The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Nontheist lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people & friends.
Latest Activity: 46 minutes ago
Started by Sentient Biped. Last reply by Loren Miller 46 minutes ago.
Started by James M. Martin 1 hour ago.
Started by Sentient Biped 20 hours ago.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Sentient Biped 20 hours ago.
Started by Debra Stevenson. Last reply by Debra Stevenson on Wednesday.
Started by James M. Martin. Last reply by Joan Denoo on Monday.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on Monday.
Started by James M. Martin. Last reply by The Flying Atheist on Monday.
Started by James M. Martin. Last reply by James M. Martin May 18.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Sentient Biped May 3.
I get that it was a holocaust joke. I'm not trying to show that it was funny. Other people's reaction whether light or serious doesn't change the facts or improve their position. There are lots of very serious priests and lots of very humorous oncologists.
I'm sure that a muslim feels very justified in their real offence; it would be wrong though to think that you or I have a monopoly on what 'justifies' offence; people can choose to take offence at whatever they like. Holocaust 'humour' is tasteless, I agree, and the extermination of people, whether wasteful or not is clearly horrific. However the point is that why should people care that something offends you? You haven't actually been damaged by it, have you? Presumably you can tell the difference between killing people and joking about it can't you?
I'm certainly not telling holocaust jokes and the only thing I'm taking lightly is vicarious offence; I think it's as ridiculous as vicarious responsibility.
My worry would be that some idiot brings in laws to avoid offence, like the old blasphemy laws we had here.
Hi Sentient, I didn't actually see what caused such offence, but you've hit the nail on the head. When Muslims see pictures of Mo, they don't like it because it 'trivializes' what's going on in their heads and they expect us to all treat the same things the same. This is a similar hair trigger thing I think.
It's the people who take vicarious offence; on behalf of others, who expect the same treatment as those actually affected that are trivializing them. It's like John Prescott (a Labour Peer) getting all offended that his work phone was hacked expecting the same level of sympathy that Milly Dowler's (Murdered school girl whose phone was hacked) family received. It smacks of not being able to tell the difference and expecting to be indulged.
I think that a lot of the offendees claiming to be offended to the point where they think people are interested, often have no more been affected by the subject of the 'joke' than the teller. It might be horrifically bad taste to draw pictures of prophets or whatever, but I'm not sure one can even equate the trivialized memories of an 'offended' 30 year old with the actual suffering of those who went through actual horror. If we gayers pandered to the 'offence' taken by others or took serious offence at all the slights against us, maybe we'd be called Dours!
Although maybe I was out when we all agreed on the list of things we're not allowed to joke about.
But then I worry that (apparently) a lack of empathy is a sign of a sociopath...
Yeah, with all that fair skin and blonde hair the people must have thought he was some kind of god.
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.