University of Louisville apologizes over Hispanic Halloween costumes

[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.

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.

Lets say that it is offense? Then what? I reject the premise that offense is harm. Or that it somehow mandates that that I do what the offended party demand.

Offense is a bucket with no bottom. If offense is the currency of controlling a situation.....then the most oversensitive, most offend-able, most wildly emotive person controls every situation. Especially when 'offensive' is a self validating, subjective term.......that requires objective action of others.

Where you must do as I say....because I feel you do.

Its oppressive. It not only encourages but virtually guarantees wild overreaction.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's not my community.

No, I didn't mean to imply such, I say "your" as "in theory"; we are speaking hypothetically, I presume?

As a costume doesn't infer that someone isn't human.

Of course not, I agree.

One of the ways in which community standards 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.

And that is quite...irrational. "Irrational" as in to be A) so easily influenced by those actions that they have to speak out, B) having been the one whose oversensitivity happened to influence the debate and thus the standards that be or C) the person who changes those actions to mitigate the oversensitivity of the offensed. I see irrationality everywhere in this scenario.

Lets say that it is offense? Then what? I reject the premise that offense is harm. Or that it somehow mandates that that I do what the offended party demand.

In my opinion, being offended is an emotion which occurs in reaction to what a person sees or defines as "offensive." That definition is most likely imprinted on them by someone or something, therefore, in theory, definitions influence emotions. Perhaps if we stopped letting definitions influence our emotions... you know, things like stereotypes, social paradigms, political correctness and political affiliation...

But then again, the act of behaving in a way one perceives to be "offensive" to others can be seen as harmful, because the inherent intent is hostile, as in the intent to harm someone or a group of people emotionally. That in and of itself could be seen as one seeking self validation. In reality, I see both the offender and offended as both seeking self validation.





.

 

[Skylar]

That's not my community.

No, I didn't mean to imply such, I say "your" as "in theory"; we are speaking hypothetically, I presume?

As a costume doesn't infer that someone isn't human.

Of course not, I agree.

That's the literal basis of their offense. With the sole offended party cited insisting

'We're not costumes. We're humans'.

The entire basis of their perception is irrational horseshit. As one does not imply the other. If I dress like a cowboy, I'm not implying that cowboys aren't human. Even when cowboys are an enduring symbol of the United States.

And that is quite...irrational. "Irrational" as in to be A) so easily influenced by those actions that they have to speak out, B) having been the one whose oversensitivity happened to influence the debate and thus the standards that be or C) the person who changes those actions to mitigate the oversensitivity of the offensed. I see irrationality everywhere in this scenario.

It doesn't necessarily even need to be irrational in basis. Merely over the top in reaction. Take the concept of 'micro-agressions'. I can wrap my head around the concept and their cumulative effect. But the reaction to micro-agrressions by some individuals are orders of magnitude more severe than the harm an individual offense could inflict, even hypothetically.

Even the term is bullshit. As it implicitly connects minor, most often unintentional slights with acts of violence. Which they are not.

In my opinion, being offended is an emotion which occurs in reaction to what a person sees or defines as "offensive." That definition is most likely imprinted on them by someone or something, therefore, in theory, definitions influence emotions. Perhaps if we stopped letting definitions influence our emotions... you know, things like stereotypes, social paradigms, political correctness and political affiliation...

But then again, the act of behaving in a way one perceives to be "offensive" to others can be seen as harmful, because the inherent intent is hostile, as in the intent to harm someone or a group of people emotionally. That in and of itself could be seen as one seeking self validation. In reality, I see both the offender and offended as both seeking self validation.

The offender as self validating? You can offend through ignorance. I don't know that ignorance is a validation.

But then even the term 'validate' has been tossed into a blender set on 'frauppe'.

My problem with offense as an essentially unlimited currency is is that it mandates external actions. Where the 'offender' is responsible for the feelings of the 'offended'. And 'you're responsible for how I feel' is a paradigm best left to 15 year old girls with their first boyfriends rather than our entire society.

 

[Unkotare]

What a bunch of overly sensitive pussies. lol.

Now THAT would make a great costume!

 

[koshergrl]

 

[TemplarKormac]

he offender as self validating? You can offend through ignorance. I don't know that ignorance is a validation.

My apologies. Offend on purpose, not through ignorance. By that I mean those who offend others to draw attention on themselves. Obviously, seeking attention is a form of self validation.

 

[Iron Head]

Fucking beaners have got us by the balls. We have got to put a stop to this shit!

 

[Jarlaxle]

I wonder how they might have reacted to my wife's dark elf costumes...

 

[koshergrl]

That's not my community.

No, I didn't mean to imply such, I say "your" as "in theory"; we are speaking hypothetically, I presume?

As a costume doesn't infer that someone isn't human.

Of course not, I agree.

One of the ways in which community standards 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.

And that is quite...irrational. "Irrational" as in to be A) so easily influenced by those actions that they have to speak out, B) having been the one whose oversensitivity happened to influence the debate and thus the standards that be or C) the person who changes those actions to mitigate the oversensitivity of the offensed. I see irrationality everywhere in this scenario.

