South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

September 17, 2019, 23:16:11 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   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 14505 times)
Description: to this mail
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3086



« Reply #45 on: December 13, 2010, 14:19:00 PM »

Quote from: Lilli
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.

It's the only way I can fathom that everyone would be equal, you could fire off an email questioning your boss' political party/religion/race/etc, and you would be protected under TRUE freedom of speech. Any other way would introduce inequalities into the system, someone has to stand by and arbitrate what is cool and what isn't. And that person/people/system will have biases.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #46 on: December 13, 2010, 14:41:55 PM »

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
An opinion I share and have expressed in this thread. There are many aspect to this, and appropriate office behavior but a subtext of the offensive jokes issue.

Logged
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #47 on: December 13, 2010, 15:07:55 PM »

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.
No, it wouldn't be OK in my opinion. Neither was the Mohammed Cartoon. (although I did think it was very funny and that people were making much too big a deal of it) Difference is - the newspaper is not my boss. They don't set the standards for my behavior and that of my co-workers. I do agree from a 'double standards' point of view that if Western Newspapers publish religious cartoons, they should be free to also publish racist, sexist and anti-gay cartoons, if they so choose. But that is a different argument altogether. The question here was related to an e-mail sent out at a place of business, to people who work there, by their boss, and was not solely based on the content of that e-mail, but also on the context in which it was distributed.
It's the only way I can fathom that everyone would be equal, you could fire off an email questioning your boss' political party/religion/race/etc,
Yeah... that would make me very unpopular around here... WTF!!
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #48 on: December 13, 2010, 15:09:13 PM »

It's the only way I can fathom that everyone would be equal, you could fire off an email questioning your boss' political party/religion/race/etc, and you would be protected under TRUE freedom of speech. Any other way would introduce inequalities into the system, someone has to stand by and arbitrate what is cool and what isn't. And that person/people/system will have biases.
A "faggot" is a "bundle of sticks or twigs bound together as fuel"  (Oxford).  The implication in applying the name to gay people is that they should be burnt.  Surely that constitutes hate speech?  We should not throw our hands up in despair and cry that it is impossible to use discretion, therefore anything goes.  Generally I strongly favour freedom of expression, but it can reach a level of indecency where it is simply a no-no.
Logged
benguela
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


An infinitesimal subset of the observable universe


benguela
WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2010, 15:31:12 PM »

The question here was related to an e-mail sent out at a place of business, to people who work there, by their boss, and was not solely based on the content of that e-mail, but also on the context in which it was distributed.

I'll go with that. Then on this forum is it ok or not ok to joke about beliefs, sexual orientation, race, culture etc? Will the moderator kick me off the forum if I post racist jokes in the lol thread ? Or is any topic open for ridicule based on equal freedom of speech?




Logged
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2010, 15:59:59 PM »

Then on this forum is it ok or not ok to joke about beliefs, sexual orientation, race, culture etc? Will the moderator kick me off the forum if I post racist jokes in the lol thread ? Or is any topic open for ridicule based on equal freedom of speech?
In my opinion this forum is open to anything. However, I would be very surprised if the people on this forum would find run of the mill racist jokes remotely funny. In my experience, the jokes that are made here are damn clever, where I don't think I've ever heard a 'clever' racist joke (or homophobic joke for that matter) Nah, I don't think people here are so easily offended, mostly because the people who are active members on this forum tend to think about things, and see them in context. Just be prepared that a racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever comment or joke may also be discussed here, and I don't see how anybody will ever be able to justify any of those things rationally  Undecided
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2010, 16:18:00 PM »

there is clever humour, then there is pure and simple cruel humour. 
i think, the reason we here, can make religious jokes, is because we all, at some point were religious, either via parents, or just because we were marching to the band.
if you are gay, then you can make gay jokes.  if you are pro-gay, then you can make gay jokes. but again, within reason.
i can call a gay guy moffie, because i have close mates that are gay, and it's a term of affection.  if some white guy from silverton calls a guy a moffie, it's hatefull and derogatory.
if i make a racist joke. it's simply racist.  because racist jokes, are hatefull.  there are, though, black jokes, which is acceptable, because it works on material which is socially accepted and acceptable.
if you are a white supremist, then a black joke, will not be with good humour.
i recon, that if you cant make a joke in front of the recipient of the humour, then shutup.  i'm brazen enough to make a religous joke in front of a religous person.  whether or not they have they sense of humour to appreceate the joke, is up to them.
like lilli said, religion is a choice, your skin colour and sexuality is not.  i too, think that the muhammed cartoon was in bad taste, and i got roasted for that opinion.  simply because the muslim nation is volatile and sensitive.  but if it leads to a general chill-out of the islam world, then cool.  i just think there is a better way to do it.

i think, humour, is based upon your personal sense of what is funny, obviously.  when you are hatefull/fearfull of a particular culture, then you will want to degrade them, and make yourself feel better, by making hatefull humour.  and it will show.
if you are being humourous out of comraderie and silliness, that will show too.

the mail i received, was very obviously compiled by a homophobe, and it shows in the way it degrades the gay male.  and makes the straight male out to be a 'true' male.  there is no evidence to prove that gay or straight makes for a better male, if we want to get all scientific.

thus, if i make a religious joke, then i know, that religion, especially of the christian and muslim trend, is silly, and lends itsself hugely to poking fun at.  i dont make hindu jokes, or buddhist jokes, because i actually think those religions are quite cool.  eventhough they are no more real than the kraken.
Logged
Watookal
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2010, 16:34:23 PM »

People always say you're born gay and that it's not a choice. Can anyone please point me to proof of this statement.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3086



« Reply #53 on: December 13, 2010, 16:45:57 PM »

Quote from: Lilli
The question here was related to an e-mail sent out at a place of business, to people who work there, by their boss, and was not solely based on the content of that e-mail, but also on the context in which it was distributed.

