This blog post has been percolating for a long time in my head. I finally snapped this morning when seeing a completely benign twitter message from someone. It said:
Ok, totally offended by the W article: » link to Money Honeys: Celebrities: Wmagazine.com Aren’t we beyond this?
The article is about how hedge funds hire attractive women with no skills as eye candy, and, actually…you know what…..who cares. That’s not the point.
Here’s the point: someone was actually OFFENDED by the article. They were so offended that they SHARED THE F*CKING ARTICLE WITH HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE ON TWITTER!!!!
But let’s move on. The thing that actually drives me clinically insane is the fact that people are offended. Apparently “Thou Shalt Not Offend” was the 11th commandment that accidentally broke off the tablet. The entire notion of something being offensive just boggles my mind. It’s a complete sham. It’s bullshit. Nothing can be offensive unless you let it bother you. It’s just that simple. Sure, something can make you angry. Someone can say something that makes you feel awful. I’m not advocating being an asshole, I’m just saying that nothing I say is offensive unless you decide to let it get to you.
The other problem with the “offensive” tag is that it completely conflicts with free speech, something I’m all for. I just recently heard someone complain “I’m sick of people hiding behind the first amendment.” I’m sorry, what?
Now, if you know me, you’ll know that I’m just about as liberal a fellow as you’ll ever meet. But when it comes to the free speech vs. being offended, hurting someone’s feelings, or being politically correct, the choice is clear. Free speech wins every time. Which brings me to the second example of “I’m offended” that made my skin boil.
Back in April, a student from the University of Toronto wrote in article in the student paper entitled “10 Reasons it’s not OK to be fat“. A guy from a site called “Big Fat Blog” caused a shitstorm, and began a campaign to get people to write to the editor of the paper for an apology. A guy from the “Birdman Blog” wrote:
The article in the newspaper certainly got me fired up enough that I called the Newspaper and asked for a statement regarding it and I am still awaiting a response from the school and I fully intend to pursue this story as a journalist and see what I can do it. It might make it to the air OR it might remain on a blog but regardless, I see this as a chance to do something and stand up to the Ivory Tower and perhaps strike a blow against the monster.
Ol’ Birdman then went on to list the email addresses, phone numbers, etc. of everyone at the newspaper, the University President, etc. Then, again using twitter, people started sounding the horn to raise a mob. Cries of “how could a newspaper print this?” were everywhere. “Send them an email and demand this filth be stopped” was heard across North America.
All because of a student’s opinion in a newspaper NO ONE would have ever read. The enemies of free speech wanted to form a worldwide mob to demand retribution because someone had their feelings hurt. Sticks and stones, my friends. Sticks and stones.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Sarah // Jun 25, 2008 at 9:49 am
You’re incredibly wrong, on a number of levels.
1) As for that article–the article itself isn’t offensive. It’s the business practice that is. Women have had to deal with the bullshit of being judged for little more than our appearances for centuries, and being treated as though our bodies/appearance/etc are public property for anyone to comment on, judge us for, reduce us to. It’s ridiculous, and by noting discontent with bullshit like that article, we attempt to raise awareness that we don’t have any inclination to put up with it.
2) “nothing I say is offensive unless you decide to let it get to you.” Are you fucking serious dude? I would really enjoy watching you get into a time machine and saying that shit to like, oh, I don’t know, Martin Luther King. Entire civil movements that are insanely important to the history of the fucking country were based on people deciding that shit was offensive and needed to change.
3) The Toronto article thing was retarded and maybe a bit over the top for a student newspaper–but if you actually read the article, it’s hate speech. I don’t think hate speech ought to be protected by the first amendment (which doesn’t apply in Canada anyway, but whatevs). As someone who has gotten pretty interested in the fat acceptance movement and who knows firsthand the hate and b.s. that fatties have to put up with on a daily basis, no, again, it’s not just “deciding” to be offended. It’s something that is widespread, pervasive, and flat-out WRONG, and “deciding” to, you know, not put up with it.
Listen to me, I sound like a commie, Fred (my dad not your blog) would be rolling his eyes at everything I’ve said.
But seriously, I disagree wholeheartedly with this entire post. Heh. Just wanted to rebut!
(Oh, and to any other commenter, I am not the one who tweeted that article, but it was my boss, and I totally agree with her.
2 Sarah // Jun 25, 2008 at 9:59 am
Just one more thing bc now you’ve fired me up, lol. I realize that I will be raked over the coals for saying that hate speech ought not enjoy 1st amendment protection.
