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

>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.<

Yes but kea said 'feminists' or maybe to be pedantic one could say the Feminist view. Feminism is a political movement. That is she didn't say 'someone'. Someone having a particular personal opinion about something is very different from someone who identitifies themselves as part of a political movement, with all the awareness of wider issues, histories, political struggles etc, which can produce a consensus within a group that can have a particular political agenda.

I don't for example call myself a feminist though I have feminist sympathies and awarenesses in many areas. But I think my view is informed by many other issues that are sometimes more significant to me personally.

It really depends how kea meant it I think.

>>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.<<

Effers, I wasn't asking what you would do. I was asking what you *feel* and what you call that feeling.

*

>>I'd argue that both are moral objections.<< TRiG

Ok, but that makes alot of things a moral issue. Like racism. Do we really want to consider racism in the same way that we consider prudery? i.e that it's a personal feeling?

Let me put it another way then. P*rn for feminists is not an issue of sexual morality, but politcial morality.



*

I agree with Effers, and I did make that point already. If you can provide reasons for why something is offensive (eg that it damages people) that is qualitatively different from "I feel offended because I feel offended".

>>
Can the feminist establish that porn does in fact oppress women?
<<

Yes.

<<
Can the religious moralist establish ... anything?
<<

Not sure. I don't think you can prove that sex is inherently bad for instance. But you can prove that some religions believe that it is

Should add, before someone else does, that not all feminists are anti-p*rn. So take my comments as being about anti-p*rn feminism.

kea >>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.<<

Effers, I wasn't asking what you would do. I was asking what you *feel* and what you call that feeling.>

And WHY you feel it. Is it due to the way you think society wants you to react or society has made you react that way.

People now jump on you if you say 'handicapped' rather than 'disabled' because some people think 'handicapped' is not a nice way of describing 'disbaled' people. Tosh I say but it's now becoming a meme.

Read the following link by the guy who parodies the Radio 4 'Thoght for The day' slot. He is an ex-trainee priest who is also gay too boot which is fun when he goes back to visit his old preisty school place with his boyfriend!

Anyway: the great consecrated cracker debate read on and pause at the bit which says:

http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/index.php?m=07&y=08&entry=entry080712-072113

"I realised that, deep down in my reptile brain, there were neurons firing, screaming "SACRILEGE! SACRILEGE!". Years of worshipping that little bit of bread has left something hardwired in my head that tells me it's holy - sacred, it must be revered and worshipped"

Even though he KNOWS it's rubbish his brainwashed hardwired brain is still screaming NOOO!!!!! because that is how he has been told to react.
Rational people go 'shrug it's a cracker'.

This sort of train of thought can be applied to what people find offensive and other people find normal...too late for me to explain...work it out for yourselves I've debated myself to eath tonight with someone else.

>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?*< Kea

Right yes, I see you did ask about feelings. I've spent far too long on that bloody TGD thread, , so that I've almost forgotten that it is okay to talk about feelings in this kind of debate.

****

Well depending on mood and situation, a mixture of anger, cringe, contempt, because so often such racism stems from stupidity and ignorance, (and I often have strong visceral feelings about anything which springs from simple minded stupidity), sometimes fear, a kind of ill feeling in my head...(don't know how to explain that one fully ).

Last footie world cup I was in my local pub when some white blokes turned up en masse and started on with the most aggressive, really *nasty* and moronic stuff about whoever England were playing, I forget..I remember feeling kind of ill, disgusted like feeling wanting to throw up, literally and also feeling that I could relate to them as fellow countryfolk, about as much as I could had they been a pack of rabid and demented dogs in the street. It was horrible, but also reassurring that my gut instincts about really extreme racism are so strong and emotional.

(3dots) But I don't know how much they are innate or conditioned. I just don't know. Probably a bit of both. I'll think more about that.

*Offensive* just doesn't cut it as a word for me. It seems far too polite and bloodless to adequately describe things I *feel* about things like that, in such a situation.

Good conversation.

I think it is important to take ownership.
Not to judge something generally offensive but to own that you are offended. You can only speak for yourself.
As a begining-
I am offended at (fill in the blank)
.( from another thread)
Brevity first and clarity to follow if asked or if wanting to push the topic.( from another thread and topic)

Example ; I am offended
at the word, at the assumption, at the sweeping judgement, the appearance of and so on. Specific and brief.

The other person can then chose to ask for more imformation or not!
You will soon know if there is anything further the two of you can or wish to discuss.The person stating they are offended probably should be prepared to explain if they brought it up.

I have no idea why that posted! I was not done correcting it.

Only one other point.
When I say you can only speak for yourself. I do not mean a straight person cannot express their own offense at a crass gay joke , and so on...

To return to the original post about the nature of offence, offensiveness, and being offended....

I don't think it's being offended by something that's at issue, but how one responds to being offended. Let's say that I am offended by something that X has said in a national newspaper. By 'offended' I don't just mean 'disagree with', but something stronger - that what was said was outside of the parameters of fair comment and legitimate debate.

One reaction is obviously to do nothing but fume quietly. A second reaction is to answer back, to accuse X of being offensive, possibly deliberately so, and to explain why what X said was offensive. A third reaction is to call for X and X's fellow travellers to be silenced, or at least to be prevented from saying such things again.

There's a world of difference between the second and the third above, but it's a difference that a lot of people miss. If part of free speech is to *be* offensive, then another part of free speech must be to be offended, and to challenge that offence. I don't think anyone has a right not to be offended, but they certainly do have the right to voice their displeasure and the right of reply and riposte. Sometimes there's a tendency among some liberals to forget this. If someone says something that offends a religious group, that group has every right to respond and protest.

I do think there are some things that are so offensive that they ought to be banned, or more commonly certain restrictions imposed. For example, although I am an admirer of the female form, I do agree with the UK restriction that moves pornographic magazines to the top shelf at the newsagents, of the practice that some newsagents have of putting them in paper bags which cover the, er, cover. I'd also support similar restrictions on some other publications, such as the Daily Sport and perhaps even some 'lad's mags'. I don't have a problem with such publications existing and being available, but I'd support those who don't want to see them to be able to buy things from a newsagent without having to see them.

I'd also defend the right to be offended on behalf of others. Concern for others is what holds civilisation together, and if we don't call people on certain offensive behaviours just because it doesn't affect or damage *us*, there's something seriously wrong. In my view, any statement that slanders a group of people, particularly an already-disadvantaged group, needs to be challenged (all other things being equal).

I find it odd to think that there might be people who aren't offended by anything. It's one thing being liberal and being in favour of free speech and the free exchange of ideas, but if you're not offended by lies and slander then I think there's something wrong.

What's wrong Otto is that for some of us, the word is totally inadequate. And sometimes a reaction which is forced on us is to walk away. Do you really thing I could have challenged that group in the pub? Yes maybe individually in another setting. But in the mood they were in they might have lynched me. I get the impression some people here, never venture into places like rough pubs.

And I also just never look at cr@p newspapers. Because I find them to be like laughable comics in terms of quality of writing, and the T*ts stuff is just plain silly to me...

I think a lot of this is partly to do with different personalities. I almost feel offended at myself if I'm 'offended' by something which is about so called 'taste'. Maybe some of it is a reaction to having such stuff forced on you when younger. I certainly had that forced on me to a degree at my secondary school by teachers sometimes. And I started to realise as analysed what it was about, that it was often a 'class' issue, and this idea that young women, (it was all girls school), should be turned in to young 'ladies', who had certain standards, whatever that means...I think I rebelled, (rebellion is a strong part of my character; it can be a flaw, but can also be quite creative), against that sort of 'Englishness' thing, as I came to think of it, which I found completely stifling to my mind and exploration of what I *really* thought about things.

Apart from stuff which most of us agree is beyond the pale, I just feel embarrased to get 'offended' say by a lot of stuff that gets yikesed here, or is not allowed. But I realise that others think differently, and I have to accept that or walk away.

On the topic of challenging offensive behaviour, I did add 'all other things being equal' as a caveat.

Very obviously there are times when doing so might be dangerous, or just ill-advised or provocative, or when it's better to say nothing to keep the peace or avoid arguments. Perhaps I should have made this clearer.

"Ok, but that makes alot of things a moral issue. Like racism. Do we really want to consider racism in the same way that we consider prudery? i.e that it's a personal feeling?"

Again, our reactions to racism are personal, but we also feel that there are wider social implications. Prudes feel similarly. I'm sure Mary Whitehouse thought she was arguing for the good of society.

Good. Bad. Yes, it does all come back to morality.

But people who want to act for the good of society must, if they want to be taken seriously, (a) outline exactly what their aim is, (b) justify their premise that this aim is worthwhile, and (c) demonstrate that their actions will achieve this aim.

Of course, this is all assuming that offence is something more than a personal, private feeling. Offence is, I suppose, the feeling that it is right, if possible, to oppose what has just been said or done.

TRiG.

Interesting convo.

I rather feel that offence is akin to harrassment & bullying - how the recipient feels. Also, there's a similar aggressive connotation. Someone might say or do something deliberately to provoke, knowing that others will be offended. On the other hand, something less provocative might still cause some people to be offended. Then you're into the area of what is reasonable or acceptable in general.

Utter rubbish to say that mature people don't get offended. It depends how sensitive you are. Causing offence is to do with not respecting other people's feelings.

Isnt offense and by extention offensiveness linked to someform of deliberate attack.

I find it hard but sometimes do get upset by comments born of stupidity or ignorance.



I doubt for instance that any one buys porn to deliberately harm women in a political sense.

Nor did the white kid who I took to a football match as part of a youth group mean to offend me by saying "I dont come over to Smethwick by myself because all the black people rob you for your gold chains"

Why if you were making a feature film meant to make as many people as possible laugh would you insert dialogue squarely aimed at hurting those with lower than normal learning capacity?



I love political correctness and everyone of the highly publiscised gripes we hear about. It gives thinking people a chance to actual examine the things that some would have ustake for granted.

Does "The Prophet" need to be protected from having his image shown?

Should people be jailed for burning flags?

Does pornography harm society?

Do names mean anything or than being handy ways of describing groups of people?

I leave all you honkies and Kea to ponder those things and ask one more question?

Where does the old stick and stones thing fit into all of this?

I have a certain amount of faith in Ben Stiller's ability to be funny rather than offensive.

Political Correctness.

Or, as we used to call it, not being rude.

TRiG.

Or as I say: being oversensitive, judgmental on what 'minorities' will find offensive and not having any common sense or realisation of 'the real world' whatsoever

I've been thinking more about this word 'offence' and the fact that I don't much like it because it I find it vague and not really adequately descriptive of my feelings in certain situations, which others might use the word 'offensive ' for.

In an earlier post I tried to describe my feelings in fairly extreme situation after kea asked about feelings.

Yesterday on a thread I posted something which was well argued as a point of view about something that hadn't yet been made by anyone else on the thread, and was basically trying to take a viewpoint of the bigger picture, and weighing up costs/benefits to a certain course of action as I perceived it. I put my points clearly and intelligently.

What happened? Somebody immediately posted something, that some may call offensive, in the sense of it being just a snide remark about my motivations for making such a post. There was zero attempt to actually intelligently engage with argument and debate of the points I had made, either through complete inadequacy, or just a simple minded attempt to be 'offensive'. Yes offensive could be used as a description from my point of view in that situation, not because of any issue to do with racism or sexism or whatever, but because my argument and the thought and trouble I had put into my making my post, was ignored in favour of a mindless, meaningless remark.

On trying to analyse my overriding feeling, and what word/phrase I might use to describe it, I think, 'complete and utter contempt' comes closest. Once again for me, the idea that I might describe my feeling as being personally offended, just doesn't come even close as an accurate description of how I felt in that situation. And I decided the best course of action was to just walk away rather than get involved with trying to reason with the person. A completely pointless exercise I realised.