I hate bringing the thread back to this but two things that I find conserning.
And it's fine that you feel that way. Most people do not. The problem is when you try to compel others to use your speech. If you want to use another word that's fine. Just don't force others to change their speech to comply with your views.
Ok, let's break this one down.
If something seems [something]st,
Ok, this needs to be corrected, give me a sec...
If something seems feels [somthing]st,
Because seeming something is subjective and thus a feeling not a fact. This means that you can say it is Tan, I can say it's bege, who is right?
To anyone,
So, the bar for entry is one person feeling that (potentially) everyone else is wrong about a subjective item?
Then something, somewhere, is [something]st.
Ok, figured that was where we were going...
So, the problem with this is that it results in (as has already been observed) compelled speech.
I would like to interject and state that as a furry, I find all this "mankind" and even "humankind" stuff to be really bigoted aganst us, it should be "livingkind" thank you very much.
I would like to say that as a otherkin I identify as a object and not living, as such I disagree with the above and would prefer we use "corpral entity kind".
I would like to say that I to am a otherkin and since I identify as a collection of alien energy, "corpral entity kind" really does not work for me, I don't know how we can fix that but we do need to do something about it.
So... Should we A) follow through with the suggestions from all of my (imposible to dis-prove) random sample of people I found out on the street of LA. B) Deny some but acdept others (and where is the line, also why is it where it is). C) Deny all of these. or D) Let the masses decide through free-speech.
I haven't attempted or advocated compelling others to use a particular kind of speech, nor will I. I am asserting that certain issues exist, and that they would exist a little less if people were more conscientious of how their words and actions affect others. That is to say, I'm on board with masses-decided free speech; I just think it would be cool if we had even slightly kinder masses. Yes, you're correct that that is, like, just my opinion, man. I just don't understand why it's such a controversial one.
Further, yes, discrimination is, in part, a function of perception. You haven't turned anything on its head with this observation, you haven't caught me out on anything; I understood this concept and it is, in fact, fundamental to my statement: if someone perceives discrimination, that appearance comes from
somewhere. It could be a lie, or a misunderstanding, but it's quite often actual factual real-deal discrimination and, as I said earlier,
it indicates a problem which should be addressed, and that remains true even if it is a misunderstanding
. Abdicating responsibility for that problem is just that: abdicating responsibility. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether you're
right to do so, in context, is its own question.
What you've done here is tell me I'm doing something wrong without definitively disagreeing with, or directly addressing, or possibly even understanding my actual rhetoric. Please stop conflating me with a rights-infringing bogeyman; have a little more compassion for people in general, in whatever way works for you and the people with whom you interact; and otherwise continue on with your life.
And read the rules regarding spaghetti posting.
