search results matching tag: offend

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.003 seconds

    Videos (214)     Sift Talk (53)     Blogs (23)     Comments (1000)   

Is There an Alternative to Political Correctness?

Diogenes says...

I think most everyone knows how to be polite. A lot of people just don't put much effort into its practice. PC speech doesn't have to be a bad thing, but unfortunately it's most often used by people--to which any "offending" language likely wasn't directed--as a way of virtue signalling over the "offender." This is what pisses most reasonable people off.

Atheist Angers Christians With Bible Verse

cloudballoon says...



Was gone for the weekend and it turned into word fights (almost)...

It is so hard to carry on a discussion... the heat too easily turned up. Sorry if I contributed in the heat.

Thing is, I don't think any of us need to argue for God's omnipotent or his non-existence. God can select to do or not do anything he wants. He can choose to reveal Himself to a believer or a non-believer, or NOT to. What's the point. It has been argued for millennia and I doubt we are "The Chosen One(s)" to end this. And I think, most of us in our Western society, whether you're Christian or not, we know quite a bit about the Bible CONTENT. But the 99.99% of us non-Bible-scholars probably don't know the exact CONTEXT of the tough stuff. The churches avoid them too for obvious reasons.

For me the important things is, there are really horrible things done in history (and present) in the name of religion. Allow me to be a bit self-serving and consider these terrible, inhumane events as evil beings hijacking their religions so they can get away Scot-free. We can't allow that in this day & age. Hold the evil doers & hypocrites accountable, not the religion.

When I read the Bible, I see all the crap that makes no sense too, but I see the discrepancy as humanity making progress. There are so many years between us & the Bible's original writings (or oral pass-me-downs), words & meaning invariably changed (and not always for the better). Could it be the clear-as-day word "gossip" (its Hebrew equivalent) was not part of its language yet? Therefore Paul said those sexist things (in our modern eye)? Or just people speak funny in those days? I can't be sure.

So, I *try* to figure out the meaning of those difficult Bible verses by keeping the context of Jesus' teachings in mind. I mean, come on, all he want is us all having compassion towards each other, be respectful of God and oh, there's the promise of heaven. Like, THAT'S IT, that's the gist of it. Anything else is pretty secondary & incidental to me. The part that concerns between human-human interact? Yes, it's hard to put in practice. But it's not hard to understand what's needed to be done. E.g. If someone offends my religion, should I go on the defensive and then all Super-Saiyan retaliation mode? Or should put my focus into finding out why he offended me and try to understand the reasoning behind it, and if possible, do something positive about it? I believe Jesus asks of us the latter.

Thing is, as a Christian (granted, some Christian might not consider me one that much, maybe?), I'm OK to leave a lot of things in the Bible in the "gray zone"... because it is *I* that haven't the smarts to comprehend what's written fully. But I do think I understand its purpose enough to know what I need to do to be better. The world is full of hurt, we can't just standby and focus on sometimes pointless fights (ironically I'm typing this post, lol, mea culpa, but hope it's worth it), better put more energy on making things better -- like Jesus, arguably the most progressive thinker/doer of its time, wanted to make the world a better place. Jesus didn't spend his time setting up a religion, he was there for a peace & compassion revolution.

Seriously sad that when the topic touches on religion, there're way too much stereotypes & presumptions on every sides. I see the reality as far more nuanced. I can understand, and in fact conditionally support, a lot of the abolition of "Religion" with its ritualistic practices in today's society. I really don't trust anyone loudly proclaiming themselves "devout" but support sexist/racist/unjust policies. The smell of hypocrisy, ulterior motives & power corruption are too great. Don't sheepishly give them the political & God forbid... military power to do great harm to humanity. History has proven that time & again.

Atheist Angers Christians With Bible Verse

newtboy says...

I don't think he cares so much about the hatred, he may even relish it.

I'm thinking that if he made it clear he's criticizing the bible, he would avoid the anger of non/less religious people that are offended by the verse, but garner the more dangerous hatred of zealots enraged at a slight against their belief system...he's unlikely to get them to critically examine it either way.
Thought about that way, he was being smart by being misleading. ;-)

entr0py said:

Exactly, it's natural to assume he's endorsing that bible passage and not criticizing it.

If he made it clear he's just pointing out crazy biblical shit most people aren't aware of, he'd get a lot less hate.

VENGANCE!!!!!

newtboy says...

And they didn't...ever. They intentionally blocked the road....for no reason...after the bike cut off traffic in the other direction by illegally crossing. To my eyes, that makes them the original offenders and the intentional assholes.
Honking at a douchbag walking in the middle of the road, seemingly oblivious on his phone, and yelling "move" seems quite restrained compared to most drivers here in America in the same position, imo.

I do agree, it seems overly convenient that they cross and turn around to be next to the puddle.

notarobot said:

Not at all.

They two pedestrians should have moved over for the car in the first place......

Rude Lady Fires a Long Time Janitor For Leaving 8 Min Early

newtboy says...

