What is, and what should be, the standard for determining racial insensitivity?

[BvBPL]

Been thinking a lot about racial insensitivity lately, from Jesse Jackson's campaign against shackle shoes to the racist typeface.

What do you think the appropriate standard should be for determining whether or not something is racially insensitive or offensive?

In law, there's a "reasonable person" standard for a variety of things. A homicide may be justifiable as self-defense if a reasonable person in the same circumstance thought his life would be in jeopardy unless he took action against the other guy. Is a reasonable person standard applicable in determining whether an item is or is not racially insensitive, or should the bar be set lower to something like a "thin skinned" standard where some who takes offense somewhat more easily than a reasonable person would?

 

[warpus]

I don't think that such a thing is possible.

Look for example at how people will beat you down if you use the dreaded n-word. You'll even get an infraction if you use it on this message board! It's a big no-no..

But using another racist term, for another group of people? Most of those are perfectly acceptable, even on this message board. Heck, I can even type one out without having to worry that I'll get an infraction: But I won't, cause I'm a classy guy.. and besides, I kinda like Polish people anyway

You're asking for something that is an appeal to emotion to be quantified.

 

[holy king]

yeah, there is no such standard, especially not world-wide. gypsy, gypsy, gypsy, gyspy.

 

[Flying Pig]

If it offends people, it's the duty of a decent person not to do it, unless they intend to upset those people. Simple enough.

 

[History_Buff]

Impossible to say for sure. But I think a good litmus test (for the internet and tv and such) is that if less than 100 people are offended, it's probably those people that are wrong.

 

[BvBPL]

You're asking for something that is an appeal to emotion to be quantified.

It is relatively simple to quantify emotions. I don't see why a perceived inability to quantify emotions should keep us from developing a standard on this issue.

 

[Flying Pig]

Impossible to say for sure. But I think a good litmus test (for the internet and tv and such) is that if less than 100 people are offended, it's probably those people that are wrong.

Depends on the size of the audience, surely?

 

[warpus]

It is relatively simple to quantify emotions. I don't see why a perceived inability to quantify emotions should keep us from developing a standard on this issue.

Because the emotions in America associated with the n-word run a lot stronger than those with its equal-yet-not-perceived-to-be-as-equal p-word, for example. If even the admins on this very site can't get it right, how can you expect society at large to?

 

[History_Buff]

Depends on the size of the audience, surely?

Surely.

 

[Synobun]

I only find people racist if they take actions to discriminate against another ethinicity/colour. For example, if you say "Blacks are inferior", that is racist.

If you wear shoes that happen to have plastic/rubber shackles on them, you are fine.

People find racism in places it doesn't exist because they WANT to see racism.

 

[Zelig]

I recommend a committee of mathematicians/physicists for setting most standards.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

On a personal level it's not too onerous to tailor ones standard to the views of the other person. Accommodating other peoples sensitivities won't kill ya, even if you think they are being over sensitive. Of course it's important to tell it like it is and speak your mind, but sometimes tact trumps this.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

In principle I concur that no such standard is advisable. It is a thing which rests on perception, on culture. And that are no firm qualities, but are the product of an ongoing process of social development. An objective standard goes against the very nature of it, it would be a try to cement what is meant to be ever-changing.
On the other hand, if not cement, one could try to guide this process by establishing some principles. Like the principle that when in doubt if racism really is implied intentionally or in a way that most people will see it like that, personal freedom should trump sensitivity. As to use sensitivity as an argument always means to impose on the freedom of others because you feel like it, which I think calls for cautious use and earns people who seem to do the opposite my disdain.

 

[Lillefix]

If it offends people, it's the duty of a decent person not to do it, unless they intend to upset those people. Simple enough.

You know what, I completely disagree. Just because some random person says a certain action insults them, doesn't make it anyones duty not to do it. That position you take is one giant slippery slope. I agree one should use common sense and so on, but I don't really think you have thought completely through what you just said.

 

[Flying Pig]

OK, I'll clarify - if you know it's going to offend somebody, then it's your duty not to do it, unless you're accepting responsibiity for that offence - for example, I wouldn't ever have drunk on a Sunday in front of my father, because I know that would have upset him, even though I don't believe that there's anything wrong with it and actually think his belief was a bit silly. Mind you, I am British; the New York attitude doesn't really wash with us.

It offends me that you have an opposing view to someone else. Please refrain from doing so again before I break down in tears over the level of emotional trauma you are causing me.

Alright, point taken - in this case I think 'man up you fairy' would be appropriate!

 

[Synobun]

You know what, I completely disagree. Just because some random person says a certain action insults them, doesn't make it anyones duty not to do it. That position you take is one giant slippery slope. I agree one should use common sense and so on, but I don't really think you have thought completely through what you just said.

It offends me that you have an opposing view to someone else. Please refrain from doing so again before I break down in tears over the level of emotional trauma you are causing me.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, what Flying Pig said. Want to be a good person? Then try not to offend people, and if you do, apologise and correct yourself in the future. It's not always easy being a good person; if it were, there'd only be a heaven.

 

[Synobun]

Yeah, what Flying Pig said. Want to be a good person? Then try not to offend people, and if you do, apologise and correct yourself in the future. It's not always easy being a good person; if it were, there'd only be a heaven.

I don't care if I offend people if they get offended by stupid things.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't care if I offend people if they get offended by stupid things.

Well, I think however you look at it, that's not a 'decent' or 'gentlemanly' way to live your life - you might not place any value on that, but I think the whole point of a thread about insensitivity is that we start from the premise that living decently is inherently a good thing.

 

[warpus]

OK, I'll clarify - if you know it's going to offend somebody, then it's your duty not to do it, unless you're accepting responsibiity for that offence - for example, I wouldn't ever have drunk on a Sunday in front of my father, because I know that would have upset him, even though I don't believe that there's anything wrong with it and actually think his belief was a bit silly. Mind you, I am British; the New York attitude doesn't really wash with us.

People don't have a right to not be offended, but I do take your approach with dealing with people I like and/or am related to, for obvious reasons... Also, usually. I have offended a great deal of people in my family by expressing my views on catholicism, christanity, God, etc. But in that case I did not desist and voiced them anyway because members of my family deserve to know what the hell I believe and why. My beliefs are not hateful in nature and are born out of straight logic, which is something a lot of people can appreciate even if they disagree.

Anyway, I disagree that it is your duty to do things that do not offend people; it depends on the level with which you agree that the offensiveness is warranted or not. I'm not going to go out of my way to offend people, because I'm not a jerk, and I know how to behave in an African-American dominated neighbourhood and what sort of phrases to avoid there (andthank you that die hard 3) for example.. and when I travel abroad I avoid doing things that might offend the locals, as silly as their sensibilities might be..

but when I'm at home in my own geographical area I am going to offend people from time to time. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just being myself. The fact that you have been offended has been noted and IGNORED. YOU MAY NOW GO ON WITH YOUR LIFE