Do we arbitrarily choose to be offended ?

[adonirum]

I am hoping for a genuine mature debate on this, so fingers crossed and here goes......

A few weeks back, Mrs. adonirum was watching X-Factor and passed comment on the amount of overly and overtly effeminate males that were appearing on this years series. Around that time, I had been watching re-run episodes of a programme/series from a few years ago that at the time of original broadcast had held great fascination for me and it was interesting to watch them again. More on that later. It gave me the idea of a thread, indeed, this thread. I wrote a few sentences that were deliberately provocative (as in to provoke a sensible debate and discussion) and as opposed to insulting or offensive (or so I felt and once again more on that later). Within a heartbeat, my post/thread was removed and my account was suspended because there had been a multitude of complaints (report this message)to Admin. Upon contacting Admin and exchanging e-mails, points were argued which by the most bizarre of coincidencies were precisely the points I would have (and wish to) raised. I have deliberately left the subject until now, perhaps in order to "let the dust settle".

So what exactly were the offending words (for those of you who can't remember or didn't see it)? I feel unable to repeat them in full here for fear of having this thread removed, and as I stated I am hoping for a genuine debate, but will write them with letters missing and you fill in the blanks. I hope this meets with Admin's approval.

I wrote " has anybody noticed the large number of s***t-l*****g, b**k-b*******g s**t-s******s on the X-Factor this year". These "phrases" had been used in the aforementioned programme Ashes-to-Ashes by the character Gene Hunt. My intention, realising that harsh words and/or accusations would have been directed my way, was to reveal the above information some way into the debate. This leads me to what would have and, indeed, is my point, that is to say and having been involved with diversification and equality issues in the past for a couple of years,do we just choose to be insulted when it suits our needs? Do we accuse others when it suits our own circumstances? Does it ever just come down to the point of context (this was the point raised with and by Admin)? It is worth noting that no complaints were received by the BBC regarding the programme. Gene Hunt was a rogue Police officer character, so my how we/you all laughed at his words, but were appalled at my replicating them. This completely looses sight of the fact that these words were written into a script by someone who thought it funny.Why was this not challenged at the time?

This is a bit heavy and serious I know, but thoughts of E.D. please.

[Jah Lush]

I seem to remember the thread in question complained about how you felt there were too many gays in the soaps on TV and how you didn't want to see that sort of thing on the telly especially before the watershed because it made you feel uncomfortable. Was that you or somebody else?

And if you didn't put Gene Hunt's words into quotes in your original thread then what did you expect? Any accusation of your apparent homophobia would most certainly have been justified.

[red devil]

That was/is Tarot Jah, but you're right and it appears Admin felt the same, context is everything...

[Otta]

I agree with Jah.

BUT I do think there are peole out there who will claim offence even when none is genuinely taken, just so they can show the world how liberal and right on they are.

[Otta]

But it is an interesting idea that some people might watch "Life on Mars" / "Ashes to Ashes" in the privacy of their own home and laugh at Gene Hunt (in that context) only to feel uncomfortable when hearing exactly the sae stuff in real life.

But I guess they could argue that they are laughing at the absurdity of what was acceptable in the 70s / 80s.

[adonirum]

Jah Lush, no, that wasn't me. I remember that thread and found it absurd and actually offensive, but did not complain. I readily admit I did not think at the time to use quotes, but would it have made any difference?

red devil, that is completely the point, context. Why can something be(almost) acceptable on one hand and not the other? This is the purpose of starting the discussion. Let me use this example which has sort of been touched upon in the "racist woman on bus" thread. In that thread one poster refers to the "N" word. Any right minded one of us would (hopefully) be abhorred by the use of it and also I would like to think would challenge any idiot using it. However, my oh my how we all laughed/chuckled/cracked a wry smile when we heard Samuel L. utter the words in his inimitable rapid machine-gun style in films such as Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown and others. How is this acceptable? Is it because context allows us to be arbitrary in deciding whether we are offended or not?

Otta, you make very good points. However, the script for the programme, although referring back to the beginning of the 80's, was written and filmed in 2008. Why does it become acceptable because of this? Something that is actually of it's time, for example someone like Bernard Manning spouting forth his bile, is not, yet this would surely be more appropriate to show the absurdity of that time.

[Jah Lush]

As Red Devil said, context is everything.

[red devil]

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jah Lush, no, that wasn't me. I remember that

> thread and found it absurd and actually offensive,

> but did not complain. I readily admit I did not

> think at the time to use quotes, but would it have

> made any difference?

I can't believe you're even asking that question, of course it would've made a difference, that would change the context completely. I read your original post and reported it, it read quite simply as a particularly nasty homophobic rant. There was no other context.

> red devil, that is completely the point, context.

> Why can something be(almost) acceptable on one

> hand and not the other?

You've already answered your question, it's because of the context

> This is the purpose of

> starting the discussion. Let me use this example

> which has sort of been touched upon in the "racist

> woman on bus" thread. In that thread one poster

> refers to the "N" word. Any right minded one of us

> would (hopefully) be abhorred by the use of it and

> also I would like to think would challenge any

> idiot using it. However, my oh my how we all

> laughed/chuckled/cracked a wry smile when we heard

> Samuel L. utter the words in his inimitable rapid

> machine-gun style in films such as Pulp Fiction,

> Jackie Brown and others. How is this acceptable?

> Is it because context allows us to be arbitrary in

> deciding whether we are offended or not?

It's not arbitrary, that would suggest randomness, whereas the reality is you look at the overall picture i.e. context, which in turn informs you whether it's offensive or not.

You may have used the same terms as the Gene Hunt character, but there the similarity ends. Two completely different contexts.

> Otta, you make very good points. However, the

> script for the programme, although referring back

> to the beginning of the 80's, was written and

> filmed in 2008. Why does it become acceptable

> because of this? Something that is actually of

> it's time, for example someone like Bernard

> Manning spouting forth his bile, is not, yet this

> would surely be more appropriate to show the

> absurdity of that time.

You seem unable to grasp the context of...context.

[Otta]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You seem unable to grasp the context of...context.

That just made me LOL.

[adonirum]

Therefore it seems we are concluding that context both condemns and excuses the same words and that nothing can ever be said to be insulting or offensive per se.

Do we also excuse certain words or phrases (that are usually/normally seen as unacceptable) as acceptable when used by certain individuals/groups and then not by others?

Do we maintain the right to be offended (free speech) or do we instigate the right not to be offended(total censorship)?

[Blah Blah]

I don't watch X factor, so can't comment on that, but I would say that using deliberately provocative language to offend enough to raise debate is a form of trolling. And I'm not really understanding what your point is. Were you commenting on X factor, by using offensive language from a fictional character in a fictional drama? I didn't see your deleted post, but would assume moderators would only delete if they had good reason to do so.

To echo everyone else, context is everything. Fiction is different from real life.

[Blah Blah]

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Therefore it seems we are concluding that context

> both condemns and excuses the same words and that

> nothing can ever be said to be insulting or

> offensive per se.

No, we are merely pointing out the difference between fiction (which is a reflection) and real life. There are debates to be had about whether fiction reflects or influences (art imitating life and vice versa) but most people know the difference. Having said that, there is censorship in the form of certification for viewing, so there are sensibilities as to the level of maturity expected from the viewer.

> Do we maintain the right to be offended (free

> speech) or do we instigate the right not to be

> offended(total censorship)?

We have something in between and that is both sensible and right. Responsibility comes with free speech and again most people know when they are being deliberately offensive as opposed to having sensible debate.

[adonirum]

Blah Blah, this is definitely not any form of trolling. I have not attacked any poster on this thread for their contribution.

As I stated in my opening, I spent two years in diversification and equality service delivery training and remain very interested in people's viewpoints on this whole subject.

As a slight aside and (maybe) to broaden the debate, when it comes to being an equal opportunities employer then it could be arqued that there is no such thing. People holding homophobic/xenophobic/misogynist/etc views are generally excluded from public service institutions (and other employers), therefore do these sections of society become discriminated against? The Police service particularly excludes any person that is/was a member of a right-wing fascist neo nazi organisation, thereby contradicting their own stated "regardless of........political persuasion".

[Louisa]

As adults we knowingly choose to use certain language, and whether it's a matter of context or not, if we know it is likely to cause offence to someone/a group of people, why would you want to do that? Some people have thick skin and don't take it personally, others are more sensitive. Just because you are thinking the person sat next to you on the bus is considerably overweight, doesn't mean you should call them fat and then justify that by saying "well I'm doing them some good, it's not healthy, someone had to say something".

Louisa.

[Blah Blah]

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah, this is definitely not any form of trolling. I have not attacked any poster on this

> thread for their contribution.

Trolling doesn't need to be directed at a person.

> I spent two years in diversification and equality service delivery training and remain very interested in people's

> viewpoints on this whole subject.

Really? So the best you could do explore that was to write a post that used the expressions of an offensive fictional TV character to make some observation about the men on x Factor? A post that mdoerators deemed needed to be removed and another poster has said read like a homophobic rant?

It just doesn't make sense. But again I have not seen the deleted post so can't really know.

> As a slight aside and (maybe) to broaden the debate, when it comes to being an equal opportunities employer then it

> could be arqued that there is no such thing. People holding homophobic/xenophobic/misogynist/etc views are

> generally excluded from public service institutions (and other employers), therefore do these sections of society

> become discriminated against? The Police service particularly excludes any person that is/was a member of a right-wing

> fascist neo nazi organisation, thereby contradicting their own stated "regardless of........political persuasion".

There are good reasons why ureasonable views are not tolerated, as everyone knows. What's interesting is that your list, gender, nationality, sexuality are all things that are accidents of birth, and cannot be changed, except in certain circumstances. A way of thinking on the other hand is learned. There is no excuse for such prejudices anymore. We are in a country where there is awareness of these things and quite frankly, if someone wants to behave like a racist, sexist, or homophobic idiot, then they deserve to be excluded.

[uncleglen]

Interesting about the police exclusion...the WRP (an extreme fascistic left-wing neo-Trotsky organisation) were actually planning (if they ever were elected) to replace the police with a 'Worker's Militia'. They were also going to lock up drug addicts and alcoholics because they reckoned that their 'society' would be so good that people would not need their crutches.......

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are good reasons why ureasonable views are not tolerated, as everyone knows. What's

> interesting is that your list, gender, nationality, sexuality are all things that are

> accidents of birth, and cannot be changed, except in certain circumstances. A way of thinking on the

> other hand is learned.

But who judges what is acceptable and what is not? Your description is pretty much the basis of McCarthyism.

[Blah Blah]

The examples I were given were sexism, homophobia, xenophobia etc. I don't think there's any doubt that those things in themselves are wrong. Ideas of course are debateable, like culture, but they are not the same thing as anything in the list given. There is a clear difference between the prejudice of things people are, and the things they think.

[Blah Blah]

Just to add that McCarthyism is about subversion with no regard for evidence. So you've lost me in describing my view as the basis for that. The supression of beliefs is something that does have a fine line but we don't live within a tyranny.

[Otta]

A good example of context is the N word. Used by pretty much anyone it is unacceptable and insulting to say the least. But used by some black people to other certain black people, it has become part of their culture. Context innit.

[Loz]

But McCarthyism, at its core, was American society's (at the time) belief that communism was morally wrong. You have a list of things that are currently deemed morally wrong. Why is it different? Why do we believe that McCarthyism was wrong, but this modern day version of McCarthyism is OK?

Especially as all the things you list are rather haphazardly enforced. And this rather goes to the nub of this entire thread, because these days they are generally 'enforced' by the professionally offended twitter mob. Thus Tim Hunt is hounded out of his job, but Diane Abbott (who has said things, IMHO, worse than Hunt did) is left alone. There is no constancy. In fact, there is serious inconsistency. For instance, Julie Burchill, who would fail your list of bad beliefs with her remarks on transexuals, would be free to join the police force (age requirements notwithstanding).

The other curiosity about the police's list is that one of the proscribed organizations is the BNP - a completely legal political party. So if you legally run for parliament for the BNP, you are immediately banned from being a policeman. How, in any sane system, is that valid? Especially as I am pretty sure some joined the BNP about 10-15 years ago (when they were regularly winning council seats) for reasons other than racism.

(Just to note that I have absolutely no love for the BNP, et al. This purely down to freedom of political thought - even for those I fundamentally disagree with.)

[Blah Blah]

Yes but Loz, differing views on communism are not the same as racism,sexism, homophobia etc. You can't compare McCartyism to any of those things - it's a very poor analogy ayway. And there are better examples of what you are trying to say.

The OP was comparing culture to things that are determined by birth. The two are different things, that's my point. Prejudice on the grounds of race for example is absolutely wrong (and we all accept that - or should) but prejudice of what a person believes will depend on the moral code of the society. But even within that, there are things a civilised society tends to agree are wrong, like murder, violence, robbery etc.

I agree regarding Tim Hunt and Dianne Abbot for example. The failure of a system to deliver consistency doesn't mean that we should drop the moral benchmark though (and politicians of late are poor examples of any kind of moral line anyway). Julie Burchill, whether she joins the Police force or not can still be defined by her views.

The BNP are not a proscribed organisation. They are not on the list at all. Members are not allowed to join the Police or Prison Service presumably because of the BNPs racist views. That seems like common sense to me.

[adonirum]

Here's something else for discussion with regard to the question posed.

A few years back on the T.V. programme Eastenders, there was a storyline that involved a wife trying to get rid of her husband (can't recall the name of the characters as I don't watch it, suppose I could google it but life's to short) and she enticed him to a wood/forest, hit him over the head and buried him alive. Initially, there were complaints about the level of violence as it was broadcast before 9.00pm. This volume of complaints paled into insignificance to those received following the next episode which showed the husband being dug up again. The reason for this? The first episode was shown on Good Friday and the next on Easter Monday. The complaints following the second episode were on the basis that the BBC was indulging in a parody of Christianity, particularly bearing in mind the timing of the broadcasts on those particular days. Now, this was not so because as I'm sure most of you will know, Jesus is said to have risen on the third day and not three days later. Therefore, did the complainants merely choose to be offended ? Please discuss.

[Blah Blah]

I would argue that if that offence was taken on religious grounds, then no, given that many people with religious views have also not chosen to be religious. Most religion is brainwashed into children from an early age, often using devices of fear to force compliance.

[uncleglen]

I can't get my head around the fact that we still have state funded 'faith' schools in the UK given the brainwashing nature of these morons that mainly use it to discriminate against other people...