Larry's Comics at it again...

[VintageComics]

Dayum. This might just get the vote for the longest thread ever.

 

 

[whisp]

Paper tiger. If I stand in front of you and say literally anything that came to my mind in an attempt to anger you, and you react to none of it, you have utterly neutered those words, completely regardless of absolutely every word I say.

 

This isn't actually true, and in fact numerous forms of speech are both deserving of an appropriately negative response, and some are even illegal. The classic case of a man shouting "Fire!" in a movie theater is among them, though obviously not a parallel to taking offense at a racial slur. Nonetheless it serves the purpose of pointing out that there are forms of speech for which it is unrealistic to expect the listener to have a nonchalant reaction. It is in the listener's rational self-interest to respond to "Fire!" with concern or at least curiosity. Another example would be a threat of physical violence, for which a silent reaction does not have the intended effect of "neutering the words." Indeed a passive reaction would make the listener, not the speaker, the one who was "neutered," especially if there were any credibility to the threat. Statements of misrepresentation and fraud are also examples of speech that requires an active response. What you've basically done is assert that a listener should only properly remain passive without delineating the boundaries for which this makes sense. If you stood in front of another person and continually said things in an attempt to anger that person, the words themselves would not only be the problem; the real problem would be your intent. If you have the intent to cause a negative reaction in another person, the question is why -- what you get out of it, where you're coming from. A listener who has natural curiosity about what motivates you would, in following that curiosity, be compelled to respond in some manner or other. Keep in mind that the only choice of response is not merely "I'm offended!" but also "What's your beef with me?" In any exchange of communication between two people, there exists a world of possibilities, from pure hostility and harm, to future friendship, to a professional business relationship or even just casual ongoing acquaintance while running in the same circles. Communication exists in order to determine the course of the relationship and its dynamic. A person whose communication is offensive may have numerous intentions, whether it's to pester somebody, threaten them, or even if it's to make an ill-advised attempt at humor without realizing the poor judgment of the chosen form of expression. The person reacting also may have numerous intentions, including making a stand for what that person considers right and wrong, showing an aggressor that his behavior carries the possible consequences of retributive counter-aggression, or to act as a corrective to somebody in need of principled guidance. There are far more possibilities here than the simplistic and narrow-channeled stoicism that you claim is the only worthy response allowable.

 

The listener...always...is the one who determines what words do and do not have power for him or herself.

 

You forgot the words "in an ideal, unrealistic world" at the end of your statement. Not all people have equal levels of innate emotional strength, nor is there any sense in claiming, without justification, that they should. As an example, imagine a kid who has been bullied repeatedly, and who has never learned what it means to fight back. You can't just stand back and say, "If only he'd overpower the next bully with his superior Ju Jitsu moves, he wouldn't be constantly be getting wedgies." The kid actually has to strive to find the best way to react, and that might require a learning curve as well as trial-and-error process. In the meantime, the bully is no less a bully, and the bullying behavior is no less wrong. Again, naturally this is not a full parallel because we're discussing speech rather than physical coercion, but the process of learning is similar. And on a rational level, people have good reason to make emotional associations between threatening, angry or abusive forms and speech and their physical counterparts, given that one (the verbal) often precedes or is accompanied by the other (the physical).

 

"Nothing is offensive as long as nobody ever chooses to be offended." It is exactly like saying that, and it is correct.

 

It's only correct in the sense that if there were no people on earth, there'd be no such thing as offensiveness. It's not correct in the sense that all people, all the time, are always capable of maintaining a state of never being offended. Not only is this not the case, but it also serves no purpose. There is no net gain or incentive to strive for never being offended. Yes, there very well might be a net gain if one strives to not let small things offend him, or to choose his battles, or to learn to deal with offensiveness in ways other than those that have proven unproductive. But a world in which nobody ever takes offense at anything would actually be a much worse world. We take offense at many things for good reason -- because we have a sense of right and wrong, as well as practical needs that affect our ability to survive. A man waving around a loaded gun is offensive to me because careless use of guns can lead to dire consequences. An overflowing toilet is offensive because of the harmful effects of bacteria that can lead to sickness. On the verbal level, the same dynamic is at play. A kid who mouths off obscenities at his teacher in the classroom is offensive because of the exhibition of disrespect and disruption to a vital and necessary learning process that promotes the competitive survival of the group of students as a whole. Numerous other verbal behaviors are offensive for similarly practical reasons, and in many cases "choosing not to be offended" for the listener is actually in direct opposition to the listener's enlightened self-interest.