But I guess my feeling on it is that we never see significant and necessary social change unless we DO condemn certain forms of speech. Racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, and yes, anti-fat hatred, are all things that need to be nixed. We’ve made good progress on some of them, but more is needed in other areas.
As much as I think people go apeshit and overly PC on things sometimes, the fact is that just “deciding” to “not be offended” is an absolutely absurd way to deal with anything, and if everyone did that, then there would never be social progress.
/rant
3 Barry Freed // Jun 25, 2008 at 10:12 am
Okay, so on your first point:
1) discontent- I get that. That makes sense to me. I think I need to reign in the idea to be that what someone SAYS is offensive, and if you’re talking about a practice that makes someone angry, I can agree with that. Therefore, my first example isn’t very valid.
2) so wait, the civil rights movement was strictly based on what people said? It was all about words? I seem to remember it being about institutional racism.
3) Over the top? Does it really makes sense for you to be upset about an article in a toronto student newspaper?
4 Sarah // Jun 25, 2008 at 10:23 am
The civil rights movement can’t be boiled down to one specific thing any more than any other social movement can. But was it partially about offensive speech? Absolutely! It is only in the last couple decades that it is no longer considered socially acceptable to just randomly toss around the n-word or any other form of racial slur. To do so is, yes, offensive. But in 1960? Not so much. It was the norm.
As for the article, I emailed you about all the ways you’re wrong about it. The article isn’t the point, it’s a small student paper and crappy writing to boot. I am offended by what it said as a fat person, ABSOLUTELY, but I am more upset on behalf of every fat person who is a student at that school giving tuition money to support a paper that would publish what amounts to, essentially, pure hate speech directed at them. I imagine the paper would not have published a top ten reasons it’s not okay to be gay. Just saying.
5 Barry Freed // Jun 25, 2008 at 10:25 am
I think this is a great advertisement for having editors on the internet. From now on, anything:
sexist
racist
homophobic
anti-religion
anti-government
anti-military
and “other”, which will be decided upon based on community standards
Will be banned from the internet. And TV. And radio. In addition, anything considered unpopular shall be banned. Please hand in your books, thoughts, art, and memories for inspection.
This new program will ensure that our children will never be offended, and no one will need to formulate an opinion or an identity.
Progress!!!
6 Sarah // Jun 25, 2008 at 10:49 am
Oh for chrissake dude, you are completely misrepresenting what I am saying and basically being an asshole rather than engaging in what COULD be quite an interesting discourse.
Yes, CLEARLY I am in favor of banning anything that could POSSIBLy be offensive from the Internet. Obviously, that’s clearly what I’ve said.
You’re being a complete jackass, and ignoring every legitimate thing I have said, and dismissing my extremely valid points about how social change is often determined by people standing up for themselves and not just turning a blind eye to hatred.
Have we met? Do you know me at all? I am quite often tickled fucking pink at things that are insanely offensive. I listen to Howard Stern for god’s sake, and absolutely love his show. I am well aware that incendiary language, satire, and offensive material can be wildly entertaining and contribute meaningfully to our culture. I loved George Carlin. I get what you’re saying.
But you’re also saying, I think, that people should just ignore things that they think might truly be damaging to society–I think hate speech has the potential to cause damage, incite violence, etc etc. I think anti-fat hate speech that is pernicious, widespread, and often completely cloaked in the sheep’s clothing of pop culture, has an untold effect on, YES, our children. We’ve got 8 year olds who are totally healthy going on diets convinced they are too fat and terrified of being mocked and bullied at school–you don’t think shit that goes on the Internet/TV/etc mercilessly attacking women for perceived body imperfections has anything to do with that? YOu don’t think it’s important to attempt to spread the message that we should all feel good about ourselves and maybe not get eating disorders before we hit puberty?
WTF dude, there’s such a wide difference between wanting to reign in hate and wanting to “ban” everything that could possibly be offensive.
Make a real argument.
7 Barry Freed // Jun 25, 2008 at 11:10 am
But that’s exactly my point: you listen to Howard Stern, and the things he or his guests say don’t bother you? And you make fun of other people, right? Who gets to decide what is hateful and what’s done in humor? Who is the arbiter of “acceptable”? How can you laugh at something that even you consider “insanely offensive” but if someone says something that is close to home, well, then it’s offensive? That’s what I don’t understand. Is hate speech that which I wouldn’t laugh at when other people are around?
