You have the right to not be offended?

I am really starting to get sick of people who insist that they should go through life without being offended by other peoples ideas. I have the right to hold whatever beliefs I want and to debate them as a member of a free society. No matter how repulsive or misdirected it may be. Remember that Copernicus (sp?) was roundly critcised and ostracized for his outlandish ideas and for teying to corrupt society. But he turns out to be right!

Sign me up!

I doubt you're going to find anyone who disagrees with you...

Your Quadell

Well, I do!

Ok, I really don't. But this is the BBQ pit--we need some flames here!

------------------
"Eppur, si muove!" - Galileo Galilei

Its nice to know there are so many people out there that believe that a free exchange of ideas, no matter how repulsive, must be allowed in a free society.
Thank you all for bolstering my beliefs in a great society.

Many people here would disagree with you. Some would like to silence hate groups, others would have South Carolina prohibited from flying its flag. The NAACP is on a campaign to extort anyone who "offends" them. And there are some here who support them.

I agree with you. If you want to get people to argue, just throw in some context.

Well, heck, what's a one-sided post in the Pit?

I disagree, to this extent: I firmly believe that the free exchange of ideas and any attempt to productively debate necessitates the observation of a certan minimum level of civility. Otherwise, you're not debating, you're hurling insults and pissing people off. If I say potato and you say potahto and I say you're full of shit, what have we accomplished?

I'm happy to argue any idea, no matter how morally repugnant I find it, within the parameters of basic civility. I treat others, and expect to be treated, with a minimum degree of respect, because I don't believe we can have any productive discourse without it. I also believe that certain subjects, due to their inflammatory nature or peoples' deep feelings about them, have to be handled very sensitively. This does not mean they should not be discussed, however; I'm no fan of censorship.

Wasn't this the topic of the Tom Lykus radio show about 2 days ago?


------------------
To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.

Well, even here, on the sacred SDMB, you can only proselyze in one forum, for concern of "offending" people, and one of our board moderators was bounced for speaking her mind and being "offensive."

Quadell said there was doubt anyone would disagree with the O.P's premise, but apparently our "Board Gods" and "Goddesses" do, at least to some extent.

------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

Frankie said:
I am really starting to get sick of people who insist that they should go through life without being offended by other peoples ideas. I have the right to hold whatever beliefs I want and to debate them as a member of a free society. No matter how repulsive or misdirected it may be. Remember that Copernicus (sp?) was roundly critcised and ostracized for his outlandish ideas and for teying to corrupt society. But he turns out to be right!
=============================================
By and large, I'm with you, Frankie. However, I'm ALSO getting sick of people who insist they should be able to go through life insulting the intelligence and offending both the physical and psychological space of others. Whether it's smokers who blather about having the non-existent 'right' to not only pollute their own bodies and air supply, but those of everyone around them; or creationists who never cease in their attempts to foist their superstitions upon the rest of us in the name of science, there's is, as Jules Pfeiffer once put it, only one thing wrong with having an open mind -- sooner or later someone comes along and tries to fill it with garbage. If an idea offends me, I ignore it. If some idiot comes up and insists on his right to make me pay attention, I reach for a club.
=============================================
Mr. Zambezi said:Many people here would disagree with you. Some would like to silence hate groups, others would have South Carolina prohibited from flying its flag. The NAACP is on a campaign to extort anyone who "offends" them. And there are some here who support them.
============================================
First of all, try getting you facts straight. The problem in South Carolina is NOT the flag of South Carolina, it is the Confederate Battle Flag, which has no official role anywhere. It's flying was voted into existence by a clearly racist state legislature in the 60's as an act of defiance against the entire idea of civil rights enforcement. Thirty years later, that is still its primary function, and it is still a clear insult and warning to all non-white people in the state to remember their prescribed 'place' in the local society. As for whether the NAACP is trying 'extort' anyone they find offensive -- extort what, and from whom,exactly? The only thing I've heard or read about them is that they are trying to organize a boycott of South Carolina, which is clearly within the limits of civil behavior.

One can only wonder what the reaction would be if white supremacists managed to take over some small county in Idaho and voted to fly a Nazi flag on the same pole with the stars and stripes. Would you expect any Jews who happened to live in the area to just swallow hard and go on? Piss on that!

