do you think people have a right not to be offended?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I don't.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:24 (twenty years ago)

You don't smell good.

― Huk-L, Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:26 (twenty years ago)

I was just saying this, the other day.

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:26 (twenty years ago)

xpost
The the "not" in the title plus the "not" in the question have already confused me.

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:26 (twenty years ago)

I agree with Huck, maybe you should look into being 'clean vicar' for a change

― Haibun (Begs2Differ), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:27 (twenty years ago)

do we have a right to ask if people have the right not to be offended? would anyone take offence to being denied the right to ask if people have the right not to be offended?

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:27 (twenty years ago)

They certainly have the right to go pluck out their own eyes.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:27 (twenty years ago)

xpost:
Oh, I get it now, upon some reflection.

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:28 (twenty years ago)

and may i just say 'Ich Bin Ein Ostrich Farmer'

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:28 (twenty years ago)

rights have to be earned.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:29 (twenty years ago)

through bodybuilding. people with huge muscles have the right not to be offended in their face by people with smaller muscles in a bar.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:29 (twenty years ago)

No. But Harry the Nazi still needs to be shot.

― Miles Finch, Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:30 (twenty years ago)

I think we need to define "offended." Robbing and beating somebody are offenses that I think people have a right to not have done to them, but being looking at pictures of naked old people...

― Huk-L, Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:30 (twenty years ago)

The 'right not to be offended' is a bullying tactic of the most childish kind. Since one can never be sure what will offend, it results in one person abrogating a carte blanche right to censor other people for any reason.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:30 (twenty years ago)

the right are always offended

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:31 (twenty years ago)

hang on, that's wrong

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:31 (twenty years ago)

Being punched in the face is not being offended, Huck.

I'm more interested in the difference between, say, offending a Catholic priest with criticism of the Catholic church, and offending an Indian boy by shouting "paki!" in the street. My answer to the Vicar's question would be different depending on the definition of offence.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:33 (twenty years ago)

Conversely, do you have a right to offend? I'm not a big believer in abstract 'rights', they don't seem to have material effects, but this would seem just as dubious a right as one 'not to be offended'. You can't 'offend' someone with legitimate criticism, I wouldn't have thought, without messing with the meaning of the term.

― Miles Finch, Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:35 (twenty years ago)

If we're talking about that former example here, then we don't have a right not to be offended.

Equally, I don't believe people have the right to dictate what other people may or may not be offended by.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:36 (twenty years ago)

xpost:
Michael W, on the money. As a conversational tactic, it's often used by the more refined and delicate party to keep the other party from speaking their mind. But in a message board context, there are probably some photos best posted on the Noize Board and not ILE.

I've got a funny feeling this thread is gonna degenerate into people asserting their right to be offensive.

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:36 (twenty years ago)

You have the right to offend and do not have the right to not be offended. But as George Costanza would say, "We're living in a SOCIETY here!" .. so a little courtesy will keep you from getting a punch in the nose.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:38 (twenty years ago)

A right not to be offended is the first step in annihilating free speech. That doesn't mean that when there are broad social conventions about behavior, that we can't use our own free speech to shame, dissuade, or by other means, discourage behavior.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:39 (twenty years ago)

In what sense do you have a 'right' to offend? To what court of appeal are you, erm, appealing?

Since one can never be sure what will offend, it results in one person abrogating a carte blanche right to censor other people for any reason.

Sure sure -- but equally you are giving yourself carte blanche to be offensive. This is a dead heat.

― Miles Finch, Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:41 (twenty years ago)

Sure sure -- but equally you are giving yourself carte blanche to be offensive. This is a dead heat.

However, because I have pretentions to being a tactful and respectful person, I will not use this right until absolutely necessary, whereupon it will be, most likely, followed by violence. The point of a 'right to be offended' is to encourage self-censorship. I'd rather have a couple ruffled feathers and a creatively open debate then the leaden decorum of a sunday school. Somehow this ties in to the whole liberty vs. equality continuum.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:51 (twenty years ago)

But in a message board context, there are probably some photos best posted on the Noize Board and not ILE.

I think this is offensive to the Noize Board.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:54 (twenty years ago)

it's worth pointing out that the debate going on re ILX and banning certain individuals and/or introducing mandatory registration was, in my view, not an issue of 'causing offence' but merely 'causing massive, frequent irritation by THINKING you were being offensive and revelling in the attention given'. not quite the same thing.

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:56 (twenty years ago)

Right to not be irritated vs right to not be offended?

― Huk-L, Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:58 (twenty years ago)

xpost:
In another words, you may or may not have a right to be offensive or a right to be annoying, but if you continue to be annoying and offensive over a long period of time, you're gonna get it, which is basically what dave225 said.

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:59 (twenty years ago)

http://www.chartattack.com/pics/19991109-iggypop.jpg
I Gotta Right!

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:33 (twenty years ago)

In another words, you may or may not have a right to be offensive or a right to be annoying, but if you continue to be annoying and offensive over a long period of time, you're gonna get it, which is basically what dave225 said.

yeah, but some people are twunts and get offended at nothing. Like, what about those cockfarmers who were burning their license fees over "Springer - The Opera"?

My feeling is that being offended is something subjective, and people should not have a right to be protected from subjective phenomena. So - laws against incitement to religious hatred, good; Laws against blasphemy, bad.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:37 (twenty years ago)

Trying to address both sides of the razor's edge in different posts to the same thread, C/D?

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:39 (twenty years ago)

I didn't see the end of the Jerry Springer thing, but the impression I got is:

Opera message: These people may be trailer trash, but God and Jesus, who made these people in his image, is part of every one of them.

Demonstrator's message: Look, Jesus is not gay. Alright? Say he is, and that's the most offensive thing that could happen in the world.

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:40 (twenty years ago)

Yup, Ken L. Just did.

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:41 (twenty years ago)

Say Jesus was gay?

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:42 (twenty years ago)

OK, then what?

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:44 (twenty years ago)

xxpost:
Trying to remember what you said versus what people think you said on the hot button threads, C/D?

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:44 (twenty years ago)

I find this thread offensive.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:45 (twenty years ago)

you have no right to be, dv!

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:48 (twenty years ago)

xpost
pwned

― Masked Gazza, Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:48 (twenty years ago)

offended, that is. i mean, i don't know about whether one has to right to FIND things offensive though.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:49 (twenty years ago)

you have no right to be, dv!

Yes I do! There is a topless man upthread!

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:00 (twenty years ago)

In what sense do you have a 'right' to offend?
Not the explicit right to offend or be offensive - but the right to free expression - and if it's offensive, that's the price we pay for that right. (so deal with it, cockfarmer.) ;*|

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:01 (twenty years ago)

yes indeed. because some people will find any behaviour offensive. For instance, I am offended by people who vote for George Bush. Should this offensive behaviour be banned?

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:05 (twenty years ago)

Well in that case, yes.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:07 (twenty years ago)

http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/20050113.FIG0034.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1389624,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=NMHCAFNX2FW0XQFIQMFSNAGAVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/2005/01/13/usasha.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/01/13/ixportaltop.html

We sure do get offended though.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:13 (twenty years ago)

I find this thread offensive
http://www.celtic-twilight.com/music/corrs.jpg
We find this thread offensive!

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:59 (twenty years ago)

My undertsanding of this thread is that people who say 'if you're not with us then you are against us' are despicable and that there are indeed more than just two sides to every story.

― Japanese Giraffe (Japanese Giraffe), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:44 (twenty years ago)

nine months pass...

Hrmmm. I think it probably depends if the "offender" is doing it deliberately or not. But that opens another can of worms about intent so I'm not going there.

― Paranoid Spice (kate), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:10 (nineteen years ago)

they may not have the right not to be offended but they sure do have the right to be offended!

― minna (minna), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:21 (nineteen years ago)

they dont have any legal right, but they may have a moral right

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:44 (nineteen years ago)

the only right anyone has is the right to remain silent...

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:47 (nineteen years ago)

people need to be offended on a regular basis.
it's good for the soul.
pretending to be offended about the sligtest thing because you want to appear like a sensitive caring soul when, in fact, you're far from it is pretty endemic and needs to be called out as bullshit every time it's encountered.

― sfxxxx, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:54 (nineteen years ago)

kenan to thread!

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:56 (nineteen years ago)

should a moral right become a legal right?

― minna (minna), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:57 (nineteen years ago)

C/D: People who are often "offended"

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:58 (nineteen years ago)

of course not

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:58 (nineteen years ago)

ahaha nabisco's deadpan in that thead

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:59 (nineteen years ago)

-- sfxxxx (...), October 19th, 2005.

Very good. Care to tell that to the moderators over at Dissensus?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:59 (nineteen years ago)

why dont you tell them, big guy

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:03 (nineteen years ago)

I can't. I've been banned for offending them on a regular basis.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:04 (nineteen years ago)

You have the right to get some thick skin.

― when something smacks of something (dave225.3), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:05 (nineteen years ago)

What if you sweat overtly in midsummer?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:06 (nineteen years ago)

I'm also worried about the conflation of the concepts of "offended" and "insulted" - on either side.

Also, something which is resonating with me since yesterday or the day before was Archel's comment, after Stelfox insisted his comment on vegetarians was "a joke" - that "Just because something is a joke does not mean it isn't offensive" or words to that effect.

― Paranoid Spice (kate), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:06 (nineteen years ago)

If a law were passed which forbade anybody from saying anything that could be interpreted as offensive, no one would ever say anything ever again.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:09 (nineteen years ago)

what about when you tried to get jess banned over a holocaust joke

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:10 (nineteen years ago)

chapter and verse please

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:14 (nineteen years ago)

ah yes, good old jess "auschwitz" harvell. i'd quite forgotten about that. i complained about it but did i ask for him to be banned? probably - but it's so long ago. how sad would anyone need to be to remember things like that?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:14 (nineteen years ago)

more like lolocaust

― you can track my ip, but you won't recognise it., Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:15 (nineteen years ago)

why would i want to track your ip? do you think i want to go to bed with you, or something? you probably look like ned beatty. credit me with some taste.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:16 (nineteen years ago)

man dont ask me jess still talks about it like hes paul bunyon or some shit

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:16 (nineteen years ago)

more like ned ragget

― it was just cut and pasted from somewhere else get over it, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:17 (nineteen years ago)

that would be logical, if behaviourally atypical.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:17 (nineteen years ago)

i am offended by this thread

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:18 (nineteen years ago)

I have found only a few things really offensive in my life. I don't think I have a right NOT to be offended, but I think I have a right to tell people if they have offended me. Then they in turn have a choice whether to say sorry or not.

It seems like such a personal thing that rights, rules etc shouldn't really come into it.

If you're talking about what things are acceptable on a forum, mailing list etc, then I think you should lay out ground rules first and only ban people when they break those rules. Otherwise everyone is fumbling around in the dark until they accidentally press the 'offense' buzzer and are summarily punished for it.

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:30 (nineteen years ago)

i hate snideyness and faux innocence. i can handle being called anything directly, but that "i didn't mean anything by it, you're misinterpreting it, cmon mate" shit people use to cover their cowardly-ass backs pisses me off.

― g-kit (g-kit), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:36 (nineteen years ago)

Obviously there are people who TRY to offend, but it's still better to be able to point them at a general rule that covers that specific behaviour than to make ad hoc decisions and give them a sense of righteous indignation.

I am not talking about any particular list or forum here by the way; I don't really know that many.

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:41 (nineteen years ago)

Or people who are just straight insensitive and once they have insulted you and then seen that you are insulted, try and cover it up with "but it was just a joke" or "but you looked so cute doing it."

― saleXander / sophie (salexander), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:50 (nineteen years ago)

Hrmmm. I think it probably depends if the "offender" is doing it deliberately or not. But that opens another can of worms about intent so I'm not going there.

"I'm not going there"? YOU revived the thread! You totally went there!

― William Paper Scissors (Rock Hardy), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 12:05 (nineteen years ago)

Did I revive the thread? Oh. I just read through a link from another thread and thought that the comments were more appropriate here than there.

― Paranoid Spice (kate), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 12:11 (nineteen years ago)

kate, let it drop, please. i shudder to think what your life must be like if you've been thinking about a comment that i confessed was idiotic made on an internet messageboard for TWO WHOLE DAYS! saying something stupid about vegetarians is not something i will ever feel guilty about or lose any sleep over. i'm obviously sorry if anyone is really, genuinely offended by anything i have ever said, but i really do think that there are more important battles to be fought than vegetarian rights!

now here's a worthwhile question: are vegetarians more frequently offended than non-vegetarians?

i think the answer might be yes...

― sfxxxx, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:02 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think I have a right NOT to be offended, but I think I have a right to tell people if they have offended me. Then they in turn have a choice whether to say sorry or not.

OTM LOCK THREAD BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

― The Ghost of Black Elegance (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:07 (nineteen years ago)

http://consumerfreedom.com/images/cartoons/enlargement/meat_vegetarianism.gif

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:07 (nineteen years ago)

xposts

Impossible to say, too many other variables.

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:08 (nineteen years ago)

that cartoon is otm

― vagetarian lol, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:08 (nineteen years ago)

haha I'm a vegan just to annoy people!

― The Obligatory Sourpuss (Begs2Differ), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:11 (nineteen years ago)

also, the young woman on the right is kind of hott

― The Obligatory Sourpuss (Begs2Differ), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:14 (nineteen years ago)

wank wank wank

― strongo'd!, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:15 (nineteen years ago)

For gods sake, Dave, get over yourself! It's not like I've been obsessing about it at all. But this was a thread about offensiveness - and your stupid and offensive gaffe was the first one that sprung to mind AS AN EXAMPLE.

I could just as easily have brought up casual racism or homophobia on a "Vice Magazine" scale but seeing as I'm neither black nor gay, it would not have been personal offense.

― Paranoid Spice (kate), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:19 (nineteen years ago)

it wasn't offensive!

― sfxxx, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:27 (nineteen years ago)

i didn't say you should all be gassed or anything!

― sfxxx, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:28 (nineteen years ago)

and taking the piss out of vegetarians is NOT IN THE SAME LEAGUE as homophobia or racism, for christ's sake.

― sfxxx, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:29 (nineteen years ago)

FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY (both of you)

― The Obligatory Sourpuss (Begs2Differ), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:30 (nineteen years ago)

hitler was a vegetarian- do you like hitler?

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

hitler killed loads of folks but never ate them, bad on counts of cruelty AND wastefulness. that's why i don't like him

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:33 (nineteen years ago)

right on.

― g-kit (g-kit), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:34 (nineteen years ago)

For the record I thought it was offensive not to veggies but towards people suffering eating disorders ie traumatic illnesses with life-destroying effects ie NOTHING LIKE vegetarianism which is a free choice and doesn't really harm anyone.

But I'll get over it :)

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:44 (nineteen years ago)

What Archel said, but I really can't be bothered to continue the discussion.

― Paranoid Spice (kate), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:47 (nineteen years ago)

oh, for god's sake, this is ridiculous.
personally, i don't think you should spend your whole life tiptoeing around other people's foibles and inadequacies and sometimes offending people or being offended is inevitable.
it's life, get over it.
i know i'm going to get slammed for that, but it's true.

― sfxxxx, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:04 (nineteen years ago)

what is the difference between rasicm, sexism, homophobia as called "hate speech" and "offensive speech"?

I think most things people shout at as "hate speech" might just only be "offensive speech"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:08 (nineteen years ago)

(WHY DIDN'T THEY LISTEN TO ME?)

― The Ghost of Black Elegance (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:09 (nineteen years ago)

like if I say "homosexual activity is a sin" that's not hate speech because my intent was not to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action.

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:10 (nineteen years ago)

don't worry so much DAN

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:10 (nineteen years ago)

a nairn who exactly has said that christians who believe homosexuality is sinful are practicing 'hate speech'?

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:12 (nineteen years ago)

ok, now you can start to worry.

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:13 (nineteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gay_slogan

article 1.6

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:16 (nineteen years ago)

'it's life, get over it.
i know i'm going to get slammed for that, but it's true.'

woah, aren't you just kerrazy in your desire to speak the truth even if it's offensive to wrong-headed vegetarians.

c/d? people who say 'look guys, i know i'm completely out of step with public opinion, but i've got the courage to say this even if the rest of you just wanna follow the herd'

reactionary self-aggrandisement masquerading as non-conformism.

― barbarian cities (jaybob3005), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:17 (nineteen years ago)

doesnt call it hate speech, just says its used as a slogan by phelps

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:18 (nineteen years ago)

"They reflect the spectrum of opinion among those who oppose homosexuality and gay rights. Many are considered homophobic hate speech by those who accept the concept of hate speech."

"Certain Christian congregations interpret Biblical texts to imply that same-sex love is 'sinful.'"

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:19 (nineteen years ago)

nairn'd, stelfox'd and trife'd!

― triple whammy!, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:19 (nineteen years ago)

"many", not "all"

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:20 (nineteen years ago)

i dont think private religious beliefs are considered hate speech by anyone but a tiny extremist minority

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:20 (nineteen years ago)

well believes when not spoken out aren't speeches

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:22 (nineteen years ago)

or beliefs

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:22 (nineteen years ago)

i mean, i can believe that i hate people, but if i don't make a speech about it......

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:23 (nineteen years ago)

personal religious beliefs, then. are kosher laws considered hate speech against porky goys?

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:23 (nineteen years ago)

New Orleans asked for it.

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:23 (nineteen years ago)

woah, aren't you just kerrazy in your desire to speak the truth even if it's offensive to wrong-headed vegetarians.

i think people are too ready to be offended and that they need to develop thicker skins in general. i don't go out of my way to piss people off (often) but i do accept that it is going to happen. this isn't the height of assholedom, it's just being realistic, that's all.

for the record, arch, you're about the last person i'd want to offend intentionally.

― sfxxxx, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:34 (nineteen years ago)

It's cool, other people are clearly more bothered than I am.

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:38 (nineteen years ago)

there's also a much more interesting flipside to this argument that belief in your *right* not to be offended is actually a manifestation of pretty massive selfishness, a demand that the world not encroach on or challenge your beliefs or opinions in any way. it goes without saying that many people's beliefs and opinions are totally screwed and this needs doing. after all, some people are "offended" by things like interracial marriage, the idea that gay people might just be able to look after kids as well as anyone else etc. they *obviously* need offending on a regular basis.

― sfxxxx, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:45 (nineteen years ago)

Dave, you frustrate me sometimes because I agree with you 98% of the time but I wish you wouldn't make your points in such a teeth-grindingly bull-headed manner.

― The Ghost of Black Elegance (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:46 (nineteen years ago)

nairn i think condemning people to death for those sins does constitute some form of hate speech, or at least something much worse than the central christian belief that everyone is sinful and should be loved and forgiven

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:48 (nineteen years ago)

i think religious laws only applies to people within that religion maybe. so calling someone who don't follow your religion and is inadvertantly breaking your religious laws a sinner is a bit futile because what good does that make?

i don't even know if it's hate speech, it's just a bit stupid.

this is also a reason why seperation of religion and state is often a good idea.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:51 (nineteen years ago)

well i think in modern religion no man has the power to condemn another to death, be it for state or religious law

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 14:54 (nineteen years ago)

this is also a reason why seperation of religion and state is often a good idea.

Seperation of religion and state is a good idea because state ruins religion, not because religion ruins state. Look what the state did to religion when it supported the church, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, pretty much all the past atrocities of the church were caused by this.

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:18 (nineteen years ago)

i think they are harmful to each other. which makes it doubly a good idea

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:24 (nineteen years ago)

after all, some people are "offended" by things like being told not to kill unborn children, the idea that gay people might be morally faulty, etc. they *obviously* need offending on a regular basis.

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:24 (nineteen years ago)

nairn do you think state enforcement of sharia or mosiac law would ok as long as the state didnt influence religion?

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:25 (nineteen years ago)

xpost you are *obviously* a douche

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:26 (nineteen years ago)

sorry, did I offend you?

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:28 (nineteen years ago)

i offended your mum last night :(

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:30 (nineteen years ago)

do you think homosexual per-marital sex is more sinful than hetereosexual pre-marital sex?

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:31 (nineteen years ago)

for example, king james

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:31 (nineteen years ago)

not at all!

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:32 (nineteen years ago)

king james = state, state + religion = bad

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:34 (nineteen years ago)

it's like where the jews we telling God "we want a king. everyone else has one" and he was all like "not a good idea" and they were like "C'mon" and he was like "ok, suit youselves"

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:36 (nineteen years ago)

this is also related to the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:37 (nineteen years ago)

if you dont think state and religion should mingle then surely you can understand how fundamentalists lobbying for the state to deny rights to minority groups based on religious principles could be considered hate speech

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:38 (nineteen years ago)

like i was sayign if churchies just believe shit and mind their own nobody calls it hate speech or gives a fuck at all, you dont see me crying bout dudes who cant mow the lawn on saturday or mormon kids who never tasted vanilla coke

― _, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

“Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 15:45 (nineteen years ago)

When I see people being irrational about this, it tends not to be the people who are offended, but rather the people who made the offensive statement, and then huff and puff like they're being unfairly maligned and misinterpreted and PC-smeared. And occasionally I can understand that, because occasionally it's somewhat true. But the ground rules remain that we have this right to say nearly anything we want (no matter how wrong it is), and, correspondingly, everyone else has the right to reply that we're offensive assholes or insulting idiots (no matter how wrong they are). Pretty uncomplicated. The only time this becomes a serious, vexing issue is when it butts up against the issue of jobs, basically -- whether the maybe-offensive speech is inappropriate to someone's position, or whether everyone's being offended is enough reason to take punitive action against someone who maybe didn't do anything so wrong. (E.g. that guy in DC who said "niggardly" and everyone freaked out and if I remember correctly they caved and sent him home for a week or two before the media told everyone that it was okay, "niggardly" was a real word.)

The huffing and puffing on the part of the offender seems to be worst when the thing in question was a joke -- someone rolls out a funny that reveals some offensive worldview, without their ever making a direct statement of it, and then they're stuck in some horrible loop of "I never said that" and "it was just a joke," etc. And this can be kinda awful, sure, because usually the offensive thought never actually entered your mind, and suddenly you're being ambushed on some belief you'd never even started processing. But in the same manner, if someone told a blatantly racist joke and then tried to pull the "just a joke / never expressed negative beliefs about XXX" routine, it wouldn't exactly fly there, either.

(And ha: I'm only slightly empathetic to that part because I have a few friends with, umm, intense interests in feminism and/or animal rights, some of whom seem to kind of be on the lookout for anything anyone says that they can pounce on as an expression of these things. This is, I guess, a perfectly legitimate thing to do. But it also means that anyone you talk to is being subjected to a deep-down minefield grilling of their culture/psychology/assumptions toward woman/animals, something like a senate confirmation hearing on overdrive, and that's unpleasant enough that you kinda stop wanting to spend lots of time with these people.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

the central christian belief that everyone is sinful and should be loved and forgiven

So sin is the root of Christian love?

(Um, don't take that question seriously.)

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 16:09 (nineteen years ago)

the idea that mocking someone for publically announcing the strength of their menstrual flow on the internet somehow makes you scared of "real women" or what the fuck over has been one of the dumber things on ilx lately

-- _ (...) (webmail), October 19th, 2005 12:43 PM. (later) (link)

― Jonothong Williamsmang (ex machina), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

That last example is less about being offended, though, and more about the general process of calling people on their core beliefs and making them defend them. Which is really what this whole issue is about. Saying "get thicker skin" to people is basically a way of asking to be excused from defending what you've said, a desire for some world in which people don't call each other on their opinions and just shrug it all off. But of course a certain amount of calling people on their opinions is helpful and educational. It disrupts free-and-easy socialization for a moment, yeah, but sometimes it's appropriate. And then sometimes it's not -- sometimes there's no point to it, and sometimes people are just doing it for their own amusement and/or feelings of superiority and/or chips-on-shoulders. But a lot of the time, yeah -- appropriate, especially on a board like this one, where the whole point is to talk about things seriously.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 16:13 (nineteen years ago)

Nabisco, will you be my POTUS?

― William Paper Scissors (Rock Hardy), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 16:20 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.