I am getting tired of the PC Police on this board.

The BBQ Pit
101

Let’s subject the following statements to that ruler, then, and see what we come up with:

“The dyke bitch who bumped my car”
“The paraplegic bitch who bumped my car”
“The gook bitch who bumped my car”
“The dwarf bitch who bumped my car”
“The ancient bitch who bumped my car”
“The blonde (and therefore very ditzy) bitch who bumped my car”

Assuming that, in the cases of each statement, the title was followed with a rant essentially identical to the one in question, except the offensive parts related to size were replaced with offensive parts pertaining to each hypothetical thread title.

Would it be wrong to give someone hell for flaming based on sexuality? On disability? On nationality? On height? On age? On haircolor (and thusly-perceived, or so we assume in this hypothetical intelligence)?

No.

You are allowed to have an opinion. You are not, by having an opinion, rendered safe from any and all criticism, flaming etc. Having an informed opinion can safeguard against these things.

So you’re saying that if we took out the offensive bits of life, there would be nothing left? Well that’s a wonderfully naive combination of “think of the children” and “boys will be boys”.

Some things in life are always going to be painful or offensive or things like that. However, not all things have to be. If you’re going to, for example, flame someone for ramming into your car, why include something unrelated like their shoe size or what color their nails or painted or their weight? It’s IRRELEVANT.

102

And when we do stereotype, isn’t it a good thing that others are around to say, “Hey, that’s not cool”?

Not sure what you’re getting at, but if you’re saying censorship is wrong, I agree. But that’s not what’s going on here. There’s a big difference between “You can’t say that”, and “You’re an asshole for saying that”. You have every right to say whatever bigoted thing you want, but if you do, I and others will be right there with a big resounding “Fuck you!”.:smiley:

103

I think we’ve got a winner, here.

The “new PC” that some wish to promulgate on this board is the notion that assholes should be able to say whatever assholic stuff they want to, without fear of being criticized, ridiculed, or otherwise flamed in turn on account of their assholery.

And for some reason, they think they should be even more shielded from others’ negative opinions of them if they have aimed their assholery at a group, rather than an individual.

Intellectually speaking, that is of course a steaming pile of crap.

104

As was your “argument”.

Nobody is saying that you can’t criticize an asshole. He just has to be an asshole. Which is why we criticize the shrill assholes who call offense at the slightest provocation.

It’s all one big free speech jamboree.

105

Well Canvas my dear, you’re not only obsessive, you’re dim as well.

Well, no, I can’t state there has never been such a case, but I feel perfectly comfortable describing North America’s recent obsession with slimness and a concomittant disdain for fatness (while all the while getting fatter in the aggregate) as trivial compared to the horrors of ethnic hatred, religious bigotry and violence.

Living in the real world, where people are indeed executed, burned, and blown up for such things, I do not find the trivialities of the recent and comparativley minor disdain for the fat in any way remotely comparable.

It is in fact revoltingly stupid to make the comparison, and reflects a degree of pampered self-indulgence that I despise.

Let me sell you a clue, my dear drooling dim wit. I have never taken the position that harrassing other people for their mere appearance is ever a proper thing, or okay.

On an individual level, I rather strongly believe in proper behaviour and a modicum of good manners, up to the point where actions require otherwise.

However, the aggregate ‘suffering’ of some overweight people in North America does not in any way compare with the horrors visited on ethnic and religious minorities. In no fucking way.

The comparision so raised speak to lives so fucking sheltered…I have not quite the words for the stupidity of the comparison.

106

Irony-Meter pegged out!

107

Your rebuttal was apparently so succinct that I missed it.

Which directly contradicts

since people will inevitably disagree about what constitutes assholery.

Funny, that’s exactly where we started. A guy took lengthy offense at someone’s weight, with zero provocation on that score. (He had every right to be pissed at her for doing a hit-and-run, but that seemed to be the lesser issue in his eyes.) We criticized.

Glad you’ve come around to be in support of that criticism. :smiley:

108

He was, thus why he was flamed for his assholish opinion. Or did you miss that thread? I think I remember you posting in it, but then so many people have shown that posting in a thread does not necessarily = understanding any of the posts therein.

As for free speech, not on this board. Lynn et al can ban for whatever the fuck strikes their fancy. They could ban people for having more than one N in their usernames. This is a PRIVATE board. 1st Amendment don’t apply, just in case you were wondering.

109

To be fair, pun, AMWaG didn’t mention the First Amendment. And while it’s true that the SD admins could ban anyone, or delete any posts, for any reason, in practice they limit our speech here in such minimal ways that describing what we have here as “free speech” is hardly inaccurate.

OTOH, your primary comment is right on target.

110

especially since I can’t spell apparenty either:D

Maybe I don’t know what it is, but thinking that I can call anyone anything and be ok doesn’t fly with me either.

111

So, in an attempt to dispute my point (which is really a simple one and one which has been noted very well by others in this thread) you resort to namecalling and insults.

You still haven’t gotten it. Poor thing.

112

When in doubt, rely on name calling. What are you? Five years old?

No one in this thread has said that what overweight people go through is "Just as bad as what jewish people etc have gone through. It’s clear that you don’t read well and haven’t quite understood what we HAVE been saying, which is…

that it is no more correct to discriminate or mistreat someone based on their weight than on other physical characteristics such as race.

Your statement, and our statement are saying two different things. THAT is what I was talking about when I said “this can’t be that difficult” (apparently it is, you are still unenlightened).

No, you just think it’s perfectly okay for others to do so.

You already commented on that above and I answered, so have many others in this thread.
It’s clear that the majority of people responding to this are in disagreement with the original rant’s choice of insult. It’s equally clear that though people are, of course, free to say whatever they want here, that they aren’t going to “get away with it” unscathed if they behave in an unacceptable way.

113

blowero

With all due respect, that really is not my position at all. My position is that it is perfectly OK to call someone in on their superficiality, however you cannot expect people to sympathise with your position if you are a rude asshole like Mockingbird was in Keith Berry’s thread. This is especially true if you are trying to be a paragon of tolerance and fair mindedness.

As I said in my last post, Mockingbird, had every right to call in Keith Berry on his bullshit, however by acting like an obnoxious prick he not only completely undermined his own position but came across as being a more unpleasant person than Keith Berry himself.

In the thread which sparked this one alice_in_wonderland also called in Keith Berry on his superficial remarks. The difference is that he/she was far more patient and civil and as a result was a far better spokesperson for tolerance and understanding than Mockingbird. Alice took the debate 1 step forward, Mockingbird dragged it 50 steps back, threw it into the gutter and then pissed on it.

In short, there is nothing wrong with telling someone they’re being intolerant. However, if you don’t want to look like a pot calling the kettle black, you would do well to remain tolerant yourself in the process, just like alice_in_wonderland was.

[/quote]

My example shows that not to be the case. And notwithstanding Ben’s insistence that fat-bashing is somehow not as bad as other forms of intolerance…

[/quote]

While I do frown on all forms of superficial intolerance, I agree with Collounsbury that there really can be no comparison between fat bashing and other, deeper forms of intolerance like anti-semitism. Tell you what, when you hear of a nation instigating a pogrom against fat people, let me know and I’ll change my position instantly.

[/quote]

I find any insults to an entire group of people to be a much more grievous harm than insults to one intolerant person.

[/quote]

And I respect your position. However, the reason I oppose it is solely because I feel that personal insults against a bigot are counterproductive. Please understand that at no point did I support what Keith Berry said. I just believe that if one wants to put forward a view of tolerance then one should act in a tolerant and respectful manner, otherwise the bigot can just turn around and say “Hah! You’re a fine one to talk. You’re can’t practise what you preach. Get back to me when you’ve stopped being a hypocrite”.

Even if someone came onto these boards spouting the most vile, anti-semetic, anti black, homophobic shit imaginable, I would be polite and civil in my responses. I do not for a minute think that people who called the bigot a dirty racist bastard or whatever, would be worse people than the bigot himself. I would however, curse their inability to see the bigger picture and try to rectify the damage done to our common position of tolerance by their rude outbursts.

P.S. - Sorry if this is a bit incoherent, I’m just online to wind down from a club and I’m pretty drunk.

114

Blowero

I neglected to respond to this comment also:

If my alcohol addled mind is serving me correctly I think this is something of a false dilemma. No-one is saying that it is OK to hate fat people just because Jews have had it worse. What people are saying, in response to people who believe that “sizeism” and anti-semitism should be treated equally is that while hating fat people is unacceptable, “sizeism” shouldn’t be held on the same level as anti-semitism (for example) because anti-semitism has been the cause of unimaginable suffering and incalculable bloodshed while “sizeism” simply has not had the same human consequence. This is not the same as saying that “sizeism” shouldn’t be taken seriously, just that there are varying shades of discrimination, some more serious than others.

The problem with the argument that all forms of intolerance should be treated equally is that it can be extended to even the most petty forms of discrimination.

I don’t know if the same is true in America but in England, children with red hair tend to get picked on, is that discrimination as bad as anti-semitism? If I understand your argument correctly, it is.

Several times on this board, regulars have instigated pileons against newbies for little or no reason than they see them as easy meat. Should the undeniable “post countism” that exists on these fora be held on the same level as the religious intolerance that has claimed countless lives throughout the ages? If, as you claim, all forms of discrimination are just as bad as eachother, then they should be.

In my high school there was a kid called Gareth Callaway who had truly atrocious acne. Other kids made fun of him. Should we exhume Billie Holliday and record another version of ‘Strange Fruit’ just for kids like him? Or should we accept that some forms of superficial discrimination are worse than others?

Seriously, where does it stop?

115

Ugh, Goldschlager and UBB coding are bad bedfellows :frowning:

116

Now THIS is a reasoned and mature response Ben. You make some good points. I don’t think those of us in the “stop hating fat people” camp have EVER said that what fat people have faced is worse than what jewish people, for example, have. All of understand that that degree of “ism” is worse in its heinous acts and violence than “sizism”. And our posts show it, it’s just that a few in here aren’t reading, or perhaps aren’t understanding those posts.

What we have been attempting to say is that hatred, disrimination and “ism” is wrong, period. Regardless of its level of “meanness” or violence, it’s wrong.

Somehow, a few people picked up on that and started insisting that we were saying that obese people’s treatment is just as bad as what has been faced by other oppressed groups. We weren’t. We were merely stating that obese persons are to be INCLUDED as having a right NOT to be hated, mistreated and discrimnated against because of their differences.

Why is this a “pet subject” of mine? I teach PE. I have obese students from whom I have learned more than I have taught them. Many have been successful, some haven’t. I treat all of them the same.

I am in training to become a personal trainer. Helping people find the answer to their weight problems is not my “career” (my fulltime job is in the enviro biz)m it’s just a sideline job I do from the heart. Part of that, my “obsessiveness” as one poster called it, is that of attempting to educate other people about the psychology of obesity. “They” aren’t what people think “they” are, If what I say reaches just ONE person and helps create understanding, compassion and tolerance…

Well, that’s why I keep on.

117

Oh, quite true. Maybe it’s just my impression from an admittedly limited number of threads/posts viewed (hey, I can’t read 'em all … I gotta save some time for posting;):D), but there seems to be a rash of people new to this MB who believe their rights are protected by the First Amendment, speech-wise (sorry, don’t have a cite … if I’d had the providence as I was readin various threads to save the URLs I imagine that point would be a lot less in-air, but them’s the breaks). It is also an argument I have seen elsewhere (re: “Hey, you can’t infringe upon my first amendment rights! I can say what I want!” “Um, no, you can’t, this is a private enterprise.”), so I was hoping to nip it in the bud, so to speak.

True, but part of the sense I got from the post in question was a certain entitlement not only to opinion but to posting priviledges. That is not the case. As TUBADIVA et al. have said in the FAQ and registration requirement/rules, we are the guests of the Chi Reader. They don’t have to give a reason for terminating anyone’s posting priviledges, and any reason they give doesn’t have to be fair. In practice I have found that the vast majority of bannings (save, like, a handful, if that) have been deserved if not even a bit overdue. However, as Lynn’s Sticky in this forum says, and as her warnings have indicated, there are some things (hate speech strikes me as one immediately) that are not allowed here. That seems to me to be the only “infringement” upon free speech here.

118

I would like to point out that what sparked this whole brewhaha was NOT hate speech. If anyone believes it was, they don’t know what hate speech is. Or more importantly, what it is not. It is not some guy making erroneous assumptions about the glandularly challenged while relating the story of a hit and run. Though it is hard to define what hate speech is exactly, it’s relatively easy to say what it is not. From a University of North Carolina law class.

(bolding mine) I think they nailed it pretty well.

“fat people can’t drive and are doomed to have miserable lives” may be crude, false, and even offensive to some. However it is not hate speech. I ask all of you to quit using the term incorrectly, for to use it in such a manner dilutes the severity of what hate speech actually is. Additionally, you will lose the last shreds of your moral authority by insisting that “fat, moronic bitch” is hate speech and may be unable to effectively fight back when actual hate speech rears it’s ugly head. Call it the cry wolf effect.

And don’t get me started on the rampant use of “discrimination”. These types of posts do not discriminate against anyone. No anonymous message board post causes a member of a group to lose a job, voting priveledges, etc.

The anti-PC police contingent, myself included, is merely asking for all of you to retain perspective.

119

I apologize, but I must explore this.

OK, someone like Ken uses lanquage that is offensive, but clearly doesn’t understand that it was wrong or why. (can we agree on that?)

He is charbroiled by several posters. Why? What has been gained? Is Ken any closer to seeing why those comments were offensive? Have those posters changed Ken’s mind, or opened it up just a wee bit? Or did they just enjoy the righteous indignation of calling someone names?

I ask you in all seriousness, if our intention is to change Ken’s mind, is this the best way to go about it? And doesn’t that need to be our intention to retain the moral high ground?

120

Good points, I thought I read most of the thread, but I didn’t see that everyone WAS in fact “charbroiling” him. I thought most posters tried to explain it to him in a nice reasonable way. Though you’re right, a few were mean and made personal attacks (kindof ironic huh?).

It wasn’t until after he and others began defending his post (not the title) and it’s nastiness as a viable way of expressing his anger about the car, that people began really putting their collective feet down.

Keithseems nice enough and it’s a shame about how he got piled on AND about his car. But many of the first several posters DID explain why going on and on and on about the lady’s hideousness, and obesity ad nauseum was not, perhaps, the most relevant way to relate his anger about his car, and that it was insulting to a whole group.

The bottom line is, you can say what you want, but be prepared to have a huge majority of people disagree (and possibly have your post deleted? as several have pointed out, this is a private board).

It really isn’t “too PC”, or “ridiculously PC” or whatever to say “can you just NOT flame fat people with such nastiness and venom, anytime you might feel like it”? It’s common courtesy.

One last thought/comment:

For those stating “well, no one complains when someone goes on and on about someone using an acne prone, or ugly person as a way of insulting the person about whom they’re ranting, blah blah blah…No one would say boo to a ghost about that, etc”

You know? I haven’t seen any other physical characteristic get brought up, expanded on and turned into something ugly and supposedly reflective of a person’s whole being, the way you see it done with obese people. So, what is that called, a “straw man”?