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]

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.