sigelphoenix: On being "offended"

Dora (

sigelphoenix) wrote,
@ 2007-10-04 11:10:00

Current mood:	thinky
Entry tags:	anti-oppression and the evil *isms

On being "offended"
I don't like the word "offended."

When someone tells me not to get "offended" at racist or sexist content, what they're telling me is that they don't care about the content itself. It doesn't make a difference to them whether there is racism or sexism going on. What they care about is my reaction - whether or not I, shall we say, get my panties in a twist. Whether I make a fuss about it.

Now, that's bad enough by itself - when someone's reaction to potential sexism is not, "What's wrong and how do I fix it?" but rather, "How do I silence your reaction?" But for now, I want to talk about what I hear when people tell me not to "get offended."

Let me tell you what "offends" me. Bad smells offend me. Neon orange next to bright pink offends me. Someone who cuts in line while I'm waiting for the bus offends me. Rudeness, ugliness - petty things.

Racism? Homophobia? That shit pisses me off. It makes me think you're ignorant. It makes me think that you're soaking in privilege and - unless you apologize and try to learn, of course - you don't give a damn about fixing that. "Offended" is too delicate a word for that feeling. It doesn't convey the fire and the steel behind my reaction to privilege.

So when someone dismisses me by saying that I (or feminist comic book fans, or anti-racist sci-fi fans, etc.) get offended at every little thing, they're not being accurate.

I'm not swooning at every random comment or image that violates my poor, delicate sensibilities. I'm also not trying to malign the character of the person who said or did the wrong thing. (See icon.) No, I'm getting pissed off at the rampant ignorance and privilege that poisons the things that I enjoy. I'm getting angry because my hobbies, which should be fun for me, instead perpetuate the forms of oppression fuck up my life, or the lives of others.

"I'm offended" sounds like I'm whining that you should fix something for my sake. (See above re: ugly colors and icky smells.) But when I raise a complaint about classist content or transphobic slurs, I'm saying that something is not right and needs to be changed. Whether or not it "offends" me.

Edit: That's it, anonymous comments are off. I refuse to juggle conversations with different people who won't even sign a name to their argument. Signing up for an LJ account is free, if you want to comment.

(40 comments) - (Post a new comment)

maho_kiwi
2007-10-04 07:54 pm UTC (link)

hear hear. "Don't be offended" if often code for "I'm about to do (or have done, or realize that something has been done) something Bad, but I don't want to deal with the consequences of that action."

I think what makes me...saddest...about it, especially in a public venue, like fandom things, is that-- people who complain about easily-offended people usually mean (and sometimes say) "people bitching ruins my enjoyment of thing X" which seems selfish to me, because shouldn't everyone get the same chance to enjoy thing X?

sort of poorly explained, but I've been doing math for three solid days now, and I can't think in words anymore.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

sigelphoenix
2007-10-04 10:33 pm UTC (link)

Yeah, telling someone not to get offended pushes the responsibility onto them to not take offense - i.e., not be "too sensitive." Rather than the person taking responsibility for their own potential privileged-ness. Ugh.

Oh, I haaaaaaate the "don't harsh my squee" defensiveness. *points to icon* You're right, it's pure selfishness. We could continue enjoying something in ignorance of its badness, OR we could learn to recognize the badness, fix it, and then enjoy something that is actually non-bad for everyone.

D00d, you are eloquent *and* math-ed out. So you win. 8D

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	jennifergearing 2007-10-04 09:40 pm UTC (link)
	applauds What you said. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	sigelphoenix 2007-10-04 10:26 pm UTC (link)
	I thought you might feel similarly. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2007-10-05 01:23 pm UTC (link)
	Of course, because anything that pisses you off is wrong. And others are the ones "dripping wiht privalege" I dont mean to offend you, but noone gives a shit what pisses you off. The fact that you think anyone should pisses me off. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	maho_kiwi 2007-10-05 11:21 pm UTC (link)
	allow me to sum up: "I don't care what pisses you off, but you'd best care about what pisses me off." (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	tekanji 2007-10-06 04:09 am UTC (link)
	pointing out the inconsistencies in troll logic ftw (Reply to this) (Parent)

	amazon_syren 2007-10-05 01:38 pm UTC (link)
	1) I really like your icon. (Strictly speaking, I'm talking about the one you posted with, but all are good. ;-) 2) Is the anony-mouse joking, or what, do you think? :-) 3) That was well-explained. I like. :-) (Reply to this) (Thread)

sigelphoenix
2007-10-05 03:58 pm UTC (link)

1) Thanks. I found it through

ibarw, as I did with most of my current anti-racist icons.

