On 2018-01-28 4:23 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
>

That poor guy has been under pressure from the gender confused and
politically correct because he has refuse to alter the English language
and its traditional male and female pronouns.