What would a non-offensive World look like?

[Vmarco]

This morning I read of a Paula Deen, some sort of TV personality? who is in hot water over racial slurs. To me, the article was remarkable,...how people often do not have a clue when they offend others. Prompted me to wonder,...what would a non-offensive world look like? Would Daoism help?

 

Here's a clip:

 

"A deposition from May has surfaced in which Deen admits not only to using the N-word, but also to making racist and anti-Semetic jokes.

 

According to the transcript, when a lawyer asks her point blank if she has ever used the N-word herself, Deen doesn't miss a beat.

"Yes, of course."

 

Hmm. "Of course," as in … she assumes everyone uses that word? We're still not sure what to make of that.

 

When the questioning then turns to the subject of offensive jokes, Deen brushes it off with a simple explanation.

 

"It's just what they are, they're jokes," she quips.

 

The lawyer presses on, asking if she considers those that use the N-word to be "mean," which is when Deen really lays it all on the table, so to speak.

 

"That's kind of hard," she concedes, because … "Most jokes are about Jewish people, rednecks, black folks. Most jokes target — I don't know — I didn't make up the jokes, I don't know. I can't _ I don't know … I can't, myself, determine what offends another person."

Newsflash to Ms. Deen: Telling racist jokes offends people.

 

But that's just the beginning. In addition to these admissions, Deen reveals that she had, at one point, expressed interest in hiring black waiters to dress as slaves at a wedding — well, kind of. In the transcript, the star explains that it was an innocent idea hatched during a dinner with her husband out at a restaurant.

 

"The whole entire wait staff was middle-aged black men, and they had on beautiful white jackets with a black bow tie," she recalls. "I mean, it was really impressive. That restaurant represented a certain era in America … after the Civil War, during the Civil War, before the Civil War … It was not only black men, it was black women … I would say they were slaves."

 

Just to clarify, however, Deen explained, "I did not mean anything derogatory by saying that I loved their look and their professionalism." Which apparently reminded her of that bygone era when black people looked and worked … like slaves?"

[thelerner]

The best way to live in an offensive world is to take less offense. If a comedienne somewhere in the world says something, who the feck(whoops), really cares? Neither of us know who Paula Deen is, I assume she's low level comedienne, its what they do. Is life really long enough for us to spend time being offended by an idea about how someone wants people to dress for a wedding that's was never put into place? There is so much real crap that takes place in the world why waste a moment on someones <slightly deranged> imaginary weddings plans?

 

A good comedienne should have more lee way then the common folk. The great ones can always be accused of racism, especially against there 'own kind'. They are the jesters before the king able state truths no one else dares. That don't mean they're always right, but its there job, to provoke, engage, enrage, as well as entertain. Often comediennes are on the front lines of social justice issues, the greats are the edgy ones who go out on a limb and shake.

 

Beware of too much political correctness in the comedy world.

Edited June 21, 2013 by thelerner

[Vmarco]

The best way to live in an offensive world is to take less offense. If a comedienne somewhere in the world says something, who the feck(whoops), really cares? Neither of us know who Paula Deen is, I assume she's low level comedienne, its what they do.

 

A good comedienne should have more lee way then the common folk. The great ones can always be accused of racism, especially against there 'own kind'.

 

I disagree. It's time we become conscious of offending others. This usually upsets the offenders,..."hey, everyone uses the N word,...even the N's."

 

Good comedy? No way! And those who laugh at such comedy are spiritually, compassionately lacking.

 

So,...I looked up Paula Deen,...she's not a comic, but has some sort of cooking empire.

[Jetsun]

If you offend everyone equally then there is equality

[Jainarayan]

Paula Deen is a cookbook writer from Texas. She hosts a cooking show on Food Network. Ironically, she spends her time in the kitchen.

[Marblehead]

A non-offensive world would look like an internet forum without all the freakin' spammers making posts that cause inconvience to the members of the forum.

[thelerner]

I disagree. It's time we become conscious of offending others. This usually upsets the offenders,..."hey, everyone uses the N word,...even the N's."

 

Good comedy? No way! And those who laugh at such comedy are spiritually, compassionately lacking.

Sniff sniff you're accusing people you know nothing about of being spiritually, compassionately lacking. Aww, go away you hater you.

 

Frankly I'm offended but not an 'offender', I'm just troubled by Political Correctness run amuck. Worst being those who call out others because of something they 'thought'. Too easy to stereotype and condemn. You wanna make an example of Paula Deen, then spend time researching and find out if she really is a racist. Odds are she's not.

 

It will take more then 5 minutes, you'd actually need to get some input with friends, her own writing, even heaven forbid write the woman and ask(!). You probably won't, the truth is secondary to outrage in PC field. There are packs of politically correct who search the internet hoping to find the next tid bit so they can be enraged. If the wrong people are smeared, it doesn't matter, the PC thought police are by there very nature fascists.

 

 

I re-read your original post. What a beautiful example of PC run amuck, like the when a lawyer asks, 'Have you ever used the word Nigger?' She answers 'Yes' and that automatically makes her a racist. Context doesn't matter, definitely secondary, truth isn't in the ball park. Like asking 'Have you ever made fun of anyone?" Bam you're a whatever bigot. Case made and over by Political Correctness Finest. Once you shut down the brain, its easy to decide who's spiritually and compassionately lacking.

 

Worse there's enough real discrimination to fight that these things are just puffery to inflate egos, be they right wing or left.

Edited June 21, 2013 by thelerner

[h.uriahr]

Try this little exercise.

 

Close your eyes and take a long deep breath. Now really focus on the back of your eyelids. Imagine for just a minute that you've just died. Now realize that you are no longer attached to an offensive world.

 

A non offensive world gee I don't know. Every Wednesday and Sunday I get about 2 hrs of a non offensive world at Bible Service. We sing, dance and get some Word. We also hug each other and speak to each other. It's a great world. To your question, we would need to get rid of television except for maybe the news but I think all tv needs to go. Cars need to go. The majority of the population would need to either 1.get lobotomies or 2.go through training of some type to break down their material greed.

A communistic governing would be needed. Sharing is caring man. R

 

[三江源]

.

Edited April 23, 2015 by 三江源

[thelerner]

Let me add something more positive to the conversation.

What is the friendliest nation? I found the Australians and New Zealanders I've met have been strikingly friendly and I assume there civil society while (from my small sample) get along wonderfully. I assume a 'flatter' society like socialism adds to it, though communism which tends to evolve dictatorial is not a great solution.

 

Or is Japan an ideal? They're very non offensive, it's almost a religion. But at a cost. Such non offensiveness comes with the price of tremendous conformity. It's changed a bit in modern times, but there suicide rate is huge. you don't conform its crushing.

Edited June 21, 2013 by thelerner

[Marblehead]

Or is Japan an ideal? They're very non offensive, it's almost a religion. But at a cost. Such non offensiveness comes with the price of tremendous conformity. It's changed a bit in modern times, but there suicide rate is huge. you don't conform its crushing.

I would reconsider the Japanese. But I do agree with you regarding the Aussies and Kiwis.

[Marblehead]

What do you feel is a reasonable reaction if you find out that you have offended someone else without meaning to? To what degree should a person censor themselves to attend to the sensitivities of others, even when they cannot understand why the other person is offended?

Hehehe. Stosh and I are working with that in another thread. We have not yet reached an agreement though.

[Marblehead]

I hope neither of you are offended over the disagreement.

Won't happen. I like Stosh too much to be offended by anything he says and he knows me well enough to know that I am going to speak my mind based on my understandings at the time.

[Everything]

 

And those who laugh at such comedy are spiritually, compassionately lacking.

You see, offending people is neither positive or negative. Yin yang remember?

[Marblehead]

What Would Jesus Do?

What Would Buddha Do?

What would Chuang Tzu do?

[thelerner]

What Would Jesus Do?

What Would Buddha Do?

Problem is, some people ask that question in a stressful situation and come up with

'kick'em in the balls'.

 

Sadly that tends to be the human condition. We tend to be more rationalizing then rational.

Edited June 22, 2013 by thelerner

[Vmarco]

What Would Jesus Do?

 

Probably cast them into a furnace of fire: where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 13:41-42).

 

 

JESUS' FAMILY VALUES? --"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). "I am come to set man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matt. 10:35-36). When one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus rebuked him by saying "Let the dead bury their dead" (Matt. 8:22). Jesus never used the word "family" and he never married or fathered children. To his own mother, he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4).

 

WHAT WERE HIS VIEWS ON EQUALITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE?--Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: "And that servantt(read: slave), which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes" (Luke 12:47). He never denounced servitude, but quite the contrary, incorporated the master-slave relationship into many of his parables. He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, "Ye have the poor with you always" (Mark 14:3-7). No women were chosen as disciples (or apostles-Ed.) or invited to the Last Supper.

WHAT MORAL ADVICE DID JESUS GIVE? --"There be eunuchs (Webster defines a eunuch as 'a castrated man in charge of an Oriental harem or...any man or boy lacking normal function of the testes, as through castration or disease'--Ed.), which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matt. 19:12). Some believers, including church father Origen, took this verse literally and castrated themselves. Even metaphorically, this advice is in poor taste.

 

The "Golden Rule" was said many times by earlier religious leaders. [Confucius said, "Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you"]. "Turn the other cheek" encourages victims to invite further violence. "Love they neighbor" applied only to fellow believers. (Neither the Jews nor Jesus showed much love to foreign religions). A few of the Beatitudes ("Blessed are the peacemakers") are acceptable, but they are all conditioned on future rewards, not based on respect for human life or values. (As I have said so often, you should do the right because it is the right thing to do, not because you expect rewards or kickbacks someday-Ed.)

On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He introduced nothing new to ethics (except hell). He instituted no social programs. Being "omniscient," he could have shared some useful science or medicine, but he appeared ignorant of such things (as if his character were merely the invention of writers stuck in the first century).

 

WAS JESUS PEACEABLE AND COMPASSIONATE? --The birth of Jesus was heralded with "Peace on Earth," yet Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword" (Matt. 10:34), "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36), "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27). In a parable, but spoken of favorably. the burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth..., and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

 

Jesus looked at his disciples "with anger" (Mark 3:5) and attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15). He showed his respect for life by drowning innocent animals (Matt. 8:32) and refused to heal a sick child until pressured by the mother (Matt. 15:22-28).

 

The most revealing aspect of his character was his promotion of eternal torment. "The Son of man (Jesus himself) shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 13:41-42). "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched" (Mark 9:43). Is this nice? Is it exemplary to make your point with threats of violence? Is hell a kind and peaceful idea?

[Vmarco]

Let me add something more positive to the conversation.

What is the friendliest nation? I found the Australians and New Zealanders I've met have been strikingly friendly and I assume there civil society while (from my small sample) get along wonderfully. I assume a 'flatter' society like socialism adds to it, though communism which tends to evolve dictatorial is not a great solution.

 

Or is Japan an ideal? They're very non offensive, it's almost a religion. But at a cost. Such non offensiveness comes with the price of tremendous conformity. It's changed a bit in modern times, but there suicide rate is huge. you don't conform its crushing.

 

I've met a few New Zealanders, but have yet to visit there. They do seem like a considerate sort. But the generations are changing,...possibly not for the better. For example,...I used to lead mountain hikes and take many photos,...then I would review them, sift out the best ones, crop them, and pass them along,....that is typical of my generation.

 

Younger generations appear to either hoard and copyright all photos, or send out all the photos unedited, uncroped, whether in focus or not, etc. That is likely not a great example,...but things change,...and IMO, consideration of others has descended, not ascended.

 

Gurdjieff said, "...consider externally always, internally never." This is obviously Relative Considering; although when fully understood, is likely to uncover Absolute Considering.

 

To consider externally means to consider from the point of view of that which is perceived to be external. Take the subject of Transgender for example. Is Transgender a non-conformimg choice that can be corrected with reparative therapy? Are boys with a propensity to see themselves as females are homosexual?

 

No,...that's the Internal Considering of Transgender by those who are either unaware of what Gender Identity and Sexual Expression are, or at some level of transphobia - be it fear, disgust, narrow-mindedness, or hatred.

Gurdjieff had a term he called the Chief Feature; a persons largest barrier obscuring their spiritualized/actualized self. He said the Chief Feature is usually what one likes best about oneself. He also purportedly said that the Chief Feature for most people is Internal Considering.

 

External Considering would seek to understand Transgender before judging it,...for example, that the medical profession says a non-transgender male introduced to female hormones, experiences negative emotional changes and cannot stay comfortably on them for more than 3 or 4 days,…whereas a transgender person has a positive emotional response. Another way to look at that is,…before starting hormones, a transgender person is imprisioned within a field of negative emotional experiences. Would an External Considering person wish to imprison an Other in negative emotion just because they are different?

[thelerner]

Probably cast them into a furnace of fire: where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 13:41-42).

Seems to me part of being non-offensive is not to bash other peoples beliefs. Religion was brought to the conversation somewhat lightly, on the level of a T-shirt slogan. Yet you have so much animosity toward religion, (thankfully no one wrote WWMD) that you launch into a long attack that will be very offensive to people of the Christian faith.

 

In your eyes, you're totally right, totally justified, they/it deserves it and much worse, they must be educated about their evils. Someone wrote WWJD and you set the stage (yet again) for religious war. Putting down bait and waiting. Yet this is a thread about being non offensive, one you started. WWJD should not be a trigger for such a Offense/Attack reaction.

 

A peaceful world (and/or board) begins when we can let the little things slide. Someones opens w/ Jesus and hell fire, then by all means blast them, but lets not let the trifles batter us. Maybe the price of peace is tolerance. Push back our red lines of intolerance just a little bit, give others a little more room.

[rene]

I disagree. It's time we become conscious of offending others. This usually upsets the offenders,..."hey, everyone uses the N word,...even the N's." Good comedy? No way! And those who laugh at such comedy are spiritually, compassionately lacking.

 

Vmarco,

 

Your judgemental words in this thread are very offensive.

 

Please apologize and consider meditating on your lack of compassion.

 

Thank you.

[skydog]

wroof

[konchog uma]

its only offensive if you get offended lol.

 

so to me a non-offensive world looks the same as the world that so many take issue with.

 

i don't think that the world is the problem in other words. But if it is, you can always work towards attainments which will allow you to live in another world. It might be easier to cultivate acceptance of things as they are... but then again, it might not

[三江源]

.

Edited July 12, 2014 by cat

[konchog uma]

it wasn't offense or non-offense until i took it one way or the other.

 

it was offensive to me because i got offended, just like vmarco's comments above aren't because i'm not offended. My sensitivities aren't really the focus here, and if they are, they only prove the point that things aren't anything in and of themselves, its all how we chose to perceive and react.

 

so im not saying ive never been offended lol. im saying it only pointed out my own potential to grow, not anything inherent in the situation itself.

Edited June 25, 2013 by konchog uma

[Marblehead]

I like Vmarco. Yes, he is almost as offensive as I am. Maybe that's why I like him.