Are we sure he’s got a Star Trek themed license plate, and not a Skinny Puppy themed license plate? He is Canadian, after all.
3 Likes
For me, the difference can revolve around context. If the guy had a bumper sticker about borg-style assimilation, I’d say he gets to keep it. But, this is a license plate issued by a governmental agency, so the bar for remove-this-because-it-is-offensive is lower, simply because a governmental agency should be more sensitive to offending people and strive harder to avoid it. In this instance, some people were offended enough to file a complaint and the basis of that offensiveness is reasonable to me- that it could be seen to refer to native/aboriginal people’s suffering, especially since the license plate was present in a community that was deeply scarred by white/colonial assimilation.
10 Likes
What’s the groupthink? The 27 comments that suggest that we should be considerate to people who won’t get the Star Trek reference / who think it’s important to be considerate of first nations? Or the 27 comments that suggest that one person or group’s offense shouldn’t matter so much / the real problem is too many people getting offended? Or the 2 comments that appear conflicted between the two.
(The remaining comments are jokes, asides and discussions about Star Trek)
It’s always seemed to me that people who complain about other people getting offended seem to exaggerate the number of people who disagree with them and underestimate the number of people who agree with them. Actual counting usually reveals they are usually the majority, but they present themselves as a minority being shouted down by masses of activists.
11 Likes
I wonder has this conversation ever happened in the real world:
Offender: [something someone takes offense to]
Offendee: hey, that’s offensive!
Offender: oh, sorry. I didn’t mean to be, why is it offensive?
Offendee: [explains why it’s offensive]
Offender: oh, I see. that’s understandable, but I was actually referring to [thing that isn’t offensive]
Offendee: oh, I see. that’s understandable, that’s ok then! have a nice day.
Offender: you too!
7 Likes
the real world probably… the internet, never.
9 Likes
Isn’t there a difference between a casual conversation and a government issued plate?
9 Likes
no, there isn’t.
There absolutely is.
Thank you for demonstrating the real reason that your supposed scenario would not happen:
Offender: [something someone takes offense to]
Offendee: hey, that’s offensive!
Offender: I don’t care
Offendee: [explains why it’s offensive]
Offender: I don’t care.
Thank you for also reminding me that polite questions will not invite similarly polite discussion on the internet.
13 Likes
What was impolite?
My original scenario should still hold in an interaction with the government (in that example the ‘offendee’ might be two parties, the government licence plate issuer and the offended person(s), and offender is still just the person with the licence plate), as long as the situation is a case where someone is offended because they had made a faulty assumption about another person’s intentions/beliefs/actions.
We could just as easily script the interaction thusly:
Offender: [something someone takes offense to]
Offendee: hey, that’s offensive!
Offender: oh, sorry. I didn’t mean to be, why is it offensive?
Offendee: [explains why it’s offensive]
Offender: oh, I see. that’s understandable, but I was actually referring to [thing that isn’t offensive]
Offendee: I don’t care.
my first example was the only one of the three hypothetical interactions where both parties actually cared what the other person said.
This is where I have tried to ask the question to determine “where is the line”
Is it at: One negative context outweighs the many non-negative contexts?
Is it at: Two people being offended out of 10? (or whatever the ratio is actually at - because I do not think there is actual data on that)
Is it simply: Zero tolerance?
This isn’t really about star Trek, or the Borg, or honestly even the concept of assimilation itself. Its about at what point does the person or people who are offended outweigh those who are not. You can apply this to any dividing line issue. And while no one should argue “its a slippery slope!!” because that never gets you anywhere good or productive…The reality is its a slippery something.
I actually feel this situation is a direct relation to the Washington Redskins team name/mascot issue. It draws so many parallels to me.
@caze Not only do I think that convo has never happened. I personally think if it did the world will spontaneously implode.
I think the problem is that it doesn’t matter what the count is, it’s that the people in charge took away this guy’s license plate, even though it wasn’t intended to be offensive. So the people who are easily offended won, and that’s what counts.
Rather than heal broken societies, many people would prefer to erase any reminder of the rifts, even accidental reminders, because it’s much easier to do.
3 Likes
Unfortunately the latter is bleeding into the former more every day. I don’t know if the internet is the cause, but we’re becoming an angrier and more spiteful planet day by day.
