Things that are acceptable and not acceptable in our society...for whatever reason

[Zima]

There are some things that seem fairly equivalent to me, but for whatever reason, society claims one is fine and the other isn't. I'm referring to:

Telling someone "you're too healthy" or "oh, too healthy to eat <crap> with us?" is okay.

Telling someone they're fat is not.

Telling an introverted person that they're too quiet/shy/need to be more social is fine.

Telling an extroverted person that they're loud and obnoxious is not.

Chewing loudly, with your mouth open, when sitting next to other people in a public area(ie bus, lecture hall, office) is fine.

Making some kind of remark to the person who was never taught that it's rude to chew with your mouth open is rude.

Black person making fun of white person - or anyone making fun of Asian people - is generally okay.

White people making fun of black people is not.

"You're such a prude" is fine.

"You're such a slut" is not.

Things like that...it just drives me nuts. They're seemingly equivalent, but one is somehow fine while the other would cause outrage. Maybe that's just because I very often find myself in the position where I want to say the "unacceptable" thing. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Other things to contribute? er...reasons why I'm irrational and intolerant for suggesting that these things are equivalent, because they're obviously not and I'm just stupid?

[realbrickwall]

Well, in many of those cases, it's commonly recognized that the "acceptable" insult is automatically directed at someone in a higher standing (healthy, unobtrusive, cautious, part of an ethnic group with a higher social standing). Here's a more direct example.

Telling someone they're too rich is okay

Telling someone they're too poor is not

Either might be correct or incorrect (and, honestly, almost certainly incorrect), but the social context of the insult matters more than the fact that is insulting.

As for the food-chewing thing, I've never heard of someone being lynched for asking somebody to chew their food less loudly. Just don't call them an uncivilized tool.

[Victoriaoke]

There are some things that seem fairly equivalent to me, but for whatever reason, society claims one is fine and the other isn't. I'm referring to:

Telling someone "you're too healthy" or "oh, too healthy to eat <crap> with us?" is not okay.

Telling someone they're fat is not.

Telling an introverted person that they're too quiet/shy/need to be more social is not fine.

Telling an extroverted person that they're loud and obnoxious is not.

Chewing loudly, with your mouth open, when sitting next to other people in a public area(ie bus, lecture hall, office) doesn't actually impact anyone else even if they, personally, find it rude/gross

Making some kind of remark to the person who was never taught that it's rude to chew with your mouth open is rude.

Black person making fun of white person - or anyone making fun of Asian people - is not okay

White people making fun of black people is not.

"You're such a prude" is not okay

"You're such a slut" is not.

FIXED*

Maybe that's just because I very often find myself in the position where I want to say the "unacceptable" thing.

This is probably the heart of this post. You are feeling like "society" thinks you are the only one who is ever wrong. You aren't. Look up "social privilege," you might find it fascinating (you might also get angry or defensive at first, but keep reading, it gets better the more you understand the concept). It might even make you never want to say offensive things again.

There is this sort of universal truth that we exist in a perpetual state of inequality and prejudice. Often times it's prejudice we aren't even aware we possess... does this sound unfair? Maybe, but as weird as this is going to sound, you are actually privileged to be able to feel that way.

It's never okay to be cruel, it's never okay to be intolerant (well, unless we are talking about intolerance of abuse, genocide...you know what the big bad stuff is), and just because something is dressed up in a pretty package (often masquerading as humor or "good fun") does not mean it isn't harmful and wrong.

We are lucky- we live in exciting times. We're on the precipice of change, you can almost feel a charge in the air from it. Keep an open mind and an open heart and be one of the people who helps make that change is a good one.

*climbs off soap box*

[Rostov]

Well, it's a hard one to answer or discuss here because we're not all living in the same 'society'. Even those of us in the same country aren't necessarily living in the same society or kind of society. And of course, society doesn't speak with one clear voice - there are contradictions, disagreements, and variations.

Telling someone "you're too healthy" or "oh, too healthy to eat <crap> with us?" is okay.

Telling someone they're fat is not.

