The Right to be Offended

[sixtyandaquarter]

This may result in a semi rant, my apologies ahead of time for the possible outcome.
---
I was in high school so many years ago, I had to write and do a paper on a book dealing with racism. I, being a fan of a certain scathing American writer, decided to do my little report on the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Unfortunately I couldn't. The book was banned. Banned. I was told what book to do my report on. That book was Black Boy by Richard Wright.

Both deal with racism, and view it in a negative connotation too boot. Both use "liberal use of the word nigger", and both deal with the plight of equality amongst those who would not be peers. And yet, the only reason I found that Huck Finn wasn't allowed was because Twain was white.

When I had to do a report on film and it's impact on society, I did my report on History of a Nation. The old racist, god it's racist, silent movie some call the "first American motion picture". I actually purposely left almost all my opinions on curb, and did it very straight forward. The only show of opinion from me about the film itself was me calling it ignorant and stupefying. I was suspended. I had offended someone, which is funny because they were offended by the very thing I was.

When my best friend had to do a social studies project in 7th grade, she did it on old back alley abortions clinics when abortions were straight line illegal. She got expelled. Not suspended like me, but full on expelled from the school. It was a religious private school mind you, but not for promoting a sinful act. No, it was over her use of language, all of which was scientific terms she found in the school's own class encyclopedias. They were deemed to offensive.

We have to change our entire thoughts from what they originally were over one or more words. The word "nigger" is symbolically banned in my state. They want to, or so it seems if they haven't already, pull out the old book burning mobiles and send Huck Finn to the witch's post. They want to censor free speech and free thought. All over the possibility of offending someone.

I've always felt that we, as people - ordinary run of the mill every day people, have the right to be offended, not the right to never be offended. It's part of our culture, heritage, and personality. A huge chunk of how we define experiences in our life is with an offense. What offends us, differs, but honestly this kind of PC garbage offends me.

Do we have the right to be offended?
Must we conceive every possible outcome, every possible offense, before we speak to make sure we never turn someone's ire.
Is freedom of expression lost? Gone? When did it become wrong, to show what people think/do? Even if you are promoting an evil - or simply vile - act, when did you lose the ability to do so?

What happened to being able to offend people, and not just being offended? Do we victimize the offended, that because their feelings were hurt the offender must be quieted? Do we give any logic to why an offense is offensive, why it was made, what it's reason for being is?

I swear, I'd run for a political position just to get a bill passed showing we have the right to be offended, and offend, if I could. What's your thoughts?

 

[rexxzecutioner]

Short answer, yes, we have the right to be offended. Is it always necessary or even warranted? Not really.

 

[Lene]

Spoiler: regarding Mark Twain

60.25, maybe you'll find this educational, hehe: N-Word for the White Guy

I think it was Richard Wright (or one of his contemporaries, I need to find this essay again) wrote an essay about Mark Twain and his dehumanization of the black character (read: Twain puts Black Adulthood on the same level as a child. IMO that's extremely problematic and offensive). Maybe your teacher didn't want to read the book because of that? Maybe your teacher wanted to teach something different than the White American Male perspective one will get plenty of from their 4 years of English classes in highschool (except for the token female, black or international author).

I really doubt the reason why you weren't taught Huck Finn, which is an American classic and one of those things that EVERYONE reads, was because of the n-word. I doubt it was banned only because of the n-word. It might have had a part in it, but it probably was not the sole reason. Literature has always gotten a pass with that.

(Hell, you should feel extremely lucky you got the chance to read Wright. He's kickass. Most kids don't get exposed to him and if you ever take a college lit class, you'll be happy you did. IMO anyways.)

But on topic?

You want to say what you want? Then be prepared to find others who will be offended and tell you off about what you say. Freedom of speech does not mean, freedom of consequences.

