This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.

"You can't say that because it offends me"

Post by Squishalot

using the derogatory term as an insult is the offender.

First of all, welcome to Off-Topic.

In relation to your point - what do you think makes a term derogatory as opposed to purely factual? We have so many different words in the English language that we can use to describe something, are you suggesting that we can only stick to the basest of base words (e.g. 'gay' in this particular instance) despite the myriad of other words that are used to describe similar people?

Post by SquireKel

First of all, welcome to Off-Topic.

Thanks. I try so very hard not to post in this forum, but once or twice I've found it too hard to refrain.

@SquireKel: Not everyone will react the same way to being called names or insulted.

I think Morec was talking about it more in the context of 'rude' words and insults that are said without the intent of bullying. Bullying is somewhat of a difference topic, in my opinion, as it is repeated attempts to hurt a someone or try to offend them when they are at their weakest.

Personally I if I have a problem with someone I'll confront them about it, otherwise I do my best to refrain from talking about them behind their back. I also only joke about people when I know with relative certainty they will not take offence, if I suspect they will take offence I avoid saying anything. At the same I take jokes and insults aimed at me in my stride, as other it wouldn't be fair for me to do the same things in turn.

Too true. Everyone has their own way of reacting to and dealing with insults. At times it can be easier to confront or joke about those insults, while other times it seems better to refrain. Regardless, my point was to provide a view of one person who has in a variety of manners: ignoring the person, laughing the comments off, retorting, confrontation, etc.
And while bullying, intentional or not, may not have been the focus Morec was aiming for, it's very much intertwined with insults and rude comments. Bullying may be considered a more long-term situation, but it starts with insults.

using the derogatory term as an insult is the offender.

In relation to your point - what do you think makes a term derogatory as opposed to purely factual? We have so many different words in the English language that we can use to describe something, are you suggesting that we can only stick to the basest of base words (e.g. 'gay' in this particular instance) despite the myriad of other words that are used to describe similar people?

Since you bring up gay, I'll stick with that to try to answer.
Telling someone, let's say a boy for the purposes of this discussion, "you're gay" in the sense of "you are a homosexual. you are attracted to persons of the same gender as yourself (ie other men)." in the same way where someone might tell me "you are blonde. your hair is straw colored." is not offensive. The sexuality of a person is a trait that should be treated like any other - it can be used in an objective list characteristics or descriptors of the person.
Telling the same boy "you're gay" in the manner of "you are less than me because, in being attracted to other men, you are taking the place of a woman. you are weak, feminine, less of a man, etc." is offensive. In this way, the term is used in a derogatory manner because the intent is to hurt or attack the person.

Queer, gay, and a variety of other words are used to describe folks under the LGBT / homosexual orientation umbrella, and while some are most assuredly offensive regardless of the tone or intent, most of them are not. By no means am I suggesting that the English language (or any other) be limited in the scope of words used to describe persons. I am rather trying to indicate that the manner in which those words is used can be offensive. Calling the boy in the above example gay in terms of "Does he have a girlfriend?" "No, he's gay." is fine - it is an objective, factual response to the question. Had the person instead responded "No, he's a flaming fa***t." inserts not only an offensive word, but also a subjective perspective that seeks to minimize and harm the boy.

Post by fenomas

I disagree - why does a racist joke cause you offense? Is it because you're not comfortable with racist jokes? Does it therefore cause you harm? Do you think it harms the community? Or should it be okay to tell racist jokes?
Mostly because it implies the teller thought I would find it funny, not really, most definitely not, not in and of itself, and "okay" is too vague a word for me to answer, in that order. You can't sensibly talk about whether "racist jokes cause offense" without recalling that one man's racist joke is another man's casual bit of fun, no offense mate, etc. When we say "racist joke" we really mean "joke I considered offensive for being racist", after all.

For the rest, of course there's no magic way of separating harm from offense. That doesn't change the fact that it's the former that's worth worrying about, not the latter.

Post by Magician22773

As it pertains to this issue......

Freedom of Speech does not "only go so far".

It does not need to "take into account other peoples feelings".

I, as well as all other Americans, have the right, guaranteed to me by the Constitution, to not care at all about your feelings, or if what I say offends you. I can say the "N" word, the "F" word, or the "any other letter" word to anyone, anywhere I want.

I also can suffer the repercussions of doing so. If I say them here, on this forum, I would be rightfully banned for doing so. If I say them to the wrong person, they would rightfully be inclined to try to whoop my ass. If I say them at work, I should lose my job. If I say them in public, I should be shunned...labeled a racist, a homophobe, or an anti-semite, or ...whatever.

Society has the ability to punish me socially, private enterprise has the ability to punish me financially, and individuals have the ability to try to punish me physically, but no one has the ability to tell me I cannot say what I want to say.

People need to realize that our rights are not situational. They are not debatable. They are inalienable rights given to us by the blood of our founders and military over the last 236 years.

If you want to debate this topic correctly, you need to be debating if you should say things that are offensive, not if you can say them.

Post by Squishalot

...is offensive. In this way, the term is used in a derogatory manner because the intent is to hurt or attack the person.

Is that to say that you believe that offending someone will hurt / attack them?

For the rest, of course there's no magic way of separating harm from offense. That doesn't change the fact that it's the former that's worth worrying about, not the latter.

Certainly, but do you acknowledge that by removing the offense, we can remove the harm, seeing as the harm in this instance is a subset of what you believe is a broader category of offense?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##

Post by SquireKel

...is offensive. In this way, the term is used in a derogatory manner because the intent is to hurt or attack the person.

Is that to say that you believe that offending someone will hurt / attack them?

No. I believe that saying or doing something with the intent to hurt / attack a person or a collection of persons is offensive. Offending an individual on a personal level can be harmful.

Post by Ksero

For the rest, of course there's no magic way of separating harm from offense. That doesn't change the fact that it's the former that's worth worrying about, not the latter.

Certainly, but do you acknowledge that by removing the offense, we can remove the harm, seeing as the harm in this instance is a subset of what you believe is a broader category of offense?

Removing the offense to get rid of the harm is like banning all vehicles to stop injuries from vehicle accidents. sure, it will work, but you lose a large form of transportation, the "transportation" being freedom of speech.

EDIT: To elaborate a better solution would be to remove the bad drivers (people who purposefully offend others with intent of causing harm)

Post by fenomas

For the rest, of course there's no magic way of separating harm from offense. That doesn't change the fact that it's the former that's worth worrying about, not the latter.

Certainly, but do you acknowledge that by removing the offense, we can remove the harm, seeing as the harm in this instance is a subset of what you believe is a broader category of offense?

No, I don't know where this idea comes from that harm is a subcategory of offense. Harm is not just being offended but moreso, it's a different kind of thing that sometimes accompanies offense and sometimes doesn't.

Post by fenomas

Post by Squishalot

Actually this should be a better way of saying it - Fry's point is that when someone says "that offends me", but they cannot claim to have been harmed, it's a whinge. If people are harmed they have stronger words to use than "offended"; he wasn't talking about such cases.

I've never heard a person in my life say "that offends me", if the tone of language is what the issue is. I've heard "you racist b******" or "STFU", but never somebody who went down the line of "I believe you have offended my sense of civility and I politely ask you to retract the previous statement". I fully agree with the idea that such a person isn't harmed, but to suggest that even a significant portion of offense taken falls into that category would be ludicrous, in my opinion.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##

Post by Sas148

Post by fenomas

I've never heard a person in my life say "that offends me", if the tone of language is what the issue is. I've heard "you racist b******" or "STFU", but never somebody who went down the line of "I believe you have offended my sense of civility and I politely ask you to retract the previous statement". I fully agree with the idea that such a person isn't harmed, but to suggest that even a significant portion of offense taken falls into that category would be ludicrous, in my opinion.

You've never heard of people taking offense at TV shows or cartoons about religious figures or the like? I.e. saying that they took offense, or found the thing offensive, or the like?

Post by Squishalot

You've never heard of people taking offense at TV shows or cartoons about religious figures or the like? I.e. saying that they took offense, or found the thing offensive, or the like?

Not when they've also been unable to claim that they've been harmed or otherwise wronged. Mockeries of religious figures are harmful for the religion, no?

And most definitely, they use stronger words than 'that offends me'. 'Muslim-hating bile spewed by ...' is one that frequently comes to mind.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##

Post by Laihendi

If a person is fat, then he's fat. If he feels offended when someone calls him fat, he has poor self esteem and is self conscious about his weight. The problem isn't that he's being called fat, the problem is that he is fat and he feels bad about it.

If a person is gay, then he's gay. If he feels offended when someone calls him a <insert derisive gay term here>, is it because he has poor self esteem and is self conscious about his sexuality?

Clearly. There have been many cases of gay people committing suicide due to their inability to cope with their sexuality. A gay man who is confident about his sexuality doesn't kill himself over it.

If someone is confident with his identity, his nature, and his decisions, he will not be offended when someone makes derogatory remarks about him. This is because he knows that the person making those remarks is ignorant, and therefore what he says is meaningless.

Post by asakawa

Well, that's all not really true either.
Tell a 15 year old girl that she's fat and no matter what her weight you'll almost certainly have an effect on her. This isn't quite the same as "taking offence" but probably hits on what Squish is talking about.

My position is that the fact that someone has taken offence tells you nothing about the validity of the statement. There may be plenty of reasons that a statement is invalid but the level of offence taken by others is not a factor.

That's a strawman - we weren't talking about the validity of the statement (or at least, I wasn't). I was talking about whether it's it's the right thing to do.

Well, here's a point that's worth discussing.

There's two quite separate discussions here. One that boils down to "Don't be a $%^&" (which I can get right behind but doesn't seem a particularly interesting talking point) and one that asks if a group or individual can prohibit discussion or depiction of a subject (the more interesting topic (in my mind) and the one which Fry was addressing).

Did Salmon Rushdie deserve what happened to him? Did he not have the right to write his book?
Ayatollah Khomeini's level of offence taken tells you nothing about the validity of Rushdie's book.

Separately to that I'm sort of in agreement with Moreco in that my opinion is that taboo words should be used at every opportunity when it's in an inoffensive way. So (and I'm going to tread pretty darn lightly here) black people in the US have (for the most part) reclaimed a word that had traditionally been used offensively against them but it's still not used by others at all, it's completely taboo.

The comedian Louis CK uses the word a lot and he uses it in a way that is never racially insensitive (actually his entire act is pretty insensitive but it's not used to put others down) but he's breaking the taboo of the word and I think that's very healthy for society. I think he once described what he does as taking the audience to a dark place and getting them to laugh in that place.

Post by fenomas

Not when they've also been unable to claim that they've been harmed or otherwise wronged. Mockeries of religious figures are harmful for the religion, no?

And most definitely, they use stronger words than 'that offends me'. 'Muslim-hating bile spewed by ...' is one that frequently comes to mind.

You're using an overly expansive definition of "harm", if people in a different country drawing a cartoon can qualify.

(And speaking as someone who was recently accused of spewing hateful bile, I can't say it did me any harm. :P )

Post by Rystrave

There's a lot of difference between freedom of speech and going to far.

Just recently, a group of anti-abortionists came into our town. They stood next to the roar with their signs and their vehicles were decorated. I had nothing against them standing up for what they believed, but what rubbed me the wrong way was their signs and vehicles had real pictures of aborted fetuses. Bloody, disgusting, disturbing images. My cousin started crying when she saw the images, even though she had no idea what they were. She's 4 years old.

Unfortunately, shocking your audience anymore is the only way to get a point across.

Post by Interest

I feel like freedom of speech should have some slight limits really...

For example that small church that pickets at the funerals of US soldiers. That in itself serves no real purpose and I think shouldn't be allowed.

Looks like we got Godwin'd...in a way. I was hoping it wouldn't have to go to that.

"You can't say that because it offends me"

Post Reply