AWKWARD ZOMBIE

This discussion kinda reminds me of the situation I asked about before, where apparently my vulgar sense of humor isn't allowed in front of "polite company" where that "polite company" is a woman, and I'm being informed of this by someone who isn't the woman in question.

The other guy is offended for the woman at my sense of humor.
I'm slightly offended at the simple fact that she should be offended simply because she's a woman.
At this point, we've yet to even take into account how offended the woman in question even is, if at all.

So then that's just it, there are varieties of "offensiveness", even some in response to other forms of offense. What determines the level of who's more offended? Is it the other guy, who's acting offended for the woman, me, who's also acting offended for the woman on the grounds of why the other guy is offended, or the woman in question, who hasn't even had a say in the levels of offense that are being thrown around?

Guy A tells a black joke.
Guy B is offended because his friend, Guy D is black.
Guy C is offended because he's black, even though he was just passing by and overheard the joke that wasn't meant for him.
Guy D isn't offended at all, and maybe even found the joke a little funny.
Guy A is now offended that Guy B thinks Guy D should be offended.
Guy C is wedging himself into the conversation to note how offended he is.
Guy D is now offended that Guy C is wedging himself into the conversation.
Guy C is now offended that Guy D isn't offended.
Guy D is offended that Guy C thinks he should be offended.
Guy B is agreeing with Guy C.
Guy C is asking if Guy B should even be offended.
Guy B is offended over Guy C thinking he's not allowed to be offended.
Guy A has slipped off to Sonic for a milkshake in the confusion.

Offensiveness is purely subjective, yet everyone feels their level of "offended" is in the right, when the real truth in the matter is that the level of "offended" you are will change on a moment's notice in response to nearly everything around you. This even includes things that aren't even designed to be offensive, and the level of "offended" other people are to various things in the same environment you're interacting with.

So then who's in the right? How do we judge? Is there a criteria? Should Guy A have started the black joke, realized Guy D was black, and then stopped because it could possibly be offensive?

Guy D is now offended that Guy A thinks that, just because he's black, he can't handle a black joke...

We're back to square 1...

That's a contrived situation which you've just made up. As it stands, it's less meaningful than an anecdote, which already wouldn't be terribly meaningful.

Regardless, being offended on someone's behalf isn't really relevant here - Jontron made a joke, people expressed that they were offended, these same people labeled the joke as offensive, and now I guess you're trying to disagree with them? First of all, if they're offended they're offended. That's it. We don't get to decide who can and cannot be offended by something - everyone has their own reasons for feeling the way they do. I am offended by lewd jokes or comments about females regardless of their presence or awareness. Are you going to tell me I have no right to be offended by base immaturity and disrespect? Perhaps my offense is less justifiable than a female's in the same situation, but I am still offended.

And obviously, other people around me probably won't be offended. There are going to be some people who aren't offended in any offensive situation. You're right that there are degrees of offensiveness. But if you think joking about the holocaust should fall on a lower rung, that it should offend fewer people than lewd jokes should? I would love to hear your reasoning.

By now we have firmly established that everyone has a right to be offended, whether or not more people are.

The discussion should really move forward to "what should we do about it?" Should someone who makes an "offensive" joke drop it? Should the offended party move away from the conversation? Should it be ignored entirely and life goes on like it used to?

My example was also to illustrate that offense is 100% fluid, and subjective in nature, not that it actually happened and that it proves the point. Besides, the point wasn't that offensive jokes should be made, it's that people should stop acting like the phrase "I'm offended" should end an argument in their favor.

You're offended by lewd jokes about women. OK. We won't make any around you. We're probably still going to be making those lewd jokes with or without your presence. If you're friends are making lewd jokes about women, and you want them to stop, talk to them. If they choose to be more careful, then alright. If not...well, luckily you can choose who your friends are. I wouldn't want to be friends with people who joke about things that offend me, so I'm not.

Being offended is a purely individual issue. The thing is that people will try to turn that individual issue into a public problem, which is wrong.

First of all, your fake anecdote doesn't demonstrate anything. Let's make sure that's understood.

Second of all, no one is trying to end the argument, (Except for you by reducing someone's offense into a ploy to win arguments.) they're trying to start a discussion. Like it or not, people were offended by the joke. That makes it factually offensive, by literal definition. Jontron should be made aware of how offensive his joke is, people should discuss their views on the joke, and maybe an apology is in order. (Because, you know, the joke offended people.)

And yeah, maybe he should stop making the joke. I personally found it moderately funny, but it was also very tasteless and could have been applied to something else, working just as well and offending virtually no one. Its humor doesn't really outweigh the offense it caused people.

Finally, this isn't an individual problem, unless you're confused about what the general public is made of. (The general public is a lot of individuals.)
Nobody is deliberately making it a public problem - it's becoming a public problem because it is offending part of the public.

Or maybe you seem to be saying people shouldn't speak out about their being offended? Which is weird to me, because you sure seem opposed to the idea that people shouldn't tell offensive jokes. Why would you think people shouldn't voice their discomfort?

You keep making numerous assumptions about my argument, and honestly I can't help but feel that your attitude makes you sound incredibly arrogant. "Let's make sure that's understood." The hell is that supposed to mean? Seriously.

Being offended is a personal problem, that's what my anecdote demonstrates. Different things offend different people, and what offends you is going to offend you, and it'd be a ridiculous assumption to make that just because something offends you, that it offends everyone else. Maybe it offends you, plus a handful of other people, but things that are offensive are better judged by how they offend individual people, not the population as a whole.

And yes, people do try to end arguments by talking about how offended they are, an argument they probably started by talking about how offended they are in the first place. What happens is someone tells a potentially offensive joke, and someone starts talking about how offensive it is. If the joke teller is polite, they'll apologize and make a mental note not to tell that caliber of joke around that person again. They'll still tell the joke in the presence of other company, but there's still the matter that the situation was made awkward by the fact that something someone said offended someone else in the group. That's not to say it's the individual's fault for being offended, or the other person's fault for not knowing that his joke would offend someone. That's bodaciously the entire point of the discussion. What I' saying is that ideally, you're not even going to subjugate yourself to any situation where the level of offense is that high. That includes both not associating with people who tell overly offensive jokes, and being more mindful of how your humor works.

That's the point I was trying to make, yet you keep making it about how I don't want people voicing their discomfort on a joke.

"Let's make sure that's understood" is my attempt to get you to stop making up anecdotes to prove a point. I guess it's not working. Real anecdotes are frowned upon in serious discussion; I can't take you seriously when you try to argue by completely engineering one. Your fake anecdote demonstrates nothing.

Nobody is saying that the joke offended the population as a whole. The joke did not offend every person on earth, and no one is saying it did. It offended members of the population, though. That means that it offended members of the public. Members of the public are offended.
Like I said, no one made this a public issue deliberately. It became a public issue when it offended a nontrivial part of the public.

It doesn't even matter if some people aren't offended. There are a lot of people who are. You don't say "yeah but look at this who isn't offended." That guy doesn't matter. The people who are offended do.

Okay so at this point I have to ask what you mean by end arguments. Is te ideal debate one that spirals on forever? Last I checked, discussion was usually supposed to involve reaching a consensus of understanding. In an argument, this means either one party changes their viewpoints or decides to stop talking.
Of course people are trying to end arguments. That's what you and I are doing with every sentence written here - seeking a resolution to the discussion via persuasion. How is "you're just trying to bring this debate to a conclusion" even remotely valid as criticism?

As for associating with people who tell offensive jokes, you're talking nonsense and you know it. People don't walk around with lists of the next ten possibly offensive jokes they're going to tell so people can avoid them. Sure, people can decide to avoid someone after try hear the joke, but that's a bit late. Regardless, "just avoid it" is terrible advice. People think Jontron is a funny guy. They want to follow his jokes, this one just struck a chord. So what do they do? They voice disapproval in the hopes that he'll be more considerate in the future so that they can follow him without being offended again. You don't just cut people out of your life because they told a rude joke.

Anyway, since your 'point' appears to be a large paragraph instead of a succinct statement, pardon me if I'm mistaken when I ask why this discussion is even happening. You seem to be of the opinion that people should be conscientious when telling jokes, which is exactly what people have been saying this while time.
What people are saying is that Jontron shouldn't have made such an offensive joke and that he should in some way own up to the fact that it offended so many people, and you're disagreeing with them and then you're saying people should be polite about jokes ?????

And before you say anything about telling the joke to different people, keep in mind he put it on his twitter feed. If anyone made it public, it was him.

And what I'm trying to say is that just because YOU'RE personally offended by something, it's not the most important part of the discussion. And I say "to end an argument" because much too often will someone try to win an argument by simply saying "Your opinion offends me" and nothing else, as though the simple fact that they're offended is supposed to claim victory and say that their personal viewpoint is morally right. What I was trying to prove is that just because you're offended, you shouldn't try to exert control over the discussion with the offendedness as the center. If that were the case, then all someone has to do is say "I'm offended that you're offended" and then by your logic be allowed to have the moral high ground.

Simply being offended isn't grounds for a point in an argument. Being offended can be a part of it, but when you make it the most important part of the discussion, you leave yourself open.

And second, you keep saying that what I'm saying is ridiculous, but you're not listening to a single thing I'm saying. "Just avoid it" isn't the advice I'm giving out, that's just what you're hearing. The advice I gave is to voice your discomfort, and then let your friend discate what happens next. If he stops telling the caliber of joke that discomforts you in your company, then fine. If he keeps doing it, even after multiple attempts to get him to stop, then maybe he's not the type of person who should be in your life. That's not avoiding a problem, that's having control over your own life. You choose to not associate yourself with people who you don't want to associate with.

Third, the only reason you're confused about my point is because you're not listening to it. You're ignoring it and substituting what you think it is, and using that to form your own confusion. Jontron should own up to the fact that his joke offended various people in the population, but at the same time he shouldn't be guilted, and chastised for being a terrible person simply because something he said was offensive. If that were how the world worked, nobody would be able to go about their lives because everyone does, and has done, at least one thing in their life to offend someone else on this planet.

For example, I'm still annoyed that you keep asking these irrelevant questions about a point I'm not trying to make. Should I guilt you for being a terrible person because I'm offended by the fact that you continually misrepresent my argument? I'm offended, so that means YOU need to change, right?

Okay, you're both getting a little personal with this whole thing. Too many fingers being pointed here. Settle it down a notch please.

I think I've discovered what makes me dangerously irrational: cuckolds and/or plain cheating. I read a webcomic called "Church of the Poisoned Minds," also known simply as SSDD. It's a upstanding member of society webcomic, but it has some witty dialogue, very intelligent speculation and philosophy, and interesting technology. The art isn't that great, but it's lasted this long (15+ years) and survives monthly server rent purely on donations.

However, there's a character by the name of Anne, a female red fox who identifies as the girlfriend of another protagonist named Richard. I haven't read a very large chunk of the archives (15+ years is difficult to catch up on with a 3G phone), but I'm just now discovering that- despite Richard being very talented in bed, or so their aftermaths would have you believe- she sleeps around behind his back often. I count at least two guys she's slept with, one being her boss and another being some other random shmuck. This made me neither mad nor aroused, but my head felt weird and my body began to tremble.

This isn't the first time this has happened. I've seen the HBO sitcom "Weeds" where the mother degenerates from selling pot small-time to support her family to being a full-on whore in absolute disrespect of her very good husband who died before the pilot episode of the show of a heart attack. I felt this same apprehension, and after thinking about it for a while, I've analyzed my feelings into a sentence: "These people should be killed." Not die, be killed. Again, this is not a statement generated out of any rage or personal upset that I can tell! It just pops into my unsettled brain when I see or read about it! It's not anger, jealousy, sympathy for the cheated spouse, sadness, or arousal. I just feel energy fill my arms and my entire body starts to shake, like a bizarre adrenalin rush.

In summation, it's my belief that this long-dormant quirk has recently surfaced. I can only be very glad that I was able to process it through fictitious works, because I get the sensation that this type of dishonest stimuli would fuel my inner serial killer. Unfortunately, this only reinforces the notion that socializing with my own age group would lead to a very bad incident if I were to come across a real example. I honestly couldn't say why, but I think cheaters are one of my hot berzerker buttons.

Advice? Thoughts? Please do not alert the authorities, I don't believe I'm actually a threat to anybody, and I don't know of anybody cheating.

EDIT: Never mind, I think it was just paranoia and withdrawal from a lack of caffeine combined with a lack of sleep. Delirium. Sorry, Great Handsome Oppressor.

First of all, this isn't the thread to talk about stuff like that (try the Confessions thread).
Second, thinking people who cheated on someone need to die is irrational and stupid. If you believe that you could be dangerous if you came across something like that in real life: Get professional help right now.
There's no need to talk about this further here.

What do you think it would take for the Olympian Cult to make a comeback in today's world?

Whether or not this is a good or effective video that can be a talking point, please put some context to your post. Don't just randomly throw media up on the thread. Do you agree or disagree? Do you smoke pot or hate it or not give a fuck or what?

Let's see some sentences.

First thing's first, I completely understand why anyone would not want to give out cheddar to someone as anti-LGTBQ as Orson Scott Card.

Though in saying that, I would gladly pay for books of the caliber he writes. Pathfinder and the Ender's Game series are pretty great reading, though I've only read Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, along with Pathfinder.

I guess what I'm trying to discuss here is why care about an author's politics?