h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>I think women have far more reason to get annoyed at 'pussy'...

Actually, yes, I do. I really dislike it. I have no real idea why though.

"People who are easily offended should be. Often."

I wish I knew where that line came from. I love it.

It was mentioned that the religious tend to take offence easier than the non-religious. Or, at least, they tend to make more of a fuss about it. Interestingly, Christopher Hitchens has remarked a few times that he feels atheists should 'reclaim' offence, and should stand up and say so when they're offended.



"You insulted me/a group of which I am a member."

Personal. Easy to demonstrate.

"You were rude."

Impersonal. Easy to demonstrate.

"You were offensive."

To me, this suggests that the person ('you') was rude, and that I have strong feelings about that type of rudeness.

"You offended me."

This could mean anything.

TRiG.

BouncyBitInTheMiddle


But it doesn't mean that when one is talking about a womans vagina, pudenda, muff etc.

One word can have a number of meanings when I use the word pussy to describe the bearded clam I do not get the image of the Mr Muscle guy in my mind and get the image of......sorry drifted off for a second...so you see 'offense' in most cases is in the mind of the beholder and possibly Noddy Holder but knowing what he did in Germany for money possibly not!

There is very little I find taboo if it don't hurt anyone mentally or physically then it should be OK...with the odd exception

And pussy's are lovely an cute....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdvLEiWzEvQ

Pussy offensive? Depends on who's saying it...

http://img1.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/5/1/5/7/e/5157ed25c9159f65f2bf2ffd64ecf824_full.jpg

Can't link to to the video (it would be ) try WASP+Animal+live

I'm not easily offended and find the find the associations with word rather wet and liberal anyway.

"People who are easily offended, should be. Often"

I, too, feel I know this. But the only attribution I can find is Oscar Wilde. And I'm a bit dubious as google doesn't come up with the usual 'quotes' websites - just links to people who so attribute it. Which leads me to conclude the attribution is about equal to 'a bloke in a pub' for truth. Plus anything even vaguely witty gets attributed to Wilde.

Here's a good case in point about 'offensive':-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7616817.stm

"TV watchdog Ofcom has ruled that an episode of Channel 4 show The F Word featuring chef Gordon Ramsay eating a puffin did not break the rules."

"The regulator said the sequence was not in breach as it occurred in Iceland, where the puffin forms a popular part of the national diet."

That's good it puts the sequence into legal perspective.

"It also noted the birds were killed in a humane way with minimal suffering."

Probably just as humane as other animals killed for meat...fine there.

"Viewers had complained that the practice of killing puffins was cruel"

Just Puffins or any animals? If just Puffins what about other animals?
If all animals they are obviously vegetarians...so keep your nose out of normal omnivorous eating.

"the local tradition of eating their fresh hearts was offensive"

Offensive...or a bit icky? What the hell is offensive about eating fresh meat? Oh, is it because it's 'the heart' for some in known reason?

This is where 'ickiness factor' is replaced by 'offensive'.

"whilst not protected, puffins were a species under threat."

Well, if they aren't protected yet and it's legal in Iceland then don't complain to Ofcom complain to Iceland and try and get their laws changed.

This is a case of people not having a life.

There's one in Scotland at the moment. A Celtic fan (a Scottish football team) wrote to the Irish Consulate in London to complain that the fans of Rangers (a Scottish football team) were causing offence by singing songs about the Irish famine. The Irish Consul then complained to the Scottish Govt. The Scottish Police are now investigating.



Setting aside the hypocrisy for a moment, this is also an example of why multiculturalism has been tried and failed in this country. Descendents of Irish immigrants 3, 4, 5 generations removed still see their loyalties as lying with a foreign country. The Education Bill of 1918 allowed only two types of school in Scotland - Catholic & non-denominational. This legislation is directly responsible for nearly a century of sectarian hatred and violence. Segregating Irish immigrants into faith schools has perpetuated this mythical link with Ireland and hindered integration.

*I* am offended that foreign consuls think they can dictate what football fans can sing.



I feel better now

It seems to me that there are other equally good words to express what many people mean when they say 'offended'. I suspect that it is laziness.

Affronted
Nauseated
Scandalised

I'm sure there are many others.

t.

I don't generally say "I'm offended" though, turvy. I say "that is offensive". It's not about me, it's about the thing done or said.

"That is affronting" doesn't really work. Nauseous and scandalous kind of do, but the meaning is different than offensive.

More people being offended -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7619622.stm

The stars of hit US comedy Tropic Thunder have played down the controversy surrounding the movie for its alleged insensitivity towards minority groups.

Demonstrators protested at the film's Los Angeles premiere last month over its frequent use of the word "retard" to describe people with intellectual disabilities.

Yes but kea, if you say, 'that is offensive', who's doing the deciding of it being 'offensive'? Surely you have to feel some sort of feeling of being offended yourself, to realise it is generally offensive. And shouldn't you say to whom. Is anything universally offensive? And yes I'd say certain activities come close, but there'll be someone somewhere who won't find it so, or even whole cultures of people maybe?

I think it's tricky unless one is quite specific, otherwise we are venturing into 'Mary Whitehouse/Patricia Bartlett territory. She always used to describe certain things as 'offensive' as if there was some 'absolute' offensiveness about things, and not just in the minds of a small clique of the 'viewers and listeners association', which probably also represented a few 'disgusted on Tunbridge Welles' types. I'm not saying *your* idea of offensive is the same as hers; just using it to show an example of the principle.

