachment 53631
Any cinco de mayo they will be dress like these
"Ok sorry you were offended but we have a right to dress how we want when ever we want"
Beyond that no apology should have been necessary.
I could take that argument apart pretty easily. Emotions have nothing to do with logic or rationality. If it did this thread wouldnt exist.Taking offense is inherently irrational since its an emotion.The reasons make sense to me, the people that apologized and the people that were offended. Like I was saying you can choose to be respectful or not.The beef is that they didnt appreciate white people portraying their culture as a costume. Says so right in the link. Your only job is to figure out if you are going to honor that sentiment or not. If you dont wish to honor it then dont complain about the reaction. If you do your actions will signify to the offended you have a modicum of respect.
And the 'implications' they offered don't make sense.
"We're human. Not a costume."
Dressing in costume doesn't imply that the subject of the costume isn't human. If I dress as a cowboy, I'm not saying that cowboys aren't human. If I dress up as a surfer, I'm not saying that surfers aren't human. Nor would anyone rationally imply otherwise.
I don't accept that 'respectful' is defined by sensitivity and perception of 19 year olds. Nor is there any rational implication that say....dressing as a cowboy means that the cowboy isn't human.
The very basis of offense was irrational.
I disagree that emotions are inherently irrational. Irrational is synonymous with unreasonable. And I think there are plenty of emotional reactions that are reasonable.
I can also think of plenty of emotional reactions that are unreasonable.
Alas, under the current paradigm, reasonable or unreasonable are irrelevant. Existence of an emotion is the sole metric of validity. And that's ridiculous.
You dont have to accept anything. You can choose to be respectful of emotions or not. What you accept doesnt carry any weight with anyone other than yourself. Again emotions are not based on rationality. If someone feels dehumanized nothing you can say will change that.
I respect reasonableness. If a reaction has a reasonable basis, I'll respect it. If it doesn't, I won't.
But defining 'respectful' merely by the emotions existence is nonsense. As is defining 'respectful' by any reaction from any group, no matter how small.
If I said or did something, and a colleague of mine was offended by it, I would apologize to them, even if I didn't personally feel that what I did was offensive. Intention doesn't mean anything, in this case.
I don't see why that's hard to understand.
My standards are different. I'll apologize if there is a rational basis for their perception. But to validate a feeling by its mere *existence* is a bucket with no bottom. Especially when the arbiter of validity is teenagers.
Where are you getting this stuff about teenagers?
Evidently the school thought it was necessary and apologized. To further show you how far off base your feellings are the school is actually going to give diversity lessons to the offenders.I never said people shouldnt dress up in whatever they want to wear. The point is that if someone says they are offended then they have the right to say that using freedom of expression. Also the college was not forced to apologize. They respected what the people had to say and apologized.The beef is that they didnt appreciate white people portraying their culture as a costume. Says so right in the link. Your only job is to figure out if you are going to honor that sentiment or not. If you dont wish to honor it then dont complain about the reaction. If you do your actions will signify to the offended you have a modicum of respect.What is the beef? Its a costume. People wear cultural clothes from around the world, occupations and throughout history. Costumes don't have to be scary or fictional. Were shawls and sombreros never worn? They were the fashion of Mexican bands and restaurants for decades.
Seems everyone is "offended" by something some time. When did people get so thin skinned? Lots of people dress and day of the dead in face and dress. Is that offensive as well?
University should not have to apologise.
If they dressed as Marie Antoinette, should the french be objecting? Its a costume.
Costumes are common for many occasions and parties. If they were celebrating indian (country) day women would wear saris. If they were celebrating greek day they might wear anything from toga to a roumeli.
Mexican sombreros can be found in most costume and party store. They are sold to tourists that visit Mexico. Why shouldn't people choose to dress up in a sombrero and serape? People are free to dress however they like. Freedom of expression.
View attachment 53631
Any cinco de mayo they will be dress like these
"Ok sorry you were offended but we have a right to dress how we want when ever we want"
Beyond that no apology should have been necessary.
