I just have to say that registering at the SDMB for the sole purpose of acting as a foil for your message board buddy is incredibly gauche. As is the degree of SDMB related complaining that goes on at that board. Have same fucking class.
No, she most certainly did not. There was never a point where she equated the relative moral issue of using human skin and using cowhide to make leather. The entirety of her analogy was that the passage of time does not mitigate the wrong of something that you find morally reprehensible. According to Opal’s personal value system, using leather is wrong. According to just about the entire planet’s value system, using human skin is wrong. Using one to illustrate the other does not make them equal. Why is that a difficult concept?
WHY did she use the concept of human skin, is the question, when there are so many fucking things she could have compared it to? The passage of time lessening the wrong could be illustrated in a thousand ways…banned literature, how about art stolen by the Nazis and resold?
The point is, in her mind, the first thing that came up was HUMAN SKIN LAMPSHADES…which indicates to me the level on which she puts leather bound books…which is INORDINATELY HIGH.
You know, in a way, it is strange that we’ve gotten here from a rather simple poll-ish question about leatherbound books. Pen == sword, methinks.
I mean, what the fuck. I even thought it would be an interesting thread about animal rights and general ethics and… well, blech.
What’s weird here is that I didn’t find the holocaust remark offensive, I pretty mcuh felt I knew what she meant. And I didn’t find other people taking offense to it to be stupid; I pretty much know what they mean, too. What I don’t get it whether this is really about a few flip remarks or if there is some vast undertow beneath otherwise still waters that we’ve located. If it is the former, well, great. It’ll blow over. If it is the latter, well, fuck: come out and say it, then. I wanna hear it. This is the place to dump your vitrol, so fucking have at it.
But I have a humble fucking request. Can we please not compare message boards? In any capacity? Does that serve any purpose? I mean, I’m all about flame wars, thread-wrecks, and seething animosity beneath a nice false front, but let’s keep the message boards out of this so we may keep the hundreds of registered Dopers and Fathomites who are not taking part in this out of it. Thats just fucking ridiculous.
Thus, to follow Opal’s “reasoning” :
Point E: Holocaust victim skins = cattle skins.
Point E[sub]1[/sub] as per Opal: People who own books bound in leather are as bad as people who own Holocaust victim skin lampshades. Book collectors are as bad as Nazi prison guards.
(sorry, the “oldness” red herring doesn’t work. A reasonable person wanting to make the “oldness” arguement would have said something like “5 years, 500 years or 5000 years, age doesn’t matter”. By dragging Holocaust vicitims in, she made the comparison.)
Fenris
I can see a couple possibilities here, and I hope Opal will clarify:
- Opal intended to attach the heavy baggage of the Holocaust to the use of animals for product. Some animal-rights folks believe, as I said, that the two are morally similar – not that Jews are reduced to the level of cattle, but rather that cattle are elevated to the level of humans.
- Opal didn’t intend to attach that baggage, and was going specifically and exclusively after the “passage of time doesn’t make it right” point.
Honestly, I think #2 is a little difficult to believe. Lampshades of human skin doesn’t make me think, “well, it happened a long time ago, but it’s still not right!” Instead, it makes me think, “Aah! Aah! How fucking horrible and evil!” I’m guessing that my reaction is nearly universal.
#1 is a lot easier to believe: I’ve seen comparisons like this before, and I’ve even, in my callow youth, made them myself. While, from certain philosophical standpoints, such analogies may be valid, I’ve never seen them be effective rhetorical tools. Quite the opposite.
And there’s another point, beyond strategy: even if, from your philosophical point of view, cattle have the same rights as humans, making such an analogy can be harmful. people take the Holocaust personally – especially when a relative died in it, or even when they experienced it themselves. But even if they don’t have a close connection to its horrors, they still take it personally. Making an analogy like that to someone that doesn’t share a strong animal-rights philosophy can be really hurtful and insulting to them.
Opal, I don’t think you meant to hurt anyone with the analogy. I suspect that you were going for some of the lampshade connotations beyond just the passage of time; otherwise, you would’ve chosen a less emotionally-laden analogy. I think it’s worth recognizing how this kind of analogy hurts folks and how it hurts animal rights/animal welfare causes, and retracting it gracefully.
