I try to use whatever term people seem to prefer.

-@Bitter Crank

That is exactly what I understood to be the correct option.

So I guess I just have to decide how authoritarian I want to be when others can't be bothered to make such an effort :chin:

And thanks for the dos of 60s culture. No, I was not familiar with Hair, the musical; but nice to learn about the musical that defined rock musicals :)

@Bitter Crank

Really, there is something quite neurotic in the obsession some people have with statuary, names, and symbols here and in other countries. That would go for people who feel they owe allegiance to the long-gone Confederacy as well as people who are enraged by seeing the symbol.

-@Bitter Crank

Dang, the world must be really infuriating these days as everyone seems to be increasingly suffering this neurosis :)

As someone who does not really understand words being offensive (I think it is attached to my inability to read emotions), I am fairly confident I understand what you are getting at. But even though I am rarely offended, I have always been aware of actions or words that highly offend others. Here is an example of where my head is at on this sort of issue:

As a history student I remember learning about the treatment of Native Americans in the modern age. There was a decent amount of research and effort put into the answer to the question "what should we call these people." Indians? Native Americans? Indigenous Americans, First Peoples, etc. Most students immediately say, "Indians? That's not appropriate." But actually a few tribes prefer to be called Indians (kind of owning the term). Some prefer Native Americans. Others are horribly offended by "Indian" or "Native". So what is right? Whatever the hell they want to be called. Now, they can't get too mad when I am wrong the first time, but if I was friends with, or worked with them and on the first day they said I should call them First Peoples (on the rare instance that I actually need to refer to their ethnicity), can't I make that effort? Similarly, if black Americans are reminded of terrible truths every time they see a confederate flag, I don't mind not showing these flags (but of course we still teach it in history class). I guess you would respond that I am just talking about common courtesy, not some legal issue one should be fired over? - fair enough I suppose

I guess I would need to do some research; how many Germans feel their freedoms are severely limited because they can't have Nazi flags?

I believe in achieving social justice, but social justice isn't about symbols, statuary, and names. It's about the fair distribution of material resources and the opportunity to make desired economic choices and pursue opportunities

- @Bitter Crank

I certainly admit, that if this is accomplished it is problem solved. In fact, we could still fire people for nonsense reasons, but it wouldn't matter because there would be another job waiting or some other form of safety net...In my mind we only worry about these people being fired because we all MUST make a living. But if that MUST were gone, who cares if someone is fired? If they really enjoyed that job, surely they can still pursue similar efforts? Possibly in a more rewarding environment with people that are less easily offended?

Thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts, I can't find much wrong with your ideas, but I am not quite sold either.

@Bitter Crank

I agree with everything on false allegations (and most of everything else). And unquestionably there are some confusing aspects of #me2. For example, as far as I can tell, many (most?) relationships (especially for younger people) begin with a #me2 moment that in that instance both people are OK with...that may be changing in the era of me2, but slowly.

But there is one other aspect to this (which may have nothing to do with what you were talking about?). I will use a personal example to illustrate:

About 20 years ago, I dressed up as the General Lee (the car from Dukes of Hazzard) for Halloween. Now at the time, I did not even consider that there was anything wrong with that. However, I now know that the car is named after a hero of the confederacy. The car also has the symbol of the confederacy on it (the confederate flag). Now while the confederacy was about more than slavery and racism, those were certainly two defining aspects. Now if I was to be fired (or not hired) someday because a photo surfaced showing me dressed in orange with a confederate flag; I would think it fair to terminate me based on the implication that I might not work well with other races.

My example clearly does nothing to address false accusations, but I think it does show that even a minor incident (if known to be true), can be enough to just try the next person - Well I guess it "shows" to me, hopefully it makes sense to others?

@Bitter Crank - I have been reading this forum for years (thank you everyone for your contributions), and I finally disagree with you on something; so I will attempt to contribute without making a complete fool of myself.

You ended your comment with the following:

Maybe Tom, Dick, or Harry did paw Betsy 10 years ago, but what does that have to do with his job as a faceless functionary at XYZ corporation?

Is there anything that Tom, Dick, or Harry could have done 10 years ago that would matter? From your comment, it seems only some type of business fraud would matter to XYZ Corp. What if he murdered someone 10 years ago? Probably a dumb example because he would belong in jail. But what about something less extreme? What if they raped somebody and got out of prison early for good behavior? How about a child abuser?

As those are probably ridiculously ungenerous examples, I guess I will just get to my point. If I own corp XYZ, I am aware that millions of people can fulfill the role of "faceless functionary". So yes, if they groped someone 10 years, that is an easy "on to the next candidate." Now I would assume there are some legal problems as you probably need cause to fire such a person. But that is different from the philosophical (hypothetical? not sure this is correct use of philosophical?) position of "of course I want to find someone better than the groper." And to be clear, I do not mean "better" at their job. You are right, that could not effect their work at all. I just prefer not to work with such a person...

...I may have just understood your point. Are you suggesting that all humans are flawed, and if I knew anyone well enough, I would know of flaws that disqualify them? Hmmmm, never mind, I know at least a few people (maybe I should say a couple, certainly limited) who have never done anything that could be considered as bad as groping (assuming I draw a line that forgives behaviors before a certain age).


I apologize if I interrupted the current exchange while referring to a post that is a few days old. Please do not hesitate to ignore this and continue :) If I even make the cut, I guess the whole post might be deleted as gibberish.