Do we arbitrarily choose to be offended ?

[Jeremy]

Your original post was pretty offensive.. IMO would have been decent grounds for banning.

I've never seen "Ashes to Ashes", but I imagine that this Gene Hunt character is known for being a bit of an arse hat, and that the audience is not expected to sympathise with him. i.e. they laugh at him and not with him.

[adonirum]

That's an interesting viewpoint, Jeremy, "decent grounds for banning".

Whilst accepting the administrators right to do so, others have argued about context and there have been suggestions of using quotes etc. You feel that users, with no previous, should be summarily banned, not even two strikes and you're out?

As you saw the original post, do you feel that there are no circumstances whatsoever in which it would have been acceptable?

[Jeremy]

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> do you feel that there are no circumstances whatsoever in which it would have been acceptable?

Pretty much, yep. I can't think of any.

Homophobic or racist characters in drama are one thing. Internet forums are not works of fiction.. we take what we read at face value. In your case, it was impossible to interpret it as anything other than nasty and spiteful.

[DaveR]

I don't really understand what the OP was hoping to achieve, and I didn't see the original post, but it seems optimistic, to say the least, to expect a mature debate about free speech to follow from an initial post complaining in Gene Hunt language about too many gay or gay seeming acts on X Factor. On the issue of using claimed offence to stifle free speech, this is hardly news - it was discussed on here in the Germaine Greer thread and there has been lots of press comment & analysis generally about Greer, Burchill, bovcotts of Israel etc. Plus, there's increasing awareness in the UK of the 'microaggression' culture that seems to be paralysing any kind of open debate (and any kind of relaxed social interaction) in US universities and is rearing it's (ugly?) head here.

[Jeremy]

But we don't have freedom of speech in the UK... we have hate speech laws...

[Blah Blah]

Agreed Dave. That was my point too.

Sometimes, unpalatable views are best out in the open where they can be challenged.

We do have freedom of speech Jeremy but we also have laws to protect society from people abusing that right by inciting others to do harm to others. Is it a perfect balance? Probably not but well meaning all the same.

[Jeremy]

I'd argue that freedom of speech with caveats is not freedom of speech. Not saying that the caveats aren't needed.. but at the same time I'm not sure it's worth trying protect something which IMO we don't have.

[Loz]

I agree with Jeremy. We have many limitations on speech in the UK, both legally and through some really quite limited social mores (that twitter mob again).

Granted we have freer speech than quite a few countries, but we do not have free speech. Not at all.

[DaveR]

Saying we don't have free speech at all is kind of pointless - it's always relative. The old trope is should you be free to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre?

Legal restrictions on speech/expression in the UK are actually fairly limited by current global standards - we don't ban holocaust denial, for example, or flag burning, and we don't have statutory privacy rights. However, the direction of legal travel appears to be towards more restrictions e.g. proposed hate speech laws, and spurious use of public order police powers to overly restrict legitimate protest. What is newer and also of concern is the non legal stuff - twitter hate mobs, people getting fired for airing 'unacceptable' views, speakers being banned from certain places. Which brings us back to the topic of the thread - I don't think people choose to be arbitrarily offended, rather claiming offence is now often an effective way of claiming victim status and thereby silencing opinions you disapprove of. It shouldn't be, but that depends on people actually putting their supposed belief in free speech into action.

[Administrator]

To put the post by the original poster in context, the post was:

---------

Date: 9/29/2015 9:28 AM

Author: adonirum

Subject: X-Factor Rubbish

Had to endure Mrs. adonirum watching X-Factor on catch-up last night.

Can someone tell me why it appears to have such a proliferation of shirt-lifting, back-buggering shit-stabbers on it this year?

---------

There was no mention that it was a "discussion point" and there is no way we're allowing that sort of thing on the forum and so the post was removed and adonirum was immediately banned (but reinstated after a behind the scenes discussion). I'm showing this now to help give people a fuller understanding of what what was posted and why we took the action we did.

There's free speech and there's free speech. You are free to shout "I've got a bomb and I'm going to blow up this plane!" when flying at 30,000 feet but you have to take the consequences when the other passengers beat the living shit out of you, before you have a chance to say "I was only doing it to make a discussion point.".

On that note, a difficult situation to monitor is when someone reports a message with "I think (person/group) will find this offensive.." and we don't know if they will. Does the reporter know this or do they just think that? Do we act on someone else's opinion when they're not actually part of that group? Sometimes we research a bit, the case of the word 'Pikey' is something that springs to mind and yes, the group referred to do find it offensive and so where used maliciously it's acted upon.

It is a grey area but one of the forums' aims (especially the Lounge area) is to allow open and free debate within the constraints of a forum for East Dulwich. Sometimes we get it wrong but the we're open to appeals.

[Saffron]

Thanks for the humour Admin, and the clarification. Interesting thread.

[Otta]

Yes interesting post admin, thanks.

Personally I really don't think people should be reporting things on the off chance that someone else might find it offensive.

[Jeremy]

In this case the language was nasty and malicious, so surely it was a no-brainer.

Posting something deliberately offensive (maybe upsetting to some) to spark debate is pretty stupid. And incidentally, the debate itself only has any merit if you're struggling to distinguish between fiction/drama and real life.

[Saffron]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes interesting post admin, thanks.

>

> Personally I really don't think people should be

> reporting things on the off chance that someone

> else might find it offensive.

I agree. I think I would be more inclined to follow up on the actual comment better to understand the context, or to refute it's nature. That would seem more intuitive to me.

On the subject of whether people choose to be arbitrarily offended*, I have often wondered if it's a default position to be offended by things which are different? It's the subtle placing of negative value judgements, which on closer inspection have no merit in reality, that can form the basis of unconscious bias and prejudice/racism.

So in that light, it's not so much that people are arbitrarily offended, as rather that they actively fail to question what values underpin their feelings of offense.

Some things are truly offensive, and cannot be made otherwise, but they can and should be open to frank discussion in ways that don't offend, e.g. discussion of racism, genderism, abuse, war, etc.

*HaHA, I initially typed 'offensive' there on mistake... that could have been a whole other thread!

[uncleglen]

Let's face it we can all 'walk the walk, and talk the talk' because we know if we don't we will be ostracised by the vocal 'right on' majority ...but who knows what we REALLY think...

[Saffron]

I'm not even sure I know my OWN mind sometimes.

[Blah Blah]

That post Admin has reposted absolutely isn't anything the OP claims it was. It was quite clearly and deliberately offensive.

[Loz]

From the OP:

I wrote a few sentences that were deliberately provocative (as in to provoke a sensible debate and discussion) and as opposed to insulting or offensive (or so I felt and once again more on that later).

Having now read the post, in what universe did you expect those words to "provoke a sensible debate and discussion"??

[red devil]

I'm sensing a bit of post-rationalising back-tracking going on here...

[adonirum]

Blah Blah, referring back to your post on here a few days ago. It's mostly there with reference to "....things that are an accident of birth" (accident has been replaced by circumstance nowadays)and "..cannot be changed except in certain circumstances". This is true and as a slight aside it was my privilege to know James Dalrymple who sadly passed away just shy of a year ago. You are also there with "....a way of thinking...is learned". It will have been stated many times I'm sure, but young children at nursery, primary school etc all play happily together, yet some will grow with racist/homophobic/etc views that must have been learned at some stage after this.

[Blah Blah]

Being black or asian or chinese is not circumstance. Being male or female is not circumstance. Being heterosexual or homosexual is not circumstance. Being racist is a choice, albeit often a learned choice. The same is true for sexism and homophobia. Frankly, for someone who claims to have worked in the diversity and equalities sector I am astounded by your whole line of reasoning, and as for the original post that was deleted by admin, I could be forgiven for thinking you don't have the slightly clue as to what diversity and equality means.

[adonirum]

Ok, you're forgiven

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Being racist is a choice, albeit often a learned choice. The same is true for

> sexism and homophobia. Frankly, for someone who claims to have worked in the diversity and

> equalities sector I am astounded by your whole line of reasoning

I dunno - sexism, racism and a lack of understanding about diversity seems to be common trait for Diversity Officers of late...

[adonirum]

So Blah Blah feels that being born gay is an accident, then.

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us all as to what dynamic risk assessment you would carry out to identify the circumstances of these accidents, what recommendations you would then make to minimise and ultimately eradicate all chances of a recurrence, and also what policies you would put in place to implement said recommendations.

Further, I did not say that I have worked "in the equalities and diversity sector". If you are going to partake in a debate, then please do read things properly and don't just put your own preconceived mischevious interpretation on it. Do try to assess things in a controlled manner and remain calm and relaxed at all times. I don't think I would wish to see you on a public jury, for instance. You keep stating things like "I didn't..so can't comment" and then proceed to do so. I praise you and then you choose to go on the attack. Err ?????

Anyway, that's it as far as I am concerned with regard to a personal rebuff. As I have stated a couple of times, I am more interested in people's points of view.

[Jah Lush]

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So Blah Blah feels that being born gay is an

> accident, then.

That is not what Blah Blah said at all and you know it.

>

> Further, I did not say that I have worked "in the

> equalities and diversity sector". If you are

> going to partake in a debate, then please do read

> things properly and don't just put your own

> preconceived mischevious interpretation on it.

From your OP - "and having been involved with diversification and equality issues in the past for a couple of years" - one could easily assume you did from that sentence.

One could easily also assume and infer that you're actually a wide up merchant and conclude that you're a bit of cnut. No offence.