I don't even get this argument... people are allowed to say whatever they want, but people aren't allowed to get offended by what people say?
Look, you can't have it both ways. Yeah, you can say whatever you want, but it is certainly my right to get offended by it. And if that offense makes me write a letter or start a campaign, well that certainly falls under my rights as well.
Should everyone just relax? Maybe. But if my sister or girlfriend had ever been raped by dickwolves, regular wolves, or a guy named Wolf, you can bet I'd probably be slightly put out by the comic.
Not that Jerry and Mike should censor themselves, but don't act all butt-hurt when someone takes your little picture box poorly.
This.
And - As long as you're expressing your offense with words and pictures, then everything is fine. That's dialogue. But when you threaten violence or commit violence, then you're a criminal. Which is bad.
It might be annoying when there are people who are overly sensitive, but so what? I'm probably annoying to them. As long as the government or a violent mob doesn't stop me (or them) then everything is o.k.
I would love to see a cite for "one in four." I've heard every variant, from one in four women have been raped to one in four women knows someone who has been raped to one in four men has raped a woman, and never a cite. I would also like to see what proportion of women have been kept in camps where they are raped to sleep every night by mythical creatures.
I stand corrected. It looks like it's 1 in 6, not 1 in 4. (American women. Skimming google, looks like it's lower in other civilized countries).
I don't understand what on earth your point is asking for the number of women who have been raped by dickwolves. It appears you didn't internalize my point, which was that if you joke about rape with a rape victim, there is a good chance you will make said victim uncomfortable and remind her of her trauma. Thus, it's kind of a dick thing to do. Because there are so many victims, it's also probably not the best thing to joke about in mass media.
Mass media can be consumed at your leisure, no one is forced to read PA, so if they do a joke you don't like, don't read them? Its not like they sent it to someone, nor is the first rape joke they've ever put in the comic. In fact there was one that was more explicit involving male on male rape I don't recall even getting any controversy (the freaky flyers prison joke).
I don't agree with this.
To me, it's about respecting your audience. Statistically speaking, a significant chunk of PA's audience has been raped. This is not the case with other "offensive" subject matters. If you know your joke will make a significant proportion of your readers extremely uncomfortable, and for a perfectly understandable reason, why knowingly do that to your audience?
I mean, there is always a tradeoff. There is probably some portion of PA's male audience that have been the victims of rape. Or pedophelia, or other subjects they've joked about. And humor is difficult especially when you have to censor yourself. However, I think it's sort of callous to dismiss people who get uncomfortable with rape jokes with "you don't have to read the comic." There's too many of them. I think the statistics tip the balance in the tradeoff.
Aren't most rape victims set off by intimacy? Are jokes about intimacy kosher?
anonymity on
0
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
This conversation in the abstract often seems "common sensical", but it is exceedingly difficult to find examples of things numerous people get offended over that are unreasonable to be offended over. It's easy to find a lone nut, sure, but most people are reasonable and this sort of discourse is often the refuge of racists or sexists. So i'd like to see some concrete examples.
I would love to see a cite for "one in four." I've heard every variant, from one in four women have been raped to one in four women knows someone who has been raped to one in four men has raped a woman, and never a cite. I would also like to see what proportion of women have been kept in camps where they are raped to sleep every night by mythical creatures.
I stand corrected. It looks like it's 1 in 6, not 1 in 4. (American women. Skimming google, looks like it's lower in other civilized countries).
I don't understand what on earth your point is asking for the number of women who have been raped by dickwolves. It appears you didn't internalize my point, which was that if you joke about rape with a rape victim, there is a good chance you will make said victim uncomfortable and remind her of her trauma. Thus, it's kind of a dick thing to do. Because there are so many victims, it's also probably not the best thing to joke about in mass media.
Mass media can be consumed at your leisure, no one is forced to read PA, so if they do a joke you don't like, don't read them? Its not like they sent it to someone, nor is the first rape joke they've ever put in the comic. In fact there was one that was more explicit involving male on male rape I don't recall even getting any controversy (the freaky flyers prison joke).
But there is no group of people that makes a profession about freaking out and condemning people for male on male rape jokes. For female rape jokes, or jokes about women in general, there are a couple groups of people who have turned it into a profession.
Which is absurd in and of itself, and all the more reason to joke about it and try to offend the offended.
So being in a rape camp is a subset of rape, which is itself a subset of sex. Are we allowed to joke about sex, even though some people have had sex unwillingly?
Again, I'm confused as to what your point is.
First of all, I think people should be "allowed" to joke about whatever the fuck they want to joke about. I don't think PA shouldn't have been "allowed" to publish their comic on Wednesday.
However, the comic was insensitive. As I've said, some forms of insensitivity are only insensitive to a tiny subset of people and so are statistically not worth considering; other forms are insensitive to people who shouldn't be sensitive in the first place, like religious people, so who cares. Rape, however, is a special case, both for the sheer number of victims and the perfectly understandable negative reaction that joking about it creates in such victims.
If I were drawing the comic, I don't know if I would have censored myself, but their bitchy reaction today was pretty uncalled for and naive.
Also, do you have a cite with the functional definition?
I would love to see a cite for "one in four." I've heard every variant, from one in four women have been raped to one in four women knows someone who has been raped to one in four men has raped a woman, and never a cite. I would also like to see what proportion of women have been kept in camps where they are raped to sleep every night by mythical creatures.
I stand corrected. It looks like it's 1 in 6, not 1 in 4. (American women. Skimming google, looks like it's lower in other civilized countries).
I don't understand what on earth your point is asking for the number of women who have been raped by dickwolves. It appears you didn't internalize my point, which was that if you joke about rape with a rape victim, there is a good chance you will make said victim uncomfortable and remind her of her trauma. Thus, it's kind of a dick thing to do. Because there are so many victims, it's also probably not the best thing to joke about in mass media.
Mass media can be consumed at your leisure, no one is forced to read PA, so if they do a joke you don't like, don't read them? Its not like they sent it to someone, nor is the first rape joke they've ever put in the comic. In fact there was one that was more explicit involving male on male rape I don't recall even getting any controversy (the freaky flyers prison joke).
I don't agree with this.
To me, it's about respecting your audience. Statistically speaking, a significant chunk of PA's audience has been raped. This is not the case with other "offensive" subject matters. If you know your joke will make a significant proportion of your readers extremely uncomfortable, and for a perfectly understandable reason, why knowingly do that to your audience?
I mean, there is always a tradeoff. There is probably some portion of PA's male audience that have been the victims of rape. Or pedophelia, or other subjects they've joked about. And humor is difficult especially when you have to censor yourself. However, I think it's sort of callous to dismiss people who get uncomfortable with rape jokes with "you don't have to read the comic." There's too many of them. I think the statistics tip the balance in the tradeoff.
Even a trigger warning would have been fine. Because it's not necessarily just taking offense, sometimes these things can be actually triggering, which is different. It's the difference between having your feelings hurt and experiencing a serious flashback or panic attack. asofterworld can handle trigger warnings when the subject matter is child rape, for example. It's not that huge of a deal, and it's a compromise.
One of the biggest things that gets me is emotion carries enough weight to do things like cause sensorship while logic does not carry this weight.
Using the example of the comic.
Person A is offended by subject matter and complains. That's okay.
Person B doesn't like that a comic doesn't make logical sense and complains. That's okay.
Person A is so offended he stops reading. Okay as well.
Person B thinks the comic is too silly/whatever and stops reading. Good on him.
Person A is so offended he starts a petition that might actually gain some leverage (probably not but still)
Person B thinks the comic is so stupid that he starts a petition which everyone will ignore and just tell him to stop reading.
Those last two are not ok.
I'm not suggesting Person B be given the same leverage as Person A but instead it would be nice (but never possible) if Person A never had that level of leverage in the first place.
This conversation in the abstract often seems "common sensical", but it is exceedingly difficult to find examples of things numerous people get offended over that are unreasonable to be offended over. It's easy to find a lone nut, sure, but most people are reasonable and this sort of discourse is often the refuge of racists or sexists. So i'd like to see some concrete examples.
Another salient point.
I don't want to quote Stephen King (and honestly can't remember the quote for the life of me), but there is a passage in The Wastelands where the boy Jake is discussing his observations of Harry Dean, and he basically says that "Harry was one of those people who is an asshole, plain and simple. He would take a joke too far and act upset when he was called out on it, and then claim that people just 'couldn't take a joke'."
Aren't most rape victims set off by intimacy? Are jokes about intimacy kosher?
I think you're verging on being a silly goose here.
Do you understand that there is a set of jokes about rape that will, statistically speaking, make rape victims uncomfortable?
I'm not saying I know exactly where the boundaries of this set are. Clearly jokes about intimacy are not in this set. Perhaps dickwolves are near or even over the boundary. But do you understand that reasonable people can usually tell when a joke will make someone uncomfortable? It's not usually an arcade mystery.
I don't even get this argument... people are allowed to say whatever they want, but people aren't allowed to get offended by what people say?
Look, you can't have it both ways. Yeah, you can say whatever you want, but it is certainly my right to get offended by it. And if that offense makes me write a letter or start a campaign, well that certainly falls under my rights as well.
Should everyone just relax? Maybe. But if my sister or girlfriend had ever been raped by dickwolves, regular wolves, or a guy named Wolf, you can bet I'd probably be slightly put out by the comic.
Not that Jerry and Mike should censor themselves, but don't act all butt-hurt when someone takes your little picture box poorly.
Giving it a bit more thought (I had missed these points while replying and wanted to acknowledge that I'd seen them) I still feel like our current culture really feeds off of the emotional component more than it ought. Definitely, it is someone's right to react emotionally however they choose. But I don't see the distinction that it is a CHOICE. I feel like most people take the "It's offensive to me and therefore OUGHT to be offensive to others" and deny that there is an active (if subconscious) choosing of one option over another in their feelings.
But the other side of that is "it's NOT offensive to me, so I don't see why you're offended."
It's very easy to question why someone "chooses" to be offended when you aren't the one bothered by it. Change it around. Make it something that is an affront to everything you believe in. Do you really feel you have a choice then?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
What's odd is that while plenty of folks describe the criticism of the "raped to sleep by Dickwolves" strip to be an over-reaction or people intentionally getting offended, nobody's pointed out that Gabe and Tycho also tend to freak out and get offended and over-react when their strips are criticized, with the current "response" cartoon being the most recent example.
I would love to see a cite for "one in four." I've heard every variant, from one in four women have been raped to one in four women knows someone who has been raped to one in four men has raped a woman, and never a cite. I would also like to see what proportion of women have been kept in camps where they are raped to sleep every night by mythical creatures.
I stand corrected. It looks like it's 1 in 6, not 1 in 4. (American women. Skimming google, looks like it's lower in other civilized countries).
I don't understand what on earth your point is asking for the number of women who have been raped by dickwolves. It appears you didn't internalize my point, which was that if you joke about rape with a rape victim, there is a good chance you will make said victim uncomfortable and remind her of her trauma. Thus, it's kind of a dick thing to do. Because there are so many victims, it's also probably not the best thing to joke about in mass media.
Mass media can be consumed at your leisure, no one is forced to read PA, so if they do a joke you don't like, don't read them? Its not like they sent it to someone, nor is the first rape joke they've ever put in the comic. In fact there was one that was more explicit involving male on male rape I don't recall even getting any controversy (the freaky flyers prison joke).
But there is no group of people that makes a profession about freaking out and condemning people for male on male rape jokes. For female rape jokes, or jokes about women in general, there are a couple groups of people who have turned it into a profession.
Which is absurd in and of itself, and all the more reason to joke about it and try to offend the offended.
"Oh man this group of people who have historically been given the shaft (hurf durf) are offended at the casual disregard for the problems they are statistically more likely to suffer or have suffered and thus are really combative about it! Lets piss them off more!"
I would love to see a cite for "one in four." I've heard every variant, from one in four women have been raped to one in four women knows someone who has been raped to one in four men has raped a woman, and never a cite. I would also like to see what proportion of women have been kept in camps where they are raped to sleep every night by mythical creatures.
I stand corrected. It looks like it's 1 in 6, not 1 in 4. (American women. Skimming google, looks like it's lower in other civilized countries).
I don't understand what on earth your point is asking for the number of women who have been raped by dickwolves. It appears you didn't internalize my point, which was that if you joke about rape with a rape victim, there is a good chance you will make said victim uncomfortable and remind her of her trauma. Thus, it's kind of a dick thing to do. Because there are so many victims, it's also probably not the best thing to joke about in mass media.
Mass media can be consumed at your leisure, no one is forced to read PA, so if they do a joke you don't like, don't read them? Its not like they sent it to someone, nor is the first rape joke they've ever put in the comic. In fact there was one that was more explicit involving male on male rape I don't recall even getting any controversy (the freaky flyers prison joke).
But there is no group of people that makes a profession about freaking out and condemning people for male on male rape jokes. For female rape jokes, or jokes about women in general, there are a couple groups of people who have turned it into a profession.
Which is absurd in and of itself, and all the more reason to joke about it and try to offend the offended.
"Oh man this group of people who have historically been given the shaft (hurf durf) are offended at the casual disregard for the problems they are statistically more likely to suffer or have suffered and thus are really combative about it! Lets piss them off more!"
You are being goosey here
I'd say it's extremely goosey to be professionally offended and constantly demand that you're a sacred cow that can't be the butt of jokes. People like that deserve to be mocked.
Offense is an emotion. You have no control over whether something offends you. Accusing someone of "choosing" to be offended is tantamount to calling someone a liar, or at least an exaggerator.
The question of whether or not you are offended is distinct from whether your offense is justified -- that is, whether someone else was in the wrong for their words or actions. In general, though, it is simply polite to refrain from saying things that you have reason to believe that people will be offended by, and that if someone voices their offense to something it is similarly polite to offer a (possibly faint) apology and avoid doing it again in their presence.
People have a right to be as offensive as they please, and the offended have a right to voice their feelings. But just because you have a right doesn't mean you should exercise it; this goes both ways.
Say what? Are you trying to say that you have no control over your emotions? Maybe you don't, but I sure do. You *do* get to choose whether or not something offends you. Whether or not something annoys you. Whether or not something makes you feel happy, sad, angry, offended, etc. All of these are emotions that you control.
In fact, I think one of the greatest secrets in life is that you always have control over your own emotions. It's one of the few things you really do have control over. Once you learn to control your own emotions, you can live a better life. People who suffer for years because they let other people control their emotions... could easily stop suffering if they just understood that they are in control. If someone makes you mad... well you know what? You can choose to not let them make you mad. It's really that simple.
I'd say it's extremely goosey to be professionally offended and constantly demand that you're a sacred cow that can't be the butt of jokes. People like that deserve to be mocked.
Say what? Are you trying to say that you have no control over your emotions? Maybe you don't, but I sure do. You *do* get to choose whether or not something offends you. Whether or not something annoys you. Whether or not something makes you feel happy, sad, angry, offended, etc. All of these are emotions that you control.
In fact, I think one of the greatest secrets in life is that you always have control over your own emotions. It's one of the few things you really do have control over. Once you learn to control your own emotions, you can live a better life. People who suffer for years because they let other people control their emotions... could easily stop suffering if they just understood that they are in control. If someone makes you mad... well you know what? You can choose to not let them make you mad. It's really that simple.
I think this is pretty much bullshit. If something triggers an emotional response in your brain, you can't control that response.
You can try to mitigate it. You can try to remain calm, act rationally, etc. But you can't stop your brain from making associations and dredging up memories.
I'd say it's extremely goosey to be professionally offended and constantly demand that you're a sacred cow that can't be the butt of jokes. People like that deserve to be mocked.
I agree, but who are you talking about exactly?
I was referring to the people that get all up in arms over a rape joke and the fools that rush to white knight the crap out of the situation. These fools should be mocked relentlessly as being overly sensitive. And there are groups of people that do nothing but seek out shit to be offended by, those people should also be mocked and hounded.
I bring up that group because a rape joke triggered this mess. If it were about say cartoons and Islam, I'd be all for mocking the hell out of them as well.
Aren't most rape victims set off by intimacy? Are jokes about intimacy kosher?
I think you're verging on being a silly goose here.
Do you understand that there is a set of jokes about rape that will, statistically speaking, make rape victims uncomfortable?
I'm not saying I know exactly where the boundaries of this set are. Clearly jokes about intimacy are not in this set. Perhaps dickwolves are near or even over the boundary. But do you understand that reasonable people can usually tell when a joke will make someone uncomfortable? It's not usually an arcade mystery.
Wait, there have been studies showing what proportion of victims will get offended by what, or did you just misplace your claim of statistical backing?
I'd say it's extremely goosey to be professionally offended and constantly demand that you're a sacred cow that can't be the butt of jokes. People like that deserve to be mocked.
I agree, but who are you talking about exactly?
I was referring to the people that get all up in arms over a rape joke and the fools that rush to white knight the crap out of the situation. These fools should be mocked relentlessly as being overly sensitive. And there are groups of people that do nothing but seek out shit to be offended by, those people should also be mocked and hounded.
I bring up that group because a rape joke triggered this mess. If it were about say cartoons and Islam, I'd be all for mocking the hell out of them as well.
Nope, both situations still make you an goosehole who only fuels the fires that you are apparently trying to combat.
Say what? Are you trying to say that you have no control over your emotions? Maybe you don't, but I sure do. You *do* get to choose whether or not something offends you. Whether or not something annoys you. Whether or not something makes you feel happy, sad, angry, offended, etc. All of these are emotions that you control.
In fact, I think one of the greatest secrets in life is that you always have control over your own emotions. It's one of the few things you really do have control over. Once you learn to control your own emotions, you can live a better life. People who suffer for years because they let other people control their emotions... could easily stop suffering if they just understood that they are in control. If someone makes you mad... well you know what? You can choose to not let them make you mad. It's really that simple.
I think this is pretty much bullshit. If something triggers an emotional response in your brain, you can't control that response.
You can try to mitigate it. You can try to remain calm, act rationally, etc. But you can't stop your brain from making associations and dredging up memories.
You can tell your brain to make other associations. If someone calls you a stupidface and for some reason this offends you greatly, you can choose to think "hey, I'm not really a stupidface, I don't care that this person called me a stupidface, in fact, it's kind of funny that they need to insult me in order to feel better about themselves. I'm not going to let this person control my feelings, so I'm not going to get mad about this."
Simple. Maybe I just have a better grasp at controlling my emotions than some people? I mean I guess that's why there is anger management, because people have a hard time understanding the concept of not letting shit get to them.
Offense is an emotion. You have no control over whether something offends you. Accusing someone of "choosing" to be offended is tantamount to calling someone a liar, or at least an exaggerator.
The question of whether or not you are offended is distinct from whether your offense is justified -- that is, whether someone else was in the wrong for their words or actions. In general, though, it is simply polite to refrain from saying things that you have reason to believe that people will be offended by, and that if someone voices their offense to something it is similarly polite to offer a (possibly faint) apology and avoid doing it again in their presence.
People have a right to be as offensive as they please, and the offended have a right to voice their feelings. But just because you have a right doesn't mean you should exercise it; this goes both ways.
Say what? Are you trying to say that you have no control over your emotions? Maybe you don't, but I sure do. You *do* get to choose whether or not something offends you. Whether or not something annoys you. Whether or not something makes you feel happy, sad, angry, offended, etc. All of these are emotions that you control.
In fact, I think one of the greatest secrets in life is that you always have control over your own emotions. It's one of the few things you really do have control over. Once you learn to control your own emotions, you can live a better life. People who suffer for years because they let other people control their emotions... could easily stop suffering if they just understood that they are in control. If someone makes you mad... well you know what? You can choose to not let them make you mad. It's really that simple.
I don't know enough about psychology to speak to this really, but your average Joe Citizen has not obtained enlightenment, nor are they able to enter the Avatar state and shed their emotions like a hoodie. Therefore it is up to everyone else to know that going through life saying whatever pops into mind is likely going to offend someone at some point in time, and, recognizing that, not get all pissed off at the person for being offended.
Honestly, the only thing that really pisses me off about our easily offended culture is the faux-apologies all the celebrities and politicians make. I'd rather they just went about their business and just said fuck it...
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
What's odd is that while plenty of folks describe the criticism of the "raped to sleep by Dickwolves" strip to be an over-reaction or people intentionally getting offended, nobody's pointed out that Gabe and Tycho also tend to freak out and get offended and over-react when their strips are criticized, with the current "response" cartoon being the most recent example.
I'm pretty sure they're just saying that their critics are idiots, rather than stating offense. It's mockery.
I'd say it's extremely goosey to be professionally offended and constantly demand that you're a sacred cow that can't be the butt of jokes. People like that deserve to be mocked.
I agree, but who are you talking about exactly?
I was referring to the people that get all up in arms over a rape joke and the fools that rush to white knight the crap out of the situation. These fools should be mocked relentlessly as being overly sensitive. And there are groups of people that do nothing but seek out shit to be offended by, those people should also be mocked and hounded.
I bring up that group because a rape joke triggered this mess. If it were about say cartoons and Islam, I'd be all for mocking the hell out of them as well.
Nope, both situations still make you an goosehole who only fuels the fires that you are apparently trying to combat.
What am I trying to combat? I think people that get overly offended and go out looking for reasons to be offended are obnoxious. I find humor in the things that get them offended, I find it extremely amusing when they get offended and freak out. So further offending them amuses me to no end. And really, I don't give a damn about the feelings of somebody that goes out looking for a reason to flip their lid.
I get a great laugh out of it, and they get to engage in their favorite activity of freaking out, it's win win.
Basically, you don't like that the emotional reaction (like getting offended, pulling the racist card or anything of the sort) has far more leverage than a reasonable explanation.
YES. Man, i need to refresh in another tab whilst replying.
Qingu, Anonymity--please, please don't make this about rape. It's an excellent example of an emotional issue that people get offended by, but dissecting the how or why of that particular issue isn't the point.
And humor is difficult especially when you have to censor yourself. However, I think it's sort of callous to dismiss people who get uncomfortable with rape jokes with "you don't have to read the comic." There's too many of them. I think the statistics tip the balance in the tradeoff.
However, the comic was insensitive. As I've said, some forms of insensitivity are only insensitive to a tiny subset of people and so are statistically not worth considering; other forms are insensitive to people who shouldn't be sensitive in the first place, like religious people, so who cares.
I can see your logic here that statistics makes the case for "Offensive vs. Not Offensive," but it still misses the point--I'm not arguing about censorship. I'm saying people make a choice to be offended, and then make a choice in their actions. It's the idea that "I'm offended" or even "a significant number of people are offended" (who decides what is a significant number?) tends to disregard the fact that no one forced you to choose to be offended.
I don't want to quote Stephen King (and honestly can't remember the quote for the life of me), but there is a passage in The Wastelands where the boy Jake is discussing his observations of Harry Dean, and he basically says that "Harry was one of those people who is an asshole, plain and simple. He would take a joke too far and act upset when he was called out on it, and then claim that people just 'couldn't take a joke'."
This is my fear; I don't want to be that guy, and I worry that making this argument (with someone in particular, a member of my graduate program that takes offense as often as breaths) will come off full of assholery.
This conversation in the abstract often seems "common sensical", but it is exceedingly difficult to find examples of things numerous people get offended over that are unreasonable to be offended over. It's easy to find a lone nut, sure, but most people are reasonable and this sort of discourse is often the refuge of racists or sexists. So i'd like to see some concrete examples.
I'm not arguing that there are some things that it is ok to be offended by and others that it is not ok to take offense; I'm just trying to flesh out the idea that any action is a choice. To be offended or not, to be angry or not, to be feminist or not, etc...
It's very easy to question why someone "chooses" to be offended when you aren't the one bothered by it. Change it around. Make it something that is an affront to everything you believe in. Do you really feel you have a choice then?
Exactly my point. I do have a choice to be offended. If someone curses out my God or my (previously mentioned) rather strict belief system, I choose how to respond to that. Is it easy to just say, "Well, that's how they feel" and let it slide? Of course not. But I definitely choose how to respond.
Say what? Are you trying to say that you have no control over your emotions? Maybe you don't, but I sure do. You *do* get to choose whether or not something offends you. Whether or not something annoys you. Whether or not something makes you feel happy, sad, angry, offended, etc. All of these are emotions that you control.
In fact, I think one of the greatest secrets in life is that you always have control over your own emotions. It's one of the few things you really do have control over. Once you learn to control your own emotions, you can live a better life. People who suffer for years because they let other people control their emotions... could easily stop suffering if they just understood that they are in control. If someone makes you mad... well you know what? You can choose to not let them make you mad. It's really that simple.
This is kinda what i'm getting at, I think. Well, maybe not the "easily stop suffering" part. I wouldn't argue that it's easy, especially in Western culture, to not let your emotions control you. It's just socially acceptable to say, "Well, I was so pissed that I did XYZ." But again, i feel like we're not acknowledging that you have full responsibility for how you choose to emote and respond.
Damn. I keep refreshing and this post is long enough already.
Offense is an emotion. You have no control over whether something offends you. Accusing someone of "choosing" to be offended is tantamount to calling someone a liar, or at least an exaggerator.
The question of whether or not you are offended is distinct from whether your offense is justified -- that is, whether someone else was in the wrong for their words or actions. In general, though, it is simply polite to refrain from saying things that you have reason to believe that people will be offended by, and that if someone voices their offense to something it is similarly polite to offer a (possibly faint) apology and avoid doing it again in their presence.
People have a right to be as offensive as they please, and the offended have a right to voice their feelings. But just because you have a right doesn't mean you should exercise it; this goes both ways.
Say what? Are you trying to say that you have no control over your emotions? Maybe you don't, but I sure do. You *do* get to choose whether or not something offends you. Whether or not something annoys you. Whether or not something makes you feel happy, sad, angry, offended, etc. All of these are emotions that you control.
In fact, I think one of the greatest secrets in life is that you always have control over your own emotions. It's one of the few things you really do have control over. Once you learn to control your own emotions, you can live a better life. People who suffer for years because they let other people control their emotions... could easily stop suffering if they just understood that they are in control. If someone makes you mad... well you know what? You can choose to not let them make you mad. It's really that simple.
I don't know enough about psychology to speak to this really, but your average Joe Citizen has not obtained enlightenment, nor are they able to enter the Avatar state and shed their emotions like a hoodie. Therefore it is up to everyone else to know that going through life saying whatever pops into mind is likely going to offend someone at some point in time, and, recognizing that, not get all pissed off at the person for being offended.
Honestly, the only thing that really pisses me off about our easily offended culture is the faux-apologies all the celebrities and politicians make. I'd rather they just went about their business and just said fuck it...
But why do you let it piss you off? Why not just shrug and say "screw it"? I couldn't care less about what celebrities and politicians do. It's not really apathy, it's just not letting other people piss you off.
A lot of rape survivors, women, or advocates for rape survivors just read the Penny Arcade comic. They don't do it to get offended, they do it for the same reason as everyone else: because they think it's funny and like the drawings.
Aren't most rape victims set off by intimacy? Are jokes about intimacy kosher?
I think you're verging on being a silly goose here.
Do you understand that there is a set of jokes about rape that will, statistically speaking, make rape victims uncomfortable?
I'm not saying I know exactly where the boundaries of this set are. Clearly jokes about intimacy are not in this set. Perhaps dickwolves are near or even over the boundary. But do you understand that reasonable people can usually tell when a joke will make someone uncomfortable? It's not usually an arcade mystery.
Wait, there have been studies showing what proportion of victims will get offended by what, or did you just misplace your claim of statistical backing?
You're really going to demand a statistic for "rape jokes make a significant number of rape victims uncomfortable"?
I'd say it's extremely goosey to be professionally offended and constantly demand that you're a sacred cow that can't be the butt of jokes. People like that deserve to be mocked.
I agree, but who are you talking about exactly?
I was referring to the people that get all up in arms over a rape joke and the fools that rush to white knight the crap out of the situation. These fools should be mocked relentlessly as being overly sensitive. And there are groups of people that do nothing but seek out shit to be offended by, those people should also be mocked and hounded.
I bring up that group because a rape joke triggered this mess. If it were about say cartoons and Islam, I'd be all for mocking the hell out of them as well.
Nope, both situations still make you an goosehole who only fuels the fires that you are apparently trying to combat.
What am I trying to combat? I think people that get overly offended and go out looking for reasons to be offended are obnoxious. I find humor in the things that get them offended, I find it extremely amusing when they get offended and freak out. So further offending them amuses me to no end. And really, I don't give a damn about the feelings of somebody that goes out looking for a reason to flip their lid.
I get a great laugh out of it, and they get to engage in their favorite activity of freaking out, it's win win.
So really you are a goosehole, like I said.
I mean just say it and be done with it, stop trying to make yourself into Mister Cool Guy who gets those reactionaries into a tizzy.
I'd say it's extremely goosey to be professionally offended and constantly demand that you're a sacred cow that can't be the butt of jokes. People like that deserve to be mocked.
I agree, but who are you talking about exactly?
I was referring to the people that get all up in arms over a rape joke and the fools that rush to white knight the crap out of the situation. These fools should be mocked relentlessly as being overly sensitive. And there are groups of people that do nothing but seek out shit to be offended by, those people should also be mocked and hounded.
I bring up that group because a rape joke triggered this mess. If it were about say cartoons and Islam, I'd be all for mocking the hell out of them as well.
Nope, both situations still make you an goosehole who only fuels the fires that you are apparently trying to combat.
What am I trying to combat? I think people that get overly offended and go out looking for reasons to be offended are obnoxious. I find humor in the things that get them offended, I find it extremely amusing when they get offended and freak out. So further offending them amuses me to no end. And really, I don't give a damn about the feelings of somebody that goes out looking for a reason to flip their lid.
I get a great laugh out of it, and they get to engage in their favorite activity of freaking out, it's win win.
Actively trying to upset others is called sadism, and really supports your self-diagnosis. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, the whole point was to do something that they knew upset people's sensitivities, so they decided to illustrate depictions of Mohamed as a terrorist and pedophile. They had the right to do it, but they deserved everything that followed.
I don't know enough about psychology to speak to this really, but your average Joe Citizen has not obtained enlightenment, nor are they able to enter the Avatar state and shed their emotions like a hoodie. Therefore it is up to everyone else to know that going through life saying whatever pops into mind is likely going to offend someone at some point in time, and, recognizing that, not get all pissed off at the person for being offended.
I hope I'm not coming across as mad at folks for being offended. I just don't see the logic that our society gives the "offended" so much weight to their arguments.
Klundtasaur on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I hope I'm not coming across as mad at folks for being offended. I am just frustrated at the weight to their arguments that our society gives the "offended."
I think it is impossible to talk about this kind of thing at this level of generality. Without a concrete frame of reference, people are just going to talk past each other.
It's very easy to question why someone "chooses" to be offended when you aren't the one bothered by it. Change it around. Make it something that is an affront to everything you believe in. Do you really feel you have a choice then?
Exactly my point. I do have a choice to be offended. If someone curses out my God or my (previously mentioned) rather strict belief system, I choose how to respond to that. Is it easy to just say, "Well, that's how they feel" and let it slide? Of course not. But I definitely choose how to respond.
.
How you respond to being offended and whether or not you get offended are two completely different things. And honestly, I'm sure the level of offense plays a major role here too. And there are a variety of situations where responding to an offense would be beneficial, for a variety of reasons.
I'm not saying this comic was one of them, but who knows. Making light of rape has a lot of negative potential there, generally speaking.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
What's odd is that while plenty of folks describe the criticism of the "raped to sleep by Dickwolves" strip to be an over-reaction or people intentionally getting offended, nobody's pointed out that Gabe and Tycho also tend to freak out and get offended and over-react when their strips are criticized, with the current "response" cartoon being the most recent example.
I'm pretty sure they're just saying that their critics are idiots, rather than stating offense. It's mockery.
So when Penny Arcade makes a comic that's intentionally offensive, readers should could possibly take offense should en masse enter a zen-like state of total emotional apathy.
But when the creators of Penny Arcade read a criticism of their intentionally offensive comic, they should freak out and spend their creative energies mocking that criticism.
Aren't most rape victims set off by intimacy? Are jokes about intimacy kosher?
I think you're verging on being a silly goose here.
Do you understand that there is a set of jokes about rape that will, statistically speaking, make rape victims uncomfortable?
I'm not saying I know exactly where the boundaries of this set are. Clearly jokes about intimacy are not in this set. Perhaps dickwolves are near or even over the boundary. But do you understand that reasonable people can usually tell when a joke will make someone uncomfortable? It's not usually an arcade mystery.
Wait, there have been studies showing what proportion of victims will get offended by what, or did you just misplace your claim of statistical backing?
You're really going to demand a statistic for "rape jokes make a significant number of rape victims uncomfortable"?
No, I'm saying that you're claiming that "jokes about rape [will,] statistically speaking, make rape victims uncomfortable," which implies statistical backing.
Posts
This.
And - As long as you're expressing your offense with words and pictures, then everything is fine. That's dialogue. But when you threaten violence or commit violence, then you're a criminal. Which is bad.
It might be annoying when there are people who are overly sensitive, but so what? I'm probably annoying to them. As long as the government or a violent mob doesn't stop me (or them) then everything is o.k.
Aren't most rape victims set off by intimacy? Are jokes about intimacy kosher?
But there is no group of people that makes a profession about freaking out and condemning people for male on male rape jokes. For female rape jokes, or jokes about women in general, there are a couple groups of people who have turned it into a profession.
Which is absurd in and of itself, and all the more reason to joke about it and try to offend the offended.
First of all, I think people should be "allowed" to joke about whatever the fuck they want to joke about. I don't think PA shouldn't have been "allowed" to publish their comic on Wednesday.
However, the comic was insensitive. As I've said, some forms of insensitivity are only insensitive to a tiny subset of people and so are statistically not worth considering; other forms are insensitive to people who shouldn't be sensitive in the first place, like religious people, so who cares. Rape, however, is a special case, both for the sheer number of victims and the perfectly understandable negative reaction that joking about it creates in such victims.
If I were drawing the comic, I don't know if I would have censored myself, but their bitchy reaction today was pretty uncalled for and naive.
What do you mean "functional definition"
Even a trigger warning would have been fine. Because it's not necessarily just taking offense, sometimes these things can be actually triggering, which is different. It's the difference between having your feelings hurt and experiencing a serious flashback or panic attack. asofterworld can handle trigger warnings when the subject matter is child rape, for example. It's not that huge of a deal, and it's a compromise.
Well, yeah, if somebody has decided that they are going to leverage it socially then sure that's a choice
I, in turn, make the choice not to be around somebody who does this on a regular basis
I would argue that taking offense to gain advantage isn't true offense, I was purely speaking about people who get good-faith indignation
Using the example of the comic.
Person A is offended by subject matter and complains. That's okay.
Person B doesn't like that a comic doesn't make logical sense and complains. That's okay.
Person A is so offended he stops reading. Okay as well.
Person B thinks the comic is too silly/whatever and stops reading. Good on him.
Person A is so offended he starts a petition that might actually gain some leverage (probably not but still)
Person B thinks the comic is so stupid that he starts a petition which everyone will ignore and just tell him to stop reading.
Those last two are not ok.
I'm not suggesting Person B be given the same leverage as Person A but instead it would be nice (but never possible) if Person A never had that level of leverage in the first place.
Another salient point.
I don't want to quote Stephen King (and honestly can't remember the quote for the life of me), but there is a passage in The Wastelands where the boy Jake is discussing his observations of Harry Dean, and he basically says that "Harry was one of those people who is an asshole, plain and simple. He would take a joke too far and act upset when he was called out on it, and then claim that people just 'couldn't take a joke'."
Do you understand that there is a set of jokes about rape that will, statistically speaking, make rape victims uncomfortable?
I'm not saying I know exactly where the boundaries of this set are. Clearly jokes about intimacy are not in this set. Perhaps dickwolves are near or even over the boundary. But do you understand that reasonable people can usually tell when a joke will make someone uncomfortable? It's not usually an arcade mystery.
Rigorous Scholarship
But the other side of that is "it's NOT offensive to me, so I don't see why you're offended."
It's very easy to question why someone "chooses" to be offended when you aren't the one bothered by it. Change it around. Make it something that is an affront to everything you believe in. Do you really feel you have a choice then?
"Oh man this group of people who have historically been given the shaft (hurf durf) are offended at the casual disregard for the problems they are statistically more likely to suffer or have suffered and thus are really combative about it! Lets piss them off more!"
You are being goosey here
Well, usually the word that comes first gives properties to the word that comes after. So in this case it would be a wolf with dick-like qualities.
There is also a drawing of it in the Awesome Posts forum.
I'd say it's extremely goosey to be professionally offended and constantly demand that you're a sacred cow that can't be the butt of jokes. People like that deserve to be mocked.
Thanks, now I have to go do something
In fact, I think one of the greatest secrets in life is that you always have control over your own emotions. It's one of the few things you really do have control over. Once you learn to control your own emotions, you can live a better life. People who suffer for years because they let other people control their emotions... could easily stop suffering if they just understood that they are in control. If someone makes you mad... well you know what? You can choose to not let them make you mad. It's really that simple.
Alternatively, if you are in tune with the symbolism in the Aliens franchise:
You can try to mitigate it. You can try to remain calm, act rationally, etc. But you can't stop your brain from making associations and dredging up memories.
I was referring to the people that get all up in arms over a rape joke and the fools that rush to white knight the crap out of the situation. These fools should be mocked relentlessly as being overly sensitive. And there are groups of people that do nothing but seek out shit to be offended by, those people should also be mocked and hounded.
I bring up that group because a rape joke triggered this mess. If it were about say cartoons and Islam, I'd be all for mocking the hell out of them as well.
Wait, there have been studies showing what proportion of victims will get offended by what, or did you just misplace your claim of statistical backing?
Nope, both situations still make you an goosehole who only fuels the fires that you are apparently trying to combat.
Simple. Maybe I just have a better grasp at controlling my emotions than some people? I mean I guess that's why there is anger management, because people have a hard time understanding the concept of not letting shit get to them.
I don't know enough about psychology to speak to this really, but your average Joe Citizen has not obtained enlightenment, nor are they able to enter the Avatar state and shed their emotions like a hoodie. Therefore it is up to everyone else to know that going through life saying whatever pops into mind is likely going to offend someone at some point in time, and, recognizing that, not get all pissed off at the person for being offended.
Honestly, the only thing that really pisses me off about our easily offended culture is the faux-apologies all the celebrities and politicians make. I'd rather they just went about their business and just said fuck it...
I'm pretty sure they're just saying that their critics are idiots, rather than stating offense. It's mockery.
What am I trying to combat? I think people that get overly offended and go out looking for reasons to be offended are obnoxious. I find humor in the things that get them offended, I find it extremely amusing when they get offended and freak out. So further offending them amuses me to no end. And really, I don't give a damn about the feelings of somebody that goes out looking for a reason to flip their lid.
I get a great laugh out of it, and they get to engage in their favorite activity of freaking out, it's win win.
YES. Man, i need to refresh in another tab whilst replying.
Qingu, Anonymity--please, please don't make this about rape. It's an excellent example of an emotional issue that people get offended by, but dissecting the how or why of that particular issue isn't the point.
I can see your logic here that statistics makes the case for "Offensive vs. Not Offensive," but it still misses the point--I'm not arguing about censorship. I'm saying people make a choice to be offended, and then make a choice in their actions. It's the idea that "I'm offended" or even "a significant number of people are offended" (who decides what is a significant number?) tends to disregard the fact that no one forced you to choose to be offended.
This is my fear; I don't want to be that guy, and I worry that making this argument (with someone in particular, a member of my graduate program that takes offense as often as breaths) will come off full of assholery.
I'm not arguing that there are some things that it is ok to be offended by and others that it is not ok to take offense; I'm just trying to flesh out the idea that any action is a choice. To be offended or not, to be angry or not, to be feminist or not, etc...
Exactly my point. I do have a choice to be offended. If someone curses out my God or my (previously mentioned) rather strict belief system, I choose how to respond to that. Is it easy to just say, "Well, that's how they feel" and let it slide? Of course not. But I definitely choose how to respond.
This is kinda what i'm getting at, I think. Well, maybe not the "easily stop suffering" part. I wouldn't argue that it's easy, especially in Western culture, to not let your emotions control you. It's just socially acceptable to say, "Well, I was so pissed that I did XYZ." But again, i feel like we're not acknowledging that you have full responsibility for how you choose to emote and respond.
Damn. I keep refreshing and this post is long enough already.
So really you are a goosehole, like I said.
I mean just say it and be done with it, stop trying to make yourself into Mister Cool Guy who gets those reactionaries into a tizzy.
Actively trying to upset others is called sadism, and really supports your self-diagnosis. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, the whole point was to do something that they knew upset people's sensitivities, so they decided to illustrate depictions of Mohamed as a terrorist and pedophile. They had the right to do it, but they deserved everything that followed.
I hope I'm not coming across as mad at folks for being offended. I just don't see the logic that our society gives the "offended" so much weight to their arguments.
How you respond to being offended and whether or not you get offended are two completely different things. And honestly, I'm sure the level of offense plays a major role here too. And there are a variety of situations where responding to an offense would be beneficial, for a variety of reasons.
I'm not saying this comic was one of them, but who knows. Making light of rape has a lot of negative potential there, generally speaking.
So when Penny Arcade makes a comic that's intentionally offensive, readers should could possibly take offense should en masse enter a zen-like state of total emotional apathy.
But when the creators of Penny Arcade read a criticism of their intentionally offensive comic, they should freak out and spend their creative energies mocking that criticism.
Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical?
No, I'm saying that you're claiming that "jokes about rape [will,] statistically speaking, make rape victims uncomfortable," which implies statistical backing.