Nope! Personally, I will teach my children they're just words. I can already see the arguments I'll get into with school officials. Removing the taboo from something immediately reduces the use of it as a form of rebellion.

What I'm attempting to point out is this persistent, cultural impression that some words are worse than others, but no real explanation is provided. Instead of explaining to reach an understanding, we're "conditioning" to obey without question. (i.e. If an authority-figure tells you "because I said so", you just do as your told like everyone else!)

This cognitive dissonance is exactly how it happens. Mom is bemused and giving her daughter all this positive reinforcement for what, in most other contexts in a child's world, would be (and constantly is) shamed and punished.

Ideally I'll just say to my kids: "Use those words all you want, but not around people who ask you to stop. We should be courteous to everyone". There will be no such thing as "Bad Words".

Ah Asmo, this is humorous. Not in a way that has me thinking less of you, but due to the fact that even the smartest people make the most indefensible arguments. Stewart always has a joke when Republicans (and sometimes Democrats) do the same thing Chaos just did and which you defended--which is to ignore the "implied" in a statement. Usually Republicans use hate speech or such, but they just don't say the hate literally (Often when Obama's policies were compared to Nazi Germany's policies, for example.)

I.e, "Hey, I'm not saying Obama is like Hitler, but look at the smoke stacks coming from the White House?! They look like Jew smoke to you?!"

Another, but this one in more relation to our conversation.

I.e., Hey Lawdeedaw, when you have dick in your mouth does it taste good? WOAH, I DIDN'T SAY YOU SUCK DICK! YOU IMPLIED THAT! I just asked, you know, when dick is in your mouth...

See how utterly indefensible that above statement is? Or why Stewart gets so pissed, rightly so, when people make that argument? People can hide behind the most obvious statements and it's bullshit. Or people can be ignorant of the statements you make, and it's just as bullshit.

If you can't see the sense that makes, don't respond to this post please. I don't argue with ideology that blinds people to clear points and I have agreed with my fair share of points over the years when I have been wrong...so I expect it returned in kind.

Second, you do have a point about me being judgmental. I am jaded because every marriage I observed growing up was toxic. "Dad can't divorce mom, even tho she abuses us kids." Was a wonderful house I lived in. My wife was beaten for years by her husband, until she took poverty and destitution over that, and then met me. The list goes on and on, yada yada, no more need to explain my own life history because it isn't necessarily what happens in all of America. So I look at the worst aspects of marriage. Aspects that are as universal as the fact that we eat, breathe, shit and die.

Of course I also use history and stats to back up my judgment. So; marriage is a civil contract based on liberty and property (At least the part of marriage that matters to the government insofar as the rights they give you.) If the world's population of homosexuals is around 2.5% or so, depending on the estimates, then cheating (seeking out more than one relationship at a time) is much more naturally inherent to humans than sexual orientation by far. This is also natural in regards to the homosexual relationships as well. Cheating causes so much grief, repercussions, and yet it is only one bad aspect of being tied into a contract that many societies make difficult to break either through legal means or cultural taboos. Furthermore, abuse, divorce, long-term separation for business matters, much of these things kind of lend credence to the fact that marriage is created by society and has nothing to do with the "apparent" definitions we apply to it.

And Asmo, naughty naughty Asmo, you implied something...I am in no way shape or form telling other people what "their relationship is about." Just because I say something is inconvenient for damn near everyone (For some it is not) doesn't really mean much of anything. Shoes are inconvenient because you have to tie their laces. Is that me telling you how to shoe? No. How about kids? Kids are a hell of an inconvenience, but if you said I was degrading parenthood, especially my own, I would tell you to fuck yourself with that bold-faced lie.

If you are focused on the "property" aspect of that comment, well, you have an issue with my definition of the government's hand in marriage.

Indecency is as much a ludicrous taboo as mountain-blasphemy.

Disobeying the demands of a bunch of superstitious tribals isn't ignorance; it's moral, cultural and frankly genetic superiority.

Your video, How NOT to Play Taboo, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Oops, looks like Yogi wasn't the only one. Sorry for the second message, I know you don't like dealing with this bullshit and just want to hang out on your cool site with cool people.

Yeah if you censor that puts you in a particular camp. It doesn't matter how good your reason is, every fucker who ever did it thought they had a good reason. Just stop it man, please.

I don't want you to ban me. Honestly I've expected you to for years - I commend you for your cool temper and grace. But. I don't believe enlightened people should live in chains. Taboos are only that; they hinder free discourse.

And yes obviously - obviously - these things carry no racial significance for me. Race is a superstition and everyone needs to get over it, instantly.

I think it's because comedians are starting to get more attention than the pundits and they don't like anybody horning in on their action. For that matter I sometimes find comedians and what they say to be more truthful and even honest. Comedy isn't always just telling jokes, it can also be a way of broaching subjects that otherwise might be considered too painful or even outright taboo for many people, if you can keep them laughing they are less likely to punch you in the face.

I agree with Yogi. This is actually the US's fault. When Japan started trading with the Western powers (starting with the US), a lot of what was previously thought of as perfectly normal to talk about (like sex) was instead turned into taboo. That is why they have tentacle porn, because penises were censored due to Western Christian influences, so they had to use something to depict penetration.

OK, a few things.
First of all, how can you hate this? They even had a vagician!
Still cracks me up.

Second, look, I'm not a female so I'm probably not the best person to comment on this but...
I've seen "Carrie" and even read the book (which obviously makes me an expert), so I wouldn't compare the first period with random erections. I don't know about you but I had them way before I knew what they truly meant. When girls get their first period, they are at least capable of understanding it (depending on their sexual education more or less well). And it is a bigger deal. Not like making you an awkward, homicidal X-Men big but noteworthy when it happens the first time.
Just from a stigmata perspective (not even talking the maintenance side of things) it's a quite different thing. How many boner jokes did you see and hear on average in movies or TV last year? How many menstruation jokes? See where this is going? It's still very much a taboo subject. You're more likely to find videos here about fucking children than menstruation. That's how comfortable our western culture is with the subject.

Third, the only stupid thing about this is that there is a country that is super rich and wealthy and still somebody feels the need to sell a menstruation starter kit to the parents living there. And that commercial is not aimed at single fathers (who'd probably really love such a kit), no, it's aimed at the moms. You know, the women who menstruated for (hopefully) at least a decade or two before their little girls start as well. Just like their grandmothers and great-grandmothers. They are supposed to buy that shit. Welcome to the country of vajazzling!
Still, hilarious video! Exactly the shit I'd pull on my kids if I had any (and the exact reason I shouldn't have kids).

It's a clever rationalization of hypocrisy. If it's going to be taboo to observe patterns in groups of people demarcated by visible characteristics they were born with, be consistent about it. But I'd argue against that taboo.

What makes racism bad is treating people as specimens of a group rather than unique individuals. Group averages may differ slightly but there's tons of overlap. Common usage of the word "racism" unfortunately conflates a moral aspect (how to treat people) with an epistemological aspect (dogma that all groups are created exactly equal in every way). Epistemology shouldn't be moralized. I could give you lots of examples of sociological and psychological research getting muddled on account of an inflexible dogma that there couldn't be any heritable differences between groups other than the obvious superficial ones. I'd rather conceive of the word racism as a verb describing harmful actions towards people due to their group membership, not a noun denoting a thoughtcrime or speechcrime. Like church and state, or science and religion, epistemology and morality don't go together.

A priori based on generation times and mutation rates you should expect there could be 1/10 as much variation between historically isolated groups of humans as there is between breeds of dogs, since the most recent common ancestor of all domestic dogs is half as far back as humans' most recent common ancestor is (or rather was before 16th and 17th century explorers spread their sperm across the globe) but dogs breed a lot faster. Breeds of dogs demonstrably vary in many behavioral and psychological traits. It's not far fetched to suppose that a variety of environments over the past 100,000 years of humanity pushed population means of behavioral traits in various directions.

Let's be fair to Reg here, it's a comedic attempt to bring people closer together. Consider that he almost certainly has had to deal with racism a lot more than most people, being a black man in comedy clubs. It's probably not as taboo to him as to me or you, he knows where the lines are and he plays within them with a purpose. He really believes his message; ie. one of unity.

I think he's pursuing unity in the best possible way - by alleviating the tension and by making it trivial through .... let's face it, some utterly hilarious jokes. He's even better when he's in sort of unscripted interview. Painfully funny and a true master of the "art" of comedy, and comedy IS subject to different rules simply because that's what the majority of people want, and those that don't want can tune out. So it's a free-for-all and either everything is fair game or nothing is.

And people wonder how 25% of Americans still think the sun revolves around the earth. Ah yes, herein lies the explanation. Such genuine, complete, and absolute TERROR at the idea of anything even approaching critical thought that it means even attempting to use rationality on any subject is taboo. It's sad. More than that it's terrifying because those 25% (and these people) get to help decide on the fate of so much that is important through voting. Or at least in theory they do. *sigh*

There is no taboo in discussing the "rape worthy" contents of media portrayals when it comes to the depiction of women, but there remains consistent and pervasive taboos when it comes to its comparability with men (despite the fact that, statistically speaking, men are far more likely to be the victims of rape than a woman is).

The silence on the issue is deafening, especially when you take into account that as many as 20% of male military veterans are the victims of sexual assault and trauma. Where's the depiction of this alongside its concomitant "warrior" culture depictions throughout the media which in fact breeds the very aggression which perpetuates it?

<crickets>

Moreover, where is the cognizance of how the media perpetuates the stereotypes of men which lead to greater proportions of men committing suicide? Or becoming homeless? Or suffering from crippling occupational injuries? Or dying in the line of duty? Or being alienated from their children/families while still being fully expected and legally obligated to support them financially?

I'd go so far as to say your very denial of these facts only serves to further underscore how commonplace it is to cater to the oppression of women, while continuing to perpetuate the ongoing subjugation and oppression of men.

@Shepppard
ah...my young friend.
come over by the fire,your buddy enoch has some things to speak to you about.
are you comfy?
need a drink? beer? coffee?

then let us begin.

1.why do YOU care what another makes an hour?is it YOUR business?

but i understand the basic gist of your point:unskilled labor.

ok.thats a fair point.
but why is 15$ an hr too high?
what arbitrary scale are you comparing their hourly worth to?
walmart workers?

here is a facts that may give you some perspective:
a.if we take the minimum wage from 1978 and factor in inflation and worker productivity todays minimum should average 22$ an hour (yes...you read that right).
b.the workers in these unskilled jobs are in the high percentages in goverment subsidies.to the tune of 7 BILLION a year.so basically we ALL are subsidizing mcdonalds and walmart to pay their workers like shit.

so are you still against them getting a living wage? when you and i are subsidizing their income. the companies they work for get to pocket those profits,you and i get to help pay for their housing and food stamps.

walmart even helps ttheir employees sign up for food stamps! now isnt that adorable.

dont you think it a better idea that these companies pay their help at least enough where they dont need government susbizies? you know.like actually PAY them and not force us to?

2.if these corporations paid a minimum of 15$ an hr the projected hike in product prices will be......./drum roll.....
...........15 cents per item.........

3.how come it appears to be taboo to point to a CEO of a company who is making billions in bonuses while his/her workers are having to receive food stamps?
when did obscene gluttony and greed become something cool? even praiseworthy? while ridiculing those trying to survive and demanding a little bit of dignity as something to be chastised and cajoled for even having the impertinence to ask for a living wage.

the cognitive dissonance on display is on an epic scale.

who do YOU think you have more in common with?
the dude working at your local burger king?
or jamie dimon?

and dont even get me started on that condescending argument "get an education to get a better job".

i have been seeing many posts of late that reflect the very same flavor of yours @Shepppard and the one thing they all have in common is this judgemental value system that they just pulled out of their ass but in reality was given to them by the very people fucking them,and their children in the ass.

there will come a day when these people will realize they are slaves.
debt slaves.
wage slaves.
and while they were bickering the banksters and the corporate elite cleaned their clock.....
and they didnt notice until it was too late.

those elite fuckers.
they have a small club and you aint in it.
they dont like you.
they will never like you.
me?
im on your side man.

It's a really complicated issue, especially in countries/areas/societies where sex is taboo.

But I can't help but feel that while transgenders may not "fit in" anywhere, there are plenty of people out there who feel the same way who are "normal" (boy/girl relationships) in terms of their society/area but are socially inept, deformed, ugly, etc.

I think the biggest thing that transgenders will have to overcome is the ability to have a child. It's just too ingrained into people that you get married and have kids. It's so important that sterility could be cause for a divorce. You pretty much know what to expect in most circumstances, guy/guy, guy/girl, girl/girl and the options at hand for whatever decision you make. But if you THINK you're dating a guy or a girl........and then you find out otherwise, it's not really fair to expect someone not to be upset IMO. Ignoring the whole are they a boy or girl question. It's equivalent to a man whose had a vasectomy dating a woman who has made it clear that she wants kids, and him keeping quiet about it. Or a woman who has been told she's unlikely to be able to have kids dating a man who wants kids, and not passing along that information until he starts wondering what the problem is after they've agreed to try.


That's ignoring the question of "Does me liking this transgender person mean Im gay/straight/bi/etc?" I just think it's hard to ignore the pregnancy/children aspect of it, since it's biological and a major driving force in people's lives.

I imagine it will just be like just about every vice in existence, there will be people who can handle it and there will be people who can't

Remember the first Barclay episode of TNG dealing with Holo-addiction? They made the pretty clear implication that they do use the holodeck to act out sexual fantasies, they did seem to have a taboo on making holo-recreations of people they knew RL however. which, of course, Barclay did indulge in.

Of course it got somewhat more explicit after Roddenberry died and the producers decided to make humans in the 24th century a little bit more..human instead of the ultra superbeings who were paragons of virtue of Roddenberry's vision and the idea of "Vulcan Love Slave" was introduced among other things.