University of Louisville apologizes over Hispanic Halloween costumes

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

We're speaking of colleges and thus college students. Many of whom are teenagers.

The only person quoted in the OP as being offended was a staff member of the University, not a student.

 

[Skylar]

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?

We're speaking of colleges and thus college students. Many of whom are teenagers.

The only person quoted in the OP as being offended was a staff member of the University, not a student.

The statements by the college were offered to Hispanic and Latino students as much as faculty. With the former outnumbering the latter by orders of magnitude. Making them far more relevant.

And you didn't address any of the other points I raised regarding the futility of self validating definitions.

 

[aris2chat]

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

People can dress how they want regardless of culture. With the exception of walking nude in areas not designated for nudity or perhaps seeing someone dress as a terrorist bomber, there is not reason for offense. You don't have to be Mexican to eat Mexican food. You don't have to be indian to eat curry. Why should people dress in serape and sombrero? Not like these items are not sold in mexico or never warn by Mexicans. Serapes of different patterns can be found through out the Americas. Wide hats of all types are popular to protect from the sun.

No law says non-Mexicans can't wear Mexican costumes/clothing.

 

[Mac1958]

Hypersensitive narcissists just can't WAIT to be "offended".
.

 

[Skylar]

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

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.

"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.

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 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.

Taking offense is inherently irrational since its an emotion.

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.

I could take that argument apart pretty easily. Emotions have nothing to do with logic or rationality.

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.

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.

I disagree. Irrational is synonomous with unreasonable.

ir·ra·tion·al
i(r)ˈraSH(ə)nəl/
adjective
adjective: irrational
1.
not logical or reasonable.

And there are plenty of reasonable basis for emotion. I've given you an explicit example of such. And you ignored it.

And second I am talking about bases.

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.

And you have yet to disagree with anything I said on the matter. Nor should you. As I'm right.

 

[Asclepias]

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

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.

"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.

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.

People can dress how they want regardless of culture. With the exception of walking nude in areas not designated for nudity or perhaps seeing someone dress as a terrorist bomber, there is not reason for offense. You don't have to be Mexican to eat Mexican food. You don't have to be indian to eat curry. Why should people dress in serape and sombrero? Not like these items are not sold in mexico or never warn by Mexicans. Serapes of different patterns can be found through out the Americas. Wide hats of all types are popular to protect from the sun.

No law says non-Mexicans can't wear Mexican costumes/clothing.

There may be no reasonable (in your mind) cause for offense but there is always some cause. You are asking me questions better directed at people that can answer them. I never claimed any of that. I also never claimed there was a law against anything. I simple said that I understand why they were offended and I understand why the school was enlightened enough to respect those feelings.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Nonsense. "Respectfulness" is entirely subjective, as is taking offense.

You're essentially arguing that your desire for rationallaity is more important than the emotions of those around you. I disagree.

How does acknowledging others emotional reactions hurt you?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Nonsense. "Respectfulness" is entirely subjective, as is taking offense.

I disagree. I think there are community standards of 'respectful'. Else the term could have no applicable meaning. Respectful certainly has subjective components, specifically the interpretation of community standards. But the standards themselves exist outside of any given individual.

You're essentially arguing that your desire for rationallaity is more important than the emotions of those around you.

I've argued that self validating definitions are ridiculous and irrational. And that 'respectful' is a term defined by groups. Not the individual exclusively. '

There are such things as unreasonable reactions. In the self defining paradigm you've described, there aren't.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

"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.

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.

Taking offense is inherently irrational since its an emotion.

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.

I could take that argument apart pretty easily. Emotions have nothing to do with logic or rationality.

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.

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.

I disagree. Irrational is synonomous with unreasonable.

ir·ra·tion·al
i(r)ˈraSH(ə)nəl/
adjective
adjective: irrational
1.
not logical or reasonable.

And there are plenty of reasonable basis for emotion. I've given you an explicit example of such. And you ignored it.

And second I am talking about bases.

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.

And you have yet to disagree with anything I said on the matter. Nor should you. As I'm right.

Youre confusing reasons with rationalizations. Emotions have never been reasonable because you dont think yourself into an emotion. its an automatic response to a given stimuli. Let me get this straight. You want me to disagree with you formally? I disagree.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Back in the real world, people that thin skinned are generally shunned. Generally, people just don't have the patience for it.

In the real world, we have colleges left and right... no... mainly left, coddling these little snots because something offends them. Nobody is being shunned, their oversensitvity is being cultivated. The only discernible victim here is free expression.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Nonsense. "Respectfulness" is entirely subjective, as is taking offense.

I disagree. I think there are community standards of 'respectful'. Else the term could have no applicable meaning. Respectful certainly has subjective components, specifically the interpretation of community standards. But the standards themselves exist outside of any given individual.

You're essentially arguing that your desire for rationallaity is more important than the emotions of those around you.

I've argued that self validating definitions are ridiculous and irrational. And that 'respectful' is a term defined by groups. Not the individual exclusively. '

There are such things as unreasonable reactions. In the self defining paradigm you've described, there aren't.

All emotional reactions are unreasonable since you dont think them out.

 

[Skylar]

"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.

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 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.

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.

I could take that argument apart pretty easily. Emotions have nothing to do with logic or rationality.

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.

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.

I disagree. Irrational is synonomous with unreasonable.

ir·ra·tion·al
i(r)ˈraSH(ə)nəl/
adjective
adjective: irrational
1.
not logical or reasonable.

And there are plenty of reasonable basis for emotion. I've given you an explicit example of such. And you ignored it.

And second I am talking about bases.

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.

And you have yet to disagree with anything I said on the matter. Nor should you. As I'm right.

Youre confusing reasons with rationalizations.

Obvious nonsense. I'm referring to the basis of the reaction. With the reasonableness of the reaction defined by that basis. I've confused nothing, as my argument follows the terms I've used.

The fact that you choose to use different terms is irrelevant. My argument works with the terms I've chosen.

And you have yet to actually disagree with my argument. Which is telling. Here it is again:

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.

Just highlight the portions you disagree with.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Nonsense. "Respectfulness" is entirely subjective, as is taking offense.

I disagree. I think there are community standards of 'respectful'. Else the term could have no applicable meaning. Respectful certainly has subjective components, specifically the interpretation of community standards. But the standards themselves exist outside of any given individual.

You're essentially arguing that your desire for rationallaity is more important than the emotions of those around you.

I've argued that self validating definitions are ridiculous and irrational. And that 'respectful' is a term defined by groups. Not the individual exclusively. '

There are such things as unreasonable reactions. In the self defining paradigm you've described, there aren't.

Of course there are such things as "unreasonable reactions" - as anyone who's ever been in a relationship can attest.

Sometimes it's better to acknowledge it and move on, rather than taking a stand based on rationality and reason.

 

[Asclepias]

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 could take that argument apart pretty easily. Emotions have nothing to do with logic or rationality.

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.

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.

I disagree. Irrational is synonomous with unreasonable.

ir·ra·tion·al
i(r)ˈraSH(ə)nəl/
adjective
adjective: irrational
1.
not logical or reasonable.

And there are plenty of reasonable basis for emotion. I've given you an explicit example of such. And you ignored it.

And second I am talking about bases.

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.

And you have yet to disagree with anything I said on the matter. Nor should you. As I'm right.

Youre confusing reasons with rationalizations.

Obvious nonsense. I'm referring to the basis of the reaction. With the reasonableness of the reaction defined by that basis. I've confused nothing, as my argument follows the terms I've used.

The fact that you choose to use different terms is irrelevant. My argument works with the terms I've chosen.

And you have yet to actually disagree with my argument. Which is telling. Here it is again:

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.

Just highlight the portions you disagree with.

I disagree that you respect reasonableness. What you meant to say is you respect things that you deem reasonable. Since you are only in charge of making that call for yourself there is no way you define what is reasonable for anyone else.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think there are community standards of 'respectful'.

That's a problem. When your "community" starts setting standards for what is or isn't "respectful" according to nothing more than an "interpretation" you get situations like this one. The standards of "respect" in this community aren't static. They always shift to suit whatever the community's interpretation of "respect" happens to be at that point and time, and believe you me, outside influences, er, influence, this greatly.

And instead of encouraging rational reactions, these standards bring about unreasonable standards of "respect"; ergo, unreasonable reactions and a hypersensitivity to otherwise innocuous things, like costumes.

Respectful certainly has subjective components, specifically the interpretation of community standards.

A perfect illustration of my previous point.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Nonsense. "Respectfulness" is entirely subjective, as is taking offense.

I disagree. I think there are community standards of 'respectful'. Else the term could have no applicable meaning. Respectful certainly has subjective components, specifically the interpretation of community standards. But the standards themselves exist outside of any given individual.

You're essentially arguing that your desire for rationallaity is more important than the emotions of those around you.

I've argued that self validating definitions are ridiculous and irrational. And that 'respectful' is a term defined by groups. Not the individual exclusively. '

There are such things as unreasonable reactions. In the self defining paradigm you've described, there aren't.

Of course there are such things as "unreasonable reactions" - as anyone who's ever been in a relationship can attest.

Not of definitions are self validating.

Sometimes it's better to acknowledge it and move on, rather than taking a stand based on rationality and reason.

And sometimes you need to stand against unreasonable reactions rather than allowing the subjective, self validating definitions of someone else to define your actions. If someone else's emotions define my actions, then I'm merely a meat puppet for their whim.

And that's a degree of personal sovereignty I'm unwilling to relinquish.

If definitions are entirely subjective and self validating then any reaction is valid

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

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

I wore a sombrero as a Halloween costume once, it was given to me by a Hispanic man. Oh boy was he ever angry... wait.

 

[Skylar]

I think there are community standards of 'respectful'.

That's a problem. When your "community" starts setting standards for what is or isn't "respectful" according to nothing more than an "interpretation" you get situations like this one. The standards of "respect" in this community aren't static. They always shift to suit whatever the community's interpretation of "respect" happens to be at that point and time, and believe you me, outside influences, er, influence, this greatly.

That's not my community. And I reject their basis as irrational. As a costume doesn't infer that someone isn't human.

One of the ways in which community standard are established is debate and discussion. When the most oversensitive person in the room is allowed to set the standards because its 'easier', then they can't act inappropriately. As they define what appropriate is. And what your actions can be.

I offer a counterpoint to the reaction of the oversensitive person. It may not be 'easy'. But the counterpoint helps move community standards away from their most thin skin extremes. As well they should be.

Respectful certainly has subjective components, specifically the interpretation of community standards.

A perfect illustration of my previous point.

Save that the acceptance and rejection of those interpretations by the people around you mitigate the subjective component. 'Respectful' is a synthesis of individual interpretation and community reaction. its not all one or other, despite claims in this thread that its 'completely subjective'.

I reject the subjective interpretation of the oversensitive in this example. As I do the oversensitive in my own community. Sometimes my point sways the community. Sometimes not. But the point is the cost to the oversensitive party. Which forces them to weight the costs of their reaction.

Better still, there is often considerable unvoiced opposition to oversensitive reactions. With one voice joined by others. Increasing the cost to the oversensitive individual even more.

If they're going to make a scene....I make sure it hurts a little.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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

I wore a sombrero as a Halloween costume once, it was given to me by a Hispanic man. Oh boy was he ever angry... wait.

As a general rule reactions like those described in the OP are also a courtesy. Its the people I have no interest in ever interacting with or knowing telling me who they are.

 

[aris2chat]

I think there are community standards of 'respectful'.

That's a problem. When your "community" starts setting standards for what is or isn't "respectful" according to nothing more than an "interpretation" you get situations like this one. The standards of "respect" in this community aren't static. They always shift to suit whatever the community's interpretation of "respect" happens to be at that point and time, and believe you me, outside influences, er, influence, this greatly.

And instead of encouraging rational reactions, these standards bring about unreasonable standards of "respect"; ergo, unreasonable reactions and a hypersensitivity to otherwise innocuous things, like costumes.

Respectful certainly has subjective components, specifically the interpretation of community standards.

A perfect illustration of my previous point.

People should learn to .... do what you want but harm none. Wearing ethnic or costumes is not offensive. Full frontal nudity and verbal abuse might be depending on the circumstances. Anything else, go for it.

Enjoy life and stop worrying. If someone chooses to be offended, it's their problem, apart from racist and hate flags in particular places or circumstances.

Blackface used to be popular form of theater, not if someone wears too much spray tan people go nuts, blacks and whites. Lying about being black, is a different problem especially when you do so to gain benefits.

People really need to take a deep breath and not make an issue over every little expression, look, style, word, etc.