• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

When did it stop being OK to be offended?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wasn't the MW2 problem that Allah was written over a toilet? As for the Tekken that was simply it is disrespectful to trample over god.
You're probably right, but fucking hell, you're trying really fucking hard if that offends you. His name, in pixellated, barely legible form, written on the floor of a fictional arena, in a piece of software. You need to just let some of 'em go, surely!
 
Yeah, sure it's okay to offend people, but you have to think of what kind of person you are if you're constantly offending people.

A vigilant warrior against the easily offended crowd who need to learn their place.

this was the gist of an argument on here a while back
 
I see more people who aren't Muslim being offended by the mere mention of Islam or the Muslim religion than people who are Muslim. Especially if its portrayed in a positive light.
 
Honestly can't think of one instance where I gave a shit when someone was offended. This cry baby attitude takes away from the actual issue if there is one.

The issue being you are insensitive? Seems like their offense is right in line with discussing that point.
 
I know it's not religion but I'm reminded of the ESPN guy who got fired for "a chink in their armor' tweet referring to Super Lintendo and the NY Knicks. I can understand some people being offended but I can't in good conscious agree that firing him was the proper choice. Why must a person lose their livelihood because someone took their horrible pun the wrong way?

Suspension? Sure. Firing? I don't get it.

Some things are more universally offensive than others.

If a journalist doesn't have the good sense to know that 'chink' is a racially derogatory word, then they probably need to reevalute their career choice anyways.

I agree that people are too easily offended nowadays, but this is not a good example.

About the Islam thing...it's like this. Imagine if you saw in the background of the Guile level in SF2, a woman dressed like the statue of liberty fellating a man dressed like Uncle Sam? Some people would be offended by that....<snip...>

So, Islamic cultures are like that with portrayals of their Holy icons.
Oh yea. Totally see how they're similar things. lol
 
You're probably right, but fucking hell, you're trying really fucking hard if that offends you. His name, in pixellated, barely legible form, written on the floor of a fictional arena, in a piece of software. You need to just let some of 'em go, surely!
On the flipside for example calling someone fat or ugly isn't offensive(in many parts of Asia), it's telling the truth. Different standards.
 
Not really, that's where the culture part play in. For people in the middle east putting a picture of the word Allah in the bathroom is blatantly offensive. So is standing on one. America is not the center of the world and doesn't dictate the standards for other parts of the world.

So you would be offended if it was someone who knew her. Well there you go.

That's just plain insulting someone, that's not the same as being offended.
 
You're probably right, but fucking hell, you're trying really fucking hard if that offends you. His name, in pixellated, barely legible form, written on the floor of a fictional arena, in a piece of software. You need to just let some of 'em go, surely!

I don't think you understand how religion works, to a Muslim that is hugely offensive(also given that it was unintentional & Harada seemed to have no issue removing it, it strikes me as very interesting to see all the complaints about its removal, given that no artistic integrity has been compromised, it's almost as if any chance to complain about Muslims is jumped on).
 
It's ok to be offended. Just don't expect everyone to care.
Succinctly put my man. That's usually the case, "OK, I get you, you thought that was in bad taste. But not only are you going to kick up a stink, rather than turn the other cheek, but demand action be taken to appease your sensibilities."

But again, it comes back to cultural differences, I'm not a religious man, so I can't understand why anyone would care so much.
 
That's just plain insulting someone, that's not the same as being offended.

Wait, what the fuck? This kind of thought process really exemplifies the problem, which is that people put a lot more work into justifying why you should shut up than why they should.
 
This isn't, in any way, shape or form, intended to offend or bait anyone. Please post respectfully and thoughtfully.

I've noticed in the last couple of years, that the term "offensive" gets thrown around more and more often, sometimes entirely inappropriately. It seems that if something is even remotely offensive these days, it must be banished immediately, without hesitation. Now obviously, when it comes to race, sexual orientation, religion, etc, you need to conduct yourself with poise and respect. But it seems the mere mention of something regarding someone's religion nowadays is considered offensive.

I'll preface by saying, I am not at all informed about Muslim culture, and therefore have no frame of reference, so I apologise in advance if I offend anyone or miss the point entirely, but two recent issues seemed to be particularly innocuous. The painting on the Modern Warfare 2 map that had the Holy teachings: "Allah is beautiful and He loves beauty." written round the frame. Now I don't see where the offence comes from? Is it simply the mere mention of his name outside of prayer? It seems to me that it's a positive message, and should be embraced, not removed. And recently, the Tekken Tag Tournament 2 stage with the Arabic script for Allah etched on the floor. Again, where does the offence come from? In both these instances, the "offending" items where requested to be removed.