If you go up to a big, intimidating looking guy and call him a 'Bitch ass punk!', do not be surprised if he punches your face in. Maybe you don't see anything wrong with what you said, maybe you fully support those words, maybe your sister-in-law's cousin's brother's friend didn't punch you for saying the same words so for some reason you think the rest of the world won't find it offensive.

Whatever. Frankly, you aren't an island on to yourself. You said something, they got offended.

So what do you do?

Must we conceive every possible outcome, every possible offense, before we speak to make sure we never turn someone's ire.
Is freedom of expression lost? Gone? When did it become wrong, to show what people think/do? Even if you are promoting an evil - or simply vile - act, when did you lose the ability to do so?

Yes you do. Most people can do this without thinking. It's called having Common Sense. Sometimes you will offend people, but then you learn from those experiences and move on with your life. When I'm in my class, I don't call my professor with a PH.D. "Mr." or "Hey you!" I call him "Dr." or "Professor." Maybe that's not common sense, but after having a teacher go on a rant about how they went through graduate school and a 100 page dissertation so they could be called 'Dr.', well, I learned.

Besides, you really don't want your college professor who can do whatever they want with your grade, pissed off at you for something as stupid as how you address him. LOL!

Sure some people will hide their prejudices/bigotry/etc behind the "PC" veil, but most times this stuff will come out regardless of whether they try to pretend to hide it.

 

[Venetia]

People should be able to offend others but I think stating something offensive publicly is unnecessary unless you back up your opinion with facts or reasoning. Everyone's allowed to have an opinion but to present it to the general public is retarded if you're just going to make a "statement".

You can't please everyone all of the time. People become offended by stupid things. It doesn't further anything to make brash, outlandish comments without opening yourself up for discussion.

Someone saying "all racists are stupid" will undoubtedly offend racists. No big loss there, but, say "all mothers are stupid" and you'll offend a more "accepted" part of society. If you're able to back up your statement with sound reasoning, the people whose opinions matter will discuss, and the stupid people will simply be offended. If you don't follow up opinions, everyone'll be offended, and like I said, that accomplishes absolutely squat.


I had to read Huck Finn in high school and it was garbage to me. The redneck colloquialism was harsh and the language/literary devices were simple at best. It definitely wasn't offensive, though. It was just shitty.

 

[lunarea]

This is the price you pay for living in an environment that tries to be tolerant, progressive and politically correct all the while trying to uphold the right to free speech. You've essentially ended up with hyper-sensitive environment that can't decide if it should ban something because it offends people or condone it because the person's just exercising their 'rights of free speech' (and yes, I realize what the "free speech" right actually stands for - right to speak against the government - but that doesn't take away from the fact that the majority of people define it as the right to say whatever the hell they want).

I think people in the US already have the right to offend and be offended. And no one's really sure exactly how to deal with this. You're expected to both allow free speech and then turn around and shut people up when they're saying something hurtful - racist, sexist, you name it. Sometimes in trying to uphold one right/value (no racism, for example), you're violating the other (no free speech, for example).

So it's become a gray area where the subjective perspective is really the only way to decide which is more important.

In your example, sixty, it all boils down to choosing the lesser of two evils. What's worse to an educational institution: Dealing with one parent because they think their kid should be able to exercise free speech more? Or dealing with hundreds of parents who were directly - and indirectly - offended by what that same kid said?

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Well, Lunarea, I have to go with the child. A loss of education, humiliation, and offensive proceedings to lessen the offense others may or may not have felt.

And Lene, I understand all that about Twain (but don't forget that he was using common thought from his area/time, and that while it is insulting he's still on the same train going in the right direction. Most of the "child like blacks" in his stories were child like for lack of education, etc. Doesn't make it right, mind you - but somewhat realistic to the world he intended to write for), but I was told flat point because of the books racist language. And I enjoy Wright. I still have a copy of black boy in my room. It's one of the few books I've been forced to read in HS that I actually kept.

