much needed considering the recent influx of poEcial justice warriors galavanting around
oh wow a straight white guy doesnt get why you're a jerk if you call people niggers or faggots what a shocker.
Stop calling people "straight white guys", please, that term is marginalizing and offensive.
Please stop creating "poe___" neologisms, they are awful even relative to the already low standard of neologisms in general.
Who the fuck are you again?
Just kidding! You can say whatever you like, misterbuns. :: http://tinyurl.com/nodsu-nodsu ::
I think George Carlin knew that people might be seen as jerks if they said impolite things. He also knew why a small minority of jerks were beginning to police language - claiming that free speech goes to far, and intimidating people who were exercising their right to be a jerk. (the reason why can be found here in this clip)
OZ- I think you mean... (⌐■_■) neoPoEgisms.
|Caminante Nocturno |
John Waters once said that the worst kind of censor is the liberal censor, and they have been going out of their way to prove him right these past few years.
Yeah, those dirty LIEbruls and their censoring of curse words and racial slurs. Way worse than always-right conservatives censoring out anything gay, or anti-religious, socialistic, anti-capitalist.
Those are just useless ideas...curse words are the important thing that need protecting.
There is that crazy alternative of opposing liberal AND conservative censorship.
"That sounds too nuanced for me, Hazelnut. Better just join a team and auto-hate the other team." - half of poetv
both of you idiots are glossing over the part where noctorno said only one side is "the worst" and you agreed with him.
But nice attempt to weasel out of your dumb arguments with the classic south park "nevermind, both sides are equally terrible" argument for apathetic stoners.
"That sounds too nuanced for me, Hazelnut. Better just join a team and auto-hate the other team." - 80% of USA
|Binro the Heretic |
If telling an asshole, "Oh, shut the fuck up, you asshole." is censorship, Carlin was one of the biggest censors.
Still, I love the guy. There will never be another like him.
il fiore bel
I'm offended by your use of the word "asshole"! Call it what it is, a contracting anal orifice mainly designed for the expelling of fecal matter among other activities.
That's my ballistic carbon pile territory cannon you're disparaging there. Don't make me fling a vote.
|MacGyver Style Bomb |
I'm tired of this shit.
did you cunts expect a trigger warning or something
MacGyver Style Bomb
Oooh, a trigger warning crack. Now you just need say something about "hugboxes," make a half-assed reference to 1984 and you'll be set.
Don't forget to brag about how emotional "SJW's" are, right before you fall to blubbering pieces when you find out someone removed a butt shot from a video game.
Go nod your heads to the oh so brilliant arguments made by South Park. Hey the mentally disabled character Jimmy takes no issue with the word "Tard", well that means PC is dumb!
Don't make me Wikipedia this thread again.
....what Ciceros all of you are.
There's a lot of other sites we can be if this is our level of debate.
We need to get it out of our system every year or two, as long as it doesn't last more than a week or so we're probably OK, although it might be a good idea to get a colonoscopy just to be on the safe side.
Xenocide is here to help everybody, with his half-assed attempts at saracasm and prissy schoolmarmish finger-wagging and disapproval.
Ignoring orcs' retardation, because that's apparently his/her thing, Carlin makes some good points, but he makes one major error: he assumes that all the politically correct language is assigned to the specific groups by well-meaning but clueless outsiders. Although that's sometimes true, it often isn't.
Do retarded people really object to being called retarded, or is the "mentally challenged" label used just to the non-retarded feel better? (Note: I don't know the answer... maybe they do object.) Do little people really object to the term "midget", or is the term just used to make non-little-people feel better? (Note: I *do* know the answer to this one. Yes, they do mind. A lot. Calling them "midgets" is a dick move.)
The point is, most of the time, calling a group by its preferred name is just the right thing to do. Not always, mind you. Sometimes a group's preferred name is bullshit. Red-staters call themselves "Real Americans", but "assholes" is more appropriate, for example. But usually it's a handy rule of thumb.
So.. yeah. Don't wrap yourselves too tightly in the anti-PC rhetoric of generally cool people like Carlin or Waters. They have interesting points, but they're not really grappling with what PC-ness is generally trying to accomplish.
I was reading Savage Love today and someone who works with mentally ill patients wrote about how she was offended by his use of the word "crazy," when referring to a person (not necessarily a situation) because it can carry with it the same innocent connotations as "that's gay" or "that's retarded" etc. etc. And at first I thought that was going a little bit overboard (Dan sort of said he'd try his best to use it less in a one sentence reply) but then I thought about it more: personally I'm offended by the word "retarded" because I grew up with a brother on the spectrum and work as a care provider for others with intellectual/developmental disabilities. And I don't give a shit when "retarded" is a substitute for "stupid" or "dumb:" hell, when I say something's dumb I'm potentially offending those with deafness who don't speak, or the less intelligent, just applying it to an object or a person who, at that particular time is, in fact, being stupid dumb or retarded.
Buuuut on the other hand, the people who have to deal with that word the most are those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In fact, most of my BSP still uses "IR/DR" because nobody's updated it since the mid '00s when the word became less acceptable. I don't allow the word but spend one day at the mall or the movies and you hear it a lot, directed towards the individual (not as ACTING retarded but BEING retarded) and for the most part there's no way for them to really understand or fight back in the way you'd expect if you called a black man a nigger or mexican a wetback to their face. So it just absorbs like a big ol sponge for them, and back onto me. So anyway, my computer's been kinda slow, so it is literally retarded. Would I choose another word? Yeah. And if X is talking out their ass, Y can attest to their retarded behavior. But calling someone a retard (disability or not) ain't cool yo. :)
Whoops wrote that before I watched the vid. I thought I'd already heard this but nope!
But since I'm here, here's another way to think about it: Stephen Hawking has a Developmental Disability just like someone who's brain never got beyond pre-school. So I like that because it's more inclusive.
il fiore bel
Some of this he summarizes in "Euphemisms" from the "Doin' It Again" special.
"Also, there is not uniform agreement from groups about what to call them all the time, nor should it be entirely up to them what they're called, as pointed out by Anax. If said group wants a 5-syllable euphemistic phrase when a one-syllable adjective will do, they can go fuck themselves."
That is such a pernicious argument that the last sentence is just icing on the turd cake.
You honestly think that a lack of uniform solidarity on a subject is grounds for over all dismissal?
Here's a good reminder the next time something like that crosses your mind. LGBT does not mean that every fag, dyke, whore and freakshow is offended when over hearing the words fag, dyke, whore or freakshow. A good majority will be offended or disgusted by fag or dyke because the words are commonly used whether or not you're bi or transsexual by people who consider anyone who fits into the category of homosexual (whether remotely true or actually confirmed) as monstrous filth.
LGBT isn't united because they love fucking each other. They're united because the people against them have lumped them into one group and said groups of oppressed people have used that.blanket hate to create a motion of solidarity in response.
It doesn't mean that they coexist. I have heard of transsexuals being considered the black sheep and only remotely accepted.
Now I'm going to go ahead and use this as a Segway to remind you that the racist basketball coach also went with the logic of "they're not together" in his rants. Does it mean you're racist/bigoted? Not necessarily. It can also just mean you're ignorant of a logistic prat fall and don't know any better. I don't know if there's anything else to say, because in this context, the logic itself being an either/or situation really emphasizes the ignorant/bigoted dilemma
Oh what the hell am I being so coy for. Go read anax's post again and then read your response. Take a few days off from the subject then come back to those two posts, because after writing this and looking at the two, it makes it hard for me to believe a benefit of a doubt in that situation.
Shoebox, I realize what's happening in this thread.
Half of us are imagining ONLY the worst side of pc-ism.
Half of us are imagining ONLY the best side of pc-ism.
Everyone's imagining wildly different examples, so that any time that anyone's not 100% explicit with what they mean, it gets interpreted as the worst case scenario.
I'm not interested in new phrases for old, young, thin, fat, dumb, smart, etc etc. 1-syllable adjectives will do.
I pretty much agree with you, but consider this: sometimes those multi-syllabic alternates serve a purpose. For example, Carlin mentions replacing "blind" with "visually impaired". But in official-type documents, "visually impaired" is often more accurate and helpful than "blind". Many people really aren't blind, but their vision is incredibly impaired. Hell, you can be legally blind yet still have up to 30% vision, I believe. So the multi-syllabic term both reminds people that there often isn't a blind/sighted dichotomy, and it helps when designing public works and allocating money. (e.g. Very large type might be useful on a sign for the "visually impaired", but it's completely useless for the "blind.)
