Society/Culture Has cancel culture gone too far?

[Sweet Jesus]

If it was a reasonable post I'd answer reasonably.

Instead you resort to equating the normal everyday "I don't like that" crowd to murderers.

It's ludicrous and you know it.

I didn't equate anyone to murderers. That is clearly untrue.

I pointed to a specific example of religious offence and asked how far we should go to avoid it.

And you responded with an absurd analogy because you have no reasonable answer.

The guy who beheaded the teacher was offended. I guess they shouldn't have displayed the images of the prophet. That would have avoided offence. Right?

 

[Chief]

I didn't equate anyone to murderers. That is clearly untrue.

I pointed to a specific example of religious offence and asked how far we should go to avoid it.

You did.

Or if it isn't what you were trying to do, then post properly instead of "hur de hur look at dis eh??"

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You did.

Or if it isn't what you were trying to do, then post properly instead of "hur de hur look at dis eh??"

Stop deflecting.

The guy who beheaded the teacher was offended. I guess they shouldn't have displayed the images of the prophet. That would have avoided offence. Right?

Or does religious offence not matter?

 

[Chief]

Stop deflecting.

From WHAT?

Murder is obviously bad. Don't do it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

From WHAT?

Murder is obviously bad. Don't do it.

I have directed you to an example of religious offence.

The guy who beheaded the teacher was offended. I guess they shouldn't have displayed the images of the prophet. Right?

Those images caused offence so should not have been shown. Right?

 

[Chief]

I have directed you to an example of religious offence.

The guy who beheaded the teacher was offended. I guess they shouldn't have displayed the images of the prophet. Right?

Those images caused offence so should not have been shown. Right?

No, why do you think they should not have been shown?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No, why do you think they should not have been shown?

I don't think that. I'm asking you.

You think they should have been shown even though they caused offence?

I thought that avoiding offence was the name of the game?

Surely if people were offended, they shouldn't have been shown?

 

[Chief]

You think they should have been shown even though they caused offence?

I thought that avoiding offence was the name of the game?

Surely if people were offended, they shouldn't have been shown?

I think you're mistaking me for someone else.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I don't think that. I'm asking you.

You think they should have been shown even though they caused offence?

I thought that avoiding offence was the name of the game?

Surely if people were offended, they shouldn't have been shown?

They should double down and make a cartoon.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think you're mistaking me for someone else.

Not at all.

I'm just making sure we're on the same page.

It turns out that people being offended doesn't give them a magical power of veto.

I assume that goes for racial offence too.

 

[Chief]

It turns out that people being offended doesn't give them a magical power of veto.

Depends what it is.

I assume that goes for racial offence too.

Depends what it is.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Depends what it is.

How does that work?

Either people being offended is what matters or it isn't.

Are you hedging against contradictions?

You're not worried about religious offence when it comes to depicting the prophet. You're happy to disregard that kind of offence. What do other cases "depend" on?

Do you just pick and choose?

 

[Chief]

What exactly do you think I believe here? That mere offended feelings are enough to murder someone over?

Of course not.

Each situation should be evaluated on its merits.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What exactly do you think I believe here? That mere offended feelings are enough to murder someone over?

I haven't said that.

I'm talking about whether "mere offended feelings" compel any action or reaction from society in general.

You're not worried about religious offence when it comes to depicting the prophet. You're happy to disregard that kind of offence and continue with depictions of the prophet.

How about in cases of racial offence? Do "mere offended feelings" compel action from society?

Each situation should be evaluated on its merits.

This is just a way for you to pick and choose without saying whether the feeling of offence is what matters or not.

 

[Chief]

This is just a way for you to pick and choose without saying whether the feeling of offence is what matters or not.

No - it's a way to say each situation should be evaluated on its own merits.

I don't think that an academic discussion of religion should cause offence in a reasonable person.

Drawing a picture of Allah - or some other abusive meme - in horse s**t on the side of a mosque is something that would cause offence in a reasonable person.

You see the difference. I know you do.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No - it's a way to say each situation should be evaluated on its own merits.

The point is that people "being offended" is neither here nor there.

You accept that premise where depictions of the prophet are concerned but demur when it comes to instances of racial offence.

This is the inconsistency. You are more respectful of some kinds of offence than of others.

I don't think that an academic discussion of religion should cause offence in a reasonable person.

Who are you to say that? Some devout Muslims are most definitely offended by this. Who are you to say otherwise?

Do you just decide their offence doesn't count because you deem it unreasonable?

Drawing a picture of Allah - or some other abusive meme - in horse sh*t on the side of a mosque is something that would cause offence in a reasonable person.

I see the difference but the reality is that people were offended by the first one so who are you to say their offence on religious grounds doesn't count?

That's the thing about offence - it's in the eye of the beholder. That's why we shouldn't accept it as the basis for anything.

 

[Chief]

Who are you to say that? Devout Muslims are most definitely offended by this. Who are you to say otherwise?

A reasonable person.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

A reasonable person.

So you assume the authority over what Muslims can and can't be reasonably offended by?

Can I do the same for black people? As a reasonable person, I give myself permission to do that.

 

[Chief]

Can I do the same for black people? As a reasonable person, I give myself permission to do that.

Knock yourself out.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Knock yourself out.

Ok great.

I don't think anyone could be reasonably offended by the depiction of black folks in Gone With The Wind. Therefore the annotations to explain these depictions were unjustified. Because no one could reasonably have been offended by them. I've decided.

So that's case closed. Glad you agree.

 

[Chief]

So that's case closed. Glad you agree.

I agree that you can have an opinion.

Whether or not it matches with the general view is another matter.

Cancel culture is not a thing. Case closed.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I agree that you can have an opinion.

Whether or not it matches with the general view is another matter.

Sorry but you already conceded more than that.

You said that I am empowered to judge what black folks can reasonably be offended by, just as you take it upon yourself to judge what Muslims could reasonably be offended by. That was the deal.

So I've decided. People couldn't be reasonably offended by Gone With The Wind. By our agreed standard, I am entitled to decide this.

What's the problem? Are you saying you are I aren't actually empowered to decide that because offence is in the eye of the beholder?

Gee that makes it tricky. It's almost like offence is subjective and therefore shouldn't be the standard for anything.

Cancel culture is not a thing. Case closed.

You've been unable/unwilling to rebut it when it's been defined for you so these unsupported assertions don't really cut the mustard.

 

[Chief]

You said that I am empowered to judge what black folks can reasonably be offended by, just as you take it upon yourself to judge what Muslims could reasonably be offended by. That was the deal.

A bit of a deal, eh?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

A bit of a deal, eh?

Exactly. This was the agreed standard.

You decide what Muslims could reasonably be offended by. I do the same for black folks.

Is there a problem with this?

By the power invested in me under this agreed standard, I conclude that no one could reasonably be offended by Gone With The Wind.

 

[Chief]

This was the agreed standard.

Agreed by who? Show me where this agreement was made.