As for free speech, it's dying. Lying in a comatose state waiting for the plug to be pulled. We're heading to Red China as I see it (yes I'm being a bit of an extreme pull with that) if things keep going on their track. I can't offend, but I have to be offended. I can't use language, but the equal and opposite words can be used against me. White male, I have no choice but to be careful of what I say about any other race, and females. Forget what can be said to me.

The human potential only goes so far as our capability to censor - not others, but ourselves. There is no reason - none - that I can listen to words, and not allowed to say them. There's no reason - none - that I can be shown images, and not allowed to show them as well. We're becoming a society where we can be told, but we must be muted.

 

[lunarea]

Well, Lunarea, I have to go with the child. A loss of education, humiliation, and offensive proceedings to lessen the offense others may or may not have felt.

Child wasn't one of the options in my question, though.

I've asked purposefully if you go with one parent or a hundred parents because
1) there are institutions where parental support is more important than an individual child (sad, but true) and
2) I didn't want to discuss the actual decision (because I personally think it was too harsh and extreme), but rather the over-simplified possible thinking behind it - and what these decision often sum up to: do you deal with one person (minority) exercising their right to speak freely or the backlash (majority) resulting from it.

 

[Roman Candle]

If a school sides with a hundred irrational people instead of one rational one, then they are being lazy. Public institutions, especially schools for God's sake, have a duty to evaluate people's complaints fairly, not go with the mob. If I was a school teacher, then I would be saying, "Fucking hell, what a pain. Do you really have to make so much trouble for me?" But I would stick by anyone's right to free-speech, (as far as we have it, which is just about exactly far enough).

I've always felt that we, as people - ordinary run of the mill every day people, have the right to be offended, not the right to never be offended.

Nicely put.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

60.25, maybe you'll find this educational, hehe: N-Word for the White Guy

Sorry, I just watched this video now. I couldn't before. That was great up until one point. And I'm sure, since I believe you and I've already had this discussion (or at least, we've both been part of that discussion), you know what point I'm talking about.

You want to say what you want? Then be prepared to find others who will be offended and tell you off about what you say. Freedom of speech does not mean, freedom of consequences.

That's not arguing my point. Mainly because I want consequences. I also want the ability to say it if I want. That video had a line that honestly surprised me, where they swerved with a correct use of the word, when it's what people really feel. That was great. Why? Because it didn't say "don't hate at them for saying it", but rather it upheld the right to say what you feel.

If you go up to a big, intimidating looking guy and call him a 'Bitch ass punk!', do not be surprised if he punches your face in. Maybe you don't see anything wrong with what you said, maybe you fully support those words, maybe your sister-in-law's cousin's brother's friend didn't punch you for saying the same words so for some reason you think the rest of the world won't find it offensive.

Okay, yeah I should watch my mouth. But I still don't have to.

Sure some people will hide their prejudices/bigotry/etc behind the "PC" veil, but most times this stuff will come out regardless of whether they try to pretend to hide it.

So why bother pretending? Why bother not letting them? Newsflash we have the right to be racist. Seriously, I'd love to pass a law saying no one can hate someone deep down inside for some worthless bigotry, but I would never sign the deal. It's against the idea I hold more worthy than anything else, and that's being able to think/see/say/feel how one wants. Not how one should.

The Klu Klux Klan has the right to freedom of speech. They've held a march in my city for god's sake. They are legally allowed to do so. Massive friggin problems that started, trust me. Lot of people were pulled away with police, the media tried to soften it, but it was a near riot in some areas. Best of all, every person who disagreed with it was allowed to say as many racial words they wanted aimed at the KKK. Which was fine. Why? They have the right to do so. Did it matter to the law if the KKK was offended? No. Why? Because offense is so trivial. Did it matter to the law if everyone else was offended? No. Why? Because offense is so trivial.

James Gilchrist, the Minuteman founder, was bumrushed when practicing his point of view at Columbia. He was called a racist, a bigot, etc. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was protested for the exact same reason. BUT, people protested the protesters! They SCREAMED free speech! Guess what? It's already been shown some of those protesters supporting his free speech were some of the same people who supported the idea of bum rushing Gilchrist. Where James Gilchrist had a problem with Mexicans, President Ahmadinejad had a problem with Jews. Where Mr. Gilcrhist was a militiaman redneck, President Ahmadinejad was a diplomatic foreigner. Why was President Ahmadinejad allowed to say what he wanted, and call for all this nasty crap - when Gilchrist couldn't even finish his sentence? James Gilchrist was wrong, whereas President Ahmadinejad was equally wrong. Where was the difference? Did I miss a double standard?

Oh, Gilchrist was offending a group of "minorities" and wasn't one. Ahmadinejad was given full ability because of his nationality - not his diplomatic standings - whereas Gilchrist was just another racist whiteman. The whiteman can speak, behind closed doors, but let anyone of dark skin be as equally racist as they can be in the public eye. And that's coming from a group in my city, who was protesting Gilchrist as a racist. Intercity Interracial Community Watch - thank god you're headed by a Mexican immigrant, else I might not have been allowed to say that. For fear of offending someone. He played the card I couldn't to say what I couldn't. If I said that in public, I would have offended someone (and I've said it, I don't care). But, they have the right to be offended, and they have the right to offend me back. Which they are clearly doing.

Lene, I've missed debating with you :D

EDIT: Plus, I think people are underplaying the simple and amazingly underrated ability that we all have to simply turn our heads, walk away, and not be part of something offensive. We are given that protection to not be part of something. We grant the ability to be part of something. We just have to get an okay note? Is this a field trip?

EDIT 2.0: Lunarea, yeah - what Roman Candle said.

Also,
The simple fact that more people feel one way doesn't make it right. More people, at one time, felt that slaves was great and good. More people, at one time, felt everyone should practice one religion - even if it meant force. More people felt, at one time, that women were nothing more than walking vaginas with the ability to clean the house, raise the kids, and cook the meals. Did it make it less offensive? At the time, actually, yes. But does offense = wrong? Not by default, no.

 

[rpgfan_2007]

Just because you have a thought in your mind, doesn't mean you should say it. Not every thought in your mind is worthy of being said.

Maybe you lack sensitivity to others and perhaps you should take some lessons in sensitivity.

 

[Lene]

Okay 60.25, what you're not realizing is that people are saying what they want! You have already provided plenty of examples proving that fact.

I think that we can all agree is that the only person stopping someone from saying what they want is themselves. Nobody is duct taping anyone else's mouth. The government has not created brain implants to control the speech of the masses. Like I said, for the most part it's common sense that one should think before they speak.

You may say you want consequences from your words but, when you complain about things "double standards", you're really saying you want the opposite. I don't think you're an asshole. I don't think you think you're an asshole. However, I do think that you are refusing to come down from this false sense of privilege and 1) apologize to the offended part 2) examine why the hell whatever you said was so offensive, 3) change for the future.

Here's something that will keep you from sounding like a whiny person reeking of undeserved entitlement. The response to someone being offended is not "Well, that makes me feel uncomfortable, why can't I say what I want?" or "Well, sorry you feel that way, deal with it." or "Well, if you could just change your feelings about what I said, then everything will be okay?"

It's "I'm sorry." End of story.

Words do not exist in a vacuum. There are many factors including setting, history, the social identity of the person who says it, and more than I can come up with at the moment. Maybe, ideally, these things shouldn't matter, but unfortunately in today's society they do. You're slowly realizing that all of these factors matter, and I'm willing to put myself out there and assume, that you are feeling uncomfortable with your complicity in the "double standard" or the "offensiveness".

All I can say is that this is a good thing. If you're feeling like you can't say how you really feel because it will offend people, don't you think you take the next step, look at yourself and figure out 1) why you feel like you can't say these things, 2) why do you think people would get offended in the first place?

You know that something is potentially offensive to someone. Maybe you don't know why that is (and IMO you should go out and learn!), but why won't you try to respect your fellow man and their feelings? When you don't, it's incredibly selfish and as rpgfan_2007 said, insensitive.

Now, that doesn't mean you have to walk on eggshells with everything you say. Frankly that is counterproductive and it will result in resentment and threads like this. When in doubt, maybe you should try asking instead of clamming up and feeling angry. Did you talk with anyone (your teacher, other students) about your presentation on the History of a Nation beforehand? Did you give a disclaimer regarding the potentially offensive content of the movie, so people can choose to push aside their immediate reactions for the sake of education and discussion?

Maybe you did, and someone got offended anyways. Well, you won't win all the time. Just apologize, try to talk about it, and then move on. If you have your heart in the right place, 90% you won't have a problem!

ETA:

Spoiler: Off topic reply about the Video Link and more Mark Twain

Well, do you really feel black people are niggers? Well then, go right ahead and say the word (and fuck you). But if someone claims they're not racist or anything and then complain about not being able to use the word, then that's when things become really suspect imo. Why do you need to be able to say that word without consequence? In what context (other than all those examples in the movie) would you need to say that word? Really now...

Oh and maybe you will find this interesting:
Dog Whistles and Insults

Excellent, excellent post. (ETA: Decided to change the link because this one is less steeped in emotion and less likely to be misconstrued. Even though the previous one is spot on in my opinion.)

Also regarding Mark Twain, I call bs. Have you read The Color Purple? The protagonist, Celie, was too busy being pregnant to get an education. But we all knew from the content of her speech and her experiences that she was as adult as anyone else. Hell, she is more adult than many other people. Education =! Maturity. With the amount of dumbass college students spending Daddy and Mommy's money....that is becoming more and more obvious each day.

 

[Roman Candle]

Having a right does not imply that people should exercise that right. We are free first and lawful second - that is to say, we have a list of laws to describe what we can't do, not what we can. We are not restricted to the actions which some mob or administrator approves of. I have the right to be really pedantic and contradict people at every opportunity to confuse them and stop them making sensible points - but I don't exercise that right. People have the right to take the piss out of me for being effeminate and sounding posh and not being straight - mostly they don't exercise that right. If they do, I will be angry. I won't respect them. But I won't tell that they can't say it, because I respect the system of freedom. I will tolerate that because it's a sacrifice we make so that our freedom of thought and speech is never compromised. Be angry. Make a fuss. Tell people when they're ignorant, and tell them when they're wrong. Tell them they're opinions are invalid, but don't tell them they can't say it.

People's emotions are not automatically valid over other people's reasoning. If I say that the reaction to paedophilia in my country is histerical and counter-productive, I am pretty much guaranteed to offend a huge number of people. And lots of those people have had a very hard time and I wouldn't blame them for being angry. I will be sorry that they are angry. But I will not apologise for their being angry. I will not take my words back for the sake of being uncontroversial. If I give an argument for the rights to an abortion, then I will offend many people. I will feel bad that they are angry; I will not feel bad for saying what made them angry.

Offending someone with an opinion does not make make that opinion less valid. In any controversial issue, all opinions are offensive. Therefore we should have no debate?

Edit:
Privilege? What the hell? This issue has nothing to do with privilege. Privileged people are as liable to become outraged as anyone else.

 

[Lene]

Look, it can be summed up very simply:

People have the right to say whatever the hell they want. Other people have the right to call them out because of what they said.

To have one and not have the other is hypocritical.

My friend, who IMO is well meaning and I would not consider her a mean or bigoted person was talking about buying "chinky" food when we were in the mall. I was like, "Um, you do know that's a really offensive thing to say." I was exercising my right to speak my opinion.

(And frankly, I don't see the argument for the word not being offensive.)

She said, "Sorry, I didn't know that," And she chose to stop using that word.

She had the right to not listen to me and continue to say the word. But we would definately NOT be friends anymore. And I would think so much less of her.

