-
I am offended…so what??
In another thread, a discussion about a TV commercial has emerged. Once again the debate is around whether the ad is offensive or not. Once again there are calls from some to ” get over it” to those who find the ad to be offensive.
After having given this some thought I would like to discuss some of these thoughts.
The word “Offensive” means a few things. These range from causing displeasure, irritating, repugnant to the moral sense but also an attack. If one feels that these things have happened then they are offended. End of.
Do they have the right to be offended? I believe that we all have the right to take offence at what we read , see or hear and the Law as well as general consensus gives us the conduits to do something about our feelings if we so wish.Two Aboriginal men recently sought a consideration from the Courts when right-wing journalist Andrew Bolt publicly accused them of not being “real” Aborigines and therefore charlatans and opportunists based solely on the shade of their skin. How often is this sort of judgement made toward Tg folk? Bolt was found to have acted offensively and fined. This is our right in Australia. I , among others sought a consideration on a Kellog’s Crunchy Nut ad recently ( as is our right ) and a judgement was made. So it has been with this Libra ad mentioned above.
What is the issue with that? A system that allows people to NOT take offence must surely allow others to take offence if they wish to. Why do some demand rights for themselves and their issues and yet decry those others who want the same right? I do not understand . A right for one must surely be a right for all. Is that unreasonable? We all have the right to be offended.
A separate issue, though connected is , if one is offended then so what?
What rights do we have if we don’t like something we see? We can ignore it, turn it off, argue or complain. Our opinions are no more or less important than any others EXCEPT where the Law or Societal values give us the privilege to go further and make a request for a judgement from the powers that be. If we believe that something is meant as an attack, offence in that context, then we have the right to take this course. There is a difference between ones personal opinion , expressed privately and those expressed publicly, usually for commercial gain.We , as a society ‘have moved past the ” humorous” public lampooning of Aborigines ( such as King Billy Cokebottle ..oh the fun!!) minstrel players or the disabled. Again there is a fine line between satire and abuse and this is where the fight must take place..by asking for a judgement from the arbiters of our values. We as TG folk are still easy targets and we must fight for our rights. Our very existence is offensive to some people and some will go as far as murdering us to express that feeling. Gwen Araujo and Brandon Teena are witness to this.
I have often caused offence in my lifetime, both here on TGR as well as in life. I know and accept this and am aware of it when I write or express an opinion. I try to write or talk in moderated , reasonable terms, never use abuse or say ” You are ..” etc . Again, it is a fine line . I, personally love the work of Tim Minchen, the late Christoper Hitchens and Stephen Fry but I happen to agree with their opinions. I also see that they offend many others. There are two things at play here, however, one is my right to express an opinion and two is the right of others to be offended by it. I DEMAND that those others have the right to be offended!! I do not intend a personal attack and yet others may feel it. That is their feelings and they must deal with that by the means available to them as mentioned above. Our moderator is, in this case the judge we must appeal to .
I too , am offended at times by things I read and hear. I am not easily offended and usually gripe to myself and let it go. I do , however, sometimes stand up for the rights of others, less robust than I, to have their offence taken seriously. I am offended when people make money out of things like ads that cause offence to small folk . The Libra ad was withdrawn as acknowledgement of the offence that it caused.I often see how others make a statement about life ” She is.. That is..It is hot , etc” An opinion , and then add ” therefore..”.. It is at this point where the opinion goes too far and becomes judgement.
Sometimes people DO go too far and therefore cause the rights of others to be restrained but as a Civil Society , this where the debate lies. ( People can always download the Libra ad and watch it in private!!)Let’s leave opinions for what they are , interesting.. but not facts. Let us allow others their rights to their feelings and not demand that others agree with our opinions and let’s stop saying ” get over it” but rather support others to do something about things that cause them offence , if they wish to go that way.
-
5 Replies
-
It’s such a subjective topic. There are things that offend me that seem so puerile, yet they are highly offensive to me. I feel slighted when the archetypal middle aged man is portrayed on TV adverts as a muppet… The kids and wife are portrayed as being smart and he looks like the gumby. I feel that the present Mitsubishi ad is offensive in that it shows a young attractive woman checking out a guy’s backside through the rear view camera…. It goes on and on.
-
I’ve recently made a complaint relating to a broadcast by Sydney radio announcer, Carl Sandilands. At the same time the media launched a scathing attack upon him because he’d made some ‘offensive’, ‘derogatory’ comments about a female journalist. Media saw nothing worthy of comment in his discussion identifying “trannies” as “sex workers”, & the murder of said “trannies. This was supposed to be humour; a promotional competition inviting listeners to offer the “best” solution to prevent him from “marrying” a “tranny prostitute” & win a prize.
The offending commercials mentioned may present a scenario where members of the transgender community feel they’re being stereotyped, but that’s the limit of it. Comments by Andrew Bolt concerning “white” aboriginal Australians were deemed to be vilifying. I hope the comments made by Mr Sandilands are likewise judged as vilifying, & inciting violence.
There’s far worse occurring in the puplic domain than some peurile television commercials.
-
Quote:…..Let us allow others their rights to their feelings and not demand that others agree with our opinions …..Christina,
This is one of my personal goals as well. I find it quite sickening to see the aggression and lack of empathy on so many internet forums.That is why the policy on TgR has always been not to allow any posting that “..could be interpreted as a criticism of another member’s beliefs, gender choices, or lifestyle”. Granted it is difficult sometimes knowing where to draw the line, but at least we try.
And as the Libra thread shows, it allows us to have a robust and healthy discussion of potentially divisive issues.
-
I feel that if we continually censor people’s opinions, comedy sketches,satires, commercials, etc, we could get to a situation like they have in China- The aim of having “Harmony”, at all costs. Brutal suppression of anything that may upset or offend anyone who doesn’t share the same ideas.
As Voltaire once said,” I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” -
Michelle,
Other words said in legalese,” I may not agree in what you say, But I will defend your rights in court for what you say” [Abraham Linckon]
