Welcome to the new Sinister Design forums!

Main Menu

Re: What does "Yes we can" really mean

Started by ArtDrake, September 06, 2010, 11:10:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


Ert effectively said everything what I wanted to say.

Some are offended by paedophile jokes, yet some find them hilarious. Some find it acceptable to make fun of Jesus and Christianity (see Dogma, for instance), yet some find it highly offensive when caricatures of propher Mohammed appear in a Danish paper. Some find Nazi jokes funny, yet others are horrified by the prospect.

To put my view across- I fully support the Danish newspaper which published that material- why, well that's the price you pay for having a democracy, where freedom of speech matters and people can voice their opinions, and others can't simply shut them up, even if they might not agree with the message.

There is also issue of finding things "offensive": it's your choice completely. If you want, you can find the fact that a fish doesn't blink at you offensive, others take pride in, say, being gay, whilst others get highly offended if someone insinuates that they are gay. The meaning and how we interprete them are completely different things- for instance, in Russian we use a word which sounds like "nigger" (pronounced "negr") when we descirbe a black person, and to an American, for instance, it might sound highly insulting, yet in Russian this is a neutral word. Some may choose to get offended, even if they know the background, just because it does sound like an offensive word and others shouldn't use it, others will not get offended, and respect cultural differences. Then there is a phrase- "saving up money for the rainy day", well, in Russian it's "saving up money for a black day", and I do remember an occaison when I used the second phrase whilst talking to my friend from Nigeria, and there was a white guy standing nearby, who made very round eyes ,got highly offended and kept looking at my friend, whilst asking me why a "black day". Neither knew the cultural context, yet somehow my friend didn't find it offensive in the least and took it for what it was- just part of the conversation with no racial sub-text, without looking for a deeper value, whilst the other guy decided to get offended on principle, taking all on face value and not thinking.  Take home message here is that one has to think carefully about not only the message, but it's context and the sender.
Why bother- well, this particual thread spun off from a humorous post, with a bit risuqe humour, perhaps, but it was clearly stated later in the thread, that it was intended in jest, and, like Ert, I took it for what it was- given that the allegations are on the borderline of ridiculous,and with intent stated loud and clear,I took it for what it was, without looking for that extra meaninig. 
It does take a lot of will-power to not get offended by emotionally-involved content,but that might be the first step to tolerance and something better. Some things are out there which meant to insult, others are out there to challenge your sense of humour- sometimes the line is very fine, but if it's the latter and you like it not, well, maybe it's worth simply stating your difference of opinion, but not negate and challenge othere people's sense of humour. If it's the former meaning, however, then yes, methinks being righteous for a cause you believe in might be worth it.
Welcome to the forums!
Read the rules, use proper grammar and punctuation, play the games, share your ideas and enjoy your stay!


Quote from: The Holy namelesskitty on September 06, 2010, 04:37:06 PM
Ert made a valid point, and I can respect that, however, in my eyes this borders on slander, and I find calling anyone a devil worshipper (except those who actually are) highly inappropriate.
Slander? Really? This is no more slander then when Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay portrays George Bush smoking pot.  Then again, you are probably okay with making jokes about Bush.

Lets not pretend that is something that is not.  The Holy namelesskitty and Duckling don't like Obama showed in a negative light even if it is clearly a joke.

FYI, I put this in Gerneral Discussion in the first place, because this not a political debate.  It was suppose to be a silly video that people could laugh at.


I wasn't saying that this was the worst kind of humour out there, only that there was a valid case for putting a corresponding "No" as well as a yes, sheerly out of democracy. In my efforts to prove this, I got a bit out of hand, but it bothers me for the same reason that it bothers me when people say "Am I right? Or am I right?" I actually thought the video was funny, and I shared it with a bunch of people, some of whom liked it, and some of whom correspondingly didn't. It's just that when people say, "Am I right? Or am I right?" I just say "No" to show I have a choice in the matter. I probably should have said so in the first place.


I tire of this debate.  If you don't like the video, then don't watch it.  There is no poll to argue about, so it is time to lock this thread.

Like an earlier poll I made, it's results wasn't supposed to be taken seriously.


Ohh.... whoops. I thought they were. Am I the only one who didn't get that?