Uh oh lots of comments = lots of nonsense and stupid debates.
@BearDaniels, what a dumb reaction, I can't believe you've come to this conclusion, you obviously don't know what I know or you're just stupid.
Well, they seem to be trying to start a war now lol
Again, offense is taken, not given. Nothing is inherently offensive, you have to let it offend you first in order for it to be offensive. There is no such thing as an objectively offensive object, word, or idea.
@Doctor Krieger, I lost both my parents in a mimosa sweatshop, working 95 hour workweeks with only one pair of flats and 3 lycra jumpsuits between them. My father got sucked into a juice press and my mother was drowned in champagne for trying to leave the property “in THOSE clothes, as if?” But, Yeah. Rainbows are super offensive.
@Doctor Krieger, I mean I overall disagree. Hell the "n word," is just that. A word so objectively offensive we don't even say it... Or at least i know I never would. I agree some things are taken to the extreme but I wouldn't say there's none.
Hey, look at that, I see the word and I'm not offended! I wonder what magic that is if the word is "objectively offensive"!
Offense is strictly emotional. Emotion is strictly subjective. Some people don't get offended or lose their shìt when a given word is simply muttered, regardless of context. Some people don't take offense to the word "nìgger" unless used as a slur. Some still aren't offended by the word as a slur.
@Doctor Krieger, And while that is true, it’s important to remember that other people’s emotions and the consideration of them has a place in logic. Logical, well-adjusted people are able to balance what is said/done against the societal norms. It’s not logical to draw the line just before eating dog but after the objectively more intelligent swine, but we do it because our society has illogical beliefs and conventions we must follow. Yes, you can say whatever you like, but logically, it’s better to watch your tongue to avoid conflict.
@Kalam1ty, that, if anything, proves what I'm saying. You don't give offense, offense is taken, and restraint is practiced after anticipating what others might take offense to and how they might react.
With this in mind, the offended is responsible for taking offense and for their reaction, not the person they're offended by. In other words, if you attack a person because they offended you, you're still responsible for your attacking them and your emotions are still the motive for said attack. Being offended does not take moral agency away from you or justify violent responses.
@Doctor Krieger, agreed. "Hate speech" doesn't exist, just people who get offended by something someone says.
@Doctor Krieger, I agree completely. I think that people are becoming way too sensitive to these things, to the point that they are becoming the problem, and not the person who is being "offensive"
@Doctor Krieger, what about comic sans?
@WelI Obviously, Isn't the basis of hate speech to make derogatory comments towards groups of specific people? Saying hate speech doesn't exist is kind of an untrue statement. Say someone is just going to the movies(we'll go black dude) and then some jackass goes "Hey njgger, you don't belong here. Don't you have some cotton to pick" while obviously freedom of speech here is a thing, a sub category would be hate speech because of the negative connotations of that, creating a seemingly hostile environment for the person targeted. Is it just words, yes but people WILL get on edge because things like that tend to escalate. By who is up to either party obviously.
@Kalam1ty, Press F to pay respects everyone. F
@d3smondTheMoonB3ar, COMIC SAAAAAAAANNNNNNSSSSS
@Swolekage, but it's still just someone saying something. Whether it's rude or insensitive or whatever doesn't force someone to be offended by it.
@WelI Obviously, even then you have to admit it's hard not to take offense sometimes. Its what you do after that you have the most control over. Like a personal experience was when my dad and I were at a store and some white dude in front of us didn't have enough to buy his stuff(I remember hearing he was like $20 short, anyway) my dad offered to spot the rest because you know, being nice is nice. "I don't need an illegal spick paying for my shît" (we're Mexican btw) and he just said "its your call man"
So it is totally on you on how you decide to handle it.
@Doctor Krieger, now, go to Chicago and yell it at people a few times. Then calmly explain how you just did. They'll understand, it's only objectively offensive. This is something I'd watch
@Doctor Krieger, f*** you.
Oh im sorry did that offend you? Well maybe you shouldn’t have taken it that way, SNOWFLAKE!
@liberachi , no, that didn't really offend me. You're totally failing to address the point, by the way.
@Doctor Krieger, you got the point. It’s sad that you’re so willfully ignorant tho.
@liberachi , it's sad that you can't even make an actual argument and are reduced to strawmen and insults.
@Swolekage, that's a perfect example of just letting it roll off! Yea it's definitely not easy to let stuff go sometimes, but people who are going to act that way are better off being ignored anyways. Props to your dad for the way he handled that by the way 👍
@Doctor Krieger, to take something it has to be given in the first place. A child cannot accept a birthday present they were never given, just as an insult must be at the very least interpretable to be received.
You hide behind a clever-sounding (but in actuality just an ironicly whiny half-metaphor) phrase because you’re secretly just a sad misanthrope who doesn’t care about other people. And don’t get me wrong, that’s fine. You’re free to be whatever a**hole you want, but don’t go around preaching that your some sacred truth teller and everyone else is just “coddling” the people you insult.
@Doctor Krieger, as someone who was seriously bullied, I want to ask you another question. If you are constantly told that you are wrong. And that you shouldn't exist. And that you are a mistake and a burden. And you hear that every single day. Eventually, it affects you. So no, offence can be given. Sure, sometimes things get blown way out of proportion. But no, offence can be given. You've used the phrase "taken offence" as the corner of your argument. What about "No offense" is that not something people say when they say something that could anger someone? People can mean to offend. They can be trying to hurt or drive someone away. Next time, before you go on about how people who take offense to things are wrong, which is called victim shaming, use your brain. Because I seriously don't see it in your comment.
@Doctor Krieger, words are powerful. GESTURES are powerful. They are how humans spread, express, and learn the ideas and beliefs along which they act. To deny that is just straight up wrong. If you’re spreading bad speech and therefore bad ideas, then you are directly contributing to the bad things done as a result of those ideas. That’s why people take offense to things. That’s why you hear people try to avoid the n word or other slurs. Because it spreads bad ideas. Not because their “feewings” are hurt.
It’s because your dumb and transmitting your dumb to others like a communicable disease.
@Taliu the Fox, it's up to you to believe those things. You took offense. People act mean because they expect you to take offense. You have agency over your own emotions and your responses, not the bullies. Bullies only exploit that which is already there.
You've literally made my argument with the fact that people say "no offense" to avoid conflict. They say that because they know a person might take offense to something. With someone they know won't, they wouldn't bother. This is not even a controversial idea.
Also, I never said people who take offense to things are wrong. You're just misinterpreting what I said how you want to see it.
@liberachi , in that case, when I take your life savings it's really charity? Sweet.
@Doctor Krieger, can I repeat your last sentence to you?
I was driven to suicide because literally all I heard was how I shouldn't exist. Are you saying that a human, which is still a social animal, should just say "Oh well, everyone hates me. That's their problem. I don't need people."? You didn't actually listen to what I said. Or seem to understand the number of people that go through what I went through. I've met others. And I can say I came out of that lucky. Still mostly functional and just with depression and social anxiety.
Oh look, there we go. Now, do I have control over literal defections in my brain? No, I really don't. I've learned to cope with them, but at the same time, they don't just go away. Unless you've found some magical cure for all mental diseases, you're talking rubbish.
@Doctor Krieger, what? What does that even mean? How does that connect at all to what I just said?
@Taliu the Fox, guy, first of all, cut the pity party shìt. I was the fat autistic kid in school. I downed a bottle of pills. I somehow lived. I made that choice, not the bullies. I won't have any more of this attempted manipulation from you.
It is absolutely beyond reprehensible to cling to the idea that you're a victim, refuse to accept any agency over your actions or emotions, and proceed to manipulate people as you've attempted to do with me.
Second, what I am saying, my entire argument, is genuinely just that nothing can offend you unless you take offense to it. That nothing is offensive in its own right until it is received, interpreted, and decided to be offensive by an individual. This entire fücking concept, this one thing people are throwing a fit over, is what allows for people to even hold what others deem to be offensive opinions. It's why people can say "nìgger" and not hate themselves. If objectively offensive words or ideas existed, nobody would speak said words or
@Doctor Krieger, countenance said ideas without being offended at themselves.
@liberachi , you said that for something to be taken, it must be given. That's categorically false. I used theft as an example.
@Doctor Krieger, oh no, trust me, I still blame myself. And I understand why you're so messed up emotionally now. But you know what. I want you to do an experiment for me. Go up to a random person and insult them. Then tell them how if they take offense, that's their problem.
@Doctor Krieger, you know what, fine. I'm manipulating you. I'm having a pity party. Just go be a prick elsewhere. Don't pretend you don't have to conform to social life when you aren't behind the mask the internet provides. Or when you offend someone, do you just blame your autism?
@Taliu the Fox, I'm not saying it's their problem. You, along with liberachi, are both seemingly intentionally missing the point. If someone says something they know you will take offense to, for the sake of having you take offense to it, then yes they played a part in you taking offense. Context matters, but generally in everyday life it's a trivial, yet immoral thing.
That being said, ultimately YOU decide what offends you. The agency lies with you. It's not the bullies that determine what you take offense to or how you react, it's yourself. I made it through my childhood likely only because I realized this. A bully cannot abuse you with something you choose to not let bother you. Not emotionally, at least.
@Doctor Krieger, guess you're just a superior being then, huh? Seriously... I'm not missing your point. The average "offensive" thing is people getting overly worked up. Or more accurately, looking for a fight. And here's my point. Aim of the "offensive" comment.
No, I don't have control of what I'm self conscious about. I wish I did. Would make life easier. I don't get to decide what offends me. I don't control emotions. I can control my actions, sure. And sometimes my thoughts. But my emotions? No.
@Taliu the Fox, see, that's just a victim mentality. Of course you control your emotions. You most certainly decide what offends you. It's not anyone else's decision, all others can do is exploit what you take offense to or avoid it out of courtesy.
@Doctor Krieger, it's no one's decision. You don't get to pick and choose yourself. The only decisions involved are the decision to be offensive and the victims behavioral response. And forget it. I'm seriously done talking to you. Go try and argue with a Psychiatrist about your misguided view of human psyche. Until then, keep preaching behind your mask of the internet.
@Doctor Krieger, 1. Theft is a terrible example of taking without giving because it can’t be applied to an exchange of words. Fun fact: Words, unlike money, are intangible, and therefore must be deliberately created with the intent to be given to someone to be taken. The intent of the speaker is what creates the meaning of the words: people don’t get offended when Harper Lee used the n word in her novel, but do when a guy in white robes yells it at passing streetcars. The idea presented is different and therefore the insult is only present in one (the robe one).
2. “You decide what offends you” is categorically wrong. A host of conscious and unconscious idea we’ve accrued from a lifetime of unique experiences brought to us by other people ultimately decide. You can’t tell a veteran to “get over it” when they’re offended at your PTSD joke because you didn’t go to Iraq, you feel me?
3. It’s ok for someone to have a “victim mentality” if they really are a victim...
@liberachi , if they’re a tumblr troll then it’s understandable, but again, the example you used earlier was the n word. The nuclear option, if you will. Obviously you aren’t going to have a strong reaction to it because you aren’t black (I assume) but just because you don’t have that experience doesn’t mean “everyone else is just being a snowflake”. A lot of people go through a lot of messed up s**t and sometimes they aren’t cool with it
@Doctor Krieger, and if you don’t understand why someone is offended, or feel like they’re over reacting, don’t shame them or call them names, that’s just going to make the insult greater. Ask why they feel that way, there are too many people on this earth for it to be possible that any two will have the same story. It’s better to learn as much as possible and open up to every viewpoint then to shut yourself off and hide in your own world.
@Youtuber, if the N word was objectively offensive, black people wouldn’t call each other “nïgger” or “nïgga”.
@Taliu the Fox, there’s a difference between being offensive and being abusive. Harassment or verbal abuse is not ‘being offensive’.
‘Being offensive’ is talking about topics that other people find bothersome or problematic, or taking stances that fall outside comfort. Which is entirely subjective.
“Feminism is a cancer” is a sentence that many people are offended by. They CHOOSE to be offended by it. The mature response to someone being a dickhead is to ignore them, not relinquish control of your emotional state to them.
@I Are Lebo, alright, that's a fair distinction to make. I would have called that being controversial. Offensive is a really vague word definition wise. And I agree with you. The "offensive" things most people claim is offensive is as you say, things they choose to get offended by. Some aren't though. I think it comes down to context of the participants and intent. For example, the same "feminism is cancer" statement said to a woman who fought for the woman's vote, would probably offend her because you're insulting something she dedicated her life to. Some people have reasons to be offended by statements.
@liberachi , “people don’t get offended when Harper Lee used the n word in her novel” yes they do. That’s why many schools and even some districts have banned To Kill A Mockingbird.
“It’s ok for someone to have a victim mentality if they’re a victim” no it’s not. Having a victim mentality prevents growth. It prevents you from moving on from traumatic events and locks you into a very unhealthy cycle of recriminations and depression.
“You can’t tell a veteran to get over it when you tell a PTSD joke” that veteran fought for freedom, and you’re trying to use that an excuse to strip away freedom. Hypocrite. If someone can not handle entire topics being brought up around them, then they are unfit to be in society and need serious psychiatric help.
When you take the stance that your emotions are not your responsibility, you deny your own agency as an adult. Adults choose to ignore or dismiss things that bother them. Children have temper tantrums.
Don’t be a child.
@Doctor Krieger, well argued, and well reasoned.
@I Are Lebo, hmmm you seem unbiased and reasonable
@I Are Lebo, But I do enjoy how you frame outrage as temper tantrums, what a creative way to discredit the opinions of those you offend. Almost as good as calling anyone who calls anyone else out for saying dumb s**t a person with a “victim mentality”. Clearly I should clarify what I meant. I was referring to victim mentality as someone who acknowledges the lnsults they hurl at others as wrong. Not the meaning you took from it of someone who makes up stories or sees offense where there is none. (although that was my fault, I should have rephrased)
@I Are Lebo, btw pointing out that people still get offended at the n word even in a different context just goes to undermine your point about nothing is universally offensive
What do you even mean “strip away freedom”? This isn’t about putting any laws in place. This is just about not being an a**hole. Does someone really have to threaten your freedom of speech to stop you from insulting others? Or do you just perceive people telling you no to be rude as an attack on your freedom to be a bad person.
@liberachi , ”I was referring to victim mentality as someone who acknowledges the insults they hurl at others as wrong.”
That is in no way what a victim mentality is. A victim mentality is someone who is ‘traumatized’ by getting wolf whistled at. A victim mentality is someone who gets offended at rape jokes because they know someone who was raped.
What you said has zero correlation with the topic being discussed.
“Someone who makes up stories or sees offended where there is none” is a far BETTER example of what a victim complex is. You’re arguing against yourself.
@I Are Lebo, I am well aware of what a victim mentality is but thanks for the lesson, kiddo. I used it the same way Doctor K was using it, and was trying to explain to him that’s not how that works.
He was saying that people who get insulted by insults just have a victim mentality. Which is obviously not true, but I’m sure your going to try and defend that dumb claim anyway so go ahead.
@Taliu the Fox, nobody is claiming that people who are offended have no reason to be. The ONLY argument being made here is that holding someone else wholly responsible for offending you is wrong. It’s wrong because offence is subjective. Let me give you a practical example of WHY it’s wrong.
In Canada, we had the bill C16 passed. Because of this, non-traditional sexual identity and sexual orientation are protected statuses. Because of that, if I tell a trans person that they look ridiculous because they are wearing extremely non flattering clothes that don’t fit right, I’ve committed a hate crime. This is regardless of whether or not they take offence, because OTHER people have legally declared my comment to be offensive.
Look to Count Dankula in the UK. Him teaching his girlfriends dog to do the Nazi salute is subjectively offensive to some and subjectively hilarious to others. Why does one person’s offended feelings take priority over someone else’s unoffended feelings?
@liberachi , we aren’t arguing about rudeness, please don’t attempt to deflect. This is about offence. YOU control what you find offensive and what you verbalized. No one else. To hold someone else responsible for your feelings is reprehensible.
My argument about the n word doesn’t undermine me at all. Some people choose to be offended by it, others don’t. If “nïgger” was universally offensive, no one would use it, including black people.
If you want to prevent me from talking about certain topics, whether it’s with legal force or societal pressure, yes you are infringing upon my freedom. I am free to say whatever I want, and if you don’t like it, you’re free to ignore me, argue against me, or not associate with me. You’re not free to shut me up.
@I Are Lebo, freedom of speech has always had various restrictions...
This isn't a new issue. The internet just lets people put on a mask...
I'm sure in real life you don't tell people who get upset because of things you say that it is their choice to get upset. Either you say sorry or you also get upset.
@liberachi , you were not using the term correctly, nor were you using it like Kreiger was.
K: “it is absolutely beyond reprehensible to cling to the idea that you’re a victim, refuse to accept any agency over our actions or emotions, and proceed to manipulate people”
“That’s just a victim mentality. Of course you control your emotions. You most certainly decide what offends you. It’s not anyone else’s decision”
You: “f*** you. Oh I’m sorry did that offend you? Well maybe you shouldn’t have taken it that way, SNOWFLAKE!”
“Words are powerful. GESTURES are powerful.” “If you’re spreading bad speech and therefore bad ideas, then you are directly contributing to the bad things done as a result of those ideas. That’s why people take offence to things.”
“I was referring to victim mentality as someone who acknowledges the insults they hurl at others as wrong.”
@I Are Lebo, ok first of all rude. “please don’t attempt to deflect”, I’m not deflecting offensiveness and rudeness are synonyms, It is the same thing.
Second, did you read the whole thread before starting these rants, because I already covered the “You DECIDED to be insulted at my insult” victim blaming, sitcom reverse-psychology bullcrap earlier. That doesn’t take into account the uncontrollable experiences and beliefs of the person referred to that caused them to feel that way in the first place. It’s close-minded, short-sighted, and most importantly, it doesn’t address the person’s point to say “well maybe your just a whiner, so I’m going to ignore you”.
Third, I hope your aware that freedom of speech isn’t freedom from criticism right? If you say rude crap and get called out for it or spread dumb ideas and lose your platform to express that opinion as a result, that’s your fault.
(Pretty much) No one is crying out for Roseanne Barr’s freedom of speech (#dated).
@I Are Lebo, or in other words. Yes, we are free to shut you up, you’re free to hold whatever opinion you want, but if you’re a d**k, then were just going to talk over you and hope you’ll stop talking.
You are wrong on this for a multitude of reasons, and your arguments aren’t based on reality.
Telling a rape joke doesn’t contribute to rape.
Define ‘bad speech’. It’s so entirely subjective literally anything can be labeled as such.
Not everyone who gets insulted by insults has a victim complex. But people who get insulted by things that are not insults often are.
Being insulted by someone else’s opinion is stupid and pointless and is a clear indicator of a victim complex. If you are offended by Donald Trump calling one of the poorest and most crime-riddled countries in the world a “shïthole”, you have a victim complex.
@liberachi , @Doctor Krieger, as someone on the Internet I feel it is my right and obligation to stick my neck out and put an opinion where it is undue and will likely make people angry at me.
Both of you seem to cause flame wars or arguments in the comment sections. People can be offensive jackasses and people can be whiney bjtches. Can we stop this now please? Whenever one of you guys posts something it has a high chance of causing arguments in this community and this isn't a poshjtical debate forum.
@The Omega Username, sorry
@Taliu the Fox, well, that depends on the scenario. I’ll give a real world example. I’ve had a number of arguments with my brother on a variety of topics because he is a Progressive, and I tend to lean towards the centre. One of our largest arguments has been on the Wage Gap.
The Wage Gap is a myth that is based on intentionally misleading data used as propaganda to make people think that the western world is filled with misogynists that treat women like second class citizens. This isn’t true. The trends show quite clearly that fewer women than men are willing to make the necessary commitment to reach financial success in the corporate world. Fewer women than men are willing to sacrifice their personal lives/families for their careers. And women are often opting towards careers that don’t pay as well.
This offends my brother. I don’t care that it offends him, and told him so. Facts don’t care about feelings.
@The Omega Username, “I feel it is my right and obligation to stick my neck out and put an opinion where it is undue and will likely make people angry at me.”
Uhhhh, that’s exactly what both of them (and myself) have been doing this entire thread. You’re asking them to stop doing what you are currently doing, which is in itself ironic because Krieger already stopped commenting here.
@I Are Lebo, that's exactly what I was going for. I however did not realize Krieger had already abandoned this.
@I Are Lebo, I know the wage gap isn't as real as people make out.
But at the same time, that's your brother. As said, like most things, offence is entirely circumstantial. Hell, look at recent news stories. As much as you might say it's people's choices to be offended and preventing you saying stuff is removing freedom. Fine, you have the freedom to say what you want. Sure. You also have to then deal with all consequences of that. Society has rules. Not following them does mean you are less likely to be accepted.
@I Are Lebo, 1. It contributes indirectly by making real rape victims scared to come forward for fear of being laughed at, not believed, or worse, it implants the idea that rape is just a fun harmless subject to take lightly (See /R/Incel for the end result of that), and makes actual rapists feel like their actions were justified and
Of course this also gets into the nature of comedy itself because that all depends on the punchline of the joke. If the punchline is aimed at the rapist (“it didn’t hurt because it was too small to feel”, “this is what happens when cousins have kids”, etc) instead of the victim (I’m not going to write that) then the joke is fine.
Like I said forever ago: words are powerful. The way you string them together is everything.
2. If becoems bad speech when it perpetuates bad ideas. Take the rape joke example
Joke @ perpetrators= good speech
Joke @ victims = bad speech
One encourages people to not be scared of the tiny peepee’d menaces, the other slutshames
@liberachi , “offensiveness and rudeness are the same thing” no, they’re not. Not at all. I’m wondering if this is the cause of your misunderstanding. Saying “there are only two genders” isn’t rude, but some people are offended by it. Saying “those pants make your ass look huge” is rude but is not offensive.
“I already covered the victim blaming, sitcom reverse psychology bullcrap earlier” where? I’ve gone over the whole thread and see nothing corroborating that.
Your experiences influence you. Nobody with half a brain denies that. But when you let your past control your present, THAT’s a victim complex, and that’s an excuse to not have responsibility for yourself. If a rape victim can’t handle seeing a man’s face because it causes PTSD flashbacks, it’s not every man’s responsibility to put a paper bag over their head while she’s around. Those issues are her responsibility to work through.
@I Are Lebo, again we see the good speech v bad speech joke outline in your Donald trump example
Joke @ how people from poor countries are gross= bad
Joke @ how corrupt governments (or centuries of colonialism but whatever not the point) can cripple a country= good
In comedy theory, this is called punching up v punching down.
Aka: don’t verbally kick people while they’re down. That’s what makes you get called out (or lose your sitcom! Hey! #dated again).
@liberachi , “if you say rude crap and get called out for it or spread dumb ideas and lose your platform to express that opinion as a result, that’s your fault.”
The fact that you conflate criticism with deplatforming is a vey good indicator that you’re an outright fascist. Being censored is not criticism. You calling me out on my BS is not only a good thing, it is often needed. But deplatforming someone is several steps farther. That is restriction of speech, not criticism.
You are not free to shut me up, because if you’re free to shut me up, I’m free to shut you up, and then nobody gets to speak.
It’s amazing that you seem unable to wrap your head around that simple concept. Rules, whether legal or societal, apply to everyone equally. For you to have the authority to declare my speech not allowed opens the door for the same to happen to you, because offensive is subjective, not objective.
@The Omega Username, ah, I see. In that case, keep on keeping on. 😎👍
@Taliu the Fox, this is true, and is a good point. People who are deliberately offensive, people who act as provocateurs do cause offence. I think those instances are entirely reasonable.
But there’s also MANY instances of people getting offended by mundane things that shouldn’t bother them.
Someone feelings being hurt should not be outright ignored, but there’s a lot of circles where entirely way too much importance is put on that. Like the religious nutbags who are offended by Harry Potter because they think it encourages Satanism.
Offensiveness is not objective and should never be treated as such.
@I Are Lebo, I'm glad we agree on that. I am sorry if I came across as aggressive... I read back over what I said.
@liberachi , that’s retarded. If a joke being good or bad depends on the audience, then you’ve completely stripped away intent. If whether or not what you say is offensive is something you have no control over, then you are at risk of reprisal for saying ANYTHING.
Think before you speak. This concept is idiotic.
@Taliu the Fox, all good. This is what discourse is.
@liberachi , also, for the record, Trump didn’t say anything about the people (as far as I’m aware), he called the countries themselves shïtholes. And they are. Not because they’re black, but because they’re in abject poverty and crime is out of control.
@I Are Lebo, you can not believe me. But that’s been the commonly held wisdom on how comedy works for decades. It’s not my fault if you don’t understand how to words.
Also, using that concept you didn’t understand, trumps wouldn’t have been bad on its own, it’s the fact that he attributed the country being bad to the people who live there is the problem. You remember? How he said the joke in the middle of an immigration meeting? Remember? Buddy? Little guy? Pal? Guess I’m not the only one who should think first.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not a Trump supporter. I think the man is a buffoon and a con artist, and I think he’s unqualified to be the president in every meaning of the word unqualified. He’s said some retarded things and what few topics he seems to have an actual stance on are often deplorable. But the fervour against him has been ridiculous for a while now. What’s far more stupid and annoying than the latest stupid thing Trump said is how often people are throwing “have you heard the latest thing that Trump said/tweeted?!” around.
He didn’t say all Mexicans are rapists. He said that a lot of the illegal immigrants coming from Mexico are criminals. Which is not untrue. He phrased it exceptionally poorly, but there is a huge difference between ‘Mexican immigrant’ and ‘illegal Mexican immigrant’. They’re not all crying mothers and their five sons fleeing abject poverty in Mexico.
I detest having to defend Donald Trump, but I dislike the constant twisting of words.
Besides, he’s actually said well enough things to hang himself with that we don’t NEED to twist his words or take him out of context. The man advocated killing the families of terrorists as a means of dissuading terrorism. That’s against the Geneva convention. Why does his fight with Roseanne on Twitter garner more attention than him advocating for war crimes?!
@liberachi , I’m not sure where you got the idea that punching up or punching down was commonly held wisdom. Every comedian that I’ve ever heard speak on the subject ridicules it. It’s a retarded concept, because it relies on you being able to judge the quality of someone’s else’s life.
If a poor white boy living in a trailer park calls Leslie Jones a gorilla on Twitter, how is that punching down? She’s a multi millionaire actress celebrity and he’s a nobody. The idea that he’s in a privileged position over her because he has less melanin is retarded and wrong.
Comedy is about humour, and humour is subjective. You don’t get to declare what’s funny, and what’s not. You undoubtedly find things funny that I do not, and I find things funny you do not.
To your second point, what do you think makes a country good or bad? It’s the people in it. Unless they’re an oppressed lower class that’s been forcibly overruled, like North Korea, the well-being of everyone is everyone’s responsibility.
@I Are Lebo, criticisms against a country are an entirely valid thing, and to conflate criticism for a country with hatred towards the individuals is foolish.
@Doctor Krieger, I agree that offense is subjective, but like that one guy said (I don't remember his name and don't wanna search for it), don't be a djck (paraphrasing). Just be mindful of your audience and if they get offended, apologize and move on. Or don't, but at least be mindful of your audience. But, yes offense is subjective.
@I Are Lebo, I agree that offense is subjective, but if the person doing the offensive thing knows the person observing the alleged offense will in fact be offended, then doesn't the offender know they are being offensive?
@Hamilton Porter, how do you know that they knew?
@Doctor Krieger, I just read through this entire shjtstorm of a comments section and I think everyone is completely missing the point dr k made. He said nothing is objectively offensive, which is true. The definition of objectively is in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
Because offense is directly related to our personal experiences, i.e. black people being offended by the n word because of the hateful way it was used in the past, there is no way something can be objectively offensive.
@I Are Lebo, it's a hypothetical question. For instance, there have been times when some minorities have really gotten under my skin. I have used slurs in some of those situations and in others I've simply bit my tongue. However when I have had malicious intent with some people there are very specific words associated with whatever minority they are. I think anybody who denies that is being dishonest. The person may or may not take offense but that is beside the question if I had malicious intent. This thread is too long for me to look through to see if you agreed with Krieger, but where I break rank with him is where he said that offense is a choice. Surely you must have felt offended at some point in your life before you were able to reason that it wasn't worth it?
@Doctor Krieger, I find your ideas offensive
@Swolekage, hate speech doesn’t exist in a legislative sense, and like the good doctor said, regardless of what anyone says it doesn’t justify violent responses. If hate speech did exist in legislative sense it would cause a lot of problems and encroach on people’s freedoms. Now I don’t think you SHOULD walk up to someone and say shít you know will just provoke them, but just that short of shouting fire in a crowd or bomb on a plane, there is nothing that anyone shouldn’t be allowed to say.
@Doctor Krieger, there's having a point logically then there's splitting hairs
@aGuyWithAnAxe, Definitely dude, no amount of words should lead to physical confrontation, I won't argue with that. Leave that until someone gets a little too close for comfort while doing that because at that point your personal safety could be at risk(even then though be careful with how you approach that). I do agree that you should be able to say whatever because if you start shutting people up where do you stop you know? Gotta take the good with the bad sometimes. That's why there's other laws in place to help weed out the harassments/bullying/public disturbance or what have you. Freedom of Speech isn't necessarily Freedom of Consequence
@d3smondTheMoonB3ar, yes, exactly.
@Hamilton Porter, I think calling it a choice to be offended is a bit misleading. Most people taking offence to something are reacting before they can think about it. It’s a choice in the sense that you can choose to not take offence.
Taking offence to something unacceptable is reasonable. But that line has to be reasonable and it often isn’t.
For example, taking offence by someone painting a mockery of Muhammad is reasonable. Censoring or becoming violent over it isn’t.
Of course I find things offensive. But not crap that doesn’t actually hurt anyone and I dislike people who are so sensitive that it becomes weakness.
@Hot Coffee, I find your face offensive
@aGuyWithAnAxe, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The greatest way to deal with hateful ideologies is to let them speak and show the world how misguided and evil they are.
@I Are Lebo, very enlightened. See what I did there? Because of the sun analogy? Get it?
@aGuyWithAnAxe, I get it. It’s because bananas have most of their nutrients in the peel.
@I Are Lebo, I agree. It's unfortunate we tend to be emotional creatures before we are reasonable ones.
@Hamilton Porter, this is true. But the end result is this: if we are not free to upset each other, we are not free to think for ourselves. There’s no middle ground on that. There’s no scenario where we are all happy, all the time. It’s a childish dream.
The problem with safe spaces is that they make us less able to handle stressful situations, not more. A society reliant on safe spaces is a society on the verge of collapse.
@I Are Lebo, people don't like being uncomfortable. If more would just listen to the other side or read about things that they don't agree with and be inquisitive without fear of offending we might actually progress.
@d3smondTheMoonB3ar, fck me that gave me a chuckle
@Hamilton Porter, define progress. Society isn’t linear. What you see as a step forward someone else may see as a step backward.
Here’s the crux of THE issue. This is the issue that all other issues stem from. People have different values and we don’t all think the same about things. Some people are comforted by the very things that disturb others.
Should cross dressing be illegal because it makes some people uncomfortable? Should it be illegal to be against cross dressing because that makes some people uncomfortable?
There’s no real solution to this other than live and let live. Don’t shove your ideology into other peoples faces, but at the same time live how you want to.
Nobody has the right to comfort. Comfort is something we pursue. If there are people in your life that make you uncomfortable, it’s up to you to change that, not them. If you expect other people to change to accommodate you, you’re going to have a miserable life.
@I Are Lebo, bigots make me uncomfortable. Bigots need to be taken out of my life, not the other way around.
@Jessie02, a perfectly reasonable attitude. The proper reaction to having a bigoted acquaintance is to distance yourself from them. Cut ties. If it is a coworker being bigoted, inform HR.
You should just be clear though, on what’s actually bigoted. A racially insensitive joke isn’t by itself a sign of bigotry. It’s fun to poke at stereotypes. It’s bigotry to think the stereotypes are all true, but some stereotypes are true sometimes.
@d3smondTheMoonB3ar, exactly, and if offense is not objective, it cannot be given, it has to be taken.
@Jessie02, the fact that you can't tolerate other beliefs and opinions makes you, by definition, a bigot.
@Doctor Krieger, false. I'm gay. If a co-worker or vendor make derogatory comments that make me feel unsafe they need to go. I can handle the small, stupid comments/jokes. But some take it too far. It's them that need to be dealt with, not me.
@Jessie02, not false, look up the definition of bigotry. Not tolerating the opinions or beliefs of others is literally bigotry. There's no argument to even be had there.
Also, if a person says or does something towards you that threatens your safety, in other words credible threats or violence (respectively), that's an entirely different situation than just being a bigot or having opinions you don't like. If someone says something that isn't a credible threat and you take it as a credible threat ("feel unsafe", as you put it), it is entirely possible that you are in the wrong, morally speaking.
@Doctor Krieger, that is one of the definitions, yes. But it is not the common definition. The more commonly used definition requires discrimination and prejudice. And no, a credible threat to my safety is absolutely not what it should take to get someone fired. Simply spewing hate speech should be more than enough. Fortunately in my 12 year career I've only had to deal with small, stupid comments.
@Jessie02, whether or not someone gets fired should not be up to you or decided solely by your feelings. That's entirely oppressive, no matter what you consider "spewing hate speech" to be.
@Doctor Krieger, me: exists
Coworker: says my gf and I shouldn't be allowed to be married.
Me: whatever. I have to deal with stupid comments like this all the time. I'll live.
Coworker: continues to harp on the matter creating a hostile work environment.
Someones gotta go. Who's it gonna be, them or me?
@Jessie02, see, and this is why you are a bigot. You can simply ignore him or, hell, tell him off. You know, like a well-adjusted adult...
@Doctor Krieger, being hated for simply existing feels absolutely rotten. Clearly you don't think the co-worker in this situation should be fired. Are you really saying that I should either quit my job or work with someone who blindly hates me?
@I Are Lebo, to be clear I'm not in defense of safe spaces. You and I are in agreement. I'm merely proposing why I think people behave the way they do which is not the same as me advocating for them. To take a swing at the definition of progress, I'd say it would be something like granting someone rights that others enjoy so long as those rights are not directly putting someone in physical danger. As to your cross dressing questions my answer is simply, no. And since it seems like we have a thrust and parry session going here allow me to thrust: why should someone not shove their ideology in your face? Telling someone to keep it to themselves only leads to a lack of conversation and it's what leads to those wretched safe spaces and the festering of their ideology which only keeps them in their pathetic echo chamber.
@Doctor Krieger, there is a fine line between freedom of speech and harassment. It's one thing to say you don't agree with someone's sexual orientation and have a conversation about it. It's harassment if you keep pushing the issue with the intention of being malicious.
@Jessie02, if your coworker is harassing you, you have a legitimate complaint that you should take to your bosses because that coworker is creating a hostile work environment. But if your coworker simply hates lesbians, that’s not justification for you to end his career. You’re not friends, you don’t have to like each other. If his religious or personal beliefs cause him to frown upon your lifestyle, that’s his problem, not yours. You don’t get to dictate what opinions other people can hold.
But if he’s being an ass and has the connections to remain at his job despite being an ass, then your choices are limited. Put up with it and be unhappy, assert yourself and risk escalation, or leave and find a more open and accepting work environment.
Telling someone you think they shouldn’t exist is rudeness to an extreme but it’s not the same thing as trying to make it so. If you’re worried about this person committing violence on you, do something about it. Report him, or remove yourself.
@Hamilton Porter, you kind of answered your own question to me with your question to Krieger. Pushing ideologies forcefully becomes harassment. Everybody’s rights extend to the tip of other people’s noses. One person’s religious beliefs do not override another person’s rights. The idea that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because the bible condemns it is ridiculous. The Bible is not societies law book and should never be treated as such.
If progress is based on equal rights, then progress is finished. Progress is something subjective, because as I said, it’s not linear. To some people, the acceptance of non-binary genders is progress. To others, it’s the denial of biology and acceptance of fantasy.
Progress is not as simple as ‘making things better’.
@I Are Lebo, yes, I realized upon reading Krieger's comment that I would have no choice but to answer the question I posed to you, lest I remain silent. I'm pleased that we are on the same page, however.
I'm still not understanding your position on progress. Do you mean to say progress is invalidated so long as there is someone who disagrees? If so, what would you call the enlightenment, for instance, if not progress?
@Hamilton Porter, I’m not saying anything about invalidation. I’m saying what progress itself is, is subjective. Different people have different values. What progress means is fluid.
@I Are Lebo, but that's the problem. It is my problem in that hypothetical situation. Working with someone you know hates you for no good reason is a nightmare. You're right, in most situations I should be, and have been, able to report such things to a manager and they've been dealt with satisfactorily. But that's not always the way it works. A person should never be forced out of a job or any such situation because someone else has blind hate in their heart
@Jessie02, I agree, but that’s in part what you are arguing for. If this guy is harassing you, that’s one thing. But if this guy has contempt for homosexuality, and expresses such if for instance, you make out with your girlfriend at work, that’s his right. You don’t get to demand that him refusing to be tolerant of your lifestyle is grounds for dismissal.
Just don’t interact with him. Live and let live. If he won’t leave you alone, report him. But if you’re just upset because he doesn’t like you, that’s your problem, not his.
@I Are Lebo, I see. I've recently been grappling with a similar issue myself, that of morality. I was certain morality was subjective until I began reading Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect you may also think morality is subjective. I think morality and progress are closely related and since I cannot as yet confirm for myself whether morality is subjective or not, I cannot honestly assert whether progress is subjective or not. Therefore I will cease further comment on the topic as I feel ill equipped to potentially go down an epistemological rabbit hole. If you do believe morality and by extension progress is subjective, I suggest you read the book if you haven't done so already. I truly have enjoyed my conversation with you and look forward to bumping into you again around here as I'm sure there is no doubt we will. Cheers!
@Hamilton Porter, I’ll look into it, but I have no doubt that morality is subjective. Some things are objectively immoral, like murder. But most things exist in a grey area. What about euthanasia? Is it immoral to help someone who is suffering to end their existence? Even if they’re cognizant and begging for death?
Claiming objective morality, and even more often taking a religious books morality as objective is, I find, a copout to avoid actually having to do the hard work of deciding for yourself what’s right and wrong.
@I Are Lebo, I basically agree with you completely.
@Jessie02, I wish you good luck in resolving your situation
@I Are Lebo, it was a hypothetical situation. And I think in this case I may have been arguing for the sake of arguing with no real point to make. I tend to do that far far too often.
@Jessie02, wait it was hypothetical? You made it seem so real...
