Negro Crossing Sign

Oh yeah, that's a good place....

Well, first of all, I now can riff off of highway signs in a way I didn't before, as a blind person... no, no, well, I hope not, well, not for six months at least, but...

ok, I am one of the people to scurry about as I am edgily in trouble and this stuff is, trust me, not at all funny. And yet I am very much a freedom of expression type, as in, go for it.

So, what. Care individually is useful from time to time, if not when applied.

See the book in my signature. It is blowing me away, though I am only about 2/3 way through, good writing.

ak, sorry, the book is no longer in my sig. Back in a bit.

Oh, noooooo,

I forget what the book was.......

That was mighty admirable of you Craven. I would be one of those who think it's political correctness gone crazy. If a black person had authored the thread, it's pretty damn funny (IMO). So, it's pretty damn funny (IMO), regardless of who wrote it. I saw "white" signs too and detected zero racism throughout. In the face of genuine hateful behavior; I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty and I'm not afraid to get my knuckles bloody in defense of an actual victim… but, I really do think anyone who is genuinely offended by this thread, is going quite a distance out of his or her way to get there.

I've lost enough hair on the back of my head to be the butt of a thousand bald jokes. If I ever start taking offense to them; it will be my problem and my problem alone. A more accurate parallel would be for me to be offended by bald jokes in general. That's just silly. Sticks and Stones… shouldn't even be necessary here because no one was trying to offend anyone. Anyone who was offended by anything after the first post has only himself or herself to blame. The direction the thread was going to take couldn't have been more obvious. Those posting their PC views, or complaints have effectively killed an otherwise amusing thread. I hope you're happy to have stopped this terrible injustice in its tracks , at the expense of disrupting others fun. Now stop laughing!

Of course that's just my opinion… I could be wrong.

Actually, as the author I will agree that it was inappropriate. I just also think it was really funny.

Bill, it wouldn't bother me to be the butt of any of these jokes at all. But if offending others isn't a reason to stop fun why should fun be a reason to disrupt mentioning offense?

Seriously, if humor and fun a trump card? If so, then anyone can beg off from any offense with the humor card.

If not, then there's other criteria and it can't just rest on levity.

Incidentally, nobody said anything about racism that I can recall and this is, IMO, a very relevant tid bit.

I don't think racism played any part of SCoates motivations at all.

I do, however, think the only reason it is inappropriate is the fact that there are those who will be offended even though they shouldn't. If the world were perfect, rather if people were perfect, then there would be nothing inappropriate with this thread.

I saw eoe's complaint and while semisympathizing, thought she was over reacting, and then formulated my own signs.

I saw something about blindys and quivered and recovered and kept listening.

I am not posting to chill anyone.
Carry on, nurse.

And call me after twenty years of aspirin.

While you are further away.

Of course, in saying that, I've surely again offended those who initially took offence, and perhaps others. 'Tis a crazy world, and I have to agree with Bill, that if they don't want to be offended they don't have to keep coming to read this thread. However I suspect they will...

No.

I understand your far out humor, scoates, and the hell with you.

I'm sorry, I feel bad about offending anyone, but I am feeling a little defensive too.

Accidentally posted only half my response and have now posted it below. Relax SCoates. I don't think anyone's really mad at you.

On scoates acting out of racism, no, no no.
on noticing that what he was posting might pull that in, maybe.
on posting it past that, I think so.
I am mad at him for other stuff,
too bad I can't remember what.
If I wasn't so easily bored I'd snag my proof.
smiling.

oh, yeah, loused up again with redundant post.

1. The author had fun in mind when he wrote it, not a serious conversation about appropriateness, or lack thereof.
2. I would rather my friends laugh than cry.
3. As stated earlier; it is my opinion that those who found this offensive should have sought entertainment on another thread.

I don't like "dead baby" or "little Johnny" jokes, at all. If someone started a thread about those, I'd avoid it, NOT get on a soapbox. That behavior is "inappropriate on a levity thread.

On a thread designed to be humorous and fun? YES.



Precisely the point, Craven. If no one is in need of a reprimand, why bother spoiling others fun?

I saw eoe's post too and hoped in vain it would be passed over as an "inappropriate" place for soapboxes. It was the equivalent to busting in on your A2K melee thread to scold people for promoting wanton violence. This same thing happened on my "wish Ceili well and wish destruction on her assailants thread". I thought it was inappropriate then and I think this is inappropriate now. On that thread; I wound felt compelled to apologize just like SCoates just did here. Did these complaints make anyone feel better? NO. They just spoiled an otherwise amusing thread that was utterly harmless to begin with. Well done.

I understand that you are "wearing more hats" than me at the moment and strongly suspect if we were alone discussing this we'd be in agreement.

Bill,

1) Racism is not the only basis for reprimand. You mentioned racism, not I. My objections are on the basis of gratuitous offense in effect, not intent.

2) Declaring "fun" as a theme doesn't grant a monopoly on determining appropriateness. I know some things meant to be funny that you'd object to and this is why fun in and of itself can't be the only criteria. Just because a topic is meant to be "fun" does not mean that "fun" supercedes everything and is a trump card to all objections.

There has to be some other criteria. One good one for your position is lacking malicious intent. SCoates didn't mean to offend and if offence occured in effect perhaps it should be overlooked when considering intent. That's something (whether or not intent supercedes effect) reasonable people can differ on.

Reasonable people can also differ on whether or not fun justifies the means in this case. But most people don't think fun does that in any and all cases so this is why fun needs relational criteria (e.g. "what was said was mild" etc).

I don't know why you roll your eyes at it. It's a simple concept. If you think the stated purpose of "fun" justifies all then you can use it as a singular criteria. If you can fathom something done in fun that you might object to then perhaps you recognize relational criteria to the fun (e.g. harm, and the degree of harm in relation to the fun).

