There is a pretty obvious failure mode when we always hold a speaker accountable for another person’s pain. This provides listeners with an incentive to be easily hurt, or at least pretend to be. By claiming to be unsafe, offended, or hurt, a person has the power to shut down speech and immediately discredit the…

Me neither. It’s absolutely nuts. It’s as if people are so stereotype-averse that they’re loath to ascribing any kind of characteristic whatever to a people, even one which is true. I thought the description gels perfectly well Native American history.

And you are hearing SOOOO many constitutional and revolutionary war historians losing their shit over it, right?

Funny how you picked two examples that couldn’t help you at all. You picked Shylock, who is portrayed in the view of the people who hate him as a horrible stereotype, yet is affectionately written by Shakespeare as the person done most wrong to, who is eaten up inside by the malaise created by the “normal” people.

Or maybe she assumes her reader are wanting FICTION and not a discourse on the complexities of Native American cultures through the ages. Like most internet outrage, this is entirely fabricated, by people who have nothing better to do. I’m starting to think it’s a First World Problems kind of thing.

My geographical location has nothing to do with my ability to make moral judgements. How ridiculously condescending of you, and exactly the kind of insane moral logic I’m talking about.

Guess what? Loius CK is a fucking comedian. If you want to call someone out for hurtful speech, do so, but I grow weary of the ever-increasing list of shit I can’t talk about because someone, somewhere with paper-think skin may get offended by it.