- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,551
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 10
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 9 Winner: philreich
Society/Culture Has cancel culture gone too far?
- Thread starter Sweet Jesus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,553
We had a great chat.
Hopefully you now understand the pitfalls of using mere offence as your lodestar. Because who decides what offence is legitimate and what offence isn't? It's in the eye of the beholder.
So it becomes an all-you-can-eat offence buffet and then the religious zealots show up. And they're offended by all kinds of things. Do you want to accommodate their hurt feelings as well?
Much better to ignore all kinds of offence and develop standards independent of people's feelings. That way, we can all agree that mere offence doesn't compel any action or reaction from society in general.
"You're offended? We don't care. These are the standards that we've agreed independently of that."
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,555
Don't be so hard on yourself.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,557
A great deal of offence has been caused by these recent depictions of the prophet.
If avoiding offence is the highest objective here, surely the people who displayed the images are in the wrong and the Muslims have the moral right to expect their offence is acknowledged and accommodated?
If not, why not?
www.dw.com
If avoiding offence is the highest objective here, surely the people who displayed the images are in the wrong and the Muslims have the moral right to expect their offence is acknowledged and accommodated?
If not, why not?
Pakistan's Khan slams Macron's views on Islam – DW – 10/26/2020
The Pakistani prime minister has also sought a ban on "Islamophobic content" on Facebook. Imran Khan's criticism of Emmanuel Macron comes at a time when he is under scrutiny for rising religious intolerance at home.
www.dw.com
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,559
What other reason is there to annotate Gone With The Wind or remove Little Britain from streaming services?
If that isn't all about "avoiding offence" then what is the objective?
Ask iBeng. There are "levels of offence". Racial offence is "higher" than religious offence.
There's a magic pyramid that tells us what kinds of offence we should take seriously and which kinds we can ignore.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,561
What are the other reasons? What are the higher objectives?
You're telling me it's not all about "avoiding offence"?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,563
Have you been drinking?
I referred to "avoiding offence" being the highest objective for some folks.
You replied: "Who says it is?"
So I'm asking you, if it's not all about avoiding offence, then what's it about? If that isn't the "highest objective", what is?
What other reasons are there to annotate Gone With The Wind or remove Little Britain from streaming services?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,565
The folks who think it's a good idea to annotate Gone With The Wind or remove Little Britain from streaming services.
What are they doing that for, if not to "avoid offence"? That is the highest objective for them.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,567
What point are you seeking to make here?
These things have taken place so clearly there were people who thought it a good idea. And folks in this thread have defended it, citing the aim of "avoiding offence".
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,569
That is not my objective.
That is the objective for people who worry about people being offended.
What other objective is there?
Why would people annotate Gone With The Wind or pull Little Britain other than to avoid offence? And to flag pre-emptively that they're on the same page?
Last edited:
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #1,570
The highest objective you said.
This is based on an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance: either you can't believe there is another reason or you can't think of another reason. I don't know which.
So, your argument isn't even made out at this stage. You haven't provided evidence.
If you can get a quote or some sort of statement then we can agree on the basic facts. It might even resolve this argument fully if you can find something like that.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,571
Yes, for the people who are concerned about that. Clearly that doesn't include me.
By all means demonstrate that there is another objective being served - that is, another objective other than avoiding offence.
It's self-evident. What other motivation is there beyond the avoidance of offence?
Me: Look, that dog is trying to licks its balls.
You: Really? Are you sure that's what it's trying to do? Can you prove it?
See above. Tell me, why would people annotate Gone With The Wind or pull Little Britain other than to avoid offence? What is the other objective being served?
That aside, feel free to revisit the links/quotes in the OP.
Take Little Britain for example - and by all means tell me what other principle is at stake here other than avoiding offending people.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,573
See above.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,575
"I wouldn't make that show now. It would upset people."
Here is your evidence that avoiding offence is the highest objective (for some), which is what you asked for.
The "problem" is that mere offence is neither here nor there.
The depictions of the prophet certainly "upset people" didn't they? We should get rid of those as well.