[Mr.Zambezi]

There is already a debate on the flag on another thread. And you are right, I was thinking of the Georgia Flag. I lived there during that debate.

Dif said "it is still a clear insult and warning to all non-white people in the state to remember their prescribed 'place' in the local society."

Now lets get your facts straight. This is your opinion. it is not a fact. You are not the ultimate source on the meaning of the flag.

The nazi flag stood for the the Nazi party and it's policies. The Confederate flag stood for the confederate navy and is now assumed to stand for the southern states. The two are not analagous. Should I compare Jesse Jackson with Hitler becase he called NY city "Hymietown"?

And the NAACP is trying to extort action out of the networks by threatening a boycott if they do not stick some black actors in this fall's sitcoms. They are trying to extort gun manufacturers into changing their policies by filing a frivolous lawsuit.

When someone says "do what I say or I will hurt you" I call it extortion Whether they are holding a bat or threatening to bankrupt me matters very little.

But I suppose if they are offended by something, well heck. that;s good enough for me. Lets change everything that offends anyone. What a wonderful world that would be.

------------------
"Do that which consists in taking no action and order will prevail" --Lao Tzu

[Terey]

Soxfan:[[Well, even here, on the sacred SDMB, you can only proselyze in one forum, for concern of "offending" people, and one of our board moderators was bounced for speaking her mind and being "offensive."]]


No.

[matt_mcl]

When any government . . . undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything - you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
- Robert A. Heinlein, If This Goes On...

The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.
- Justice Anthony Kennedy

You can't crush ideas by suppressing them. You can only crush them by ignoring them.
- Ursula K. LeGuin

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
- John Stuart Mill

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
- Thomas Paine

With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.
- Captain Jean-Luc Picard, "The Drumhead," Star Trek: The Next Generation

A free society is a place where it's safe to be unpopular.
- Adlai Stevenson

[matt_mcl]

Frankly, I'm a big activist fag, and I think it's great that freedom of speech laws protect Fred Phelps. That way he can go on national TV, and we can all see what a pathetic twerp he is.

[DrEvil]

I've said it elsewhere but it bears repeating:

A great quote from a mediocre musical (1776):

"I've never heard of anything so dangerous we can't even TALK about it!"

Zabezi said: Now lets get your facts straight. This is your opinion. it is not a fact. You are not the ultimate source on the meaning of the flag.
=============================================
Let's try not to get into a "yes-it-is/no-it-isn't/etc." kind of go-round, all right? Your opinion that my 'fact' is just my opinion is just YOUR opinion. Since you're not the ultimate source on the meaning of the flag, either, it comes down to who can support their contention most clearly.
=============================================
Z:The nazi flag stood for the the Nazi party and it's policies. The Confederate flag stood for the confederate navy and is now assumed to stand for the southern states. The two are not analagous. Should I compare Jesse Jackson with Hitler becase he called NY city "Hymietown"?
=============================================
The two ARE analogous. The Confederate Battle flag ("Stars & Bars") has come to stand for the entirety of the Confederacy "and for its policies" -- including the infliction of slavery on blacks. Don't ask me to defend Jackson when he makes asinine ethnic slurs and I won't ask YOU to defend Lester Maddox. You can compare Jesse Jackson to Hitler if you want -- it would only point up the absurdity of your position to do so, of course.
=============================================
Z:And the NAACP is trying to extort action out of the networks by threatening a boycott if they do not stick some black actors in this fall's sitcoms.
=============================================
That's economic coercion, not 'extortion'. The difference is one of action vs. inaction, omission vs. commission. What, should blacks be compelled to watch shows they don't like because there's nothing about the show that 'connects' with their own lives? Furthermore, the networks are only able to operate profitably because their affiliates all use the airwaves -- a public resource -- with the understanding that they will operate in the public interest; effectively ignoring a large minority of the public violates that covenant.
=============================================
They are trying to extort gun manufacturers into changing their policies by filing a frivolous lawsuit.
=============================================Well -- there are SOME things we agree about. Filing a frivolous lawsuit that seeks monetary compensation IS extortion, albeit legal. I've covered this pretty much on the 'gun control' thread, so I'll skip it here. Anyway, this topic is supposed to be about being offended, not about creating a pretext for gun control. However, even though I am someone who is steadfast against what some people call 'gun control', I'm willing to look at the NAACP's arguments that the gun industry may be using marketing practices that have an undue impact on black society, as long as they don't try to deny that most black victims of gun violence are victimized by their own race.
============================================
Z: When someone says "do what I say or I will hurt you" I call it extortion Whether they are holding a bat or threatening to bankrupt me matters very little.
============================================
Which only points out your need for a good dictionary and a refresher course in the meaning of words. If you're a shopkeeper and I come into your place and tell you, "Buy insurance from me or bad things will happen to your windows' -- that's extortion. If I come into your place and I say,"Buy my insurance or I'll organize a boycott of your business" -- I'm inclined to consider that extortion, too. But if I come into your place and say, "Would it be okay to put this poster for the African-American Heritage Festival in your window" (seeing as you operate in a well-integrated neighborhood), and you replied, "No, I think blacks should forget their heritage and just concentrate on being good Americans" and I responded by organizing a boycott of your business THEN, that would be coercion. And entirely legal.
And moral.
============================================
Z: But I suppose if they are offended by something, well heck. that;s good enough for me. Lets change everything that offends anyone. What a wonderful world that would be.
===========================================
Yeah, if only. But if you want to reduce the debate to an absurd level, you go there alone.

[Mr.Zambezi]

DIF, I am not going to respond to the flag stuff here because there is another thread on this.

Dif Said: "Which only points out your need for a good dictionary and a refresher course in the meaning of words. If you're a shopkeeper and I come into your place and tell you, "Buy insurance from me or bad things will happen to your windows' -- that's extortion. If I come into your place and I say,"Buy my insurance or I'll organize a boycott of your business" -- I'm inclined to consider that extortion, too. But if I come into your place and say, "Would it be okay to put this poster for the African-American Heritage Festival in your window" (seeing as you operate in a well-integrated neighborhood), and you replied, "No, I think blacks should forget their heritage and just concentrate on being good Americans" and I responded by organizing a boycott of your business THEN, that would be coercion. And entirely legal."

Well DIF, that is a bit catty. But since this is the pit.....you need a refresher course on analogy. The NAACP is saying "do Xor we will make sure you suffer economically." All the BS you added about forgetting black heritage and such is superfluous. They are not trying to argue their point and sway the target of their anger. They are threatening to damage them. Boycotts surely are legal, and are not as odious as threats of physical violence. But a boycott can be as damaging as a fire.

If Blacks do not like network shows, they can do what I do. Don't watch them. When they organize and threaten to get sponsors to drop them, they cross the line from voting with their dollars to threat. I think it is wrong.

DIF also said "But if you want to reduce the debate to an absurd level, you go there alone. "

In every single debate regarding ethnicity or race, the argument ad absurdium is usually evidenced by a reference to Hitler. Saddam was another "Hitler." Slobodan was a "Hitler" and those who fly the rebel flag are basically flying a Nazi flag. The two are very, very different. The use of the term "Nazi" is used to take the argument to an absurd level and make it emotional. You are as guilty as I.

I think our argument boils down to this. YOu believe that racism exists and needs to be expurged. WHen the NAACP or some other minority group says "we are offended" you think that we should be sensitive to their feelings. (I am sure you will correct me if I misread your philosophy on this.) I do not feel that racism exists. I think that when a group complains that something makes its members "feel bad" they have to prove actual concrete damage before a change is made. If we do, we should listen to all groups who feel bad and race around trying to eliminate the offending symbols, words, acts and utterances.

I doubt that we are going to come to an agreement unless we confine our debate to a very specific topic. I am open to suggestion on how to focus this discussion. Perhaps: is being offended enough grounds to force others to change?



------------------
"Do that which consists in taking no action and order will prevail" --Lao Tzu

Guys, I'm gonna make my first petty comment in this whole thing. I'm really sorry about it, but it involves an attack on my husband made by the moderator in the About this Message Board forum, and it bugs me. My husband, who goes by the name "Highlander" here, made a post in the "Where'd Melin Go?" thread. The moderator jumped his case, telling him that "in the interests of full disclosure" he should have identified himself as my husband in his post.

So . . . we have the above one word post by Terey, quoting Soxfan:

Soxfan:[[Well, even here, on the sacred SDMB, you can only proselyze in one forum, for concern of "offending" people, and one of our board moderators was bounced for speaking her mind and being offensive."]]

No.

Shouldn't Terey be required, "in the interests of full disclosure," to state in her posts on this topic that she is SD Staff?

We return to your regularly scheduled discussion, still in progress.

-Melin

[Big Iron]

[[I do not feel that racism exists. ]] MrZambesi


Is this a typo? Can you possibly be serious? If so, can you possibly think you deserve to be taken seriously?


[[I think that when a group complains that something makes its members "feel bad" they have to prove actual concrete damage before a change is made. ]]


Fortunately, a majority of society has a greater sense of ethics than you.


[[I doubt that we are going to come to an agreement unless we confine our debate to a very specific topic. I am open to suggestion on how to focus this discussion. Perhaps: is being offended enough grounds to force others to change?]]


Sometimes, clearly.

Meanwhile, I can't help but notice that many of those who complain about how thin-skinned everyone is are in fact exhibiting the very same characteristic whenever someone has the temerity to speak their mind and let their feelings be known. Taking offense, in other words, at some people's just taking of offense.

It's comments like these of Mr Zambesi that thoroughly justify the sort of things Jill said (the things that started the whole brouhaha).

[mr john]

Back to Frankie's ORIGINAL post , No you don't, I have made up my mind about that,I don't want to hear any thing more about it,so keep quiet. In fact you can't even think that way . So there ,discusion over.

[mr john]

oh, sorry, this isn't the place for this, but Melin, you may or may not have been shafted I don't know and quite frankly don't care. But do you have to show up in every thread rehashing the same things?

[SoxFan59]

Soxfan:[[Well, even here, on the sacred SDMB, you can only proselyze in one forum, for concern of "offending" people, and one of our board moderators was bounced for speaking her mind and being "offensive."]]

Terey: "No."

Hmmm. To which of the above independent clauses does the "No" apply? Or is it both?

If you are saying "no" to my statement about proselyzing, I must respectfully disagree. The rules are now clear that if one is to attempt to share one's religious convictions (particularly where such convictions are determined to be "off topic") with the express (or dare I day implied?) purpose of convincing others of the veracity of said religious convictions, such discussions are limited to the "Great Debates" Forum. Whether the SDMB's decision to adopt this rule was wise or not remains to be seen, but it was ostensibly done because folks were complaining about a particular posters overactive tendancy to "share his faith," causing people some level of annoyance, and, dare I say, offense. Thus, a comment regarding this policy is certainly in keeping with this forum's topic.

If you are saying "no" to my comments about a certain former board moderator, I have to again disagree. The objective facts show that this board moderator expressed an opinion in an offensive way. (She used profanity, and the attacks appeared to get a little personal). Nothing that hasn't happened numerous times in many threads on this board, and on the old board (although AOL's TOS sometimes put a damper on the profanity angle).

My point in making the statement here is this moderator ostensibly caused an offense, and, according to her and several SD staffers, this cost her the job as moderator. For whatever its worth, I think my comment is well within context. There are things on this board which (in most instances) are not tolerated because they cause offense. (The fact that rules regarding these offenses may not be enforced uniformly is beyond the scope of this post).

That was my point, and nothing more. To say "no" to either comment makes absolutely no sense. Both instances involve the SDMB staff making decisions about posts on this board because "someone" was offended. The propriety of such decisions and policies are for others to decide. I just find it ironic that some truly believe we don't care about such matters, and that we "tell it like it is" regardless of consequence.



------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

[Big Iron]

[[To use the term racism is misleading. It creates the impression that people center their prejudices mainly upon race. It draws attention away from the other issues involved such as language and culture.]] Zambesi


Yeah, right -- usually the laguage and "culture" associated with a particular race.

[[ It also gives the impression that only those of a minority race can be discrimated against. ]]


Of course, it does no such thing.


[[This is, of course what some of the left wing folks would like to happen. I mean, doesn't it make you sound so compassionate, so ethical, so...hip to rail agains racism. And how can anyone argue against you. As soon as I say that I disagree with your views on race, the obvious conclusion must be that I am a "racist." ]]


Nice try -- views on race are just like anything else, they must be assessed individually. Melin and I have differed on race issues, and I don't for a second think she is the least bit racist nor have I ever implied she was. If your views (or the phrasing thereof) are harsher and seemingly more insidious, though, an inference of racism (or at least serious insensitivity to the concerns of racial minorities) is quite reasonable to draw. You, sir, are pushing the envelope, IMO.

[[ (and of course, someone is going to make comparisons to Hitler and the Nazi party.)]]


Of course, the comparison is completely appropriate if, say, it's for the purpose of revealing how nonsensical your statements are concerning the idea that symbols can't cause any harm that anyone should concern themselves with.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Big Iron said: "It's comments like these of Mr Zambesi that thoroughly justify the sort of things Jill said (the things that started the whole brouhaha)."

A point of clarity: People are, or can be, Prejudiced towards other groups. I believe that people have a tendency to be more critical and prejudiced towards those that are different than them. Race may be the difference that they focus on, but it is not the sole factor.

To use the term racism is misleading. It creates the impression that people center their prejudices mainly upon race. It draws attention away from the other issues involved such as language and culture. It also gives the impression that only those of a minority race can be discrimated against.

This is, of course what some of the left wing folks would like to happen. I mean, doesn't it make you sound so compassionate, so ethical, so...hip to rail agains racism. And how can anyone argue against you. As soon as I say that I disagree with your views on race, the obvious conclusion must be that I am a "racist." (and of course, someone is going to make comparisons to Hitler and the Nazi party.) But that is not the case. I just disagree with certain actions taken in the the name of creating a "better society." To say that the NAACP is full of it is not the same as saying negative things about blacks in general.

I believe we all are (or should be) equal in the eyes of the law and God. But that doesn't mean that I have to run around sticking up for the cockamamie antics of every minority group that can manufacture a gripe about how something like a book, word, flag or television show is "opressing" them.




------------------
"Do that which consists in taking no action and order will prevail" --Lao Tzu

[bj0rn]

free exchange of ideas?¿?

yeah sure, just dont think of your idea as a fact. remember that it is just an idea like the rest.

---------------------------------------------

if you are selling, im not buying. - wrong for this thread.

[Mr.Zambezi]

A symbol can stand for an odious idea. I do not think that there is any argument about that. But to say that the Confederate flag is the equivalent of the Nazi flag is to indulge in hyperbole.

And disagreeing with the NAACP over these issues does not constitute racial insensitivity. If that were the case, then in order to be "sensitive" to minority issues, one would have to agree with all of their positions.




------------------
"Do that which consists in taking no action and order will prevail" --Lao Tzu

[Big Iron]

[[A symbol can stand for an odious idea.]]


Yes -- and the Confederate flag stands for discrimination against blacks. The "heritage" is celebrates is, largely, a heritage of official subordination of black Americans.


[[But to say that the Confederate flag is the equivalent of the Nazi flag is to indulge in hyperbole. ]]


Nobody is saying it is "equivalent," though, simply similar/comparable in type (if not degree). The fact that you flee from this example reveals the hollowness of your position regarding "mere offense."


[[And disagreeing with the NAACP over these issues does not constitute racial insensitivity. If that were the case, then in order to be "sensitive" to minority issues, one would have to agree with all of their positions.]]


Nope -- of course, trying to recast this as simply the position of NAACP, rather than one on which the vast majority of blacks agree, doesn't insulate you from justified charges of insensitvity, either. You said it yourself -- defenders of that flag don't respect the feelings of black people.

[Mr.Zambezi]

BI said: "You said it yourself -- defenders of that flag don't respect the feelings of black people."

Not quite. The flag supporters do not respect the NAACP's POSITION. THat is, they don't have respevt for their belief rgarding what the flag means. Likewise the NAACP does not respect the views of the flag supporter.

And no, the Nazi issue is not that similar. It just gives the issue the appearance of being more important than it is. you are effectively saying that southerners who support the flag are like the Nazis, which is a broadly discriminatory statement in and of itself.

I find this argument ironic. I believe strongly in diversity. And most liberals believe in diversity as well. Part of this belief is that people should stay in touch with their heritage. Black scholars often tout the value of knowing ones roots as well.

I imagine that there were many Black Africans selling Fellow Africans into slavery. I also imagine that many engaged in ethnic battles and murder. Perhaps the Ibo (just an example) were avid slave traders up till slavery ended. THat is the heritage of some black tribes as well. Nobody is talking about the violence and slavery of African history.

Yet if an African American flew an Ibo flag (or shield, or textile pattern or whatever) I would bet that would be OK. A white southerner struggling to respect his heritage by flying the flag with which he identifies, for whatever reason, is called a racist.

Maybe, just maybe you and the NAACP members are being intolerant, insensitive and racist to the white Southern cultural group. Your remarks cerrtainly show a prejudice against southern white males.



------------------
"Do that which consists in taking no action and order will prevail" --Lao Tzu

Maybe, just maybe you and the NAACP members are being intolerant, insensitive and racist to the white Southern cultural group. Your remarks cerrtainly show a prejudice against southern white males.
===========================================
You just aren't getting it, are ya? As a southern white male myself, it's not hard to understand why a black person would object to paying taxes to a state government which uses a symbol of racist oppression as part of its flag. Or, at least, it shouldn't be. There's a reason why they fly the Confederate Battle flag at KKK rallies, and it has nothing to do with respect for southern history. They don't burn crosses on the front lawns of blacks who move into white neighborhoods as a means of inviting them to attend the local Christian church.
If certain "southern white males" have just *got* to show the Confederate flag, let them buy a piece of land near the capitol and erect a pole; I'll defend their right to do that, no matter how wrongheaded.
============================================
"Do that which consists in taking no action and order will prevail" --Lao Tzu

I'd rather go with the guy who said,"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

[Mr.Zambezi]

DIF, Please see the many posts on the NAACP/Confederate flag thread in Great Debates.

I disagree with your conclusion concerning what the flag represents.

[Mr.Zambezi]

One more thing: THis thread was about whether or not people have the right not to be offended. In that context, everyone agreed that there is no right not to be offended.

When I brought up a couple of examples where the NAACP is making a lot of noise about their right not to be offended, the opinion turned. Granted, with the flag there are some other issues involved because it regards the State and not individuals.

But I hold that the NAACP is making the argument that they have the right not to be offended as it regards the flag.

[Big Iron]

{{BI said: "You said it yourself -- defenders of that flag don't respect the feelings of black people."

Not quite.}} MrZambesi


Well, I'm pretty sure that's what you said, even if you didn't (consciously) mean it that way.

{{ The flag supporters do not respect the NAACP's POSITION. }}


Try as you may, you cannot here effectively separate the feelings of black Americans with the feelings/position of the NAACP.


{{ THat is, they don't have respevt for their belief rgarding what the flag means. }}


Unfortunately for them (and the citizens of SC), such people are completely in error about what that flag means. It means, "fuck anybody who says we have to grant any equal rights to balck people." That is a fact, not a "belief."


{{Likewise the NAACP does not respect the views of the flag supporter. }}


Not all "views" are entitled to respect.

{{And no, the Nazi issue is not that similar. It just gives the issue the appearance of being more important than it is.}}


Sorry -- it is thoroughly similar in kind, if not degree (and easy for me to say as someone whose ancestors were not slaves). The main point of making a comparison to the Nazi flag, of course, is to reveal the hollowness of your prior position that "mere offense" is never enough to justify doing something. You have since decided that you cannot take refuge in that pretext of a mechanical rule, so the analogy has served it's proper purpose, andf you are left with the less (putting it mildly) principled position that blacks shouldn't be much offended by the state government flying a flag that primarily represents the feeling of (some) white people that they shouldn't have to treat black people as remotely equal citizens (and secondarily represents enslavement of black people).

[[ you are effectively saying that southerners who support the flag are like the Nazis, which is a broadly discriminatory statement in and of itself. }}


No, I am not (as explained above and previously) and I do not think so. I do think, however, that such folks are either ignorant or grossly insensitive (or both).


[[Maybe, just maybe you and the NAACP members are being intolerant, insensitive and racist to the white Southern cultural group. ]]


Nope.


[[Your remarks cerrtainly show a prejudice against southern white males. ]]


Just the ignorant, insensitive ones -- of course, there is no shortage of such people in any region, and I am prejudiced against those people, too.

[Big Iron]

[[DIF, Please see the many posts on the NAACP/Confederate flag thread in Great Debates.

I disagree with your conclusion concerning what the flag represents. ]] MrZambesi


One of the great traditions at The Straight Dope is that no respect is accorded to those who choose to diagree with objectively settled facts. So it is with your insistence that the flag at issue doesn't primarily represent racism and subjegation of blacks. It is a fact that it represents just that.

[Big Iron]

One more thing: THis thread was about whether or not people have the right not to be offended. In that context, everyone agreed that there is no right not to be offended.
When I brought up a couple of examples where the NAACP is making a lot of noise about their right not to be offended, the opinion turned. Granted, with the flag there are some other issues involved because it regards the State and not individuals.

But I hold that the NAACP is making the argument that they have the right not to be offended as it regards the flag. ]] MrZambesi

And yet, despite your proclaimed adherence to this "principle," you recoil at the suggestion that it encompasses a Jew's offense at seeing a swastika. That tells me something about how deeply-held this principle really is.

And, for the zillionth time, blacks Americans are ASKING that this racist symbol be retired, and aren't claiming any sort of right. Kind of like someone with athsma asking you not to smoke near them in certain places (even if there is technically no prohibition on smoking there) -- why be a dick when you can be decent?

[The Ryan]

Frankie
Member posted 08-04-99 02:16 PM

(I’ve changed the order)

“I have the right to hold whatever beliefs I want and to debate them as a member of a free society. No matter how repulsive or misdirected it may be.”

The Constitution protects you from legal sanctions for such behavior. However, that does not mean that you are immune from social sanctions from such behavior. For instance, if you hold the belief that all homosexuals should be killed, and loudly declare that belief, you should expect there to be serious repercussions. Expecting absolute tolerance would be silly.

“Remember that Copernicus (sp?) was roundly critcised and ostracized for his outlandish ideas and for teying to corrupt society. But he turns out to be right!”

That’s different for many reasons, including:
1. He was right (something I’ll get into more later)
2. He was threatened with physical punishment. You’re complaining about other people complaining about people saying offensive things. As far as I can see, you are not complaining about people attempting to physically punish the people saying offensive things.

“I am really starting to get sick of people who insist that they should go through life without being offended by other peoples ideas.”

It seems to be that a fair rewording of this statement would be “I’m offended by those that who insist that they should go through life without being offended by other peoples ideas”. Isn’t that hypocritical? Here’s my take on the situation: there are some situations in which I find it acceptable to offend someone, and other situations where I don’t. Who decides in which situations I find offense acceptable? I do, of course. Is it presumptuous for me to decide such things? Well, it seems to me that what I feel about the appropiateness of an offense is my business, but I can see how others might not look at it the same way. Part of that is probably because I am unable to completely explain exactly what I mean, but I think mostly it’s because other people believe that they get to decide when offense is acceptable, and don’t think that I should be “encroaching” on those decisions. But everyone decides for themselves when offense is acceptable, and anyone that complains about anyone else doing so while implying that [Ii]they[/i] would never do such a thing is being at least mildly dishonest (and yes, I do think it’s acceptable for me to offend them by calling them dishonest, although I’m sure that they won’t find it acceptable). I believe that although people were offended by Copernicus’ ideas, that offense was acceptable. The fact that I consider the offense acceptable in that situation does not, in my mind, oblige to find all cases of offense acceptable.

Big Iron
Member posted 08-09-1999 08:17 PM

“You, sir, are pushing the envelope, IMO.”

Ever notice how people rarely use the word “sir” anymore unless they’re about to criticize or insult someone?


Big Iron
Member posted 08-12-1999 01:17 AM

“One of the great traditions at The Straight Dope is that no respect is accorded to those who choose to diagree with objectively settled facts. So it is with your insistence that the flag at issue doesn't primarily represent racism and subjegation of blacks. It is a fact that it represents just that.”

This isn’t really the place for the flag debate, but I couldn’t let such an ambiguous statement go by. Do you mean that the flag represents this for some people? For everyone? That it was meant to represent it?


Big Iron
Member posted 08-12-1999 06:13 PM

“And, for the zillionth time, blacks Americans are ASKING that this racist symbol be retired, and aren't claiming any sort of right. “

Given the OP, it’s reasonable to assume that an argument against the flag is implying that blacks have a right to get rid of the flag. The title of this thread is “The right not to be offended?” not “Should we ask people to respect each other’s feelings?” If you want to argue that we should get rid of the CSA flag (or battle flag, or whatever it is) should be removed because blacks have a right to demand that, go ahead. But if you're going to argue that we should do it to protect blacks' feelings, or to not "be a dick" as you put it, then there's already a thread in which you can present such arguments.


------------------
-Ryan
" 'Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.' " -Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

[Big Iron]

[[“One of the great traditions at The Straight Dope is that no respect is accorded to those who choose to diagree with objectively settled facts. So it is with your insistence that the flag at issue doesn't primarily represent racism and subjegation of blacks. It is a fact that it represents just that.”

This isn’t really the place for the flag debate, but I couldn’t let such an ambiguous statement go by. Do you mean that the flag represents this for some people? For everyone? That it was meant to represent it?]] The Ryan


I mean that the primary motivation for bringing that flag out of mothballs back in the 50s/60s was to protest the notion that black people ought to be granted equal rights over the objection of the white majority in those states.

[[“And, for the zillionth time, blacks Americans are ASKING that this racist symbol be retired, and aren't claiming any sort of right. “

Given the OP, it’s reasonable to assume that an argument against the flag is implying that blacks have a right to get rid of the flag. The title of this thread is “The right not to be offended?” not “Should we ask people to respect each other’s feelings?” If you want to argue that we should get rid of the CSA flag (or battle flag, or whatever it is) should be removed because blacks have a right to demand that, go ahead. But if you're going to argue that we should do it to protect blacks' feelings, or to not "be a dick" as you put it, then there's already a thread in which you can present such arguments.]]


Your administrative concerns are duly noted.

[Mr.Zambezi]

BI said "Kind of like someone with athsma asking you not to smoke near them in certain places (even if there is technically no prohibition on smoking there)"

While I am all for not being a dick, I am asthmatic. I have never asked someone to refrain from smoking. I always have teh choice to go elswhere. THere is plenty of air for everyone. But therein lies our fundamental disagreement. You would ask them to not smoking because of your concerns. I would simply go elsewhere.

BTW, I notice that you chose to leave the south as I did.

[Frankie]

The Ryan-
Just to clarify. I am not offended by these people. I really have a large tolerance for offense. I didn't even find Jar Jar Binks offensive! =)
I am sick of the bellyaching. For example people who are offended by white supremecists and therefore they should not be allowed to speak. They should be allowed to speak even if their ideas are ridiculous and outrageous. You have no right to walk through life without ever getting offended.
Please do not confuse my position with defending or endorsing any offensive statements. I think that intentionally offending anyone is wrong. But if you are offended don't piss and moan about it...you are gonna get offended sometimes if my opinions differ from yours.
I hope this helps clear up any confusion!

[zoony]

*....resisting urge to agree with Mr.Z....*
Gotta admit he's got a point. While the position of the NAACP may or may not be 'extortion,' the fact remains that there is a difference between being offended by someone's words or actions, and going around looking for things to be offended about.

Personally, I think just about all TV Sit-coms and day and evening soaps are offensive - mostly to my intelligence - but I exercise my right to turn the friggin' channel. I don't call up the network and say "I'm boycotting you until you air a show about people who don't like television and who engage in debates on internet message boards." No one has the right to no be offended. Life is offensive, deal with it.

The flag thing I don't agree with, but that's just my opinion and it belongs somewhere else.

Z

[heatherlee]

I agree you have the right to think and act any way you want in society..basically I dont care enough about what people think lol. Most people tend to care too much and i dont care at all. Im myself and Im happy with who and what I am and stand for. and if others dont like my ideas or opinions F*CK THEM!