I'm not sure that there's such a thing as "too healthy", is there? I guess there are things like body dismorphia, anorexia, and hypochondria. Probably there are other kinds of obsessions with physical fitness and health and wellbeing that, well, aren't healthy. I'm also challenge the notion that society thinks that it's not okay to tell someone they're fat. Laughing at fat people (especially if they're also poor or disadvantaged in other ways) is pretty much a comedic staple.

Telling an introverted person that they're too quiet/shy/need to be more social is fine.

Telling an extroverted person that they're loud and obnoxious is not.

I think it's pretty common everywhere for extroverts to moan about introverts and vice versa. I think it varies from culture to culture, but over here at least the loud and obnoxious don't get off lightly. I think it's all about time and place. In general I think there's a greater understanding of introversion than there used to be - there's been a slew of internet articles that have been quite influential on the subject, even if some of them betray something of a superiority complex - and I say this as an introvert. Recently I saw a course advertised on creativity for introverts. So I think things might be changing, and there might be a recognition that people are different - some people are energised by gatherings of people, and some people are de-energised by them.

Chewing loudly, with your mouth open, when sitting next to other people in a public area(ie bus, lecture hall, office) is fine.

Making some kind of remark to the person who was never taught that it's rude to chew with your mouth open is rude.

This is a difficult one. It's generally considered rude to chew with your mouth open (though maybe that's not true for all cultures?), but it's hard to say if it's appropriate to pull someone up on it. Certainly it's unlikely to ever end well, because people are defensive. Certainly to criticise someone for "never having been taught" is an indirect insult to their parents and upbringing, and there are few things more likely to annoy people than that. Personally, if this was a stranger I'd just ignore it and let it go. If it was someone I knew well, I might feel justified in having a word in private because it's in their interests to know.

Black person making fun of white person - or anyone making fun of Asian people - is generally okay.

White people making fun of black people is not.

Victoria (above) is absolutely spot on about the social/unconscious privilege that membership of majority/most powerful/most privileged groups have, and I say this as a white, middle class, heterosexual man. I'm in no way ashamed to be any of those things, but I am aware of the advantages that it gives me. (good nerdy article on it here - I don't entirely agree with all of it, but an interesting way of thinking about it http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ )

In an ideal world, a perfect world of equality and fairness, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to make jokes about race, about sexuality, etc and so on. It would be perfectly fine to have a few laughs about accents or stereotypes, and it would all just be banter. But we don't live in that world, and the jokes that we make and the stereotypes that we perpetuate can - whether we mean to or not - reinforce discrimination and prejudice. And so we need to be a bit careful.

"You're such a prude" is fine.

"You're such a slut" is not.

Again, I'm not sure this is true generally, though I'm sure it is true in some places at some times.

I think, though, what I'm getting from your post is a deep sense of frustration and dissatisfaction with your immediate surroundings and local culture, and perhaps one or two particular incidents in particular are bothering you. It's hard to know what to say to that. It's one thing to go through line-by-line and say 'you're wrong about this, wrong about that, that's not always true' etc, but what is true is a sense of frustration about feeling in a minority and feeling strong peer pressure to act in ways that you don't want to (eat unhealthily) and/or are against your very nature (being an extrovert, being more 'sluttish'). I don't really know what to say to that, other than to hang in there, because these things get better. Either you meet people who don't pressure you to be someone you're not, or the people who are doing that pressuring grow up a bit. Or the pressure starts to lessen as you gain confidence in being who you want to be, and the opinion and judgement of others means less to you.

I suspect the answers are different in all of your examples. If you eat healthily, your example calls other people on their poor eating habits, and they may not like that, because it makes them feel bad about themselves. Or because they fear seeing you less, as a new you may mean less time for them (and in some cases, they may even be right). On extroversion, I think in many cases this is just a lack of empathy and understanding - "hey, I'm having a good time, I want everyone to have a good time like me, so they must act like me." It's rarely malice, and is often the opposite - however hard that is to take sometimes.

[Zima]

These are all very interesting responses!

FIXED*

This is probably the heart of this post. You are feeling like "society" thinks you are the only one who is ever wrong. You aren't. Look up "social privilege," you might find it fascinating (you might also get angry or defensive at first, but keep reading, it gets better the more you understand the concept). It might even make you never want to say offensive things again.

There is this sort of universal truth that we exist in a perpetual state of inequality and prejudice. Often times it's prejudice we aren't even aware we possess... does this sound unfair? Maybe, but as weird as this is going to sound, you are actually privileged to be able to feel that way.

It's never okay to be cruel, it's never okay to be intolerant (well, unless we are talking about intolerance of abuse, genocide...you know what the big bad stuff is), and just because something is dressed up in a pretty package (often masquerading as humor or "good fun") does not mean it isn't harmful and wrong.

We are lucky- we live in exciting times. We're on the precipice of change, you can almost feel a charge in the air from it. Keep an open mind and an open heart and be one of the people who helps make that change is a good one.

*climbs off soap box*

I'm aware of the concept of social privilege, and I certainly don't want things *reversed*...I actually want things to be the way they are in your "fixed" version. If only things actually were like that...

[Jcannon98188]

Relevant

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5843[/ATTACH]

[Trad_Climb]

I'm aware of the concept of social privilege, and I certainly don't want things *reversed*...I actually want things to be the way they are in your "fixed" version. If only things actually were like that...

I'm no expert but isn't this border line sociopathic?

No right, no wrong, just things are as they are, there is nothing offensive or sinful, just what ever.

[Victoriaoke]

I actually want things to be the way they are in your "fixed" version. If only things actually were like that...

As the saying goes, "Rome wasn't built in a day." You can't expect hundreds of years of double standards to go away overnight. What you can do is make sure that you are informed, and that you stand up wherever you see injustice. There is this great quote, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." It may not seem like much, but for one person to stand up and say, "you know what? This is not okay," is a powerful thing. It creates a ripple affect. You might not see the direct results, but your actions (and inaction) do affect the world.

I'm with Rostov on this: " I'm getting from your post is a deep sense of frustration and dissatisfaction with your immediate surroundings and local culture."

I get that, I really do, but... I know in my experience, saying "that was unfair" never fixed anything, because, let's face it, no matter what we are taught in elementary school, the world is not a fair place. Not everyone is nice and polite and PC. Maybe I just haven't found the right wishing well yet, but the way I see it, you always have a choice: you can complain about it, or you can do something about it. All those fitness rules you learn on NF, things like, "you can sit around wondering why you're out of shape, or you can get up and start moving," can easily be re-tooled to apply to life stuff, too.

[Erick the Red]

I am coming from a very different perspective I think, but in each of the examples above, it is the group that most loudly (or even violently) protests the insult that becomes a "protected class".

As a middle aged white professional straight Christian male living in the US, I am not going to go out and start a car on fire if you insult me on any of these fronts, because I perceive that I am in a privileged state in each (you may feel otherwise). So that is all right to do.

But there are many others that will (thankfully hardly ever literally) start fires at the drop of a hat. Maybe they have to try harder? I don't know.

[Razor]

Dude I make fun of so many black people.

[Leimanu]

Relevant

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5843[/ATTACH]

hahahahah!

[Raikas]

These are all very interesting responses!

I'm aware of the concept of social privilege, and I certainly don't want things *reversed*...I actually want things to be the way they are in your "fixed" version. If only things actually were like that...

Fair enough, but that's not actually what you said in the first post though - "I very often find myself in the position where I want to say the "unacceptable" thing. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Other things to contribute? er...reasons why I'm irrational and intolerant for suggesting that these things are equivalent, because they're obviously not and I'm just stupid?" Because the lack of equivalency on the weight and colour front (and on the colour/ethnic one, people of all colours can and do make fun of each other, but I assume what you're really talking about is jokes based on racial stereotypes, right?) comes from privilege, so you can't really think they're equivalent if you understand that, can you?

Also, I'd say that it's more common to see people reprimanded in educational and certain employment situations for being "loud and obnoxious", so I don't think that's really as much of an issue as you suggest (the loud kid gets detention, and the office gossip gets fired for not being productive). Which isn't to say that the shy folks don't get left behind when it comes to networking, but that's just at the opposite extreme. It's the balanced people who know when to be quiet and when to talk who get ahead.

Similarly on the chewing thing - people may not comment on that, but it certainly has negative social ramifications. There's probably a brief period during early high school where the rude people are entertaining, but younger than that and it gets punished and older than that and you start losing friends/work contacts/dates because of it.

[Denny]

You using the word privilege proves Zima's point. Privilege is an abused word to somehow justify that some groups are allowed to take more slander because they relate to a better social status, or the other way around that some groups should be cuddled with because they are less privileged. That's essentially what you're saying with:

Because the lack of equivalency on the weight and colour front, comes from privilege, so you can't really think they're equivalent if you understand that, can you?

which in response to

Black person making fun of white person - or anyone making fun of Asian people - is generally okay.

White people making fun of black people is not.

somehow justifies the black person but not the white person. I will take for granted that you meant the white person had higher privilege by default, people generally do. Either both or none of those options above should be okay from an equal standpoint, but that will never be because every time this debate is brought up someone always comes in and throws the word privilege on the table. Yes, I have a huge problem with the word privilege because it's one of the most biased and prejudicious words used today. It categorizes people just as bad as racism. Are you highly privileged? Then expect any slander coming you're way because, well, you're privileged and shouldn't whine about it because there are less privileged people than you. Are you not privileged at all? Aww, go ahead and abuse and slander any person coming your way if you're having a bad day. It's okay, you're not privileged after all and are allowed to be an asshole. People will only judge the person you attack anyway, we all know that the higher privileged person you're attacking is evil by default and whom is abusing his/her position to make use of you!

Just think in terms of rich versus poor, 'the people' versus politicians, leaders versus followers and the topics of men versus women and white versus black. It's always ok to attack someone whom is highly privileged in society and that's why I hate the word privilege and it's logical fallacies, even when the attack from an objective standpoint is wrong. How many of you can even think about the possibility of a woman beating a man in the home or a white person being exposed to racism without bringing up the defense that "it's not as bad as men beating women" or "it's not as bad as what black people go through every day"? Essentially coming to the faulty conclusion that because a person is from a higher privileged standpoint, he or she can not be hurt or discriminated in any way or form and should be ignored.

[Timmy M]

Dude I make fun of so many black people.

i kinda make fun of/with everyone

i've got a pet theory that family guy is the least offensive program out there, as it 'insults' everyone, if everyone played and poked fun at each other (i know banter works best in friendship groups but i like to push it a bit sometimes) then the world'd be a much funnier, happier and more peaceful place.

Think about this, someone says something about you/your mum etc etc, is it true? if not who cares? that person's talking crap, if it is... well it's the truth so stop being a baby about it. If someone makes a broad generalisation about an ethnic group/race or even about people who live 'on the other side of town' it's bullshit so why care, that's that persons own misguided thoughts, which even s/he probably doesn't fully believe.

Words are wind

(yeah i waxed philosophical a bit but hey... who cares? i don't (it's that easy))

[Raikas]

. Yes, I have a huge problem with the word privilege because it's one of the most biased and prejudicious words used today. It categorizes people just as bad as racism.

Do you genuinely believe that being aware that some people will have an easier time than others based on arbitrary social traditions is the same as mistreating someone based on arbitrary social conditions?

How many of you can even think about the possibility of a woman beating a man in the home or a white person being exposed to racism without bringing up the defense that "it's not as bad as men beating women" or "it's not as bad as what black people go through every day"? Essentially coming to the faulty conclusion that because a person is from a higher privileged standpoint, he or she can not be hurt or discriminated in any way or form and should be ignored.

No, that's missing the point of (decent) discussions of privilege. The point of the of bringing it up when talking about (for example) ethnic insults is not to say that one is okay and one is not - the point is to say that one is a personal insult that carries a larger quantity of social and historical baggage compared to the other and which amplifies the insult when there's a power differential there. The conclusion should not be that the position of higher privilege means a person cannot be hurt, it means that the person with lower privilege is much more likely to experience that hurt.

So to take your example of men and women - that a particular man is beaten by a woman does not disprove the huge numbers of women who are beaten by men. And it certainly doesn't change the social habits that made/make that normal behaviour in so many places and at so many points in history. Individual actions do not exist in a social vacuum.

[Denny]

How can you even quantify that it would hurt more for one person than another? This is why privilege is a horrible word, people start putting quantity to things based on artificial means to somehow justify that it's worse to insult one person than the other by the same means. Why would it hurt less for a white person to be bullied and penalized for his skin color than it is for a black person? Just because it's less common in the west doesn't mean it hurts less. Just by bringing up the quantity argument, you've circled around your own argument and said that it's 'less ok' to insult a less privileged person.

On your second point you quote one thing I said, with a point I made, and is somehow oblivious to the point that stands right there?

"that a particular man is beaten by a woman does not disprove the huge numbers of women who are beaten by men."

That's exactly the problem I tried to bring up. Whenever someone mentions that a privileged person or group has been abused, the counter-argument is always that it's not a big deal as there are other less privileged group whom have had it worse through history and hence the abused person or group can be ignored. Nowhere did I try to disprove the numbers of women that are beaten by men, that's a strawman logical fallacy you fall back on to not respond to the actual argument. In society it's perfectly okay to put higher privileged group through slander because a lower privileged group have had it worse, the debate always fall back to that conclusion. I'm amazed that you even countered with the "women had it worse" counter-argument right away, even when it was just an example of the higher vs lower privileged dilemma.

[Raikas]

How can you even quantify that it would hurt more for one person than another? This is why privilege is a horrible word, people start putting quantity to things based on artificial means to somehow justify that it's worse to insult one person than the other by the same means. Why would it hurt less for a white person to be bullied and penalized for his skin color than it is for a black person? Just because it's less common in the west doesn't mean it hurts less. Just by bringing up the quantity argument, you've circled around your own argument and said that it's 'less ok' to insult a less privileged person.

Denny, the point is not about quantifying whether or not an individual is hurt more than any other individual. The point is that one insult is an insult that exists as its own personal thing while the other exists within a specific social framework.

I'm amazed that you even countered with the "women had it worse" counter-argument right away, even when it was just an example of the higher vs lower privileged dilemma.

I'm amazed that that's the way you interpreted that. The point isn't "women had it worse" the point is that that a discussion of privilege is a discussion about group status that in no way is meant to discount the experiences of individuals. It's not that it's okay to "slander" (as you call it) men (or to discount any individual’s pain), it's that when you make the same comment about women the context is different. That's all. Acknowledging context is not saying that one set of insults is okay, it's saying that one is carrying the weight of history/society.

Whenever someone mentions that a privileged person or group has been abused, the counter-argument is always that it's not a big deal as there are other less privileged group whom have had it worse through history and hence the abused person or group can be ignored.

See, that’s not actually what I said, so whoever this refers to, it’s not me.

No one should be running around insulting other people and expect to be ignored, that’s just asshole behaviour. Full stop. That shouldn't even need to be said. I certainly said nothing about ignoring insults. What I wrote was about knowing why some insults carry more weight than others. That’s all (and that’s one of the things that the OP mentioned and that I was responding to).

[Victoriaoke]

You using the word privilege proves Zima's point. Privilege is an abused word to somehow justify that some groups are allowed to take more slander because they relate to a better social status, or the other way around that some groups should be cuddled with because they are less privileged.

You are correct that the term privilege is abused by some, but they are not people who really understand the concept. It's like people who abuse "I'm sorry," sure, there are people who will punch you, apologize, and then keep punching you; that doesn't mean that everyone who says "I'm sorry" doesn't truly mean it.

The idea of privilege was created as a way of explaining all the little things that you take for granted. There is a famous essay called "Unpacking your Invisible Knapsack," it was what made me have my ah-ha moment (it is specific to white privilege, but can be applied to other forms of privilege). I, too, used to find the term privilege offensive (I thought it was implying that I thought I was better than other), until I really understood what it was trying to convey.

It is not saying, "hey, it's okay for some people to be a jackasses because- social inequality, man." It's more like... Marie Antoinette. The story (though there is great contention over whether this did, in fact, happen) goes that as a young girl, MA was told that the poor could not even afford bread, and her response was "Let them eat cake," a statement used to vilify her even though it was spoken from the perspective of a person who couldn't even fathom the concept that there was no cake. The poor used "let them eat cake" as part of their justification for chopping off her head. The idea of privilege, if taught correctly, should not attack the privileged, rather make them aware enough of the differences that exist that they don't get their head chopped off.

A discussion of privilege should be about making you aware of all the little things you take for granted (like flesh-toned bandages); it's intent (though, again, admittedly abused by some) is to promote social and self awareness, not breed contempt.

How many of you can even think about the possibility of a woman beating a man in the home or a white person being exposed to racism without bringing up the defense that "it's not as bad as men beating women" or "it's not as bad as what black people go through every day"? Essentially coming to the faulty conclusion that because a person is from a higher privileged standpoint, he or she can not be hurt or discriminated in any way or form and should be ignored.

Again, at least for me and those I learned from, not what we're saying when we use the term privilege. If you've run into someone (or several someones) using that as an excuse for bad behavior, then they are wrong, and they themselves need to read up on the subject. There will always be people in the world who twist a good thing into something they can abuse to suit their endgame.

All we (my teachers and myself) want is to promote looking at the world with an open mind and an open heart. What you've described is neither of those things, it's just another form of closed mindedness that people who promote social justice are also against ("someone else's privilege does not erase your own."). It's like... when people say all feminists are man-haters; just because you ran into a couple of bad apples does not make this so (in fact, I know quite a few men who are more informed feminists than I, at this point in time, and they certainly don't hate themselves).

Do you genuinely believe that being aware that some people will have an easier time than others based on arbitrary social traditions is the same as mistreating someone based on arbitrary social conditions?

The point isn't "women had it worse" the point is that that a discussion of privilege is a discussion about group status that in no way is meant to discount the experiences of individuals.

Everything Raikas said. *claps*

[Denny]

Raikas: I agree completely with what you say Raikas. We're essentially saying similar things but circle around each other. It's 'one' thing I'm trying to get at, that single itch I can't seem to scratch.

What I wrote was about knowing why some insults carry more weight than others.

My main point has been and always is that you can't have true neutral equality as long as you keep clinging onto things that's a thing of the past, or context-based social frameworks of the present like you said, and weight things differently because of that. It's this part, that you both are elaborating on, which I've tried to argument against. By making things grayscale and relative, you will always make what appears to be a good act to one person a bad act to another.

If people are met equally with no regards to any traits whatsoever, or all traits are regarded the same, no matter what happened through history, stuff like this will start to go away. If a person is mistreated, it should not be looked at in relation to subcontexts or different scales of bad. It should be just bad. As long as people stick to the notion that identical acts should be treated differently, because of contexts in society, we will never reach the point where people are treated the same no matter their origin or traits. Yes, sometimes we have to look at the context to solve the problem, like why are men more prone to hit women, but you can't use it to judge and say that someone has it worse because of their lesser privilege. This we both seem to agree on, however, this is where I see privilege abused to no end and is why I think the word is bad. It is far too easy used as a tool of positive or negative judgement in social undertones. We may argue the true meaning of the word, it doesn't change how it's used though.

Victoriaoke: Maybe the word is not as mistreated in the US as it's in Sweden. Turn on the TV, read the newspaper or just log on to Facebook and the word pops up in absurdum. I lost count on the amount of hipster memes with "how privileged are you?" in my updates lately telling me I'm too privileged for my own good and I have nothing to worry about in my life. It's more or less used as a political bat here, to score easy votes from people having a hard time and who rather put the blame on others for their problems than to look at their own shortcomings. The true meaning of the word may have a noble intent but is too easily misfired.

I've read similar papers before and I guess it won't hurt reading this one either. (if I haven't already, I can't remember them all)

Edit*

I read the paper. While I do not disagree with the things written in there I think the paper is way too subjective to US and white people instead of seeing it objectively from a cultural and geological standpoint. Take that paper and go to China, or take it to South Africa or the Mediterranean, and that bulletpoint list will be more or less flipsided. In some parts of the world it's not skin color but religion, or lack thereof, which decides your level of privilege. My point is that you can't say that all people of a specific group, for example whites, has the same level of privilege no matter where they are on the planet. The same goes for any group of people, move a stereotypical individual around with a needle on the world map and ask the same questions this paper does and you'll get different answers.

[Tengu]

So while people talk about white/nonwhite, fat/fit, introvert/extrovert, etc "privilege" (as a 43 year old married, hetero, married man making more money than most people on this planet, I still hate that term) I'll jump in with my tiny rant

There are some things that seem fairly equivalent to me, but for whatever reason, society claims one is fine and the other isn't. I'm referring to:

Telling someone "you're too healthy" or "oh, too healthy to eat <crap> with us?" is okay.

Telling someone they're fat is not.

Yeah, because in my experience they (mostly) have all sorts of lies to back up the fact that they are overweight.

"big boned" (which doesn't work for me when your ass hangs down halfway to your knees)

"Thyroid (insert other gland here) problem" which makes no sense to me when their man boobs are hanging halfway to their navel.

And my favorite

"Cancer" (always a generic term, nothing so specific as lung/stomach/colon/etc cancer)

In the VAST majority of these times I've seen what they eat (fried cakes with liquid sugar on the top along with a plate- a PLATE- of heat-n-eat sausages) and how they didn't even bother to exert themselves.

So, the majority of obese people are, in my personal anecdotal experience, lying.

So when they say stuff like "Oh, now you're too good to eat with us?" or "O god, are you on a health binge?" I lie right back to them

Wheat allergy, gluten intolerance, diet controlled diabetes, etc etc etc

They* LIE to my face about why they are obese and, as often as not, morbidly obese, and that's their lie for being that way. I feel not a whit of remorse lying right back to them, because I don't really want to be mocked again for losing weight and trying, in my small way, to get in shape.

It's amazing, when I say I have a "condition", suddenly everyone is all "Awww I didn't know, I'm sorry".

*"They" is not all overweight people. There are some honest ones out there, they know why they're overweight. To me, they are overweight (and thats okay), but the liars are simply lazy fat overeating human hogs. I will lie to the hogs as much as they lie to me.

Telling an introverted person that they're too quiet/shy/need to be more social is fine.

Telling an extroverted person that they're loud and obnoxious is not.

Jeez, shoot me in the heart

I rant online a lot (a LOT), but in real life, I'm rather quiet around people. I'm a massive introvert, gods it takes SO much energy to be around anyone beyond my wife and son. Serious mental and emotional drain.

And yeah, extroverts seem to get a bit "butt hurt" when I tell them they're being "too social" in response to them saying I'm not being social enough. Meh, I don't care.

Chewing loudly, with your mouth open, when sitting next to other people in a public area(ie bus, lecture hall, office) is fine.

Making some kind of remark to the person who was never taught that it's rude to chew with your mouth open is rude.?

I've never had that response, but rude people are rude everywhere, no matter the context

Black person making fun of white person - or anyone making fun of Asian people - is generally okay.

White people making fun of black people is not.

Not in MY fracking house, period.

End of story.

I don't make any fun of my non-caucasian friends, and they know damn well better to not make fun of me due to my skin color.

I may be a quiet introverted guy, but apparently I get my point across (yes, introverts can have a fracking spine)

"You're such a prude" is fine.

"You're such a slut" is not.

In my experience, both are insults, usually both leveled at females (not always, but usually). YMMV

reasons why I'm irrational and intolerant for suggesting that these things are equivalent, because they're obviously not and I'm just stupid?

Some of them aren't equivalent.

For example - the overweight person "calling out" the fit person. You have to understand that here in the good ole USA, FAT is normal.

So no, fat and fit are NOT equivalent.

That's why all of us here belong to the Rebellion.

Being overweight, here and in England, IS the Empire.

Frack the Empire.

We are the rebellion.

[Victoriaoke]

I read the paper. While I do not disagree with the things written in there I think the paper is way too subjective to US and white people instead of seeing it objectively from a cultural and geological standpoint. Take that paper and go to China, or take it to South Africa or the Mediterranean, and that bulletpoint list will be more or less flipsided. In some parts of the world it's not skin color but religion, or lack thereof, which decides your level of privilege. My point is that you can't say that all people of a specific group, for example whites, has the same level of privilege no matter where they are on the planet. The same goes for any group of people, move a stereotypical individual around with a needle on the world map and ask the same questions this paper does and you'll get different answers.