Now if these incidents had their deities name taken in vain, then it would be entirely understandable. But it seems, to the uninformed such as my self, that they are being blown out of proportion. Again, if I've missed the point, and it actually is horribly offensive, then I apologize. I'm eager to find out more. Also, I'll just leave this here:

EX5v4.jpg

Just because you don't understand why someone finds X, Y or Z offensive doesn't mean their offence is any lesser or illegitimate. Should Muslims have to take Ninjabox's interpretation on something he admittedly has no understanding of before they can form an opinion? The mere fact that you have no idea arguably renders your opinion quite irrelevant. Talking about this generally, why should it be okay to offend someone? Why can't a man walk on the street and have the right not to confronted with insult? Equally as curious, why should it be acceptable to insult someone?
 
It just gets to a point where you're desensitized to people being offended. Some people get offended by the most ridiculous shit that it starts to lose meaning.
 
The fact that I work in an office building in the deep south is probably relevant to this, but I hear every week about how stupid it is for people to be offended, and never(I can recall one specific incident, after which the offendee was temporarily ostracized) actually hear someone talking about being offended about something. At least speaking from a local anecdotal perspective, I think this anti-PR pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction that people ironically get extremely offended about people being offended about something.

A common soundbyte here is how having first-amendment rights protects you from other people being offended at what you say. What?
 
I don't think you understand how religion works, to a Muslim that is hugely offensive(also given that it was unintentional & Harada seemed to have no issue removing it, it strikes me as very interesting to see all the complaints about its removal, given that no artistic integrity has been compromised, it's almost as if any chance to complain about Muslims is jumped on).
I couldn't care less if it's removed or not, it's more the immediate, kneejerk reaction to remove. Why not just issue a statement, "sorry, no intent to offend". Done.

But I hear what you're saying, it's an entirely different culture, and most of us have no frame of reference.
 
Just because you don't understand why someone finds X, Y or Z offensive doesn't mean their offence is any lesser or illegitimate. Should Muslims have to take Ninjabox's interpretation on something he admittedly has no understanding of before they can form an opinion? The mere fact that you have no idea arguably renders your opinion quite irrelevant. Talking about this generally, why should it be okay to offend someone? Why can't a man walk on the street and have the right not to confronted with insult? Equally as curious, why should it be acceptable to insult someone?

Truth is, you can't walk down the street and not be offended. You can find offense in anything if you look hard enough, which some people, sadly enough, do all the time.
 
The fact that I work in an office building in the deep south is probably relevant to this, but I hear every week about how stupid it is for people to be offended, and never(I can recall one specific incident, after which the offendee was temporarily ostracized) actually hear someone talking about being offended about something. At least speaking from a local anecdotal perspective, I think this anti-PR pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction that people ironically get extremely offended about people being offended about something.

A common soundbyte here is how having first-amendment rights protects you from other people being offended at what you say. What?

Same goes for racism. Call anything racist and get a backlash for being the REAL racist.
 
I couldn't care less if it's removed or not, it's more the immediate, kneejerk reaction to remove. Why not just issue a statement, "sorry, no intent to offend". Done.

But I hear what you're saying, it's an entirely different culture, and most of us have no frame of reference.

That's what they did say, then they removed it out of respect.

An issue was brought up in a civilised manner, and responded to in an equally polite way. Good.
 
That's what they did say, then they removed it out of respect.

An issue was brought up in a civilised manner, and responded to in an equally polite way. Good.
Fair point.

Can someone post this brilliant OttomanScribe post? All I see is him saying, "offence is sometimes justified." I was hoping for some witty, cutting rebuttal.
 
I couldn't care less if it's removed or not, it's more the immediate, kneejerk reaction to remove. Why not just issue a statement, "sorry, no intent to offend". Done.

But I hear what you're saying, it's an entirely different culture, and most of us have no frame of reference.

Actually this is a totally normal interaction that many people in our culture engage in every day. If you unintentionally cause distress or injury to someone else, in addition to apologizing, it's polite to take some actual action to show that you are genuinely concerned for the other person and not merely feigning interest to avoid consequences for yourself. This is really bedrock, 5th-grade social interaction stuff.
 
Truth is, you can't walk down the street and not be offended. You can find offense in anything if you look hard enough, which some people, sadly enough, do all the time.

This is true. There is no way to avoid this. I'm talking specifically about those with the intent to do/say something they know is likely to provoke a reaction. Lets take an example: freedom of speech.

Scenario A. You say something in the media, shit hits the fan, you use this legal right to shield yourself.

Scenario B. You say something in a public place face to face, shit hits the fan. Either an apology or an altercation occurs. You don't get away with it

The belief that you can go around with the attitude that people should be okay in being offended is devoid of any realism.
 
Huh, I expected something very different from the title. Almost the exact opposite actually. Because I think we've gone a bit too far in the other direction where its not okay to be offended because you don't have a right to find anything offensive, that you just have to accept literally everything everyone else says without emotional reaction.
 
I couldn't care less if it's removed or not, it's more the immediate, kneejerk reaction to remove. Why not just issue a statement, "sorry, no intent to offend". Done.

But I hear what you're saying, it's an entirely different culture, and most of us have no frame of reference.

Perhaps Harada is a religious man & wouldn't like it if something similar happened to his deity of choice, again the point is that this had nothing to do with artistic integrity, they had no idea what it said so they were fine changing it & that is Haradas/Namcos right (& therefore any people wanting the texture returned are far worse than the original complainers).

As for the frame of reference , is empathy such a foreign concept on Gaf these days?
 
Wow. I can't believe his post went directly over that many people's heads, even after thoroughly explaining it multiple times. Hilarious.
I can't believe people actually think that that's a good argument. Everyone can be offended, but it's the feeling of people that they have extra rights because of it that he's denouncing. The point is going straight over your head. Banning people on a forum because of speech that goes counter to productive discussion and communication is something entirely different to banning people on a forum because you're offended by their statements. It has also nothing to do with free speech in general.
 
He called Stephen Fry a faggot. People on Gaf got offended.

But, you know, he really didn't. He was making a point that sailed stupidly high over some folks head. A crass way to do it, but succinct. Thread was just jam packed with irony.

In any event, people lately seem to want to break down this "overly offended" and "asshole" thing into binary, when reality is so much more nuanced.

There are people who are too easily offended. There are people who are overly offensive. There are people who, because of circumstances beyond understanding of others, own a level of reaction they are entitled to. There are some who use that position to browbeat others. There are some who use that as a gateway to be offensive without consideration, then use it as a scapegoat. Etc.
 
Huh, I expected something very different from the title. Almost the exact opposite actually. Because I think we've gone a bit too far in the other direction where its not okay to be offended because you don't have a right to find anything offensive, that you just have to accept literally everything everyone else says without emotional reaction.
Why without emotional reaction? Any reaction within the boundaries of the law (or more important, morality) is alright. It's the forceful silencing, boundaries set by the law on free speech that are the issue, which has nothing to do with any 'reaction' to free speech, your 'emotional reaction' is just as well free speech.
 
I don't think you understand how religion works, to a Muslim that is hugely offensive(also given that it was unintentional & Harada seemed to have no issue removing it, it strikes me as very interesting to see all the complaints about its removal, given that no artistic integrity has been compromised, it's almost as if any chance to complain about Muslims is jumped on).

You make the same exact scenario with any other religion and there's nowhere near as much uproar.

Why does Islam get special treatment?
 
Damn, I'm old. I remember a thread about this same exact topic from GAF a few years ago. I went searching for it, and found one from 2008.

But anyway, everyone wants to be all holier-than-thou.
 
Scribe's response to that Stephen fry picture was neither correct or "mind blowing". It's hard to believe any one of basic intelligence could come to that conclusion.
 
Same is true for the Stephen Fry picture. I think the awesome thing about Scribe's response was that it brought out the hypocrisy.

How though? What hypocrisy? Did Fry call him to tell him he's offended? Did he tell him to stop? Does Fry not/being offended lessen the rights of Scribe? I honestly don't see where the hypocrisy is.
 
As a gay man I don't get offended by anti-gay remarks. I get pissed off by the disrespect and then make sure that the party involved is set straight, pardon the pun.

Aren't we just bandying semantics here? How is "offended" different than "pissed off"? They make comments you don't like, you get offended and try to set them straight. I'm not being snarky, I honestly don't see any difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom