Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

Why the big long newsletter about people not being offended below today's comic?

<< < (5/8) > >>

Random832:

--- Quote from: Jeans on 14 Feb 2010, 15:48 ---
--- Quote from: Dizzious on 14 Feb 2010, 07:28 ---It's quite blatantly obvious that comic 1595 was not meant to offend anyone.
--- End quote ---
To you, maybe, but judging by the reaction of most people here I would say that no, it's not really blatantly obvious at all! You've clearly decided that it is, so of course it will be to you, but in retrospect, I can easily see how the comic could be misinterpreted even though I didn't react at all when I read it originally.
--- End quote ---

There is an attitude I have observed - and it most often comes up regarding questions of this sort of thing - that it's impossible for someone to simply be _wrong_ - in the sense of being factually incorrect - about something they take offense to. That every interpretation is somehow equally valid.

Go look up the urban legends about the etymologies of the word "picnic" and the term "call a spade a spade".

pwhodges:
Only if you are minded to see any  expression of a view you disagree with (in this case merely supposed) as derogatory to you.  We may understand people being super-sensitive - but that doesn't mean that we have to pretend that's an appropriate reaction.

Mr_Rose:

--- Quote from: Jeans on 15 Feb 2010, 09:25 ---But it wasn't a super-sensitive reaction.
--- End quote ---
Yes it was. A cartoon character made a statement about itself and dozens (hundreds?) of people jumped to the conclusion that the character's statement about itself was not only representative of the personal views of the author, but that it also meant that the author felt the same way about all relationships of the same class and was therefore pronouncing a moral or other judgement of those people.

Yes that's right, apparently when someone not you uses the word "I" to refer to themselves, they really mean "Me and everybody like me ever, especially if it includes you" now.

That is the most retarded line of un-reasoning since Fox Television broadcast that 'documentary' that declared the moon landings had been faked, in part because the American flag was seen to be flapping in a still photograph.

Johnny C:

--- Quote from: Dizzious on 08 Feb 2010, 14:09 [email protected]

--- End quote ---

I wrote a long reply but scrapped it and sent it to this mailbox instead. I hope to hear back from you soon.

Mr_Rose:

--- Quote from: Jeans on 15 Feb 2010, 10:16 ---Jeph wouldn't been the first author to make a character represent a particular group as a whole. That wasn't the case, clearly, but are you saying there is literally no way it could have been reasonably interpreted that way?
--- End quote ---
So just because others from group X have done bad thing Y, everyone from group X is automatically under suspicion of Y? That's basic discrimination logic you got there; are you sure you want to endorse that as even slightly rational?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page