Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Please join me in eliminating this word from the Shark Pool/Board


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

That’s really hard for me to embrace as a philosophy. 

“Hey; lady - you should apologize to that guy who said the R-word, because you got offended by it” is just weird and foreign to me.

isn’t it better if people just don’t call each other r——ds?

I don't think he is saying she should apologize to you for being offended.  I think he is just saying she shouldn't feel the need to be offended and if she can get past that then she won't be offended and be happier in the long run because she isn't letting other people dictate her happiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

As for the last part, one of my friends grew up in the south, and he's a hunter and fisherman. He describes himself as a "redneck" and he happens to also be black. He relates to southern folks more than he relates to his CA fam, and he has also been subjected to those insults. 

 

This reminds me of a great George Carlin bit

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mark Football said:

Where in that did you get that I said she should apologize? Your responses are getting stranger and stranger. I said she doesn't have to be offended. And she doesn't.

You said it in an earlier post. That she should apologize for causing me to lose sleep over it.

see below. Same same. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gally said:

I don't think he is saying she should apologize to you for being offended.  I think he is just saying she shouldn't feel the need to be offended and if she can get past that then she won't be offended and be happier in the long run because she isn't letting other people dictate her happiness.

As the mother of a daughter with Down Syndrome she is offended by someone calling someone else a R——, because it is marginalizing her daughter and reducing her existence to that of the butt of an insult.

And the solution is that she...should just not take offense to that?

That’s a pretty tough sell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

16 hours ago, Mark Football said:

The ofendee should lose sleep for days for judging your intentions and making you feel bad without even getting to know your heart.

This is what I was referring to - your initial response to my anecdote of personal growth over the R word. 

Sorry - you didn’t say she should apologize to me. You said she should be the one losing sleep over making me feel bad for it.

same difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

You said it in an earlier post. That she should apologize for causing me to lose sleep over it. 

Well, I do think that if someone shames someone, which I thought is what happened In your case but was mistaken, but yes if someone shames someone for being or saying or doing "whatever" without knowing what their true intensions are, then they are in the wrong and they just want to be a victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pipes said:

 

This reminds me of a great George Carlin bit

Carlin spoke frequently of context with offensive words / terms. 

My favorite was with the baseball example - you can say “the batter has 2 balls in the count”. You can’t say “I think he really hurt his balls on that play”.

anyway; context has been brought up frequently in here, and correctly so. 

But the other side to context is that someone at the receiving end of a word or term (or perhaps an innocently asked question) may not understand the context. Or even worse, may have had life experiences where the context of such a word, term or phrase was *always* negative.

So both can be true. The person offending may not have meant to offend. The person offended may have misunderstood the context. 

I don’t know what the solution is there other than to be mindful that not everyone has your same experiences so they may not assume your context to be innocent. 

We live in a challenging world. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Mark Football said:

and they just want to be a victim.

This is a key point - she didn’t want to be a victim. She wasn’t standing there looking for something to be offended by. Painting her in that “woke-scold” SJW image is dismissing of the fact that I was definitely in the wrong. 

I said something offensive. It happened to be offensive to her specifically because of her situation.

She was 100% right to take offense to it, and it likely wasn’t a decision she made, which is your clear implication. 

I was wrong. It took me until I was 20 to know I was wrong, and to this day at 50 I’m not entirely comfortable telling the world an embarrassing story of that time I was completely wrong. But I was wrong.

that’s really the only take-away from that story. I was wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

As the mother of a daughter with Down Syndrome she is offended by someone calling someone else a R——, because it is marginalizing her daughter and reducing her existence to that of the butt of an insult.

And the solution is that she...should just not take offense to that?

That’s a pretty tough sell. 

It shouldn't be a forced thing where she grits her teeth and then doesn't be offended. It's a natural occurrence based off of peace brought about by a different understanding of human nature. It's an existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Carlin spoke frequently of context with offensive words / terms. 

My favorite was with the baseball example - you can say “the batter has 2 balls in the count”. You can’t say “I think he really hurt his balls on that play”.

anyway; context has been brought up frequently in here, and correctly so. 

But the other side to context is that someone at the receiving end of a word or term (or perhaps an innocently asked question) may not understand the context. Or even worse, may have had life experiences where the context of such a word, term or phrase was *always* negative.

So both can be true. The person offending may not have meant to offend. The person offended may have misunderstood the context. 

