THE SERIOUS STICKS DIDJERIDU FORUM

WELCOME !
It is currently 15.11.2018, 16:28

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04.09.2007, 11:42 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 20.03.2006, 10:41
Posts: 1503
Location: UK
Your atrocious spelling offends me Paul.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04.09.2007, 12:11 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 23.06.2006, 15:36
Posts: 625
Location: Manchester England
Well I have requested the forum be updated with a spell checker

or is that chekker?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04.09.2007, 12:28 
I think its chequer

offence is also down to interpritation with the above argument on previous pages the guys in the states thought they were doing no wrong and from a Youlngu point of view is the worst offence ever type thing again all down to interpritation like beuty is in the eye of the be holder. I personnaly can see both points of view from both an artistic point of view and also from a cultural point of view.

however look at history for example take the charlie chan films lead role played by a white actor as in holiwood and america in general no "ethnic minority" could play a lead role. these days I think Jackie Chan would take you to court and would win. Just cultural differences and ignorance over the years. Also afro american and native african imagry over the years.

what Im getting at is attitudes change for better or worse and one persons/nations view may and will differ from other individuals and nations as a whole (i dont need to get into war in afganisdtan iraq).

we need to start to drop this thread in its current form as it is getting far to heavy (for me at least just my personal opinion not trying to offend).

I kind of get the inpression that the guys in the states now realise they were causing offence and have appologised and hopefully will make some connection with Yolngu elders and everything will be hunky dorry.

but at the mo the reason I think we need to get away from indavidual "slaggings" is because its geting in to HE said this and you dis'nt do that and quiet frankly this is not the place to do it (apart from through P.M's) and also im preaty bored with that side of things yes carry on the descusion about offence by all means but can we leave nasty individual slagging and bitching out of this (however friendly banter is OK).

for example Kyle dont think a yank has any place to talk about spelling ie centre, center TEE HEE :D


lets keep it clean and HEY LETS BE CAREFUL OUT THERE

OH and yes having been Dyslexic John, Chris is it poss to get a spell check on here or is it a real pain?


Last edited by stockie on 04.09.2007, 12:50, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04.09.2007, 12:48 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02.05.2006, 03:21
Posts: 632
Paul wrote:
If someone told me I had offended them I would want to know why and reflect on my actions. I don't think it would per say mean I had been offensive

There are over values that I hold dearly that are in conflict with this notion
Freedom of speach, Freedom of expression

Someone once defined racism in a similar way "if someone percieves you to have been racist you have been


Paul, without wanting to go all spiderman on you 'with great power comes great responsibility'.

It is great having freedom to do and say as you please, but not at the cost of others.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04.09.2007, 13:13 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 23.06.2006, 15:36
Posts: 625
Location: Manchester England
Quote:
Paul, without wanting to go all spiderman on you 'with great power comes great responsibility'.

It is great having freedom to do and say as you please, but not at the cost of others.



As I've said Dan I do not suggest anyone go out of their way to offend but its full of shades of grade - And I did very clearly sate "within reason" there is always a line to be drawn

Look at it this way - How many great works of art / literature / film would not have reached the masses because they offended?

Lady Chanterly's Lover (attempts to ban it through the courts), Animal Farm (Orwell struggled to get a publisher), The life of Brian, American Physco, the works of Gustov Glimt, A certain book by a booker prize winner who's up for a knighthood, Pretty much anything by Irvine Welsh, A clockwork orange, Harry Potter? (acussed of promoting the Ocult)

I've lived long enough on this planet to realise that personal freedom can only go so far. At some point your actions in the name of freedom enfringe on the freedom of another individual

As with anything in life if something is deemed offencive its a personal and societal moral call -

I'm just not comfortable with the notion that if an individual finds offense in something we should necceserally address it (or not address it), its like everything in life complex -

The Christian church found it deeply offensive when capernicus said the earth was round -



What is this great power you speak of Dan?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04.09.2007, 13:16 
Offline

Joined: 18.07.2007, 13:03
Posts: 41
Location: Tameside, UK
DanielSaan wrote:

Paul, without wanting to go all spiderman on you 'with great power comes great responsibility'.

It is great having freedom to do and say as you please, but not at the cost of others.



Nail on the head, DanielSaan.

Changing ourselves to avoid all offence to every other person on the planet would be futile, and have us all sitting in chairs unable to speak to anybody for fear of causing outrage.

Offending people is an inevitable consequence of human interaction.

But, there is a difference between indivudal and structural offence, and it is structural offence (i.e. offence to a cultural, religion, creed. etc) that is up for discussion here.

This is similar to the UK police being labelled 'institutionally racist' after the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.

Whether a remark is offensive to a culture comes down to power, as DanielSaan says. If you have power, you can offend; if you don't, you can't.

Offending someone is an act (intentional or not) of restating the power you have over them.

Feminists I know say that a woman cannot be sexist because all men are in a position of power simply by being men. I don't agree with this, but it gets the point across. Soldiers matching into a country, assuming control and handing out footballs are completely in a position of power, and so can be offensive. The kids receiving the balls cannot be offensive to the soldiers because they have no 'political' power to influence the soldiers.

Saying this, I am in no position to discuss whether the white western world has power over the Yolngu.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04.09.2007, 13:19 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 23.06.2006, 15:36
Posts: 625
Location: Manchester England
Quote:
All we can do is look around us for clues. If someone tells us they are offended, then we have 'been offensive'. We cannot rationalise out way out of it. We have to change.



Then




Quote:
Changing ourselves to avoid all offence to every other person on the planet would be futile, and have us all sitting in chairs unable to speak to anybody for fear of causing outrage.



I'm a little confused nest mate????? :? :? :? :?

Me thinks from your second statement we are on common ground?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04.09.2007, 13:31 
Offline

Joined: 18.07.2007, 13:03
Posts: 41
Location: Tameside, UK
Paul wrote:
Quote:
All we can do is look around us for clues. If someone tells us they are offended, then we have 'been offensive'. We cannot rationalise out way out of it. We have to change.



Then




Quote:
Changing ourselves to avoid all offence to every other person on the planet would be futile, and have us all sitting in chairs unable to speak to anybody for fear of causing outrage.



I'm a little confused nest mate????? :? :? :? :?

Me thinks from your second statement we are on common ground?



Yeah, sorry Paul. Didn't make myself clear.

My first statement is about offending cultures

My second statement applies to being personal, i.e. asking someone who is fat if they are pregnant and offending them.


But saying this, I think Stockie is right about dropping the thread. I am in work mode and fast approaching work-like thinking. I'm dangerously close to embarrassing myself by trying to be a smart-arse.

A bit full on for a didj forum, and I haven't really earned the right to throw more wood into the fire, considering the real point of this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04.09.2007, 13:35 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 23.06.2006, 15:36
Posts: 625
Location: Manchester England
No worries Nest

Catch up with you on another thread


Good luck with the didging


:wink: :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06.09.2007, 13:05 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02.05.2006, 03:21
Posts: 632
Paul wrote:
Quote:
Paul, without wanting to go all spiderman on you 'with great power comes great responsibility'.

It is great having freedom to do and say as you please, but not at the cost of others.



As I've said Dan I do not suggest anyone go out of their way to offend but its full of shades of gray - And I did very clearly state "within reason" there is always a line to be drawn.


I agree, lots of shades of gray! What you're missing is that free speech may be a right, but that does not give people the right to shoot their mouths off! My point is that people should take care a bit - in a transaction between people, both sides should feel that they came out of it with their respect intact. Of course there are exceptions, but generally I think that should be the case.


Paul wrote:
Look at it this way - How many great works of art / literature / film would not have reached the masses because they offended?

Lady Chanterly's Lover (attempts to ban it through the courts), Animal Farm (Orwell struggled to get a publisher), The life of Brian, American Physco, the works of Gustov Glimt, A certain book by a booker prize winner who's up for a knighthood, Pretty much anything by Irvine Welsh, A clockwork orange, Harry Potter? (acussed of promoting the Occult)


I admire the range of books/films there mate, although I am amused to see chocolate orange in the sqme boat as lady chatterly's lover! To be honest, I view books and free speech in a different way to how I view conversation and free speach, simply because of how books are seen. You can put a book down it it upsets you, where as a conversation is a little harder to stop....

Paul wrote:
I've lived long enough on this planet to realise that personal freedom can only go so far. At some point your actions in the name of freedom enfringe on the freedom of another individual


Agreed

Paul wrote:
As with anything in life if something is deemed offencive its a personal and societal moral call - I'm just not comfortable with the notion that if an individual finds offense in something we should necceserally address it (or not address it), its like everything in life complex - The Christian church found it deeply offensive when capernicus said the earth was round -


Of course, it is all subjective Paul. That I don't dispute. But the right to say what you like should be tempered with some common sense - e.g. if you know what you ae going to say may cause a rumpus and upset people then either say it and be aware of that, or say it more tastefully, and open a dialogue with them and discuss the point through. What pisses me off is when people try to be controversial just to get a rise out of others :)

Paul wrote:
What is this great power you speak of Dan?


Flight!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06.09.2007, 13:58 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 23.06.2006, 15:36
Posts: 625
Location: Manchester England
I think we are actually saying similiar things in different ways Dan


I'm not quite sure how you got the idea I was suggesting anyone had the right to "shoot their mouth off"


I have I think stated twice "I am not suggesting anyone go out of the way to cause offense" and "within' reason"

Quote:
What you're missing is that free speech may be a right, but that does not give people the right to shoot their mouths off!


I don't think I'm "missing" that concept whatsoever Dan

Anyway don't worry, I won't take offense at the patronising overtones of your comment :shock: :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink:


Last edited by Paul on 06.09.2007, 14:19, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06.09.2007, 14:15 
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I thought this was rapping up with the he said you did :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :x :x :x :x :x :x :x


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06.09.2007, 14:23 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 17.03.2006, 21:22
Posts: 1002
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06.09.2007, 14:32 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 20.03.2006, 10:41
Posts: 1503
Location: UK
It's because Paul isn't doing any work. In boredom he continues to thrash out these online debates! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06.09.2007, 14:36 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 23.06.2006, 15:36
Posts: 625
Location: Manchester England
Quote:
It's because Paul isn't doing any work. In boredom he continues to thrash out these online debates! Lachen



Just trying to get ot all out of my system whilst I still can :x :x :x :x :x :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Come to think of it Maplesden your user name seems a perminant fixture on this forum :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group. Color scheme by ColorizeIt.