On 1/28/2018 3:30 PM, graham wrote:
> On 2018-01-28 2:23 PM, Polar Vortex wrote:
>> 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 €œrestate 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. €œWhy
>> 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: €œBecause 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: €œWell, Im very glad Ive
>> put you on the spot.€� But Peterson pursued: €œWell, 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 €œyour truth,€� so long as
>> you claim minority status in any way.
>>
>> Read more at:
>> http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...fending-people
>>
> And here is the interview:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=aMcjxSThD54


TY!

This man is an unmitigated joy to listen to.