When it comes to ignoring what people find “offensive” I’m talking about things like Howard Stern. Like movies and TV shows. Things that you actually have to seek out to listen to. These are things that drive me nuts: “I listen to Howard Stern and I want him off the air. Sure I had to subscribe to satellite radio, and sure I have to pay to listen to him, and sure there are parental controls I could use to make sure my children don’t hear it, but I want him gone!” It’s things like this that make me mental.
From the esteemed Mr. Hoffa in the forum:
“The thing is: these people are hypocrites. Offended, are you? Remember that the next time you snicker at a guy in a black overcoat with bad skin reading an “X-Factor” comic book. How funny did you find all the “band camp” jokes in American Pie? For that matter, is 90% of humor in the world dead to you because it involves poking fun at someone or something?
Just who decides what or who it’s ok to poke fun at?
These fucking misanthropes, apparently. It’s funny to poke fun at Republicans, because they’re all money-grubbing douchebags who want to outlaw welfare and put illegal immigrants in jail. But spare the fat people. I feel like Mr. Pink in the opening scene of Reservoir Dogs.
If you want to pick an issue to get back that involves offense, picking up the torch of some group that needs your whiny, publicizing voice: how about Native Americans?”
8 Sarah // Jun 25, 2008 at 11:41 am
I’ve never heard of the “X Factor”.
I think there’s a big difference between appreciated satire and condoning hate.
Believe it or not, I’m not some whiny humorless misanthrope. I only laugh when things are ACTUALLY FUNNY. Including fat jokes.
I have no idea what you’re talking about in regards to Native Americans, but I received this response when I queried a blogger/feminist I respect about how to deal with people who claim you are just being “too PC” when you’re making valid arguments against discrimination and marginalization:
First, this post, which is (IMHO) the best refutation of the “UR TOO PC NOW I’M OPPRESSED” meme ever:
http://www.kaichang.net/2006/11/the_sloppy_prop.html
The whole thing’s great, but the final paragraph really nails it:
“Simply put, the great “PC” cliché, as commonly deployed in mainstream discourse, is cultural propaganda designed to befuddle and misdirect while defending the current power structure. All politics deal with power relations, and in the debate over America’s alleged climate of “political correctness”, there’s a stark asymmetry of power between the defiant megaphone-wielders who complain of being constrained by humorless hypersensitivity from below, and the under-represented people of color, women, LGBT, handicapped, poor, and otherwise marginalized or dispossessed people who have no choice but to absorb the linguistic, cultural, and physical barbs of the ruling class. The former feel psycho-emotionally oppressed by their inability to crack puerile ethnic jokes without criticism; the latter simply are oppressed.”
Along the same lines, I’d say your friends line about the “arbitrary” standard reeks of privilege–offense only feels “arbitrary” to those who are unoppressed, who have to deal with that supposedly unclear line only when they’ve crossed it. Those who are marginalized daily know that it is in fact deliberate and unarbitrary.
9 Jimmy Hoffa // Jun 25, 2008 at 1:23 pm
“X-factor” was an offshoot of “X-Men”, starring many recognized “X-Men” regulars, but also including many younger wards of Professor X.
This debate fails as a debate for one reason - there are too many subjective things going on here.
(To quote Sarah) “Believe it or not, I’m not some whiny humorless misanthrope. I only laugh when things are ACTUALLY FUNNY. Including fat jokes. ”
OK, Sarah - what is “funny”? Hmm? To bite off Morpheus, “What is…’funny’? How do you define…’funny’?”
I submit to you that “funny” is different for everyone; often groups of us will laugh at something, but “funny” as a concept is necessarily individualistic because of the uniqueness of the human psyche.
It’s when one person, or a group of people goes trying to put objective definitions on subjective human experiences that we experience problems like this.
I submit to you: If you have a problem with something that I say, then you do what you’re doing here: say “Dude, you’re a tool for saying that. Here’s why.” My legitimate response is “Well, fine that you think so, but I still feel that way.”
This brings me to another point - the nature of censorship. Now, if Barry, as the administrator of this website, after several other people expressed similar feelings; about the marital status of my parents at the time of my birth, my resemblence to offal, or indeed the species of my parents; decided that he didn’t want to risk public outcry by continuing to employ me as a writer on the blog, he’d be bowing to public pressure and committing a kind of censorship, which is totally lame. BUT GUESS WHAT - he has a right to control the content of his own website, as does CBS or Westwood One. Yes, I think it’s weak and totally shitty of them to pull a controversial DJ, but hey - go after them for breach of contract, not “censorship”. The only group that can legitimately perform “censorship” is the government, by backing it up with force or legal ramifications.
Leave a Comment