andrewducker | Offensiveness (request for comments)

I thought it was really funny.

Funny because you believed the things, or funny because you didn't and found them laughable? Or just indefinably funny?

Funny because I thought the statements were obviously meant to be ridiculous. I didn't take it seriously for a second. I especially like "If I take your icon you aren't getting 'credit'" because LJ "etiquette" is so hilarious. (I want a nickel for every time I unfriend someone and they argue with me about it or ask why I am mad at them.)

Yup, that's pretty much my take on it.

And I can never understand why people want explanations over things like unfriending. As if arguing with someone makes them more likely to want to be your friend (or "friend").

I think it's okay--simply because it attacks *everyone/everything*, which contextualises it pretty efficiently.

I would add a frame into the icon that only shows up briefly (presuming it is an animated thing, since i don't see them) stating the purpose of this icon.

On a tangent, someone posted on a community that I watch and didn't lj-cut something, saying that "sorry, my LJ client is just being gay today." She got very offended when I commented suggesting that wasn't a very polite term to use.

Thinking a little longer, I can understand her point of view.

Not using any specific examples, it can be clear that someone is being ironic, or doing something for humourous effect, or for the sheer ridiculousness of it. The statement itself isn't offensive. Some of the words used can be.

If, for instance, you'd used a racist or, for example, a derogatory epithet for a member of a certain religion, I might find it offensive. Not because I felt you meant it, but because the very word is offensive, in any context.

Now, I appreciate that many comedians and indeed activists with in minority/mocked etc groups like to "reclaim" words on occasion, but still...

So I think you can depend on your audience to realise what you mean, but you shouldn't assume that they won't find words in it offensive, regardless of context.

Gay, by the way, has become an insult _entirely_ separate from the homosexual thing. Apparently lots of young people have learnt "Gay" as an epithet meaning "a bit crap" long before they have any idea about homosexuality.

Which, if you ask me, is insidious.

I take your general point. Although I'm not trying to reclaim anything, so much as point out language I find offensive.

Well yes, there's no need to note that by the way, I'm aware of that usage. That was how she meant it, but I took exception, then she got snitty. I was originally just going to report her straight to the LJ admin types, but instead commented and she changed her post. There's a difference between (successfully or unsuccesfully) being ironic/sarcastic and just using an offensive word because you don't know/don't care/are too stupid to realise that in can cause offence and certainly shouldn't be used as a such on a public forum.

I didn't suggest you were trying to reclaim offensive language, just that some people did. I am well aware of why you would have an icon like that. It's for the same reason that you and Guy would have some of the t-shirts that you do ;-)

Hmmm. I don't think that "using language some people could be offended by" and "using language with intent to offend" should be confused. Nor should people's offense be an instant license to censor. I believe things that many Christians find offensive, and I don't think I should be prevented from saying them.

I didn't say you should censor it.

I am trying to make the point, which I now suspect you are deliberately obfuscating, judging by prior conversations we've had, that context only sometimes matters. "Punch a vegan", for example, doesn't have much offensiveness if you take the words out of context. "Vegan" is hardly an insult, an offensive slang term, nor is it easy to use as it as one.

My point here is that the last part of your post is meaningless. It doesn't matter for some people whether you're using the term in an ironic manner or not. The word itself is offensive.

What I am surprised by in all this is you making a big deal out of this. When people wearing those Cradle of Filth "Jesus is a C**t" t-shirts get cautioned by the police and object all over livejournal about it, I just want to slap them and scream "Did you not expect this could happen?" I don't want to stop them, just to slap them until they stop being so surprised by it all.

If I'm chatting to any of my actually gay as opposed to just camp and sarcastic friends, I probably wouldn't say "OMG! I's gots t3h gh3y!" or use the word "gay" as a generic term for something being bad. That's a personal choice. Admittedly, I wouldn't do the latter anyway. However, whether or not you want to say things like that (and censor yourself) isn't the issue.

It's that you appear to think everyone will look at the meaning and say "Oh he's being ironic, how terribly clever. An ironic use of a sometimes offensive word on the internet! Heavens!"

Regardless of context, some people can find things offensive. Not everyone finds irony funny either. This is the internet. So, in a vague summary, it doesn't matter that you are using the word in an ironic fashion for ridiculous effect. It has a meaning on its own, which the context does not detract from. You are aware of this (and I know that you -are- since you've emailed me on the other side of this argument before)

Personally, when I post on a community, I tend to moderate my language and not use my possibly offensive icons. I'm aware that there are plenty of people on LJ who are rather young and no, I don't actually want to swear at children online.

