Thread

The Right to Offend

Manniq, 01 Nov 2005 21:33:59

Graham Marsden, 01 Nov 2005 22:21:30

manniq@hotmail.com wrote:

> This...being the point about 'offense' having a political dimension, no.
> Because I think it has: and I think that to understand what is happening
> in UK politics right now, one needs to take into account (or at least to
> explain) why we have become a nation fearful of giving offense or being
> seen to.
>
> However, for me - above and beyond the argument going on betwixt zak and
> thee, or you and I - the flight from offense (and the 'Respect agenda')
> is a common thread running through much New Labour thinking.

You are conflating two different points here.

I am not talking about some nonsensical "Politically Correct" agenda of
trying to avoid even the potential of offense (cf recent Tabloid stories
about banks supposedly not using Piggy Banks because of the possibility
of offense to Muslims, who are probably *more* offended by the idea that
they could be so petty!)

If *we* want people to respect *our* right to view whatever we choose,
we need to respect *their* right not to have it shoved in their face, ie
not spamming it everywhere or putting it in inappropriate places or
without adequate warning that content they might not like may be ahead.

If someone has the view that "All religions are bullshit", fine, they
have the right to hold that opinion, but simply shoving it into
everyone's face (not to mention declaring it as if that opinion is
*fact*) is simply unnecessary and disrespectful and doesn't give the
impression that "if you let us look at what we want to we will endeavour
to ensure that *you* are not forced to see it".

Cheers,
Graham.

Manniq, 01 Nov 2005 23:47:53

> I would be immeasurably happier if abuse and insult
> were kept off the public email list, because apart
> from anything else, it is intimidatory to any new
> people joining the list to see that sort of thing in
> their emails (which I believe was a point Graham was
> trying to make). It has the inevitable effect of
> persuading some people that this is not the place for
> them, that this campaign is not one of which they
> should be a part, and that if they were to try to
> contribute to the debate, that they would also be
> potential targets of a barrage of abuse.
> The right to cause offence is invaluable for the
> purposes of open and honest debate; however, it does
> not follow from this that there is a right to be
> insulting or abusive. Insulting or abusing someone
> does nothing to add to a debate, but rather seeks to
> put an end to the debate by belittling the other
> person and dismissing their arguments without
> answering them. Even if this is not the intent of
> the person causing insult or abuse, it is frequently
> the outcome because of the reaction by the insulted or
> abused party.

You make a 'nice' distinction (in the antique sense of that word. Almost to the point where I would agree with you.

Were it not for the way in which 'abusive' and 'insulting' seems to be daily widened in definition.

Again, a tad off-topic, but probably germane to the wider debate.

In an effort to cost-cut, a lot of businesses have hived off first line of contact to call centres and/or denuded front line staff of the real power to do anything in response to customers.

Not unnaturally, that has resulted in a great deal more pressure being applied by customers - and something of a power game, with those at the front end able to ration access to behind the scenes services according to how 'deserving' they feel the customer to be.

Ration, in the sense of guide the customer down pre-scripted avenues.

But what if the customer does not wish to go? Then comes heel-diggning in and a whole host of increasingly heated techniques to try and get the other person to listen.

And then what? Basically, once some hidden mark is over-stepped, the person doing the rationing calls time on the game by accusing the customer of being 'abusive' or insulting or belittling.

The problem with that? Well, having done a bit of investigating, the guidelines for many organisations seem to be: 'if you feel abused, you have the right to say so'.... which tends to mean that what is OK with one individual, if a bit assertive becomes 'abuse' with another. And second, this is so-called 'abuse' within a fairly rigid and lop-sided power relationship.

Government, police, utilities, etc., etc. will all quote process and procedure at the individual - and now have the abuse word with which to come back at you.

What on earth has this to do with Backlash or giving offence? Bottom line, having been away from politics for a while, I am amazed at how 'domesticated' some of the control measures have become.

The government has not taken away our rights to protest or hand out leaflets or whatever. But....

....they have swept the above up in a total rigmarole of hygiene measures that are all 'common sense'. We won't stop you leafletting, but....if your leaflets make a mess, we might fine you for the mess caused.

We won't stop you demonstrating....but now you must warn the police....and get a risk assessment....and maybe even pay for the policing of your demo.

We won't stop direct action....but if you annoy someone too badly, we will charge you with harassment.

Perhaps you can come up with a catchier phrase to describe what I am getting at than I can. But it seems to me that all political process is gradually being stifled in the name of common sense and niceness.

And 'abuse' is in there somewhere, too.

Regards,

M

Chris, 02 Nov 2005 00:07:16

I think it’s fine to be abusive or insulting to your enemies, if this is
part of a considered strategy for arguing your case, and you have considered
the pros and cons of so doing. I cannot, however, see how being abusive to
your friends (and I use "friends" in the broadest terms, to mean those who
are not your enemies) can achieve anything other than the alienation of
those friends. In the context of a campaign against proposed oppressive
legislation, it just seems that to be conducting a contest of:

- whose ego is biggest;
- who can score more points off others; or
- who can find the most nebulous justification for why some tangential
departure is actually relevant to the debate

is simply ridiculous and reflects poorly on the participants.

Frankly, I don’t give a toss which one of you can piss higher up the wall.
You may feel it’s freedom of speech, but the right of people to fire volleys
of vitriol and stupidity at one another is not something I understood I was
fighting for.

SnowdropExplodes, 02 Nov 2005 02:11:26

--- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:

> You make a 'nice' distinction (in the antique sense
> of that word. Almost to the point where I would
> agree with you.

