What makes something offensive? How & why do words and symbols become offensive?

[tathra]

All the things that are deemed offensive in this forum, for example, one must wonder are they really offensive to the general public ie whomever may read this and complain OR do the rule makers work on assumptions of what is offensive to everyone? Is what is offensive enough to warrant disciplinary action based on what offends you personally?

and here i thought that derogatory slurs about race or sexual orientation or identity were kinda universally understood to be offensive, particularly with the BLUA emphasizing their unacceptability here as well.

 

[JahSEEuS]

There is a difference between something being offensive and something being wrong, yes?

There are some objective universal truths, sometimes without even being known?

or

Maybe there aren't, maybe our scope of perspective is really too small to truly comprehend whether something is really good or really bad or if anything is actually good or bad.

 

[Blue_Phlame]

It takes a lot more than a single person for something to be deemed offensive. Any one person can find anything offensive, but that's different from stuff that has become offensive by a large portion of a culture, that happens over time, typically from historical events that give reasons for people to be offended.

Reasons are still unclear why some things are the way they are. And just because a large population believes something, doesn't necesserily make the reasons they believe it true to be correct.

Argumentum ad populum​

"Nigger", for example, has more than enough from history to associate it with racism and oppression that its pretty universally offensive in the US. The swastika is pretty much the same, despite it originally being a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck, thanks to the nazis it is now associated with genocide and racism around the world, to the point where most will be offended when seeing it.

The former can be used by folks of an in-group casually and not be considered oppressive or associated with racism, this defeats your universally offensive argument.

The latter symbol is associated with genocide and racism by way of assumptions. It existed as a non-nazi symbol before the nazi's used it, that doesn't mean its former use and meaning is invalidated. It exists as a symbol with multiple meanings, and context gives it meaning.

Association fallacy​

Just for international information, "abo" is just a shortened version of the word "aborigine".

Aussie aboriginals are not even really called that as things are super sensitive to the point of madness and are called indigenous unless filling out govt forms asking "are you of Aboriginal or Torres Straight descent" as those people have different centrelink claim tights (why is this- is it racist? I would think a white unemployed or single parent would be given the same rate but are given LESS).

If a word is truncated as in the case of aborigine, it shouldn't be more insidious than its root word.

The racist terms in Australia here are not the same as America.

The jury is out on "gin" for female aboriginals.

The jury is still out? Society is still indecisive whether it will or won't get more power to hurt feels.

Let me say "Where did I put my sunglasses?" To which a friend would reply "Last I saw them, were with that 'gin girl on the corner there"
Before it's officially known as offensive, it's just a dialect.
After it's officially known as offensive is now somehow hurtful and offensive? No, that ridiculous.

Who's responsible for making a previously innocuous phrase harmful? Its like the chicken & the egg scenario, is it the victim that deems it harmful, or the provocateur? In some cases it's one or the other, but it's likely both. But to those on the outside, scratching their heads wondering why it is even an issue in the first place?

 

[tathra]

Reasons are still unclear why some things are the way they are. And just because a large population believes something, doesn't necesserily make the reasons they believe it true to be correct.

Argumentum ad populum​

you're exactly right that such an argument would normally be argumentum ad populum in a normal debate, but by definition culture is something that is shared among many people. its not just me you have to convince, but enough people to begin to affect a cultural shift. ithe debate here isnt really you and me arguing to support our premises and convince one another, but rather you trying to support your premise against an entire culture, a whole lot of people.

and you really dont need to convince me, i'm generally in agreement with you on all of this, i'm just trying to help you to see it from a different perspective. if you travel to another country, the laws of your home country dont apply and it would be absurd to assert that they do; in a similar way, your cultural norms from home also dont apply there and its absurd to assert that they do. if you really want to convince people that, say, "porch monkey" shouldnt be offensive, then you need to appear diplomatic about it; at least act like you're working in good faith by accepting that there are differences and then work from there.

The latter symbol is associated with genocide and racism by way of assumptions. It existed as a non-nazi symbol before the nazi's used it, that doesn't mean its former use and meaning is invalidated. It exists as a symbol with multiple meanings, and context gives it meaning.

Association fallacy​

i dont think thats really an example of the association fallacy, but same as i said above, you want to affect a cultural shift to reappropriate offensive words and symbols and imo you're going about it the entirely wrong way because thats not something an individual alone can do but something has to happen the same way any other cultural change does.

 

[Blue_Phlame]

Lol, ridiculous to the point of amusing, but I see this is from some comedian. And to finish on: "you'd just be a happier person..." fucking loooool.

I'm going to assume that you don't seriously believe this and are just being a cheeky bugger amirite?

Anyway, sure, words are just sounds blah blah, but it's the association with those sounds that matters and gives meaning. Intent is important, but once a word has been used in such a way and widely enough that it conjures up negative feelings, images and associations, then it's understandable imo that many feel hurt or offended upon hearing them. Words and symbols become offensive after they've been used as weapons as part of larger attacks against groups of people too often and for too long.

If a word conjures up feelings, images and associations, then it's a descriptive word. It can be used in many different contexts, situations, expressions both for positive and negative outcomes. Each person has their own idea of what's good or bad for them. A single word shouldn't cause more outrage than another word to cause glee. You don't hear much about single words with good feelings images and connotations nearly as much as you do with the negative words. I think that's reflective of the society/culture we are in.

I feel like the most important thing we need to do in this world is try to get along, and I cannot imagine how so many have come to the conclusion that it's "weak" to acknowledge and recognise that certain words and symbols work against this.

Acknowledgement is one thing, and being emotionally labile is another. I can use the word 'weak' to describe someone who I think is not emotionally stoic; someone who isn't easily moved from their preferred emotional state is emotionally strong, and those who break down easily at the slightest provocation are emotionally weak with respect to their preferred emotional state. I just don't think being in a state of irritation, anger, outrage, offense or any other strongly 'negative' emotion is something someone would want to be in. But there are times for everyone to feel a certain emotion, but I don't want to get into that too much here.

I do however understand that we all respond to fear differently, and I think there's certainly a lot of that going on everywhere at the moment. I can also appreciate that many are worried that eventually political correctness could go "too far," but I seriously struggle to understand how protecting vulnerable groups or being "too nice" to each other is something to shit yourself over and act like this of all things will be what ends us.

Precisely; shitting over each other is no way to rationally debate an issue.

Before recently I'd never heard of "abo" as a slur for aboriginals, and i know of several from Australia that never knew that it could be racist to associate black people with liking chicken and watermelon. Sometimes it simply boils down to cultural differences that you just hafta accept; if its not your culture then you don't really have any place to try to 'reclaim' a word or icon to make it less offensive.

There's so much I learned about the differences between what's good and bad in different cultures. For example, when I came to the States, and someone called me 'tight' I thought they were coming onto me and gave them a weird look. Later I found out that 'tight' is what people in the States call others when they're calling something 'cool'. In Japan, i'd be calling something 'lame' if I was to call something literally 'cool'. I didn't know what a 'porch-monkey' was, and got lots of laughs from a friend who explained it to me later on - he was a black American.
I'd be pretty bummed out if he accused me for being offensive, when I didn't have the intent of being offensive. That'll be on him for making the situation worse, rather than responding appropriately with laughter.

Laughter on the other hand is universally understood. Infants from all peoples respond in the same way without knowing social norms, cultures, or languages.

 

[tathra]

I'd be pretty bummed out if he accused me for being offensive, when I didn't have the intent of being offensive. That'll be on him for making the situation worse, rather than responding appropriately with laughter.

yeah, intent should count for a lot more than it does. part of the problem is the rise of victimhood culture. everyone should learn how to deal with people woh don’t realize they’re being offensive instead of flipping their shit and getting offended over something that wasnt intended that way. in these kinds of cases, imo both are responsible for how the situation evolves from there, the one that is unintentionally being offended should understand that offense isnt meant, and the one doing the accidental offending needs to understand that they are being offensive and make some efforts to adjust in the future, provided they are told so in a mature manner that doesnt escalate the situation, because otherwise it gives the impression that the offensiveness wasnt accidental at all.

 

[swilow]

I'd be pretty bummed out if he accused me for being offensive, when I didn't have the intent of being offensive. That'll be on him for making the situation worse, rather than responding appropriately with laughter.

Laughter on the other hand is universally understood. Infants from all peoples respond in the same way without knowing social norms, cultures, or languages.

There doesn't seem to be a heap of room in this for people who simply respond differently to this ideal you put forwards. Some people are NOT going to just laugh it off, and simply because you think this is the "appropriate" reaction doesn't make it so. You have no way of knowing whether your "black American" simply chose the easier path of laughing off the same ignorance he'd been battling his whole life or if they genuinely found your comments funny. To be sure, I've never heard 'porch monkey' in anything but a racist context, and I'm not American. I don't believe you are a part of any particular minority, much less the aboriginal Australian minority, so I think its really just guesswork to dictate the sort of behaviour these groups should exhibit towards your social clumsiness as it were.

You have sidestepped a huge proportion of what has been said to you (or simply not read it), so its hard to imagine you are being genuine in this topic, but I will repeat myself in saying that it is not the words themselves that are offensive, it is the attitudes of those speaking them that is the problem. I don't really care about intent that much as opposed to outcomes, but I do think that you should educate yourself as best you can regarding what things a culture finds offensive if you wish to live peacefully among them. It really doesn't matter what YOU find offensive in these instances. If an indigenous Autralian tells you that 'abo' is offensive to them, the correct response is to stop saying it, not merely repeating that YOU don't find it offensive so why should you stop.

 

[zephyr]

You have sidestepped a huge proportion of what has been said to you (or simply not read it), so its hard to imagine you are being genuine in this topic, but I will repeat myself in saying that it is not the words themselves that are offensive, it is the attitudes of those speaking them that is the problem. I don't really care about intent that much as opposed to outcomes, but I do think that you should educate yourself as best you can regarding what things a culture finds offensive if you wish to live peacefully among them. It really doesn't matter what YOU find offensive in these instances.

:causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying:

Having read and absorbed every post (the multiple links within as well despite the disruption of them to the topic at hand), I have a different perspective regarding the intent of words within conversation.

I personally dont use "abo" or "white economic slave" or any reference to anyones cultural background when talking to them personally and in particular a stranger. Nor do I call anyone "sister" apart from my actual sister . I just say "hey mate". This does not mean they are a mate, its just friendly.

I would think most dont go up to anyone and refer to them as any abbreviation of their heritage unless they are completely stupid.

In third person though, when discussing aboriginals, never ever has "abo" been offensive, especially when drinking daybreak and smoking with my aboriginal neighbours.

So one can just assume thats ok here since no one has said anything different.


What IS quite offensive is INTENT.

The above sample of text seems very patronising and quite frankly rude.

The assumption of ill intent of the OP and phrasing of this response is on par with what a parent would do to a petulant child and not a great example of what should be expected between adults.

In this thread, can you point me to where you have formed your opinion of the ill intent?




On the other hand, Tathra has shown great ability to be on the same level and very approachable. He does not seem to be sharing your concerns

Words in themselves can offend if they are widely known and used to offend. Other words or phrases are not universally abhorred and require clarification at times.

 

[tathra]

On the other hand, Tathra has shown great ability to be on the same level and very approachable. He does not seem to be sharing your concerns.

tbh i do, but I'm not voicing them because it might not be the case and it wouldn't be productive anyway, and I've dealt with the victim act of obvious racists throwing constant dog whistles and then acting shocked when somebody points out how racist they're being far more than I'd like. Not saying bp is or will do that, but I'd rather avoid the possibility altogether, nothing good ever comes from it.