The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Lotje1000
About
User Name: Lotje1000
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, November 3, 2014
Last Visit: Saturday, June 23, 2018 2:57:33 PM
Number of Posts: 935
[0.11% of all post / 0.70 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Trump is Taking Children from Parents Who Are Asylum Seekers
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2018 8:11:09 AM
I read today that those children are also given drugs to manage their trauma.
Source.
Topic: Just Cat Things
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 6:30:03 AM
Topic: Trump is Taking Children from Parents Who Are Asylum Seekers
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2018 3:33:52 PM
FounDit wrote:
Just as a matter of an intelligent thought (knowing that is an alien concept to the original poster [...]


Yet I remember you telling us all:

FounDit wrote:
The difference is, I don't get angry and call you names, or impugn your character by calling you derogatory names as so many on the Progressive Left do with us.


You may not be 'name calling' in the strictest sense, but you're doing a great job of demonstrating that derogatory talk you accuse others of.
Topic: On Political Correctness
Posted: Monday, June 11, 2018 6:11:08 AM
Hey Listening, thanks for the link! That was a really interesting debate to follow and I agree wholeheartedly, Stephen Fry was outstanding - particularly because he seemed the only one who actually debated political correctness. I was hoping the talk would shine a light on the different definitions and interpretations, but sadly that only started happening about an hour into the video. Before that there was a lot of talk about identities, discrimination and cultural issues, but not on what political correctness is and how it manifests itself and, most importantly, how effective it is or isn't. For example, I would have loved to hear more about those people who are afraid to speak because they fear the shame of being labeled politically incorrect and how that limits open debate.
Topic: On Political Correctness
Posted: Friday, June 8, 2018 3:05:54 AM
FounDit wrote:
Those who wield power in Hollywood, the Media, and in Washington, have for years promoted a particular view that is supposed to be agreed to by everyone in the country.

[...]

The purpose is to prevent anyone else from speaking out against the “correct” view. This has been the practice and purpose throughout history whenever the status quo is questioned, so it isn’t a surprise.



You can speak out as much as you like - freedom of speech and all. The flipside that you seem to forget about is that the rest also have the freedom to speak out against your views.

Political correctness, pointing out that "mankind" can be seen as offensive, raising awareness by pointing out white privilege... To me, that's questioning the status quo, questioning that particular view that is promoted by Hollywood, the Media and Washington. It's a healthy practice to ask questions. Particularly if the status quo leaves large groups of people out of the picture.
Topic: On Political Correctness
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2018 3:08:38 AM
FounDit wrote:
If whites are so privileged, wouldn't it be better to lift everyone else up to that level?

So I'm actually advocating lifting everyone up to an equal level.


Welcome, FounDit, so glad you could join us.
I'm glad to see you have a bit of a "leftist" and "social justice warrior" streak in you after all!

You and I don't consume the same media, but I suggest you sample some of mine. It sounds like you might like it! They're often dismissed as leftists or social justice warriors, but really, what they want is equal rights for everyone. And they use terms like "political correctness" and "white privilege" to point things out, not to judge, and to give stepping stones to create a better society.
Topic: On Political Correctness
Posted: Friday, May 25, 2018 5:27:35 PM
FounDit wrote:

So "White Privilege" says “you’re special because you’re white.” But that is both illogical and inherently racist itself. I don't think people who use the term understand the implication of it, which is to somehow bring all white people down to the level of people of color.


Wow... just... wow. It's impressive how you manage to completely misunderstand what the term means, even while quoting its wikipedia definition (!).

How about you stop doing what you told everyone off for doing: Getting insulted rather than trying to understand.

And really, FounDit, how 'bout you cool it with the labels? Pinning everything you don't understand on the Left and talking about "Social Justice Warriors" isn't giving your point any credit.
Topic: Womens' Plight
Posted: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:15:12 AM
As you can see at the bottom of the original post, FounDit, the 16 days of activism are started by USAID. If you go to their webpage, it says the following:

Quote:
The 16 Days Campaign to End Violence Against Women: From 25 November to 10 December, USAID will post a blog each day that aims to prove a single point: The human race cannot progress when half of the world population lives without the same rights and respect afforded to its male counterpart. If you are moved by what you read and want to share, we’ve made it easy for you. Click here to find out how.


Clicking there, reveals the following.

Quote:
5 Ways USAID Is Working to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence
USAID has provided critical services to over 4 million survivors and persons at risk of gender-based violence

During conflict and crisis, we often see atrocious acts of gender-based violence, such as the selling of women and girls to generate income; demanding sex in exchange for food, water or safe passage; or forcing girls into marriage to meet basic needs or secure a child's future. Between 2014 and 2016, USAID provided nearly $87 million to support gender-based violence response and prvention efforts as part of our humanitarian assistance efforts in countries such as Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burma, South Sudan, Mali, Somalia, the Central African Republic, Pakistan, the Phillippines and Yemen.

Through our DREAMS ( (Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-free, Mentored and Safe) partnership, USAID works to eliminate harmful gender norms that contribute to gender-based violence, and provide vital care to GBV survivors.

Millions of women around the world who have a disability face increased risks of physical and sexual violence. USAID is partnerhing with projects such as Shanta Memorial Rehabilitation Center, which works to promote disability rights, disability inclusive development, civil society strengthening and community-based rehabilitation programs in India. We’ve helped train service providers, security personnel and counselors to respond to the needs of women with disabilities who experience gender-based violence. Through this partnership, USAID provides rights and advocacy training, income generation support and resources for over 1,000 Indian women with disabilities to ensure they can fully live out their dreams.

Child, early and forced marriage (CEFM), like other forms of gender-based violence, is rooted in gender inequality. Child marriage is a human-rights violattion and an impediment to sustainable global development. USAID is working around the world to prevent and respond to CEFM; for example, last year we worked with community leaders to prevent 748 cases of child marraige in Ethiopia. Our work in this area is rooted in USAID's Strategic Vision for Action to End Child Marriage and Meet the Needs of Married Children [PDF, 464K].

(Emphasis mine)

In short, the 16 days create awareness of the issue so people will support USAID's efforts. The results of which I just listed.
Topic: Price of gasoline
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2018 9:29:56 AM
In all fairness, the title of the thread is "Price of gasoline".
Topic: Why "Mankind" Isn't the Real Problem
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:16:53 AM
maltliquor87 wrote:
Since the current debate largely involves such a galvanizing topic as politics, one can spend hours laying out arguments for their side. For now I want to quickly draw your attention to two claims that merit further consideration.

1) The first claim is "gendered language is old-fashioned".
To understand that this claim is erroneous one can hardly do better than look at some recent dictionary additions that include such words as "mansplain", "manterrupt", and "manspread". This demonstrates that it's not that gendered language is old-fashioned. The problem lies with language purportedly demeaning women. Taking this point into consideration, we should drop the initial claim, which I suspect is made to create a certain veneer of inclusivity.

2) The second claim is "Many women consider the word mankind to be offensive".
There's very little in the way of evidence pertaining to this claim. We simply don't have enough data. Nor do we have a yardstick by which we could measure how many is "many". It may be true that this word is offensive to the vast majority of women and they would support some form of penalty for using it. The opposite may very well be true -- the vast majority of women would not find the word offensive and vote against a penalty.

As I pointed out, I would not use this word for two reasons. First, "humankind" sounds better to me. Second, I do not want to offend anybody, especially when no serious issue is at stake. However, if a person insists that he or she will always use "mankind", I will not automatically suspect that something is wrong with them.


Hi maltliquor87, your points got a little lost in the debate so I thought I'd bring them forward some.

1) I can see why you'd disagree with that. I think it was called "old-fashioned" because the original poster wanted to point out it's an old habit to use words like "mankind" (they're used out of habit, not out of conscious desire to be demeaning to women). But the concept of gendered language is indeed not old, as your examples show. I think words like "mansplain" are quite interesting, personally. I'm conflicted on them. On the one hand, I think they're offensive because they're so obviously gendered and pejorative. On the other hand, I think they have value in pointing out some habits in society. I certainly hope that, after they've served their purpose, they'll disappear from common use.

2) I have very little issue with the word "mankind", personally - maybe because I automatically equate it with the Dutch version, which just means "humankind". I agree that the "many women" statement is vague, though I doubt it was Romany's intention to give an accurate number. I believe she just wanted to point out that there are people who dislike the word, enough people that it's worth making an informed decision on whether or not to use the word. Turns out, people have opinions about it so it seems it was quite a good thing to point out - even if the original statement was vague.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.