I say privilege and entitlement because anyone who complains about the how the world is unfair and unequal sounds like a whiny, spoiled child who really doesn't understand how society works. (i.e "MOMMY! WHY CAN'T I HAVE THE PRETTY SHINY WORDS?! I WANT THEM NOW!" *jumps up and down and throws a tantrum*)

And who are you that you get a free pass for whatever comes out of your mouth?

Roman Candle, we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about offensive language. You're talking about difference in opinions. Debating is one thing. Being insulting and offensive is another. If you're not trying to be insulting or offensive and you come across to someone otherwise, then there's a problem.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Did you talk with anyone (your teacher, other students) about your presentation on the History of a Nation beforehand? Did you give a disclaimer regarding the potentially offensive content of the movie, so people can choose to push aside their immediate reactions for the sake of education and discussion?

Did I talk to a teacher? Yes. My teacher was fine with it. The rest of the teachers weren't.

Disclaimer? No, why should I? I didn't actually show the movie. I didn't actually give the plot of the movie. If you talked about how a CD sound influenced an entire group of people, or caused an uproar - would you give a disclaimer, even though you are not actually giving lyrics, if it carried language and sexual themes?

Did I talk to students? Why, it's my project. I can't say that Birth of the Nation had a huge impact on society, and lead to some massive impacts? I can't say that? It did. By that logic, we can't say slavery had an impact. It might offend someone if we show how some folks are racist, and that their words gathered flocks of like minded individuals.

So, no. I didn't talk to my fellow students. We were all adults (I should have put this wasn't high school, this was college), and are fully capable of understanding what went on in a bygone era (and horribly is still going on). All I talked about was it's impact. And how it's legacy changed the a lot in the media - which it has. If offense cancels out the ability to talk truthfully, then I hope to offend everyone, very deeply at that.

But if someone claims they're not racist or anything and then complain about not being able to use the word, then that's when things become really suspect imo. Why do you need to be able to say that word without consequence? In what context (other than all those examples in the movie) would you need to say that word? Really now...

I'll answer you, but first to touch up on that logic.

So, if I want the freedom to say the word - it's suspicious to say I'm not racist?
So if I want the freedom to let women have an abortion - it's suspicious that I claim I want to have kids one day?
So if I want the freedom to let people have vegetarian choices in the lunch room - it's suspicious that I eat red meat?

I want the freedom to say it, yes. Why? Why not? Who cares if I will or not, and in what context, but yes I want to be able to say the word if I so chose to do so.

As for the link you shot me, after what I just quoted, I laughed. I'm sorry, but I actually know someone living in Jersey from some Easter European country who honestly believed if you said the word, you'd end up facing a bunch of rabid people. But I don't think that way. Everyone has the right to tell me not to say it, ever again. By the way, if my typing the word is offensive, let me know I actually will give you the courtesy to not type it. But at the same time, anyone I know who gets offended by the word gets offended because of one of two things: Either they get offended that anyone uses the word (like the final point made in that first video), or only when it's used in it's racist tone. I don't say the word much, but I do. Someone walks up to me and keeps saying "sup my niggah" when they greet me, I end up eventually shooting it back out of habit. I hate when people separate niggah and nigger, because it's the same word. I have every right to address someone the same way the address me - no one who ever said it to me, has ever voiced they were insulted. Often, because the conversations do break out (oddly, usually started by whitey) that I can't use the word. I've been told I can.

So there's your answer. Yes I use the word. "Fuck you" to me if that's how you feel. You have every right to feel that way. I have every right to make you feel that way if that's how you feel. However, like I said, I will give you the courtesy and stop for the sake of being polite.

Also regarding Mark Twain, I call bs. Have you read The Color Purple? The protagonist, Celie, was too busy being pregnant to get an education. But we all knew from the content of her speech and her experiences that she was as adult as anyone else. Hell, she is more adult than many other people. Education =! Maturity. With the amount of dumbass college students spending Daddy and Mommy's money....that is becoming more and more obvious each day.

