Kilt, Skirt, MUG, etc.

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

...It's only in law and math that we need this kind of precision.

Based on some of the hair splitting that has taken place on this thread, we have more than a few lawyers, or those who want to be!

RJI ... just sitting in the office wearing my kilt and loving life, so call it whatever you want!

[ByDand]

Actually I tend to ignore the remarks I feel are sarcastic. Those that sound sincere I explain that it is a kilt that I wear. My wife on the other hand takes a different approach. She usually answers for me (I think this is a common tactic used by other women tho I am not sure). She is quick to say and I will paraphrase "He is wearing a kilt. Men wear kilts, boys wear pants and women wear skirts." That usually shuts them up.

Still, it is nice to have the discussion about the differences of opinion.

[jkdesq]

I think it stems, at least in part, from the foolish notion that no one should ever even feel insulted.
That is a fairly recent idea, and hopefully we will return to our senses some day.

Now I can understand the statement that, if someone unintentionally insults us, that we should be man or woman enough to deal with it. But the idea that in the past, people felt free to around intentionally insulting each other (without just cause) is not historically valid. I think to look at Victorian and Edwardian times, at least those people who considered themselves part of "polite soceity" made every effort to avoid insulting an acquiantance. Certainly in those times and times prior there was a general rule that one did not insult a social better. You will have to explain why you think people were so completely free to cast insults until "fairly recent" times.

Why is it such a bad idea to avoid offending someone or making them feel bad? You will have to explain why you think the freedom to do so is such a noble goal.

[Freedomlover]

Now I can understand the statement that, if someone unintentionally insults us, that we should be man or woman enough to deal with it.

Certainly.

But the idea that in the past, people felt free to around intentionally insulting each other (without just cause) is not historically valid. I think to look at Victorian and Edwardian times, at least those people who considered themselves part of "polite soceity" made every effort to avoid insulting an acquiantance.

Of course, but that was not my context, nor is it what I said. What I am, and have been, talking about is the ultra sensitivity of certain individuals and groups which leads to vociferous protest against any language he/she/they do not personally approve. It is called (for the benifit of our brethren from other countries political correctness). It amounts to political thought control and ought to rejected out of hand.

Certainly in those times and times prior there was a general rule that one did not insult a social better. You will have to explain why you think people were so completely free to cast insults until "fairly recent" times.

Obviously that is not what I think at all. The political banning of certain perfectly good words only because someone might fancy himself insulted is my focus.

Why is it such a bad idea to avoid offending someone or making them feel bad? You will have to explain why you think the freedom to do so is such a noble goal.

You have twice used the phrase "you will have to". Please explain, if you feel like it, why you feel I have to justify myself to you.

I have demonstrated that I do not see the freedom to insult at will as a noble goal. Neither do I accept that anyone else has the right to dictate my choice of words based on whether or not they will "feel bad" because of them. How a person reacts to language is an individual choice. The great majority of the members understand that. To expect to be insulated from dissenting opinion based soley on not liking the words chosen is ridiculous. If one does not want to be called a thief then one ought not to steal.

I consider this to be on topic because you, for reasons of your own, have chosen to define something that absolutely is a skirt as not a skirt based on the commonplace perception that skirts are female attire despite the contrary testimony of history.

[bubba]

Since I live in the US there are some words I don't use because in THIS culture they're derogatory and insulting. However, the US is not the only legitimate culture and those same words have an entirely different cultural context. Getting on the high horse and getting all upset over that is simply trying to force one cultural context on another and is more insulting and discriminatory than the word itself.

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

Honestly, I turn my back for 2 seconds and you two (jkdesq and Freedomlover) are at each other again! If you want to snipe at each other, do it through PM. It is really getting tiresome.

[Freedomlover]

Honestly, I turn my back for 2 seconds and you two (jkdesq and Freedomlover) are at each other again! If you want to snipe at each other, do it through PM. It is really getting tiresome.

Sniping? Hardly. I post an opinion, which is what we do around here, and he is all over it without paying the least attention to what I actually said. Not to mention reading in content that is not there.

Why not simply skip over our exchanges as most folks do if they are not interested?

[jkdesq]

I consider this to be on topic because you, for reasons of your own, have chosen to define something that absolutely is a skirt as not a skirt based on the commonplace perception that skirts are female attire despite the contrary testimony of history.

You make choices too. You have admitted:
i) further back in the thread that the meanings of words comes from the culture (ie. commonplace perception) and
ii) in your recent post that the commonplace perception is that skirts are for woman

ergo a very reasonable meaning of the word "skirt" is a garment for women.

So, there is a conundrum:
i) kilts are alot like skirts to the point, perhaps, of being a skirt
ii) kilts are for men
iii) but skirts are for woman.

To find a solution, one needs to ignore one of these three points. My position is to down play the first one. Your position requires you to down by play the third point. We are both promoting the whole sale "ignoring" of one of these common perceptions. I am not trying to "redefine" anything more than you are. My position is no more illogical or irrational than yours.

As for the politically correct issue, that's the reality of the world. If you want to go around using words that were commonly employed for minorities 50 years ago, go ahead. There is no law -- perhaps codes of conduct but no law. I just wonder how you will be greeted by typcial members in your community when you use old terms for the mentally disabled, phyiscally disabled and members of different ethnic minorities. Go ahead, try it. Why should [the word that must not be typed] be any different?

As for others "dictating a choice of words" they [your intend audience] already do. In the process of communicating, you are choosing words, as best as possible, that you and your audience hold a common understanding. Not just common understanding of "dictionary meanings" but also the common emotional understandings of words. There is a huge difference between calling someone "handicapped" and referring to the same person by the English word taken from a French word for "slow". From the common place perception, one conveys a little bit of sympathy; the other conveys contempt. You can choose your words without taking this "dictation", but the meaning received by your audience will not be what you intend and your audience may take you for a troglodyte.

[jkdesq]

Why not simply skip over our exchanges as most folks do if they are not interested?

Well, RJI, you have accomplished something that 18 pages on this thread has not. I AGREE WITH FREEDOMLOVER. Our rights to post are as valid as anyone elses. If you don't like what we write, ignore it.

"Tiresome"? I don't think I have ever used anything so derogatory about Freedomlover's posts and you accuse us of sniping?!?! I guess in the end we all become what we hate.

[Freedomlover]

You make choices too. You have admitted:
i) further back in the thread that the meanings of words comes from the culture (ie. commonplace perception) and
ii) in your recent post that the commonplace perception is that skirts are for woman

ergo a very reasonable meaning of the word "skirt" is a garment for women.

So, there is a connodrum:
i) kilts are alot like skirts to the point, perhaps, of being a skirt
ii) kilts are for men
iii) but skirts are for woman.

To find a solution, one needs to ignore one of these three points. My position is to down play the first one. Your position requires you to down by play the third point. We are both promoting the whole sale "ignoring" of one of these common perceptions. I am not trying to "redefine" anything more than you are. My position is no more illogical or irrational than yours.

Now we are getting somewhere. I agree to a point. But how about just accepting the first point and downplaying the other two? History shows that men have worn skirts for as long as clothing has existed. The fact that in Western culture most people would offhandedly say a skirt is feminine only demonstrates a lack of historical knowledge.

As for the politically correct issue, that's the reality of the world. If you want to go around using words that were commonly employed for minorities 50 years ago, go ahead.

It is not the reality of the world. But it is very powerful in North American culture. There are certain words that I am convinced that no civilized person should use. But those words all relate to things such as race, gender, ethnicity, and so forth. Social choices are another matter.

There is no law -- perhaps codes of conduct but no law. I just wonder how you will be greeted by typcial members in your community when you use old terms for the mentally disabled, phyiscally disabled and members of different ethnic minorities. Go ahead, try it. Why should [the word that must not be typed] be any different?

Unwarrented assumption. See above. There is a marked difference between blatent bigotry and blatent ignorance.

As for others "dictating a choice of words" they [your intend audience] already do. In the process of communicating, you are choosing words, as best as possible, that you and your audience hold a common understanding. Not just common understanding of "dictionary meanings" but also the common emotional understandings of words. There is a huge difference between calling someone "handicapped" and referring to the same person by the English word taken from a French word for "slow". From the common place perception, one conveys a little bit of sympathy; the other conveys contempt. You can choose your words without taking this "dictation", but the meaning received by your audience will not be what you intend and your audience may take you for a troglodyte.

You make a valid point. But you seem to have the idea that I am an insensitive lout who demands the right to belittle other people at will. I said above that if one does not wish to called a thief, then one should not steal. Think about it. To steal, then demand to be called a freelance capitalist instead of a thief is silly.