Lets say that it is offense? Then what? I reject the premise that offense is harm. Or that it somehow mandates that that I do what the offended party demand.

In my opinion, being offended is an emotion which occurs in reaction to what a person sees or defines as "offensive." That definition is most likely imprinted on them by someone or something, therefore, in theory, definitions influence emotions. Perhaps if we stopped letting definitions influence our emotions... you know, things like stereotypes, social paradigms, political correctness and political affiliation...

But then again, the act of behaving in a way one perceives to be "offensive" to others can be seen as harmful, because the inherent intent is hostile, as in the intent to harm someone or a group of people emotionally. That in and of itself could be seen as one seeking self validation. In reality, I see both the offender and offended as both seeking self validation.





.

All that rationalization when you could have just said "there is no wrong or right, everything is relative."

 

[Unkotare]

Fucking beaners have got us by the balls. !

How fortunate for you to have none.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

If they assimilated into American culture instead of segregating themselves as highspanics then they wouldn't need to be offended.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's not my community.

No, I didn't mean to imply such, I say "your" as "in theory"; we are speaking hypothetically, I presume?

As a costume doesn't infer that someone isn't human.

Of course not, I agree.

One of the ways in which community standards 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.

And that is quite...irrational. "Irrational" as in to be A) so easily influenced by those actions that they have to speak out, B) having been the one whose oversensitivity happened to influence the debate and thus the standards that be or C) the person who changes those actions to mitigate the oversensitivity of the offensed. I see irrationality everywhere in this scenario.

Lets say that it is offense? Then what? I reject the premise that offense is harm. Or that it somehow mandates that that I do what the offended party demand.

In my opinion, being offended is an emotion which occurs in reaction to what a person sees or defines as "offensive." That definition is most likely imprinted on them by someone or something, therefore, in theory, definitions influence emotions. Perhaps if we stopped letting definitions influence our emotions... you know, things like stereotypes, social paradigms, political correctness and political affiliation...

But then again, the act of behaving in a way one perceives to be "offensive" to others can be seen as harmful, because the inherent intent is hostile, as in the intent to harm someone or a group of people emotionally. That in and of itself could be seen as one seeking self validation. In reality, I see both the offender and offended as both seeking self validation.





.

All that rationalization when you could have just said "there is no wrong or right, everything is relative."

Why would I do that?

 

[my2¢]

It's a good thing only the wife hears me sing this while I shower, one of my childhood favorites.....

​

 

[Blackrook]

Apologizing for a Halloween costume. Does anyone think that's normal?

Sensibility training for a Halloween costume. Does anyone think that's normal?

My wife went to work today dressed like a cowboy. Should cowboys go after her and demand an apology? Should cowboys force her to take sensibility training?

The world we live in is getting whackier by the day.

What these people want, what they demand, is total control of everything we do, everything we say, and everything we think.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

University of Louisville apologizes over Hispanic Halloween costumes

YOU.HAVE.GOT.TO.BE.KIDDING.ME.

The far left extremists that now controls the Democrat party and the liberal movement have now declared war on Halloween costumes that represent an ethnic group.

Which means no one wears sombreros.

And no one has fun on Halloween.

Who is in charge of deciding what is offensive and what isn't?

Who knows?

Anyone who defends this, I'm going to write down your names, put it in my signature, and never let you forget what an asshole you are.

I defend this and think Blackrook is a fascist dicksuck.

Go ahead, put that in your Sig.

 

[tigerred59]

University of Louisville apologizes over Hispanic Halloween costumes

YOU.HAVE.GOT.TO.BE.KIDDING.ME.

The far left extremists that now controls the Democrat party and the liberal movement have now declared war on Halloween costumes that represent an ethnic group.

Which means no one wears sombreros.

And no one has fun on Halloween.

Who is in charge of deciding what is offensive and what isn't?

Who knows?

Anyone who defends this, I'm going to write down your names, put it in my signature, and never let you forget what an asshole you are.

What a crock of shit......UofL issues apology to the illegals in Kentucky, because that state reeeeekkkkkks of illegals, especially in Louisville.

 

[Unkotare]

Apologizing for a Halloween costume. Does anyone think that's normal?

Sensibility training for a Halloween costume. Does anyone think that's normal?

My wife went to work today dressed like a cowboy. Should cowboys go after her and demand an apology? Should cowboys force her to take sensibility training?

The world we live in is getting whackier by the day.

What these people want, what they demand, is total control of everything we do, everything we say, and everything we think.

Don't be surprised. That has always been the liberal M.O.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Walmart just removed costumes with what was described as Jew noses and everyone said it was a good idea they did?

 

[novasteve]

Would there be any outrage at all had they wore Lederhosen instead? Why is it racist to dress up like Mexicans, but okay to dress up like Germans?

 

[novasteve]

Walmart just removed costumes with what was described as Jew noses and everyone said it was a good idea they did?

They also removed IDF uniform costumes because it offended anti semites.