Surely the recipient (or perhaps someone overhearing something directed at someone else) is the only person who can judge whether comments are insulting or hurtful? Sometimes the person making the comment needs to be made aware of the potential hurt caused.
So we cant say anything if only 1 person is offended by it? If I call my mate "fatboy" and hes ok with it but someone else is offended, why should I have to not call him that. Surely the problem lies with the other person. If we went with your ideas, wed only have TV that was approved by Mary Whitehouse.
Perhaps you're right, Stroller. But I've lost count of the number of times that I've said things in all innocence only for somebody to take great offence and spit back quite aggressively to me. I'm sure that on some occasions this is completely and utterly down to my own ignorance, but I'm equally sure that a small minority of people spend time looking for things to take offence at. Some careers, reputations and livelihoods have been destroyed by intolerant zealots such as this. The way some reacted to the crass comments Inverdale made about that tennis player is a reasonable example, although the outcry seems to have died down for now. I just feel that some people at times need to toughen up, grow a thicker skin and move on. As I said in a much earlier post, it can sometimes be as simple as sticks & stones versus words. [Note: I deliberately litter my comments with terms such as 'perhaps', 'sometimes', 'maybe', 'seems' etc. as I have learned that some people like to rail against opinions they believe others hold as opposed what has actually been said]
I think that perhaps the point is that something said between friends can be laughed off but others said in an aggresive and hostile manner in public can have a detrimental effect on those that hear them, even if they are not the intended recipient.
Yes but she thought she should be the only one who should be allowed to deem what was allowed. If 99% of people think boobs on TV are ok, why should the 1% be allowed to take them off the air. If 99% of people think saying something is ok, why should the 1% be allowed to make that thing unacceptable?
If such comments are to be considered a crime, or at least a misdemeanour worthy of some form of censure or punishment, then why stop at just those levelled at particular groups such as homosexuals, blacks, women etc.? Surely an offended person is an offended person, in which case any form of insult given to any person should be treated in the same way and judged solely on the basis of whether offence was taken or not? How does one value the offence taken by one party over another?
Fair enough, Uber. On balance though, I think that the dreaded 'political correctness' has proved to be a positive thing, if overdone at times. As SB said, kids today have much better understanding of others' 'differences' than I did at their age.
I think it's rather the wider, historical context that makes certain types of prejudice appear more offensive. In the past, and indeed present, blacks, homosexuals, women and other minority groups, whether religious or ethnic, have been persecuted on the basis of these attributes. Therefore, in the eyes of the law and society more generally abusive behaviour directetd towards or about these groups is taken more seriously than everyday insults that might be bandied around more lightly. Of course, the offence caused can be the same or similar but the underlying issues are quite separate. After all, I'm not aware of too many attacks against individuals on the basis of, say, their weight or hair colour.
If I punch you in the face because you are gay or because you are wearing a chelsea shirt. Does one punch cause more pain or injury than the other? All crimes should be treated the same, no matter what the cause. As south park once again got it right, if you are going to punch a person, you have to make sure they are the same colour/sex/orientation as you. Plenty of football fans have been attacked purely on the basis of their support and Im not aware that we need any new laws for this.
I take it you never went to school then? Among the kids that got bullied most were the overweight ones or those with ginger hair and i cannot imagine mine was the only one like that. You are of course correct on the whole though in that gangs of skinheads don't wander the streets looking for fat people or gingers.
I'm not really sure why you're trying to make this personal or why you enjoying adopting such an antagonistic, aggressive tone. But I guess that's just your way. Firstly, you'd be hard pressed to find me in a Chelsea shirt! And, no, a punch hurts irregardless of the reasons its was thrown. But it's really the motivations for such crimes that need to be dealt with. Besides, it's quite ridiculous to suggest that no new laws have been brought in to deal with violence amongst and between football supporters - quite the opposite, in fact.
So you are suggesting its worse to punch a gay bloke than a straight bloke then and the penalties should reflect that because thats what happens. Im not aware of football fans getting worse sentences because they attacked another football fan. I have no problem with everyone being treated equally, I have a problem when they want superior treatment.
Now you're mixing up laws with sentences. And I'm not sure where you get the idea that I've deemed one crime worse than another - you're the one that created this hypothetical situation. But crimes that are motivated by hatred of a particular minority group are more serious, in my opinion. However, my ORIGINAL comments were simply about the use of language and how using particular terms might cause offence, perhaps unwittingly, to those around us. I've never met you, but perhaps you think it's acceptable to direct racist/homophobic abuse towards a football player because you deem it banter. If so, fine. All I'm saying is that there are consequences to these actions, even unintended ones. From my perspective, calling a player a fog, for example, because he is injured or feigning injury is completely unjustified because it uses the term (whichever term) in an entirely derogatory context which has no bearing on the issue of sexuality. So, yes, I think there's a world of difference between using that sort of language and calling someone a wonker or the like.