Yes, and it is something I'd want read more often. But, you do realize there is a difference?
Who was Alice Walker writing to? It was made in 1982, sure, and took place in mid 20th century, but who was the audience? Who was the protagonist? Who was the supporting cast? Was Celie an uneducated slave run away for freedom?

I'm not saying Mark Twain pwns on racism, but he wrote for an audience. He may have faults, but his intentions were anti-slavery and anti-racism. He had a case of "the white man's burden", I'll give you that. I'm not going to deny it. I never said education = maturity, if I implied it, that was a mistake or fault of bad wording.

BTW Huckleberry Fin is number 5 on the 100 most challenged books of 1900-2000 of the ALA. The color purple is number 18. Of Mice and Men is number 6. All of these are offending to some. So is Casa Blanca. People want to censor it so that there is no more cigarettes, they'd be chewing carrot sticks or something (some guy's claims he's almost done doing so). Is this what we must do?

I want to move away from racism, because so many threads exist already that touch up or swerved into the topic. There is more to my point than this. Lots more. You can't have someone mentally handicapped if they don't shine threw. People claim offense to Of Mice and Men because theres this retard, and it shows him in a bad light. It doesn't look at why George shoots Lenny. It doesn't see the whole set up as a tool to provide a view at something bigger. They see Lenny. They see offense. They don't bother to view the world Lenny is part of. The reactions. The toys and usages.

And btw, I take offense to seemingly being called privileged :p
But it's not going to bother. It's an offense, not an insult.

 

[Roman Candle]

As I understood it from the first post, this isn't a topic about using offensive language, it's about people being prevented from using offensive language. Somehow we now seem to be talking about whether it's right or not to use the word 'nigger'; or at least, that's where it seems to be going. We're not discussing whether language can be offensive or whether it's a good thing to offend people, we're discussing whether we have the right to act in a way which we know will offend people but not for the sake of offending them.

Like I said before, in a controversial issue, it might be it's impossible to express and opinion without offending someone.

 

[Lene]

Roman Candle- Okay. If you want to say pro-abortion! Then fine. Since when have debates ever been censored. Two words: Gay Marriage! I mean, if there is a debate where people are getting offended left and right, that is definitely it.

If there is a problem with unpopular opinions, then it is news to me.

Actually, if there's a problem with being able to say anything, then it is news to me. 60.25 was able to give his presentation on History of a Nation.

And the school was able to suspend him because it was deemed offensive. They never said 60.25 can never give a presentation on History of a Nation ever again. Maybe, because it's human nature not to get burned by a stove twice, 60.25 doesn't feel like it's worth the possible consequences to broach the subject. But is that the fault of the school?

Frankly, when it comes to controversial material, one needs to tread very carefully, or else you end up running the risk of having people walk away thinking that its message wasn't that bad, or good, or something erroneous. It's why I would not teach a book like Huck Finn, at least not until late highschool/college and also not without essays from its critics and a in-depth analysis of why its considered so very controversial in the first place.

It's all about being sensitive! When I studied Uncle Tom's Cabin, another controversial book, that's how it was taught. It's just good teaching.

I gotta give an anecdote: There was a big huge debate in an LJ fanfic kink community that used the word Miscegenation for one of its kinks. They didn't mean to offend anyone, they didn't even know that the word is horribly offensive and that they way they described it put interracial sex on the same level as bestiality. But when someone told them, hey, that's offensive; they got all huffy, was like "Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Speech!" and totally disregarded the person's offense. They have the right to do it.

Well that offended someone exercised their freedom of speech and posted about it on an LJ community. Immediately the situation exploded and lots of angry blogging ensued. The community lost a bunch of members and after several horrible attempts at apologies, they decided to change the word.

Now, 60.25, I wasn't there for your presentation. I don't know what you said. However if this took place in college, then I'm going to believe that if whatever you said was serious enough for a college board to suspend you, you weren't completely innocent. Maybe you don't know why whatever you said was so offensive, and that is causing problems and resentment.

