Off Topic Thread 3.0

bilston · 27-07-2016 09:28PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36862749

Interesting article about Trump and alleged connections with Putin and Russia.

sydthebeat · 27-07-2016 09:32PM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

If it's offensive it's offensive, regardless of whether everyone in the world finds it offensive or if the intention was to offend or not.

100% completely disagree with that.....

"offensive" is not a factual state of being.. its absolutely subjective and contextual.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 27-07-2016 09:41PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

100% completely disagree with that.....

"offensive" is not a factual state of being.. its absolutely subjective and contextual.

Well, I explained myself as best I could a few posts up there. If you disagree you disagree. I won't fall out with you about it.

27-07-2016 09:49PM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

If enough people tell you something is offensive you just have to accept that it is. I'm not talking about individual offense here, I'm talking about things like "black face" or the Washington Redskins. I've seen countless arguments, usually from white people, that these things aren't offensive but if enough people from a particular group are repeatedly telling me they are offended by something I will accept that it is offensive.

Eh, definitely, definitely not.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 27-07-2016 09:51PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, definitely, definitely not.

You're just being argumentative now.

I find it offensive.

sydthebeat · 27-07-2016 09:58PM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You're just being argumentative now.

I find it offensive.

im offended that you have taken offense

molloyjh · 27-07-2016 10:38PM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

If enough people tell you something is offensive you just have to accept that it is. I'm not talking about individual offense here.

Look I'm not a totally insensitive dick who thinks people should be able to say what they want. But when a guy is going to a gay pride event and has been hugely vocal about gay rights and cracks a joke about backs to the wall there's an element of cop on required to see that it's a joke and is not coming from a bad place. To leap straight to outrage and finger pointing from there is extreme. Similarly in this tweet the guy never once mentioned the 8th or the Repeal campaign and yet people assumed he was against the repeal. Where the bloody hell is the logic in that!?

As much as some people need to be careful about what they say in case they cause offence (and that's always something that people need to bear in mind) others need to be careful what the say because they might just be talking total BS. And this case is a prime example of the latter. A number of us pointed out the huge leap made between the tweet and it being "anti repeal" so it was always there. That some chose to make that leap is not on Cian Healy.

wp_rathead · 27-07-2016 11:15PM

I dont get the "it's PC gone mad" angle to this whole thing though
I believe when he said he didn't know what the Blue Wall was about but people who did know called him out on it as he inadvertently implied they only doing it to be "alternative"
Freedom of speech =/= Freedom from criticism
He realised what the Blue wall stood for and apologised and then people started shouting "ahh cencorship"

thomond2006 · 27-07-2016 11:29PM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

If enough people tell you something is offensive you just have to accept that it is. I'm not talking about individual offense here, I'm talking about things like "black face" or the Washington Redskins. I've seen countless arguments, usually from white people, that these things aren't offensive but if enough people from a particular group are repeatedly telling me they are offended by something I will accept that it is offensive.

It's about context though. Liam Williams used 'black face' as a tribute to Wilfried Bony (at Halloween) and was still branded a racist. It was ridiculous and I can't stand Liam Williams!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 27-07-2016 11:33PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Look I'm not a totally insensitive dick who thinks people should be able to say what they want. But when a guy is going to a gay pride event and has been hugely vocal about gay rights and cracks a joke about backs to the wall there's an element of cop on required to see that it's a joke and is not coming from a bad place. To leap straight to outrage and finger pointing from there is extreme. Similarly in this tweet the guy never once mentioned the 8th or the Repeal campaign and yet people assumed he was against the repeal. Where the bloody hell is the logic in that!?

As much as some people need to be careful about what they say in case they cause offence (and that's always something that people need to bear in mind) others need to be careful what the say because they might just be talking total BS. And this case is a prime example of the latter. A number of us pointed out the huge leap made between the tweet and it being "anti repeal" so it was always there. That some chose to make that leap is not on Cian Healy.

I think you're arguing with yourself here.

I acknowledged his most recent thing was a case of people inferring their own meaning and launching a crusade. I don't know anything about the backs to the wall one so I haven't commented on it. The fact he was at a pride event or whatever it was is irrelevant though if what he said was genuinely offensive. As I said though often people say stupid things without meaning to be hurtful or cause offence. Look at how many people have said stupid things about the Black Lives Matter movement while trying to actively support it. It happens.

My other points were meant in a more general sense and in response to the idea that it's all just PC gone mad stuff. Sometimes people look for offense and will find it and sometimes people can have the absolute best of intentions and still get it wrong.

As someone mentioned earlier a movement to encourage taking 5 minutes to think before speaking/tweeting and responding to others would probably go a long way to solving that problem.

phog · 27-07-2016 11:39PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Yeah I personally don't subscribe to that. You shouldn't have to censor innocent comments for the PC brigade IMO.

His #backstothewall tweet was hardly innocent now was it?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 27-07-2016 11:41PM

thomond2006 wrote: »

It's about context though. Liam Williams used 'black face' as a tribute to Wilfried Bony (at Halloween) and was still branded a racist. It was ridiculous and I can't stand Liam Williams!

What's the original context of blackface though? Was it to pay tribute to the back people of the time? Or was it to mock? Or was it because black people were kept down so much they couldn't be the black character in a play or on TV so they got a white person to do it? If that's what black people today see when a white person wears black face make up then it's not surprising they find it offensive.
It's one of those things that maybe I don't completely understand and I've asked those same questions but at the end of the day if it's something the majority of black people find offensive then I'm going to accept that and I'm not going to be wearing black face.

Terms like racist get thrown around too much. A lot of people are just ignorant and occasionally stupid. Dressing as a KKK member would be racist. Dressing in black face is offensive to a lot of people and if you choose to ignore that and do it anyway it makes you a dick but not necessarily a racist.

thomond2006 · 28-07-2016 12:00AM

Dressing in black face is offensive to a lot of people and if you choose to ignore that and do it anyway it makes you a dick but not necessarily a racist.

I hear you.

Here's one from left field.
I'm certain a considerable percentage of people in Ireland (of the 734k that voted against) consider same-sex marriage offensive. Are same-sex couples being 'dicks' then for marrying? What about the offense they are causing?

Tbh what almost grates me more than the faux outrage is the cheap clickbait it generates for the media.

CIAN HEALY CAUSES ONLINE OUTRAGE
TWITTER SLAMS CIAN HEALY
YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT CIAN HEALY SAID ON TWITTER

Lazy.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 28-07-2016 12:09AM

thomond2006 wrote: »

I hear you.

Here's one from left field.
I'm certain a considerable percentage of people in Ireland (of the 734k that voted against) consider same-sex marriage offensive. Are same-sex couples being 'dicks' then for marrying? What about the offense they are causing?

That's not even close to being the same thing. It's not the marriage part people have a problem with. People don't choose to be gay. People do choose to use blackface makeup. If you can't see the difference then there's no point trying to have this conversation with you.

thomond2006 · 28-07-2016 12:13AM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

That's not even close to being the same thing. It's not the marriage part people have a problem with. People don't choose to be gay. People do choose to use blackface makeup. If you can't see the difference then there's no point trying to have this conversation with you.

Yeah fair enough, you're 100% right.

Ugh I'm shaking my head reading that back...time for sleep I reckon.

Yeah_Right · 28-07-2016 12:48AM

No doubt some of the "outrage" at Healy is because he's a dumb jock. He's just a brain dead, misogynistic rugby player so obviously he is homophobic and wants to control women as well.

I mean that's what all rugby players are like. Aren't they?

phog · 28-07-2016 12:53AM

thomond2006 wrote: »

I hear you.

Here's one from left field.
I'm certain a considerable percentage of people in Ireland (of the 734k that voted against) consider same-sex marriage offensive. Are same-sex couples being 'dicks' then for marrying? What about the offense they are causing?

Tbh what almost grates me more than the faux outrage is the cheap clickbait it generates for the media.

CIAN HEALY CAUSES ONLINE OUTRAGE
TWITTER SLAMS CIAN HEALY
YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT CIAN HEALY SAID ON TWITTER

Lazy.

To paraphrase you.

Who decides "faux outrage" exactly? It's a ridiculous concept.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 28-07-2016 01:04AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

No doubt some of the "outrage" at Healy is because he's a dumb jock. He's just a brain dead, misogynistic rugby player so obviously he is homophobic and wants to control women as well.

I mean that's what all rugby players are like. Aren't they?

Do people have that perception of rugby players? I would usually associate rugby players with private schools and expensive educations. Dumb and brain dead are not things I'd assume. Whatever about the rest of it.

molloyjh · 28-07-2016 07:55AM

phog wrote: »

His #backstothewall tweet was hardly innocent now was it?

Yes it clearly was. He was talking about going to a gay pride event after having been very supportive of gay rights. He had a crying laughing face after it. So he obviously wasn't homophobic and he obviously was joking. As much as someone reading needs to consider how it will be read, people reading have it have to consider how it was intended. Communication isn't simply a one way thing. And both parties have to acknowledge that.

molloyjh · 28-07-2016 08:07AM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

What's the original context of blackface though?

Who cares? The original meaning of the word gay was happy. If I told someone who was having a laugh at an inappropriate time that they were far too gay do you think they would take that to mean that he was too happy or would that signify something else? The meaning of things change over time and what's important is what they mean now and what the context is now, not what it was when it didn't happen.

And the use of the term blackface in itself is wrong. He blackened his face to dress up as a black person. If I wanted to dress up as Kurt Cobain I'd have to wear a blonde wig. Does that mean I have a problem with blonde people? Of course not. So if I want to dress up as Samuel L Jackson, someone I have huge respect and time for, then I'd have to darken my pasty white skin to do so. If people want to take offence to that they can, but it wouldn't stop me from doing it. Why? Because I'm doing nothing wrong. And for as much as some might want to find wrong with it that's all in their heads. It certainly isn't in me at all.

Unless of course you are saying that white people should never be allowed to dress up as black people.....see where stuff like this can go very quickly.

swiwi_ · 28-07-2016 08:22AM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

If enough people tell you something is offensive you just have to accept that it is. I'm not talking about individual offense here, I'm talking about things like "black face" or the Washington Redskins. I've seen countless arguments, usually from white people, that these things aren't offensive but if enough people from a particular group are repeatedly telling me they are offended by something I will accept that it is offensive.

Jeepers, you sound like you float in the wind, relying on popular opinion, trends etc to form your opinions TMO.

Morals should come within, inate sense of right and wrong, the stuff your parents taught you as a kid etc.

I'm telling you people (again...) social media :mad:

pickarooney · 28-07-2016 08:55AM

molloyjh wrote: »

Who cares? The original meaning of the word gay was happy. If I told someone who was having a laugh at an inappropriate time that they were far too gay do you think they would take that to mean that he was too happy or would that signify something else? The meaning of things change over time and what's important is what they mean now and what the context is now, not what it was when it didn't happen.

And the use of the term blackface in itself is wrong. He blackened his face to dress up as a black person. If I wanted to dress up as Kurt Cobain I'd have to wear a blonde wig. Does that mean I have a problem with blonde people? Of course not. So if I want to dress up as Samuel L Jackson, someone I have huge respect and time for, then I'd have to darken my pasty white skin to do so. If people want to take offence to that they can, but it wouldn't stop me from doing it. Why? Because I'm doing nothing wrong. And for as much as some might want to find wrong with it that's all in their heads. It certainly isn't in me at all.

Unless of course you are saying that white people should never be allowed to dress up as black people.....see where stuff like this can go very quickly.

What if Samuel L Jackson himself specifically said he had a problem with it? Could you hugely respect him and disagree to the point of doing it anyway?

I'm kind of on the fence about using makeup to change your skin colour. I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with it, as skin is just a physical feature, but if it seriously annoys a lot of people it's hardly worth it. I'd feel the same about Hitler or KKK disguises.

One I think is strange is how the confederate flag is vilified in the states because of its association with slavery but the stars and stripes is revered despite its links with genocide.

DGRulz · 28-07-2016 08:57AM

I was born when the last abortion vote happened, but I've heard stories of how bitter the debate got at times. I'm not looking forward to it this time around, I reckon it's going to be much worse.

28-07-2016 09:02AM

DGRulz wrote: »

I was born when the last abortion vote happened, but I've heard stories of how bitter the debate got at times. I'm not looking forward to it this time around, I reckon it's going to be much worse.

It's an emotive issue, with terrible entrenchment problems.

The appeals to emotion and the effort to 'shame' people on both sides of the arguments are terrible for the development of the argument.

Reason gets removed from these debates so often.

phog · 28-07-2016 09:05AM

molloyjh wrote: »

Yes it clearly was. He was talking about going to a gay pride event after having been very supportive of gay rights. He had a crying laughing face after it. So he obviously wasn't homophobic and he obviously was joking. As much as someone reading needs to consider how it will be read, people reading have it have to consider how it was intended. Communication isn't simply a one way thing. And both parties have to acknowledge that.

Both of us have already stated that he's not homophobic, I said he used that hashtag in his tweet where he mentioned he was going to a Pride event but that doesn't make the joke more acceptable. It was in poor taste. Is it acceptable to joke about **** while clearly not being a racist?

A poster requested previous from him and I gave that tweet as an example.

28-07-2016 09:06AM

phog wrote: »

Both of us have already stated that he's not homophobic, I said he used that hashtag in his tweet where he mentioned he was going to a Pride event but that doesn't make the joke more acceptable. It was in poor taste. Is it acceptable to joke about **** while clearly not being a racist?

A poster requested previous from him and I gave that tweet as an example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKEh7Qyo4KA

Felix Jones is God · 28-07-2016 09:42AM

The fact we have to vote to allow women to be in control of their own bodies in this country is shameful.

molloyjh · 28-07-2016 09:52AM

phog wrote: »

Is it acceptable to joke about **** while clearly not being a racist?

Like black people in the US do every single day you mean?

Felix Jones is God · 28-07-2016 09:53AM

molloyjh wrote: »

Like black people in the US do every single day you mean?

Which is a clear double standard and should be looked upon in the same way as if a white person said it .
Context means nothing in this case,

molloyjh · 28-07-2016 09:57AM

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

The fact we have to vote to allow women to be in control of their own bodies in this country is shameful.

Is it really that simple though? I'm in favour of the repeal and in favour of legalising abortion. However I'm also in favour of having a rational and calm debate on the matter without using terms like "shameful". Abortion does lead to the termination of something that would, if allowed to, become a human life. Surely we have to allow room in the debate for people who take issue with that and actually accept that they have an opinion worth listening to. That doesn't mean you have to agree, it doesn't mean you allow it to dictate policy. It does mean you give it some respect. It's a serious topic and deserves serious debate and thought.

Anyway, we're all getting way away from the original point. Personally I think I've made my stance clear. People can agree or disagree all they want. I think a lot of people overreacted to a tweet that meant nothing at all really and that's the sign of the times on social media. Maybe swiwi has a point.... :P

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Comments