I could take that argument apart pretty easily. Emotions have nothing to do with logic or rationality.Taking offense is inherently irrational since its an emotion.The reasons make sense to me, the people that apologized and the people that were offended. Like I was saying you can choose to be respectful or not.And the 'implications' they offered don't make sense.
"We're human. Not a costume."
Dressing in costume doesn't imply that the subject of the costume isn't human. If I dress as a cowboy, I'm not saying that cowboys aren't human. If I dress up as a surfer, I'm not saying that surfers aren't human. Nor would anyone rationally imply otherwise.
I don't accept that 'respectful' is defined by sensitivity and perception of 19 year olds. Nor is there any rational implication that say....dressing as a cowboy means that the cowboy isn't human.
The very basis of offense was irrational.
I disagree that emotions are inherently irrational. Irrational is synonymous with unreasonable. And I think there are plenty of emotional reactions that are reasonable.
I can also think of plenty of emotional reactions that are unreasonable.
Alas, under the current paradigm, reasonable or unreasonable are irrelevant. Existence of an emotion is the sole metric of validity. And that's ridiculous.
You dont have to accept anything. You can choose to be respectful of emotions or not. What you accept doesnt carry any weight with anyone other than yourself. Again emotions are not based on rationality. If someone feels dehumanized nothing you can say will change that.
I respect reasonableness. If a reaction has a reasonable basis, I'll respect it. If it doesn't, I won't.
But defining 'respectful' merely by the emotions existence is nonsense. As is defining 'respectful' by any reaction from any group, no matter how small.
What a bunch of overly sensitive pussies. lol.
I already showed you. We arent talking about bases. We are talking about the emotion itself. Emotions are inherently irrational. They require no logical thought. You can get mad because someone looked at you.Evidently the school thought it was necessary and apologized. To further show you how far off base your feellings are the school is actually going to give diversity lessons to the offenders.I never said people shouldnt dress up in whatever they want to wear. The point is that if someone says they are offended then they have the right to say that using freedom of expression. Also the college was not forced to apologize. They respected what the people had to say and apologized.The beef is that they didnt appreciate white people portraying their culture as a costume. Says so right in the link. Your only job is to figure out if you are going to honor that sentiment or not. If you dont wish to honor it then dont complain about the reaction. If you do your actions will signify to the offended you have a modicum of respect.
Costumes are common for many occasions and parties. If they were celebrating indian (country) day women would wear saris. If they were celebrating greek day they might wear anything from toga to a roumeli.
Mexican sombreros can be found in most costume and party store. They are sold to tourists that visit Mexico. Why shouldn't people choose to dress up in a sombrero and serape? People are free to dress however they like. Freedom of expression.
View attachment 53631
Any cinco de mayo they will be dress like these
"Ok sorry you were offended but we have a right to dress how we want when ever we want"
Beyond that no apology should have been necessary.
I could take that argument apart pretty easily. Emotions have nothing to do with logic or rationality.Taking offense is inherently irrational since its an emotion.The reasons make sense to me, the people that apologized and the people that were offended. Like I was saying you can choose to be respectful or not.
I don't accept that 'respectful' is defined by sensitivity and perception of 19 year olds. Nor is there any rational implication that say....dressing as a cowboy means that the cowboy isn't human.
The very basis of offense was irrational.
I disagree that emotions are inherently irrational. Irrational is synonymous with unreasonable. And I think there are plenty of emotional reactions that are reasonable.
I can also think of plenty of emotional reactions that are unreasonable.
Alas, under the current paradigm, reasonable or unreasonable are irrelevant. Existence of an emotion is the sole metric of validity. And that's ridiculous.
You dont have to accept anything. You can choose to be respectful of emotions or not. What you accept doesnt carry any weight with anyone other than yourself. Again emotions are not based on rationality. If someone feels dehumanized nothing you can say will change that.
I respect reasonableness. If a reaction has a reasonable basis, I'll respect it. If it doesn't, I won't.
But defining 'respectful' merely by the emotions existence is nonsense. As is defining 'respectful' by any reaction from any group, no matter how small.
Show me. Don't tell me.
Emotions can have very reasonable bases. If you slap me out of no where and I get angry or afraid, those are both reasonable emotional responses to the situation. 'Fight or Flight' exists for a reason.