With that relational criteria our disagreement is simply on the degree of fun and the degree of harm. Both subjective matters.

But it's not a disagreement on the validity of fun as a trump card, because I'll be so bold as to say we ultimately agree on its invalidity on a universal scale (which is recognition of the need for other relational criteria).

But lacking intent has some interesting tangents. More later.

3) What is and is not inappropriate is a matter of opinion, so if I think it is and you think it's not then it's, well, just disagreement.

4) "Ruin" is subjective as well, and we can't let objections be proscribed merely on the basis of not wanting "ruination". Heck, if so you've "ruined" a bunch of threads where people just wanted to have fun bashing Bush on the war.

Lots of people have a specific goal for a thread, I'm not sure that diverging ones ruin it and even if so I can't agree that said deviance automatically equates into inappropriateness by itself.

SCoates has no intention to offend. I, in turn, had no intention to "ruin".

Unfortunately intent and effect are not married. SCoates made a hell of a point when he said this is all because of an imperfect world/people.

I took his statement to mean that if it were possible for us to invariably understand intent we could operate without many offense in effect.

That tangent is something I though was worthwhile and his comment made me reflect for some time. Of course, tastes differ. One man's musings is another man's ruination of a thread....

If objecting to the "fun" is ruination then I must allege that persons like yourself and Eva are "ruining" things by objecting to the objections.

Maybe we can chalk this up to different perspectives, goals, and tastes and not consider each other's participation ruinatory (made up word)?

5) I don't think eoe was on a "soapbox". I think (am not sure) that she is black, and I think gratuitous (and as an aside, unnecessary to the joke) use of 'negro' bothered her.

I don't happen to think there's anything wrong with the word by itself but knowing that its effect is almost invariably offense due to the word's history I avoid it.

If others don't wish to that's their prerogative, just as it is that of others to speak their piece about it. The word has meaning to some people outside this particular joke and for some it is representative of circumstance that renders levity hurtfull.

eoe made two posts, that's hardly a "soapbox".

Disclaimer: I don't know eoe and do not even know if the word was objectionable to her.

6) When you speak your mind here are you "ruining" the thread? I suspect you'll say yes, because if you only consider those who disagree with you to be ruining it the criteria would not seem to be objective.

7) Who said these complaints don't make anyone feel better? And if feeling better is the criteria you use I again ask if your consideration for said feelings extends only to the fun camp. If the fun was making others feel bad does this cancel it out?

I don't think your consideration for feelings is unilateral. What we are witnessing is simply different feelings.

To some this may be a spoiled fun. To others an ameliorated hurt. Who get's to decide what feelings trump? No good answer for that, and this is why there's the whole PC conflicts.

8) Upon what basis do you declare this thread "utterly harmess"? I ask because if this thread caused harm in way of hurt feelings is it still "harmless"?

9) I might be "wearing more hats". Frankly I dislike very much being the wet blanket, especially when I personally don't take any offense to this thread, and had decided not to say anything three times after typing it before actually doing so hours later and decided to do so on behalf of those who did but who did not wish to deal with the subsequent censure.

But that doesn't mean I'd agree with you. I don't and would not privately.

This particular thread didn't offend me, it simply didn't contain any of my hot buttons but I knew that it was offending some people a lot and wanted to say something about it.

It's very easy to think it's harmless fun, especially when said fun comes at the expense of others. If censure ruined the fun that's lamentable. But on the other hand if censure ameliorated hurt and if the cessation of fun lessened harm that is an upside.

Which outweighs which is a matter of opinion and I can't claim a trump card on it.

If the people who think fun justifies disconsideration of harm because the harmed are overtly sensitive then I personally am inclined to retort that disconsideration of the fun is warranted on the basis of harm caused by the overtly selfish.

Anywho, I was uncomfortable saying anything to begin and am more so now, and will happily leave the thread having said much more than I'd intended to.

My last comment to SCoates is that I had had no intention of making you or others feel bad. Knowing that the effect might be inevitable despite intent means I'm stopping now but I point this out only to highlight that herein I too made a judgement call of the validity of disregarding (if only temporaily) effect and because doing so is at times inevitable I don't think you should feel bad about it (even if ya might not be able to help it).

Last ironic musing (swear):

If the censure makes ya feel bad remember whose problem it is and note how that's precious little consolation because its effect is not sourced in intent. ;-)

Sorry for the ruination anyway. Maybe a fart or two can return the bliss to the thread. You might want to try a few in different notes.

I complained mildly on the thread and have expressed no animosity to dear scoates, whose humor I mostly get, those his comments did go after - ever so slightly - black and blind. He asked me in person re my online comment and I replied. The blind thing in this topic (what was it, I forget) did hurt me at the time. But never mind that, right this minute I am losing vision in the left eye. This is either a so what? or a heads up: we are all me, at some point.

I guess mockery is some kind of welcome to the world club when you are in existential trouble, I'm not really against it.

"Maybe a fart or two can return the bliss to the thread. You might want to try a few in different notes."

www.mrmethane.com

I think this thread started innocently enough, but now people are getting worked up and their feelings are getting hurt.

Let's talk about Catholics and Jews for awhile.

A Priest and a Rabbi are taking a walk together and come upon a young boy sitting on the curb playing with something in his hands. "Hello young man, what have you got there?", says the Priest. "Dogshit" the boy replies. "Well, son what are you doing with that?" asks the Priest. "I'm making a Jew", replies the young boy. The Priest bursts into laughter but the Rabbi is clearly not amused. "Young man", the Rabbi enquires, "Why aren't you making a Catholic"? "Not enough ****" replies the boy.

Discuss and enjoy.