The it's offensive society.

Caliden

People are now getting offended at some CEO singing 'we're in the money' while off the air before discussing a merger between Asda and Sainsburys.


Really.....

It's literally the guy's job to make money for the company. That's literally why he's paid massive wages.
I think people have a problem with capitalism. If that's the case: don't hate the player, hate the game.

lawred2

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

So if I say I'm completely in favour of abortion and 100% against gay marriage, that's OK cause freedom of speech?

urm....

what?

RocketRaccoon

lawred2 wrote: »

urm....

what?

Do you have a question?

Hooks Golf Handicap

This offended PC culture is nothing more than lazy journalism.

All they do is trawl Twitter & FB looking for an opposing voice to anything then roll with the "offence caused" headline.
Sometimes I wonder if the offended party isn't just a plant to create a story.
Then the rest of us go "PC gone mad", "snowflakes" etc.....

Remember when the late Jade Goody called the Indian actress a poppadom which created a furore.
It turned out that only a handful of people who saw the broadcast live actually rang in to register their anger.
This then snowballed to 10's of thousands once the redtops launched a campaign & everyone clicked on a link to play a subtitled video which they already knew would offend them.
People are sheep & the media know this.

gimli2112

I don't think it's a new phenomenon. People have always been offended, it's just now we have to hear about it thanks to the internet.

ancapailldorcha

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

This offended PC culture is nothing more than lazy journalism.

All they do is trawl Twitter & FB looking for an opposing voice to anything then roll with the "offence caused" headline.
Sometimes I wonder if the offended party isn't just a plant to create a story.
Then the rest of us go "PC gone mad", "snowflakes" etc.....

Remember when the late Jade Goody called the Indian actress a poppadom which created a furore.
It turned out that only a handful of people who saw the broadcast live actually rang in to register their anger.
This then snowballed to 10's of thousands once the redtops launched a campaign & everyone clicked on a link to play a subtitled video which they already knew would offend them.
People are sheep & the media know this.

It's not a plant, it's just clickbait and it's proliferating because it works. The modern right and left have become obsessed with their own victimhood narratives. Reading studies by academics and think tanks takes time, effort and intelligence. Appealing to the lowest common denominator by posting a tweet and a reaction is quick, easy and cheap. Anyone can do it and those clicks sell ad space.

If you want better journalism, pay for it.

Franz Von Peppercorn

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

So if I say I'm completely in favour of abortion and 100% against gay marriage, that's OK cause freedom of speech?

Er.... Yes?

Was that a rhetorical question?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The furore over the Michelle Wolf White House Correspondents speech has been amazing to behold. People not even sure what they are offended by.

Snowflakes on the right as much as the left these days.

kunst nugget

Do you know what I find offensive? People getting offended by things. And then there's the people that get offended by the likes of me getting offended by others getting offended. They're the worst.

riffmongous

Mutant z wrote: »

Certainly but that doesnt mean they should have the right to want to ban those from social media or the airwaves because of opinions they have as as the case with certain sections of society.

But who gave them that right? Ironically the capitalist consumer driven model championed by those opposite sections of society who love freedom so much. If US companies weren't so dependent on profit and anything that damages that bottom line they would be much more resistant to the outrage

Maxpfizer

wes wrote: »

Not sinister at all. Free speech is a 2 way street. You can say what you like and the other person can say what they want in return. There is no world where what you say doesn't have some consequences.

This take is WAY too simplistic and ignores a large chunk of what people are most concerned about.

Sure, there's no world where words don't have consequences.

There is, however, a world of difference between Joe down the pub not talking to me because I said Liverpool are garbage and something like this http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

What you are, I think willfully, ignoring is that people aren't blindly concerned about general consequences of free speech but are specifically concerned about consequences such as losing ones job or being convicted of a crime.

If a 19 year old can start their adult life with a hate crime conviction over song lyrics posted on Instagram then that is kind of troubling.

What the poster was referring to as "sinister" is people being abused publicly and/or having petitions set up to have them removed just because they voiced an unpopular opinion.

You are acting as though somebody simply disagreeing with or disliking your opinions or your speech is the same as many hundreds or thousands of people trying to wreck your life because of something you said.

Boom_Bap

Is the OP, now bear with me here, is the OP offended by people being offended? :pac:

Maxpfizer

gimli2112 wrote: »

I don't think it's a new phenomenon. People have always been offended, it's just now we have to hear about it thanks to the internet.

I agree but I think the level of offense and the actions people are willing to take in response to "being offended" has been escalating.

People in the UK are being convicted of crimes based on posts they have made on Facebook or Twitter etc. Sometimes these convictions are based on taking the content of the posts out of context.

This is not the same as people just being offended and that's it. You could potentially go to prison because you offended the wrong person.

wes

Maxpfizer wrote: »

There is, however, a world of difference between Joe down the pub not talking to me because I said Liverpool are garbage and something like this http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

That is the UK. The post I was replying to had nothing to do with the UK laws around offensive speech. So yes there is a world of difference, as what I was replying to has nothing to do with what you are talking about. If you want to talk about a different topic, that is fine, but to pretend I was talking about it the whole time is a perfect example of someone moving the goal posts.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

What you are, I think willfully, ignoring is that people aren't blindly concerned about general consequences of free speech but are specifically concerned about consequences such as losing ones job or being convicted of a crime.

Yeah, it sucks you can lose your job, for saying something stupid. Thats life, people can call for you head if they want to, that is free speech too.

As for criminal prosecution, your the first to bring that up and I said nothing on that either way.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

If a 19 year old can start their adult life with a hate crime conviction over song lyrics posted on Instagram then that is kind of troubling.

Its too bad no one gave a crap about this over a decade ago, when the laws were introduced, and now that it looks like they could be hit by them, there suddenly concerned. Again, its UK law, so it relevance is limited for those who live in Ireland. The UK having dumb laws aren't a problem for the rest of the world.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

What the poster was referring to as "sinister" is people being abused publicly and/or having petitions set up to have them removed just because they voiced an unpopular opinion.

Its there right. Free speech is a double edged sword. Now I think those people are far too often quick to call for someones head, and what is done to them is out of proportion to what is said far to often.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

You are acting as though somebody simply disagreeing with or disliking your opinions or your speech is the same as many hundreds or thousands of people trying to wreck your life because of something you said.

Its still free speech. Free speech doesn't always result in good things happening, and unfortunately, the mob will always be there. You can accept that or not, but there not going away.

Maxpfizer

wes wrote: »

It so sad that people can't take a little bit of criticism of a cartoon without resorting to childish insults.

BTW, I don't even agree with the argument being made against Apu, but I do find it amusing to so many people being pissed off by criticism of a cartoon. Your post is a perfect example of someone getting overly emotional over someone criticizing a cartoon. Its really sad that people can't engage without resorting to such childish insults.

Again, I think you are ignoring a large part of the issue and simplifying it to people "getting offended over others being offended".

If the criticism of The Simpsons caused the show's creators to roll over and try to follow the guidelines of "activists" then there probably is an issue in that.

I think you are seeing people "offended by criticism of a cartoon" but from another perspective I could be viewed as people calling out and criticising efforts to "guide" shows like The Simpsons into sending out a particular message.

Vladimir Poontang

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think you'll find that the obsession with cultural appropriation, triggering and other nonsense both begins and ends with Farcebook, Twatter and the like. Spend some time away from them or, better still delete your accounts. You'll be much happier without the constant whinging and general noise of morons in your life.

Except it doesn't end there. These ****wits are looking to enact legislation, have launched harassment campaigns to destroy people's careers and have been successful in doing so.

This is no longer a few idiots online, it is becoming a pervasive influence on society at large and is a real threat to freedom of thought and expression.

wes

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Again, I think you are ignoring a large part of the issue and simplifying it to people "getting offended over others being offended".

Except that is exactly what some posters have done.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

If the criticism of The Simpsons caused the show's creators to roll over and try to follow the guidelines of "activists" then there probably is an issue in that.

Someone made a criticism of a cartoon. What is wrong with that exactly? If people can't engage with the specific criticisms and instead falsely portray it as someone being offended, even after I point out that the guy who they claim is offended, publically stated that he is not offended.

People refusing to engage with the criticism, is them choosing to be offended.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

I think you are seeing people "offended by criticism of a cartoon" but from another perspective I could be viewed as people calling out and criticising efforts to "guide" shows like The Simpsons into sending out a particular message.

You are choosing to ignore post like this (you even quote the post where I replied to this silliness):

taserfrank wrote: »

The brain-dead, retarded juvenile snowflakes who are 'offended' by Apu for Twitter can fcuk right off.

Read that post above.

I think 1 poster actually engaged with the specific criticisms made against Apu, btw.

There is little discussion about the critique at all, its about the person making it being offended, despite the fact that they said otherwise. Basically, the entire thread is a straw man argument and nothing more.

Maxpfizer

wes wrote: »

Its still free speech. Free speech doesn't always result in good things happening, and unfortunately, the mob will always be there. You can accept that or not, but there not going away.

That's true but is it acceptable to just capitulate to the mob because they aren't going away?

You admit yourself that sometimes the response is out of proportion to what was said but you seem to be able to shrug that off as "just a consequence of free speech".

It's genuine injustice though. If someone makes a bad comment and their life gets f*cked up as a consequence then that has to be seen as grossly unfair treatment.

Saying that it's just a consequence of having free speech feels a bit "off" to me.

Maxpfizer

wes wrote: »

Someone made a criticism of a cartoon. What is wrong with that exactly? If people can't engage with the specific criticisms and instead falsely portray it as someone being offended, even after I point out that the guy who they claim is offended, publically stated that he is not offended.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the criticism as such. Rather the response to it.

The Simpsons was heavily criticised by right wing groups throughout the 90s and they never got anywhere with that criticism and that's fine. That's good, actually. Can you imagine if they just decided to pander to the American Right back in the 90s?

It would have been bad, in my opinion, if the American right wing were able to control what does and does not appear in The Simpsons. It's better that The Simpsons is satirising and criticising them.

My concern would be that the new wave of "cultural critics" such as the creator of this documentary do seem to be having some kind of influence on the culture.

So it's more likely, in my view, that shows will pander to these new criticisms rather than skewer them because every time they respond there seems to be a new wave of outrage and "the mob will always be there" so why not just bend the knee?

People will speak up about it especially when they think it's a stupid criticism and your reaction amounts to little more than "just shut up about it".

ancapailldorcha

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Except it doesn't end there. These ****wits are looking to enact legislation, have launched harassment campaigns to destroy people's careers and have been successful in doing so.

This is no longer a few idiots online, it is becoming a pervasive influence on society at large and is a real threat to freedom of thought and expression.

It is a few idiots. I don't really know what you mean by "looking to enact legislation". That could mean anything. Yeah, you have a few real cases where an unfortunate few have had horrible luck but I stand by what I said.

Stonedpilot

Mutant z wrote: »

It hapoens all the time though someone doesnt like what someone says on Twitter and the like and they are calling for them to be banned much like on the radio as was the case of the witch hunt of George Hook because he had an opinion someone didnt like it seems that those with views that dont concur with the narative are fair game to be slaughtered and petitions called for their removal its very sinister stuff.

Its crazy. People are infantile children online. Seen one guy get dogs abuse and being called a paedophile as he had the gall to say the paedo hunter vigilante type gangs are not within their rights to get physical with those accused of stuff.

The politically correct mob are slowly marching to a scenario that would make Nazi Germany look tame and timid.

You cant say this you cant do that.

Met man who hands out Vote No flyers in the upcoming Referendum. He now has to wear a bodycam as he fears another attack. He should be allowed express his views

Franz Von Peppercorn

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Is the OP, now bear with me here, is the OP offended by people being offended? :pac:

This original thought was posted ten times on the thread already.

wes

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Saying that it's just a consequence of having free speech feels a bit "off" to me.

It is a consequence of free speech. Free speech is not inherently always good. You will have all kinds of people spouting off about stuff they have no clue about. The best you can do is argue back at them, or wait for it to inevitably blow over.

Boom_Bap

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

This original thought was posted ten times on the thread already.

ah now Franz, it hasn't though.

wes

Maxpfizer wrote: »

My concern would be that the new wave of "cultural critics" such as the creator of this documentary do seem to be having some kind of influence on the culture.

So it's more likely, in my view, that shows will pander to these new criticisms rather than skewer them because every time they respond there seems to be a new wave of outrage and "the mob will always be there" so why not just bend the knee?

In the case of the Simpsons they haven't and if they can successfully argue there point to change someones mind then they clearly had a convincing argument.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

People will speak up about it especially when they think it's a stupid criticism and your reaction amounts to little more than "just shut up about it".

No, I am taking the piss of the people who are complaining about someone being offended, even after the person said they weren't offended, and pointing at the over the top childish crap that people are saying, that you have for whatever reason chosen to ignore. People who refuse to engage with a critique or misrepresent what is being said, deserve to be called on it. This thread is ironically a perfect example of exactly what the OP is complaining about. Someone being offended about something.

jimgoose

valoren

The Monty Python criticism and offence is actually interesting. The scenes with the 'real' Messiah were done very respectfully and the film in no way is mocking of Jesus at all. What the group were actually mocking and targetting were the gullible and easily lead i.e. those who believed for the sake of believing irregardless of how ridiculous it might be and believed unquestionably. But the moral guardians and religious, knowing that, chose to deflect from it and instead accused the team of attacking religion and were mocking Christ himself and thus blaspehmous. Many actually hadn't seen the film at all, unaware of the actual content and attacked it viciously which completely vindicated the whole premise and core message itself and makes it such a brilliant film.

jimgoose

valoren wrote: »

The Monty Python criticism and offence is actually interesting. The scenes with the 'real' Messiah were done very respectfully and the film in no way is mocking of Jesus at all. What the group were actually mocking and targetting were the gullible and easily lead i.e. those who believed for the sake of believing irregardless of how ridiculous it might be. But the moral guardians and religions, knowing that, chose to deflect and instead accused the team of attacking religion and were mocking Christ himself. Many actually hadn't seen the film at all and attacked it which completely vindicated the whole premise and core message itself and makes it such a brilliant film.

The Church now, there's an outfit that always had a plentiful supply of Fifth Monkeys. :pac::pac::pac:

Irish Guitarist

One of the ones offended by Apu is Kal Penn. He's in Dedicated Survivor and I think he has some input into the storylines. In every episode there's a monologue by the president about why America is great. It's written like an inspiring speech but it's supposedly a spontaneous conversation that just came off the top of his head, as if all good presidents constantly talk like they're giving the Gettysburg Address. You can tell a mile away it's trying to show a president acting the exact opposite of how Trump acts. There's barely any story to it. It's a depressing look at how television is going.

Badly Drunk Boy

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Is the OP, now bear with me here, is the OP offended by people being offended? :pac:

I don't know, but I'd say he's more annoyed than offended. And why wouldn't you be?