A Culture of Oversensitivity (Michael Demmons)
Michael Demmons
The last time we spoke, I asked you for your opinion on smoking bans and we had a terrific conversation. Thanks for that. This time, I'd like to go in a completely different direction.
As many of you know, I am gay and I run this Web site. I bring that up so you know where I am coming from on the issue of oversensitivity. I'm of the opinion that every one of us has become way too easy to offend. And it doesn't make any difference whether you're gay, straight, Christian, Jew, black or white. If there's even the appearance of bias, we immediately cry racism, homophobia, etc. Such is the case with Britain's Prince Harry. I wrote about my feelings on the subject just now. I won't reproduce the post here. The language is probably not something Dean would appreciate me just throwing around. But, needless to say, this flap has me annoyed. And I feel tremendously bad for the kid.
I'm also glad that Prince Charles is not going to force his son to go to Auschwitz. What would that accomplish exactly? Nothing of value - except to cave into a bunch of oversensitive Jewish groups who'd feel better if he did. Prince Harry did nothing wrong. As a member of the Royal Family, he probably should have considered what a flap it would cause, but in and of itself, dressing as a Nazi is not a horrible act. Nazis existed - and they were evil. He doesn't want to be a Nazi. He doesn't advocate that we should adhere to Nazi policy. He - wore - a - costume.
People are so absolutely frightened to do or say anything that might offend. As a white person, I'm not allowed to go to a costume party dressed as Eddie Murphy. It's perfectly ok to do a movie called "White Chicks," however. I'm gay and I see it, too. People are afraid to talk to me about anything they feel might offend a gay person. You cannot disagree with Ariel Sharon's policies without being immediately labeled an anti-Semite. You can't criticize the president without being "a Bush basher." Etcetera.
So, let's have a conversation about this right here. Furthermore, let's see if we can do it without bashing conservatives and liberals.
Tell me: Why do people think the most innocent things can be immediately called racism, homophobic, sexist, etc? And more importantly, why do rational people allow them to get away with it?
They're not offended. They pretend to be offended because in the current circumstances, that's about the most powerful position available.
Society seems to have some on/off button reactions to claoms of offense, even obviously feigned offense, completely without thinking about the actual circumstance, and few of us want to be subject to those.
In colleges, feigned offense can generate institutional action against those who say or do something another person does not like.
The down side, if there is one, of taking this position is that the accuser has to accuse himself of being a wimp, ready to fall into a puddle of helpless angst at the slightest possibility that somebody said something unpleasant.
But, since the results are guaranteed, the price isn't too high, apparently.
Decorum.
Also, there is that little issue with some of Harry's past relatives being Nazi sympathizers - brings back bad memories, I suppose.
I wrote in another comment that this business with Prince Harry reminds me of the story of a German medieval king or emperor who was compelled to travel to Canossa in northern Italy, and stand around there barefoot, no less, or for purposes of doing penance for having offended some fucking RC pope over some sort of diplomatic punctilio. All of which sounded utterly ridiculous to me when I read that stuff.
And what Harry is being put through is about on the same level as all that. If anybody wants to turn this kid into a raving freakout antisemite, keep pushing him to publicly debase himself by showing up for this year's great Auschwitz annual convention.
And that's what the Auschwitz industry is really all about, slightly more than 60 years after the last victims were murdered there and the SS guards ran away to avoid being put to death themselves by the advancing Russians. They have managed to turn a terrible memory of the murder of millions into a ritualized modern circus.
The business of the Jewish nation ought to be about its future and not its past. Instead of endlessly bemoaning the victims of the last century, learn better how to fight and overwhelm the Arabs of today, expelling these bastards from the ancient lands of Eretz-Israel, and resettling these lands with your own people. That, and getting rid of the Judeanrat that pretends to be Israel's "independent" government. Land and independence is what real victory stems from. All the rest of this bullshit is nothing but sham.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
As far as Harry having Nazi-sympathizer relatives, I think that's almost a misnomer, since the relatives in question were the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, who are still considered personae non grata in the family. His immediate family were by all accounts very strongly anti-nazi once everyone in Europe figured out what Hitler was up to.
I know that the Royals were strongly anti-Nazi, it's just that the past rumors about Edward probably bring back bad memories.
Michael,
I look forward to reading it. I love it when you write lengthy posts!!!
People are scared of each other. I can't really find any other explainations. Either you're scared of what somebody will do to you if you happen to offend somebody, or, more generally, you are scared of the consequences of saying something potentially offensive.
If you are in the presence of somebody who says/does something potentially inoffensive and you do not immediately get up-in-arms, you are/might be seen as one who sympathizes/agrees with the "offender," and you are scared of those consequences.
Personally, I think it's a bunch of crap.
"And more importantly, why do rational people allow them to get away with it?"
I see myself as a rational person. I let some people get away with it, just because I don't care to pursue it. With few exceptions, many times it really isn't worth it. This leap to a defensive stance everytime something might possibly be considered mildly offensive is purely irrational, and frequently finds a root in very old, strong symbolisms or world events. In my life (only 24 years long, but that counts for something, right?), I've found that there really isn't any reasoning with irrational behaviors. If it's possible to reason with them at all, it's only after everything has cooled down sufficiently (though it still presents a weighty, tedious task to accomplish).
I think that we also have an unhealthy obesession with the idea of victimhood and opression.
There was a time when people didn't like to be seen as victims. Now people seem to seek victim status.
Now, by taking maximum offense to anything that someone says to you, you can do both at once. You become a victim of a cruel (newly demonized) oppressor. It has been quite a powerful tool for manipulating public opinion. Fortunately, it seems to be losing effectiveness now. Sadly, that loss is a result, I believe, of overuse.
A loser-pay system.
If you go to court over a discrimination issues and you lose, you pay the legal and court costs of the other person.
I would LOVE to see that happen. And not just for discrimination suits.
Ever notice that, more often than not, there's hardly a peep from truly repressed peoples? People that are truly repressed (mostly) don't dare to speak up, because of the possible consequences to them and/or their family. Real consequences, like imprisonment, death, and torture.
The more protected or privileged by law that a group becomes, the more they feel free to complain about purported offenses. There's exceptions, of course, but that's the way it certainly seems to work in most instances.
The loser pay system sounds fine, in theory, except that it wholly favors the haves. A more fair system is to have judges be able to toss out frivolous lawsuits, and be encouraged to do so. They might also have discretion in the case of truly frivolous suits to do so. But, suits brought in good faith shd be allowed. The legal system is often the last and only chance for fairness some have. Too many judges abdicate their responsibilities or have them curtailed by legalistic maneuverings of legislators.
This morning a friend of mine's mother in law died at 59 after elbow surgery yesterday. Whether it's related I don't know, but if negligence is found in the coronor's report they shd be able to sue the Dr. and hospital for all they're worth. This is why tort reform is an utter con. The rich will always be able to get around the limitations and restrictions.
The real power is w judges and they shd act more responsibly. I worked in a court system and can tell you utter horror stories of civic waste.
As for PC offense taken, Richard Aubrey nails it totally. Offense is the power position, and until the 'wrong'- i.e.- big boys- get whacked over something silly enough it won't stop. That said, it does kind of make those in majority positions know a tad of what the powerless deal with. Unfortunately it's the folk in the middle that never win. DAN
"That's offensive" just means that it's socially dissaproved of. And people have been socially sensitive since the dawn of history, though I think to some degree inversely proportional to the amount of useful work they do in a day (tired people frequently don't have the energy to get offended).
Prince Harry shows up in a nazi uniform or at least a shirt with a swastika armband in public---like everywhere he goes is public.
That is utterly ridiculous. Any public response IMO is warranted. Lo. Dad--Prince Charles, the gentleman prince who once called Princess Diana--a twat-- will save the young price from Auschwitz. It is too, too funny.
In September this year 2005, our innocent, Prince Harry will be <b>21 years of age</b>.
The kid is obviously as dopey as his father, who isn't exactly the brightest lamp on the Windsor Castle moat.
What more needs to be said ?
What are you talking about? The linked article only talked about a costume that he rented and wore at a private party.
Chris, I'm speaking to maturity---- for a 20 and near 21 year old of the royal family and royal family heritage, education and history.
The royal family knows that every move they make is covered in the british press--private and otherwise---- the camera's are there. Harry is a public persona.
If you agree it is okay for the swastika costume that is fine but in the UK whatever the royal family does---is magnified---in the press.
As, Solo says: "I'm more concerned by a person's actions."
That, is the issue I address.
Same when someone calls me faggot. That says more about their maturity and mentality than it does about my self worth. I never get offended by that. I feel bad for that person. But then, I've only been called that twice in my life.
And I hope you don't hate me! :-)
"Prince Harry shows up in a nazi uniform or at least a shirt with a swastika armband in public---like everywhere he goes is public."
