The concept of being offended explained in a comic

[Anteros]

I thought it might be relevant, after a few conversations some of us had here about opinions, expressing them and what effect this can have: https://www.upworthy.com/this-artist-brilliantly-tackles-the-concept-of-being-offended-in-a-colorful-comic/?ef&utm_content=buffer80fc8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[DominantPoet]

Personally, there are times when I'll say something and mean explicitly what I said, no subcontext, no hidden meaning, and people just tear it apart and claim I meant this, or meant that, and I'm sitting there thinking "The hell is wrong with you?"

Theeeeeen, other times I'm listening to someone and figuring they mean something else entirely than what they're saying based on the tone of their voice, body gestures, eye contact or lack thereof and so forth. That's the overly annoying thing about what people see and hear, especially on forums where meaning, intent and what not can become even harder to glean.

Good comic :)

[Nachtmahr]

I see what that comic is trying to say, and it's something that's been said a lot of times already. I do however feel like there's an inherent problem with it. Take it too far, and you virtually can't say anything. The idea of a joke is that it's something that's not meant to be taken seriously.

We can't all be walking on eggshells all the time. The world would be a very different place today if no one ever dared to provoke others or rock the boat.

I mean, we could easily apply the same logic that's shown in that comic to Elliquiy: Writing erotic fiction about sexual assault normalizes and fetishizes it to a reader that's already biased towards a "Sexual violence isn't that bad"-standpoint. I, however, know that fiction is fiction and that a joke is a joke. If the joke isn't a joke, it's a statement. If it's a statement, it's more often than not offensive or outright wrong.

There's no question that a line like: "You're too pretty to be a lesbian" is tacky and lame as a joke and outright offensive as a statement. Please don't get me wrong. But we shouldn't ever put ourselves on a pedestal and claim the moral high ground when you could just as easily call the sort of thing a lot of us do for a hobby into question.

Edit: Sorry, had to re-post. Accidentally deleted instead of editing. >.<

[RedRose]

I love your post Nachtmahr. The balance is so hard to find.

[Nachtmahr]

I love your post Nachtmahr. The balance is so hard to find.

Thank you. Truth be told, I am kind of nervous about engaging in this sort of debate.

[Lustful Bride]

Thank you. Truth be told, I am kind of nervous about engaging in this sort of debate.

You shouldn't be. Discussions are important in every situation. Especially if they can remain civil and intelligent. Because that way we can all work out our issues, and come to a better solution for everyone. It is something sorely lacking in modern society.

Besides your post was intelligent, relaxed and thought out. Unlike my stuff which tends to sound like a rambling cat woman.

As for me and my opinion on the topic, I've honestly been thinking that this is all like a Pendulum. For years we were able to be incredibly offensive to one another, bigoted, conceited, etc. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and you have to baby full grown adults from fear offending them or hurting their feelings, even when it comes to mundane, boring things.

Now am I saying that we should all be rude, crass, uncaring jerks to eachother? No, of course not. But we are just fostering a generation of thin skinned people who will be unable to handle the real world and how hard and uncaring it can be. If you back down or cower in the face of the universe too much, it will inevitably take the advantage and beat you down.

Its like how kids who are spoiled and given every single thing that they want are being done a terrible disservice by their parents. They aren't ready for a world that will not give them everything they want or bend over backwards at the drop of a hat. Inevitably in either the workplace, or on the streets, someone will not tolerate their behavior and it will not go well.

It reminds me of how my sociology teacher was explaining how children are raised, how we went from a society where you could almost beat your kid to a pulp and call it 'Parenting' to a society where Children have more power than their own parents, and are the ones to decide things. Its like everything in the world went from one extreme, to the other.

And the problem about Pendulums, is that they inevitably swing back around. The only that we can affect about it, is how hard and how far it swings.

With luck maybe we can keep it generally swinging in a nice middle ground.

[RedRose]

It reminds me of how my sociology teacher was explaining how children are raised, how we went from a society where you could almost beat your kid to a pulp and call it 'Parenting' to a society where Children have more power than their own parents, and are the ones to decide things. Its like everything in the world went from one extreme, to the other.

And the problem about Pendulums, is that they inevitably swing back around. The only that we can affect about it, is how hard and how far it swings.

With luck maybe we can keep it generally swinging in a nice middle ground.

Oh yes. I'm seeing France slowly adopting some extreme parenting and politically correct things over time... And I already see a "reaction" from those who don't like it. Which means one day I'll encounter 2 year olds without their parents or see a kid being spanked in public, and the day after the opposite 

[Nachtmahr]

You shouldn't be. Discussions are important in every situation. Especially if they can remain civil and intelligent. Because that way we can all work out our issues, and come to a better solution for everyone. It is something sorely lacking in modern society.

Besides your post was intelligent, relaxed and thought out.

Thank you. :) That really means a lot. I just want to be liked by everyone I guess. >.<

As for me and my opinion on the topic, I've honestly been thinking that this is all like a Pendulum. For years we were able to be incredibly offensive to one another, bigoted, conceited, etc. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and you have to baby full grown adults from fear offending them or hurting their feelings, even when it comes to mundane, boring things.

Now am I saying that we should all be rude, crass, uncaring jerks to eachother? No, of course not. But we are just fostering a generation of thin skinned people who will be unable to handle the real world and how hard and uncaring it can be. If you back down or cower in the face of the universe too much, it will inevitably take the advantage and beat you down.

Its like how kids who are spoiled and given every single thing that they want are being done a terrible disservice by their parents. They aren't ready for a world that will not give them everything they want or bend over backwards at the drop of a hat. Inevitably in either the workplace, or on the streets, someone will not tolerate their behavior and it will not go well.

It reminds me of how my sociology teacher was explaining how children are raised, how we went from a society where you could almost beat your kid to a pulp and call it 'Parenting' to a society where Children have more power than their own parents, and are the ones to decide things. Its like everything in the world went from one extreme, to the other.

And the problem about Pendulums, is that they inevitably swing back around. The only that we can affect about it, is how hard and how far it swings.

With luck maybe we can keep it generally swinging in a nice middle ground.

I think you're pretty much spot on. In fact, I was briefly discussing this with a friend of mine, and the conclusion I came to was basically that:

On one hand you have hyper-PC culture where no one can say anything to anyone because literally everything is offensive. These are of course the people who take a good idea too far, and we end up with a group that's so regularly offended that you can't really blame anyone for getting an itch whenever they hear that term.

One example would be when Vice-affiliated news site Motherboard apparently tried to "Expose" Elon Musk as a sexist as he didn't follow any women on Twitter. He then rebutted by stating that he only followed news organizations on Twitter and that he follows an almost equal number of men and women on other social media.

At this point, my friend said that we should just ignore these people who are always offended, because if we keep reacting to it they're just going to feel validated. To feel victimized.

That's a fair point, but I then turned it on it's head: When we are offended or frustrated that people keep saying these terrible things and we try to tell it to them, they're going to react the same way if they're genuinely "Against" that form of social progress. To them, it's going to look like we're the "PC Police" and we're just trying to silence them. We're giving them a reason to double down on it. A reason to keep fighting. A reason to keep feeling victimized by all of these offended people who are telling them to watch what they're saying.

The pendulum keeps swinging. The hourglass is turned upside down. Days of our Lives airs another episode.

The only way I see us breaking this cycle is through proper education, but that's not going to come easy, and it's certainly not going to come quick. We need to do more to educate people and make them understand the severity and frequency of sexual crime. Make them understand the extent of bigotry in the modern world. If no one has ever met a lesbian before, then maybe a comedians stereotype, or an actress in an adult film is the only frame of reference they have. We need to change that. We don't do that by going after the comedians, we do that by going after our lacking educational system. We teach coming generations to be tolerant and open minded.

If everyone understood the difference between fiction and reality, or jokes and statements, then it wouldn't be an issue.

[Anteros]

I see what that comic is trying to say, and it's something that's been said a lot of times already. I do however feel like there's an inherent problem with it. Take it too far, and you virtually can't say anything. The idea of a joke is that it's something that's not meant to be taken seriously.

We can't all be walking on eggshells all the time. The world would be a very different place today if no one ever dared to provoke others or rock the boat.

Still, it's pretty simple to treat some sensitive subjects wth a modicum of care. Some things cause widespread and ongoing harm in our societies, like racism, misogyny, ableism, or queerantagonism; it seems like common sense not to make light of those things when not talking to people who are in favor of them?

I mean, we could easily apply the same logic that's shown in that comic to Elliquiy: Writing erotic fiction about sexual assault normalizes and fetishizes it to a reader that's already biased towards a "Sexual violence isn't that bad"-standpoint. I, however, know that fiction is fiction and that a joke is a joke. If the joke isn't a joke, it's a statement. If it's a statement, it's more often than not offensive or outright wrong.

The nice thing with Elliquiy is that it put such a large emphasis on consent. We're not supposed to turn our games towards subjects like rape or violence without our writing partner's consent. We have spaces dedicated for writing on those subjects and we supposedly are forewarned before we stumble on them. That's very different from making a rape joke out of the blue in a public place.

There's no question that a line like: "You're too pretty to be a lesbian" is tacky and lame as a joke and outright offensive as a statement. Please don't get me wrong. But we shouldn't ever put ourselves on a pedestal and claim the moral high ground when you could just as easily call the sort of thing a lot of us do for a hobby into question.

Edit: Sorry, had to re-post. Accidentally deleted instead of editing. >.<

This is about what we do, and how it affects other people, not about making claims. I believe we don't get to decide if we're good or not. That's where the "nice guy" phenomenon comes from. Our actions speak for themselves, the rest is just posturing in my humble opinion.

[Vergil Tanner]

My take on it is pretty simple; there is a difference between statements and jokes, between parody / satire and genuine intent. Intention is everything. So far as I see it, everything could be offensive to anybody, and if we started censoring things that were offensive to people BECAUSE they're offensive or sensitive, then there wouldn't be much we could actively talk about. It was said above; society is a pendulum, and it's swinging the opposite way...but already, there's pushback against the groups that want to take it further. I agree wholeheartedly with Nachtmahr; people need to learn the difference between jokes and serious statements, and learn how to just let things go sometimes. Not everything is intended with malice or ill-will, and people need to stop taking it that way.

The world is uncaring and unfeeling, and yes, people will say things that you don't like from time to time. The more we censor the people who say things we don't like, the more we create spaces where people can hide from dissenting opinions, well...the more harm we do society. If somebody has an abhorrent or disgusting or offensive opinion, you don't help anybody by censoring it and pretending it doesn't exist or - worse - pretending that EVERYBODY HOLDS IT AND IT'S EVIL AND SHOULDN'T BE DISCUSSED.

I mean, take overly religious parents and the idea of atheism; if the religious parents ban the kids from watching atheist programming, do the kids go "Oh, they must be wrong?" No, they think "...what are they hiding? What are they so scared of?" And it gives the opposing view validation in the eyes of the kids. The way you combat harmful ideas is not by censorship, but by engaging those ideas and exposing where they're harmful and wrong...but at the proper time. A lighthearted conversation among friends is not the time. You can pull them aside later and say "Hey, that kind of upset me," but saying in front of the group "That's offensive! You're a dick!" Is just gonna cause trouble because you're dragging the whole group away from the fluffy fun times that they were having over what was intended as a joke.

Here's the thing; either everything is open to criticism, or nothing is. Either everything is open to satire, parody and mockery, or nothing is. We can't just start labelling things as "holy and above reproach" when it comes to comedy, or it defeats the point of comedy.

Take the rape joke mentioned in the comic; the artist completely misses the point of why people laugh at rape jokes. Nobody in an audience listening to a comedian is gonna turn around and say "Well, I thought rape was bad, but now I how funny it is! I'm gonna go out and rape some fuckers!" No. Rape jokes don't trivialise or "normalise" rape, since the joke isn't "Rape is good, haha." The joke is that "Rape is bad and I'm a horrible person." The joke isn't even really about rape, it's about the person telling the joke being a piece of shit and that's why it's funny. The kind of "Oh my God, you're not supposed to say that, you're a horrible person!" Yes, rape victims may well feel "got at" over that and yes, that is entirely their right and it's their right to stand up and leave, it's their right to post a scathing review and it's their right to boycott the comedian. It ISN'T their right to dictate that the Comedian isn't allowed to tell that joke, and it isn't their right to call for harassment of the comedian until s/he buckles and apologises. Thing about stand up Comedians is that most of them rely on shocking and offensive jokes woven into satire of society, and you can't satire properly if there are some things that are "off limits."

Obviously jokes should be tailored to your present company, but I don't think there should be anything that people are "not allowed" to joke about.

Still, it's pretty simple to treat some sensitive subjects wth a modicum of care. Some things cause widespread and ongoing harm in our societies, like racism, misogyny, ableism, or queerantagonism; it seems like common sense not to make light of those things when not talking to people who are in favor of them?

Care? Yes. Kiddy gloves that means nobody is ever allowed to make jokes about them? No. Nothing should be immune to ridicule or criticism or disagreement. The jokes about racism, sexism, ableism, etc etc? Some people thing they're distasteful, yes, but jokes about them usually aren't "Oh, those Gays are fucking evil," the jokes are usually "I'm a horrible person for saying this." And even IF they're nasty, hate-fuelled jokes...they should still be allowed, because who gets to decide what should be censored and what shouldn't be? You can disagree with them and you can certainly call them out and say "stop being so hateful," but...well, time and a place. I actually have a story back from when I was working in a cinema, where we were talking about what type of pokemon type we'd be. I asked one of my friends - who happened to be gay - what type he'd be. He said "I dunno, what's the gayest Type?" And one of my other friends said "Fairy?" My gay friend (God, this sounds so much like "I'm not homophobic, some of my best friends are gay, but I swear to Christ that this is true. Besides, I'm bisexual myself, so mmmmeeh) said "Yeah, let's go with that." So for about a month afterwards, we all - including him - called him "Fairy." To an outsider, we probably looked homophobic as fuck. But to us, it was an inside joke that he KNEW was a joke intended without malice, so he was cool with it. *shrug*

The nice thing with Elliquiy is that it put such a large emphasis on consent. We're not supposed to turn our games towards subjects like rape or violence without our writing partner's consent. We have spaces dedicated for writing on those subjects and we supposedly are forewarned before we stumble on them. That's very different from making a rape joke out of the blue in a public place.

It isn't like we're screaming about rape through a megaphone. Usually it's with a group of friends where the context has allowed for a rape joke. Now if you're uncomfortable with it with your group of friends, pull the person aside later and tell them that it makes you feel uncomfortable. Treat it calmly and be like "Hey, I know you didn't mean it, but..." and take it from there. If you're friends, you can do that and it should be fine. However, if you're walking through a crowd and you hear somebody you don't know making a rape joke to his or her friends, then you know what you should do? Walk the fuck on and ignore it. Because who gave you the right to suddenly police what people say in a public space? Freedom of Speech exists, and we shouldn't get to pick and choose who gets to say what they want and who should shut up. Unless it's actively inciting hatred or violence, they're allowed to say it whether you like it or not. If they're screaming it in the street, by all means, go up and tell them to shut up. But if they're having a laugh with their friends in the corner of a cafe, a private conversation, just leave them be. It isn't your place to admonish them, and what are you really going to achieve by going up to them and whining at them? Best case, they'll roll their eyes, wait for you to leave, then continue talking about exactly what they were talking about. Thing is, people ARE getting too thin skinned these days, and need to learn to just let certain things roll off their back. You might think it distasteful and disgusting, but in the long run, what is a single overheard rape joke in a shopping centre REALLY going to do to you? Really? Being honest? What is it actually going to do? Absolutely nothing.

This is about what we do, and how it affects other people, not about making claims. I believe we don't get to decide if we're good or not. That's where the "nice guy" phenomenon comes from. Our actions speak for themselves, the rest is just posturing in my humble opinion.

I actually agree with this...but our intentions matter just as much as our actions. And if somebody makes a joke without malice, they shouldn't be treated as if they have malicious intent. It was said earlier, but I'll reinforce it here; sometimes people mean exactly what they say, and sometimes it's just a joke and should be either laughed off or dismissed with a shrug and a roll of the eyes. Being offended doesn't really do anything in the long run...so why bother worrying about every little thing that offends you? I get offended when I see boybands on TV, for fucks sake, but I don't think they should be banned. If it offends me or makes me uncomfortable, I avoid it. Simple as. *shrug*

A life without One Direction, though...hmmm....

[Anteros]

Intentions are the perpetrator's business, not the victim's. Trauma, physical or psychological doesn't depend on intent.
Someone hurt by accident, mistake or carelessness is hurt just as much as someone hurt by malice.
As such, I find it reasonable to prioritize the protection of those who are hurt or endangered, rather than the privileges of those who hurt or endanger them.


This whole comic is about the impact of words, about the fact that words can cause real harm, not about freedom of expression versus censure. The comic doesn't speak about forbidding anything, it speaks about acknowleding the fact that words are not harmless and that what we say has consequences. We can choose to ignore those consequences, or decide that our enjoyment matters more, but that's a matter of personal choice that will define the kind of people we are. It all comes down to the privilege of hurting people against their right to be safe.

[Vergil Tanner]

Intentions are the perpetrator's business, not the victim's. Trauma, physical or psychological doesn't depend on intent.

This is true, but the severity of the retribution visited upon the perpetrator should reflect whether said harm was intentional or not. In any case, since psychological "harm done because of offence" is hard to quantify, the punishment shouldn't be unilateral. I mean. If somebody goes to a stand up Comedians gig and gets offended by one of the jokes, should the Comedian be punished because he told an offensive joke? My point is that there is a difference between a joke and a statement, and a joke should be treated as such. A poor taste joke gets criticised, yes, but there's the matter of them not actually meaning what they say that should be taken into account. Of course, I'm against punishing people for their opinions as well since that gets into thought crime territory.

Someone hurt by accident, mistake or carelessness is hurt just as much as someone hurt by malice.

Yes, but there is a difference between murder and manslaughter.

As such, I find it reasonable to prioritize the protection of those who are hurt or endangered, rather than the privileges of those who hurt or endanger them.

Yes, because off-colour jokes frequently put peoples lives at risk.
Sorry, but your right to not be offended doesn't trump my right to freedom of expression. So long as I am not actively inciting hatred or violence or action, you don't get to tell me what I do and don't get to say or do.

It all comes down to the privilege of hurting people against their right to be safe.

But that runs into the problem of FOS. Who gets to decide what is and isn't ok to say?

[Nachtmahr]

This whole comic is about the impact of words, about the fact that words can cause real harm, not about freedom of expression versus censure. The comic doesn't speak about forbidding anything, it speaks about acknowleding the fact that words are not harmless and that what we say has consequences. We can choose to ignore those consequences, or decide that our enjoyment matters more, but that's a matter of personal choice that will define the kind of people we are. It all comes down to the privilege of hurting people against their right to be safe.

I think that's just taking it too far. Yes, people have a right to be safe. You have a right to be safe from abuse and assault. But to expect to be safe from anything that might trigger a negative reaction, including words that weren't meant to harm anyone in particular, is just absurd. I mean, there's just no way to do that and still preserve the kind of freedom of expression we're so proud of in the western world.

I suffer from a few different types of anxiety. I have a personal responsibility to do my best to avoid content, conversations or situations that might have a negative effect on me. I can't, and would never, expect everyone to treat me with the amount of care that would be needed for me to stay safe, because they wouldn't be able to talk to me. There are so many things they wouldn't be able to say. I have a right to place where I am safe, but that place can't be everywhere.

It's just not possible to filter everything in such a way that everyone is safe. :/

I mean, I understand where you're coming from. Please don't get me wrong! I just don't think it's right to take it so far. Better education will obviously help, because then people won't hear a joke and pretend that it's factual information unless that's what they set out to do in the first place. Better education will help people who have not, and might never be, a victim of crime, understand what that victim has gone through, and what they may well still be going through.

Trying to shut people down, or shaming them for things they said that weren't meant to be harmful, is not the way to go. It's only going to create an even more vile push-back as people feel like they're under attack for thinking something that someone was offended by was funny.

And then we're back at Lustful's Pendulum.

[DominantPoet]

I mean, there's just no way to do that and still preserve the kind of freedom of expression we're so proud of in the western world.

I have to agree with this, you can't have freedom without issue. The human race simply is not designed like that, unfortunately. We're a self-destructive species, after all, we have an equilibrium unto ourselves. Ying and Yang, dark and light, good and evil, so on and so forth. As a person, you can only hope to do the best you can in any given situation and be as good a person as possible, but even then...we all have our bad days.

As much as it can suck, people do have to develop a backbone. You're going to go out into the world, and there's going to be bad things that happen to you. Just because we don't like physical pain, doesn't mean we can stop it entirely. It's going to happen at some point. We don't like being offended, but it's going to happen at some point, and expecting otherwise is ludicrous. I doubt anyone actually expects that, however. Minimizing it is certainly a good idea, but there does also come a point where you do have to side with the "It's just a joke" crowd as well. I've seen people get offended over the most ridiculous things, especially online.

Like many things, the best we can do is compromise, and voice, and be understanding - on both sides.

[Aethereal]

        It's a double-edged blade at best. You can never know what will offend who -what is offensive to me might not be to you and vice versa. There is also a stage where the avoidance of being offended is taken to the level of ignorance, denial and self-deceit, or otherwise treated in a differently uhhealthy manner (eg. stigmatization of acknowledgement instead of normalization of the condition). And reinforcing lack of offensive things occasionally becomes a tyranny where people break down in fear and anxiety while rewording an e-mail a dozen times because they don't know whether it'll cost them their job if they phrase something wrongly. I saw an article somewhere where it was shown that "extra-polite" societies actually had a much higher tendency to become brutal and reactionary than ones where the occasional swearing and this and that is permitted...

        Either extreme is actively harmful.

        I myself don't censor people, but I do base my opinion of them on what they say and do, and I may call an individual out if they go overboard (or are particularly tasteless). As a general rule, if something makes someone uncomfortable, you try to limit it in their vicinity if it does not infringe on you. (Eg I'll do my best to call everyone what they want to, but I'll still express my opinion on the matter in the appropriate debate thread, or I'll make sure that there is at least one plant-only option for the vegetarians if there are any present, but I'll not refrain from eating meat myself because they don't like to see it.)

[Anteros]

This is true, but the severity of the retribution visited upon the perpetrator should reflect whether said harm was intentional or not. In any case, since psychological "harm done because of offence" is hard to quantify, the punishment shouldn't be unilateral. I mean. If somebody goes to a stand up Comedians gig and gets offended by one of the jokes, should the Comedian be punished because he told an offensive joke? My point is that there is a difference between a joke and a statement, and a joke should be treated as such. A poor taste joke gets criticised, yes, but there's the matter of them not actually meaning what they say that should be taken into account. Of course, I'm against punishing people for their opinions as well since that gets into thought crime territory.

Neither the comic, nor I spoke about punishment.

Yes, but there is a difference between murder and manslaughter.

You make my point. The victim is dead either way, intention will only affect the perpetrator's fate.

Yes, because off-colour jokes frequently put peoples lives at risk.
Sorry, but your right to not be offended doesn't trump my right to freedom of expression. So long as I am not actively inciting hatred or violence or action, you don't get to tell me what I do and don't get to say or do.

Actually jokes can put people's lives at risk. I've been in a school with just one male gay student being out. In a few months, people went from making jokes about him from trying to run him over right in front of the school.  Jokes bring validation and some ideas are dangerous when validated. Too many people act like if you joke about something, it can't be that bad.

But that runs into the problem of FOS. Who gets to decide what is and isn't ok to say?

All of us? Acting decently is 1st a matter of empathy and personal responsibility. We shouldn't need laws to scare us into not being jerks.
It's no big deal to warn those we're talking to before saying something potentially offensive. Or to apologize if we didn't rather than get aggressively defensive and blame those we've hurt for being too sensitive or whatever.

[Vergil Tanner]

Neither the comic, nor I spoke about punishment.

No, but it's related since how would you ever enforce the "OK topics" without threat of punishment? It's a lovely idea that people would just be excellent to one another because it's the right thing to do, but unfortunately that ain't never gonna happen. There'll always be one asshole who as soon as they can get away with something heinous, they'll try it.

You make my point. The victim is dead either way, intention will only affect the perpetrator's fate.

Not really, since it's a poor analogy on that point. MY point was that we punish intentions differently. If you want to talk about it from the victims perspective, well, ok. In a murder trial, yes the victim is dead. But then, they don't really care about anything any more since they're dead. If somebody has been insulted, whether intentionally or no, they're offended. Somehow I don't think having your feefees hurt is equivalent to being dead. You can get over being offended. You can't get over being dead unless your name happens to be Goku. So here's the thing; the most that should happen when somebody is offended is a conversation between the two parties, and a mutual understanding reached. More on this in a second.

Actually jokes can put people's lives at risk. I've been in a school with just one male gay student being out. In a few months, people went from making jokes about him from trying to run him over right in front of the school.  Jokes bring validation and some ideas are dangerous when validated. Too many people act like if you joke about something, it can't be that bad.

No. I reject your premise. Sorry, but jokes didn't run that kid over, assholes did. And there's a difference between malicious, targeted abuse and a joke between friends. Here's what I think you're missing; Context Is King. I don't think anybody would disagree that bullying and "joking" at somebody elses expense to make them feel small is a good thing. However, having a group of friends who make a gay joke amongst themselves - with no specific gay person targeted - and a passing gay person who doesn't know them interjecting themselves into the conversation is much different to a group of kids targeting a specific person. And at that point, the actual content of the joke doesn't matter any more, because if they weren't making gay jokes, they'd be making poor jokes or class jokes or hobby jokes; they'd find a reason to single him or her out and pick on them THAT way. That's how bullies work. So I think you're making a false equivalency to actual targeted bullying and generalised jokes in everyday use. A comedian isn't specifically singling that rape victim out in the crowd and saying "HAHA YOU GOT RAPED," he's making a general rape joke whose punchline is "I'm a horrible person for saying this." Context is King, and Intent is the scheming Vizier.

All of us? Acting decently is 1st a matter of empathy and personal responsibility. We shouldn't need laws to scare us into not being jerks.

We shouldn't, but we do. There will always be assholes looking to shit in other peoples cereal.

It's no big deal to warn those we're talking to before saying something potentially offensive.

Yeah, it is. Because then we have to start disclaimering ALL of our statements because EVERYTHING could be taken offensively. Because you say "Oh, we all decide!" Well is there a committee as to what needs a disclaimer? Or is it up to each individual person? What happens when one person doesn't think to disclaimer something that somebody they're speaking to would have? And the point of offensive and off colour jokes is the shock factor, the "That came out of nowhere," the guttural "Pffthahaha!" surprise. And disclaimering it already ruins half the impact. Do you want us to constantly warn people every time we MIGHT say something offensive in case somebody might be listening in? I mean, how do you see this "warning people" taking shape? I honestly don't know how we would do that. And who would decide who is in the right and wrong of a particular situation? The Watershed already exists - so if you watch TV after a certain time, you're implicitly agreeing to more adult content - most TV shows have a warning at the beginning if they're graphic, comedians come with an age restriction and a "Warning: Contains adult themes and strong language" and music records often come with parental guidance stickers. Do you want normal every day conversations to have that? I mean, sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but I really don't know what you mean by "warning those we're talking to." Do we have to ALWAYS warn them when we're about to say something that MIGHT offend them? That seems like far too much headache to walk on eggshells around other peoples sensibilities. Why can't people just kind of...grow up, act like an adult and deal with the fact that sometimes people are gonna say things that they don't like?

Or to apologize if we didn't rather than get aggressively defensive and blame those we've hurt for being too sensitive or whatever.

So is it always up to the person who made the joke to apologise? What if the person being offended misheard, or the person telling the joke genuinely didn't mean it the way it was taken? Why should they have to apologise for being misunderstood and the "victim" doesn't have to apologise for jumping to the wrong conclusion? And sorry, but yeah, sometimes people get WAY too sensitive and SHOULD be made to apologise and shut the hell up. What about that scientist a while back whose only crime was wearing a tacky t-shirt, and so many people harassed him over their offended sensibilities that he broke down in tears on TV on what was supposed to be the happiest day of his career? Is that right? Should he have been forced to apologise for his T-shirt, and the people who dogpiled on him got away without being made to say so much as a "Sorry we reduced you to tears?" The dude only wore a T-shirt, and yet people ripped into him because they were offended. In my mind, THEY were the ones who should have apologised, NOT him because he didn't do a SINGLE thing wrong. An extreme example, yes, but I think it illustrates how this isn't a black and white issue, and how the people being offended can be just as bad - if not worse - than the people causing the offence in the first place.


Bottom line is this. The world isn't a nice, fluffy place and yes, empathy and sensitivity should be in place...but you can take it too far, and when you start saying that anything potentially offensive should be monitored or self censored, then you're starting to cross the line into 1984 territory. People should be allowed to say what they want as long as they're not actively inciting hatred or violence, and people shouldn't get so bent out of shape over JOKES, ESPECIALLY when the context make sit clear that it's only a joke (EG, nobody should take what a stand up comedian says on stage at all seriously; take Al Murray, the Pub Landlord. Anybody who takes him seriously is missing the point of the character, and that's THEIR fault, NOT his).

[Anteros]

When we walk in a crowded place, it's almost unavoidable that we'll bump into someone, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try not to, or that we shouldn't apologize when we do and help the person we bumped into back onto their feet if they fell.
It's also totally appropriate to call out those who shove people out of the way, or plow through the crowd as if others diidn't matter.

[Vergil Tanner]

I agree, but I'm talking about the grey areas, and to what extent people should be called out on their behaviour; to take your metaphor and stretch it a bit further, what about the people who go into a crowded area and then demand that everybody gets out of their way because they have personal space, damnit! Or the people who go into a crowd, get accidentally nudged by somebody walking past, and instead of rolling their eyes and going "Ugh, whatever" like we'd usually do they follow that person shouting about how THEY SHOVED THEM DAMNIT AND SHOULD APOLOGISE.

I'm talking about the situations where the mature, adult thing to do is just accept that sometimes you're going to be bumped into, and sometimes you're just going to have to let it go because it really wasn't that big a deal.

[Nachtmahr]

You make my point. The victim is dead either way, intention will only affect the perpetrator's fate.

First of all, I'd say that it is a punishment to walk up to, say, a comedian and tell him: "Yeah, that joke you just made? There are probably rapists in your audience, and you've just encouraged and/or given them validation."

I mean, is that not the essence of shaming someone? Blaming him for their behavior because of words that were in no way meant to encourage that kind of behavior? Being scolded for saying something when your intentions weren't bad is a punishment. Walking around and giving people lectures on what they should and should not say, regardless of intention, is arrogant.

But with the above quote, I just want to know what the point of the comic then is. What is it that you or the comic suggests we do? Do we blame and shame everyone equally, regardless of intent? I mean, from the way you've worded that, it makes it sound like you think that whether or not it was a homicide or an accident, the perpetrator is still equally guilty. I cannot agree with that on any level whatsoever. And there is simply no way that we can stop everyone from making accidents. From saying things that can be twisted or misconstrued to paint a narrative that exists only for the observer and not for the actor.

Yes, if someone was murdered or killed on accident, that person is equally dead. But you cannot look the perpetrator in the eye, regardless of context, and treat them the same. Respect goes both ways, and you're just as likely to hurt someone's feelings by scolding them for saying something you perceived as wrong or hurtful as they are to have meant to hurt you. When you retaliate by aggressively trying to shut down a conversation or give someone a lesson, you're actively trying to give them a slap on the wrist. Tolerance goes both ways, and there's no way around the fact that we have to accept that some people find some things offensive that others do not. We cannot cater to the most sensitive individuals exclusively, and tell everyone else to keep their gloves on at all times because of them.

I can agree as far as: Yeah, you should think before you speak. But I cannot agree with the idea that we should dodge certain topics or start handing out warnings every time we open our mouth. Sometimes you need to hear something you don't want to hear. Giving people the option to walk away and isolate themselves from everything bad in the world is going to stifle progress. We can argue whether or not you have a right to always be safe, and what that means, but I don't think there's any way to dispute the fact that we do not have the right to always be comfortable.

For some, joking about horrible things is a coping mechanism. A way to process and deal with all the negative stuff that happens in the world without facing the harsh realities of it. A way to briefly sugarcoat a very, very bitter pill.

All of us? Acting decently is 1st a matter of empathy and personal responsibility. We shouldn't need laws to scare us into not being jerks.
It's no big deal to warn those we're talking to before saying something potentially offensive. Or to apologize if we didn't rather than get aggressively defensive and blame those we've hurt for being too sensitive or whatever.

See, I'd say that it's indecent to walk up to people and give them a verbal slap in the face for saying something you found offensive, even if no one else around did. Assuming that these people are all bad and don't think that violence, sexual abuse or bigotry is bad because they were able to laugh at in a certain context? I think that's just as bad.

I was, and to some extent still am, scared of expressing my opinion on this topic, because I don't want to hurt anyone. Would it hurt me to basically be told that I'm a bad person for saying something that wasn't intended to hurt anyone? Yes, it would. Would I like to be told to be ashamed of myself for a crass joke that someone seemed to actually think I meant? No, I wouldn't.

But how is it then okay to criticize the people who do that sort of thing for telling those who are offended to accept it, but not okay to criticize those who demean or shame people who said something they didn't mean?

Is it no big deal to warn people before saying something potentially offensive? I think it is. I don't think you should necessarily give people the option to walk away from every uncomfortable situation in life. No, I'm not saying that victims of rape or people with PTSD should be forced to sit through something that might bring them an unbearable amount of pain and negative emotions, but the moment where I have to give out a trigger warning when I'm advocating LGBT-rights because maybe there's a conservative Christian in the room who's going to feel "Triggered" by what I have to say. Never in a million years will I be ashamed of telling someone who disagree with me on matters of equal rights that I think they're wrong. A trigger warning would, for me, be indicating: "I'm about to say or do something that might be perceived as politically incorrect, disrespectful or shameful" and I don't think that's right.

I mean, trigger warnings work both ways. Keeping people safe from words or concepts they disagree with works both ways. Sure, people would have to give you a trigger warning when they're about to say something offensive about gay people, but you would have to give one before you voice your support for gay rights, because some people (sadly) find the concept of being gay offensive.

When we walk in a crowded place, it's almost unavoidable that we'll bump into someone, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try not to, or that we shouldn't apologize when we do and help the person we bumped into back onto their feet if they fell.
It's also totally appropriate to call out those who shove people out of the way, or plow through the crowd as if others diidn't matter.

It's absolutely appropriate to call out someone for being a bad person. For being rude. For being hurtful on purpose. For being violent. I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that you shouldn't do bad things.

What I think we're talking about is whether or not you should have to apologize for something you said, if the message a listener received was not the one you intended to send.

I'm talking about the situations where the mature, adult thing to do is just accept that sometimes you're going to be bumped into, and sometimes you're just going to have to let it go because it really wasn't that big a deal.

If you're walking down a busy street on a busy day, and it's super crowded, you don't expect every person who might bump into you to stop and apologize. Would you stop the first person who didn't and give them a lecture on how they should acknowledge the fact that they bumped into you, and you thought it was uncomfortable? Would you do that for every person who accidentally bumped into you?

When we're out and about in the world, we're sometimes going to be in a crowded place where someone might be having a conversation where they're saying things we disagree with. Maybe even things that hurt us. Is it our right to be shielded form that, or their right to have that conversation? If you're with your friends, or a group of people that you know, it's definitely okay to say: "Hey, I think what you just said crossed the line. I think it was totally inappropriate."
But to do that to everyone you run into, even if you're not part of the conversation and weren't meant to receive that potentially offensive message? That's too much.

I have to agree with Vergil on most of his points, even if some of them are quite strongly worded. Expecting respect is fine, but expecting to be shielded from all things bad.. That's never going to happen. If we started with the trigger warnings, then where would it end?

[Vergil Tanner]

Haha, yeah, I tend to word things strongly....I write off the top of my head, and that sometimes manifests in colourful metaphors, a fair bit of swearing and some pretty aggressive language. For the record, I don't MEAN to come off as aggressive or condescending or dismissive, so apologies if that's how I'm coming across

But yeah, I agree with pretty much everything Nacht is saying. She's putting it in a much more structured, intelligent format than me. Maybe we should take up a Good Cop Bad Cop routine for issues we agree on


Also: In an earlier post, I wrote the following:

"I don't think anybody would disagree that bullying and "joking" at somebody elses expense to make them feel small is a good thing."

I MEANT to say "...make them feel small is a BAD thing."

I know that's probably obvious, but I figured I would mention it as a known typo, just in case

[Sheoldred]

Some really thought out responses here that I haven't fully appreciated yet by giving them a thorough read. So perhaps my sentiments have already been expressed.

I think everyone should be free to say whatever they please. I feel like radical feminists and the so called SJWs have done enough harm by trying to censor certain words, label everything as racist, and create 'safe spaces'. Maybe this wasn't the comic's intention but it is certainly going that way.... as if its trying to nudge us gently in this particular direction.

I acknowledge that words can be hurtful, and that a rape joke or a dad joke could really rub somebody the wrong way who might have just recently experienced a trauma related to rape or their dad struggling with cancer.

Yet how is anyone hoping to move forward and improve oneself if they're constantly sitting in some warm and cozy comfort zone, assuming these people got their way, finally? Hearing things you don't want to hear is just one part of improving yourself. It allows us to be frank with each-other. It is really hard to draw the line, and I'd dread to give anybody the authority to tell us what we can say and what we can't say in public spaces, especially the SJWs. I'm thoroughly against any speech regulations. We should be free to express ourselves and then take responsibility for the things we say.

Besides, people saying stupid things the whole time dig their own graves. Eventually they're not going to be invited to parties and they'll alienate their own friends until they realise that perhaps cracking a 'your mum' joke in response to everything isn't the best way to connect and bond with others. Not that there's anything wrong with an occasional mum joke, I personally love them, but you got the point. That or you realise the people you've surrounded yourself with aren't perhaps the sort you'd want to associate with as much in the future until they've matured a little more.


I've had things said to me both online and in real life that really hurt, and just by thinking about some instances makes me grit teeth, but its just another life experience that should be taken as a lesson so you know better how to react should such a situation reoccur. Perhaps you've learned that certain people are best avoided.

Edit: I think this video gets the point across succinctly with a nice analogy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aDXM5H-Fuw

[Prosak]

The beauty of humor is that it's art, and I mainly mean the comics who perform on stage, is a reflection of the present. The now. Jokes from a good comic are meant for more then to make you laugh, they are meant to make you forget about life and it's struggles. Death happens, but when a comedian jokes about death it is meant to distract you from the fear of it. It doesnt delegitimize the risk of death and shouldn't trigger someone with a near death experiance. It is meant to make light of the hardship and can be even, cathartic. Cathartic to those who fear it, and to those who almost did die. In the back of their minds the fear is there, but a comedians goal is to pull that back from the fore front. But most of all it has a subtext, that one being:It also brings a subconcious awareness to be more alert. For one the comic book is blatantly patronizing to comedians in it showing a stage comic joke about raping someone. Comedians, do not, joke, about having raped. Rape jokes are more about the risk of rape, or people having been raped. That said, rape jokes in and of themselves is a extension of my point. I used Death as a means to bring us to this point. Humour or rather, good humour is dark and in poor taste. Offensiveness need not matter. The term, it is just a joke is just right. It is just a joke; Something meant to make light of the dark risk's of our mortality, and other such hardships from our personal pain or the pain of others. Something meant to distract from these vile acts, or from terrorism with the Jeff Dunhams terrorist puppet, or to distract us from perhaps our bad divorce with some good divorce jokes. To distract us in a abstract way. Humor is good. And as the late Patrice O'neil said: A joke is a joke. Anything is allowed to be funny and a comedian is allowed to try and see what is funny. But you only know whats funny when you say it or you try it and then see the response you get from it. Nothing is sacred in comedy, anything can be made fun of. Even rape.

Comedy in general is meant to be a social parody. And I highly recommend any of you listen to or watch Gorge Carlin. May he rest in peace. He was the funniest man I have ever seen. And on top of it, one of the most socially acute and intellectually courageous comedians out there.

Edit: I find the ending really stupid though. "Statistically speaking there are rapists in your audience." Statistically speaking there is the odds of a murderer being in your audience to, wouldn't stop a comedian from making a joke about murder, something that is ultimately more vile then rape. (But for some reason rapists are worse then murderers.) Fact of the matter is, It is becouse it is a real issue that most comedians make jokes about something.

[Skynet]

Edit: I find the ending really stupid though. "Statistically speaking there are rapists in your audience." Statistically speaking there is the odds of a murderer being in your audience to, wouldn't stop a comedian from making a joke about murder, something that is ultimately more vile then rape. (But for some reason rapists are worse then murderers.) Fact of the matter is, It is becouse it is a real issue that most comedians make jokes about something.

Probably because rape is inherently a form of torture, whereas quick and painless forms of death exist? Probably because euthanasia and putting down an animal in pain on the farm are generally understood to be acceptable means of reducing suffering, whereas rape is almost always done for sexual pleasure, dominance, and/or anger? Probably because you can murder in self-defense, but not rape in self-defense (barring some absurd hypothetical scenario which almost never comes up in real life)?

[Vergil Tanner]

It's also the violation of privacy and the long lasting effects as opposed to murder being rather...final. Murder in my eyes is more serious than Rape, but Rape is more horrific than murder (depending on the method of murder). I mean...I would rather suffer through an attempted murder than an attempted rape because it would cause less psychological harm, buuuut I would rather be raped than murdered because I have the chance of "getting over" a successful rape and with a successful murder...well, I'm dead. It's a complex question, but it doesn't affect the end result of "if something is off limits to joke about, then everything is" of st and up comedy because everything is gonna offend SOMEBODY.