Page 4 of 27 [ 425 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 27  Next

Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

12 Feb 2021, 5:05 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
There’s too many people getting offended by things which are fundamentally inoffensive.


Who gets to decide what is offensive? And I think that is the issue. For a very long time, people were not offended by blackface. People are not offended by the Confederate flag. How do you separate what we have become acclimatized too against something that is not offensive. Who gets to judge the offence: for example, the ancestors of the Confederacy or slavery? Are sexist jokes OK? What about to someone at the end of sexist abuse? Complicated.

While on the surface, your proposition seem reasonable (although I am unsure of the data source that supports it), it is also hard to measure. But the anti-cancel-culture argument is hinged on your proposition. I am not sure it is that straightforward.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 73,661
Location: Queens, NYC

12 Feb 2021, 5:15 pm

The Confederate flag and blackface are not “fundamentally inoffensive.”

In fact, all that you mentioned are not “fundamentally inoffensive” when judged objectively.

I’m talking about something like the word “niggardly,” which has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the N-word, despite the resemblance in spelling.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,695
Location: Pacific Northwest

12 Feb 2021, 5:19 pm

I was offended by the sight of the World Trade Center in the resource room because it reminded me of the olden days when those towers still stood. But because no one else had an issue with the photo, I was outvoted and my feelings were tossed aside and I was told to toughen up and deal with it, part of life.

So yes, basically people do get to decide what is offensive and not and I think that goes by how many people are offended.

Now imagine if you are in a marginalized group, they had to deal with this for years and years because so many people didn't have a problem with it. Now that is what we call privilege. This is why we are where we are now and why we have always had activist groups and why people are saying privileged people don't get to decide what isn't offensive.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,695
Location: Pacific Northwest

12 Feb 2021, 5:22 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
The Confederate flag and blackface are not “fundamentally inoffensive.”

In fact, all that you mentioned are not “fundamentally inoffensive” when judged objectively.

I’m talking about something like the word “niggardly,” which has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the N-word, despite the resemblance in spelling.


To be fair, that isn't a word we have in our daily vocabulary so people are going to find it questionable when someone decides to use that word just to be fancy and smart by using a big word and they somehow picked that word.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

12 Feb 2021, 5:24 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
The Confederate flag and blackface are not “fundamentally inoffensive.”

In fact, all that you mentioned are not “fundamentally inoffensive” when judged objectively.

I’m talking about something like the word “niggardly,” which has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the N-word, despite the resemblance in spelling.


I guess I have not seen that particular controversy. And I am not sure that the argument over cancel culture is really centered on that. How many people are upset? You did reference too many people being offended. Are people boycotting Shakespeare? I guess I can't this the argument you are presenting now in your original comment quoted. Personally, I don't use the word because it is archaic.

I am also unclear how this relates to the actor's comments. Which I assume by this post you would categorize as not fundamentally inoffensive.

Sorry, I am just a little lost on your point in the context of the thread.



Last edited by Jiheisho on 12 Feb 2021, 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 73,661
Location: Queens, NYC

12 Feb 2021, 5:27 pm

I was talking about “offense” in general.

As a reaction against “cancel culture.”

Obviously, the person who was “canceled” seems quite insensitive and doesn’t seem to have a grasp of the true impact of something like the Holocaust.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,705
Location: Stendec

12 Feb 2021, 5:50 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
The Confederate flag and blackface are not "fundamentally inoffensive." ...
It offends me that anyone would defend these two overt symbols of racism.


_________________
*TRE45ON!!*
Lock Him Up!


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 73,661
Location: Queens, NYC

12 Feb 2021, 5:57 pm

It offends me, too.....trust me!



Mr Reynholm
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 296
Location: Tulsa, OK

12 Feb 2021, 6:01 pm

Fnord wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
"Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." -- Aristotle
An astute observation of the Republican Party, although falsely attributed to Aristotle.  It does not appear in any books older than a decade or so, and mostly in self-published racist texts whose titles are not fit for posting on this website.

"Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society" is the correct quote, attributed to Dr. James Kennedy (an Evangelical preacher) and then Hutton Gibson (Holocaust Denier and father of Mel Gibson -- himself an anti-Semite and racist).

Once again, racism rears its ugly head in WrongPlanet.


 Link to article on Hutton Gibson 

 Link to article on Mel Gibson 

(NOTE: Edited to add links.)

OMG! You’re saying that Republicans are Tolerant!! !! !
Never thought I’d see th Day!! !! Hallelujah!! !! !



Mr Reynholm
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 296
Location: Tulsa, OK

12 Feb 2021, 6:29 pm

Ironically most of the responses to this subject are proving Gina Corano’s statement correct.



slam_thunderhide
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 5 Dec 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 108

12 Feb 2021, 6:40 pm

League_Girl wrote:
slam_thunderhide wrote:
OutsideView wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
...

Jiheisho wrote:
...

Thanks, that makes sense. I read it as meaning it could be the start of people being treated that way again rather than saying it is currently the same.


OutsideView, you were right to read it that way.

League Girl and Jiheisho are getting offended by what they're being told to feel offended by, and then trying to find a rationalization for it.


No one tells me what things I should be offended by. I can think for myself, thanks.


That might usually be the case, but your posts on this thread indicate to me that you’re confused about what Gina Carrano actually said (or at least you were when you started the thread), and as a result confused over what the controversy is about.

Take this for example.

League_Girl wrote:
The fact she wrote that Jews were beaten in the street by neighbors than by Nazis, why did she write that and what was her intention? Was she trying to water down what happened to them and trivialize it and be a Nazi sympathizer? Why were the neighbors beating them in the streets in the first place?

In high school we learned there was propaganda and lies spread about Jewish people and people fell for it. Even propaganda films were made too about them. One of them was showed to me on youtube by an online friend and it was to justify what the Nazis were doing to them back then.


To claim she was being a Nazi sympathizer with her tweets is completely and utterly back to front, which is what makes me suspect you didn’t read them in full, and are probably still paying more attention to the headlines than to what her tweets actually said.

Carano wrote about Jews being “beaten in the street by neighbors” as a way of explaining why it was so easy later on for Nazi soldiers to round Jews up. Her point was to warn about where dehumanization leads.

The fact that she uses Nazi Germany as her go-to analogy for political persecution shows that in some ways she isn’t as different to the leftists that people like you identify with. It might have something to do with those high school history lessons you mentioned!

The difference – and the reason for the controversy – is that those who have the power to manufacture outrage over these incidents decide that some people should be allowed to make Nazi analogies and some people shouldn’t. Certain sections of the media spent four years comparing Donald Trump to Hitler after all.

Here are her tweets, for the record:

Image

League_Girl wrote:
I have seen twisted logic like "A didn't kill B because C, D, E, and F did" when in fact A had hired C, D, E, and F to do the murder for A. Yes A did kill B and those who also killed B will also be charged with murder too but A will get a bigger sentence because A was the mastermind of the whole thing. This was basically what Gina Carano was doing.


This paragraph is just more evidence of your confusion on this matter. See above.



FlaminPika
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 27
Location: New Jersey

12 Feb 2021, 8:36 pm

It's all the same cycle.

Reactionary posts something in poor taste; the optics are horrendous, and the reactionary gets cancelled in some form and then right wing grifters like Ben Shapiro immediately sweep in to capitalize on the story with their own twisted narrative for that good $$$ and to placate their biased hankering audience which boosts their ratings.

Oh and I personally think she deserves it, but that could just be me being petty. It's the company's decision how they want to enforce their rules anyway.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,695
Location: Pacific Northwest

12 Feb 2021, 8:52 pm

slam_thunderhide wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
slam_thunderhide wrote:
OutsideView wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
...

Jiheisho wrote:
...

Thanks, that makes sense. I read it as meaning it could be the start of people being treated that way again rather than saying it is currently the same.


OutsideView, you were right to read it that way.

League Girl and Jiheisho are getting offended by what they're being told to feel offended by, and then trying to find a rationalization for it.


No one tells me what things I should be offended by. I can think for myself, thanks.


That might usually be the case, but your posts on this thread indicate to me that you’re confused about what Gina Carrano actually said (or at least you were when you started the thread), and as a result confused over what the controversy is about.

Take this for example.

League_Girl wrote:
The fact she wrote that Jews were beaten in the street by neighbors than by Nazis, why did she write that and what was her intention? Was she trying to water down what happened to them and trivialize it and be a Nazi sympathizer? Why were the neighbors beating them in the streets in the first place?

In high school we learned there was propaganda and lies spread about Jewish people and people fell for it. Even propaganda films were made too about them. One of them was showed to me on youtube by an online friend and it was to justify what the Nazis were doing to them back then.


To claim she was being a Nazi sympathizer with her tweets is completely and utterly back to front, which is what makes me suspect you didn’t read them in full, and are probably still paying more attention to the headlines than to what her tweets actually said.

Carano wrote about Jews being “beaten in the street by neighbors” as a way of explaining why it was so easy later on for Nazi soldiers to round Jews up. Her point was to warn about where dehumanization leads.

The fact that she uses Nazi Germany as her go-to analogy for political persecution shows that in some ways she isn’t as different to the leftists that people like you identify with. It might have something to do with those high school history lessons you mentioned!

The difference – and the reason for the controversy – is that those who have the power to manufacture outrage over these incidents decide that some people should be allowed to make Nazi analogies and some people shouldn’t. Certain sections of the media spent four years comparing Donald Trump to Hitler after all.

Here are her tweets, for the record:

Image

League_Girl wrote:
I have seen twisted logic like "A didn't kill B because C, D, E, and F did" when in fact A had hired C, D, E, and F to do the murder for A. Yes A did kill B and those who also killed B will also be charged with murder too but A will get a bigger sentence because A was the mastermind of the whole thing. This was basically what Gina Carano was doing.


This paragraph is just more evidence of your confusion on this matter. See above.


I saw what she wrote, my opinion still stands though. You are entitled to yours as well.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,705
Location: Stendec

12 Feb 2021, 9:02 pm

Mr Reynholm wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
"Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." -- Aristotle
An astute observation of the Republican Party, although falsely attributed to Aristotle.  It does not appear in any books older than a decade or so, and mostly in self-published racist texts whose titles are not fit for posting on this website.

"Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society" is the correct quote, attributed to Dr. James Kennedy (an Evangelical preacher) and then Hutton Gibson (Holocaust Denier and father of Mel Gibson -- himself an anti-Semite and racist).

Once again, racism rears its ugly head in WrongPlanet.


 Link to article on Hutton Gibson 

 Link to article on Mel Gibson 

(NOTE: Edited to add links.)

OMG! You’re saying that Republicans are Tolerant!! ! ! !
Never thought I’d see th Day!! ! ! Hallelujah!! ! ! !
Sorry to burst your bubble, kid, but I am in complete agreement with Jiheisho, not you...
Jiheisho wrote:
... Republicans tolerating the insurrection on our Capitol and showing apathy during the impeachment trail is shameful.
... so get over yourself.


_________________
*TRE45ON!!*
Lock Him Up!


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,109
Location: Melbourne, Australia

12 Feb 2021, 10:53 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
The Confederate flag and blackface are not “fundamentally inoffensive.”

In fact, all that you mentioned are not “fundamentally inoffensive” when judged objectively.

I’m talking about something like the word “niggardly,” which has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the N-word, despite the resemblance in spelling.


The problem seems to be that some people have a problem with being able to seperate "offensive speech" from "speech which offends them"...

In this case, some have taken an observation that (objectively, based on the actual words used) appears to be trying to show how encouraging "hatred" of a group for a given (shared) characteristic can lead to violence against them, and have decided it is "offensive" to them...

What reason they could find to see a message such as this, which appears aimed at trying to lessen the hatred being demonstrated, as offensive would be an interesting question:
Could it be that they don't see hatred towards members of a group for their political beliefs as being "wrong" (regardless of which beliefs they hold)?
Could it be that they don't see hatred towards members of a given group because of their specific political beliefs as being wrong (but the same actions towards members of another group would be wrong)?
Could it be that they have attributed a specific group as the intended "victims" in the quote, but have spent years demonising them and referring to them in a specific manner, where this quote would suggest that their own actions allign with the manner in which they had previously described the "victims"?
Or is there some other reason?

My personal thoughts: If you have a problem with a group's beliefs, showing hatred towards the members of the group (treating the "person"\people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself) is the best way to encourage both their decision to hold onto their belief, as well as to also fight back, leading to violence. If the effort put into attacking the "people" was instead turned to the subject of their individual beliefs, trying to understand what led to them, rather than simply placing a subjective (and, if you disagree with the group, this is liable to be generally a negative) basis for them, you are more likely to either convince them to change their beliefs, or possibly, find that the reason behind them isn't the sinsiter one you envisioned, and that possibly the idea they had was worthwhile...


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
"Never forget that you have every right to question any individual, system, movement, or group that only tolerates you when you think and behave exactly like them" - Africa Brooke

Quote:
“There was a saying that a man's true character was revealed in defeat. I thought it was also revealed in victory.”
― Alison Goodman, Eon: Dragoneye Reborn


Mr Reynholm
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 296
Location: Tulsa, OK

13 Feb 2021, 2:49 pm

My observation of Today’s world is that it is not what is said or what is done that is the problem. Rather it is the tribal affiliation of who said it or who did it. That is what causes the outrage.