Offensiveness (request for comments)

[andrewducker]

I posted an entry earlier today with this LJ Icon.

It's not a nice LJ icon.

It's clearly offensive.

In fact the keyword for this icon is Offensive.

And prynne asked me if I could be convinced to delete it. Her reason being that it contains the word "retarded", and she objects to that word (link now public).

I don't disagree that it's an offensive word. I'd certainly never use it in normal conversation.

But then I'd never say any of the things in the icon. 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."

But it's not necessarily obvious from the icon. You could read it as "Here are things Andy believes." if you didn't know me very well. You could more easily read it as "Here are things Andy finds amusing."

Knowing the internet like I do, I know that it's very easy not to recognise irony ("Saying one thing and meaning something quite different"). Many's the time I've made a comment intended to be taking as silliness and had it taken seriously.

So should I take it down? Should I depend on my audience to realise what it means?

Comments

[prynne.livejournal.com]

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?

[andrewducker]

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.

[prynne.livejournal.com]

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.

[andrewducker]

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.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

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.

[trav28.livejournal.com]

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...

"we are not homogenous borg"

[paddie-gal.livejournal.com]

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

Re: "we are not homogenous borg"

[trav28.livejournal.com]

LOL!

Of course you can!

Re: "we are not homogenous borg"

[paddie-gal.livejournal.com]

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

[aberbotimue.livejournal.com]

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

[guyinahat.livejournal.com]

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?