maybe you see no reason to be angered or annoyed when someone calls you names, but handling words maturely does not mean that you haven't been insulted.
let's suppose there is an objective truth out there. some people are lame and some people are not. calling someone "lame" who is not lame is wrong as in false. stereotypes allow for such falsehoods.
the world is also more complicated than this simple logic. beyond (mythical) objective truth are the social interactions and even economic, political and medical disparities that are wrong and result from seeing only one's own perspective and whatever culture/habits/stereotypes we end up believing.
in the case of "whining like emo girls" the goal was likely entertainment. was that worth the small but nonetheless derogatory slight against emo girls* ? we call our own shots.
the rest of the article is somewhat angsty and desperate itself. joel tends towards entertainment and one-sidedness rather than well spoken and well thought out ideas. that's fine. i'm standing by my argument out of some larger principle.
* funny, but "girls" probably means "non-macho guys".
[edit: fixed formatting so footnote didn't italicize everything]
>> "some people are lame and some people are not. calling someone "lame" who is not lame is wrong as in false. stereotypes allow for such falsehoods."
It's false,..... which makes it funny....
Next you'll be analyzing why drag queens are funny :/
I don't believe that derogatory words exist, no. I get offended by actions, not words. It's also in the context. If someone calls me a "crazy brain dead retard" that's fine if I already know them, but if it's a stranger, I'd think them rude. I wouldn't be offended though... just surprised.
maybe you see no reason to be angered or annoyed when someone calls you names, but handling words maturely does not mean that you haven't been insulted.
let's suppose there is an objective truth out there. some people are lame and some people are not. calling someone "lame" who is not lame is wrong as in false. stereotypes allow for such falsehoods.
the world is also more complicated than this simple logic. beyond (mythical) objective truth are the social interactions and even economic, political and medical disparities that are wrong and result from seeing only one's own perspective and whatever culture/habits/stereotypes we end up believing.
in the case of "whining like emo girls" the goal was likely entertainment. was that worth the small but nonetheless derogatory slight against emo girls* ? we call our own shots.
the rest of the article is somewhat angsty and desperate itself. joel tends towards entertainment and one-sidedness rather than well spoken and well thought out ideas. that's fine. i'm standing by my argument out of some larger principle.
* funny, but "girls" probably means "non-macho guys".
[edit: fixed formatting so footnote didn't italicize everything]