Anyways, I've already written way too many words saying things people already know. What else is new?
I'm not trying to be rigid about all that.
There's much use for terminology, and for politeness or euphemism. It's also the right thing to do to just get rid of certain shitty phrases, full stop.
It sucks that there has to be an exposition for what feels like everything, but this place isn't as tightly knit as people would want it to be.
The problem is that the PC stand off isn't anything new. There just needed to be the right exposure to even put it up front so people can get used to the typical political swings and punches of it all.
"I'm not interested in new phrases for old, young, thin, fat, dumb, smart, etc etc. 1-syllable adjectives will do"
Well, thought I was finished, but I feel the problem is that the anti-PC crowd is worried about validating stuff they disagree with when really PC is about giving presented ideas a chance, it's only validation if you let it be that way.
BUT, that's the issue at hand when any of this is brought up. Leaving it alone validates anyone with a bad idea and unfortunately that's the summary of the intent when someone brings up the anti-PC flag.
That's really why the anti-PC stance is really counter intuitive. It's pretty much "this is stupid so don't tell me otherwise" and it's such a broad, underhanded phrasing that it removes any sense of shame or guilt from the act.
And that's the biggest problem when someone says, "maybe you should be open minded about anti PC". You could easily be validating someone who doesn't have the right understanding or intent in the matter by letting it go, but nope, you don't want to be a pussy or a faggot, do ya?
I'm feeling fairly square with that guy, so this is more clearing up the previous post than anything else
I also want to make clear that it is extremely redundant when someone starts using "why/stop being so pc!" after a disagreement. It's already clear that you disagree with the idea/concept. It only proves that you want validation more than any exposition. Anti-PC shouldn't actually be anything more than the flash in the pan instance of a concept the moment that there is a disagreement.
"Do little people really object to the term "midget", or is the term just used to make non-little-people feel better? (Note: I *do* know the answer to this one. Yes, they do mind. A lot. Calling them "midgets" is a dick move.)"
What if they are midgets? Midgets are really rare because it's a uncommon condition that has a high mortality rate, most of them don't make it to their 20s. Dwarfism is far more common and calling them midgets would be a shitty, ignorant move, but I've never talked to a midget (I'm struggling to remember a time in my life I've even seen one in person, there simply aren't a lot of them in the world). I'm being willfully pedantic but I'm also genuinely curious.
As a collective, umbrella term for all people who have genetic conditions that make them unusually short, "little people" seems like a good one and it's certainly what I use personally.
"So.. yeah. Don't wrap yourselves too tightly in the anti-PC rhetoric of generally cool people like Carlin or Waters. They have interesting points, but they're not really grappling with what PC-ness is generally trying to accomplish."
It's the difference between making the individual choice to call people what they want to be called because you aren't an asshole (and recognizing that the rising tide of nonassholes will typically normalize that language over a generation or two as a matter of course) and trying to ban specific language as a matter of public policy, which is what reactionary fringe elements on the left are trying to do, especially in public (the key word here is PUBLIC) universities and colleges. That is, appropriate enough, exactly the kind of Stalinist agenda that the term Politically Correct was originally coined to describe by moderate communists and socialists back in the 30s, as I've mentioned too many times already this week.
What people always fail to pick up on is that there are often veiled classist undercurrents in the academic left's push to formally police language. It's the difference between manners and etiquette. Not calling a person with Down's syndrome "retard," calling a trans person by their preferred pronoun, calling an Abenaki a "native American" rather than an "Indian" (or vice versa or neither, both terms are offensive to different people for similar reasons) - stuff like that is just good manners, and if you aren't an asshole you probably follow it even if you don't agree with it sometimes. What we see out of the P.C. crowd is closer to etiquette, and I'm just going to cut and paste this quote from the Amber A'lee Frost piece that drew my attention to this distinction in the first pace:
"My neurotic friend, you have stumbled on one of the more fraught conundrums facing we top etiquette specialists today—the distressing overlap between an anachronistic, sexist chivalry and plain good manners. The distinction between the two can be reduced to “etiquette versus manners.” Chivalry is cognate with etiquette here—an established set of rituals intended to project one’s breeding. While not without its retro charms, it is an outdated concept devised and enforced to consolidate power among the aristocracy, and should be viewed with suspicion when not outright disdained. "
While it's not a perfect analogy, what the PC crew, particularly in academia, are doing is attempting to install their own form of etiquette, whereby they can assert their own superiority over the ignorant, uneducated masses who still call black people black people (n.b. the most progressive, politically active black people I know all call black people black people, which is why I chose that specific example) or use "guys" as a gender neutral term. I don't think it's deliberate or even conscious in most cases but it is most definitely obvious in practice.
