I was having a conversation with a woman today and I made a positive comparison to the style and composition of women in the Antebellum South. An African-American lady overheard me speaking and became extremely angry that I made a positive reference to a time when her ancestors were enslaved. I asked her if she thought the bubonic plague was the only thing going on before the European Renaissance, then I asked her if taxes would be the only reason an American would have stayed loyal to Britain pre-revolutionary war. It was at this point her insecurity and lack of education began showing so I dis-concerned myself with her.

What's y'alls take on respecting aspects of an era of oppression? Why do y'all think someone became so enraged that I pointed out a very beautiful aspect in an era that ALSO happened to condone slavery as the norm? Please add on to this discussion.

Views: 499

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That just reinforces was she said. There was a push for one but not the other despite them essentially being identical save for target market. 

Criminology 101 + Sociology 101 would probably do you some good.

But what was behind the public outcry and political energy?  Why was there a push to punish, on orders of magnitude, more severely one form, when it was just as dangerous as other forms?

There is documented evidence that, for otherwise identical crimes, whites routinely receive a significantly lighter sentence than people of color.  So, yes, it does appear that a racial bias does exist.

 

Whether this is an institutional bias is a somewhat different question, and should be the main focus.

Alot of things decide sentence severity. One of those is previous record.
I could be wrong but my understanding of most of the statistics only include severity of the single crime, not previous offenses.

You've never read Victorian Era porn.

I dislike porn from pre-shaving times. LOL

I'll save you some time.  Anything you can find today, was written about then.  And women wrote the same smut as men.

There's no accounting for the peculiar sensitivities of oversensitive people.  Why bother trying?  Own your beliefs, and stand by them.  Even if people are offended.  If you like pre-Civil War Southern womens' fashion, and find no need to apologize for it ... then like it, and don't apologize for it.

 

The truth is, she probably wasn't actually offended.  She's just been taught that there's power in claiming to be offended, and that she ought to be on the lookout for an affront ... because she'd rather act offended at nothing than accidentally pass up the opportunity.  She faked offense because she thought she was supposed to, and she's not bright enough to think for herself.

 

Even if she was genuinely offended, so what?  Not your problem.  You weren't even talking to her.  Eavesdrop at your own risk, especially when you're oversensitive.  Let her be offended, and move on with your life.  At most, she's just teaching people that talking anywhere near her carries the risk of a random tirade.  Mostly, people will just not talk near her anymore.  Or they'll whisper.  In that regard, its an effective way to silence people.  Its worked for decades.  People are so scared to death of offending, they just don't say anything.

 

As an answer to the direct question, no, there's nothing offensive in finding admirable aspects of something that also has not-so-admirable aspects.  It takes quite a brainless lack-of-discernment to write off the entirety of any and every time period that offensive stuff happened.  I'm not sure there's any time period that'd qualify.

 

JB

"The truth is, she probably wasn't actually offended.  She's just been taught that there's power in claiming to be offended, and that she ought to be on the lookout for an affront ... because she'd rather act offended at nothing than accidentally pass up the opportunity.  She faked offense because she thought she was supposed to, and she's not bright enough to think for herself."

There's a whoooooooooooooooooooooole lot of assuming going on here.

I'm aware.  Hence the "probably".  And the following paragraph with the 'even if I'm wrong' caveat.

 

That type exists in abundance.  Its quite the booming industry.  The assumption is in whether she fits the bill, or not.  Given the innocuous comment that supposedly offended her, I tend to think so.


JB

There's a difference between probably and possibly

RSS

Latest Activity

Michael D. Denny replied to Tom Ellis's discussion Girlfriends lies and temper
"So dump her. "
8 minutes ago
Nathanael replied to Tom Ellis's discussion Girlfriends lies and temper
"GTFO of the relationship. Trainwreckgifgoeshere"
9 minutes ago
David Johns replied to David Johns's discussion Male insecurity?
"Arr!  Very cool, BF!"
55 minutes ago
mantic59 replied to Omri Meir's discussion Some beard oil questions
"Hope I'm not 'blog spamming' (admin or mod, feel free to delete if you think I am) but Sharpologist has had a couple beard oil reviews.  HERE is one for Badger Navigator Class and HERE is one for Morral Brothers. …"
1 hour ago
Tyler M. replied to Josh Williams's discussion I touched her butt.
"I don't think half the world population is in his family tree? hahaha."
1 hour ago
Tyler M. replied to Josh Williams's discussion I touched her butt.
"Thats what I was thinking. "
1 hour ago
Thomas Patrick joined Randall "Skitch" Hodgson's group
Thumbnail

The Guitar = Manly

For the manly who show it through playing the most manly instrument on planet: The Guitar.See More
1 hour ago
Profile IconThomas Patrick and russell day joined Harris's group
Thumbnail

Leatherworkers

For those who work with leather, whether it be small projects, saddle making or anything in between.
1 hour ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service