You ignorant people ( no offence). This thread indicates the naive state of semanics today. The lack of depth, the trival. Don’t you all realize that “words” can convey only allusionary meanings?
Words have no meaning. Words only have function.
Think.
Meaning is the function of words.
Completely disagree. Every time a stereotype is repeated, jokingly or not, it’s unwittingly reinforced (or introduced) into an audience’s mind. What if I jokingly alluded to Koreans’ obession with bees, expecting you to get the joke. You’ve never heard of that before, but now you know that there’s a consensus that Koreans are obessed with bees. You start to notice lots of references to it, mostly in the context of how ridiculous the stereotype is, but admittedly, the idea had to come from somewhere; why would people make that up? You might even start to hesitate, just slightly, in letting Koreans around your bees. Of course, your enlightened mind tells you you’re being prejudiced for giving in to the stereotype, and you make a consious effort to shrug it off; but the idea was still strong enough to make you hesitate, just for a moment.
Well, I got a little into it near the end, but you get the idea. Repitition has been Scientifically Proven to aid in memory rentention. So of course silence would be helpful in this case. The fewer times you hear a certain stereotype, the less likely it is that you’d remember it.
"So when a Klansman uses “nigger” or “boy” he is making fun of the stereotype? I don’t follow you."
Nice strawman, Zoe.
Let’s take it further: Mussolini got the trains running on time, and put down the mafia in S. Italy. So you’re right: Fascism is very efficient. Was that your point?
I was referring to mainstream comedy. A hate group or extremist agenda will use any means to promote their aims. Do you really believe oppressing comedy in mainstream society will stop these people from spewing their hate? I don’t. In fact, I think you’re just increasing their power by making those words exclusive to them. That’s what I meant by deflating: the wider usage decreases the potency.
Gay people took back the word “queer”. Now, anyone can use it - it’s lost its potency as a hate word. Black people took back “nigger” - it’s not mainstream yet, but I expect it will be eventually (and then, of course, will no longer be cutting edge). In any case, their usage has deflated the potency as a hate word.
"Are you saying that it offends you when someone uses the word “victim” or “hero”? I have noticed that it isn’t politically correct to be a “victim” anymore. “Suffer” is another one. I try to avoid using either in reference to myself. That’s all I can promise."
You don’t have to promise me anything. That’s the difference between my position and yours. I’m advocating free speech and individual choice.
If I (as an individual) use words or choose to tell jokes you consider offensive, you are free to say so, and/or choose to think less of me. And I can promise you that I will do the same. I’m willing to live by my choices, your choices, and any individual’s choices. What I object to is you attempting to inflict your choices as an aggregate.
I make my judgements about these things based on intent. The Klansman in your strawman actually makes it easy to determine intent, doesn’t he? A comic on stage? Also easy to figure intent (anyone disagree?). But I grant you there are “blind” situations: Jokes or remarks from strangers, or anonymous internet postings. In those cases, I give the benefit of the doubt until I learn more. Is it possible that the “easily offended” are either unwilling or unable to do that?
Maybe it’s a perceptual problem. You know how some people have a phobia about clowns? Why? The theory is, clowns have painted fixed expressions, and some people have an extreme aversive response in situations where there are no obvious signals denoting intent. If they’re not absolutely sure, they freak out. Or in some cases, attack. Call it risk aversive, call it intention blindness, call it “mad clown disease”. Unfortunately, we’re all clowns, on the internet. So, we either live with some “risk”, or adopt fascism.
Just a theory.
"Well, I got a little into it near the end, but you get the idea. Repitition has been Scientifically Proven to aid in memory rentention. So of course silence would be helpful in this case. The fewer times you hear a certain stereotype, the less likely it is that you’d remember it."
pizzabrat, most of my comments to Zoe’s post can be applied to your joke analogy. As for your proposal of “silence” as being helpful, I must completely disagree in return.
Silence and avoidance are what aided and abetted the Jewish holocaust, and many other atrocities throughout history. The Nazi’s wouldn’t be silenced, just as the neo-Nazi’s and other extremist groups cannot be silenced now.
The problem with your assertion is, no one can silence everyone without advocating fascism, or worse.
"Meaning is the function of words."
And context is a function of meaning.
The inability to factor context and intent is one of the symptoms of autism, or other perceptual disorder.
The unwillingness to factor context and intent is something else.
**
**
but nowhere near as short as “Creek”
**
**
I think the rub for most people is that there comes a point where accomodation ceases to cost nothing. Sure, I would prefer not to offend other individuals with my speech, I also try not to lump people by stereotypes, but I would also prefer not to ‘walk on eggshells’ constantly examining every word I say. Many of the more liberal (not politically, but socially) of the various groups seem to want just that. They all but come out and say, ‘Treat me special, or I will be offended, and you don’t want that.’
**
**
But I cannot choose how another person thinks. If I tell what to me is a harmless joke, and you become offended by it, that’s really not just my fault. You choose to take offense to my humor. And this goes beyond just anything to do with racism or stereotypes. If I say ‘Fuck’ and it offends you, you still chose to be offended by the word. If I said it without any attempt at offense behind it, it isn’t my fault you were offended, it’s yours. You can always ignore me. Chant a little ‘sticks and stones…’ in your head and get on with your life. It’s really not like my opinion should even matter to you.
**
**
And here, in fact, lies another problem with the ‘PC’ movement. Noone (or the vast minority, or possibly a very unvocal majority who is getting out advertised by a very vocal minority) actually does this. Rather than acting like an adult and going to the person and saying, “you offended me the other day when you said blank”. They instead run to a manager or an HR rep and proceed to ‘tell on them’ for what they did.
I remember that when I went to grade school we had a rule about telling on people. If the person was doing something that was going to physically injure someone you were supposed to go to the teacher and get their help. If it was not a physical danger, and you thought it was wrong you were supposed stand up to them and tell them you thought what they were doing was wrong. Face to face. Mano y Mano. If that didn’t work, THEN you went to a teacher.
My perception (and I certainly may be wrong) is that that no longer occurs, or is rare. In life today, if someone offends you, it’s time to run tell on them.
It can hardly be a strawman when I told you that I didn’t understand what you were saying. Still don’t in regard to that quote.
No. My point is that Facists want to control. I do not.
I have never advocated oppressing comedy in mainstream society.
From my own observations, African-Americans still do not like to be called “niggers” by white people who do not know them as indiividuals. If Blacks ever stopped teasing each other with that word, I wasn’t aware of it. I know it was in use for that purpose by 1969. I don’t think that that is one that is going to be widely accepted.
I disagree. As pizzabrat said, it reenforces the stereotype.
You might want to reread the OP for my opinion on free speech.
What I object to is that you have totally mischaracterized what I have said. Maybe I should quote the OP here:
I don’t know where you got the notion that I want to censor anyone.
I can’t speak for the easily offended or for those who are sensitive to the power of words to harm. In speaking for myself, I have found it generally wise not to assume that I can know anyone’s motives or intent other than my own. But I am human and do tend to judge clues.
I make no assumptions on why you did not understand the OP.
Goodness, stick monkey! You pack a lot into a few words!
I agree! That’s why I make it a point to be vocal about the damage that words – especially stereotypes – can do.
Those are the only ones that I take offense to. Generally, I take very few stereotypes personally – Americans, Southerners and women. Generally, I am annoyed with anything that perpetuates myths and ignorance about any group. I think that stereotyping people does that.
You are totally correct when you say that I am responsible for my own feelings. I try not to say things like: “When you call her ‘white trash,’ you make me angry.” Instead, I try to say it this way and mean it: “When you call her ‘white trash,’ I feel angry.” That way, I am not blaming you for my feelings. I am giving you feedback on what I find offensive.
Well, I could. But this is one of my soapboxes. Words have a way of eventually encouraging those sticks and stones. I don’t expect you to mistreat anyone personally.
<snip>
I hate it when people do that. I think that “emotional intelligence” should be a required subject in high schools. Snitching is passive-aggressive.
Good post, stick monkey!
The great mainstream comediens–Pryor, Rock, Carlin–took existing stereotypes and twisted them. A good comedian leaves you unable to avoid examing your own worldview after you’re done laughing your ass off. The not-great comedians…well, the not-very-good-at-all comedians…are left with “Members of group X do this, but members of group Y do this!” or “You might be an X if…”
Anyway, talk of “oppressing” mainstream comedians seems out of place here because this discussion is not about any type of censorship but self-censorship. I see people on the street scratching their asses every day of the week. I don’t want public ass-scratching legislated against in any way, but I think that everyone’s life would be improved if folks could just restrain themselves until they found a bathroom. This is similiar to how I think our lives would be more pleasant if people could refrain from lame-ass and pointless jokes meant only to divide our cliquish selves into more and more warring tribes.
As I’ve said before, the thread that inspired this one was meant to be hostile and to establish superiority. It is not meant in loving tribute or affectionately tongue in cheek. Context and intent can usually be figured out with more accuracy than the speaker may intend.
No, we cannot choose how other people think, and some people are professional offendees. But not every joke, no matter how harmless it is to you is equally as harmless to everyone! Some jokes hurt. And a sensible and sensitive person avoids saying ‘fuck’ until he or she knows it won’t offend the people who will hear it. If a person persists in saying ‘fuck’ around people who dislike profanity, chances are
My perception is that a minority of people will run and tell, a larger minority will openly confront the offender (for whatever good that will do), and the majority of people will a) quietly feel bad, and b) strike the offender from their mental list of worthwhile people. If you (a generic you, not a stick monkey you) persist in saying ‘fuck’ around people who find profanity vulgar, they will write you off as good company, as trustworthy, as considerate, and seek to spend as little time as possible with you. This could mean not hiring you, or disliking you being friends with their child. It just puts up walls between people.
"Anyway, talk of “oppressing” mainstream comedians seems out of place here because this discussion is not about any type of censorship but self-censorship."
sugaree, this thread was inspired by a thread based on a joke about a stereotype, and whether or not it was an “acceptable” topic of humour. So I don’t see why you think referring to comedy by example is out of place. But I do agree with your assessment of professional comedians, and don’t see it as contrary to anything I’ve been trying to say. You said “twisted”, I said “deflate”. Same idea. Talent (or lack of), as a factor in acceptable humour by comedians, is probably outside the discussion implied by the OP, so I’ll leave it alone.
As for this thread being about “self-censorship”: If you agree with the OP rationale you might like to phrase it that way. But for anyone who disagrees with the PC agenda, it’s not about self-censorship. The PC agenda depends on self-appointed censors to suppress and control others. Not through physical force, obviously, but by intimidation (no reasonable/decent/sane/intelligent person would say/think/do that…), criticism and group pressure (pile-on pitting at SDMB), personal insults (it’s less offensive to ridicule individuals over stereotypes?)…
The right to “speak up” often morphs into the right to abuse anyone who disagrees with or even questions the PC ideology . Think I’m over-exaggerating? A member here was pitted recently for this very thing. Not for posting something rude, or offensive, but for stating a group-contrary opinion about what she considered acceptable. For being “different”. It was a particular irony in that one of her cited “differences” was not conforming to the stereotypical image of female behaviour.
"It can hardly be a strawman when I told you that I didn’t understand what you were saying. Still don’t in regard to that quote."
Well Zoe, here’s my post in question (not just the part you snipped out of context):
You expect me to believe that you “didn’t understand” I was referring to stereotypes in comedy? And you “innocently” asked me if I was referring to a Klansman as what… your best guess?
If you wanted to bring it up as your own example of how stereotypes might be used with malicious intent, fine. But to imply that I meant to say that is a strawman.
Still don’t understand? Since this is GD, I thought I’d cite something that perhaps better explains my POV about stereotypes in comedy. This is from an interview with Ray Hanania, a Palestinian Arab who is also a professional comedian:
**To: Zoe
**
Thanks.
**
**
<snip>
I fully agree that stereotypes, or even any kind of language, can offend, and even hurt other people. It can make them feel inferior, put them off their game, and prevent them from getting what they want.
However, the world is filled with stories of people who have perservered through even the harshest of criticisms and ‘verbal oppression’. It is my opinion that it is the responsibility of people to perservere. I do aggree that people should attempt to be inoffensive in their speech (for example I don’t swear around my christian parents), but if they offend someone, the extent of the conversation should go.
offendee: “you offended me, when you said X”
offender: “sorry, I will try not to do it again.”
The end.
The generall feeling that is perpetuated by the PC movement (not necessarily you, Zoe) is that if you offend someone, it automatically makes you a horrible person. And that is where I personally draw the line as to what is acceptable.
**To Sugaree
**
My example more extends from the fact that all too often (at least, the few times I have personally witnessed a stituation like this) people get offended for someone else, or during a conversation that they were not even a part of.
I am of the opinion that there is normally an obvious difference between innocously offensive speech, and maliciously offensive speech, and that treating them both the same is detrimental to society as a whole.
I wonder if this is true.
I would bet that if I referred to another Doper as “queer”, I would get called on it. Same in ordinary discourse - I don’t perceive “queer” as having become non-offensive. And therefore I would hestitate to use it. I expect this is for the same reasons that black people would object to me (a white male) referring to them as “n****rs” regardless of how well we knew each other.
I have even known people to hestitate to change from one politically correct term to another, for fear it is a form of “gotcha”. No more use of the term “Negro” - it has to be “Afro-American”. Then that went out, and it became “black”. For a while, it had to be “Black”, not “black” - I believe Ebony Magazine still insists on the usage. Now it has to be “African American”. You can’t say “colored”, but “people of color” is OK. And at each change, I have heard people rebuked (if not worse) for not using the latest PC term, even in the absence of malice.
Language is a social construct, and words only have meaning because we have all agreed that they do. I have even lived thru a change in what are the unmentionable words. The taboo word used to be “f**k”, now it is “n****r”. Is that an advance? I suppose in a way it is, although the corresponding change of (for instance) “Negro” from respectful to almost taboo is a little hard on those of us of a certain age, who don’t mean to be disrespectful but don’t feel comfortable referrring to anyone as “my nigga”.
Regards,
Shodan
Is there a consensus on the capitalization issue?
Because the conversation can just as easily go like this:
offendee: “you offended me, when you said X”
offender: “how about you go and eat my ass?”
The PC mindset, taken to it’s furthest logical extreme is that no one should ever be offended by anything. If Bill from marketing and I are being a little loud and boisterous, Joan from accounting should not have to tolerate such rowdyness in her presence. God forbid anyone offends her delicate sensibilities.
It would be fine if people like me and Bill from accounting could go through life with the Joans of the world hating us for being jerks, but no. Now the Joans of the world have to have the might of corporate policy behind them to enforce that they never have to worry about a ‘jerk’ making their workplace ‘uncomfortible’.
Note that I am not advocating behavior that is racist or harassing in nature.
"I would bet that if I referred to another Doper as “queer”, I would get called on it. Same in ordinary discourse - I don’t perceive “queer” as having become non-offensive. And therefore I would hestitate to use it."
Well Shodan, if someone called you on it, you could cite the fact that “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” is now on “mainstream” network television (NBC). But that’s not to say you have to use it.
"I expect this is for the same reasons that black people would object to me (a white male) referring to them as “n****rs” regardless of how well we knew each other."
I agree. But I think, like the “queer” example, it’s more of a generational difference (which you go on to mention yourself). I don’t use it either, but I’m noticing white children using it as a result of exposure to hip-hop and rap music. This is why I speculated earlier that it would eventually be considered mainstream. Though not necessarily true for the older generations (of either race).
"And at each change, I have heard people rebuked (if not worse) for not using the latest PC term, even in the absence of malice."
This is what I’m objecting to, and I still think it’s getting worse. For example, I never realised that “lifestyle” was such a dangerous term, but from reading certain threads here, it appears it can be taken as homophobic if it’s used after “gay” (just a little heads up for ya, in case you missed it).
But your take on it gives me an idea for a possible counter-argument: Accuse the rebukers of ageism. 
BTW, welcome back - hope you had an enjoyable holiday.
And I wouldn’t feel comfortable using the term. It still feels as if I were being offensive.
I have never seen the show, although I think it is (or was) on Bravo in my market.
Probably also true, but I don’t allow my children to use the term “queer” either.
Trust me - I know, I know. But in at least one instance, I think it is more or less an excuse to be offended.
Thanks - it was wonderful.
As a matter of fact, something related to all this happened while I was on vacation. We went to the same church camp we have been going to for the last eleven years, and they always have a “talent” night on Thursday. And the same guy does the same lame magic act every year, and we always go quite overboard in cheering it. Except this year, he decided to add singing to his reportoire, and sang a spiritual which he described as being sung by the “Negroes of the old South as they worked in the fields”. And the black folks in the audience rolled their eyes when he said it, but did not object, for whatever reason. And on the way back to our cabin, my son asked me if use of the term “negro” was offensive, which he had heard it was at school.
And I tried to explain what you mentioned about generations, and that the old guy (who is in his late seventies, and white) did not mean any offense in the least. It was just how he grew up speaking so as not to be insulting.
Or possibly, he was like my beloved grandmother, who grew up using the term “n****r” just as casually, not in order to offend, but because it never occurred to her that it was offensive. And the instant she became aware that it was, she stopped, and switched to the term “colored people”.
Maybe that term is offensive to someone. But I think there is a difference. It is hard to argue that nowadays you didn’t mean anything in particular by calling someone a “n****r”. But it is not always hard to believe that they didn’t mean anything by calling them “black”.
And I, at least, have not reached the point where I could be sure I am not being careless of the feelings of others if I use the term “queer”. And I am not really sure at what point I could be sure enough to use the term.
But, as I say, I am an old fart, and will likely use the term “gay” much as my grandmother used to mention that so-and-so was “colored”.
No offense intended.
Regards,
Shodan