People Seem Just a Bit too Sensitive

Handle: off-topic, but if you don't have a Tumblr account yet, I think you may very soon.

Well, communication is the purpose of this exercise, and I wanted to see your take on these statements. But if you're going to be that way, I invite Bokhura and Karmakin to clarify.

edited 26th Apr '12 3:15:50 PM by DomaDoma

Again, my belief in discouraging oversensitivity is not me saying that we don't have an obligation to provide a reasonable environment for all.

Not just at work. If I go to restaurant and a waiter says, out loud, "Fuck! I hate when those niggers walk in here, their cheap asses leave shitty tips!", I roundly expect them to be fucking fired.

If I'm on my way the bathroom and I over hear two of the kitchen staff talking between them and they say it, my reaction, "Meh. Whatever assholes."

edited 26th Apr '12 3:14:22 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

To be clear, I do think that one should be considerate with what they say; I just don't think that it should be mandatory. It's like unhealthy foods; you shouldn't eat them, but I don't think you should be prohibited from doing so.

The KKK is a complicated example. The reason I and others believe that, despite their horrendousness, they should be allowed to speak their minds, is because:

• What's "offensive" is subjective, and thus banning things for being offensive allows potentially "good" things from being said just because they're unpopular.
• Limiting what members of a group can say because of what other members of that group have done can similarly be stretched.

edited 26th Apr '12 3:16:18 PM by RTaco

@Ira: Maybe. The KKK example just doesn't need a lot of explaining though, which is why I used it. When I say KKK I think most people jump to "racist ideology" not "well, they're a special case because of violence." Stormfront would generally require explanation.

@Kara: No you haven't. You aren't the only person I'm debating here though, and I think the ideology of "sensitives" as a whole tends toward this bright line stuff. Your solution seems to be to take it contextually, which I argued required constant walking on eggshells or tiptoeing around people because you never knew what would offend them.

And in either example you gave, I bet you still wouldn't lose any sleep over the waiter's opinion, or feel any emotional trauma.

edited 26th Apr '12 3:18:53 PM by Vericrat

Unless they tell you. Then you can make an informed decision.

Fucking straight.

Let's not be mistaken, Karalora was correct. What other people think does affect me. I'm not some hardass fuck.

When someone suggested that Christians' mere existence was a threat to decent people everywhere and for that reason they shouldn't exist, it bummed me the fuck out. No bullshit.

When I've walked down the streets in the Bronx with a Latina who appears white and somebody gives me a look that is roughly translated as "If I wasn't in public I'd gut both of you like fish and leave your corpses to rot," it bothers me.

...But you think I'm gonna give those pussy-bitches the satisfaction of ruining my day or my life??? !@#$!@#$@ please!

edited 26th Apr '12 3:27:01 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

There's also the potential scenario where you know that speaking what you think would offend someone, but you believe that the person is wrong and should be confronted with such speech.

edited 26th Apr '12 3:28:45 PM by RTaco

Two points:

1) The KKK should not be allowed to even believe in racial supremacy is not because it is offensive, but because they have abused that right when they used it to justify violence and actually committing those violence. They can, for example, advocate the idea that people with higher intelligence are superior to others. That's fine. You have the right to think and believe whatever you want, but once you abuse that right, you lose it. And that's not including the fact that they have already lost their right to even exist, let alone the right to speak and advocate anything at all.

2) First of all, we're not quite talking about a group: we're talking about an organisation, a group where you can freely join or leave (theoretically, you have the right to do so. The fact that the KKK will murder you for leaving is another reason why it is criminal and have no rights at all). A ex-KKK member, I feel, regains his/her right to express his/her bigotry once s/he leaves the organisation.

To be honest, I'd rather write a wall of text than to be mistaken for advocating the "rights" of criminals (or criminal organisation) which was criminal because it has been abusing the said "rights".

edited 26th Apr '12 3:42:57 PM by IraTheSquire

Wait, wait. Back up a moment.

At the end of the last page, Ira said: Oops, I was thinking that the Communists have killed people, but on second thoughts, that's actually kind of iffy especially they are not quite doing it in an outright illegal manner, so never mind.

Ira believes the Stalinist purges were defensible, simply because they were carried out under the auspices of law.

This is the face of authoritarianism. That's all I can say.

Yeah, I know. To be fair, I think that Stalin has lost his right to be a leader in my view. Whether or not his action justifies the idea that the Communist Parties (note the plural) should all be disbanded is completely another topic for discussion (and open up a can of worms as I can say the same for the CIA).

edited 26th Apr '12 3:50:45 PM by IraTheSquire

It is analogous to the KKK situation, though.

True that. Hence why I haven't edited my post before. Communist Parties still make the list of "organisations that needs to be disbanded due to abuse of their rights" in my book. Though I just don't want to open up another can of worms where people start to talk about what other dirty things other political parties.

But that's just it, isn't it? Disbanding the KKK because it's wrong will open that can of worms, while disbanding the KKK because individuals in it have done illegal things will equate what is legal with what is right.

True. I've derailed this enough so if you want to discuss it. Let's open another thread.

Though I'll say that it's not really just "individuals within the KKK commit random violence" as in "a person commits violence, and by coincidence s/he is in the KKK", but rather "the KKK itself organises the violence using its ideology as justification". It's like how the Nazi Party (original one. I feel that neo-Nazis are somewhat different) has lost the right to exist as well. Or if you don't like Godwin's law, how the Mafia also lost its right to exist when it is an organisation that is used as an organisation point (my vocabulary sucks) for criminal activity.

edited 26th Apr '12 4:14:43 PM by IraTheSquire

I say it like that because at this point, the KKK is all talk. You'd make a better case for banning Narcotics Anonymous, on those grounds.

edited 26th Apr '12 4:20:02 PM by DomaDoma

Yeah, but it still hasn't divorced itself from its violent past, ie haven't repented yet. I think it would be fair to give that right (ie to express their bigoted ideas) back to the KKK when they apologise for what they did and promise not to do it again.

Or simply just disband and form something else.

And also, Narcotics Anonymous is different in the way that its members do not do drugs (or other criminal stuff) as a member of Narcotics Anonymous (or better put, "in the name of Narcotics Anonymous"). People have murdered others as Klansmen.

edited 26th Apr '12 4:25:31 PM by IraTheSquire

Promises are just words. Actions are, well, actionable. And there's been a merciful lot of inaction from the KKK lately.

Very true, and I'm thankful for that. However, words have meaning. Promising that "not going to do that again" will complete the whole repentance thing.

edited 26th Apr '12 4:28:48 PM by IraTheSquire

It defies sanity to oust a corrupt politician until such time as he promises not to deal meth on the public dime, and it defies sanity just as badly to impeach Teddy Kennedy for the Chappaquiddick thing decades after it happened, even though he never repented. That trial is over.

edited 26th Apr '12 4:36:54 PM by DomaDoma

Wait, what? Ok, that's telling me that Narcotic Anonymous is not what I think it is (I was thinking something similar to Alcoholic Anonymous but for drugs).

The point of the thread, though, is that when the KKK says something like, "Blacks are inferior," no black should then feel inferior. It's a racist bigot saying that. Their opinion should not reflect in your own self-image.

And it's important to people who do care about you. For instance, if I only care what a few people think, and those people have earned it because they have shared opinions that are worthwhile and insightful, and then I start caring what a KKK guy thinks, then I am putting my friends on the same level as them - I let the words of the KKK, just like theirs, have an effect on seeing myself. I'm sure my friends would prefer I avoided that.

Ah, the previous post has nothing to do with NA. What I meant in the NA example was that people who go to Narcotics Anonymous often end up with trading drug connections with the other members, which makes it much more of a rallying point for crime than the KKK currently is.

EDIT: Okay, Vericrat, you have dutifully thwacked me with the topic stick.

edited 26th Apr '12 4:43:28 PM by DomaDoma

Difference though is that NA is not created to be a rallying point for drug deals. It is not meant to be a rallying point for drug deals. Drug deals happen because it is convenient and that can be said of any organisation that has a lot of members who do/used to do drugs. NA does not try to make organising crime easier and it doesn't advocate criminal behavour, whereas the KKK does both.

I know. And when someone in Stormfront said that "Chinese are stupid", I really felt like proving him wrong with real life actions and achievements.

It's just that KKK has too much of a violent past and too criminal to be used as an example for the common people.

edited 26th Apr '12 4:54:58 PM by IraTheSquire

When it comes to verbal communication there are no absolute rights and wrongs, there are only opinions, there are no rules, there are only guidelines. You can try to make a rule that "everyone can say everything they want", but there are already legal limitation like slander and then we have to face the fact that there is no absolute knowledge that would tell us what precisely counts as slander and what doesn't. Then there are situations when David (he was the straight one, right?) keeps telling Alice how lovely her pussy must be, even when Alice has already told him, that she doesn't like him telling her that. And then there are the work place issues. It's good enough as a guideline, but bad as a rule.

Same goes with "don't tell racey/sexist/whatever offending jokes". There are situations when jokes like that do good and harm none, not to mention that humor is a good tool to deal with difficult issues etc.

"Don't feel offended!" is not working either, because what it comes down to is "don't experience feelings X".

All spoken words are situational and contextual and all opinions about them are subjective. And still that's the reality everyone has to coordinate.

EDIT: And for the record, I wasn't trying to insult Vericrat in my previous post.

edited 26th Apr '12 5:09:52 PM by sveni

Actually, Sveni, slander will be defined in a code or common law in the state you live in.

Slander is generally defined as spoken defamation; defamation is defined as a false publication of information regarding a person that causes damages. That is, say Bob is a rapist. If I tell his boss he's a rapist, and his boss fires him because of it, I have not committed slander. It isn't slander if it's true. If I say Bob is a rapist, and nobody believes me, I likewise haven't committed (actionable) slander, because I've caused no damages to Bob. If I say Bob is a rapist, and he isn't, and he loses his job over it, Bob may sue me for slander.

Slander can only apply to an opinion when it implies a set of facts that is known to the speaker but not the audience. If I say, "In my opinion, Bob is an alcoholic," that would be slander if Bob is not an alcoholic and suffered damages for it. If I said, "I saw Bob drinking once at a party, so I think he's an alcoholic," it isn't slander.

Slander cannot apply to wide classifications. If I say, "All black people are murderers," I cannot be sued for slander by a black person. If someone says, "All lawyers are dishonest," lawyers can't sue the speaker.

Seems pretty specific to me.

Note: When I say "can't sue" or "can't be sued" I mean "would not survive a motion to dismiss." You can sue for whatever you want.

edited 26th Apr '12 5:11:09 PM by Vericrat