But calling people what they want to be called when you're interacting with them directly or as a matter of pubic discourse? That's just common sense good manners and
It also gets a lot more complex when you get into areas of institutional use of language, where it really IS important to avoid language that marginalizes or otherwise hurts a specific group of people. That's a much more complicated issue, an I think the academic PC types have some good points in that realm. If we go back to that UNH example again, I don't have much problem with that language guide being applied to the university on an administrative level, it's when it becomes formally applied to faculty and the student body that it becomes deeply problematic (an in the case of PUBLIC universities there is a strong case for it qualifying as government censorship).
|Spaceman Africa |
wow what an interesting and unique topic
Thanks, arbiter of interestingness with so many unique thoughts to contribute.
PC is not fascism. And I'll 5 star this just to show that I'm not a censor. PC is mere manners, if you can't see that you need to stop being a faggot and grow up.
Even good people are completely and utterly wrong about some things
|Shoebox Joe |
I'm not going to read every thread here since I caught a whiff of clenched sphincters from past browsing of the front page, but damn does Carlin sound irrelevant as fuck.
Maybe I'll care if the freedom squad gives me something that is rationally risqué that isn't an absolute pile of filth lazily disguised as edgy or has such a simple rationalization; that's recent enough to merit more than shocking the political fodder.
"absolute pile of filth"
Oh my god Captain Hyperbole, you're right!! Carlin is Hitler.
Because some people are naturally stupid and just enjoy offending/hurting people, so trying to engage them to stop them from being human garbage using a couple lines of text is an utterly useless practice 99.9999999% of the time?
There're also lonely scumbags like evilhomer that just offend people (while not believing anything they say) just so someone talks to them, so any engagement is a waste of time.
Oh Nominal. Do you have anything to add other than a whimper about how you're so misunderstood?
Maybe if this subject wasn't such a blatant stonewall towards any empathy of anyone oppressed it would have a better use than pretending that fags should just deal with it
Don't encourage me. It only makes things worse.
Someone has not taken the "fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace" compliance course.
If I wanted the same terrible, hackneyed and fallacious whiteboy-defends-free-speech arguments as featured daily on reddit, I'd have gone there.
Carlin's schtick has not aged well, nor Hicks neither. Have one begrudged star for getting this response out of me.
I think I'd listen if you didn't resort to identity politics in your first line, and instead made your case.
If your case is 'whiteboy', then fuck you, fucking hypocrite.
Can you smell yourself??
I am curious about the Hicks comparison! I know that they're often compared to each other and I've listened to him enough that I can probably quote most of his material word-for-word and he never really went down the un-PC rabbit hole, just something that could be seen as semi-un-PC, like his thing about Basic Instinct, or some of his goatboy material. And yeah that was controversial, I'm sure, but funny, and not making any point except for "this is who I am, deal with it." But besides being pro-drugs in a very anti-drug 90s climate and preaching the truth in front of a god-fearing culture, I can't recall him bringing the whole PC thing much.
The question is, why are you questioning political correctness?
Why are someone else's views about being polite and considerate so threatening to you that you have to strike down the very concept in its entirety?
And your argument of "PC = not thinking" is just about the most retarded thing I've seen on the site.
...also you're a fucking idiot.
SolRo, did you just visit Strawman Emporium or what?
Were they going out of business?
Sexy Duck Cop, the problem with the anti-pc argument of "fundamental/rational thought" is that it easily turns into a red herring and quickly becomes more isolating down the line.
I mean yeah, sure. George Carlin is pretty attractive due to being the Anita Sarkeesian of the comedy world, but I wouldn't go gaga defending the guy.
"I think I'd listen..."
Yes sure, that's believable. I mean you're doing such a fine job of listening in this thread already...
Anyway, it's plainly apparent that your white guy feelings have been hurt by my white guy words about white guys being utterly tedious whenever 'PC' or 'Free speech' is 'discussed'.
