Reg the Veg
AC Slater
I SPIT ON YOUR CAPSLOCK... despite using it just then.
Posts: 205
|
Post by Reg the Veg on Jun 3, 2010 7:03:01 GMT -5
the british press. it's hard for anyone who doesn't live here to understand this, but our press are actualy scum. perez hilton and his ilk are just doing what our paparazzi have been doing for decades, making a living off the misery of those in the public eye. but while their attitude towards celebrities is spiteful, it's not the british tabloids at their most dangerous.
here's an example: a police department somewhere in england (can't remember exactly where) issued a memo stating that in the upcoming football (soccer) world cup, they should be very tight on security so as to avoid violence etc. one of the bullet point stated "enforce existing dress codes, e.g formal shoes, no football shirts". in reaction to this, newspaper the sun then published a story that this meant that all english football shirts are to be banned in pubs nationwide, as a number of foreign nationals had complained. never mind the fact that NONE of that was true, they decided to spread unneeded hate and tension just to sell papers.
a politician has recently gotten in trouble for having his gay partner on his payroll, despite the fact that there are restrictions saying that if you live with a member of parliament, they cannot employ you (or something similar). earlier this week, the sun ran a poll asking whether gay people should be allowed to serve as politicans.
that level of blind hatred and misinformation, created by a minority and absorbed by the majority, offends me.
|
|
|
Post by thwak is T.hawk on Jun 3, 2010 7:29:03 GMT -5
only two things really offend me:
1) Child Pornography (thanks "A Serbian Film" for making me realize this!)
and
2) People being denied their "rights" or how they choose to live (as long as they're not into bestiality but that's a whole other thing all together).
Now I have pet peeves, a big one of mine currently is people throwing around the word "fascist" to describe something they don't like, but that doesn't offend me. Basically if you use the word fascist incorrectly I may not like it, and I may not like you using it that way, but I'm not going to prosecute you for it. If you deny someone the way they want to live, I'll personally hate you and wish all the horrible things in life happen to you and only you.
|
|
|
Post by silentrage on Jun 3, 2010 8:38:08 GMT -5
Some of the stuff mentioned here. People acting like they're the only ones on the sidewalk, parents who can't get their kids to shut up in public, neighbours who don't understand that they're in an apartment building where other people live and to either keep their music down or not have 20 minute conversations in the hallway.
People who talk like whatever their degenerate fetish, or that they "plow all sorts of chicks", or the fact they do drugs is normal. And then they don't understand why the group of people they just met is looking at them like they're freaks. I guess lack of discretion is what I'm trying to say.
People who are rude or overly judgmental. So what if I didn't do it the exact way you would of? Chill.
People who are overly offended by "racist" jokes. OK there Whitey, while you and all your white bred, rich, White friends who have never met a coloured person in their lives are trying to be white knights of some sort, me and all my Arab, Asian and Native American friends are going to have ourselves a laugh at each others expenses. Cheers.
People who say if you criticize something, you automatically don't understand it.
People who throw around extreme beliefs and extreme positions on sensitive issues in regular conversations. Then they cry and make excuses when you verbally slam them because they somehow think they have a right to run their mouths off and be untouched for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2010 10:57:58 GMT -5
Hypocrisy.
People who believe "equality" means "eliminating only the prejudiced attitudes that AREN'T working in my favor"
People who believe they have the unilateral right to blame you for their being offended, even when you are completely vindicated by the facts. (see which, "Niggardly-gate")
People who believe those in the majority are incapable of ever being the victim of systemic discrimination.
People who judge others based on their sexual proclivities. One cannot be responsible for what one was programmed to find sexually attractive. As long as you know right from wrong and break no laws because of it, what business is it of mine what turns you on?
Guys in their 50s named "Skip".
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 3, 2010 11:14:54 GMT -5
Well, um...that's typically true.
When it comes to tasteless stuff, it's hard to offend me. Tasteless humor is fine by me, unless it's just idiotic and sophomoric...I'm not offended in that case, just annoyed at how badly done it is. Then again, I also don't come from a background where I was ever badly mistreated or viewed a certain way due to my looks/beliefs/preferences/etc., so I can't go asking everybody to feel the same way.
I'm not sure if it offends me so much, but I do always take issue with sheltered points of view on things that are little more than reflections of things a person's parents told them when they were 8 years old. I attended a private high school, and while we had a decent intersection of races and social ranks, there were tons of, well, wealthy New Jersey white boys. When we had a class that dealt with a lot of social issues, it could get pretty jarring to hear how isolated many of us really were as a group, even the not-so-rich ones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2010 11:32:59 GMT -5
Well, um...that's typically true. Typically, but not universally. For example, a group of Connecticut firefighters (19 of 20 of whom were Caucasians) in 2009 had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to prove they were denied promotion solely because of their race, which is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled. There's a world of difference between "typically" and "incapable of ever". I suppose it comes down to whether you find any validity in the term "reverse discrimination" to preserve the definition of "discrimination" as something that only the majority can do to the minority.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 3, 2010 12:18:45 GMT -5
Eh, I don't usually buy into reverse discrimination. Doesn't mean it can't exist, as in the case you pointed out, but 99 out of a 100, I can't take it very seriously.
|
|
|
Post by FrankGotch on Jun 3, 2010 12:39:26 GMT -5
Eh, I don't usually buy into reverse discrimination. Doesn't mean it can't exist, as in the case you pointed out, but 99 out of a 100, I can't take it very seriously. When it starts affecting your income you start to take it dead serious. Back when I worked construction I lost out on several jobs that I was more qualified for. Its very frustrating when you go in for an interview and are told up front that you are not going to be hired even though you are by far the best applicant, because the company has to meet a certain quota for a specific gender, or race.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2010 12:58:17 GMT -5
Eh, I don't usually buy into reverse discrimination. Doesn't mean it can't exist, as in the case you pointed out, but 99 out of a 100, I can't take it very seriously. When it starts affecting your income you start to take it dead serious. Back when I worked construction I lost out on several jobs that I was more qualified for. Its very frustrating when you go in for an interview and are told up front that you are not going to be hired even though you are by far the best applicant, because the company has to meet a certain quota for a specific gender, or race. Ahh, good old affirmative action, the REAL crime committed by Tricky Dick's administration That does raise an interesting question. How do you categorize discrimination done against members of the majority but BY members of the same majority, in an effort to curry political favor with minority special interest groups?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2010 13:04:14 GMT -5
Eh, I don't usually buy into reverse discrimination. Doesn't mean it can't exist, as in the case you pointed out, but 99 out of a 100, I can't take it very seriously. When it starts affecting your income you start to take it dead serious. Back when I worked construction I lost out on several jobs that I was more qualified for. Its very frustrating when you go in for an interview and are told up front that you are not going to be hired even though you are by far the best applicant, because the company has to meet a certain quota for a specific gender, or race. On that same note, when my father was a child - his mom couldn't get welfare because she was caucasian and whites were the majority in their district and not elligible despite the fact she was dirt poor.
|
|
Raul
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,183
|
Post by Raul on Jun 3, 2010 13:08:50 GMT -5
When I get called a terrorist because I'm Indian.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jun 3, 2010 13:09:48 GMT -5
Humor-wise, practically nothing.
But like Ssnakebite said, I really don't like when people get all angry and bothered over the way someone looks or dresses (as opposed to making a quick joke). Though luckily, that leaves a lot of people's systems after high school.
|
|
|
Post by FrankGotch on Jun 3, 2010 13:11:21 GMT -5
When it starts affecting your income you start to take it dead serious. Back when I worked construction I lost out on several jobs that I was more qualified for. Its very frustrating when you go in for an interview and are told up front that you are not going to be hired even though you are by far the best applicant, because the company has to meet a certain quota for a specific gender, or race. Ahh, good old affirmative action, the REAL crime committed by Tricky Dick's administration That does raise an interesting question. How do you categorize discrimination done against members of the majority but BY members of the same majority, in an effort to curry political favor with minority special interest groups? Thing is that I can understand why the law was put into place, and I even believe that at one time the law was effective at helping some people who would have never gotten the opportunity to get their foot in the door. However I believe that in the year 2010 the law has become a hindrance and has long outstayed its usefulness. In todays world big companies don't care who you are as long as you can get the job done fast, and do it right. I'm not saying discrimination is dead, because its not, but I believe that more often then not its found in smaller companies that don't apply to the AA laws anyway.
|
|
|
Post by dlg3000 on Jun 3, 2010 13:15:34 GMT -5
-people who tell fat jokes or hate fat people -people who tell racist, and I mean racist jokes -people who think that tragedy is funny -stupid, bitter, or arrogant people -smarmy people -hypocrites -people who have extreme beliefs who won't allow others their freedom -people who brainwash or harm or abuse a child in any way -people who pass judgement on others -poor hygeine -racists and bigots -people who assume things about me simply because I am fat, black, female, or wear glasses...I hate it worse when people think I am supposed to look a certain way, act a certain way, or think a certain way.. -a certain term I cannot use because it might break a rule or two
I am not PC and I nothing much really offends me, but these do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2010 13:43:37 GMT -5
Thing is that I can understand why the law was put into place, and I even believe that at one time the law was effective at helping some people who would have never gotten the opportunity to get their foot in the door. However I believe that in the year 2010 the law has become a hindrance and has long outstayed its usefulness. In todays world big companies don't care who you are as long as you can get the job done fast, and do it right. I'm not saying discrimination is dead, because its not, but I believe that more often then not its found in smaller companies that don't apply to the AA laws anyway. The Philadelphia Plan and initiatives for minority-owned businesses were very effective. I wish I had the cite handy, but a recent study showed the majority of America's top-100 minority-owned businesses were formed during the Nixon administration. Yes, I agree that it has become more of a hindrance than an assistance. It doesn't even necessarily get the job done it aims to do. "Whitey angst" not withstanding, the vast majority of scholastic admission AA is "paid for" by other minorities. A recent study at U of Michigan revealed that, for every 1 white student who lost a spot because of AA, 4 Asians lost a spot.
|
|
Garee
King Koopa
I miss the old days
Posts: 11,338
|
Post by Garee on Jun 3, 2010 13:50:30 GMT -5
Very little actually
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Jun 3, 2010 14:10:54 GMT -5
Not much offends me as I wouldn't call getting angry and being offended the same thing. Like say what Bradley says, animal abuse, that just pisses me off more so than offends me. But I'm pretty open to the world around me and therefore don't get offended by much if anything. I think the only thing that offends me is people getting offended by others for being who they are.
|
|
|
Post by Dynamite Kid on Jun 3, 2010 14:11:55 GMT -5
Intent of bigotry.
Bigotry can often spring from ignorance or stupidity, and sometimes can happen entirely by accident from people who know no better.
So to me, bigotry is about intent. It's about KNOWING you're bigoted.
There's other stuff that I can't think of off the top of my head...
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Jun 3, 2010 15:36:09 GMT -5
It kind of takes a lot for me to get offended. I'm used to the things that I really enjoy being talked about in a negative manner (wrestling, ICP, pot) so I just make it a point to tell people when something they're saying about it isn't true.
However, one thing that really offends me and pisses me off is money. Not money itself, but the way that a lot of people who have money become completely out of touch.
For example, my uncle runs a furniture store here in town. He's not loaded by any means, but he's very well off and has everything that he wants. He gave me a job a few years ago. During one of my first few weeks on the job, he insisted on taking a delivery with me because it was stuff that he was donating to a nursing home. On the way back to the store we were talking, and I mentioned that it was cold as hell at my house because our gas tank had just run out and we didn't have the money to get it refilled (would've been about $250-$300 at the time). He snapped at me and said something along the lines of "Why don't you get the damn thing refilled? Are you wasting all of your money on dope?" I wanted to strangle him. At the time, I was completely clean and was even trying to kick my cigarette habit, not to mention that he didn't even know that I had a history of pot smoking. To make it even worse, my mom told me that night about how when they were kids they ran out of gas over the winter and they would have to huddle in the bed together to stay warm.
I just hate how people act different after they get money. I know that it's not true for everybody but I've seen it happen a lot.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Jun 3, 2010 15:50:54 GMT -5
Eh, I don't usually buy into reverse discrimination. Doesn't mean it can't exist, as in the case you pointed out, but 99 out of a 100, I can't take it very seriously. When it starts affecting your income you start to take it dead serious. Back when I worked construction I lost out on several jobs that I was more qualified for. Its very frustrating when you go in for an interview and are told up front that you are not going to be hired even though you are by far the best applicant, because the company has to meet a certain quota for a specific gender, or race. Umm... Affirmative Action doesn't work that way. Quotas are illegal in the United States, except on rare occasions when judges order them to correct blatant discrimination. Affirmative Action is only put into place in order to give everybody an equal opportunity. It's purpose is to give people of a diverse race, color, national origin, religion, or gender a chance at the job. It just means that you need to give other people a stronger consideration for the job. It does NOT mean that you have to hire a person that is unqualified or even less qualified than somebody else, as that would be illegal as all hell. Also, Affirmative Action is basically voluntary in the private sector. It's mostly there for government agencies and government contractors. So my point is that you missed out on a hell of a lawsuit unless that company was one of the very few that had a court order requiring a quota.
|
|