Colleges are pretty liberal, students and professors can get away with a lot of shit.

(And after the AIDS debate thread, forgive me if I'm not blindly believing your innocence here).

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Lene, I can't beat you. Stop being logical!

You come up with perfect examples of why my examples don't work. I love it.

But I'm just curious what the point of your anecdote was?
That the first posted should've been censored from the start? Be it by his/her own doing, or someone else? That people saw the offense, took offense, and it became an angry war overreacting? I certainly see the points, but I'm not sure the intent.

Would it have been any different had the first person been speaking out against an injustice? It's still offensive to those who believe completely differently. And, while I can't say that what I think is logical to you, to me at least I see that people are being censored.

I'll return with a better post. For now you have me beat. I'll admit it.

 

[Ellie]

I don't know if this is necessarily what this article is discussing as such, but I didn't want to create a duplicate topic.

I got called a racist at school, and told by a teacher I should accept all people regardless of their race. I was told I was offending a group of people. Why?

In our common room (6th form) we have a pool table. Only one, shared between all of us. It's basically the first person to run into the common room after lesson and book the table that gets it. For some reason, there seem to be three groups of people forming on the common room. Forgive me for generalising, but it's the White people, the Black people, and the Asian people. I'm not being racist by this - it's true, this is how they are split. Not a single "White" person in the "Black" group, no "Asian" people in the "White" group, etc.

Now if a person from the "Black" group books the table first, the White and Asian people don't get a chance to play in that booking. (We do a system of "winner stays on"). The "Black" people always favour a black person who asks to play next over a white person.

If an Asian person books the table, the black and white people have no chance to play that booking.

If a white person books the table, we have trouble. I booked the table early, started playing with one of my mates. Two people asked to play next. One was "white" - but also one of my mates. One was "black" - but also someone I've never met before. I chose the white person over the black person, purely because the white person was a friend of mine and I wanted to beat him since he was winning 3-0 over me.

The black dude ran off and told a teacher that I was being racist and offending him, because I wouldn't let any black people play pool against me.

The next day, the "black" group of people had the table. Nobody else was in the room except for the two black dudes playing, and me and another "white" kid. We both asked to play next, and they told us that they booked it and just wanted to play against each other all day. Fair enough, it's their choice. But then another black kid walks in and asks to play next, and they let him.

Do I have the right to be offended here - they are being racist against me and the other "white" and the other "asian" people.

Or does he have the right to be offended - I didn't let him play because I wanted to play my friend.

I'd just like to note again that I am not trying to be racist here. How else can you describe a group of people who are all of a certain race?

 

[jbart321]

political correctness has destroyed this country. i am sickened by all of the BS that is in the news. everyone gets offended by everything. christ, people get pissed if we say "Merry Christmas" instead of the politically correct "Happy Holidays".

Bullshit. For a country that is supposed to be free, there are a lot of people who want to control what we say, do and see and I call them left wing nutjobs. This is a free country, so if I feel like being pissed and racial profile a muslim, I will do that because it makes me feel safer, then the ACLU will sue me(A-holes). Sorry if it offends the muslim, but they must understand why they are looked at different at the airport.

There are often times when you should watch your tongue and be respectful. I would never spout a racial slur at someone, for instance. Respect is a powerful thing. All people should respect the person next to you. If they have a belief that is different than yours, so what? They are allowed to express it. It is when we start making exceptions and changing things where we are wrong.

In America, we have changed too many things to accommodate one person who got offended. Offending someone is one thing, but doing what is right is the best thing.

 

[baniff]

@Wyatt: I know what you mean! It's ridiculous that whites are now the "lowest race"(excuse my blunt wording) They have these fancy names like "african american-american" etc., but we're just "white". I think the pendullum swung a little too far... Anyway, back on topic.

One of the most retarted things in America is not letting students say what they want. After school, it's gonna be a rude awakening when they realize they can't cry to the teacher every time someon says something.