2) I ... am not quite sure. I mean, it comes off as a troll cliche, so it could be a joke - but I would imagine that someone attempting humor would also sign their name. Also, I think the "I dont [sic] mean to offend you" bit was supposed to be witty, which doesn't give me much confidence.

Eh. *shrug* I'd say it was sincerely meant. And while having that kind of stuff said "to my face" still gets to me a little, I'll just use it as an opportunity to toughen my skin. I want to get to the point where only criticism that engages my ideas - and me as a human being - affects me. As tempting as it is to let loose on trolls. ;)

3) Thank you, ma'am. ;) The issue of being "offended" gets raised often enough that I felt I ought to get out my thoughts.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-10-05 07:59 pm UTC (link)

Ill spell it out for you.
You claim the people who "tell you not to get offended are "dripping with privalege" yet somehow think the fact that something pisses you off automatically makes it wrong. How is that not a mindset of privalege? How is assuming that just becasue you find it sexist or whateverist, that it is in fact whateverist, the exact same attitude as you claim those who tell you not to be offended have?
You also claim to know what others think when they tell you "not to get offended" assuming that they "dont care about the content"
well thats one interpertation, the other is that they disagree as to whether or not its whateverist, of course sine we've alsready established that you're so privaleged you think that anything that pisses you off is automatically bad, your assumption is that they should ignore what they think, and sak you how to improve it. Cause y'know you're always right.

Alow me to explain something your privalege wont allwo you to see. Just becasue you say somehting is sexist, doesnt make it so.So yeah you are getting "offended" and not "pissed off at soemthing thats rong" becasue while you get to decide what ofends you, you dont get to decide whats right or wrong.

And y'know when I see a self rigtheous hyprocrite who thinks the world should change to make her happy,and that shes the arbiter of all that is right and wrong, well that just offends me.

No wait, it pisses me off cause its wrong.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

maho_kiwi
2007-10-05 11:14 pm UTC (link)

I tend to think that anyone commenting anonymously doesn't mean it in a helpful, constructive way. If they were proud of their words they would put their name on them.

Also, man, when are trolls going to get some new dialouge? I don't even come across this brand of troll often and I was easily sorting every other comment into standard-troll-commentary categories

.___. no points for originality, the Russian judge gives it a five.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	lord_dingsi 2007-10-05 05:59 pm UTC (link)
	I swear we're all giving a shit about trolls being pissed off at us for thinking they should give a shit. REALLY! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	sigelphoenix 2007-10-05 06:19 pm UTC (link)
	Well, of course, seeing as they're so eloquent and persuasive. ;) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	lord_dingsi 2007-10-05 09:34 pm UTC (link)
	I just read his/her reply. .... duuuuuuuude. I just... I don't know what to say. It would feel like kicking a puppy that has a broken leg already. But zie's trying so hard! And the anger, it burns so strongly! Take THAT, you "privaleged", "self rigtheous" ~~repeatedly misquoted~~ "hyprocrite"! One day, the anonymouse will end your oppression! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

sigelphoenix
2007-10-05 10:33 pm UTC (link)

.... yeeaaaaaaah.

I have a hard time deciding whether or not to respond to some comments, because sometimes it's hard to tell when someone is willing to engage (even if they're rude), or when they're just looking to unload on you without having a real conversation.

Also? If anonymouse could actually end my "oppression" - as in, my actual class or heterosexual privilege - then they've got my full support. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

lord_dingsi
2007-10-05 10:50 pm UTC (link)

Have I told you recently that I love you? Because I do.

Also, so far the anonymous comments look like the people writing them are beyond help. The most recent ones are more decent and have less atrocious spelling, but they look like the author tried to cram in as many anti-feminist (especially comics anti-feminist) statements as possible. Starting with the glorious "I'm only mean to you because the feminazis were mean to meeee!", followed by "The entertainment companies have the right to be as homophobic, racist, and sexist as they wish! They owe you shit!", "Don't you have anything better to do?", and finishing with "We're all decent beings and should have respectful conversations and stuff, which means that you, little lady, are far too angry!"

I try to think of an answer that looks worthwhile, but somehow all I can come up with is "You SUCK, but I still didn't have an orgasm. TRY HARDER!"

Chatting with you is fine, though!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Wow... just, wow....
(Anonymous)
2007-10-05 11:30 pm UTC (link)

Thank you for trying to tell me and everyone else what I meant in what I said. I can't think of a better example of exactly why people like the original poster are told things like "don't be offended."

Still, thank you for attempting to put my words in the worst possible context you could think up. It only demonstraits exactly what the real "problem in need of fixing" actually is.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	tekanji 2007-10-06 04:12 am UTC (link)
	Also, so far the anonymous comments look like the people writing them are beyond help. People? From what it looks like to me, it's just one wanker with nothing better to do than type out poorly reasoned long-winded comments on someone else's journal. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	tekanji 2007-10-06 04:22 am UTC (link)
	Oh, my bad, it was two. One drive by with the logic skills of a turnip, and one concern troll. (Reply to this) (Parent)

I can only speak for me, but....
(Anonymous)
2007-10-05 11:35 pm UTC (link)

I would welcome a civil and rational discussion of the issues. It beats the yelling and screaming matches, or the snark-filled wise-ass comments, so many others try to pass of as a "meaningful dialogue."

So, if you want to discuss my "essay" below with me. That would be just fine. Provided you could keep it at a level higher than the "lord dingsi's" of the cyber-world like to comment in.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I can only speak for me, but....

sigelphoenix
2007-10-05 11:50 pm UTC (link)

Look, if you want to talk then I'll talk to you. But not anonymously. See my note on the original entry.

As for Dingsi? Yeah, he's being snarky. But keep in mind that he's blowing off frustration that a lot of us - including myself - feel. You've basically insulted me, along with the a lot of people who share my argument, by making a lot of assumptions about what we actually think and want. And these assumptions are made constantly by people who try to silence anti-oppression fans. I don't blame him for reacting the way he did.

I don't know if you share the condescension or malice of the other people who make these arguments. If you don't, we can talk. But your comments are part of a pattern that Dingsi, myself, and others have had to deal with for a long time, and we're not obligated to pretend that that context isn't there and welcome every new instance of it with wholehearted enthusiasm.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I can only speak for me, but....

anonymousmr
2007-10-06 01:09 am UTC (link)

Okay, let us talk.

"As for Dingsi? Yeah, he's being snarky. But keep in mind that he's blowing off frustration that a lot of us - including myself - feel."

You mean, like the frustration I and other like me feel, when we are verbally belittled by someone who shares your POV on the issues, simply because we don't agree the issue is as great or in need of fixing as they do?

"You've basically insulted me, along with the a lot of people who share my argument, by making a lot of assumptions about what we actually think and want."

Firstly, if you felt insulted by my level-headed replies, I am sorry. I was not out to insult you and did my very best to avoid it. Sorry if i failed in my attempt.

Secondly, you made plenty of assumptions, not only of ME, but of those whom might disagree with you in general in your original post. Saying that their not jumping to your train of thought and feeling on the issue, mean "they don't care about fixing it." Maybe they do care. Maybe they just don't see the problem the same way you do. Maybe they care so much, they want to pick and choose the battles they have carefully. All of which does not preclude the possibility that they care, as you would seem to assume yourself right here.

"I don't know if you share the condescension or malice of the other people who make these arguments. If you don't, we can talk."

Well, since I signed up here, so I could continue this discussion, I think that should show you that I don't share that "condescension and malice" you thought I might.

"But your comments are part of a pattern that Dingsi, myself, and others have had to deal with for a long time, and we're not obligated to pretend that that context isn't there and welcome every new instance of it with wholehearted enthusiasm."

Just as some of your and dingsi's comments represent a pattern that those who share more of my feelings on these issues have dealt with from those who (at least CLAIM) to be on your side of them. So, why would you expect us to show open enthusiasm for those, given what you say here? It's always the OTHER person who's the problem, isn't it?

Maybe instead of trying to put everyone who doesn't agree with us in a nice little catagory, like "the enemy", maybe there needs to be some ACTUAL dialogue between people and not the screaming matches that passes for them. Perhaps if we spent more time talk TO each other, instead of AT one another, things might have a chnace at some REAL change. But as long as people on both sides want to let anger be their voice, nothing will change. Except to put up even more walls between people and the issues can sit around unaddressed as usual. What would YOU rather happen?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I can only speak for me, but....

tekanji
2007-10-06 04:19 am UTC (link)

You know, in the future it's a good thing to keep in mind that, if you want to take the high ground, starting off a conversation by coming onto someone else's LJ and flaming them is not the way to encourage "a civil and rational discussion of the issues". Nor is it anywhere near being "level-headed".

Secondly, before you try to hold your own in a discussion of privilege, it would be best for you to actually understand what it is and the history behind it. This post focuses on "male privilege" but has links to other posts that discuss the overall concept of privilege.

Lastly, one thing you've displayed an utter lack of recognition of, is that this is sigelphoenix's personal journal, and you are a guest here. That means that the onus to be polite falls primarily on you. If you want to honestly engage in an open discussion of the issues, then you are the one who has to bring it up in a polite and respectful manner, acknowledging that this is her space and that she is gracious for giving you a voice. You want to go off on your own rants? Get your own soapbox. It's really that simple.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: You are not everyone, though.... continued

sigelphoenix
2007-10-10 03:38 pm UTC (link)

I don't know what's left to say to you that others haven't already said, but I'll give it a shot. I'll try to keep this brief.

You seem to be operating from the basic assumption that sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. are not pervasive, systematic problems. That is the only way I can understand your repeated calls to "walk away" and "pick your battles." That viewpoint only makes sense if you think that the taint of privileged is contained within certain spaces, and you can decide not to engage with them.

Oppressions are not isolated incidents; they're systems. They encompass both intentional malice and unintentional, unquestioned biases. Because of that, there are no "good" people who are privilege-free; we're all implicated, and so are all the things we create. We don't have other options where we can take shelter from racism and sexism - that's why we protest when it shows up in the books or comics that we love. We're trying to create the very space you're telling us to "walk away" to.

We are not starting from a neutral or equal playing field. People of color, queer people, and women are a few of the groups that have historically been disadvantaged, and are still working to escape that status. Since there is an ongoing problem, we are going to have more negative responses than positive ones. Simple as that. It is not a failing of the complainer that there is a problem that prompts her to complain. Anger is not a character flaw - and it sure as hell isn't the fault of the person who's being mistreated by oppression.

And few, if any, of these protests call for legal action unless there is an actual crime committed. Don't assume that our complaints mean that we want legal action, or that we're trying to "dictate" what creators do with their stories. We're making it clear when sexism or racism shows up in their works. If they want to be good people, they can try to fix those things. Obviously, we want them to, so that we can enjoy their creative works.

Also, since you brought up what issues are important enough to complain about - there is no unimportant issue. Sure, some issues merit different degrees of response. I find some things worth blogging about, but not others. But it's all about the same struggle, and I don't have a problem with anyone's choice about what's important enough to address in a blog.

Back to your original protest of my protest against the "don't get offended" response: I have had plenty of people disagree with my reaction to issues of oppression. Whenever these people have been respectful of me - by which I mean, they don't invalidate my feelings by telling me not to feel them - I have discussed and eventually compromised with them. The difference is that they actually listened to my criticism, and didn't characterize me (or people who think like me) as overreacting or entitled.

You did that. You came in here and spouted off about how feminists who "ravage" and "dictate," and turned the responsibility of the problem (the problem being sexism and other forms of oppression being expressed in creative works) upon us. And the fact that you did so anonymously - so no one here had any idea whether you were a supporter, or whether you had contributed to anti-oppression work before - means that no one had any reason to assume the best of you. As far as I know, the only time you've ever addressed me is to offer this type of stifling advice.

You want to stick around and be judged as a better person? You're welcome to. Listen. Learn. Support the work that's being done. Don't inflate the various failings of feminists' personalities to equal importance with the actual oppressions being fought against.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	tacky_tramp 2007-10-05 08:01 pm UTC (link)
	Motherfucking YES. If people accuse me of "getting offended" by racist, sexist, or homophobic comments, I tell them, "I'm not offended -- I'm hurt, scared, and angry. And I think what you said contributes to other people feeling hurt, scared, and angry, too. Wanna talk about why?" (Reply to this) (Thread)

	tacky_tramp 2007-10-05 08:02 pm UTC (link)
	BTW, here from lord_dingsi's link. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	sigelphoenix 2007-10-05 10:39 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks! And that's an awesome response. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	meatwhichdreams 2007-10-05 11:44 pm UTC (link)
	Exactly, exactly! (Reply to this) (Parent)

You are not everyone, though....
(Anonymous)
2007-10-05 09:18 pm UTC (link)

"I'm not swooning at every random comment or image that violates my poor, delicate sensibilities. I'm also not trying to malign the character of the person who said or did the wrong thing."

If that's true, then that's good for you. I'm pleased to hear they you don't go looking for every little thing to piss yourself off over and have to verbally berate anyone who does something that irks you even in the slightest. That's great, really it is. But there are those who DO do those thing you say you don't. And they hide behind the same mask of "trying to fix a problem", that you claim here.

Perhaps it did not occur to you, that maybe the person who is asking you to "not get offended", isn't actually trying to silence you, so much as not have to go through that very song and dance all over again. The kind that winds up with them being peronally maligned and attacked, because they didn't get into lock-step with someone else's viewpoint, who made the claim of "trying to fix a problem." You might not be the find of feminist who rages savagely against anyone who doesn't agree with your own personal moral code of ectics and domaic viewpoint of the issues, but there are plenty of others who do. And as someone's who been on the recieving end of that savaging many times before, I'm pretty tired of that treatment, simply because I don't agree with every word someone claims is "the truth." So, I think it' is more than abit understandable some people would be a little gunshy at anyone using similar tactics, even if not to the same degree.

And here's another thought, maybe the reason they don't find the issue so importnat, isn't because they don't care, but they are more choosey about when they pick their battles. I mean, if a woman is denied a job based simply on her race or gender. Okay, that's something to fight against. A woman is sexually harrassed by her boss, then it's time to call out the big guns.

But a comic artist draws female superheroes is sex poses? A writer writes a work of fiction, that is very "un-PC"? A character of ink and paper is suddenly changed into something else at the whim of the owner(s) of said creation, while said owner(s) is not you? I think I can see why some people might find that something not to get their "panties into a twist" over.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: You are not everyone, though.... continued
(Anonymous)
2007-10-05 09:19 pm UTC (link)

"'I'm offended' sounds like I'm whining that you should fix something for my sake."

When what you are "offended" at is something found within a superhero comic book and is basically you (or anyone, really) trying to dictate terms to the publisher and creators of the work on how they have to do what they do, I think THAT would qualify as "whining that you should fix something for my sake."

No one is owed a type of entertainment. No one is owed consideration, just because they've been loyal to a character or concept. Things might actually improve, if people stopped trying to force their will onto certain entertainment choices and just walked away if it "goes bad" for them and got into something they would like, instead.

You see, despite your feelings, publishers who own the characters and concepts can do pretty much whatever they like with them, as long as it isn't illegal. And pretty much every "outrage" I've seen coming out about female character's portrayals in comics has absolutely no basis in any line of legality being crossed. It's all been, more or less, matters of personal opinion and tastes being inflated as though some law had been broken. But that is very far from the truth.

Look, is it in the best interest of a publisher and/or creator to make their work as appealing to as wide a market base as possible? Sure, it would seem common business sense. But just because a publisher or creator doesn't want to do that, doesn't mean they've done something "wrong" or have something in need of "fixing." They've made a business choice, the same as you would make if you were the one in charge of making such calls. We can sit here as "armchair quarterbacks" all day and say how stupid a call they made is. But in the end, it is their choice. They can run their business any way they want, even if it to run it into the ground, by catering to ever shrinking marketplaces. Unless we own the property or company, we haven't the right to tell them they have no business to do what they are doing, unless it is illegal. And that's not the case here.

There is a LOT of things in the world that will piss you off... or even "offend" you. But you have to pick and choose your battles wisely. Maybe you do, but unfortunately for you many others, who make a lot of the same claims you did here, don't do that. As with any movement, those who fail in that regard bring the rest of you down in the eyes of those whom they attack and malign. I'm sure you think that isn't fair 9and is something else that pisses you off) and I'd agree. But that is what happens when people let their anger speak for them, instead of keeping the level of discoure civil and of a higher standard.

So, the next time someone asks you to "not be offended" at something, instead of assuming they are trying to silence you, maybe think if perhaps the way in which you approached it was the best way. And a little bit of assurance that you aren't out to personally malign someone's character or reputation would probably go a long way, too. Again, I know it's not fair, but until everyone, on both sides of the issues stop letting their anger speak for them, it is just an unfortunate reality of the ways of online debating and discussion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You are not everyone, though.... continued

simargl_wings
2007-10-06 08:53 am UTC (link)

I've seen coming out about female character's portrayals in comics has absolutely no basis in any line of legality being crossed.

Legal? Some things can still be immoral yet be perfectly legal.

But just because a publisher or creator doesn't want to do that, doesn't mean they've done something "wrong" or have something in need of "fixing."

But DC at least is making an effort to try and include more female readers. Remember the Supergirl letter? If the companies are asking, wouldn't the fangirls have an obligation to let them know what they think?

So, the next time someone asks you to "not be offended" at something, instead of assuming they are trying to silence you, maybe think if perhaps the way in which you approached it was the best way.

Huh? The critics response doesn't change what they are criticising. If you feel the need to defend a work, it needs to be done by making a convincing arguement, not by discrediting the arguements against it. It would be like a lawyer making their case purely on the personality of the other lawyer instead of the facts.

But you have to pick and choose your battles wisely.

It's not a case of multiple battles. It's one big battle.

But that is what happens when people let their anger speak for them, instead of keeping the level of discoure civil and of a higher standard.

I've seen entries and essays that are "angry" yet are still full of wit and intelligence. I don't see how anger invalidates an arguement, especially if the writer has a good reason to be angry.

And a little bit of assurance that you aren't out to personally malign someone's character or reputation would probably go a long way, too.

And it would be nice to see an opposing opinion that doesn't group feminists or fangirls into a huge lump or assume that one feminists arguement invalidates a different feminist arguement.

it is just an unfortunate reality of the ways of online debating and discussion.

I think it's only because so many people tolerate it. :/

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: You are not everyone, though.... continued sigelphoenix 2007-10-10 03:39 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks for your response, simargl_wings. You said a lot of what I wanted to - and much more concisely! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: You are not everyone, though.... continued simargl_wings 2007-10-11 11:20 am UTC (link)
	No worries. Glad you didn't mind me butting in too much. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	lost_angelwings 2007-10-06 12:18 am UTC (link)
	I totally agree with you and it is annoying that the attitude IS more "shut up, you're annoying" rather than trying to actually see the issue or nething else. It's also interesting how this troll seems to suddenly be using the "nobody has a right to be annoyed by nething" argument b/c it suits him and then at the same time is going on about how you annoy him. XD (Reply to this) (Thread)

Not all us "anonymouses" are the same....

anonymousmr
2007-10-06 12:52 am UTC (link)

"It's also interesting how this troll seems to suddenly be using the "nobody has a right to be annoyed by nething" argument b/c it suits him and then at the same time is going on about how you annoy him. XD"

I take this to mean you are talking about the first anonymous poster and not me and my much more level-headed replies.

But just in case you aren't, let me say this: I never said "nobody has a right to be annoyed by nething." People will always be annoyed by whever they bother themselves to be annoyed about. But that annoyance doesn't always hold merit. And just because you are annoyed by something, doesn't mean someone else NOT being so make them "not care" or "part of the problem." That's why I said battles should be picked carefully. Otherwise, yeah, you just run the risk of seeing yourself portrayed as a "bitter crank." And how many of those do people listen to or take seriously?

So, please, if it was indeed me to whom you refer and not the other anonymous, don't take what I said and put it in the worst context you can think up and make it look like you know me or what I think. Because as insulting as she find being asked to "not be offended", doing that is WAY more insulting. And I'd thank you not to do that, just because you might not happen to agree with everything I DID say. Thanks you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

sigelphoenix
2007-10-10 03:43 pm UTC (link)

I totally agree with you and it is annoying that the attitude IS more "shut up, you're annoying" rather than trying to actually see the issue or nething else.

Exactly. And when it comes down to it, just because the messenger is annoying doesn't mean that one is allowed to ignore the original issue. It's like people who say that they *would* care about, say, the plight of Darfur, if the protesters weren't so annoying. That's hardly a morally defensible position.

As for the troll, I think s/he was trying to be "witty." *sigh*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

ravenveil
2007-10-06 01:58 am UTC (link)

Very good post! Ignore the trolls. If people can't handle that racism/sexism etc. is hurtful and in the long run will ruin comics then screw 'em. Lets face it, we as a nation are becoming more multicultural. I see it all the time on DIY TV (yes I'm a home improvement addict). Most of the couples on the shows I watch are a mix of races. The world is changing, and people better change with it. As for Sexism, they've done studes where they found more females own game consoles than men. The time of the boy's club is over.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	sigelphoenix 2007-10-10 03:49 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you! And yeah, the world is changing - though that's mostly due to the efforts of the people who are actively working to change it. And they have to deal with far worse than I do. In comparison, I guess I can handle some trolling, huh? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Here from Dingsi's link (and WFA) arionhunter 2007-10-06 12:55 pm UTC (link)
	This post needs to be prepared in handbills and ready for distribution every times a person 'others' a group. Especially if they whip out the "But you're not..." card. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Here from Dingsi's link (and WFA) sigelphoenix 2007-10-10 03:43 pm UTC (link)
	Ha! thanks. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(40 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

LJ Labs

Store