So when you said, "like everywhere he goes is public", you meant that going to a private party was actually showing up in public?
I had originally thought that you mean that this was his typical wardrobe.
As for the seeming cottage industry here in the US over PC offenses, it bears witness to the materialism and shallowness of our modern society where we have very little to complain about and no real institutionalized injustice left to legislate against. So we spend our time flailing about over trivialities that offend but do no true harm (in the main) to anyone. And the point about our litigious society is an important one. After all, a lawyer's got to eat, too, doesn't he/she? All this litigation and threats of litigation keeps the dough rollin' in.
No. I mean his demeanor will be presented in light of the cameras that are operational wherever he goes be it private or public. That seems to be the UK
tabloid approach to the royal family doings. He is
perfectly innocent in what he does privately but surely my thoughts are that he ought to have been more socially aware given his prominent public persona. The alternative of going to Auschwitz to do public atonement is doubly incomprehensible. But Harry is now 20 and no longer a child. I had no other big point here--just my observations.
Both because of the history behind it and because of what our culture has made of it since, wearing a Nazi uniform is as shocking to many people as wearing nothing at all while walking down the street. This symbol, the swastika, which was venerated as sacred in every culture on every continent in every age since prehistory and is still so venerated in many parts of the world, is today viewed by many as equivalent of the infamous middle finger. I can understand the feelings of those who fought in that War or who survived the Nazi death camps.
But Arnold Harris and the other commenters here are right that we have made an industry out of that taboo to the point that, out of rebellion, many young people think it's "cool" precisely because it outrages their elders so, and also because of the phony outrage of the Politically Correct crowd, very few who were even alive during World War II. The Nazis have been given a mystique they don't deserve. I have seen that costume worn at BDSM parties by people who weren't in the least anti-Semitic, even by Jews.
Anyway, I have had it with the Politically Correct crowd. I have had it with the legions of the Professionally Offended. If they're not busy being offended by the Prince wearing a Nazi uniform, they're offended by his wearing the vestments and insignia of royalty. They're offended by women wearing bikinis or perfumes. They're offended by people eating meat. They're offended by Nativity scenes. A cross offends them as much as does the swastika. Say "Merry Christmas" to them and you may as well have said "Heil ----". They call Mark Noonan a Nazi because he opposes racial quotas. They call Arnold Harris a Nazi. They call Dean a Nazi, and also the Queen.
I'll tell you what they're _not_ offended by. They're not offended by T-shirts praising the Communist murderer Che Guevara. They're not offended by somebody wearing a Mao uniform, and yet he murdered even more people than did Hitler, mainly because we allowed him to. They're not offended by somebody burning the American Flag or dipping a crucifix in urine.
I have had it with that crowd, and I don't give a damn what they think. Their epithets no longer mean anything to me: "Nazi", "fascist", "racist", "sexist", "imperialist oppressor", "Zionist warmonger", "Likudnik", "McCarthyite", etc., etc.. I'm proud to be called a Nazi by the Communists. And I support Israel 100%.
It just isn't good form for a member of the sainted Royal Family to make light of so much suffering.
I don't recall Harry making light of anybody's suffering. It's not like he went to the costume party and started ordering around the Jews.
It isn't too much to expect the well-educated scion of the British monarchy to have a bit of common sense.
This, I agree with 100%
no real institutionalized injustice left to legislate against
This, I do not.
I thought that the entire point of the british aristocracy, nowadays, was to be a bunch of well supported yoyos to give some entertainment to the rest of the country.
Isn't it perhaps a bit much to expect sense out of a person who's been bred simply to fulfill the role of having a title an being costantly photographed?
You're in error when you call the royal family "well-supported." I can tell you that only the Queen receives a stipend from the state, which she pays taxes on now (her own decision.)
All the other royals make money from investments and land. For example, Prince Charles's salary is completely derived from renting and leasing his land holdings.
It's a common perception that all the royals receive state money - which is not true.
And as one of the most respected women in the world, the Queen is hardly a yoyo. Sorry to go off on this, but I actually have a great deal of respect for most of the Royal Family. She is, after all, my Queen. :-)
Yes, my irate style is hilarious, particularly when not so intended. You'll be a wealthy man. Too bad I'm not or I'd give you that money myself. And you'd be even richer if you had a penny (or $0.005) for every time I say: HAIL TO THE QUEEN....!!!!
Politically correct is tired, worn out, and over. Besides, I've haven't personally met any racists. Met plenty of bigots, though. Know your terminology.