What a disgusting bitch. As if she isn't ugly enough physically, she has to display an even more sickeningly ugly personality publicly.

There's no way she would have paid him overtime for being there 15 min longer, and the fire dept might have fined them if he hadn't given them access, or just left and not inspected, closing the school and definitely costing the janitor his job for not letting them in.
Do they not have a punch clock? That should back him up completely with HR. I can only hope they're addressing Susan's inappropriate behavior and reprimanding her strongly.

He's better off. He'll get another job thanks to this video, a better one with a boss who's not using a pineapple for a butt plug.

I think you are going to be sorry....Mrs Susan Opferman of Alpharetta Georga, for this behavior. Someone's going to be offended and find you and/or use these overhanded, insulting, unfair and dehumanizing tactics against you and your children. I expect Webb Bridge middle school will be getting a large number of complaints about this woman working with children, maybe costing her job. Turn about is fair play...get ready for a shit storm.

A good question I have, why would a custodian's hours end at the same time school gets out? Do they leave the daily messes to dry and harden overnight until 6:30 am? It would make far more sense if he got off at 4.

Edit: oops. I made a mistake. I just realized this is normal and accepted behavior for a beachmaster. Carry on.

SFPD Shoots and Kills Unarmed 19yr old Man over $2 Bus Fare

BSR says...

I haven't read all the comments so I'm not sure if anyone feels the same as I do. This seems to be a popular video but I also think it's a little much for VideoSift. I'd hate to see this site become a gore site. I see this video was published just about 6 years ago, to my surprise.

I do body recovery, meaning that if there are human remains from motor vehicle crashes, crime scenes, suicides etc, it's my job to pick them up and bag them. My point being that I'm not offended by content like this but, rather it's something that tends to "grow kids up" before they are ready. There is no "NSFK" warning so I think videos like this might be better off at sites that publish this kind of content.

Just my opinion. Anyone else?

Bill Maher - Elizabeth Warren Interview

ChaosEngine says...

I know that Maher didn't mean to offend her and that he was just alluding to Trump's comments, but I still found it kinda unsavoury.

It's a bit like calling a black politician "uncle tom". Sure, you might not mean anything by it (other than those other guys are awful and they'll call you names), but I'm not surprised she took offence at it.

MilkmanDan said:

Hmm. I really like her, but I'm a little bit concerned about her reaction to some of Maher's quips/questions:

A) The Pocahontas thing seemed to really throw her off. I don't think Maher said it with any malice; just to remind her that there are some unreachable people who will vote Republican no matter what.

Racist is what you do, not what you say.

Rex Murphy | Free speech on campus

Asmo says...

1. You don't speak for all trans/POC/gays etc, so you can only describe your personal experience. There are a number of documented trans people who agree with Peterson and don't want the state strong arming people in to mouthing the words...

2. Peterson does not promote transphobia, he resists being forced to speak certain words. They are not synonymous. If the fuckwits yelling their heads off spent the time to listen, they'd understand that.

3. Peterson was fine with the idiots at the event chucking a trantrum because it showed them up to be the intolerant idiots, not him. He was calm and reasonable, and if they had listened to him then put questions to him, they may have advanced whatever cause they claim to represent. Instead they came across as a pack of morons. /shrug

4. You talk about drawing lines around things, lines that should not be crossed, but without people daring to propose going outside those lines, gay rights would not be a thing... You see? It takes a brave person to step outside the lines and propose something that may be offensive to some. Same with women rights, transgender folk etc.

5. You have the right to be offended. You do not have the right to not be offended.

6. Mobs strongarming people in to silence has far more to do with Nazi ideology than resisting being forced to speak certain words. It's okay to punch Nazi's right?? \= )

Imagoamin said:

Wasn't there, but I'm sympathetic to their cause.

I would say, like the people quoted in the article linked by Scud, these people aren't against "stepping out of their comfort zone" to learn. But there are certain norms and boundaries to ideas we hold in both every day discourse and academic discourse.

Some of that is how we don't entertain the idea of bringing back phrenology or that the earth is flat in serious discussion. But, unlike those antiquated ideas, other sorts of ideas lead to real and harmful consequences to marginalized groups. Ideas like entire classes of people either not being worth basic human rights or specifically targeting them for dehumanization/harassment.

I think people who shut down events like that or ones where Milo Yiounappolos specifically singled out trans individuals are weighing whether giving a larger audience to ideas like "these people aren't normal/don't deserve basic rights" is worth the real harm and harassment that follows. People see it as essentially saying, "Hey now, lets hear what these National Socialist fellows have to say about Jewish people without all the whining, ok?"

And these things aren't really as cut and dry "they don't want to hear differences of opinion" when every single trans person, person of color, gay person, etc has had these "differing opinions" yelled at them or forced into their life on a daily basis.

teacher schools a businessman who doesn't get education

Dear Politically Correct Offended People (Original): Hitler

Dear Politically Correct Offended People (Original): Hitler

Women Drivers in GTA V

MilkmanDan says...