@I Are Lebo, I've been lucky and haven't had to deal with the horror stories I've heard from other. My gf has. Her father basically disowned her. I hate hate hate bigotry so much.
@Jessie02, I do as well, but we need to take care that we don’t become what we hate. Choosing what is and is not an acceptable opinion to hold is a dangerously slippery slope.
My cross dressing example that I made earlier to Hamilton Porter isn’t really hypothetical. In Canada, if I was uncomfortable enough around a very poorly passing transgender person, that can be taken as intolerance because gender expression is now classified as a protected status here, and that’s essentially just fashion.
It is technically illegal to criticize the fashion sense of trans people, and I find that ridiculous.
@I Are Lebo, my view is that being anti LGBT is legally okay but morally repugnant. I'm very definitely against policing thoughts.
@Youtuber, I’m black and we say the N word constantly. It’s fine.
@Kalam1ty, if a society together believes something evil, it is wrong to mind your tongue. We must stand up for justice. You are toting the ideas of Utopianism, which is so evil
@liberachi , you are actually using logical fallacies, and when he calls you out on it, you accuse him of “clever sounding metaphors”. You really need some education before you tote that brainwashed propaganda of yours.
@Child Slapper, Wrong. I’m not saying anything about political activism or being outspoken about your beliefs. I am saying that calling a gay person a slur is not a logical choice because it doesn’t advance an agenda in any constructive way. Think of it this way, a leader you perceive to be a despot is hosting a military parade, is it better to attack his motorcade or advocate for change elsewhere? The urge to offend others is emotional, since you logically know A) what offends people and B) looking like an asshole doesn’t help your case at all.
Yeah fvck those authoritarian collectivist. The only thing important to people that fly that flag is what race you are and what your sexuality is. People who fly that flag could care less about individuals.
Which flag am I talking about?
Why do people find Twitter clapbacks funny? All it reminds me of is high school bimbos trying to out b!tch each other
God I hate social media
Why do I feel like Fox didn’t actually say that...?
@Kekistan Ambassador, Fox didn’t. A black guest did.
Not that I necessarily agree, but the point was that both symbols can be divisive.... But ok
@WelI Obviously, nah man they jump right into the specific details of this comparison and miss the point while still making a wide generalization calling trump “literally hitler,” when he is nothing close
The civil war was not technically about slavery. But on whatever. F*ck people read a book, learn something. Yes slavery was a part, but our was about much more. Including taxation without representation, huh isn't that why we fought the revolutionary east against Britain? They use the slavery thing as the main point to make it sound like the north were the good guys. There definitely were not any good guys during the civil war. And furthermore the north owned more slaves than the south when they outlawed slavery. The difference was the north used them as house slaves, nannies and such, where the south actually couldn't work there giant plantations du supply the north without many many workers. Most couldn't afford to pay guay many workers.... ok I'm done now.😁
@Craiger, from what I remember, they had slaves, but they didn't have more slaves that the South... And I know it wasn't about slavery at all at first. And that came about later to prevent European nations helping the South.
@Taliu the Fox, Actually, I would have to say that slavery was the inciting topic. Most southern states directly mentioned slavery in their secession statements as their reason for seceding, as a direct result of the emancipation proclamation. The war itself began when southerners attacked a northern run fort on their land, when Lincoln tried to resupply it. The war may have begun as a battle over control of southern territories, but the reason for the contested territories was over people as property.
@Craiger, yeah, it was about states rights.... to own slaves and if the feds could outlaw it in territories as well
@Craiger, no no it was defenatly about slavery. Not only was slavery directly mentioned in EVERY SINGLE articles of sussession in every state, but for three of them (Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, I think) they were cited as the #1 MOST IMPORTANT REASON
@liberachi , no that was the final point, not what started it... like I said go read a real history book...
@Craiger, sounthern states were only about states rights when it came to protecting slavery, Argo slavery came first, if that wasn’t true than the fugitive slave act (a national law to protect slavery that overrode northern states right to shelter fugitive slaves and laws passed in some states to allow such behavior) wouldn’t have been passed. Go read a real real history textbook.
@liberachi , on this I completely agree with you. The argument about states rights falls apart when you realize that the Confederacy wanted Federal Agents to cross State borders to apprehend runaway slaves and return them to their owners.
@Craiger, you need to recheck your sources because you’re 100% wrong.
“This federation is founded on one simple truth. That the negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery is his natural, and normal condition”. The keystone speech was delivered by the Vice President of the Confederacy at its founding. Look it up, and then try to tell me that the civil war wasn’t about slavery.
@Craiger, the truth is only important if it gives you power over others, you're never going to win this one, but it's nice to hear someone else reads
@Berntley, because of voting and taxation policies, the morality of slavery was not what the war was fought for. If the morality of slavery were the core issue, why didn't Lincoln lead with the emancipation proclamation?
@Hot Coffee, Because he tried to be diplomatic first? Like, tried saying “Look, how can we solve this whole slave issue? What can we do to come to an understanding here?”
I know that the North wasn’t just a bunch of upstanding patriots who cared so much about black people’s rights. They owned slaves, and after the civil war, every state in the country was probably equally complicit in treating black people like garbage for a good few years. That doesn’t negate the fact that the civil war was primarily fought on the grounds that slavery should no longer be a thing.
@Berntley, if he wanted to be diplomatic, why'd he send warships and an army?
And no, the farthest thing from Lincoln's mind was the abolishment of slavery, preservation of the Union was his chief, and likely sole, motivation. Lincoln would have gladly enslaved the entire black population if that's what would have saved the United States. He's said as much, look it up.
@Hot Coffee, His warships occupied a fort in the seceded southern territory. He was resupplying. The south initiated violence.