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

Two stories that caught my eye today, both indicative of how weak-willed and spineless most organisations are when it comes to complaints:

A man in Tamworth has been ordered by the local council to remove a bush that's being sculpted into the shape of a hand flipping the bird after receiving one complaint, despite it having been there for eight years
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/theweekinpictures/9415982/The-week-in-pictures-20-July-2012.html

Edinburgh Airport has covered up a poster of a Picasso nude advertising an exhibition after complaints from passengers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-19177968

I have to admit that these aren't particularly good examples of the point I'm trying to make because I can see why both could justifiably be complained about. The finger is a gesture that even I find distasteful, if not actually offensive. There's something about it I find inherently vulgar, crude and uncouth, in ways that I don't find the two-finger salute. I honestly don't know why. Either way, society has deemed the finger to be unacceptable in public, as an unwritten convention.

As for the poster, well that's obvious - it depicts genitalia. Whether it's a painting or a photograph, it's not okay to show that in a public place, and this time the weight of the law is in effect rather rather than societal opinions. John Leighton is showing an astonishing degree of naivete when he says "It is obviously bizarre that all kinds of images of women in various states of dress and undress can be used in contemporary advertising without comment, but somehow a painted nude by one of the world's most famous artists is found to be disturbing and has to be removed." It's not in the least bit bizarre because those ads don't show... you know, front bottoms, one of which is as plain as the nose on your boat race in the Picasso painting.

There's a separate issue here which I've banged on about many times and will bang on about again in the future, no doubt: just because someone called it 'art' doesn't exempt it from the rules, and just because someone took it down doesn't automatically make that censorship.

Same goes for religion, by the way.

In a similar manner, expressing offence at something doesn't automatically make a person right. Nor should it automatically generate an apology or any kind of submissive and obsequious reaction. So why has that become the norm? I've long stopped listening to PM on Radio 4 because I'm tired of Eddie Mair's bullying of his interviewees, but not half as tired as I am of the failure of said interviewees to stand up to him, particularly in instances where the media has blown up a story about them having made some kind of faux pas, whether or not they actually have - the perception is that's needed, sadly, and then demanding that they make an apology, with the inference that if they don't they must be the spawn of Beelzebub and not fit for the position they hold.

So few of them... in fact none as far as I can remember, have told him where to get off and gone on the attack themselves, the way that George Galloway did when he was hauled up before some American government committee several years ago, the way that Barney Franks did to some Tea Party fanatics last year when they were disrupting meetings (just about the only Democrat who did), and the way that Philip Pullman did when he was criticised for one of his books.

Now, I generally prefer not to use quotes from famous people because there's usually too much smartarsery and not enough substance in them. Douglas Adams is person I exempt from that and whose quotes I do like to use from time to time, even his smartarse ones, because they hold not just grains of truth, but sodding great lumps of it. However, this quote from Philip Pullman really hits the nail on the bonce:

“It was a shocking thing to say and I knew it was a shocking thing to say. But no one has the right to live without being shocked. No one has the right to spend their life without being offended. Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it up. Nobody has to open it. And if you open it and read it, you don’t have to like it. And if you read it and you dislike it, you don’t have to remain silent about it. You can write to me, you can complain about it, you can write to the publisher, you can write to the papers, you can write your own book. You can do all those things, but there your rights stop. No one has the right to stop me writing this book. No one has the right to stop it being published, or bought, or sold or read. That’s all I have to say on that subject.”

I'll add a disclaimer here that I think much of that is overblown and goes on far too much about rights. As a matter of fact there are people who have the right in law to stop a book being published and/or sold - lawmakers, aka politicians, and the people they charge to uphold and enforce the law, aka the police and other similar organisations.

I also think that he's being naive in assuming that the only people who are likely to pick up whichever of his books he was talking about are sensible, rational adults who can either decide they like it, or put together a measured and appropriate response as to why they don't, and address it to the appropriate people. Not likely in this time of internet forums.

But he still makes a good point that just because you think you're offended by something doesn't mean that you're right and it's wrong, and I wish the hell more people would start to realise that.

Ricky Gervais summed it up quite nicely. The subject was folks getting offended by things comedians say.


>>
We have to stop this recent culture of people telling us they're offended and expecting us to give a .
If you think something is funny, you're right. If you think something is not funny, you're right too. Just don't expect everyone to agree.
<<

The notion of a single complaint having so much more influence than hundreds of positive or neutral reactions totally pisses me off. One parent will complain to the school board about a book in the school library or on a reading list and wham! we have a major incident that usually results in that book being taken out of circulation. Our local school board caves in every time. It's ridiculous. What has happened to the rights of the majority?

Okay, if we're talking about defending minority groups from discrimination and actual violence, I could go along with it. But that's not what this issue is about.

I agree with DNA and Gervais and Gosho

I have always liked the edgy,irreverent comics BUT that means they will cross the(my) line at times. I expect to groan at a thing or two but overall enjoy them enough to watch again.

It takes radicals for change. The radicals people tend to love to hate. They have their place though. Perhaps it's a slippery slope at times but still , they have their place.

Just as a Democracy has some ugly members,and there are down sides in the moment,because you may loose what you want, easily 50 per cent or more of the time, but you still want it! It is neccesary to have a capacity tolerance! We seem to be off balance in that way.

I do know from the old saying I first learned to hate at a young age,it's true- The squeeky wheel gets oiled first.