![[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: 16/4/13 11:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/4/13 18:24 (UTC)I guess it would be better to ask, what is it specifically that makes the woman's behavior objectionable? Is it her drunkenness, her belligerence, or the content of her speech?
(no subject)
Date: 17/4/13 05:51 (UTC)1. There's that saying: There's a time and place for everything. I could understand if she were in a discussion group that meets on Wednesdays, or a forum where the topic was British immigrants, or something like that. I could understand if she was a part of a demonstration of some sort (that she'd gotten a permit for, hey, the KKK does it). I could support her right to write a book or an article for some publication, even if I do not agree with her position on things. Franky, I can understand or support a lot of things I don't agree with, but she chose to cross a line.
You, and I think maybe the other person you were talking to at the bottom of the forum, seem to want something more akin to anarchy than just "freedom of speech." Anarchy is where you have absolutely no limits or boundaries, and I do not support that because it's not a good way to live. It's chaotic and it actually leads to less freedom for most people, imo. Laws exist to protect people, and good laws protect us all. This is why the laws that protect freedom of speech are good because they are meant to protect us all (now). It's also why the few limitations placed on those laws are good, because they protect us all. At least in Britain, this woman violated a law or laws that are there to protect everyone, even her.
2. Public drunkeness. I do think in some states, at least, this is a crime. But regardless of what state she could be in if she were American, I think that's objectionable for the very reason that she proved. Drunks can do a whole lot of stupid things. She at least took public transportation (maybe she doesn't have a license to drive, and if so, for good reason?). She just would not stop, probably because of her drunkeness, and there was no reasoning with her (I think the Jamaican lady tried), also probably because of her drunkeness.
3. The children. You know, it's bad enough that she was antagonizing and verbally abusing adults, but what was really sad was to see the small child cowering into her parent's arms, to hear another lady on the train/subway get upset because this woman's raving was disturbing her baby, and probably the worst and the saddest was the fact that her small boy sat there like he was used to it. That made me wonder about her parenting skills... very much. Words can hurt and stay with children... quite a lot.
Did this answer you any better?