No "apology" necessary -- I can definitely see how it would look like bad AI in a one-off context like this, I just wasn't sure if you were making a sarcastic dig at them or not (and it would be fine if you were, also).

There's actually an amazing level of depth in subtle details that get put into the GTA games. Some of them are immersion-enhancing things that you tend to only notice on a subconscious level, like "tick tick tick" sounds of car engines cooling after you shut them down. And some are little in-joke tropes like this.

Honestly, it seems like it would take a LOT of work to coordinate all of those details and references and keep them fairly internally consistent. On top of that effort, the payoff is arguably somewhat dubious in cost-benefit terms -- a few people with notice these things and find them a little bit funny, a few will notice them and be offended to varying degrees, and a bunch either won't notice at all or will chalk them up to AI / simulation glitches.

But I still think it is cool that Rockstar doesn't shy away from including this kind of stuff, and/or stuff that more blatantly pushes the limits.

CrushBug said:

Apologies. I have never played the GTA series games for very long. It just looked like bad AI and it was weird to go with the old trope of "women drivers".

Why I Left the Left

vil says...

The historical precedents being (self)censorship and gulags.

Subjective offense and harm defined by well-meaning panels of social judges are the road to hell.

Is the man really black enough to be allowed to say nigger? Is the woman really ugly or is she justly offended? Who decides? Or is there some other concept at work here? Like common morals decided upon by peers in normal social contact (conflict), instead of dictated by a "higher" entity, the SJW.

Let the people decide for themselves. The normal path is that legislation is formed based on morals, not the other way round.

dubious said:

It's a difficult concept to define what is an act of harm. In general this is highly related to concepts of political correctness and has it's very roots in classical liberal thought. In my understanding, Mill would say not to restrict free speech in the case offense only in the case of harm. However, psychology and neuroscience make this line less distinct in caseses of trama or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual, not just offense. This means that harm is less universal and depends on the individual and it leads to the idea of separating spaces based on the line between offense and harm. My understanding is the idea of rating systems, red light districts come from this. Also, now, a newer concept of safe spaces. It's easy to say that people should just suck it up, but it's not always that clear cut and there is historical precedence for this idea.

Why I Left the Left

newtboy says...

"Offended" is different from "harmed". The SJWs need to learn that lesson fast. Harm in this context means put in physical danger of injury, which a stampede or riot would fall under and why you can't incite either.

If one is truly "harmed" by offensive words, that's an extremely odd personal mental problem that should not be inflicted on the rest of us, please just avoid the public and stick with your similarly afflicted group.

Your TV point is good, change the channel or turn it off.
Your college point is terrible, IMO. College is, in large part, intended to expose you to new and differing ideas and mindsets and teach you how to interact with those holding them. Interpersonal communication was a requirement where I went. If that's something people are uncomfortable with, they don't belong in colleges. Period. If someone wants to start a school where those ideals (safe space, regulated speech, trigger warnings, etc) are reinforced, fine, but it shouldn't be accredited because, no matter how good the classes and students are, it's missing a key component.
The boss being offensive, there's a clearly defined legal line, if they cross that line you can sue, if not, grow a pair and realize two of the most important lessons my parents taught me...."life's not fair", and "what you want and what you need are two different things, and knowing which is which can be the road to contentment, while not knowing is always a road to ruin". I feel like a lot of kids today have never heard either.

MilkmanDan said:

I agree with all of that, and there definitely are reasonable limits to completely "free" speech -- like the fire in a crowded theater staple example.

"Harm" seems like a good place to start when defining those limits. It works in the "fire in a theater" base case really well; by making that out of bounds you avoid trample / stampede injuries.

But what about "trauma or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual", as you suggest? I'd agree that cases like that can exist. But to me, the question then becomes "how easily can you avoid those words?"

Offended / "harmed" (perhaps genuinely) by something you see/hear on TV? Very easily solved -- change the channel. Publish "trigger warnings" recommending like-minded individuals also avoid that channel/program/whatever if you like; people who do not agree can also easily avoid those.


Offended / "harmed" (perhaps genuinely) by something your professor said in a University? A bit harder to avoid. Someone in that situation can drop the class and try to take it with a different professor (which may not be possible), avoid taking the class entirely (although it may be a requirement for graduation), or contemplate moving to a different university (which is likely an uneconomical overreaction).

There are arguably better options available for such a person. I'd encourage them to reflect on the phrase "choose your battles wisely", and decide if this particular "harm" (giving all benefit of the doubt that it does actually exist) is worth escalating.


Offended / "harmed" by something your boss says at work? "Choose your battles" still applies, but perhaps also consider asking people who have had a job and who have had to work for a living for advice. When (trigger warning) 99.9% of them say something like "welcome to the real world", maybe -- just maybe -- it is time to look within and re-evaluate your own offense / "harm" threshold.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon