I find it fascinating debating with different opinions, and people can read our conversations on a public board and hopefully make their own minds up on the strengths of our arguments. As I said I won't say to you, you don't have a right to speak to me. I'll try asking a different set of questions because even after implying you won't continue to converse with me, you still are. Such as someone like me who can watch the clip in the OP and understand their intent whether or not it's pulled off well. Other people who are just as progressive as you might not be 100% at that level. If the argument boils down to words should just never be spoken if mean people use them then that can be a stance you take. Go back and read it if you don't believe me. This Cartoon Network clip however, is not them, so why can't it be an example of a joke which has been able to get away with using terminology that is usually used poorly? I've never disagreed that it's used poorly, my first post in this topic was to defend people coming in to say this term has ill intent. I don't like genuinely aggressive, mean, and people with ill-intent. I'm not trying to absolve anyone that you and I don't like on the internet. I would never say to you you've lost your right to engage with me and debate. To suggest I'm not someone who's allowed to be part of this conversation because I don't think 100% like you, maybe only 90~95% like you? Instead of just debating with me, and maybe disagreeing if we cannot get to a similar place, you have to add things such as that. I've lost my right to have a discussion about this? My right? Are you saying you were the arbitrator of whether I'm allowed to speak and converse about this topic? That is precisely the kind of self-reflective humour this original clip is poking fun at.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2022
Categories |