3 Likes
It may not be fair nor accurate to label them as “easily” offended. They were offended…period.
2 Likes
How about this conversation?
Offender: [something someone takes offense to]
Offendee: hey, that’s offensive!
Offender: oh, sorry. I didn’t mean to be, why is it offensive?
Offendee: [explains why it’s offensive]
Offender: oh, I see. that’s understandable, but I was actually referring to [thing that isn’t offensive]
Offendee: oh, I see. that’s understandable, but you might want to avoid that phrase now that you know people are offended by it.
Offender: I sure will!
People who say offensive things like to present people get who offended as the unreasonable ones. I think once you know that that a certain word or phrase offends people, you get to personally make a choice between what you care about more: the feelings of other people or using that specific word or phrase. If it’s the latter, then how can anyone take that as anything other than you being a jerk?
I’ve been in situations on several occasions where I had the conversation you presented, even on the internet. If you genuinely want to have that conversation, and you aren’t just presenting it as an impossibility to be smug about how unreasonable other people are, I have a few tips:
- Don’t say, “Why is it offensive?” The word “why” get’s people’s backs up and makes them feel like they are being told to justify themselves. Try to rephrase using the word “what” like “What about it offended you?”
- Don’t expect them to educate you. Usually if you don’t know why something is offensive you can type it into google and find out. I know we’re having a conversation, but acknowledging that you are asking for help when you ask them to explain what’s offensive is useful. “If you don’t mind, could you tell me what I said that offended you?”
- If you feel the need to explain yourself, make sure you also validate the point they are making. “That’s understandable” seems like decent shorthand for that in your mock conversation so you’ve got this one.
- Accept that if they think you were saying something racist, they are going to enter the discussion with a bit of hostility and develop the fortitude to endure that.
So:
Licence plate guy: Assimilate!
Indigenous person: That’s racist!
Licence plate guy: Oh wow! I didn’t think I was being racist. Would you mind telling me what struck you that way?
Indigenous person: Residential schools?!?
Licence plate guy: Oh! I didn’t think about it that way. I meant it to be a reference to Star Trek. Now that you point this out I see why it would be hurtful to some people.
Indigenous person: Oh, the borg? I didn’t even think of that. I just assumed it was directed at immigrants.
Licence plate guy: Immigrants? I thought you said it was about residential schools?
Indigenous person: Most of the time when people say racist stuff they are talking about Muslim immigrants these days. People forget that indigenous people even exist.
Licence plate guy: Maybe this isn’t the best licence plate in the world.
Because without that last line, how is this a reasonable exchange at all? How is licence plate guy being reasonable, driving around town, knowing that some fraction of the population is seeing his plate and thinking, “What a racist shitbag,” and that not all of them are having this reasonable conversation with him to find out he’s just a Star Trek fan? Are there no other borg themed licence plates in the world? WERBORG not good enough? LOCUTUS? 8 OF 9? I could come up with these all day.
27 Likes
The problem isn’t that someone was offended, or that the plate was surrendered. The problem is that there was no dialogue at all to even see if the two sides could reach a common ground. The default position is to not even try to bridge understanding, and instead just fight over it or make sarcastic jokes. And I love sarcastic jokes, but it shouldn’t be our only other option beside rage.
Maybe no common ground was possible. But we no longer even try. We just go for the attack using the biggest stick at our disposal, be it the law or the media or the rage-addicted masses scanning the internet for things to go ballistic over.
1 Like
12 Likes
What a bizarre assumption to make.
3 Likes
[quote=“quorihunter, post:110, topic:100214”]
I actually feel this situation is a direct relation to the Washington Redskins team name/mascot issue. It draws so many parallels to me
[/quote] Except that the Redskins is an outright derogatory term. Please carry on and tell me how being offended by that term is “an overreaction”.
15 Likes
So THIS right here is what absolutely OUTRAGES AND OFFENDS me. GOD DAMMIT! At what point did I EVER state that anything about this Star Trek reference or the Redskins team issues is an over reaction by ANYONE?
I didn’t.
Don’t make assumptions about my perspectives and feelings.
I stated there are parallels in terms of one side being offended by X and another not finding X offensive and neither side actually listening to the other. But ya know…whatever. Clearly I am a monster.
1 Like