And to be honest, I imagine you've been hoping for something like this to happen since you started using that icon. I've heard Guy saying that he'd like someone to ask him about one of his offensive t-shirts before, since he has a comeback all ready...

I imagine you've been hoping for something like this to happen since you started using that icon

Nope. Not at all. I don't really think like that. I saw it, thought it was cool/funny, and snagged it without any thought that I might have to some day actually justify liking it. I know that it sounds wierd, but when I choose to wear a t-shirt (or whatever) it's rarely in a "I bet people will like me more/think I'm funnier because I'm wearing it" sense, but in a "Heh, I love this t-shirt." way. I bear in mind where I'm wearing it (work, generally outside or place full of ironic people with high offensiveness appreciation) because I've learned that some things aren't appropriate for certain places, and can't be arsed with the hassle.

To be honest, if I'd known I was some day going to have to justify using it, I probably wouldn't have taken it in the first place. I didn't like it _that_ much.

Oh, and to clarify, I'm not making a big deal out of "I can't believe someone was offended!!!", because I expect people to be occasionally offended. I was specifically asking for advice on where people thought my responsibilities lay, and what others thought was a morally right thing to do. Because having thought about it, I found myself unsure, and thought that more input might help me clarify my thoughts. Which it has done.

a third thought to consider:

Does it matter what it means to you?

As human beings living in this world of ours, we have an opportunity to come in contact with many other human beings. And with the advent of the telephone, telegraph, the radio, the television, the internet ...blahblahblah this opportunity is increased exponentially every day.

There are a whole lot of people in this world who come into some sort of contact with you and are in a position to be directly influenced by you on a daily basis. Even if you live something of a hermit-like existence.

Consider for a moment all the people who see what you post here, are influenced/changed/affected by it, and then go on to influence/change and affect others that they encounter, who then go on to influence...blahblahblah etc at an exponential rate.

Thats a whole heaping load of folks.

And while *you* might consider this sort of base attempt at backlash humor as nothing more than sarcasm at its best - what of the ones who see it and don't make that connection? What of the ones that admire you and take your including such a message in your presentation to the world as you condoning such an attitute? What of the ones who measure themselves and match their attempts at humor and being funny to what you have projected here?

Do you not have some responsibility to avoid spreading such hurtful negativity whenever you possibly can?

And what of those with abilities different from yours who read such statements and are fundamentally hurt by it? regardless of whether this was your intent, is it not now your fault, for having put the message out there in the first place?

I think that we as people have a unique opportunity to influence, change and direct the tone of the people we come in contact with. If you consider my exponential contact idea from above we even possibly have the opportunity the change our world and make it more what we'd like it to be - a place where everyone regardless of their differences is valued and judged on their character, not their whatever-it-is-that-makes-them-different-from-you.

And given that ... why on earth would you ever consider it more important to be "sarcastically funny" (an opinion that is much open to debate from me, as I'm sure you can imagine) than to do what you can to avoid hurting (and passing on the weapon to hurt) others?

See, I felt (and still somewhat feel, although less certainly) that the meaning of the icon and the meaning of your post were one and the same. "Here are things that you should not say." and thus I was doing exactly what you want me to do, in the comment above, by using it...

I must have missed the point in the icon where it states that you disagree with the statements.

I must also have missed the point in your post where it states that you disagree with the statements.

I must have further misunderstood the concept of icons entirely, as I have so far interpreted them to be... well, iconic.

As in the sense that they are meant to indentify and represent us here on the livejournal website.

I know that I certainly identify this little butterfly chasing cat with you, and each time I see it on my website I identify the comment beside is as being from you.

Where is my thinking incorrect here?

I must also have missed the point in your post where it states that you disagree with the statements.
It's there, largely, as a list of things _I_ find offensive.

And I think, myself, that it serves a purpose of saying that "Andrew finds all of these statements offensive, and wouldn't care to hear them from people around him."

In particular, it says "Goths are Retarded", which I _clearly_ can't mean, as I have numerous friends who are, or have been goths, and I've seen the Sisters of Mercy live three times, and have a large collection of black t-shirts. Nobody that knows me could in any way think I mean it as something other than "Here are things that highlight idiots when they say them."

All things can be read in context. Just because I say something it doesn't mean that I believe it exactly. Language doesn't work like that.

If I said "I like being kicked in the nuts, it's _great_. The feeling of pain as I crumple to the ground is something I never get bored of." would you think I meant it, or that I meant the exact opposite?

Nobody who knows me at all could think that I mean the statements in it. They are clearly, to me, meant as a list of things that I find objectionable.

Did you really think that I thought that "Anorexia makes girls look pretty" or "I hate Art"?

I don't speak in literals. I use metaphors. And analogies. And I use irony. And I am sometimes silly.

I don't expect my "audience" to be geniuses. Nor do I expect them to be able to decode hidden messages in my writing.

But I'm not going to write down to a level where I cannot be misunderstood, not matter what, because I expect people to take into account that they are reading _me_ and the way that I write, and who I am.

Again I refer you to my original comment, in which I state that I don't believe it matters what you meant.

I believe it matters that you put it out there, that you considered it funny, and that you are giving other who come in contact with you your tacit approval to find it funny as well.

it is that seeming approval that I find questionable.

The humour is not in the statements, but in the people who say those statements.

The humour is in the idiots that believe "Bush 2004" or "Poetry sucks".

If you don't think it matters what a person means when they say something then something very strange is going on.

Perfect example would be Alf Garnett played by Warren Mitchell. He played him as a pisstake of racists and bigots around East London and whilst some of the language was offensive, he claims that almost every black person he was approached by would say "Finally someone understands!".

Irony can sometimes be cutting or contain insulting language, but I think by far the bigger evil is trying to censor people.

but I think by far the bigger evil is trying to censor people.

Hooray! thank you, and I will add fuck the thought police. So, it's an icon. One person was offended by it. Big fricking deal. Out of how many times you have posted this funny (and often ironic icon, but I have to admit some of the statements on the icon are pretty common sense, and amusing). It is only LJ (and yes, it's a public forum) but we are not homogenous borg. We do not all think alike. We do not all share the same sense of humour. We have different backgrounds, upbringings and values and I suggest that if the person who took offence at a single icon and suggested censorship, why not look closer to home at the main stream media, how people talk on the bus, how they interact in the office. An icon that actively derises such values breaks through all this but also makes one think.

Like art, and I am not likening icons/avatars to that - they act as rhetorical triggers or short circuit signs which denote a theme, content to a post (usually). they are also, akin to wearing an amusing shirt. And an icon akin to this is like bringing a whoppee cushion to a party - it is designed to ellicit an emotional response.

And for want of being an arse, some of the new generation of goths are pretty retarded after dealing with some of the cretins that I came into contact with during my tenure working in a comic book store for 2 years. I don't agree with the Bush statement though...

this is potentially the greatest line I have ever read on LJ - might I quote you?

LOL!

Of course you can!

It sounds like the start of a really good mission statement. I like it. I may even put it on a t-shirt.

That last anom was me.. sorry, wasn't logged in, it seems..

There is indeed some potential for the icon being taken seriously and influencing someone. It is therefore offensive in as much as it has the capacity to do this. The question then is to what degree does it have this potential? Is Andy's icon sufficiently obvious in its ironic nature that any reasonable person would get it?

If any reasonable person would get it, then to remove it would be to respond to an unreasonable fear of causing offence.

However, if a reasonable person might well be influenced by it, then there is a stronger case for it not to be used.

As far as I can tell, you think the potential is substantial enough to warrant censorship, where as Andy doesn't. Impasse?

Extending that logic, it would become very difficult to ever say anything, because you are taking the blame for every possible negative reaction. For example, what if your above words hurt

andrewducker's feelings, putting him in a bad mood, causing him to take it out on everyone he meets today, putting them in a bad mood... and so on and so forth. To be sure of never passing on negativity, you could only become a hermit ... but then again, that might not work, either. What of the people who would be hurt by

andrewducker's withdrawal?

I think that we all have the responsibility to work to understand one another, which includes not only words but also context and other subtext. If people admire

andrewducker, and yet do not attempt to actually understand what he says, or to put it in context, I cannot believe that it is his responsbility. There is little that can ever be said that cannot be interpreted in a myriad of positve and negative ways.

(And although I disagree with your opinion in this particular case, I do very much agree that we also have the responsibility to spread positivity whenever possible. So I greatly admire your viewpoint in general.)

My point was not to avoid a negative reaction. My point was that we should be working harder to avoid passing on negative and harmful stereotypes.

Andrew's feelings are his own responsibility to curb. And while I can influence them to a small extend (and would certainly try to do so for the better however possible) I don't feel the same responsibility to HIS feelings as I do for my own personal projection of ideas, beliefs and philosophical standpoints.

In using this icon, he has allowed for a measure of disambiguation regarding how someone else might interpet how he feels on this subject. And while I know all too well that often we can't control how others interpret what we say, in this instance he can control it. He can state very definitely (either by removing the icon or adding to it some sort of statement to the contrary) his exact feelings on the subject.

It is his choice not to do this that I question. Because he is allowing people (quite on purpose) to walk away with the very wrong impression of him when it would be quite easy to eliminate. And his reason for doing so is "sarcasm and humor".

To which I ask him again, Is "sarcasm and humor" really so important to him in this specific instance that it is worth the risk of giving the wrong impression and passing along so potentially very harmful negativity?

Because he is allowing people (quite on purpose) to walk away with the very wrong impression of him

I don't understand why you believe this.

I don't think that actually addresses my second point - that people have a responsibility to take what

andrewducker says in context. If people don't take the couple of seconds that it would take to interpret the icon correctly, then it can hardly be said that they admire him, or that he influences them much.

Correctly using hyperbole and exaggeration to make a point is hardly the same as "purposely" enforcing stereotypes.

I apologize. I thought that I had addressed your second point well enough.

Allow me to clarify here:

As it can not be said that everyone here knows him well enough to understand his beliefs and context on this matter (obviously I have learned today that I am a prime example of the not knowing category) how can we assign them the responsibility of assigning context to what he says?

And given that in a textual internet-based medium such as LJ truly "knowing" someone is near impossible, does the responsibility of being as clear as possible not them trasfer back to the poster?

I don't think you have to do more than watch the icon to be able to interpret the irony. One offensive statement could be misinterpreted, but so many, one after another, is too much exaggeration to be interpreted straight-faced.

The only reason I even mentioned "knowing"

andrewducker was in the context of people who admire him enough to be seriously influenced by him, despite not taking the time to even watch the entire rotation of the icon.

If you on a mission to spread peace, harmony and mutual understanding, you would be well-advised to avoid phrases like

I apologize. I thought that I had addressed your second point well enough.

Allow me to clarify here:

which make you come across as merely priggish, pompous and patronising. A seemingly self-righteous tone might make your readers suspect that your intentions are not well-meaning and utopian, but merely to establish your own sense of superiority.

Do you not have some responsibility to avoid spreading such hurtful negativity whenever you possibly can?

I don't think he does. There might, indeed, be people who don't comprehend irony or sarcasm or humour, but they are as responsible for their dimwittedness as he is for his sense of humour. It is after all, his journal. No one is obliged to read it.

I think that we as people have a unique opportunity to influence, change and direct the tone of the people we come in contact with. If you consider my exponential contact idea from above we even possibly have the opportunity the change our world and make it more what we'd like it to be - a place where everyone regardless of their differences is valued and judged on their character, not their whatever-it-is-that-makes-them-different-from-you.

This sounds horribly like it could be lifted from a speech by Tony Blair or David Cameron. Of course we can and do influence the people around us, but I doubt there is anyone (other than those in the throes of some kind of delusion) who wanders the earth trying to be a posotove utopian littel sunbeam all the time.

An LJ is merely an individual's space on the net and a place where an individual can shared their humour with like-minded people. Anyone who judges

andrewducker on the basis of one icon without actually reading his posts is likely to be someon he doesn't wish to interact with in any case. Anyone who does read his journal acn see that he is a fluffy, well-meaning egalitarian liberal chap; if he wasn't he wouldn't have given over a whole post to your concerns. I think your ire would be best reserved for those who use the terms you object to with unkind intent, but that, of course would be a much harder task.

"Retarded" is not such a bad word. Literally it means held back or late, and is many ways a less patronising term than the platitudinous 'special needs'. And changing terms has little real impact on anything other than those worthies who demonstrate their worthiness by using the terms that are currently viewed as appropriate. When I was a kid a common playground term of abuse was 'retard'; the teenagers I teach 30 years on use 'special (needs)' in exactly the same way, including the ones with chronic dyslexia, spina bifida and Tourett's. They use those terms because their classmates do and they use them specifically to engage in gentle mockery, including self-mockery, that helps to establish their identity as a group. Their humour is as sophisticated, intricate and context-specific as that of my erudite network of 30-something LJ friends. I wouldn't dream of censoring their use of their terms unless they were used with malicious intent. The last thing they need is yet another well-meaning adult to patronise them and to pretend that a fuzzy and complex and bewildering world is a pplace of simple absolutes.

I don't want to start a big fight over this with someone who is obviously passionate about judgmental comments or phrases directed at some people, but don't you think that trying to dictate what people can say or do or trying to censor them when something offends you is just as big a problem?

I'm not going to make this personal as I don't have a clue who you are, so lets keep it objective: If you censor everyone to remove any offensive language or humour that some people my misunderstand or find offensive, you take with it freedom of speech and a fundamental right to express yourself, Do you not agree?

(And before anyone says it, no I don't think I'm going to extremes here. This *IS* in effect trying to force one persons beliefs on someone else and something I have seen increasingly prevalent in the US and UK of late, and something I myself find offensive.)

I've seen that icon a couple of times and thought "What the hell??" before figuring it out (or remembering that I had figured it out already). That being said, it's not that hard to realize the point, if you pay a bit of attention.

If it were me, I'd leave it. I'd have made it, I'd have used it for a reason, and I wouldn't really be so interested in having people who couldn't grok the irony stick around that I'd cater to them.

But really, it doesn't matter what I would do. It's how you feel, what it's worth to you, and whether you're willing to accept that you might get some flak for it for one reason or another, that's important.

I thought it was just a blanket rebuttal to everything that LJ is used to bitch about, in a completely transparent and ironic way.

Some people take things too seriously, and coming from me, that's saying something. :)

It's just irony. reading one screen on the animation might make you think it's offensive but actually following them through makes you realise that's it's irony. It's mocking the people who mock.

I'd say don't take it down as I find it inoffensive when you read and analyse what it's saying. Jeez Jimmy Carr says more offensive things during his stage shows, and people get the fact it's irony!

Removing it is almost bowing to the no breast feeding pics on LJ pressure.

I think it's a great icon because it's so completely over the top.

There was no danger of me thinking that's what you actually believe since I can't believe anyone would hold all of those beliefs!

1) What makes you think that everyone who happens across your LJ knows you? (On the internet nobody knows you're not a bigot^Wdog.)

2) You may be able to see the icon's keyword, but I can't. So I have no way of knowing the context in which you intend it to be interpreted.

3) It's an animated image and animated images are fuckwittedly annoying. (They're eyeball attractants and they slurp CPU cycles to no good purpose.)

Your first two points demonstrate the potential efficacy of the icon.

1) What makes you think that everyone who happens across your LJ knows you? (On the internet nobody knows you're not a bigot^Wdog.)

If someone sees only that icon and pole-vaults to conclusions about him and scurries away offended - then bingo! - he's avoided having a judgemental fuckwit on his f-list.

2) You may be able to see the icon's keyword, but I can't. So I have no way of knowing the context in which you intend it to be interpreted.

But the icon is always accompanied by text and a link to its owner's journal. If an icon offends, or appears to contradict the words in a comment, you can go and have a look at the journal. It wouldn't take a particularly impressive intellect to gauge that andrewducker is not some vegan-bashing neo-nazi who likes tripping goths over their own platform shoes and ripping out their hair extensions.

Plus, anyone who wants to see how the user designates their own icons can see the all their icons and keywords by clicking on the icon on the userinfo page.

As for your third point, I couldn't agree more. Some overproduced usericons have the same potential to irritate as crass ringtones on mobiles.

With four animated icons on my screen Firefox is still using less than 1% CPU time. And that's on a three-year-old PC.

Does your browser not have an option to turn off animated GIFs? Firefox certainly does, and Safari has the PithHelmet plugin.

My initial reaction was "here's a tiresome person who likes being offensive", though I admit having "BUSH 2004" in the middle of all the non-political stuff got a slight smile.

Maybe I'm not your intended audience, but I didn't have a clear enough notion of your personality to realize you were just kidding or doing a parody of offensiveness rather than trying to be offensive. The good news is that I wasn't annoyed enough to remember it as "Andrew Ducker is tiresome"--it would have been filed under "oh god, more of the same".

At this point, it's just filed under "Andrew Ducker tried some communication which didn't work the way he intended".

I vote against the icon--animation, especially animation with that many images, is enough of a time and attention sink that it should be pretty or funny or clever, and the icon wasn't.

I think that if that's what you think about you using that icon, then you're well in your rights to keep it there. There's nothing wrong with that kind of perspective.

As for everyone else who thinks something else, any kind of negativity they get from it is their problem. Something they decided or judged for you is something they need to fix, not you need to fix. If anyone's offended, they can talk to you about it and be less offended assuming they're open minded enough to realise one perspective does not override all perspectives.

I did have something to say but I decided that my irony might be mistaken for insult.

The first time I saw the icon, I knew you well enough to know those weren't statements you would agree with. While watching the icon, I think I was a bit intrigued/puzzled as to the reason for the statements... until the Bush 2004 one, which seemed to be the punchline, and made the entire thing seem amusing.

I don't think you should remove the entire icon. As for removing or changing the word "retarded", I'm not sure. I think this whole discussion... unfortunately, prynne's page which was linked to is still f-locked, as I can't access it, so I can't see what she originally said about it... but I think this whole discussion at least has served to remind that the word "retarded" can be seen as offensive... not so much so to most people, perhaps, in which case it is just an insult, but to people with learning disabilities. To the latter group of people, even seeing the word used in a sarcastic context could be upsetting, because it shows that some people think that their disability is something so bad that it can be used as an insult. It might feel sort of like how I feel when I see/hear people make jokes about vegetarians, or females who don't shave. Yes, I can just ignore it and/or pretend to be amused, because I know that the other people don't really mean it maliciously, but still it does hurt in a way.

I always pegged that icon (I've seen it around) as a troll's icon. I always figured it was meant to piss off anyone naive enough to take the bait.

And, myself, I'm too tired of hearing most of those attitudes touted by people who *are* serious to have anything but a negative reaction when I see it. But that's not your fault. Like I said, it's mostly because I see it mostly being used by trolls.

So, I figure, no one who knows you will figure you are serious about that icon, but people who don't know you may mistake you for a troll.

Absolutely do not take it down and please don't every take life as seriously as the one who asked you to.

One of the comments above is pretty much how i feel about it: I don't think you have to do more than watch the icon to be able to interpret the irony. One offensive statement could be misinterpreted, but so many, one after another, is too much exaggeration to be interpreted straight-faced.

It's funny> Having an entirely serious, and sometimes rude, discussion about it is even more hilarious.

Andy! I don't even know you _that_ well, but as soon as I saw the icon, I didn't think that it was anything else but ironic and I could have written that post (disclaimer) for you.

I don't think you should delete it. Linguistics wouldn't be the fascinating subject it is if we all had to communicate literally all the time.

The politically correct reclamation of words annoys me and for anyone to object to the use of the word retarded in this mf-ing context is nitpicking to the point of vapidity. Yes, I said it. Vapidity.

Linguistically, this is why you should not remove the icon: I myself seldom use the word retarded but that is not out of any cultural sensitivity--it's just a preference. Word usage changes and our mother tongue is fluid. Words do not exist in a uni-definition vacuum. Once people who were mentally subnormal were called a host of names that they are no longer called, words that were hierarchical to the level of mental retardation, such as imbecile, idiot, and moron. These words are now a part of the lexicon used to describe silly, odd, stupid and offensive behaviors, no longer linked exclusively to the description of the mentally subnormal. Had you used any of those words in the icon, would anyone have become offended? No, because those word meanings and usages have changed over time, as it is currently changing--if not already changed--with retarded. Additionally, since most people describe the mentally subnormal as "mentally handicapped" these days instead of using the word retarded, or they use the specific name of the condition that causes the mental subnormality, like Downs Syndrome or Prader-Willi Syndrome, taking offense over the use of the word retarded in this context is specious.

Socially, this is why you should keep the icon: The commentary in your journal makes it clear who you are and what you are about. Your icons are secondary and if anyone changes their word usage and opinion of the world as a whole based what is so very clearly an icon meant to be humorous and possibly ironic (because who is to say some goths are not retards--ever think of that Andrew? all the retarded goths may be upset that you didn't make that clear!!), then they are too literal to waste much time with. Additionally, when someone says that WHAT YOU THINK does not matter when your journal entries juxtaposed with the content of the icon make your usage of the icon clear, that is my cue to lip fart vigorously. Because context does matter and anyone who reads your words understands your context where this icon is concerned. Anyone who takes such word usage seriously and assumes you think goths really are mentally subnormal OR they think you are mocking the mentally subnormal needs a reality check, and frankly, that is not your problem.

Also, as an American, I live in a culture where some people try to wrest their way to the moral highground by insinuating that if you do not follow their way of thinking, you will end up corrupting people or creating greater harms that are ad reductio absurdam assertions at their core. Oh noes, the children will read this icon and immediately fall into line, calling every kid wearing a My Chemical Romance shirt a retard! All teens sporting black nail polish will find themselves in special education and adults who listen to Bauhaus will be forced to weave baskets whilst in a supervised-living coop just on the basis of your icon. I have no patience for any of this sort of slippery slope sentiment.

Personally, this is why you should keep the icon: Your word usage in an animated icon may immediately prejudice a handful of people against you because they do not know you well enough to understand you do not literally hate goths, retards or fat people. But of course, in the minds of such people, an icon means much more than your journal itself. They will search and wait until they find the sole nail in your journal sticking up so they can hammer it down. So few humans actually behave that way that I say it is safe to annoy or offend those who do. If you delete your icon on this basis, you may as well delete the entire journal because relative word choice is a mind field and you will ALWAYS run the risk of offending someone somewhere. It is a waste of time to worry about these sorts of things when you have made it clear to all who read you that you are not a cruel, nasty man.

And oh yeah, just in case I have not made it clear, I think cultural linguistics and the politicization of word choice is moronic. Yes, I said it. Moronic.

I'm on the "I thought it was funny" side. And people misinterpret pretty much anything, and react to explanations with snitty-fits of "well, humour isn't legitimate unless you make it unfunny with extensive disclaimers". For example, the icon I'm using here once got an "I hope that's not some kind of homophobic statement" comment when I used it on someone else's journal. Does it need an animated second panel which says "to be read in the context of Buffy slash, British English, and Heathers"? Or should people who can't figure it out either google, think, or just get straight on and hate me for misguided reasons?

The "fat is caused by eating too much" is quite offensive. My wife is currently trying to lose weight. She knows she is currently fat because she ate too much in the past. People actually stating it to her face are extremely upsetting to her. It's like pointing at a huge scar from a past incident and going "ha ha ha". She no longer eats much but is still fat. Comments like that could push people into comfort eating, tears or anorexia, none of which are healthy.

Similarly, the anorexia one is a severe trigger for anybody trying to get over anorexia.

In short, I'd also appreciate it if you would stop using it. Not because it's offensive or because I think you mean it, but because it could affect vulnerable people quite badly.

I meant to change that first paragraph and find a word other than offensive, but forgot. Not sure what word I would use instead.

Comments like that could push people

I tend to be dubious about that kind of thing. If it _has_ affected your wife in such a way, please let me know at once. But I think that assuming that people are affected by things that much is falling into the same trap as people who want to ban GTA because it makes people into mass-murderers (or is offensive to people whose lost family/friends to gang shootings).

Not, thinking about it, that your wife reads my journal. If the only thing preventing her from doing so is the icon, I'd be open for discussion about that. In much the same way that I'd let someone know if the only thing stopping me reading their journal was a spider icon. Although in that case I'd just use AdBlock.

I've yet to hear from anyone saying "I am a goth, and I'm offended." - it's all been people being upset on other people's behalf. (That's a lie - it's mostly been people saying "Keep it!", but of the people against it...).

I know my wife well enough to know that she'd be quite likely to find that line upsetting. No, she doesn't read your journal, but she does sometimes read over my shoulder. (And I could ask her if that line would upset her, but I'd rather not, as it probably would.)

Freedom of speech is great, but there are some things that just don't need to be said. I'm not going to try to stop you saying them, but I will say that I think this icon lowers the intellectual tone of your journal somewhat. Maybe that's more likely to persuade you :)

If it was actively, and personally upsetting someone on my friends list, then I'd be up for having a discussion with them about it, and seeing how I felt about it after that.

Other than that, I think I'm going to stick with it for now (although I'll be careful about what posts it turns up attached to).

Might I suggest you adblock it?

Hmm. I still think the context makes a difference: if you'd said "lesbians just need to meet the right man" or, rather more tastelesly "you only get raped if you're asking for it", it would still be in a context where it was clear you disagreed with the statement and I would, frankly, be able to deal with it. Some people have had such severe (or, I suppose, recent) trauma that seeing the word "rape" will cause a meltdown, but that is an awful fact for which other individuals are not responsible, in the same way as I'm not responsible for dealing with your arachnophobia. Accommodating everyone's potential fears and trauma triggers "just in case" would make speech, let alone free speech, pretty much impossible.

For people who know who I am and what my history is, I will judge them as arseholes whom I don't wish to associate with if they choose to push certain buttons knowing I'm part of their audience. But that's action for me to take.

The "fat is caused by eating too much" is quite offensive. My wife ... knows she is currently fat because she ate too much in the past.

I've become way too hardened over the years, because I absolutely could not believe this was a serious comment until I read your further responses.

And while I'm here: Andy, I severely object to your implication that you don't like looking at my art.

Aye, if someone actually said "I hate art" to me, I would be horribly offended because they would, in effect, be saying "your life is meaningless and worthless".

Really? But surely it's their problem if they don't appreciate the work you do?

No, I meant as a blanket statement. "I don't like your art, but I like other people's art" is fine. Saying "I hate art" is different and probably untrue because I doubt they'd live without T.V., films, books, fashion, photography, etc..

I guess it comes down to the "what is art?" argument again. Often people are dragged around Galleries and Art Museums as a child and it is a boring and negative experience for your average kid who wants to run around and touch things. I would take a guess that if you thrust your views around what art actually is (rather than be offended) they will probably clarify their comment to pinpoint which areas they dont like or why they dont like it. I would imagine most people seperate Arts and Crafts in their minds subconsciously and it needs to be pointed out how completely related they are.

I think Art is there to provoke a response and sometimes that response isnt well thought out or dwelled upon, it is just gut instinct. "I don't like it" is a reponse; maybe not the one you're looking for but it is a response none the less. If they are unwilling to explore further why they dont like it or what it is about the Artthey find not to their taste, well that's not your problem :)

I've had the whole lj drama (http://purelyskindeep.livejournal.com/249363.html) about someone posting something that I found racist and offensive. However, before I got down in the dirt with the drama, the first thing I asked was whether there was an 'in joke' that I was missing, because it does make a difference.

It was only when it became clear there was no (ironic or otherwise)thought behind what they were saying that I properly took offence.

As I commented above, it boils down to whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of someone taking this the wrong way. Your post serves as a good straw poll on whether there is such. As far as I can see, while some people think it might be taken literally by someone else, nobody seems to have actually personally taken it the wrong way. Which is good.

The decider for me is the context. If you printed that icon text in a trashy tabloid newspaper then they would indeed be offensive. There would be a reasonable expectation of it adversely influencing idiots. However, this isn't a tabloid and your audience aren't idiots. So I personally don't see why you should censor yourself as if they were.

*I* know and *you* know and everyone who *knows you* knows, that the icon lampoons narrow minded fools who really do believe some of the messages that it flashes up. To take offense at it would be Missing The Point. But then again some readers, including recently friended folk or idle browsers, might not know you as well as we do and would take offense because its lampooning nature might not be readily apparent to them.

I've seen people other than Andy use it and understood that they didn't actually subscribe to those beliefs.

Of the eighteen seperate comments in that icon, no less than thirteen of them could be taken as a direct attack upon me personally or my views. There are several others that attack good friends of mine.

I still think it's fairly fuckin' obvious that it's a joke, and I thought that when I saw it on strangers' journals also. I don't like it because I don't think it's witty enough, and uses the word 'shitty' twice, which shows a lack of imagination and vocabulary on the part of the maker (I know it wasn't you, so that's cool). But then, I get annoyed when people have badly cropped or pixellated icons, and I don't give them hassle, so I see no reason to criticise you for being more easily amused than me in this respect.

I think it's a great icon, and it usually makes me laugh. Even though, like

marrog, many of the statements could apply to me. But some of it's things I'd be tempted to say to people when I'm in a mood (things like "your photography is shitty") and some of it's obviously taking the piss. I think people who are offended by one particular frame and not the others are missing the point - ALL of the statements are offensive, and deciding to get offended about the ONE that you feel applies to you is self-centred as hell. It's basically saying "I don't care what you say as long as it doesn't apply to me".

I'd use it as a way to root out stupid people - someone who got offended enough by it to defriend me, I wouldn't want on my flist in the first place, because I prize intelligence, tolerance and logic.

Would you feel happy about someone's icon that included the word "nigger"?

Would you feel comfortable explaining why you used this icon to my son, who has two sisters who have such severe learning disabilities that they cannot talk and are not toilet trained?

Would you feel happy about someone's icon that included the word "nigger"?

Depends entirely on the context. I'm surprised it's taken so long for someone to bring that up as an example, to be honest. It was the first thing I thought of.

Would you feel comfortable explaining why you used this icon to my son
Depends on the level of intelligence and maturity your son has. If he's very young, then no, but I wouldn't expect him to be reading my journal. I expect a certain level of intelligence and ability to read between the lines and understand deeper meaning from my readers. I don't feel that it's necessary that I write down to a level where people who don't understand that the literal meaning isn't the actual meaning can easily understand things.

I don't think everything should be banned if it fails the test of "Would it offend a child who was personally connected to it?"

If you'd got here about 16 hours ago I'd have been a lot less certain about all of the above, but the discussion has helped a lot in deciding what I feel about the whole situation. I'm still open to persuasion, of course.

We have the intelligence to realise what it means! Keep it.

Offensiveness (request for comments)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

"we are not homogenous borg"

Re: "we are not homogenous borg"

Re: "we are not homogenous borg"

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject