The it's offensive society.

Mutant z

When you hear about the latest incident involving Apu on The Simpsons it shows how ridiculous this I'm offended culture is getting. It seems like everything is offensive to some. Why do some people believe not being offended is a human right and there should be a law in place to protect that right them from being offended so you're offended so what it doesnt mean you should have the right to demand laws so they will protect your feelings you just have to deal with it and stop being such snowflakes.

Whats even more ridiculous are those who get offended on behalf of others when the very groups they are offended on behalf are not themselves offended its clearly a case of bandwagon jumping, as the situation on The Simpsons shows. 20 years ago it didnt matter that the character of Apu was voiced by a white man but now it must be an Asian who voices him. This I'm offended society has gone way to far and must be stopped no one should have the right to protection from getting their feelings hurt because then literally anything could be offensive to someone which is a road we should avoid heading down.

joe40

The monty python movie "life of Brian" was banned in Ireland for years.

I guess people have always been easily offended, nothing new.

wes

Mutant z wrote: »

When you hear about the latest incident involving Apu on The Simpsons it shows how ridiculous this I'm offended culture is getting.

Except the guy who brought up the Apu thing was not offended. He was making a point that the only representation on tv for people like him was Apu, and the effect it had on him growing up. His position is far more nuanced than the caricature you and other like you present.

Here is the guy who started the whole thing:
https://twitter.com/harikondabolu/status/990986407232466944


The point being made is not the one you arguing against at all. In fact I see a lot of this. Someone criticizes something in a relatively nuanced fashion and the actual points are ignored in favor of moaning about people being offended.

People unable handle cultural criticism, and instead resort to straw manning the point being made instead, are just as much a part of the problem, as those who do go off being outraged about something that offends them. Simply put, your favorite TV show, or whatever else is open to criticism, and trying to straw man such criticism as deliberately stoking outrage, makes you no different than the people you are complaining about.

Basically, we have people being outraged about someone else who is outraged, but that other person wasn't all that outraged to begin with. Trying to present someone offering up criticism as being outraged is an easy get out of jail free card, where the thing being targeted can be defended by ignoring the argument and instead going on about outrage culture instead.

Quick question, to the OP, did you watch the documentary in question? If you haven't how can you be sure that the guy who worked on it was offended? Are you perhaps just reacting to 2nd/3rd hand information you have seen online?

ancapailldorcha

I think you'll find that the obsession with cultural appropriation, triggering and other nonsense both begins and ends with Farcebook, Twatter and the like. Spend some time away from them or, better still delete your accounts. You'll be much happier without the constant whinging and general noise of morons in your life.

Sile Na Gig

The way freedom of speech works is that people are free to say what they like. If someone is offended by what they say then they too are free to say so. Discourse ensues and if people aren’t completely pig headed then maybe we can all learn something.

RDM_83 again

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think you'll find that the obsession with cultural appropriation, triggering and other nonsense both begins and ends with Farcebook, Twatter and the like. Spend some time away from them or, better still delete your accounts. You'll be much happier without the constant whinging and general noise of morons in your life.

Go to north America and describe somebody as from an oriental background and see how your lack of offense culture goes.

To test it call somebody else a westerner and see the response.

It's the same bloody word just Occidental/oriental just we use Latin for one

RocketRaccoon

Sile Na Gig wrote: »

The way freedom of speech works is that people are free to say what they like. If someone is offended by what they say then they too are free to say so. Discourse ensues and if people aren’t completely pig headed then maybe we can all learn something.

So if I say I'm completely in favour of abortion and 100% against gay marriage, that's OK cause freedom of speech?

valoren

Now that blogs and vlogs are monetised, those who use such platforms realise that it is all about traffic. More traffic = more visitors/clicks = more revenue. Getting serially offended can be lucrative to that end.

The Apu 'problem' is indicative of that. A journalist/documentary maker looking to get a break exploited this same 'that's offensive business model' and given the media attention it generated it is job done as far as he is concerned. He appeared on the Daily Show in the US. You get paid for appearing and his message reached millions.

The reality is that people have always been and always will be assholes. The filmmaker highlights how he (and others) got bullied at school by bullies who were so unoriginal that they resorted to using the catchphrase of a high profile cartoon character from a culturally iconic TV show to get their verbal digs in.

In essence, the problem was the bullies not Apu. Clearly, the fact that the character himself is portrayed incredibly positively in the show is irrelevant. It's a no-win situation for the show. Don't have multi-cultural characters and you get attacked for why there aren't any at all. Have them and then their accent is appropriated as a means to bully others and that is all your fault.

An equivalent here is The Young Offenders. Being from Cork, clearly the peripheral characters are portrayed as uncouth langers with that accent. Now if I happened to go to another part of the country and have the locals idiots mock and denigrate me with quips and quotes from that show upon either hearing my accent or learning where I'm from then it is not that show's fault. It is merely idiots being assholes and it would be up to me to deal with it myself and not deflect from it by recognising the opportunity to generate revenue by attacking the show and it's lazy stereotypes while monetising it all on my vlog, getting interviews even potentially getting on TV. It would be more prevalent to address dealing with that instead of finger pointing elsewhere.

NIMAN

https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo

Mutant z

It hapoens all the time though someone doesnt like what someone says on Twitter and the like and they are calling for them to be banned much like on the radio as was the case of the witch hunt of George Hook because he had an opinion someone didnt like it seems that those with views that dont concur with the narative are fair game to be slaughtered and petitions called for their removal its very sinister stuff.

cantdecide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JATICtPYGGI

Sile Na Gig

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Sile Na Gig wrote: »

The way freedom of speech works is that people are free to say what they like. If someone is offended by what they say then they too are free to say so. Discourse ensues and if people aren’t completely pig headed then maybe we can all learn something.

So if I say I'm completely in favour of abortion and 100% against gay marriage, that's OK cause freedom of speech?

That’s just like, your opinion, man...

You’re free to be a homophobe, I’m free to cross the street to avoid you.

Dravokivich

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

So if I say I'm completely in favour of abortion and 100% against gay marriage, that's OK cause freedom of speech?

What's wrong with holding and discussing either of those opinions?

cantdecide

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

So if I say I'm completely in favour of abortion and 100% against gay marriage, that's OK cause freedom of speech?

I'm telling on you.

wes

Mutant z wrote: »

It hapoens all the time though someone doesnt like what someone says on Twitter and the like and they are calling for them to be banned much like on the radio as was the case of the witch hunt of George Hook because he had an opinion someone didnt like it seems that those with views that dont concur with the narative are fair game to be slaughtered and petitions called for their removal its very sinister stuff.

Not sinister at all. Free speech is a 2 way street. You can say what you like and the other person can say what they want in return. There is no world where what you say doesn't have some consequences.

Mutant z

Sile Na Gig wrote: »

The way freedom of speech works is that people are free to say what they like. If someone is offended by what they say then they too are free to say so. Discourse ensues and if people aren’t completely pig headed then maybe we can all learn something.

Certainly but that doesnt mean they should have the right to want to ban those from social media or the airwaves because of opinions they have as as the case with certain sections of society.

RocketRaccoon

Dravokivich wrote: »

What's wrong with holding and discussing either of those opinions?

Nothing whatsoever in my mind, but unfortunately you have idiots in Ireland and worldwide who will refuse to discuss those opinions. See above for evidence.

RocketRaccoon

Sile Na Gig wrote: »

That’s just like, your opinion, man...

You’re free to be a homophobe, I’m free to cross the street to avoid you.

I don't hold those opinions, I just chose them as they are the most polarising opinions in Ireland in recent memory.

taserfrank

The brain-dead, retarded juvenile snowflakes who are 'offended' by Apu for Twitter can fcuk right off.

whisky_galore

joe40 wrote: »

The monty python movie "life of Brian" was banned in Ireland for years.

I guess people have always been easily offended, nothing new.

That was more religion being used as a blunt instrument by devout practicing Catholics so at least they had a stake in the game.

Now we have white Caucasians (or whoever) being 'offended for' other peoples/nationalities/whatever you're having yourself or being overly offended by pretty trivial issues.

super_furry

Someone, somewhere is always looking to take offence. From the cultural appropriation crowd to the delicate snowflake Trump supporters who can't stand a comedienne joking about their glorious leader.

wes

taserfrank wrote: »

The brain-dead, retarded juvenile snowflakes who are 'offended' by Apu for Twitter can fcuk right off.

It so sad that people can't take a little bit of criticism of a cartoon without resorting to childish insults.

BTW, I don't even agree with the argument being made against Apu, but I do find it amusing to so many people being pissed off by criticism of a cartoon. Your post is a perfect example of someone getting overly emotional over someone criticizing a cartoon. Its really sad that people can't engage without resorting to such childish insults.

Outlaw Pete

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think you'll find that the obsession with cultural appropriation, triggering and other nonsense both begins and ends with Farcebook, Twatter and the like. Spend some time away from them or, better still delete your accounts. You'll be much happier without the constant whinging and general noise of morons in your life.

Maybe five to ten years ago that was true but what the OP is referring to is very much going on in the real world.

ancapailldorcha

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Maybe ten years ago that was true but what the OP is referring to is very much going on in the real world.

I've never encountered it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Captain Obvious

The furore over the Michelle Wolf White House Correspondents speech has been amazing to behold. People not even sure what they are offended by.

super_furry

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've never encountered it.

Me neither. It all seems to be an online phenomenon from people who spend too much time delving into American political issues.

I've never seen a lad from Ballinaspittle lose the head over cultural appropriation because some guy from Tallaght decided to ride a sheep.

wes

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Far to many people do that (both left and right), but again there free to do so. The price of freedom is that every damn idiot has it to.

JCX BXC

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

So if I say I'm completely in favour of abortion and 100% against gay marriage, that's OK cause freedom of speech?

Well you've made that comment and not been arrested haven't you?

You're free to voice your opinions, others are free to disagree with them.

ancapailldorcha

super_furry wrote: »

Me neither. It all seems to be an online phenomenon from people who spend too much time delving into American political issues.

I've never seen a lad from Ballinaspittle lose the head over cultural appropriation because some guy from Tallaght decided to ride a sheep.

Pretty much. I've also worked for multiple UK Universities and seen close to zilch aside from the occasional email.

RocketRaccoon

JCX BXC wrote: »

Well you've made that comment and not been arrested haven't you?

You're free to voice your opinions, others are free to disagree with them.

See above, I don't hold those opinions.

Caliden

People are now getting offended at some CEO singing 'we're in the money' while off the air before discussing a merger between Asda and Sainsburys.


Really.....

It's literally the guy's job to make money for the company. That's literally why he's paid massive wages.
I think people have a problem with capitalism. If that's the case: don't hate the player, hate the game.

lawred2

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

So if I say I'm completely in favour of abortion and 100% against gay marriage, that's OK cause freedom of speech?

urm....

what?

RocketRaccoon

lawred2 wrote: »

urm....

what?

Do you have a question?

Hooks Golf Handicap

This offended PC culture is nothing more than lazy journalism.

All they do is trawl Twitter & FB looking for an opposing voice to anything then roll with the "offence caused" headline.
Sometimes I wonder if the offended party isn't just a plant to create a story.
Then the rest of us go "PC gone mad", "snowflakes" etc.....

Remember when the late Jade Goody called the Indian actress a poppadom which created a furore.
It turned out that only a handful of people who saw the broadcast live actually rang in to register their anger.
This then snowballed to 10's of thousands once the redtops launched a campaign & everyone clicked on a link to play a subtitled video which they already knew would offend them.
People are sheep & the media know this.

gimli2112

I don't think it's a new phenomenon. People have always been offended, it's just now we have to hear about it thanks to the internet.

ancapailldorcha

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

This offended PC culture is nothing more than lazy journalism.

All they do is trawl Twitter & FB looking for an opposing voice to anything then roll with the "offence caused" headline.
Sometimes I wonder if the offended party isn't just a plant to create a story.
Then the rest of us go "PC gone mad", "snowflakes" etc.....

Remember when the late Jade Goody called the Indian actress a poppadom which created a furore.
It turned out that only a handful of people who saw the broadcast live actually rang in to register their anger.
This then snowballed to 10's of thousands once the redtops launched a campaign & everyone clicked on a link to play a subtitled video which they already knew would offend them.
People are sheep & the media know this.

It's not a plant, it's just clickbait and it's proliferating because it works. The modern right and left have become obsessed with their own victimhood narratives. Reading studies by academics and think tanks takes time, effort and intelligence. Appealing to the lowest common denominator by posting a tweet and a reaction is quick, easy and cheap. Anyone can do it and those clicks sell ad space.

If you want better journalism, pay for it.

Franz Von Peppercorn

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

So if I say I'm completely in favour of abortion and 100% against gay marriage, that's OK cause freedom of speech?

Er.... Yes?

Was that a rhetorical question?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The furore over the Michelle Wolf White House Correspondents speech has been amazing to behold. People not even sure what they are offended by.

Snowflakes on the right as much as the left these days.

kunst nugget

Do you know what I find offensive? People getting offended by things. And then there's the people that get offended by the likes of me getting offended by others getting offended. They're the worst.

riffmongous

Mutant z wrote: »

Certainly but that doesnt mean they should have the right to want to ban those from social media or the airwaves because of opinions they have as as the case with certain sections of society.

But who gave them that right? Ironically the capitalist consumer driven model championed by those opposite sections of society who love freedom so much. If US companies weren't so dependent on profit and anything that damages that bottom line they would be much more resistant to the outrage

Maxpfizer

wes wrote: »

Not sinister at all. Free speech is a 2 way street. You can say what you like and the other person can say what they want in return. There is no world where what you say doesn't have some consequences.

This take is WAY too simplistic and ignores a large chunk of what people are most concerned about.

Sure, there's no world where words don't have consequences.

There is, however, a world of difference between Joe down the pub not talking to me because I said Liverpool are garbage and something like this http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

What you are, I think willfully, ignoring is that people aren't blindly concerned about general consequences of free speech but are specifically concerned about consequences such as losing ones job or being convicted of a crime.

If a 19 year old can start their adult life with a hate crime conviction over song lyrics posted on Instagram then that is kind of troubling.

What the poster was referring to as "sinister" is people being abused publicly and/or having petitions set up to have them removed just because they voiced an unpopular opinion.

You are acting as though somebody simply disagreeing with or disliking your opinions or your speech is the same as many hundreds or thousands of people trying to wreck your life because of something you said.

Boom_Bap

Is the OP, now bear with me here, is the OP offended by people being offended? :pac:

Maxpfizer

gimli2112 wrote: »

I don't think it's a new phenomenon. People have always been offended, it's just now we have to hear about it thanks to the internet.

I agree but I think the level of offense and the actions people are willing to take in response to "being offended" has been escalating.

People in the UK are being convicted of crimes based on posts they have made on Facebook or Twitter etc. Sometimes these convictions are based on taking the content of the posts out of context.

This is not the same as people just being offended and that's it. You could potentially go to prison because you offended the wrong person.

wes

Maxpfizer wrote: »

There is, however, a world of difference between Joe down the pub not talking to me because I said Liverpool are garbage and something like this http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

That is the UK. The post I was replying to had nothing to do with the UK laws around offensive speech. So yes there is a world of difference, as what I was replying to has nothing to do with what you are talking about. If you want to talk about a different topic, that is fine, but to pretend I was talking about it the whole time is a perfect example of someone moving the goal posts.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

What you are, I think willfully, ignoring is that people aren't blindly concerned about general consequences of free speech but are specifically concerned about consequences such as losing ones job or being convicted of a crime.

Yeah, it sucks you can lose your job, for saying something stupid. Thats life, people can call for you head if they want to, that is free speech too.

As for criminal prosecution, your the first to bring that up and I said nothing on that either way.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

If a 19 year old can start their adult life with a hate crime conviction over song lyrics posted on Instagram then that is kind of troubling.

Its too bad no one gave a crap about this over a decade ago, when the laws were introduced, and now that it looks like they could be hit by them, there suddenly concerned. Again, its UK law, so it relevance is limited for those who live in Ireland. The UK having dumb laws aren't a problem for the rest of the world.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

What the poster was referring to as "sinister" is people being abused publicly and/or having petitions set up to have them removed just because they voiced an unpopular opinion.

Its there right. Free speech is a double edged sword. Now I think those people are far too often quick to call for someones head, and what is done to them is out of proportion to what is said far to often.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

You are acting as though somebody simply disagreeing with or disliking your opinions or your speech is the same as many hundreds or thousands of people trying to wreck your life because of something you said.

Its still free speech. Free speech doesn't always result in good things happening, and unfortunately, the mob will always be there. You can accept that or not, but there not going away.

Maxpfizer

wes wrote: »

It so sad that people can't take a little bit of criticism of a cartoon without resorting to childish insults.

BTW, I don't even agree with the argument being made against Apu, but I do find it amusing to so many people being pissed off by criticism of a cartoon. Your post is a perfect example of someone getting overly emotional over someone criticizing a cartoon. Its really sad that people can't engage without resorting to such childish insults.

Again, I think you are ignoring a large part of the issue and simplifying it to people "getting offended over others being offended".

If the criticism of The Simpsons caused the show's creators to roll over and try to follow the guidelines of "activists" then there probably is an issue in that.

I think you are seeing people "offended by criticism of a cartoon" but from another perspective I could be viewed as people calling out and criticising efforts to "guide" shows like The Simpsons into sending out a particular message.

Vladimir Poontang

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think you'll find that the obsession with cultural appropriation, triggering and other nonsense both begins and ends with Farcebook, Twatter and the like. Spend some time away from them or, better still delete your accounts. You'll be much happier without the constant whinging and general noise of morons in your life.

Except it doesn't end there. These ****wits are looking to enact legislation, have launched harassment campaigns to destroy people's careers and have been successful in doing so.

This is no longer a few idiots online, it is becoming a pervasive influence on society at large and is a real threat to freedom of thought and expression.

wes

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Again, I think you are ignoring a large part of the issue and simplifying it to people "getting offended over others being offended".

Except that is exactly what some posters have done.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

If the criticism of The Simpsons caused the show's creators to roll over and try to follow the guidelines of "activists" then there probably is an issue in that.

Someone made a criticism of a cartoon. What is wrong with that exactly? If people can't engage with the specific criticisms and instead falsely portray it as someone being offended, even after I point out that the guy who they claim is offended, publically stated that he is not offended.

People refusing to engage with the criticism, is them choosing to be offended.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

I think you are seeing people "offended by criticism of a cartoon" but from another perspective I could be viewed as people calling out and criticising efforts to "guide" shows like The Simpsons into sending out a particular message.

You are choosing to ignore post like this (you even quote the post where I replied to this silliness):

taserfrank wrote: »

The brain-dead, retarded juvenile snowflakes who are 'offended' by Apu for Twitter can fcuk right off.

Read that post above.

I think 1 poster actually engaged with the specific criticisms made against Apu, btw.

There is little discussion about the critique at all, its about the person making it being offended, despite the fact that they said otherwise. Basically, the entire thread is a straw man argument and nothing more.

Maxpfizer

wes wrote: »

Its still free speech. Free speech doesn't always result in good things happening, and unfortunately, the mob will always be there. You can accept that or not, but there not going away.

That's true but is it acceptable to just capitulate to the mob because they aren't going away?

You admit yourself that sometimes the response is out of proportion to what was said but you seem to be able to shrug that off as "just a consequence of free speech".

It's genuine injustice though. If someone makes a bad comment and their life gets f*cked up as a consequence then that has to be seen as grossly unfair treatment.

Saying that it's just a consequence of having free speech feels a bit "off" to me.

Maxpfizer

wes wrote: »

Someone made a criticism of a cartoon. What is wrong with that exactly? If people can't engage with the specific criticisms and instead falsely portray it as someone being offended, even after I point out that the guy who they claim is offended, publically stated that he is not offended.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the criticism as such. Rather the response to it.

The Simpsons was heavily criticised by right wing groups throughout the 90s and they never got anywhere with that criticism and that's fine. That's good, actually. Can you imagine if they just decided to pander to the American Right back in the 90s?

It would have been bad, in my opinion, if the American right wing were able to control what does and does not appear in The Simpsons. It's better that The Simpsons is satirising and criticising them.

My concern would be that the new wave of "cultural critics" such as the creator of this documentary do seem to be having some kind of influence on the culture.

So it's more likely, in my view, that shows will pander to these new criticisms rather than skewer them because every time they respond there seems to be a new wave of outrage and "the mob will always be there" so why not just bend the knee?

People will speak up about it especially when they think it's a stupid criticism and your reaction amounts to little more than "just shut up about it".

ancapailldorcha

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Except it doesn't end there. These ****wits are looking to enact legislation, have launched harassment campaigns to destroy people's careers and have been successful in doing so.

This is no longer a few idiots online, it is becoming a pervasive influence on society at large and is a real threat to freedom of thought and expression.

It is a few idiots. I don't really know what you mean by "looking to enact legislation". That could mean anything. Yeah, you have a few real cases where an unfortunate few have had horrible luck but I stand by what I said.