I don’t think you’re a fucking idiot. But I do think you should consider the analogy’s ramifications.
Daniel
When you’re a Jet you’re a Jet all the waaaayyyyyyyyyyy…
**RIFF: Against the FFFers we need every man we got.
ACTION: Opal don’t belong any more.
RIFF: Cut it, Action boy. I and Opal started the Dope.
ACTION: Well, she acts like she don’t wanna belong.
BABY JOHN: Who wouldn’t wanna belong to the Dopers!
ACTION: Opal ain’t been with us for over a month.
SNOWBOY: What about the day we clobbered the Unas?
A-RAB: Which we couldn’t have done without Opal.
BABY JOHN: She saved my ever-lovin’ neck!
RIFF: Right! She’s always come through for us and she will now. **
[sub]With apologies to UnaBoard, FFF, The Straight Dope, Cecil, Baby Jesus, Berstein and my mother for letting this education go to waste.[/sub]
I’ve noted the mods, in their casual posting, to be generally friendly, helpful, and informative. From this alone, I have nothing bad to say about any of them. In their capacity as moderators, they’re typically restrained, authoritative, and, above all, even-handed. I disagree with them only to the extent that they give a lot more chances than I would, in their place. They’re damn fine moderators, unfortunate automotive inclinations not withstanding.
Further, the analogy in question is in my eyes completely unsupportable. No amount of further explication or clarification can change what it says. It triviliazes the deaths of millions of people, Jewish and otherwise. Simply because you believe that a beefsteak is an equivalent crime to a calculated attempt to wipe out entire groups of people does not give you the right to triviliaze it by comparing it to the dietary habits of the firm majority of the world’s population, both animal and human. I hope one day that you’ll understand exactly why people are hurt so deeply by the analogy, but I’m not holding my breath.
She was the first idiot to fly off the handle. You did read the other thread did you? She was asked a question that she taught was stupid and she got in a mood over it.
So fucking what? Do we have to worship at the feet of Opal to use her board every now and then? She started arguing in the other thread, she started this thread, she made the mistake of equating apples and oranges. Though shit. She’s in a hole of her own making.
Cya. BTW why not register with your Fathom name, banned over here possibly?
I also post at Fathom on occasion but tend to post here on a regular basis. I like Opal, I really do and always read what she posts be it here, FFF, or her Live Journal. She is an intelligent, straightforward and fascinating person with who functions in many roles at once and does a great job of it. But when it is all said and done she is still an imperfect human like the rest of us.
(except fathomite–I’m pretty sure it is a butt licking asshat troll wannabee but I need more than 2 posts to be sure)
I think the Holocaust skin lampshade remark was offensive and probably uncalled for and Coldfire (not acting as a mod but as a person who was offended by the remark)was justified in calling her on it. Opal is certainly free to respond to Coldfire if she wishes. That is the beauty of a message board.
People are free to say whatever they want. It does not necessarily make them right.
And if I don’t get any cranky pie soon I am going to be so pissed I don’t think I can be held accountable for my reaction.
I have a question. Since, in Opalcat’s universe, human skin lampshades go hand in hand with leather bound books, and she has stated that she does, in fact, own leather bound books, does this mean she owns human skin lampshades as well? And who do they come from?
And by the way, just because we’re offended by the remark doesn’t mean we don’t get it. As much as Opal wants to label us as stupid and thick headed, we’re not. Right away I said “oh, here’s an analogy between two things that were made a long time ago and are still perceived as wrong”
The thing is…it’s a disgusting analogy, and I got that right away as well. It’s like comparing owning a bug zapper to sending six million people to the electric chair. They are in no way in the same LEAGUE.
Neato a sock! I guess we will never enjoy your wisdom now.
As far as the whole Opal thing, my view is she is way way in the wrong here. I am a little amazed that she got such a high post count with her style of bitter personal attacks. Is this something new? I expect this sort of thing from the average 20 post troll, but jeesh. . .
Also, I was a Veggie for 5 years, but gave it up recently as it was getting to hard to follow, and I was sick of being associated with intolerant sanctimonious know-it-alls like Opal based solely on my dietary choices.
:rolleyes:
-me
JADIS
Yes, she did. SHE MAY NOT HAVE MEANT TO, BUT SHE DID. I mean, Christ, read a few other posts. Do you think I’m the only one who thought so. WHEN YOU EQUATE THE USE OF CATTLE SKIN TO THE USE OF HUMAN SKIN, YOU EITHER INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY IMPLY THE TWO ARE MORALLY EQUIVALENT.
Pardon me for shouting, but Christ on a crutch, don’t tell me that’s not what it means. It may not be what it means to you, and it may not be what she intended, but it should be fucking obvious by now that’s what it means to a lot of people.
It is not the thrust of her analogy that is the problem, but rather that she drew an analogy between those two things in the first place. These are different things.
Using one to illustrate the other obviously implies that they are comparable – because she compared them. Sorry that’s such a difficult concept for you.
Do not imply that I don’t get something just because I disagee with you, m’kay? Hell, I’ve gone on record as saying that I assume the offense was unintended, but don’t you dare tell me the remark was not offensive.
No, but there’s this business about board rules.
Those rules say that you can call people shitbags and goat-felchers here in the Pit. But - in order to preserve the use of the Ignore function, which I do - you can’t post who’s on your Ignore list.
So you come over here and get your Pit-style rants out. Uhhuh.
Over there, I’ve had negative things to say about people who have visited Fathom seemingly for the sole purpose of criticizing Fathom on various grounds. It goes both ways: if your only reason to be here is to dump on this board, then you really don’t need to post here at all.
If you look at the list of Fathom mods, though, you might notice that not only does OpalCat post here regularly, but so do tomndebb, Zette, and techchick, who isn’t a mod there now, but used to be. And you might draw some conclusions from that.
Assuming, of course, that Fathomite was not in fact Opalcat herself. It’s a logical extension of her previous tactic of claiming to know lots of people who’s E-mailed her to say how evil Coldfire was.
Well, I don’t KNOW that that’s the case, but since the only “asshat” in this train wreck is the one who gets mentioned as the #3 point in a lot of lists, it crossed my mind, anyway.
Maybe because of the obvious parallel behind the fact that both involve tanned/cured skin? The way I see it, the issue was that people were having a hard time understanding why Opal would object to owning a leather-bound book, even if it were old. This lack of understanding seems to stem from the fact that most people don’t have a moral issue with using animal skin and just can’t relate. Pointing out a situation that pretty much everyone can agree is morally reprehensible simply establishes a common ground for the “passage of time doesn’t lessen the atrocity” point that Opal was trying to make.
I really don’t see how this all boils down to mean that Opal literally equates the two. To her, they’re both moral issues…one that people were having difficulty understanding, and one that no one has difficulty understanding. Using the extreme example to illustrate a lesser example in no way implies that they both hold the same gravity. It simply establishes the common language of “moral issues do not go away just because they happened X number of years ago.”
Have any of you ever actually driven a Peugeot?
Don’t know which model Coldie has, but the 206 and 406 are great…especially the 206 GTi. What a fun little car to drive! And they make great rally cars, too.
Plus I hear the 307’s a great car too, but I haven’t had the opprotunity to drive it yet.
Oh, the discussion at hand…eh…it bores me so. Game-set-match to Coldfire.
Yeah, this is what I thought too. I admit it - I wasn’t offended by OpalCat’s original comments. I think she was trying to get the point across that she felt animals are elevated in importance to the level of people. A lot of vegetarians feel this way.
But, it was obviously not taken well here, and I can understand that too. What a train wreck this whole thing has become.
Maybe because of the obvious parallel behind the fact that both involve tanned/cured skin? The way I see it, the issue was that people were having a hard time understanding why Opal would object to owning a leather-bound book, even if it were old. This lack of understanding seems to stem from the fact that most people don’t have a moral issue with using animal skin and just can’t relate. Pointing out a situation that pretty much everyone can agree is morally reprehensible simply establishes a common ground for the “passage of time doesn’t lessen the atrocity” point that Opal was trying to make.
I really don’t see how this all boils down to mean that Opal literally equates the two. To her, they’re both moral issues…one that people were having difficulty understanding, and one that no one has difficulty understanding. Using the extreme example to illustrate a lesser example in no way implies that they both hold the same gravity. It simply establishes the common language of “moral issues do not go away just because they happened X number of years ago.”