Only "almost"? ;-)

I'm assuming you mean "nice" as in "neat and precise"
and not as in "fussy and pernickety"! In which case,
thank you very much.

>
> Were it not for the way in which 'abusive' and
> 'insulting' seems to be daily widened in definition.

Which is a part of the conflation of the two concepts
"offensive" and "abusive/insulting" that has been a
hallmark of this government's tenure.

> The government has not taken away our rights to
> protest or hand out leaflets or whatever. But....
>
> ....they have swept the above up in a total
> rigmarole of hygiene measures that are all 'common
> sense'. We won't stop you leafletting, but....if
> your leaflets make a mess, we might fine you for the
> mess caused.
>
> We won't stop you demonstrating....but now you must
> warn the police....and get a risk assessment....and
> maybe even pay for the policing of your demo.
>
> We won't stop direct action....but if you annoy
> someone too badly, we will charge you with
> harassment.
>
> Perhaps you can come up with a catchier phrase to
> describe what I am getting at than I can. But it
> seems to me that all political process is gradually
> being stifled in the name of common sense and
> niceness.
>
> And 'abuse' is in there somewhere, too.

I suppose it could be called "nicefication" or maybe
even "vanillafication".

The way everything has to be so soft and inoffensive,
maybe "social cushioning" is an appropriate term.

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

fobix, 02 Nov 2005 02:15:25

On 02/11/05, -OJT- wrote:
> I suppose it could be called "nicefication" or maybe
> even "vanillafication".

May I suggest "vanillafaction". Less syllables, slightly more
pedantic, and just plain fun (if you're a bit sad, like, er, me).

Phoebe

Manniq, 02 Nov 2005 07:32:00

'Social cushioning': I lie that term and shall use it.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> --- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> > You make a 'nice' distinction (in the antique sense
> > of that word. Almost to the point where I would
> > agree with you.
> Only "almost"? ;-)
> I'm assuming you mean "nice" as in "neat and precise"
> and not as in "fussy and pernickety"! In which case,
> thank you very much.
> >
> > Were it not for the way in which 'abusive' and
> > 'insulting' seems to be daily widened in definition.
> Which is a part of the conflation of the two concepts
> "offensive" and "abusive/insulting" that has been a
> hallmark of this government's tenure.
>
> > The government has not taken away our rights to
> > protest or hand out leaflets or whatever. But....
> >
> > ....they have swept the above up in a total
> > rigmarole of hygiene measures that are all 'common
> > sense'. We won't stop you leafletting, but....if
> > your leaflets make a mess, we might fine you for the
> > mess caused.
> >
> > We won't stop you demonstrating....but now you must
> > warn the police....and get a risk assessment....and
> > maybe even pay for the policing of your demo.
> >
> > We won't stop direct action....but if you annoy
> > someone too badly, we will charge you with
> > harassment.
> >
> > Perhaps you can come up with a catchier phrase to
> > describe what I am getting at than I can. But it
> > seems to me that all political process is gradually
> > being stifled in the name of common sense and
> > niceness.
> >
> > And 'abuse' is in there somewhere, too.
> I suppose it could be called "nicefication" or maybe
> even "vanillafication".
> The way everything has to be so soft and inoffensive,
> maybe "social cushioning" is an appropriate term.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Paul C. Dickie, 02 Nov 2005 10:41:40

In message <5751281.1130880837902.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>This....being the mock ironic exchange between you and I, yes.
>
>This...being the point about 'offense' having a political dimension, no.
>Because I think it has: and I think that to understand what is happening in UK
>politics right now, one needs to take into account (or at least to explain) why
>we have become a nation fearful of giving offense or being seen to.
>
>Perhaps it is some inevitable result of losing an empire? Or maybe something
>more wrapped up in general insecurity.

I believe the author of the plays commonly attributed to Shakespeare
expressed it most eloquently in that oft-quoted "jewel set in a silvery
sea" speech:

That England, wont to conquer others, hath made a shameful conquest of
itself.

>However, for me - above and beyond the argument going on betwixt zak and thee,
>or you and I - the flight from offense (and the 'Respect agenda') is a common
>thread running through much New Labour thinking.

And thus doth shew what miserable, addle-pated paltroons they are.

--
< Paul >

zak, 02 Nov 2005 12:54:35

Original Message:
-----------------

manniq@hotmail.com, 02 Nov 2005 12:54:35

This....being the mock ironic exchange between you and I, yes.

This...being the point about 'offense' having a political dimension, no.
Because I think
it has: and I think that to understand what is happening in UK politics
right now, one
needs to take into account (or at least to explain) why we have become a
nation fearful of
giving offense or being seen to.

Perhaps it is some inevitable result of losing an empire? Or maybe
something more wrapped
up in general insecurity.

However, for me - above and beyond the argument going on betwixt zak and
thee, or you and
I - the flight from offense (and the 'Respect agenda') is a common thread
running through
much New Labour thinking.

Regards,

M

WHich is why I always stand up for the right to offend: a vitally important
one.
especially when it comes to superstition. Currently, too many people are
wary of
"offending religious sensibilities" to the extent that the hurt feelings of
religious
males are put before the hurt bodies of women and children: it's also
important to
"offend" the superstitious by standing up for the human rights of people
who are not
heterosexual. And there is, always, a big difference between saying
"religion is bullshit"
and locking up people for their superstition, confiscating their sacred
objects or killing
them for holding onto their delusions. I advocate none of the latter but
refuse to give
the superstitious special treatm

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .