What offends you?

[Versa]

I don't find 'words' on their own offensive but I do find the sentiments behind them offensive.

I had some issues after the Japan Disaster where some people on facebook where posting 'jokes' about it or on a couple of occasions Americans commenting about Pearl Harbour (obviously forgetting Hiroshima). I removed a few people from my friends list and had to remove a couple of my friends husbands from my list too because I was offended by the contents of the posts.

I also find it quite offensive when men make chauvinistic comments and/or act in an over familiar manner with me.

There's a guy at the local shop that insists on using terms of endearment (sweetheart, Darling etc) to address me even though he doesn't know me at all and that winds me up!

[glyn]

So - you are against people being labelled 'racists' and 'bogots' but you are happy to label people 'loonies?'

Am I to gather from your response that whilst you dislike the anti-nazi league (because of their supposed violence) you are also opposed to nazis themselves?

I have been on many left wing marches and I have never been involved in any violence. In fact - I have not even witnessed any violence on such marches.

And by the way - Michael Howard is himself the son of an immigrant.

1. You may gather whatever you wish.Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Anti Nazi league violence is therefore ,by definition ,a Nazi himself?
2. You most likely saw only what you wanted to see,or as a possible alternative turned the TV off when the violence began. Anyone who can state hand on heart that the Anti Nazi league has never been involved in violence and intimidation of any sort inhabits a world I have no knowledge of. 3 I ndeed,Michael Howard WAS the son of an immigrant,but that didnt stop the left wing hordes from labelling him a racist,and doing their very best to hound him from office ....nothing out of the ordinary there Im afraid.
4." Am I against people being labelled racist and bigots,while happy to label people as left wing loonies?" etc and attending drivel?
Well,one might ask yoyu the same question in reverse i.e..."Are you against branding people as left wing loonies,but only too happy to label individuals racists or bigots?" If individuals such as Hitler,Goebbels,Mugabe and co are labelled Racists and murderers Id have no problem,However ,when individuals are labelled racists and driven from their employments, because of a private remark made light heartedly at a party or such like,then yes I do.....When people question Immigration policies and are branded as Racists because of that query, likewise.When harrassed and frightened citizens complain of lawless behaviour committed by gypsies or bands of travellers ,illegally camped on ground close to their homes are branded Bigots because of their complaints..then again I have a problem.
When the Anti Nazi and similar mobs descend on question time for instance ,to deny fringe political parties such as the Bnp an opportunity to put their arguments across,while all the while supposedly championing the "cause of freedom"....I have a problem also..What are these groups afraid of? Parties such as the Bnp will destroy themselves with their own words.Their policies are wrong ,but the attempts to deny them the right to speak are wrong also.

[Limehouse]

1. You may gather whatever you wish.Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Anti Nazi league violence is therefore ,by definition ,a Nazi himself?
2. You most likely saw only what you wanted to see,or as a possible alternative turned the TV off when the violence began. Anyone who can state hand on heart that the Anti Nazi league has never been involved in violence and intimidation of any sort inhabits a world I have no knowledge of. 3 I ndeed,Michael Howard WAS the son of an immigrant,but that didnt stop the left wing hordes from labelling him a racist,and doing their very best to hound him from office ....nothing out of the ordinary there Im afraid.
4." Am I against people being labelled racist and bigots,while happy to label people as left wing loonies?" etc and attending drivel?
Well,one might ask yoyu the same question in reverse i.e..."Are you against branding people as left wing loonies,but only too happy to label individuals racists or bigots?" If individuals such as Hitler,Goebbels,Mugabe and co are labelled Racists and murderers Id have no problem,However ,when individuals are labelled racists and driven from their employments, because of a private remark made light heartedly at a party or such like,then yes I do.....When people question Immigration policies and are branded as Racists because of that query, likewise.When harrassed and frightened citizens complain of lawless behaviour committed by gypsies or bands of travellers ,illegally camped on ground close to their homes are branded Bigots because of their complaints..then again I have a problem.
When the Anti Nazi and similar mobs descend on question time for instance ,to deny fringe political parties such as the Bnp an opportunity to put their arguments across,while all the while supposedly championing the "cause of freedom"....I have a problem also..What are these groups afraid of? Parties such as the Bnp will destroy themselves with their own words.Their policies are wrong ,but the attempts to deny them the right to speak are wrong also.

