South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

November 13, 2019, 02:26:12 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Am i over reacting?

 (Read 14656 times)
Description: to this mail
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
benguela
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


An infinitesimal subset of the observable universe


benguela
WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 12, 2010, 20:58:38 PM »

Is there a difference between publishing a humorous cartoon of the prophet Mohammed and a racist cartoon?

Would it be ok or not ok to forward either in an office?

Would it be ok to forward it in another environment?

I"m not being facetious, I really want to understand the difference between the two cases.

Logged
EvolvedMind34
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



« Reply #31 on: December 12, 2010, 21:20:27 PM »

Those questions are subjective.
All religions deserve criticism in my opinion.
In the privacy of ones own space-topics like these are inappropriate for work.
And there's bound to be someone there who'll take offense...
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #32 on: December 12, 2010, 21:22:40 PM »

Good questions all.
Quote
Is there a difference between publishing a humorous cartoon of the prophet Mohammed and a racist cartoon?

More than likely, yes. Or maybe not. There is a popular dictum (or fallacy?) doing the rounds that states that you can ligitimately make fun of things that are chosen (such as a person's religion, clothes etc.) but not those that weren't chosen(sexual orientation, race, deformity). On the face of it, it sounds like a winning formula - but I'm not so sure. Can you spot the problem with this reasoning?

I, like most, receive strings of humorous material every week, ranging from cute to socially risque. Of course I don't forward the ones that can be interpreted as racist, sexist etc. But this is only because of the type of society we live in. People are ever so ready to be offended. Due to this unpredictablity, I don't forward everything. Not because I've ever thought that there is something wrong with the joke per se.

In an ideal world, society will be homogeneous and mature enough for me to fearlessly forward everything to everyone. No-one will storm off in a huff, and at worst, the joke will just be laughed off as not being very funny. (Hey, was that an oxymoron?)

Mintaka
« Last Edit: December 12, 2010, 21:48:44 PM by Mintaka » Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #33 on: December 12, 2010, 21:32:24 PM »

And another thing, why do we so passionately worry that someone will take offence?

Being thought of as a big old meany?
Fear of social rejection?
Getting fired?
Getting sued?
Getting killed?

Mintaka
Logged
benguela
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


An infinitesimal subset of the observable universe


benguela
WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 12, 2010, 21:49:09 PM »

uh oh, I'm detecting that I may be having another conversion.

I used to be on the "all topics are open in the jokes"/"freedom of speech" side but now I'm approaching agnosticism and this article is persuasive.

I was definitely pro the Mohammad cartoons but that article has suggested I have a racist undercurrent.

If I become converted I will be objecting to every joke against woo and religion made on this forum. That doesn't sound like fun at all.

Any rebuttals to that article so that I may continue laughing and ridiculing at all and sundry. I don't see where I can draw an objective line, it's all jokes are on or off.





Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #35 on: December 13, 2010, 08:17:55 AM »

She didn't convince me at all, benguela. And neither have EvolvedMind34, entitled to her opinion as she may be.  Wink

all topics are open in the jokes"/"freedom of speech remain true for me.


ETA: by all means, find things funny or not as you will - be offended or not (some jokes are intentionally offensive) but don't try to tell other people what they must find funny, it simply won't work.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2010, 14:42:47 PM by cyghost » Logged
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #36 on: December 13, 2010, 10:43:06 AM »

by all means, find things funny or not as you will - be offended or not (some jokes are intentionally offensive) but don't try to tell other people what they must find funny, it simply won't work.
I think the point is not to tell people what they should find funny / offensive at all. The point is that the workplace is not the appropriate environment to make such 'jokes'.
But that is just my opinion, of course
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2010, 11:07:53 AM »

my issue with this mail, is not fun being poked at the gay community per se, but the manner in which it's done.  the feeling of the mail isn't wink-wink nudge-nudge, it's blatantly hatefull.  and the term 'faggot' makes my hackles rise.  it's hatespeech.  now as much as one gay dude will call another gay dude a faggot, as much as a black guy would call another nigger.  it's term of comraderie.
in this mail, it's far from comraderie, it's being simply homophobic.
and the thing that got me, was that i know my boss, who sent it, tells all his brother 'tured gay' after bein raped by men.  which is such bollocks.  and he tries to justify his sending of this mail, based upon his bro being gay.
but what the problem is, he sent it on to everyone.  our black staff as well.  which, of course, they consumed with glee, and we are all knowledgeable about how the black community feels about homosexuality (and how it fits into their religion), so this was, in my opinion, a noddy badge to homophobics, and a go-ahead to all the staff to be homophobic. 
this is the kind of mail you send to a close friend.
and i must agree with the statement, that, if it were a case of 'how to tell if you are a kaffir-boetie' mail, then all would have been up in arms.
the gay community is still considered the stepchild, eventhough the larnie shoes and trendy jeanpant you are wearing, is very likely designed by a gay dude. 
i will take on anybody.  ANYBODY.  who has a homophobic thing to say.  the ANC is put in charge of an entire country for having struggled against oppression.  what does the gay community get for centuries of outright persecution and oppression?
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3108



« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2010, 11:20:42 AM »

You see, to me, this is just seeking justification for intolerable behavior.

"If you hit at us with comics, we'll hit back at you with bombs". Such a threat is clearly not in balance. If I make fun of you, feel free to make fun of me. But you will NOT earn more respect from me by threatening violence in response to a picture. The claim the article makes is that a cartoon constitutes violence. But it is clearly evident to anyone that it is NOT the same thing as blowing up a crowded mall full of innocent people just to make a point. It IS clear to me that if someone says something that offends you, you can feel free to take them up in words.

But then, a long time ago I watched a documentary by 'n Jewish journalist, daughter of a jew that was killed by a certain palestinian man.... who went in into an arab settlement in gaza incognito (armed with an american accent), to interview the family of the man that killed her father. It was almost sickening to watch the video of her sitting there while this family was laughing jollily at how their son had killed her father, oblivious to the fact that his daughter was sitting in their living room. (I have a feeling of deja-vu, like I've told this before, but can't find it in search, so here it is again, maybe)

I'll admit, this was not something pretty to behold. But do I feel they should be allowed to do it? That is a VERY difficult question to ask... Perhaps I would feel differently if I had to walk that mile. But there's just no way I could know...

(While I typed this CGC replied...)

Ok GCG, I can see how upset you are by this, and I agree with you up to a point. But here's the question for me though. You gleefully bash the religious on this forum, and laugh and poke fun at "stupid" woo people. If they were to read your banter on here, surely they would be incensed and upset to no end, shocked to their core... Are you willing to make no concessions on this point? Or maybe admit that some of the things that you say could be just as hurtful as the things they say about you?
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 13, 2010, 11:36:08 AM »

let me make a quick comparison here:
religion
gets support from pretty much all peoples of the world
get support from government
has been actively pushed onto people from the year dot.
if you concvert to a religion, you immediatly become morally acceptable.
you can talk and practice your religion freely (in general)
there are rarely anybody opposing your gatherings
spreads lies, disease, overpopulation, murder, oppression of minorities/other religions/women/albinos/homosexuals/pagans/.......

homosexuality
support for the gay lifestyle is very limited
government just passes it under the discrimination laws, and ignores it from there
has been actively discouraged by threat or of murder and mutilation since the year dot
if you come out of the closet, your friends dissapear, you could lose your job, your family can abandon you....
you need to shut your mouth about being gay in general conversation
eventhough the gay community is generally quiet, the one time when the pride march is on, the religious will be there waving the bible
homosexuality spreads..... love? undertanding?  tolerance?  freedom of expression?  and the first fucker that says that moffies spreads AIDS...

so, i take on religion, because it's a farce, and it deserves to be derived and mocked.
there is nothing funny about people being beaten up and discriminated against, for loving another human being, and just wanting to be happy.
ofcourse the religious will be offended by what i have to say BUT, i rant on this forum.  if they come on here, and are shocked, then it's their own damn stupity.  if they dont want to be shocked, then they should remain on their own webpages.
the mail that was sent around, was unasked for.  if i found it on an anti-gay website, and got pissed off, then its my own stupidity really, as i should have expected jokes such as that.
Logged
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #40 on: December 13, 2010, 11:38:02 AM »

Agreed. Bashing the religious is not the same thing at all - for one thing, a person chooses their religion, but not their sexual orientation, or race, or the size of their nose. (as has already been pointed out) You can say derogatory things about things people choose to do/think/say, but not, in my opinion justifiably rag someone over something they have no choice over.
Secondly, if there are religious nut who are offended by what is said on this forum, nobody is forcing them to read it - whereas an E-Mail from my boss... well... yeah. but i think that point has also been covered.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3108



« Reply #41 on: December 13, 2010, 12:22:20 PM »

The point is not about how we justify it. The effect being the same not from MY point of view, but from THEIR point of view. We are free to view a person's unchangeable attributes as being "beyond reproach", but the religious and others view their beliefs as "beyond reproach", the great question in it all is, who makes the rules? WE view it a certain way, but that doesn't mean anybody else does.... no one person can get to make the absolute rules.

(Which is I'm all for a blanket rule that states everything is permissible. ie: No rules).
Logged
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #42 on: December 13, 2010, 13:00:16 PM »

The point is not about how we justify it. The effect being the same not from MY point of view, but from THEIR point of view. We are free to view a person's unchangeable attributes as being "beyond reproach", but the religious and others view their beliefs as "beyond reproach", the great question in it all is, who makes the rules? WE view it a certain way, but that doesn't mean anybody else does.... no one person can get to make the absolute rules.

(Which is I'm all for a blanket rule that states everything is permissible. ie: No rules).
The point that I am trying to make is that it is not about what is said (about religious people, black people, homosexual people, ugly people, whatever) but about how and where things are said. An e-mail like that from a person in a position of power and influence creates the perception that, in that place (ie where GCG works) using words like 'faggot' and saying derogatory things about gay men (or men who dress well, or like colours and their names) are acceptable. A boss should not be allowed to create that impression in my opinion. He should also not be allowed to create the impression that religious bias is condoned in the workplace. The only way I can agree with your 'no rules' policy, is if truly applies to all - so, the boss sends out an e-mail that may be offensive to homosexuals, he should also send out e-mails making fun of various religions, calling women inferior, and joking about whatever else may be considered politically incorrect. And that would just be weird.  Undecided
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #43 on: December 13, 2010, 13:50:57 PM »

And that would just be weird.  Undecided
But wonderful. Evil

Mintaka
Logged
benguela
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


An infinitesimal subset of the observable universe


benguela
WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 13, 2010, 14:05:14 PM »

An e-mail like that from a person in a position of power and influence creates the perception that, in that place (ie where GCG works) using words like 'faggot' and saying derogatory things about gay men (or men who dress well, or like colours and their names) are acceptable.

So would publishing a cartoon in a newspaper using the word "faggot" be ok? Publishing a cartoon about Mohammed which offends a lot of people who genuinely feel hurt is "ok" in western media then publishing an anti-gay cartoon must also be "ok" otherwise it's double standards.





Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.075 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 11:46:50 AM
Privacy Policy