![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsLong story short, Locus Magazine has found itself in a bit of a kerfuffle over one of it's April 1st pranks. They issued a false press releases announcing that, in the interests of inclusiveness, all guests and attendees of a feminist science fiction convention (WisCon) would be required to wear Burqas. As one can imagine people complained that the announcement was offensive to Muslims, anti-Feminist, and not particularly funny. As such it has since been taken down and replaced with an apology.
The statement's original author, Lawrence Person, retaliated by posting about the controversy and a copy of the original statement in his own blog. Regardless of one's opinion on the above there's something that cropped up in the comment section that I found interesting.
A commenter identifying herself as Barbara posted the following...
I think that I can speak for all women when I say that this very important because we cannot offend science fiction fans of other religions. The right to free speech is irrelevant to women’s rights and freedom of religion. People need to understand that being offended is a really big deal and that we should be able to make you not offend us. And science fiction cannot be sexist or minority-phobic either. This is what it is. Period.
Emphasis mine.
Now I don't know if Barbara is being serious or satirical but her comment highlighted something that has always bothered me. The belief that one has a "right" to not be offended requires one to also believe in the right to force one's ideology on another. It is, by nature, anathema to the traditional interpretation of the 1st Amendment and the whole idea of freedom of speech / religion in general. Furthermore, there seems to be a growing trend in American politics to use conspicuous displays of outrage and offense as a form of political signalling raising the obvious question of, how does one avoid offending someone who is actively looking for something to be offended about?
The simple answer is that you can't.
Admittedly this is not a "Talking Point" so much as it is a rhetorical tactic but it still ranks among the dark arts and as such it's practitioners should be called out. ;)
The statement's original author, Lawrence Person, retaliated by posting about the controversy and a copy of the original statement in his own blog. Regardless of one's opinion on the above there's something that cropped up in the comment section that I found interesting.
A commenter identifying herself as Barbara posted the following...
I think that I can speak for all women when I say that this very important because we cannot offend science fiction fans of other religions. The right to free speech is irrelevant to women’s rights and freedom of religion. People need to understand that being offended is a really big deal and that we should be able to make you not offend us. And science fiction cannot be sexist or minority-phobic either. This is what it is. Period.
Emphasis mine.
Now I don't know if Barbara is being serious or satirical but her comment highlighted something that has always bothered me. The belief that one has a "right" to not be offended requires one to also believe in the right to force one's ideology on another. It is, by nature, anathema to the traditional interpretation of the 1st Amendment and the whole idea of freedom of speech / religion in general. Furthermore, there seems to be a growing trend in American politics to use conspicuous displays of outrage and offense as a form of political signalling raising the obvious question of, how does one avoid offending someone who is actively looking for something to be offended about?
The simple answer is that you can't.
Admittedly this is not a "Talking Point" so much as it is a rhetorical tactic but it still ranks among the dark arts and as such it's practitioners should be called out. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/13 01:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/4/13 02:45 (UTC)I love this bit. Like it's their fault you can't be arsed.
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/13 05:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/4/13 07:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/4/13 10:52 (UTC)PETA is another group that comes to mind. Some people may support animal rights but feel embarrassed by the tactics PETA uses. I remember hearing one joke/conspiracy theory that PETA is funded by livestock farmers who want to discourage people from becoming vegetarians.
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/13 14:59 (UTC)That's a bit hyperbolic to make a point. Except it's not, really. It's an unfortunate truth that people like Dawkins often do more harm than good when they're rude, but at the same time, if someone's going to base whether or not they'll support a cause because of whether or not the people involved in it are rude, well maybe that context needs to be looked into.
And one thing I learned from actually starting to listen to what SJWs, feminists, etc were actually saying: all those things we hear about that make people not want to call themselves feminists... really aren't as prevelent as the detractors would lead us to believe. And those folks most loudly complaining about that stuff have a vested interest in convincing people NOT to call themselves, say, feminists, because they DON'T agree with those goals. Those of us who "Agree with feminism's goal" might do better to listen to what feminists are actually saying, and not worrying about what other people think about feminists.
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/13 21:04 (UTC)I think that you are making a good point about how and why people champion their issues of choice, but at the end of the day, delivery matters. It's not so much that someone is basing whether or not they'll support a cause because some of the people involved are rude, but I'll just speak for myself and say that I'm not going to work with those people or even hear those people when they enter the room, and that's not because I don't care. I'll still be in the room, but I'll just go over to the other side. And that leads to another thing: Unintentional divisions in what should be a unified cause because some of the people involved are just at a "lashing out" point. I personally think that's when one needs to know to step pack, but not everyone has the presence of mind to do this.
One or two "slips" I can understand at a given time, like with your "Suzy the Feminist" example. BUT, there are "feminists," to keep with this example, that are seemingly just mad at the world. Maybe they have a right to be, and I have certainly come across women where I can tell that the kind of anger they have comes from being deeply hurt and not having worked through that hurt yet, which can take years or even a life time unfortunately. When it's women like this, that's when I think that one of their "feminist sisters," someone that knows them well enough to be able to approach them in a way that they can accept, should perhaps suggest that they contribute to the cause by way of another means than preaching on the front lines. The goal is to bring people in to your cause, not to piss them off, push them away, and make it seem like you just hate men in general. I don't think that helps, especially if Suzy the Feminist is a really good person deep down that just has some issues to work through because of what she has been subjected to in her life. I say this because people who haven't worked through the abuses they've endured tend to become like their abusers in one way or another, like how the boy who watched his abusive father attack mom, him, and his siblings becomes that same man as an adult if he hasn't had the help that he needs to make better choices and be a better man.
In your example, what Suzy should have done is gone to the proper authorities and managers of those online communities/websites involved so creepy people can't stalk and harass her for merely participating in discussions over time. She should not do nothing about that, but then carry over the rage and resentment to innocent people that actually do just want to have a real discussion with her, which results in her verbally attacking and harassing them. That doesn't do any good. Mind you, I'm not saying that this is what would happen; I'm just saying that this is what should not happen.
Everybody has an "off day" where they "slip," so to speak, the kind of person/group I think musicpsych is talking about, and I know I am talking about, isn't the type that just had an off day and slipped. I think she's (?) talking about people that either are in power (whether they'd like to admit it or not) and want to bully others to be in line with their self-serving beliefs, or, like I mentioned above, people who have suffered abuses and really aren't ready to have the kinds of discussions they are trying to participate in, even if at some point in the past they perhaps were.
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/13 23:15 (UTC)And
I disagree with your last paragraph. The people I'm talking about don't want to call themselves feminists because they don't want to be associated with the more extreme elements of feminism. This CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/living/millennials-feminism) has a few examples of that. I know that feminism is broad and there are different ways to be a feminist. But some people assume that if you call yourself a feminist, you agree with everything that every feminist ever said. Which is problematic, but still happens. I do think that some people take for granted the gains that feminists over the years have earned. But there are those who appreciate that progress and agree with the goal and yet still hesitate to adopt the label.
(no subject)
Date: 10/4/13 05:23 (UTC)Anonymity has caused the internet to become a skewed version of reality at times.
As for listening to what feminists (or any activist) is actually saying, things like guilt and the emotions associated with it are a lot to swallow if one wants to take the step and become the better person, having agreed with the goals and all.
I can really only related to the LBGT activists myself, I've seen cases of people bashing gay allies and questioning their motives, even when it has a practical benefit for LBGT rights. I've seen in-fighting as well.
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/13 06:50 (UTC)It kind of makes me wonder what the goal is. It can't be discussion; they're too quick to shut people up. It can't be inclusion; they're too quick to shut people out. I can't be debate; they're too quick to not listen and just attack. It can't be understanding; they don't want to know that anyone thinks any differently than them, and if they are somehow brought upon that knowledge, well then anyone that doesn't have identical opinions and beliefs is just pure evil, even if those opinions/beliefs are based on facts.
It's really too bad because in the end, they just become this closed little club of people that are the very picture of the things they say they are against.
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/13 10:39 (UTC)And I agree, the group seems very insular and closed off.
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/13 20:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/13 05:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/13 21:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/13 08:37 (UTC)Like, I recently found out that I'm part Cherokee, technically I could use that to bash other people, but in reality I'm far too white for the Cherokee part to mean anything in terms of privilege.
Basically, not everyone is oppressed in the same way.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/13 09:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/13 00:27 (UTC)I think for me, one thing I've noticed - and perhaps this is just because these cases are more noticeable - is a tendency to assume the worst about someone who does or says something questionable, when more information might be necessary for true judgment. Linked with that is a tendency to write someone off forever, as if there's no such thing as apology or forgiveness, or as if every "horrible" person can be ostracized from someone's life.
Another thing is that in some cases, it almost seems like the more vocal members of the group determine that there is only one acceptable reaction for members of a group to have, and other reactions by group members are invalid.
(no subject)
Date: 14/4/13 18:18 (UTC)Things like racism and sexism are integrated into people's culture in such a way that erasing all of that is a lifelong process.
(no subject)
Date: 10/4/13 14:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/13 20:48 (UTC)