-I did mention that essay was specifically about white privilege and not other kinds (it was also published in 1988 and was written based on one woman's personal experiences/concerns, so naturally it won't cover everything), I was just hoping it would give you a better understanding of what Raikas and I have talked about it this thread. When you are having a discussion about social structures, clearly the social paradigms will be dependent on the society you live in. A North American perspective is not going to line up perfectly with a European/South American/African/Asian perspective, because our societies all have their own idiosyncrasies. I sympathize with your frustrations with newspapers and television- the US is in the middle of an election right now, so we're getting shoveled spin from every direction. I'm assuming that bit about the media is right the world over. Even if we have qualms with the negative connotation of the word "privilege," surely we can agree that open, civil discussions about inequality are important, yes?

[ally]

I got called too skinny today, by a shop assistant. I went to buy one of those iPhone arm band things so I don’t have to hold it when I run/bodyweight exercise. It was too big for my arm (which annoys me as I’m not particularly small and I think they should make them to fit all sizes but thats another rant) and the shop assistant (a man as well) said that its just because I’m too skinny.

They wouldn’t have said that someone was too fat if they couldn’t fit in it so I’m not sure why it fair to make comments about my weight like that either. grrrr double standards.

[IrishMartian]

Erm, call me crazy, but I think the attitude that one of those statements is okay and one of them isn't is down to personal opinion. In terms of them being socially acceptable, clearly the one that favours the least marginalised group is okay in most cases, that still doesn't mean it's right. I'd take issue with everything in there in certain circumstances.

The default attitude to have when determining what the right thing to say is, as Geek Saint Will Wheaton so speaketh: "Don't be a dick".

[Timmy M]

The default attitude to have when determining what the right thing to say is, as Geek Saint Will Wheaton so speaketh: "Don't be a dick".

you just reminded me of a jim jefferies piece on religion/10 commandments

really NSFW, especially for religious peoples (the title's 'God is for Idiots'... so yea...)

[Awesome]

In response to the first post, some of it could be the way its said. "You're too healthy," sounds better than "you're fat." But "you're too healthy" sounds as good as "you're a bit overweight. If you ever decide to do something about it, I can help you out with some exercises." I'm assuming this is to a friend; why the Hell would you tell a stranger they were fat? And how can you be too healthy?

Telling someone they're too quiet... I've only done this when someone was being bullied. "You're too quiet. You should stand up for yourself."

shy... in the context of dating. "I really fancy him." "Well, stop being shy and ask him out."

loud... I say this too my mum a lot. And my daughter. They've never took it in and changed, though. I've had it said to me (escpecially when I was drunk). I honestly don't think loud people realise they are loud.

obnoxious... can't be compared to shy. Outgoing is the opposite of shy, and outgoing is not an insult. Obnoxious is.

Chewing loudly, mouth open... first of all, food shouldn't be allowed in a lecture. Second of all, if I saw someone doing it, I would ask them to stop, I would point out it was disgusting and rude and I would not consider this bad manners. I wouldn't insult their parents. Some folk can't be taught because they don't care to learn, doesn't mean no one ever tried to teach them.

Again, I wouldn't say they were never taught, but I have made such remarks to strangers in the past, and I have had other strangers then make remarks to me along the lines of "go on, get him told" and "some folk have no manners, ay,"

Racism is wrong. No one should be made fun of for their skin colour. Or their gender or sexuality. This comes with the caveat that amongst friends it can be fine to disregard such boundaries. I often make jokes about lesbians to my best friend because she is one. I wouldn't say they same things to another lesbian I'd only just met.

In regard to these things, it's generally not acceptable to mock things people didn't choose (skin colour, gender, sexuality) and mock things people did choose (dude, nice hat!) but where does that leave religion?

Most people I know would take offence at being called a prude. A lot of my female friends, if you called them a slut, would agree and then try to drag you to bed.

Maybe this is a locational thing.