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

I've always wondered what it was they were doing.

Pietistic onanism imho.

Yes.

I didn't know you had humble opinions though

>I see it quite alot. It's usually in a conversation about religion <

So you lurk the god threads?

Well I haven't read anything about not having the right to be offended.

Kea thread drift is the way og the hootoo. And the question of the original post was basically dealt with straight away.

Let's talk offence, why not....

FB

Writing a blog at the moment but will come and comment when I have finished.

FB.

>>So you lurk the god threads?

Not really. It's just that many of the threads end up being about religion at some point.

>>how many of the hootooers who believe people don't have a right to be offended also believe that this woman did no wrong and shouldn't have been charged?<<

Well, this isn't a case of just offence: the woman in question committed a crime: she vandalised public property and that's an offence that carries punishments.

But that's the easy, pedantic way out to answering your question kea, and I only thought of it halfway through. Even though I'm always declaring people have no right to be protected from being offended, this case, and the similar one of some idiot undergrad in Sheffield last year, seems slightly different.

Disrespecting war memorials and other monuments honouring the dead is pretty damn close to a universal taboo: almost everyone considers it reprehensible and its hard to make a conflicting rights case here. A lot of people are very emotionally invested in war memorials and no-one is harmed by not being able to piss in them.

All of that said, it's hard to think what good inflicting punishment does. There's no reformation or public protection, it seems disproportionate for retribution and deterrence. The public is free to revile her, but that's always the case when someone does something that offends you and actually, would probably provide a more effective punishment than anything the State has.

Personally, I'd have had some police sergeant give her a beasting (as all those cautioned for a minor offence like vandalism would get), and then given her a bucket of soapy water and a sponge so she could clean up her mess. Then she's sent home and told not to be so stupid again. It seems appropriate to me

Sun headline of the story:

"WWII BJ BY BBW"

Well let's not bring religion in here then.

But seriously I don't think it's a question of people not having the right, it's what is done about it. Do we bring law in, or censorship? We see it here on h2g2 regularly eg the recent celebrated case of non vegetarian curtains.

I tend to err very much on the side of, if you're offended, deal with it. And I don't think law should have ben brought in, in this case. I think the media highlighting the act and subsequent public reaction and discussion is best. I think the same about the burqa issue.

Of course possibility of public disorder can be used. Such as the EDL actual march that the coalition have just banned going through Bradford because the UAF have said they would counter march. Although a stationary protest has been allowed. Presumably it's argued that the UAF are so offended by the EDL march that violence may break out, and/or Muslims in Bradford may react with violence. But I don't exactly know what goes on in the mind of Theresa May.

Artists would be lost without people's capacity to feel offended and shocked. It's the lifeblood of art.

Yeah so I'm all for people's right to be offended.

HI, though I would have thought a more appropriate punishment may be a six month tour of duty on the Afghan front line. I sure it would bring to sharp focus the reality of the sacrifice of those named on the memorial.

I don't think she was charged with and convicted of vandalism though. She was convicted for "outraging public decency". i.e. the only reason it's illegal is because it gives offense. I'm sure that the small amount of urine had no deleterious effect on whatever the memorial was made from (stone?). In other words, if we take out the offense, there is no need for the act to be illegal - maybe there's a public health issue I guess, but you get my point?

The conflicting rights issue is interesting, and I wish I could remember an example of when this has come up in other threads. Likewise emotional investment. It's seems fairly common for offense to have an emotional basis, but this is often written off as invalid.

>>Artists would be lost without people's capacity to feel offended and shocked. It's the lifeblood of art.


Crikey, that reduces art alot don't you think? Besides, art is context specific. It's different than a discussion on this site for instance.

I don't have a problem with the non-vege curtains being modded. While the context of the thread was pretty funny, there is a limit here. Otherwise why not have a free for all - we get to say whatever we want, when and how we want. It'd be a pretty horrible place then. So the issue is about where the limit is and who gets to decide. Is it ok to piss on the side of the road if you are busting? Or in a door way in a city? Or behind a war memorial if that's the only privacy you'll get?

>Crikey, that reduces art alot don't you think? <

Well yes of course. I meant it in the context of even the offense some felt when the 'impressionists' first came on the scene. And a lot of reaction to YBAs ('Young British Artists') here in recent years. And I meant it in the wiidest possible definition of art, including music, film, comedy etc. And I do think it's a fundamental of creativity to explore boundaries in all sorts of ways..so I think without people's capacity to be offended all the arts would be severly castrated.

We'll have to agree to differ on the non vegetarian curtains issue.

What about your doorway, Kea Tilde, wouldn't you be offended? I consider this the insulting behaviour of an individual who has no concept of the sacrifice of those listed. Quite why the EDL/UAF conlicts and the bleeding hearts of artists have to do with this I don't quite follow?

norti, I'm just pointing out that offense varies according to context, and asking who gets to decide what is valid to be offended about?


Effers, I agree. I just think there are limits and appropriate and inappropriatenesses. What might be ok as an art project might not be as a discussion here.

I was just pointing out that it is the insulting and selfish behaviour of the individual concerned, coupled with a total disregard for those named on the memorial, not the wider issues of what is acceptable to the more libertine such as your self and Effers.

As HI quite rightly pointed out, some things are regarded as taboo by common concensus in any culture.
At least the drunken undergrad in Sheffield had sufficient understanding of offence caused to be ashamed of behaviour and show remorse.