And that forms part of the argument. You still have to arbitrate about "OK, in what contexts CAN I do this or not? Who decides?". Without a doubt you may say "society", but that leaves little room for the freedom of speech of individuals, and it's a very rapid slippery slope to censoring facts to appease certain people. Also, often the whole company won't be offended, but one person will. But we bow to that pressure anyway because that person is a muslim, etc... Surely this points out the fact that "offensiveness" is a highly subjective term.

(Warning: I have to state that arguments stated in this thread don't represent my OPINION, and are probably overly idealistic. But I love hearing how people place these very "touchy feely" matters in some kind of rational framework, and moreover, how you guys think fairness can be achieved.)
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #54 on: December 13, 2010, 16:52:45 PM »

People always say you're born gay and that it's not a choice. Can anyone please point me to proof of this statement.
If you google causes of homosexuality you will find numerous articles.  There is a lot of debate on the nature nurture divide, but it is clear that gender orientation is not a free choice that you can make at will.
Logged
benguela
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


An infinitesimal subset of the observable universe


benguela
WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 13, 2010, 17:34:32 PM »

when you are hatefull/fearfull of a particular culture, then you will want to degrade them, and make yourself feel better, by making hatefull humour.  and it will show.

perhaps

this sounds very much a case of affirmative shopping.

Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #56 on: December 13, 2010, 21:00:07 PM »

there is no evidence to prove that gay or straight makes for a better male, if we want to get all scientific.

Yes, let's get all scientific. Start by stating your criterion/ia for a "good male"?

Mintaka
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #57 on: December 13, 2010, 22:30:43 PM »

A hard determinist (I think Peter Grant is one, on and off), would argue that a person doesn’t even choose their religion because there is no such thing as choice.  If one takes that position, it would be just as inappropriate to mock people’s religion as it is to poke fun at their sexual orientation.  At the same time, religious people (in the Abrahamic traditions) are unshakeable in their conviction that sexual orientation is a matter of choice.

As a general and broadly applicable principle, I’m all for virtually unrestrained freedom of expression – as offensive and/or asinine as it can sometimes be, but in the case at hand, one must not lose sight of the hierarchy of responsibility that exists in the workplace.  A boss has a duty to motivate subordinates, to facilitate their work and to provide guidance.  S/he must ensure that his/her charges are kept as happy as is practically possible.  Part of that responsibility is very obviously not to offend them.

If the boss wants to forward such an e-mail to someone else, s/he should pass it on to friends outside the workplace or, after careful deliberation, possibly to colleagues s/he knows to be on the same wavelength.  Colleagues at the same hierarchical level can easily sort out such an issue among themselves.  Not so in the case where a superior and a subordinate are involved.

GCG’s boss suffered a serious lapse in judgement and should be taken to task for it.  It was a careless, stupid and inconsiderate thing to do, pretty much regardless of the topic, but especially so given the contentious nature of homosexuality.

BTW, the fact that many animals routinely engage in homosexual behaviour is good reason to suppose that sexual orientation is nowhere near as much a matter of choice as some sources would have you believe.

'Luthon64
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #58 on: December 14, 2010, 10:04:05 AM »

when you are hatefull/fearfull of a particular culture, then you will want to degrade them, and make yourself feel better, by making hatefull humour.  and it will show.

perhaps

this sounds very much a case of affirmative shopping.

i'm assuming you are trying to make a point somewhere in this?  or are you just being random.


Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #59 on: December 14, 2010, 10:15:21 AM »

there is no evidence to prove that gay or straight makes for a better male, if we want to get all scientific.

Yes, let's get all scientific. Start by stating your criterion/ia for a "good male"?

Mintaka

my personal criterion is not gender based.
society's, on the other hand, is in the eye of the beholder.
the straight, white, afrikaans male, might idealise the male form as hairy, loud, beer chugging, rugby-playing, women opressing, skirt chasing and chauvinistic.
the ideal for a gay dude, might be, according to his tastes, either hairy and snor toting, or soft skinned and effiminate.

society, as a norm, expects the male to be the head of the family. to be a breadwinner.  to have a successfull career.  to drive the car, and wash it.  mow the lawn, make the fire.  keep is wife and kids in order.
i have yet to see either straight or gay men perform better at keeping their families fed, or providing for their spouses, or educating their kids, or having successfull careers.
straight men value brute strength as measure of their manliness, when the test of a true male, has got buggerall to do with how big their beer boep is, and how good he is in a bar-fight.
and while, yes, the male has the superior physique, gone are the days when the man is the protector, as no man is bulletproof.  and i dont know any women that thinks a brawling guy is attractive.  and yet, men aspire to be these obnoxious bastards, and women try and see the 'sensitive' man inside all the bullshit.  venus and mars anybody?
gay or straight, the amount of brawn you swagger around with, doesnt measure how good a father and husband you are.
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 0.994 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page March 07, 2019, 20:46:31 PM
Privacy Policy