 

Bottom line is that expressing one's offendedness can be an affirmation of strength and defiance in the face of wanton bullying, abuse and injustice, rather than the dismissive way you want to characterize it, which is only as ineffectual whining.

 

That is patently not true. Absolutely false. How do I know? Consider Jackie Robinson. The first black player in Major League Baseball. He endured horrific taunting by both HIS teammates, other teams, and the general public. Horrific abuse. The worst of the worst that could be tossed at him in 1947. Did he react? No.

 

Awww, RMA, you were doing so well there. You brought up Jackie Robinson, who is a pivotally important figure in the history of American blacks overcoming prejudice and discrimination. So far, so good. Then you had to descend into out-and-out falsehood by claiming that Robinson did not react to abuse. The facts are not on your side, and the story is far more complex than the ideal-world-ized version you present.

 

Here's how it really happened, and here's a starting point if you want to read further. Jackie Robinson was a talented baseball player who had strong friends and guidance in his life. Nonetheless, when people were offensive to him, he reacted with anger. For example: (from the above link)

 

"An incident at PJC illustrated Robinson's impatience with authority figures he perceived as racist—a character trait that would resurface repeatedly in his life. On January 25, 1938, he was arrested after vocally disputing the detention of a black friend by police."

 

In fact, Robinson had a long history of civil disobedience (i.e. BEING OFFENDED) in the face of racism, and even was court-martialed for an incident in which he refused to move to the back of the bus. Robinson was exactly the opposite of what you're claiming is the ideal mode of behavior. It didn't work out for him well at the time, but that's because the entire system was geared to punish those who spoke out.

 

He knew that he had to hold to a higher standard as the first black player, to prove that a talented, gracious guy could play regardless of the color of his skin, or what anyone said to or about him. He knew that if he reacted, whether or not it was fair, people would say "See??! We TOLD you they couldn't play with us!"

 

It's nice that you want to make up a hagiography that bears little resemblance to documented history, but that's not how it went. It wasn't that Jackie Robinson himself just knew this, it's that the people who hired him actively URGED him not to react, because they wanted him to be able to stay on the team and keep using his talents and ambitious, fighting spirit to win games. From the above link:

 

"In a famous three-hour exchange on August 28, 1945, (Branch) Rickey (manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers) asked Robinson if he could face the racial animus without taking the bait and reacting angrily—a concern given Robinson's prior arguments with law enforcement officials at PJC and in the military.[43] Robinson was aghast: "Are you looking for a Negro who is afraid to fight back?"[81][82] Rickey replied that he needed a Negro player "with guts enough not to fight back."[81][82] After obtaining a commitment from Robinson to "turn the other cheek" to racial antagonism, Rickey agreed to sign him to a contract for $600 a month, equal to $7,322 today."

 

So basically, Jackie Robinson stifled his offended responses and, with the close encouragement of a supportive manager, he wound up triumphing. That is not in any way to diminish his individual achievement, not at all. But Robinson was not some naturally stoic, "I'm rubber and you're glue" type of personality, and it's a distortion of reality for you to paint him that way. In fact, the above link also notes:

 

"Sportswriter Young, whom Robinson had described as a "bigot", said, "If there was one flaw in Jackie, it was the common one. He believed that everything unpleasant that happened to him happened because of his blackness.""

 

Sportswriter Young could well be a bigot, but whatever the case, it's clear that Jackie Robinson was not above finding things offensive, even if he refrained in many cases from expressing offense, especially while in the baseball diamond. In fact, Robinson was keenly aware of the injustices of society and rightfully felt like fighting them whenever they arose.

 

He regarded himself as an ambassador for black people, and behaved accordingly. He just let it roll right off his back.

 

Wrong, and a total projection of how you want him to have been rather than how he really was. He may have been an ambassador because he was the first to integrate the Major Leagues, but clearly the "rolled off his back part" was part of a plan crafted by Dodgers management as a much-needed public-relations approach that would allow for future integration. It wasn't all idealism, either: The team improved, won games, and made heaps more money, all the while gaining additional ticket revenue due to the reinvigorated interest from black audiences.

 

To him, proving that he was just as capable and deserving as any other player was far more important than anything someone might say.

 

I'm sure this was true, but it's also true that these are not mutually exclusive concepts. To prove your worth through action is great, important, essential. Yet responding to an offensive comment does not in any way preclude a person from being involved in productive activity. Now, if a person who is offended then chooses to sulk and do nothing with his life, ever, then that's another story -- but that's a very different story than a person who is rightfully offended. A person offended by abusive speech can just as well respond by both (1) being offended, and saying so loudly, and (2) continuing forward in life, full steam ahead. There is actually no conflict between those two things. I should also point out that in the case of this Larry comic-book guy, many of the people who were/are offended are obviously not black, but whites or other Heinz 57 types of people.

 

If you're saying that NO ONE has control of themself and their emotions, and have no choice but to react to what someone says, you'd be flat wrong. If you're saying that most people are just too lazy and immature to do that...sure.

 

It's not about "having control" versus "not having control" of one's emotions. That's another one of your patently false assumptions that you've forced onto the scenario without making a logical argument for it. If I respond to something by saying I find it offensive, that has nothing to do with whether I "have control of myself" or not. I may in fact have full control of myself and yet STILL freely choose to say, "Dude, that's offensive. Clean up your act." Similarly, your assumption that the only way to characterize an offended response is as evidence that a person is "lazy and immature" has not been established in anything you've written up to this point. That's another false assumption with no rational argument behind it. None. Being offended could be immature in some cases, but being offended -- and expressing it strongly -- could also be the most mature, principled, and robustly powerful and effective way a person could respond. It depends on the specific case.

 

But that doesn't mean it's not possible, as you are suggesting, nor that it's not a reachable goal that would make the individual's life much better.

 

I am not saying it isn't possible, just that it's hardly in line with reality, nor would it necessarily be the ideal reaction in all cases even if it were possible. Nor would it necessarily always make the individual's life better. Blowing off what somebody says might in many cases be a sensible, intelligent, practical option. But in other cases it could be the weakest, most spineless option. If a neighbor lets a dog in my front yard, maybe I'm too busy with work and other things to make a problem out of it, and maybe the poop is good fertilizer and it's not worth hassling the neighbor over. Then again, maybe this neighbor is letting the dog do this over and over again in numerous people's yards, or the neighbor is too dense to know that he's supposed to pick up after his dog's waste. If this is the case, then maybe standing up to him and actually letting him know there are consequences to his offensive (but relatively harmless in the grand scheme) behavior is a net good, with benefits to the neighborhood's harmony, a raising of the neighbor's consciousness as regards his conscientiousness toward others, or even as a microcosmic example of larger social concepts that affect him and others in subconscious ways. Who knows?

 

Pretty much.Regardless of how funny a comedian thinks he/she is, if no one in the audience laughs, who has failed? The audience, or the comedian?

 

So are you going to answer your own question, because as it stands it appears you're rhetorically invalidating your own stance in terms of the parallel to whether a listener takes offense or not.

 

Your "screechy, raspy sound" argument fails, because it affects the sense of hearing. The argument is about people saying things, not people shouting into your ear while you're trying to sleep. If someone is shouting into your ear while you're trying to sleep, it doesn't matter if they're insulting you or complimenting you, you still can't sleep. Big difference.

 

It only fails at the level where those details violate the parallel, but slight modifications to those details bring the analogy around. Reduce the volume so that hearing is not physically affected, and change the time of the sound so it doesn't affect sleep but waking activity. Let's say there's a grating, constant sound that's not loud enough to hurt your eardrums, but unavoidable. Maybe it's the sound of a blaring radio outside your office window, and you have no headphones or options for reducing the noise level. In this case, do you have a choice of whether to be offended? Why not? Granted it's still not a 100% parallel, but in what sense is it different? Imagine that you can come up with a handful of cherry-picked examples of humans in history who did, in fact, weather a similar grating noise without any ill-effect on their performance or success. Would that, as in your argument about Jackie Robinson, therefore invalidate the claims of justified offendedness of everybody else?

 

I agree with everything you just said. But that's not the argument.

 

I'm not sure you've made the case for what the argument is or is not. You've very starkly tried to claim that being offended and being productive/successful are mutually exclusive states of being, when there is no logical reason to make this claim. Finding offense might be indicative of oversensitivity in some people, and it might even stymie a person's ability to move forward in life, but clearly that is not always the case and it makes no sense to take an absolutist position otherwise.

 

No, it's called a "rhetorical question:", and it's used to demonstrate that even though there were many, many people who practiced all of those things, there were just as many, if not more, people who did NOT. If everyone felt that way, would there really have been a Civil War? A 13th Amendment? A 14th? 15th?

 

Your rhetorical question then failed to serve its purpose, since asking "Considered less than people...by whom?" denotes more skepticism that anybody held such a view than it does that EVERYBODY held such a view. The latter claim as the basis for your rhetorical question makes no sense anyway, as it was not implied by the person to which you were responding. Yes, there were those who held that slaves should be freed, but for a long time they were enough of a minority that the laws of the land could not be changed. And the Civil War example cuts both ways, since it demonstrates that only the most violent and disruptive act possible was enough to enact change, and nothing less. More than 100 years later the discrimination remained a virulent enough social element that 2nd-class citizenship was still the accepted norm in most strata of society. Here we are only a few decades after that and there are still examples that, while not widespread or representative of the norm, nonetheless serve as sharp reminders of our collective need not to take backward steps into our past foolish behaviors. An argument can even be made that taking offense is a key element in avoiding such backward steps. I don't think it's always necessarily true, but certainly the argument can be made just as convincingly as your unestablished and unintentionally revealing claim that a tendency toward offendedness is "lazy and immature."

 

Ugh. The expectation is NO reaction, not "a positive reaction." I never suggested, implied, or even hinted that there should be a "positive" reaction. That would be ridiculous. Please try not to mischaracterize my argument.

 

That's a nit-pick (and a transparently literalist one, since the statement was made by way of contrast) to sidetrack from my point, which is that it makes no sense to expect a person not to react when the tool -- that though not inherently evil, once was used in the service of evil -- is waved in one's face.

 

Consider: an admitted murderer has information that could lead to his latest victims being found alive, but he is recalcitrant, and the clock is ticking. If that man says nothing, his victims are guaranteed to die. If that man is placed on/in "a torture instrument" that extracts that information from him, has that "tool of evil" accomplished an evil purpose, or a good one...?

 

Oh jeez, are you really going to sidetrack the argument into a defense of torture that only works in the reality of TV shows like "24" and that has been completely shot down, again and again, by nearly every experienced interrogator? You can divert the argument all you like, but the example holds as an analogue, and you'd be hard-pressed to explain how not just instruments of torture but such instruments that are designed with elements of sadistic torture -- rather than those designed merely to extract information in a timely manner -- fit your "ticking time-bomb" schema. The point stands: Even if tools themselves can't be reduced to pure evil, the intentions with which specific tools are made can, and there are definitely tools out there that do not have a 50/50 split between "good use" and "evil use." Which brings this fully around to its original analogous focal point, the N-word. This isn't a neutral word in the facile and disingenuous "it's a tool like all other tools!" sense that other words can be considered neutral.

 

Obviously, this scenario cannot exist in civilized legal systems. It is used to demonstrate that even those tools expressly created for evil (and words were not) can be used for good purposes.

 

Sure, and an Iron Maiden is great at children's parties!

 

If a black man walks down a street, and 10,000 people shout "the n-word" at him, and he doesn't react to any of it, who wins?

 

So you respond to one theoretical and reality-ignoring criticism with another, even more theoretical bit of Game Theory. And you think you're illuminating the discussion somehow? First of all, this scenario is too absurd to serve any purpose. Second of all, the scenario is pre-loaded to fit your pre-determined conclusion, which is like a scientist doing a study to find out if rabbits are horny by filling a room full of rabbits and watching to see if they have sex or not. (No, that's not intended to be a parallel to your scenario, unless the people shouting the N-word are horny rabbits and the man walking down the street is a masochistic porn star.)

