![[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 19:35 (UTC)"What I'm asking is, if the data seems to lead to said arguments, then shouldn't they be considered as potentially valid, even if harmful?"
And my response was of course. All things should be considered. Here's the thing about seeming to lead to said arguments. A lot of times, data needs to be interpreted. Data can be interpreted in a number of ways, and that's usually what the "harmless examples" accompanying that data are brought in for, to do the interpreting for you to help you along to a certain conclusion the data is supposed to support, which it may. It, or other data, may also support very different positions that can also be considered as potentially valid, even if they are harmful in a different way. I guess my point is that this can become a game that gets played by people who know how to play it, and in politics, that is often the case.
"Because the alternative seems to me like completely switching them off, as if they do not exist at all - which still won't make them disappear."
Oh, well just speaking for myself, I wouldn't switch them off for a second, because the mind doesn't. Once you hear or read something, it has gained its access point and therefore, in my opinion, needs to be addressed. When we are talking about positions that can affect laws and the carrying out of laws (which is the basis of politics to me), then then whole "sticks and stones" thing needs to be left at the elementary school playground because the "wording" really can hurt people.
Am I am equally not trying to be too abstract here.