Welcome to the 21st century.

[andrewducker]

I can understand why there's a stereotype of feminists as humourless.

I mean, if you're used to being able to make jokes about horrible things happening to women and then a group of people start telling you that they don't find this funny then your perception of them is going to be that they just don't have a sense of humour.  After all, you don't _seriously_ want bad things to happen to women, you're just having a laugh, right?

My old friend Ed went to this debate in which a controversial comedian debated whether it was ok to make offensive jokes.  Frankie Boyle used his moments on the debating stand to tell a series of increasingly unpleasant jokes - all of which got a massive laugh from the audience, except when they touched on a subject just a little too close to home.  My friend found himself laughing at all sorts of appalling things, until the subject was (coincidentally) turned onto his own situation, at which point he found himself thinking "but that's not funny".

Because it's never funny when it's about you.  It's only funny when it's about someone you don't care about. 

Or, at the very least, if you can pretend that nobody you know is like that.

It's much easier when you live in a nice insular environment, where you only really know people like yourself, and you certainly only socialise with people just like you.  Then you can bask in in-group/out-group socialisation to your heart's content.

Not to easy when you're on the internet, and people are likely to pop up at any moment and point out the flaws inherent in something you thought was innocent fun.

The question is - how do you deal with it when someone points it out?  Do you have to let the flaws ruint it for you because they offend someone else?  Do you have to argue that there's nothing wrong with the thing you love?

If you care (and nobody is going to make you) then some very useful hints and tips can be found here.  The flow-chart at the end is particularly good.

Comments

[broin.livejournal.com]

Totally. =)

I'll explain two things that big me.

On RPGnet, there's a bunch of rules designed (so it seems) to prevent people from feeling offended. Don't use 'gay' as an epithet. Don't call someone retarded. Complain about Christianity, but not individual Christians.

These rules have an unfortunate effect, it seems to me. I can't call you on your bullshit. So in a conversation about circumcision being equivalent to child abuse (something I agree with), another poster felt any such angle was equivalent to anti-Semitism. And another felt it was anti-American. This shuts down discourse.

Point the Second: Friends of a friend. I got chatting with two or three women, aged 23 or so. Just about to finish university. Though they espoused assorted liberal views, and seemed more or less as wishy washy as I, I gradually realised they were terrifying fascists. They were hugely opposed to free speech, and hugely opposed to (as they saw it) conservative viewpoints. As if anyone who didn't agree with socialised medicine, or LGBT rights, or should be _denied the right to discuss it_.

To the point where they'd strip down posters at uni from Christian organisations.

[andrewducker]

Which is where you need the SU to step in and enforce freedom of speech.

I don't see why banning the use of "gay" as an epithet and ad hominem attacks prevents you from pointing out the flaws in someone's argument.

I'm obviously opposed to left-wing authoritarians as much as I am right-wing ones - they shouldn't be allowed to say things like that!

[broin.livejournal.com]

What's the difference between that and the SU banning a comedian from appearing (or the character - same diff)? Sure, it's a 'private' venue, but I don't think that's a strong argument.

The argument on RPGnet went that if one describes male circumcision as child abuse, one is saying all Jews (and many Americans) are abusers. Inherently. Inarguably.

[andrewducker]

I'm fine with people choosing not to allow other people onto private grounds for most reasons. If you wanted to come give a speech in my kitchen about the evils of gay people that wouldn't mean I had an obligation to let you.

The RPGnet argument sounds like the opposite of what their rules state:
"Complain about Christianity, but not individual Christians." would say it was fine to say things about "All Christians". If people are feeling sensitive and arguing the opposite then that's going to cause problems, but that's a problem a mod should be sorting.

[broin.livejournal.com]

And how should they 'sort it'? :)

The rule isn't *quite* like that. I can say modern paganism is, say, shallow and reactionary. I can't say pagans are shallow. I can't say you, a pagan, is shallow. Which is tortuous when I complain about a faith/culture/country, and someone takes it to mean I'm picking on each and every member of the faith/culture/country.

I mean, following my argument about circumcision, if I feel it's physical abuse, aren't I saying every Jew is an abuser?

[andrewducker]

Nope, because not all of them do it. Also, picking on one act performed by a group doesn't mean that group is eeeevil - it just means that they aren't perfect.

It does sound like RPG.Net have taken things too far, to be honest. As I said elsewhere in this thread, unless you're specifically advocating hatred/violence I fall on the freedom of speech side of things.

What I'm generally trying to say with the post here is that there are things you can say/do that are going to offend people, and that if you care then here are some useful ways of dealing with it without it spilling into flamewar territory. And that thinking about the effect of our words on others is worth doing.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

In support of this - I too find that the chilling effects on freedom of speech are one of the big problems of anti-prejudice crusaders.

For semi-related example, I was considering making a character in a future series black, after an inspiring post by theferrett. However, there's a strong argument that I'd just be asking for trouble and abuse in doing that, no matter how much research I did, and I'd be far better to stick to her being white. I still haven't decided what I'm going to do there.

[broin.livejournal.com]

I completely sympathise.

And I have to say, checking out your character with a dozen 'PoC' (really don't like that term) isn't going to help.

The other day, I was helping a blind guy through town. I asked him a couple of questions about how best to offer help to blind people. He explained that those who were blind from early on were usually more tolerant of people in their personal space. Those who became blind later on in life were usually less comfortable with people taking their arms etc. But it didn't really matter, as I'd offend some people no matter what I did.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I'll probably pass the character by a couple of black people just to see if I've made any howlers - to take your example, the blind person you were helping did give you some useful advice. But yeah, I wouldn't be expecting doing that to avoid my pissing some people off.

[broin.livejournal.com]

Y'know, I spent three hours roleplaying a black character this evening. One of the players afterwards said he was a bit stereotyped. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.

But the idea I'd take the character and pass it round black friends for them to rubberstamp my portrayal? Fills me with horror. How completely embarrassing.