 

Nonetheless, I'll bite your absurd, game-theory, pre-loaded-in-favor-of-a-pre-determined-conclusion question by answering that if the black man doesn't react, he's probably a robot of some kind, or possibly deaf. Or maybe he simply realizes that he's walking through some sort of gauntlet devised by a theoretician who desperately wishes to deny the ongoing evidence that some strains of racial ignorance still persist in the United States in spite of decades of significant progress, and that even though we've collectively taken two giant leaps forward, we are not incapable of accidentally, through our negligence in facing ourselves, taking one giant leap back.

 

(How do you know Larry's intentions?) An educated guess, based on my personal experience with him, and a reasonable understanding of the social impact those words generally have.

 

So you're admitting you don't really know his intentions. That's better than insisting he was only doing it to get a reaction, which makes as much business sense as McDonald's releasing an ad that says, "Come try our burgers. But not if you're a woman who has PMS. Haw haw!"

 

I asked "why do we need to keep giving him the reaction he seeks?"

 

You haven't established that it's the reaction he seeks. If it were established, then people would have reason to factor in his intentional manipulation when responding. But even factoring that in, they might freely choose to be offended anyway. Let's say he really is only doing it to get a reaction. Okay, so why not give the guy what he wants? Clearly he's lonely and needy, and the attention -- even negative attention -- might be considered an act of genuine charity. Perhaps by ignoring him, we're setting him up to try bigger and more self-humiliating provocations, which would only hurt him more. So we give him occasional doses of attention to do damage control. Or maybe his cries for attention are misguided to begin with, and by reacting extremely negative -- to the point where his business is not stimulated but potentially harmed -- can show him the error of his ways and get him back on a healthy path, rather than the "not offended" or "mildly offended" options that would be more akin to taking partial treatments of antibiotic where only the full treatment can suffice. But again, since we haven't even established the guy's intentions, there's no drawing conclusions here.

 

We are free to react any way we choose. But if we react to anyone's negative comments, we give them the reaction they seek. We don't NEED to keep doing that, and it would be better if we didn't.

 

This is only true if the person making negative comments is really seeking a reaction. You don't know that. They might not be fully aware of what reaction they want, or they might be aware of it but not be aware of why it's wrong. Reacting or not reacting might not make any difference to a person who's so foolish as to want such a reaction to begin with. In this case, maybe the reaction is not FOR the instigator at all, but given as an outward example to those observing. If you pose this as a stimulus-response relationship then you can reduce it one way, but it can also be posed in numerous other ways. I'm still not sure where you get to conclude "it would be better if we didn't," without having established that line of argument at all. Would anybody in this thread be better served if they'd never posted a message saying they'd rather not patronize Larry's business? How so?

 

You are correct. Some people may simply WANT to react negatively. Some people LIKE to be offended.

 

Sorry, but saying a person may "want" to respond by expressing offense/distaste/etc. is not the same as saying they "like" to be offended, as though they're getting off on it. That's not the only possible characterization of "want." Another one is that a person may "want" to respond with offense as an act of stand-up-for-yourself, stand-up-for-what's-right principle that has an actual, positive-outcome-minded intention.

 

But are you seriously suggesting that a negative reaction...which has been demonstrated to be detrimental to a person's health...is something that is desirable?

 

This is a new one that you haven't established either -- that a negative reaction is always detrimental to a person's health. That's not necessarily to true at all. For one example: Stifling one's annoyance or anger could end up causing an ongoing resentment that is far more stressful and health-damaging than a quick, cathartic outburst that leaves the person feeling like he did the right thing afterward. This is just as much a possibility as your unsupported claim that all negative reactions are determintal to a person's health. Heck, if you stand up to a bully you might get punched in the face, but it might also result in the bully never bullying you in the future, the net benefits of which could be immeasurable.

 

People NEED oxygen. People NEED food. People NEED water. They don't NEED to be offended by words that someone else says.

 

You're comparing physiological needs to psychological ones. I suppose we could discuss the hierarchy of needs but maybe next time. People don't need love lives or a sense of achievement or numerous other emotion-based things, but that has no bearing on whether they have rational or defensible reasons for seeking them.

 

I hope you didn't type slowly when you posted that.

 

[whisp]

 

Wow, sucked into a "discussion" with RMA. Perhaps you really are "new."

 

RMA is like the great pit of Carkoon, sarlacc sucks everything in and there is no escape.

 

Boba Fett escaped and killed it.

 

continuity beeotch.

 

[VintageComics]

 

I hope you didn't type slowly when you posted that.

 

 

Did you really just quote all that.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

OMG!!!

 

 

I recognize when I have been out RMA'd....

 

[DrWatson]

[whisp]

 

I hope you didn't type slowly when you posted that.

 

 

Did you really just quote all that.

 

 

I did

[seanfingh]

 

You're going to need a bigger boat.

[gaz973]

This internet ain't big enough for the both of em.

[sckao]

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Awww, RMA, you were doing so well there. You brought up Jackie Robinson, who is a pivotally important figure in the history of American blacks overcoming prejudice and discrimination. So far, so good. Then you had to descend into out-and-out falsehood by claiming that Robinson did not react to abuse. The facts are not on your side, and the story is far more complex than the ideal-world-ized version you present.

 

Here's how it really happened, and here's a starting point if you want to read further. Jackie Robinson was a talented baseball player who had strong friends and guidance in his life. Nonetheless, when people were offensive to him, he reacted with anger. For example: (from the above link)

 

"An incident at PJC illustrated Robinson's impatience with authority figures he perceived as racista character trait that would resurface repeatedly in his life. On January 25, 1938, he was arrested after vocally disputing the detention of a black friend by police."

 

In fact, Robinson had a long history of civil disobedience (i.e. BEING OFFENDED) in the face of racism, and even was court-martialed for an incident in which he refused to move to the back of the bus. Robinson was exactly the opposite of what you're claiming is the ideal mode of behavior. It didn't work out for him well at the time, but that's because the entire system was geared to punish those who spoke out.

 

He knew that he had to hold to a higher standard as the first black player, to prove that a talented, gracious guy could play regardless of the color of his skin, or what anyone said to or about him. He knew that if he reacted, whether or not it was fair, people would say "See??! We TOLD you they couldn't play with us!"

 

It's nice that you want to make up a hagiography that bears little resemblance to documented history, but that's not how it went. It wasn't that Jackie Robinson himself just knew this, it's that the people who hired him actively URGED him not to react, because they wanted him to be able to stay on the team and keep using his talents and ambitious, fighting spirit to win games. From the above link:

 

"In a famous three-hour exchange on August 28, 1945, (Branch) Rickey (manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers) asked Robinson if he could face the racial animus without taking the bait and reacting angrilya concern given Robinson's prior arguments with law enforcement officials at PJC and in the military.[43] Robinson was aghast: "Are you looking for a Negro who is afraid to fight back?"[81][82] Rickey replied that he needed a Negro player "with guts enough not to fight back."[81][82] After obtaining a commitment from Robinson to "turn the other cheek" to racial antagonism, Rickey agreed to sign him to a contract for $600 a month, equal to $7,322 today."

 

So basically, Jackie Robinson stifled his offended responses and, with the close encouragement of a supportive manager, he wound up triumphing. That is not in any way to diminish his individual achievement, not at all. But Robinson was not some naturally stoic, "I'm rubber and you're glue" type of personality, and it's a distortion of reality for you to paint him that way.

 

Sorry, but I can't let this ridiculous mischaracterization pass unchallenged.

 

I'm sorry, but please point out EXACTLY where what I said was in conflict with what you've posted? I said the guy didn't react. I didn't say he didn't get offended.

 

MASSIVE difference, and the whole point of this discussion!

 

 

In fact, the above link also notes:

 

"Sportswriter Young, whom Robinson had described as a "bigot", said, "If there was one flaw in Jackie, it was the common one. He believed that everything unpleasant that happened to him happened because of his blackness.""

 

Sportswriter Young could well be a bigot, but whatever the case, it's clear that Jackie Robinson was not above finding things offensive, even if he refrained in many cases from expressing offense, especially while in the baseball diamond. In fact, Robinson was keenly aware of the injustices of society and rightfully felt like fighting them whenever they arose.