(And I'm not being picky for the sake of it, I think it's good to explore, because it's such an ill defined thing, and can so easily be used to supress people's expression of certain things, or expressions of cultural things like TV dramas; eg Dennis Potter's brilliant play, Brimstone and Treacle was banned for years, because it featured at the end a disabled girl apparently being 'raped' by the 'devil'. In the context of the drama it made complete sense, and was to my mind one of the great BBC dramas. It was allowed to be shown about 20 years later on telly.

So I think explanation as to why, and to whom something is offensive, should always be given. So that the other person/dramatist or whoever is given opportunity to explain themselves....or you never know, actually apologise..?

I find quite often people are only offended because they want to be. Or because they feel they should be.

Hey Effers

>>if you say, 'that is offensive', who's doing the deciding of it being 'offensive'?<<

For me, if I find something offensive then I can usually say why, in depth, the thing is offensive. So it's not that I think I get to define what offensive is, but I'm fine with standing up and talking about something that I think jumps wholeheartedly across a line.

And unlike 3D, I have no problem doing that about things that aren't aimed at me. I appreciate it when other people do the same for things that are aimed at me.


God, I can't believe I've been compared to Whitehouse

The difference would be similar to the difference between religious objections to p*rn and feminist objections. Religious objects are about morality (as far as I can tell), and that there is something inherently bad about sex.

Feminist objections aren't about sex and morality, they're based on how p*rn oppresses women and children (and consequently all people). That's a political objection rather than a moral one.

So offensiveness isn't absolute IMO, it's contextual.

When people say that being offended is bad, I think it's often used as a way of undermining political action, in the same way that accusations of political correctness are. I think there are times when it's valid to feel offended, and when it's valid and necessary to find things offensive.

For instance, if you see someone engaged in overt and extreme racism, what do you feel that makes you condemn that if it's not offense?*

(* or affront apparently: F19585?thread=5896503&post=69004842#p68996227 )

Can you give some examples laconian? How do you know?

If it was overt and extreme racism I would explain that what is being said indicates that a whole group of people are somehow inferior because of skin colour or ethnicity. I know often racism is highly complex, and you can't go into all the inns and outs of it. Maybe questioning is good, like 'what exactly are you suggesting by that remark?' 'And you do realise such stuff is incredibly hurtful to great swathes of people etc. That would give the other person the chance to say something like, 'it was meant ironically' or just tell me to '**** off because I was a pc idiot'..That would then tell me plenty about them as a person. Yep it all depends on what the racism is and the situation. Just telling someone, something is 'offensive' often their backs up, and makes them even more racist or whatever.

I'm particularly against the word, because it's so vague, and is so easily used by *some* people as a catch all. Also in the UK we have a long tradition of very high quality and complex wonderful literature and drama, that frequently plays on irony and self parody, that some people just don't *get*. They've missed the point of the writer entirely, wilfully or actually.

I'm tend to bend over backwards a bit on this, because of the whole censorship thing done is often in the name of middle class sensibilities, (you know what a big issue 'class' is in the England, though now less gradually)

Other examples I can think of; the DH Lawarence book "Lady Chatterly's Lover' which was banned because appaently people would be offended by its frequent use of words like k*942%%%nt etc. The trial in the earlier 60s decided the book could after all be published. There was a recent drama about it on BBC. Interstingly at the trial it was pointed out that so called working class people used these words often, and did not find them in thee least offensive. There was a lot more too it obviously though.

Another example, Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. I don't buy the tramp and the young boys in real life imitation of one of the scenes, as the only reason it was banned for so long. It suited the authoroties purposes for Kubrick himself to withdraw it. To my mind it is essentially about psychology/fantasy of a young man, not literal violence.

Anyway I'm rambling. Yeah 'offensive' is just so so subjective IMO.

>>Can you give some examples laconian? How do you know?<<

I suppose the only source I can confidently draw on is myself . Occasionally I have caught myself thinking 'you can't/shouldn't say/do that!'. Then I've thought to myself, why not? And generally I realise that it's a natural reaction to something not conforming to social norms, rather than because I am *actually* offended. For me to offended by this thing, I'd actually have to want to be (there is a certain type of person I have in mind with that), or just because it would seem 'normal' to be offended.

>Feminist objections aren't about sex and morality, they're based on how p*rn oppresses women and children (and consequently all people). That's a political objection rather than a moral one.

Erm, that *is* a moral objection. If someone believes oppression is wrong and that p*rn "oppresses women" then their objection is based on its being against their personal morality.

"The difference would be similar to the difference between religious objections to p*rn and feminist objections. Religious objects are about morality (as far as I can tell), and that there is something inherently bad about sex.

Feminist objections aren't about sex and morality, they're based on how p*rn oppresses women and children (and consequently all people). That's a political objection rather than a moral one."



I'd argue that both are moral objections. And both moralities are based on how the people perceive the universe to be constructed. One of those perceptions may be better supported by the evidence than the other, mind you, and this helps us to decide how seriously to take the objections.

Can the feminist establish that porn does in fact oppress women?
Can the religious moralist establish ... anything?

TRiG.

Just correcting the title. It offended my pedantry.