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

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

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.)

[prynne.livejournal.com]

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?

[andrewducker]

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.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

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.

[prynne.livejournal.com]

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?

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

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.

[rosamicula.livejournal.com]

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.