 

Really...? Really??

 

Notice the dates you posted.

 

These were PRIOR TO his being called up to the majors, as I clearly pointed out.

 

The deal he and Dodgers president Branch Rickey had was that he NOT react. He lived up to that deal.

 

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016431.html

 

I never said Jackie DIDN'T find these things offensive. I said he let it roll off his back.

 

He regarded himself as an ambassador for black people, and behaved accordingly. He just let it roll right off his back.

 

Wrong, and a total projection of how you want him to have been rather than how he really was. He may have been an ambassador because he was the first to integrate the Major Leagues, but clearly the "rolled off his back part" was part of a plan crafted by Dodgers management as a much-needed public-relations approach that would allow for future integration. It wasn't all idealism, either: The team improved, won games, and made heaps more money, all the while gaining additional ticket revenue due to the reinvigorated interest from black audiences.

 

This doesn't change the fact of what he was. Were there financial motives for it? Of course! That doesn't change what he did AT ALL, and that was NOT reacting.

 

 

 

[User 01001010]

i need cliff notes of that post.

[BeachBum]

When I read through a thread like this I'm reminded of this little gem. People take their internet opinions way to seriously.

 

 

[Mr.Diggler]

When I read through a thread like I reminded of this little gem. People take their internet opinions way to seriously.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Look, Doohicky...you've posted a lot of stuff that doesn't accurately reflect what I said, frequently misunderstands it, and brings up all sorts of red herrings that have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. I could respond, point by point, but really, it's not going to change your mind, is it?

 

Here's the basic principle.

 

You have control over how you react to the things people say to you. This is not some "idealized fantasy." It's what mature people do, all the time, all over the world, all throughout history.

 

General insults about race, ethnicity, gender, age...all things no one has any control over...are lazy and weak, and don't DESERVE to be reacted to.

 

Larry's comments were stupid and ignorant, but so what? Why give him the reaction he clearly was looking for and validate him?

 

When we stop being offended by words, words will no longer be offensive.

 

Simple.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Is this a bad time?

 

[NewEnglandGothic]

Is this a bad time?

 

Nope.

[Mr.Diggler]

Is this a bad time?

 

sexy-teen-bikini.jpg?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Paper tiger. If I stand in front of you and say literally anything that came to my mind in an attempt to anger you, and you react to none of it, you have utterly neutered those words, completely regardless of absolutely every word I say.

 

This isn't actually true, and in fact numerous forms of speech are both deserving of an appropriately negative response, and some are even illegal. The classic case of a man shouting "Fire!" in a movie theater is among them, though obviously not a parallel to taking offense at a racial slur. Nonetheless it serves the purpose of pointing out that there are forms of speech for which it is unrealistic to expect the listener to have a nonchalant reaction. It is in the listener's rational self-interest to respond to "Fire!" with concern or at least curiosity. Another example would be a threat of physical violence, for which a silent reaction does not have the intended effect of "neutering the words." Indeed a passive reaction would make the listener, not the speaker, the one who was "neutered," especially if there were any credibility to the threat.

 

Here's an example of your mischaracterization of the argument, and I promise, I will try very, very hard not to respond to any more of these "points" (though, of course, I am sorely tempted.) I feel, though, that this example must be made.

 

Emphatically: we are not talking about anything other than insults based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, etc.

 

Allllll the rest of this...the "fire in a crowded theatre"..? It bears zero relevance to this discussion, because we are not talking about THAT type of speech.

 

We are ONLY talking about insults about race, ethnicity, age, gender, etc etc.

 

My statements about this DO NOT APPLY to other forms of speech. I am NOT suggesting people ignore "fire!", I am NOT suggesting that people disregard "THAT BUS IS ABOUT TO HIT YOU!", I am NOT suggesting that people don't pay attention to "This is the police! Put your hands up, or we will open fire!"

 

All clear? I shouldn't HAVE to qualify and clarify like this, because it's completely obvious and should be understood that this is what we are talking about, but I am forced to by your statements.

 

(thumbs u

[BeachBum]

Interracial harmony: