I don't think Grimlock will be changed to Happykey

 

For me, it's all about context and intention. If the context was benign, and there was never any intention to offend, then said people shouldn't be offended. That's my stand.

Why should I not be allowed to use a term, which is perfectly benign in its original and intended purpose? Shouldn't people practice some discretion and common sense, and not take offence when none was intended?

Unfortunately, I do not believe in the softly softly, politically-correct approach. I'm the kind who speaks my mind, and if one can't take it, tough luck.

My belief that a person's rights, should never infringe upon another. Just like how companies shouldn't decide against hiring people based on skin colour, neither should they be compelled to hire people of a certain skin colour (in the false pretext of equality).

In a nutshell, why should my reasonable choice of words, be curtailed by others' oversensitivity?

It's not like I am intentionally saying "Hey you fatty" in front of a friend who has weight issues. But surely I am allowed to discuss things like the weight of my luggage when I travel, or how much I've been working out if a third party asked what I've been doing with my free time.

Hardly. In fact I find it a boon. Because I like to surround myself with open, sensible people, where I can simply be myself (within reason) and not have to be extra cautious about everything I do to avoid offending someone.

It was benign in its utterance. That's what counts (as far as I'm concerned).

Then people should be educated, considered and sensible enough to try to understand the original context of its use, rather than raise a hoo-ha at the very first opportunity.

The issue is that I didn't offend someone, but the other party mistakenly thought I did. As a matter of principle I wouldn't apologize, because it ain't my fault that he/she took something, totally twisted its context, and found fault with it.

That social agreement basically has the same effect. Because it deprives people of the use of perfectly acceptable terms. Yes there are alternatives, but the principle here is why should we be compelled to do so, just to cater to a particular group's warped perceptions?

For example, being Chinese with yellowish skin, should I take issue with the Despicable Me franchise? Because their Minions are yellow? Are they trying to say yellow skinned people are infantile blobs? Why didn't the producers to pick an alternative colour, say green instead. Do you see how petty that would be?

Because if they made an effort to understand, then they would realize there was no issue to begin with. Which returns to the question, why should I change a perfectly reasonable behavior, that I'm perfectly entitled to, simply because someone else might find issue with it? If he/she has a problem when most people don't, then the onus is on him/her to deal with it.

Going back to my earlier example, supposing I opened an English tea house that sold souvenir teddy bears, which I name as 'Cookie' and 'Cupcake', perfectly reasonable choices in my business' concept, as it represents the endearment and adorableness normally associated with teddy bears, as well as the food offerings I serve.

How in hell am I responsible if the warped few draw some sexual innuendos or negative connotations from it?

It's clear that we both have very different mindsets. While you prefer to tailor your every action to cater to others' needs and avoid offending them (which you're perfectly entitled to), that is something I will not do. Because my belief (and you'll probably take issue with this too) is that people are becoming to petty, nitpicky, entitled and oversensitive - that suddenly every darn thing in this world has the capacity to be offensive.

 

You'll likely find that to be a pretty lonesome path to walk in life. Most people accept the social contract that they shouldn't use words they know might upset others, and don't feel like that's some kind of infringement on their rights. Sure, you have the right to use words that are offensive to people, but you're going to have to deal with the consequences too. It could be a heavy price to pay just to prove a point.

 

lol

 

Then so be it, because I don't believe in pandering to warped logics and petty minds. When I'm using words in a perfectly reasonable and logical context, if someone wants to take issue with it, that's his or her problem. Not mine.

If I said something like, (for example, and I don't mean it) "you fags are scum", then I'm wrong, for I'm intentionally being offensive and insulting. But if I named a teddy bear toy "Cupcake", I'm perfectly within my rights and reason to. It's not my fault that some idiots can equate that word to vagina, and even so, they should be intelligent enough to distinguish the fact that that was never the intended meaning.

 

.....I know of no human being on this planet that has ever referred to a vagina as a cupcake. Furthermore, that is a euphemism, which is not the same thing.

 

Vagina or whatever other negative meaning it may be construed to have. You get my point.

 

In all my years on this earth I've never heard of anyone referring to a tallooleywooley as a 'cupcake'...

I personally don't think that the Dinobot will be called Slag (I don't actually think it will even be named in the film), just because there's a few years precedence of the name not being used.

As a denizen of the godforsaken third-world chunk of the earth that isn't America, I can say that I wouldn't be offended by a toy called slag. I would find it quite funny in a juvenile way.

In fact there should be a whole sub-group of TFs named after UK-centric slang.

Slag, Nonce, Wally, Bell-End and Git. Combine into Wankertron.

 

With the vast understand the production team has about Transformers history I wouldn't be surprised if the Triceratops wasn't named Grimlock, the Stegosaurus was named Sludge and the T-Rex was an old school British punk rocker named Slag.

 

Pretty much all of this comes back to basically "It's someone else's fault", and "others should accomodate me" and "everyone but me and those like me has a flawed way of thinking", as well as "the problems others have do not actually exist", which is, to say the least, hardly as "open" and "sensible" as you describe yourself. If you're unwilling to recognize that you have a responsibility for how your actions affect others, and that personal effort and mindfulness is required on your part to ensure you are properly understood by others, then I'm sorry, there isn't really anything else I can tell you.

Also, if you honestly believe that the personal rights of individuals do not rub up against each other or infringe upon each other on a regular, daily basis, you should take a closer look at how society actually functions. Civilization is effectively based on individuals sacrificing some element of their personal rights and freedoms for the sake of those of others.

When you characterize people who don't agree with you as having "warped logics" and "petty minds" and as "idiots", and characterize those who agree with you as "open and sensible people", you pretty much eliminate any possibility of progress or dialogue from the very beginning (and don't exactly paint a great picture of yourself). I'd recommend you actually try to understand the viewpoints of others, but... well... that would require personal effort from you, so I can probably guess your answer.

No, no... Bollockstator!

 

As much it is that you feel I'm saying "others should accommodate me", these so-called 'victims' are equally saying "you should accommodate us". So who is more entitled? Is it up to you to decide?

Yes, I consider myself open and sensible, because I'm able to consider things in their context, and not grossly misconstrue one's intentions. You keep harping about my social responsibility and what not, but what about the responsibility of others to comprehend the context of my choice of words. It works both ways.

I'm sensible enough to know that if a company named an oblong yellow toy a 'banana boat', they are referring to its resemblance to the fruit, and NOT trying to insult a Chinese person.

It is so darn hard, for people to just make an effort to think, "hey, even though this word sounds similar to a slur, the user is referring to something else entirely, and there's no need for us to get upset".

That's well and fine, and while you'll be mighty surprised at this, it's something I practice too. Like I do not blast my music in the middle of the night. Or not talk in the cinema and distract others. But I draw the line at those.

I'll point out my example again, one which you have chosen to ignore - why should I be disallowed to sell souvenir teddy bears named Cookie and Cupcake in a English tea house concept store? Merely because some people take a benign word and attach negative connotations to it?

I'll consider a viewpoint, which is what I have been doing in addressing your statements. But I will not cave in to arbitrary demands that curtail me from doing things that are rightfully reasonable and logical.

Let's make it clear. I'm not saying I should be allowed to yell insults at people. I'm merely saying that others should also look at the context of what I'm saying, and not find offence when none was intended. Is that so hard to understand?

You seem blinded by the belief that we should be good people, we should consider our actions, we should choose our words wisely, to the point of acceding to silly and petty demands. Where will it end?

Should supermarkets be banned from selling pork and alcohol because customers of a certain religion might be offended by it? .. Should we change the colour of the 8-ball in the game of pool, because 'eight-ball' has some racial connotations? .. Shall we abandon the phrase, "find a chink in its armor' while we're at it?

You paint me as someone unreasonable, yet you're completely oblivious to the fact that the other side is being unreasonable too. Oh wait, they're the victims and I'm the aggressor simply because I used a word in a purely reasonable and logical context, and they somehow twisted and found fault with it.

By all means, remain in your cocoon of righteousness. Go be the 'better person'. I have no desire for that, because I will not give up my right of doing something perfectly reasonable, simply because some are too stupid to employ a modicum of common sense.

 

It doesn't work both ways for you though. You're only interested in it working towards your benefit. Look at the parts I've bolded, and compare them to the "distilled" analysis of your stance in my previous post. In this post, and in the past, you have shown no signs of being willing to make the sort of efforts towards cooperation that this "working both ways" requires.

If you say or do something, and are misunderstood, possibly offending the other party, that is a failure of your ability to communicate, as much, if not moreso than it is a failure of someone else's to understand. In such a setting, you failed to establish the proper context to ensure the understanding of others, and since you were the one making a statement or action, the responsibility for that action falls to you. Most people make an effort to understand others and meet them halfway in most communicative situations, but that's the point, its HALFWAY.

Is it so damn hard to say "well, I know this word has a history of pissing people off, maybe I should use a different one"?

Your cookie and teddy bear analogies are flawed and spurious, as others have pointed out, thus I have declined to address them.

This is the important distinction, they curtail you from doing things that YOU THINK are rightfully reasonable and logical. Keep that in mind, and since you've characterized those who think otherwise as "idiots" with "warped thinking", I do not believe you have given their viewpoints due consideration.

I don't think them silly and petty, that, I suppose, is where we diverge. I think we should consider ALL our actions, and choose ALL our words as wisely as possible, in order to be good people. It has been my personal experience that this has not blinded me, but has instead opened up a much more interesting, complex, and beautiful world for me to live in.

Ah yes, the good old "slippery slope argument".

I don't think I'm the one stuck in a cocoon, to be frank.

 

Slag will always be Slag to me, no matter what they try and call him otherwise.

 

I'll gladly clarify my meaning if the other party needs it. That's halfway enough for me. But I will not tolerate them dictating I cannot use this word (in its original, logical context) simply because they lack the common sense, and refuse to see reason.

As a matter of principle, yes. I don't believe in having my rights in doing something valid and reasonable be curtailed, because another party is being unreasonable and overly sensitive.

Surely I can publicly discuss the physical properties of slag with a friend from a metallurgy background, without having nearby people getting pissed off and assume I'm being derogatory towards women? .. Or surely a sports commentator covering a game of pool, can call out the 8-ball, rather than having to find an alternative word?

It was a perfect example of how something perfectly valid, reasonable and acceptable in its context, can be misconstrued to be offensive by others. Hence the onus is not on me to justify my decision, but on the complainant to understand that there was no malice, insult or offence intended with my choice of names.

I would never imagine of naming a male doll 'Hitler', and I'll be the first to point out that such would be a very wrong choice. But surely I can call a yellow toy a 'banana boat', without being accused of intentionally insulting a particular type of Chinese person.

Yes, I have given that viewpoint consideration, and I don't agree with it. Just like how you don't agree with my entire argument. Hence my stand, and hence your stand.

Don't get me wrong, I don't intentionally try to be a douchebag either. But there are some things I will not compromise on, and that is my right to make choices which are perfectly lawful, logical, and reasonable.

Just because some people fail to understand the reasons and context behind my choices, doensn't mean I'm at fault and should be compelled to stop it.

It always starts like that. If I cannot use some particular words because they have the capacity to be offensive, then surely by extension, there are a lot of things that we cannot do either, because they also have the potential to be offensive.

I beg to differ. Just curious though, what are your thoughts on governmental surveillance, that are a gross invasion of your rights to privacy, all in the name of security?