I apologise for inflaming your yeasty sore spot you tedious little man.
RE:Hicks for IZ
It's more to do with the brogressive fandom who think both Carlin and Hicks are literal saints who must never be disagreed with under any circumstances.
Don't get me wrong, I freakin loved Bill's stuff back in the day but I've travelled in many circles where himself or Carlin are quoted entirely out of context, ad nauseam to make all kind of shitty arguments.
Would have responded earlier but shortly after 'that guy' threw his shitfit about 'identity politics' or whatever strawman he's decided to flog, the site mysteriously stopped working on all browsers from my office IP.
Every whiteboy's the same. Lynch 'em all.
|American Standard |
Appeal to authority, huh?
Sure, guys. Okay.
.....no, appeal to the ideas, and consideration of where he has a point, where he doesn't, and everything in between.
PC ideas - dismiss in whole as fascism
My ideas - carefully consider all of them
This is the conclusion you reached about how I think about political correctness?
Tell me, SolRo, was it hard to commit basically the same fallacy that you were accusing me of while you were thinking that up, or does that kind of asinine, blinkered bargain-bin thinking come easily to you?
You have done this shit a half dozen times now, asswipe. You accuse people of wholly dismissing something if they criticize any part of it.
it's fuckin' dumb
"What would be wrong with calling those people 'physically defective'?"
I don't know, George, maybe the choice of wording is to stress that we think people have value just for being people, rather than being broken merchandise to be discarded and destroyed? You know, like actual fascists used to do. The Nazis had a great adjective, "lebensunwürdig", meaning "life-unworthy". Odd that Carlin is shading into that line of thinking.
Also I'm still waiting for evidence that the "politically correct" believe that society needs to return to some semi-mythical better age, or that they have a militaristic bent or they follow a single leader or party. If you're going to bitch about the "PC police" restricting language, you might want to demonstrate that you aren't just into name-calling by calling them "fascists". (I couldn't find where Carlin himself used the term "fascism" but I bailed on the stupid fuck a few minutes in, and I don't have much interest in listening to even this aggrieved white guy complain about mean ol' language police. So as far as I know it's just the video description.)
This is the part where someone wades in and says "the video title is using 'fascist' figuratively, you filthy Jew!" ... well it's using the term figuratively in about the least applicable, laziest way possible; dullards use the word "fascist" to mean anything they feel is oppressing them, and this is another example.
Are you 100% sure that he's not being facetious at ANY point in this chunk, like when he suggests that the proper term should/could be "physically defective"? Like maybe as a mock-euphemism??
And if you're still looking for evidence that the politically correct aren't trying to use institutions to hammer down on people and fuck up their lives, then, I guess, fuck yourself?
It's possible he's being sarcastic and I didn't listen far enough to where he makes it obvious. But everything up to that point sounded exactly like aggrieved white guy moaning, so if there was a punchline later, I didn't stick around for it.
You can't even define "the politically correct", though: it's a catch-all term for anyone who has concerns you don't. I'm sure there are cases where I would agree that people are White Knighting or being Berwyns or whatever, but they are the price we pay for a society that is finally trying to listen to the needs of formerly marginalized groups. There are worse problems then not being able to sing that one line in "Fairy Tale of New York". (KT Tunstall sings "blaggard" instead, and it works well enough for me.)
Man, Bort. What kind of complaints did you write in when the Soup Nazi sketch aired?
"And if you're still looking for evidence that the politically correct aren't trying to use institutions to hammer down on people and fuck up their lives, then, I guess, fuck yourself?"
Where did you get that retarded idea?
Are you bitching that you cant use faggot, dyke, and nigger at work (or broadcasting it on the internet) without getting into trouble?
Guess what, cupcake, you can get into trouble at work for being an asshole in hundreds of ways that wouldn't "trigger the PC police". Companies and institutions don't want idiots chasing off customers at work or being linked to the company while being assholes in public.
You're also being stupid in implying that EVERYONE that is PC automatically tries to dox someone offensive and get them fired, which is a total bullshit lie and you know it.
"Man, Bort. What kind of complaints did you write in when the Soup Nazi sketch aired?"
In response to a sitcom where all the characters are defined as reprehensible idiots ... ? Tossing the term "Nazi" around is about what I'd expect. But I hold actual people to a higher standard, especially when their evidence of "fascism" is that the use of slurs is considered unacceptable in social circles and unprofessional in the workplace.
fucking idiot SolRo
AGAIN, because I'm criticizing PC shit, does this give you the excuse to assume that I'm just a pure right-wing racist who wants to say that shit at work all day?
Why does your mind work in such absolutes? You do this shit all the time, you donkey.
You know what, never mind. I'm done with you. Fuck you forever. I should have stuck with it the first time you goddamn half-wit.
Bort, you can reform society in that way without letting a few percent abuse the reform by taking it to extremes or using various 'cards' you can play as a weapon.
It's not an either/or proposition.
It really is an either/or proposition: any movement with any power, however positive its intentions, is going to also have some people who twist the movement or who at least have trouble policing their own behavior.
The existence of extremes doesn't mean that the entire movement is misguided. Fault the extremes if you like, but recognize them as such.
It would do much better for the people within the movement to recognize and deal with those extremes, rather than ignoring them or trying to rationalize them away.
Yep, I agree with that.
Not a careful reading of what I said- either that, or you want people to abuse the reform.
The story really began in the middle sixties, the period of the great purges in which the original leaders of the Revolution were wiped out once and for all. By 1970 none of them was left, except Big Brother himself. All the rest had by that time been exposed as traitors and counter-revolutionaries. Goldstein had fled and was hiding no one knew where, and of the others, a few had simply disappeared, while the majority had been executed after spectacular public trials at which they made confession of their crimes. Among the last survivors were three men named Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford...
Some time after their release Winston had actually seen all three of them in the Chestnut Tree Cafe. He remembered the sort of terrified fascination with which he had watched them out of the corner of his eye. They were men far older than himself, relics of the ancient world, almost the last great figures left over from the heroic days of the Party. The glamour of the underground struggle and the civil war still faintly clung to them. He had the feeling, though already at that time facts and dates were growing blurry, that he had known their names years earlier than he had known that of Big Brother. But also they were outlaws, enemies, untouchables, doomed with absolute certainty to extinction within a year or two. No one who had once fallen into the hands of the Thought Police ever escaped in the end. They were corpses waiting to be sent back to the grave.
Stupid people are everywhere
|Monkey Napoleon |
Stars for the irony SolRo presents, when given half a chance.
We could adopt Umberto Eco's list of how to be a fascist!
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism *check*
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights *double tap drone check*
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause *Checkleaks*
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism *fuck yeah check*
5. Rampant sexism *check and mate rate*
6. A controlled mass media *brought you by Comcheck*
7. Obsession with national security *check yer phone*
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together *God bless check*
9. Power of corporations protected *too big to uncheck*
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated *check for lumps*
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts *pomo check*
12. Obsession with crime and punishment *check your bunk for shivs*
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption *check your silverware*
14. Fraudulent elections *let's check with President Gore*
Goddammit, why did we go with Umberto's list instead of Mussolini's? This is some lame ass fascism. There are better fascisms, people, not this cynical crap.
We need a better kind of fascist corporate slave state.
The hard left would like to do their version of much of that, but the hard right actually is doing all of it.
The only person who has ever checked off everything on that list is Batman.
I'm not taking the bait, memedumpster. Save the dynamite and bowl of free bird seed for another video.
|Spaceman Africa |
lotta good discussions here in these comments
You guys are entertaining to watch. I had an interesting conversation about "PC" today.
Short answer: DBAA
Long answer: Don't be an asshole.
That about sums it up.
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
Part of racial and gender "equality" is that women and minorities get to be arrogant assholes sometimes. For me, the turning point was "Shirtgate", where I learned that feminists can be bullies. Since then, I've had women who are a third of my age pontificate about what's wrong with me, and about how its my resposibility to dismantle the patriarchy, but my thoughts about gender issues are when I think about that now, I'm embarrassed for them.
But it hurts to be disregarded because of who you are, and its wrong. Nobody, not even a white guy, should have to put up with it.
However, when it happens to a white guy, he would be well advised not to act like this is the first time anyone has ever been discriminated against. Before you rail against the injustice, take a little minute to realize that other people get that kind of bullshit all the time. This is what it's like to be a woman, believe it.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|