1. No - I am not suggesting people who oppose the anti-nazi league on the grounds of their involvement in violence are themselves nazis. However in opposing the violence one would think they would also oppose the violence perpetuated by the nazis.
2. I 'mostly likely saw what I wanted to see or turned the TV off when the violence began?' No - actually - I was THERE at many marches. It is true that SOME anti-nazis HAVE been involved in violence but it is a very small minority. I am a peaceful protester and would never get involved in any violence.
3. You have missed the irony in the Michael Howard issue. Michael Howard would not have been in this country if his father had been dealt with under Michael Howard's proposals. Michael Howard enjoyed a very decent education and a very comfortable lifestyle because his father was allowed to enter this country as an immigrant from Romania.
4. I have not labelled anyone a racist or a bigot where as you have referred to 'people like me' and 'your sort' as left wing loonies. Therefore - you are a hypocrite.
5. The BNP was certainly not denied their opportunity to put their views across on Question Time. Griffin was allowed on to the programme - he had his say - and his objectors exercised their right to the 'freedom of speech' you so value but he was still able to babble on about Anglo Saxons - no one stopped him making a complete tit of himself.
6. I would not deny anyone the right to have their say but I would ask them to do so without recourse to offensive terminology and myth that so often accompanies extreme right-wing discourse.

[glyn]

That's shocking Norma. Such behaviour is not only inhumane but it fuels the hatred that extremists have toward the west and almost legitimises - in their eyes - their terrorist attacks on the west.

There are many in this world who consider us no better than the terrorists.In fact it even appears that some consider the terrorists to hold the moral high ground.If too many in great britain hold that same opinion,they will have a rude awakening when the REAL terrorists start walking into their schools with bombs strapped to their bodies.That is what real terror is about.
To be sure our involvement in other countries sometimes is involved with our own self interests.Without that as a guide,we would soon become no better than a thirld world country and subject to the whims of each and every two bob tyrant who is willing to enforce his will with violence.The history of this country is replete with such efforts.
As a nation we have done things that are shameful,will we do the same in the future?..probabably.But in the final analysis,what country would you want on your side when terrorists finnally attempt to force us to our knees? Trying to compare the agenda and actions of the Jihadists to the actions and agenda of the West are the ruminations of a madman.
My view is that we should extract information from jihadists by any means possible,and if that information gleaned saves one western life ,then its nothing if not worthwhile

[Ally]

What I find interesting is the idea that respect and tolerance is something that can be mandated. I have been told (and again this is hearsay from those who live there) that outlawing Nazi memorabilia and speech in Germany has in fact led to it being considered more "cool" and desirable than if it were allowed to be legal and just recognized as the filth it is.

People want to rebel against infringements on their right to think whatever they want to think or believe whatever they want to believe.

And why in the world should anyone be more protected than anyone else from being offended. Someone made the comment that political correctness improves lives and made reference to someone who was formerly called a spastic. Really? not being called a spastic suddenly improves the lives of spastics? Suddenly they are cured? They can walk normally? The idea that PC radically changes the lives of those it's meant to protect is pure bollocks. And why precisely should a "spastic" be more protected from being offended than anyone else on the planet? I don't believe anyone should be denied rights, but I definitely don't believe that anyone else should be granted more rights than I possess.

And who precisely decides what is offensive? An obese person can be offended because they are required to buy two airline seats, despite the fact that they are using two airline seats. Is this an offense worth protecting? Should they get a free seat? A seat that if I decided to use, I'd have to pay for?

Lots of people are offended by lots of things. How exactly can you prevent offense? You can't. The only thing you can do is choose not to be offended. You cannot control what anyone else on the planet thinks or says. The only thing you can control is your response to it.

[glyn]

1. No - I am not suggesting people who oppose the anti-nazi league on the grounds of their involvement in violence are themselves nazis. However in opposing the violence one would think they would also oppose the violence perpetuated by the nazis.
2. I 'mostly likely saw what I wanted to see or turned the TV off when the violence began?' No - actually - I was THERE at many marches. It is true that SOME anti-nazis HAVE been involved in violence but it is a very small minority. I am a peaceful protester and would never get involved in any violence.
3. You have missed the irony in the Michael Howard issue. Michael Howard would not have been in this country if his father had been dealt with under Michael Howard's proposals. Michael Howard enjoyed a very decent education and a very comfortable lifestyle because his father was allowed to enter this country as an immigrant from Romania.
4. I have not labelled anyone a racist or a bigot where as you have referred to 'people like me' and 'your sort' as left wing loonies. Therefore - you are a hypocrite.
5. The BNP was certainly not denied their opportunity to put their views across on Question Time. Griffin was allowed on to the programme - he had his say - and his objectors exercised their right to the 'freedom of speech' you so value but he was still able to babble on about Anglo Saxons - no one stopped him making a complete tit of himself.
6. I would not deny anyone the right to have their say but I would ask them to do so without recourse to offensive terminology and myth that so often accompanies extreme right-wing discourse.

1. You implied it.
2.Yes of course its ALWAYS a small minority isnt it?
3.I didnt miss the irony,I commented on the stupidity of the lefties.
4.Hypocrisy doesnt come into it.
5. The BNP was not allowed to put forward their policies(whatever they are).The focus and barracking(organised) was entirely regarding one issue,i.e repatriation etc,
6.Of course thats difficult when the opposition finds anything and everything which opposes their views offensive......presumabley extreme left wing discourse ids fine and dandy,whereas extreme right wing discourse isnt? now who is the hypocrite?

[Limehouse]

1. You implied it.
2.Yes of course its ALWAYS a small minority isnt it?
3.I didnt miss the irony,I commented on the stupidity of the lefties.
4.Hypocrisy doesnt come into it.
5. The BNP was not allowed to put forward their policies(whatever they are).The focus and barracking(organised) was entirely regarding one issue,i.e repatriation etc,
6.Of course thats difficult when the opposition finds anything and everything which opposes their views offensive......presumabley extreme left wing discourse ids fine and dandy,whereas extreme right wing discourse isnt? now who is the hypocrite?

OK - regarding point 6 - I'll spell it our for you. When I was a child graffiti such as 'wogs go home' and 'pakis smell' was common. I find that offensive and I don't see why any civilised society should tolerate it.

[Limehouse]

What I find interesting is the idea that respect and tolerance is something that can be mandated. I have been told (and again this is hearsay from those who live there) that outlawing Nazi memorabilia and speech in Germany has in fact led to it being considered more "cool" and desirable than if it were allowed to be legal and just recognized as the filth it is.

People want to rebel against infringements on their right to think whatever they want to think or believe whatever they want to believe.

And why in the world should anyone be more protected than anyone else from being offended. Someone made the comment that political correctness improves lives and made reference to someone who was formerly called a spastic. Really? not being called a spastic suddenly improves the lives of spastics? Suddenly they are cured? They can walk normally? The idea that PC radically changes the lives of those it's meant to protect is pure bollocks. And why precisely should a "spastic" be more protected from being offended than anyone else on the planet? I don't believe anyone should be denied rights, but I definitely don't believe that anyone else should be granted more rights than I possess.

And who precisely decides what is offensive? An obese person can be offended because they are required to buy two airline seats, despite the fact that they are using two airline seats. Is this an offense worth protecting? Should they get a free seat? A seat that if I decided to use, I'd have to pay for?

Lots of people are offended by lots of things. How exactly can you prevent offense? You can't. The only thing you can do is choose not to be offended. You cannot control what anyone else on the planet thinks or says. The only thing you can control is your response to it.

I am finding the direction of this debate very hard to deal with. If as a society we value freedoms and rights- we should also exercise responsibilities. Surely if we value freedom of speech we should seek to use that freedom responsibly and not use it to ridicule or offend others?

[glyn]

OK - regarding point 6 - I'll spell it our for you. When I was a child graffiti such as 'wogs go home' and 'pakis smell' was common. I find that offensive and I don't see why any civilised society should tolerate it.

How about "Americans are overpaid,oversexed and over here"......".Moslem terrorists" as opposed to "Moslem fundamentalists"......."White trash"...."Red neck"..."Snowflake"..."White imperialist"....."Greedy rich industrialists"..."The idle filthy rich"...etc ad nauseum....do those phrases OFFEND you too?

[glyn]

Imagine a photo of the Union jack inserted here first of all.

This is the British Flag.
Dont you like it?
Does it offend you?
Good!
This is Britain!
If you dont like it
F*** Off!

Is that racist? or is it plain old fashioned common sense comment?...i.e dont moan-do something about it.
Seen ,actually ,by me recently on a T shirt worn,would you believe it by a jamaican in coldharbour lane Brixton.

[Limehouse]

How about "Americans are overpaid,oversexed and over here"......".Moslem terrorists" as opposed to "Moslem fundamentalists"......."White trash"...."Red neck"..."Snowflake"..."White imperialist"....."Greedy rich industrialists"..."The idle filthy rich"...etc ad nauseum....do those phrases OFFEND you too?

Well - I've never seen any of those phrases scrawled across walls where I live but - yes- they do offend me and I WOULD object to them.

[Limehouse]

Imagine a photo of the Union jack inserted here first of all.

This is the British Flag.
Dont you like it?
Does it offend you?
Good!
This is Britain!
If you dont like it
F*** Off!

Is that racist? or is it plain old fashioned common sense comment?...i.e dont moan-do something about it.
Seen ,actually ,by me recently on a T shirt worn,would you believe it by a jamaican in coldharbour lane Brixton.

I don't care who is/was wearing it - I personally think it is offensive - but not racist.

[glyn]

How about "racist scum"..."bigoted bastards"...."war mongering right wingers"....."feminists"......"murdering abortionists"...."tory bastards"
The list is long.......

[glyn]

I don't care who is/was wearing it - I personally think it is offensive - but not racist.

This is a laugh a minute........IF its not racist,why do you find it offensive? what on earth is offensive about it? Bigoted maybe?

[Ally]

Surely if we value freedom of speech we should seek to use that freedom responsibly and not use it to ridicule or offend others?

Why? No really, not being sarcastic, at all, but why precisely should we refrain from ridiculing or offending others?