I don’t know what the solution is there other than to be mindful that not everyone has your same experiences so they may not assume your context to be innocent

We live in a challenging world. 

I think that is the exact answer.  Everyone needs to take a step back and think of the other person's situations before blowing off the handle.  Communication without assuming the other's intentions or feelings and discussing it without immediate judgement would go a long way to diffusing these kinds of situations.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mark Football said:

It shouldn't be a forced thing where she grits her teeth and then doesn't be offended. It's a natural occurrence based off of peace brought about by a different understanding of human nature. It's an existence.

And if you had a child with Down Syndrome and heard some 20 y/o punk throwing the R word around like that maybe you’d struggle to be at peaceful existence as well.

hard to know until you’re in that situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

This is a key point - she didn’t want to be a victim. She wasn’t standing there looking for something to be offended by. Painting her in that “woke-scold” SJW image is dismissing of the fact that I was definitely in the wrong. 

I said something offensive. It happened to be offensive to her specifically because of her situation.

She was 100% right to take offense to it, and it likely wasn’t a decision she made, which is your clear implication. 

I was wrong. It took me until I was 20 to know I was wrong, and to this day at 50 I’m not entirely comfortable telling the world an embarrassing story of that time I was completely wrong. But I was wrong.

that’s really the only take-away from that story. I was wrong. 

I disagree. Yes, she wouldn't say she wants to be a victim. It's just a natural reaction brought about by a false teaching that has been ingrained into her that she needs to be offended. It's a victim mentality that is out of control in our society. But she doesn't need to be offended. That's what I hope that people know. For all our sakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

And if you had a child with Down Syndrome and heard some 20 y/o punk throwing the R word around like that maybe you’d struggle to be at peaceful existence as well.

hard to know until you’re in that situation. 

Well, I would hope that my life would not be run by the words of a 20 year old punk, or anyone for that matter. That would be a tough way to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mark Football said:

Well, I would hope that my life would not be run by the words of a 20 year old punk, or anyone for that matter. That would be a tough way to live.

And that's really my point to MoP's call to be offended by the word owner. There is pain in offense. But there is no need to be offended by anyone if we don't put our value what people say or do. No offense = no pain = peace for all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mark Football said:

And that's really my point to MoP's call to be offended by the word owner. There is pain in offense. But there is no need to be offended by anyone if we don't put our value what people say or do. No offense = no pain = peace for all!

I understand your POV here, but it is also entirely dismissive of the fact that some things are legitimately, inherently, offensive.

In your asserted world view, you should feel free to approach a grieving mother who just lost her 1 year old child and callously tell her a “dead baby” joke. 

If she’s offended by it, hey, that’s on her. she’d be so much happier if she simply lived at peace instead of letting someone like you offend her with mere words.

Am I understanding that correctly? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I understand your POV here, but it is also entirely dismissive of the fact that some things are legitimately, inherently, offensive.

In your asserted world view, you should feel free to approach a grieving mother who just lost her 1 year old child and callously tell her a “dead baby” joke. 

If she’s offended by it, hey, that’s on her. she’d be so much happier if she simply lived at peace instead of letting someone like you offend her with mere words.

Am I understanding that correctly? 

The bold, even stranger. To be honest, if this is where you're still at after our conversation there's nothing more I can say. I've presented a different kind of existence. That's all I can do. I wish you well. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I understand your POV here, but it is also entirely dismissive of the fact that some things are legitimately, inherently, offensive.

Can language be inherently offensive?

Would our mother be less offended if they used another word to make the same joke? Maybe handicapped or disabled? If not then the problem isn't the words themselves - and the solution isn't policing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

Can language be inherently offensive?

Would our mother be less offended if they used another word to make the same joke? Maybe handicapped or disabled? If not then the problem isn't the words themselves - and the solution isn't policing them.

That’s why I said “some things” and not “some words”. There’s a big difference. 
 

and yes you’re about that. As I said earlier, maybe we simply shouldn’t be insulting each other regardless of the specific word choices. Or in my example right above, acting or doing offensive things around/to others. 

Sometimes the problem is over sensitivity. Sometimes the problem is people acting like an #######. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mark Football said:

The bold, even stranger. To be honest, if this is where you're still at after our conversation there's nothing more I can say. I've presented a different kind of existence. That's all I can do. I wish you well. 

Well I guess you’re not doing a very good job of explaining your lais·sez-faire approach to saying offensive things then. 

Because you have said several times, quite clearly, that it’s on the offended party to not be offended by something you (or anyone) has said. That’s how they can be at peace, you said. They shouldn’t be “looking for things to be offended by”, and they shouldn’t “put weight on such things” said by others. All that grieving mother need do to be at peace is to not (and I quote) “put our value what people say or do. No offense = no pain = peace for all!”

I provided an example of that. How am I misunderstanding you in any way?

Please do explain. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Concept Coop said:

At the highest level, only the term changed. The different disabilities you mention still fall under the umbrella term “Intellectual Disabilities”. Stupid - greatly lacking intelligence - implies an intellectual disability. Or mental retardation. 

But if you don’t like stupid, we can use moron, imbecile, or idiot. All three were clinical terms, with more clinically specific definitions than #######. Would it benefit anyone to elevate them to the level of #######?

That’s not quite correct. 

It is certainly possible to simply be uneducated or ignorant without a learning disability. 

And it would absolutely be incorrect to minimize the existence of people who actually do suffer from learning disabilities or autism or Down Syndrome or whatever by casually, insultingly comparing someone who is ignorant & uneducated to people suffering those disabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

That’s not quite correct. 

It is certainly possible to simply be uneducated or ignorant without a learning disability. 

And it would absolutely be incorrect to minimize the existence of people who actually do suffer from learning disabilities or autism or Down Syndrome or whatever by casually, insultingly comparing someone who is ignorant & uneducated to people suffering those disabilities.

General intelligence is largely independent of education. Individuals with an IQ below 75 are considered to have an intellectual disability.

I have really enjoyed this conversation with you, so this isn't me picking a fight. But where do you get that people are minimized and marginalized all over the place? What the hell does it even mean to minimize someone's existence?  The grievance studies lexicon is so odd to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Well I guess you’re not doing a very good job exploring your lais·sez-faire approach to saying offensive things then. 

Because you have said several times, quite clearly, that it’s on the offended party to not be offended by something you (or anyone) has said. That’s how they can be at peace, you said. They shouldn’t be “looking for things to be offended by”, and they shouldn’t “put weight on such things” said by others. 

I provided an example of that. How am I misunderstanding you in any way?

Please do explain. 

If you paused from writing your dissertations on these forums instead spent some time in contemplation you might come away with a better understanding of what he's trying to say.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I agree that people who grow up with diversity are far more likely to adapt to this changing world.  Having a diverse environment provides subtle understanding of the cultures around you. 

Those who grow up in a more insulated bubble are more likely to feel persecuted for having beliefs and mannerisms or using words that cause offense to groups outside that which they were brought up in. 

So what’s the answer? Contrary to @Mark Football’s assertion, I actually agree with those who are against the “woke scolds” shaming anyone at the slightest perception of offense. 

But at the same time, there are universally accepted “offensive” behaviors that as a society we’d probably be better off moving past. 

How do we provide the understanding & experience of diversity to those who grew up in relative isolation? 

Challenging. 

This wasn't targeted at any one person at all and just free talk to people screaming over the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I agree that people who grow up with diversity are far more likely to adapt to this changing world.  Having a diverse environment provides subtle understanding of the cultures around you. 

Those who grow up in a more insulated bubble are more likely to feel persecuted for having beliefs and mannerisms or using words that cause offense to groups outside that which they were brought up in. 

So what’s the answer? Contrary to @Mark Football’s assertion, I actually agree with those who are against the “woke scolds” shaming anyone at the slightest perception of offense. 

But at the same time, there are universally accepted “offensive” behaviors that as a society we’d probably be better off moving past. 

How do we provide the understanding & experience of diversity to those who grew up in relative isolation? 

Challenging. 

This wasn't targeted at any one person at all and just free talk to people screaming over the internet. Give this fight up. I got your back, but no way to fight back on feelings.

 

 

 

Edited by drunkb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

General intelligence is largely independent of education. Individuals with an IQ below 75 are considered to have an intellectual disability.

I have really enjoyed this conversation with you, so this isn't me picking a fight. But where do you get that people are minimized and marginalized all over the place? What the hell does it even mean to minimize someone's existence?  The grievance studies lexicon is so odd to me.

Fair point. I can agree with that. And I don't take it as picking a fight - it's a fascinating discussion and none of us has all the answers to it. It's challenging and evolving and difficult. The willingness to engage in respectful discussion about it is refreshing. 

What I mean by minimizing someone's existence is this: If you call your friend a "R----d", you are reducing the existence of someone with developmental disabilities to a simple insult. It dehumanizes them. It minimizes their existence. It's not "grievance studies lexicon" - I'm not even sure what that is. lol 

That is why people take offense to terms like that, generally speaking. 

And it's why the argument of "I wasn't saying anything bad about people with developmental disabilities, I was just calling my friend a "R-----d" falls flat, and is disingenuous. 

I had to learn this, so it's weird to be on the side of explaining  it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, cloppbeast said:

If you paused from writing your dissertations on these forums instead spent some time in contemplation you might come away with a better understanding of what he's trying to say.

I quoted him. I understand him perfectly. I was being facetious. 

I just think he's full of it on this particular point. He can't defend his reasoning so he's cutting bait & running. It's pretty obvious, but thanks for chiming in with your peanut gallery wisdom. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I just think he's full of it on this particular point. He can't defend his reasoning so he's cutting bait & running.

Hes cutting bait because not everybody enjoys repeating themselves as much as you. You clearly don't want to understand his point, I doubt he wants to continue to shout at a wall.

Edited by cloppbeast
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

What I mean by minimizing someone's existence is this: If you call your friend a "R----d", you are reducing the existence of someone with developmental disabilities to a simple insult. It dehumanizes them. It minimizes their existence. It's not "grievance studies lexicon" - I'm not even sure what that is. lol

This brand of concept creep is largely credited to academia. The fields most responsible - gender studies, ethnic studies, etc. - have been referred to as grievance studies. Using overly dramatic language to describe the experiences of groups they see as oppressed is a hallmark.

Edited by Concept Coop
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cloppbeast said:

Hes cutting bait because not everybody enjoys repeating themselves as much as you. You clearly don't want to understand his point, I doubt he wants to continue to shout at a wall.

He never defended that point. And neither have you. You’re like the dude at the street fight egging on the participants. You want to score points without throwing a punch. 

so since you stepped into the ring, maybe you can defend his argument that someone offended is really to blame for feeling grievance, and not the party that offended them. 

by all means, please use my “grieving widow” hypothetical above.

I’ll wait. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

He never defended that point. And neither have you. You’re like the dude at the street fight egging on the participants. You want to score points without throwing a punch. 

so since you stepped into the ring, maybe you can defend his argument that someone offended is really to blame for feeling grievance, and not the party that offended them. 

by all means, please use my “grieving widow” hypothetical above.

I’ll wait. 

I got tired of trying myself. Mark Football has now also tired of trying. One might have picked up a pattern, but not you.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, cloppbeast said:

I got tired of trying myself. Mark Football has now also tired of trying. One might have picked up a pattern, but not you.

Imagine spending your entire day gaslighting people you don’t know in a FANTASY football forum about owning players statistics in a FANTASY football game on a FANTASY Football forum.  Enjoy your Friday night.   The triggered cancel culture is strong with this thread. Go Bills   😂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, cloppbeast said:

I got tired of trying myself. Mark Football has now also tired of trying. One might have picked up a pattern, but not you.

what a complete cop out -  a total admission of failure. Thanks for playing, you lose.

Either you can defend the position or you can’t. But posts like this are just embarrassing for you. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gottabesweet said:

Imagine spending your entire day gaslighting people you don’t know in a FANTASY football forum about owning players statistics in a FANTASY football game on a FANTASY Football forum.  Enjoy your Friday night.   The triggered cancel culture is strong with this thread. Go Bills   😂

Nobody’s gaslighting anyone or participating in cancel culture. I don’t think you understand any of those terms, to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GROOT said:

Big game today. The game is going to hinge on my qb. I own Tannehill and Roethlisberger. Who should i start? 

You're not supposed to say you own somebody.   Try this instead... it's a little more typing but it should keep everyone happy:

I own "the exclusive rights to use the real-world metrics directly attributable to Ryan Tannehill or Ben Rothlisberger as an input to the scoring system of the PCFL (Politically Correct Football League) for the purpose of simulating pretend football games".

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2020 at 7:18 PM, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Nobody’s gaslighting anyone or participating in cancel culture. I don’t think you understand any of those terms, to be honest.

That's exactly what occurs when words are designated as untouchable like this. It starts out as "let's all be better people" and turns into "this person is a racist, let's find out where they work and tell their boss."

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...