(no subject)

[madwitch]

Y'know, if posts are locked, that's usually for a reason. If you can't see a post, then there's a reason for that, too. So if you sneak around that and see things you don't like, then I have no sympathy...

Comments

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

*ponders*

Do you really think that? Coz that's a little harsh. At the end of the day, the sticks & stones line is nonsense, IMO. Words DO hurt, whether they be the words of hate speech (I presume you wouldn't argue that an ethnic minority was being unreasonable for getting hurt at the word 'paki' or 'nigger'), or just some cutting comments that touch on a sensitive subject.

I also think that you are assuming that the writer of said nasty words is just some random lady on the internet, which isn't necessarily the case. People normally read LJs because they are the LJs of friends, or of people in their social circle, and I do think that if you discover that someone who you have previously considered your friend is saying that they think you're a fat and balding waste of space behind your back, then you're entitled to feel some measure of hurt. The fact that they didn't intend to say that to your face really doesn't, in my opinion, negate your right to feel upset at the fact that such things were said.

But that's my opinion. Obviously, your mileage may vary, and I reserve the right to later change my mind if given more details about any given specific situation. :p

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

Sally hon, if I'd actually posted a detailed bitch about someone that wasn't so cryptic as to be almost unintelligible to anyone who didn't already know what the hell I was talking about, then they could be as upset as they liked when they eventually found out about it. LJ being the gossip fest that it is. I may not *care* that they are upset, because if I'm going to let the full vitriol stream out, then chances are that I have already lost all patience and am not bothered at all by what they think.

However, seeing as I haven't done the above and have, as ever, just posted *stuff*(TM), I have no sympathy.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that last comment wasn't really aimed at you. Like I said, I'm fairly sure you're in the right from what you've said. I just kinda thought Steve was being a little harsh and was responding to that!

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know. I was just...explaining a bit? I dunno. But you make a good point.

[vilenspotens.livejournal.com]

Think the point was that those who go looking for locked posts specifically deserve what they get, rather than those who find out through the rumour mill or accidentally.

You hear someone says something bad about you, then ask, and they have, be upset by all means. Who wouldn't be? You have no idea, but use other people's LJ's, or worse, other people's passwords to get access to locked posts, then you deserve everything you get. Karma.

What's the phrase? "Eavesdroppers seldom hear good"

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

Or those who going looking through locked LJs...

Karma is probably the best word. Told you my tolerance had gone for a walk. ;-)

[elethiomel.livejournal.com]

Do you really think that? Coz that's a little harsh.

No. Or at least not completely, anyway. To be honest I'm having a s**tty day at work and was trolling a bit. Rather disappointed in the uptake actually...

But to answer the points you raise seriously:

I presume you wouldn't argue that an ethnic minority was being unreasonable for getting hurt at the word 'paki' or 'nigger'

Or 'honky'? Or 'pom'? Or 'yank'? Or 'limey'? Can only minorities be offended by derogatory terms? Hmmm... I worry that this could become a contextualised argument ad hitlerium. Nevertheless. If the word was being used in a deliberately offensive way, then no of course I wouldn't think them unreasonable. I think there is a qualitative difference between 'hate speech' (although that term makes my liver fizz) and saying that you don't like someones new boyfriend, or whatever. I think the difference is whether you have the intention to offend. Which leads me onto another thing, though this is a little tangential:

Context should be key to determining whether something is offensive hate-speech or not. The words, out of context, are just words. If an afro-carribean person claimed to be hurt by reading Huckleberry Finn (Nigger Jim) or watching a documentary about 617 Squadron (Guy Gibson's dog was called Nigger) I would say they were being unreasonable.

doesn't, in my opinion, negate your right to feel upset at the fact that such things were said.

You're right, of course. The fact that it was never intended for your eyes/ears does not negate your right to feel hurt. You may feel hurt, offended, miffed or otherwise put out by whatever raises such emotions in you, whether that is rational or not. I personally, and for reasons entirely my own, froth whenever Americans speak of the pirate John Paul Jones as a hero.

However (and this was the intended thrust of my troll/rant/coment), if you have discovered this cassus offensi by mendacious means (which was certainly implied in the original post) then, while you have the right to feel offended, you have no right to turn the whole thing into a three-ring circus and act like a right bleeding primadonna about it. If I break into your house, do I have any right to take you to task if I am offended by your collection of donkey-porn?

The trouble is, LJ is a medium which allows no context and doesn't allow us to read the human aspects of cadence, tone and gesture which are 90% of communication and as a result offence drawn is usually incidentally rather than intended. I think there are a lot of people who thin-slice LJ and react on gut instinct rather than reason. Those people do need to get some perspective: they need to step back and ask themselves why they are offended and then ask the writer if that was their intention (deliberately or by omission). If they can't do that then they should be asking themselves why their world-view / self-image is so fragile that such an incidental offense can shatter it and what they can do about that.

So no, in conclusion, I'm not as much of a heartless bastard as I painted myself to be - my two main points are (1) people should stop, think and act with reason not emotion when they are offended by something in this medium and (2) if someone is actively snooping then volenti non fit injuria (tough-titty, you took the risk upon yourself).

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

I am fond of people being erudite on my LJ, y'know. It almost feels like I should be in some smoke-filled bar drinking gin and talking seriously about deep literary things.

That, or I am stark raving bonkers. :)

[(Anonymous)]

Good shot Jester!

I

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

Or 'honky'? Or 'pom'? Or 'yank'? Or 'limey'? Can only minorities be offended by derogatory terms?

I think that's an entirely different argument. I personally tend to believe that offensive language is offensive language, no matter what, but the reason we tend to come down a little more harshly on hate language against minorities is that such language tends to come accompanied with a lot of baggage which has the power to actually damage in the way that 'pom' or 'honky' just don't.

As long as 'nigger' or 'paki' are being used as the accompaniment to actual incitement to violence which is being carried out all over the world, they mean a fair bit more than 'limey', which has (to the best of my knowledge) never been said at a lynching or mob beating.

I also agree that there is a difference between hate speech and saying mean things about someone's hair. The point I was trying to make is that it is a fallacy to say that words cannot hurt.

However (and this was the intended thrust of my troll/rant/coment), if you have discovered this cassus offensi by mendacious means (which was certainly implied in the original post) then, while you have the right to feel offended, you have no right to turn the whole thing into a three-ring circus and act like a right bleeding primadonna about it.

I obviously don't know the entire situation here. I think that it is entirely possible that the person being discussed in this particular entry is overreacting massively. I also don't know how dubious the methods of enquiry used to garner this information were. You may well be right.

On a random tangent tho, did you ever encounter the story of the burglar who discovered some child porn when going through a house? Tis here and is marginally interesting as a spin off of the 'snoopers don't have the right to be offended' argument.

[elethiomel.livejournal.com]

I think that's an entirely different argument

You're right, it is a different argument, and I was concerned this would go off at a tangent.

However, to take that tangent: I disagree with you and think that words qua words are nothing more than an artificial construct and that, without context, are effectively meaningless. Is a mindless one year old consistently repeating 'fuck' offensive? No, I don't think so. It is merely mechanical repetition of phonemes.

I'm willing to concede, however, that either viewpoint is valid (offensive language is always offensive vs. language is offensive only in context) and am, honestly, equally happy with either as long as it's clear. Unfortunately the law currently draws a bastardised line somewhere in the middle whereby 'offensive' language against some groups is offensive irrespective of context and not against others. I feel this is wrong and that the law should be consistent.

The point I was trying to make is that it is a fallacy to say that words cannot hurt.

*nods* *nods* And I don't disagree with you on that, they can. I just feel that it is the intent that should be reacted against / punished rather than the words themselves.

I obviously don't know the entire situation here.

And nor do I. I'm just extrapolating from the original post and subsequent comments by madwitch

the story of the burglar who discovered some child porn when going through a house?

Interesting story, thanks for the link. I've heard coppers-myths of such things but never seen the genuine article. I think the difference here, though, is that child pornography is absolutely prohibited by law and does not require subjective suffering / offence. Would the same have happened if they had been (for example) pictures of a man burning the Torah and the burglar had been Jewish?

Thank you, by the way, for the reasoned debate. I appreciate it.

[old-corbie.livejournal.com]

Eavesdroppers hear no good of themselves. Something we were all told in childhood.

Some people evidently didn't learn