andrewducker | Offensiveness (request for comments)

Offensiveness (request for comments)

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?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

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?

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

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.)

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.

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").

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?

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.

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.

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...

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 ;-)

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?

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.)

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 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. :)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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?

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.

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!

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 3

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

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject