On 1/28/2018 2:07 PM, graham wrote:
> On 2018-01-28 11:25 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2018-01-28 1:00 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>>>>> So, 'nappy' is a slang term for dreadlocks?
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have never heard nappy as slang for dredlocks, but that doesn't
>>> mean it's not so just because I have never heard it. 
>>>
>>
>>
>> It would be a localism. Until I googled it, I had never heard the term
>> nappy being used about African hair. I had only ever heard it used in
>> reference to diapers. Therefore, my use of the word would never have
>> been used as a racial slur, despite the fact that there are too many
>> people in the world who think there is a right to be offended.
>>
>>
>>
> I think you mean "a right NOT to be offended!"
And one fine Canadian professor has weighed in on that emphatically:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...fending-people
A Canadian professor questions a key tenet of current Leftist thinking.
Earlier this week, Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of
Toronto burst into the international headlines again, this time thanks
to a shockingly polite interview with British interviewer Cathy Newman.
The entire interview was an insipid exercise in Newman attempting to
cram her own words into Petersons mouth; as Conor Friedersdorf of The
Atlantic points out, Newmans technique was to restate what [Peterson]
said so as to make it seem as if [his] view is offensive, hostile, or
absurd. Peterson, with the patience and mildness of a saint, doggedly
refused to be boxed in that way. But the segment of the interview that
grabbed the publics imagination wasnt Petersons discussion of the
wage gap or the biology of hierarchical relationships. It was a very
simple exchange over the value of truth. Newman questioned Peterson on
why he refused to go along with the trendy leftist cause du jour: using
pronouns chosen by individuals rather than pronouns that describe their
biology. Why should your freedom of speech trump a trans persons right
not to be offended? Newman asked. Peterson, ever the gentleman,
answered the question without guffawing: Because in order to be able to
think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the
conversation were having right now. Youre certainly willing to risk
offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to
do that? Its been rather uncomfortable. Newman misdirected: Well, Im
very glad Ive put you on the spot. But Peterson pursued: Well, you
get my point. Youre doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to
see what the hell is going on. And that is what you should do. But
youre exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me,
and thats fine. More power to you, as far as Im concerned. Newman had
no answer. Point to Peterson. But despite Petersons obvious logic, the
Left refuses to concede this particular point. Any statement any
statement must be gauged not only on the basis of its truth-value,
according to the Left, but on the basis of whether such truth is likely
to offend or, at least, whether such truth is likely to offend groups
the Left perceives as victimized. According to the Left, any and all
truth must take a back seat to your truth, so long as you claim
minority status in any way.
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...fending-people