Thread reference: http://www.terrypratchettbooks.org/fortopic763.html Recap Here's the original "Bushism"as posted by Garner: "One of the great things about America, one of the beauties of our country, is that when we see a young, innocent child blown up by an IED, we cry." In the vein of making light of this masterwork of prose Katcal suggested that Garner left out part of the quote: "we cry... thinking of all those other poor innocent kids out there who aren't lucky enough to have IEDs to play with. And so we send them some. And blame the arabs for it." I then expressed my displeasure in the form of: "Those're funny ones. I'll have to tell them at the next memorial service and to the next brother of a fellow killed by the insurgency (oops, I meant, US Delta force dressed up as Iraqis, shhh) for not allowing them to use his house as a safe haven." It was then suggested that I thought that Katcal was siding with "terrorists" and that I apparently thought that she didnt' have a right to free spreach. I was then told that my response was 'out of line', as well as Roman's one line agreement. /Recap Okay, some people might not know what an IED is. Spiky's post right after Garner was an indication of that, as well as when I tell people 'IED' who've never heard it before I almost always get "What's an IED?". IED stands for Improvised Explosive Device, basically a homemade bomb. The problem is, that Iraq has been at war for so long, and Saddam Hussein focused on his military so much, that's there're artillery rounds all over the country (not meaning dropped US bombs that didn't go off) that are incorporated into these IEDs. IEDs are the prime killer of US forces in Iraq (I couldn't find a single block of causes of death for the rest of the coalition). Civilians are also killed by IEDs, mostly by pressure plate initiated and suicide vest. Now, IEDs are placed by that nebulous group of people that belong to what we label as the "insurgency" consisting of both foreign fighters, and homegrown people. This insurgency will also do things like kill someone for cooperating with the current Iraqi government, the Coalition or denying the use of their house as a base of operations. Since the original quote was about Americans, saying 'we' meant Americans, of the US gov't. While the US gov't could ship the IEDs no problem here, you'd have to find someone to bury them. That would be the Coalition military, that would be me. So basically, while making fun of someone for their horrible insensitivity it was suggested, unintentionally, jokingly that US soldiers could be responsible for what the insurgency is doing. Including killing other US soldiers. So, at least one person could understand why I might be upset at Katcal's proposed addition to the quote. I don't think that that's "out of line". /ramble
Brad, I already explained (and also apologized) that I could see how my answer could have easily been taken as an anti-american joke, although it wasn't meant to be at all, only an anti-bush-saying-stupid-things-again remark. The 'we' wasn't meaning americans at all, but Bush's way of representing them, which I personnally think is a great shame, because there are millions of wonderful people in America, and they get represented by a total idiot. (I could quite honestly have made the same sort of remark about Tony Blair, had he said the same thing, although I'm british.) The American people majoritarily aggree that the war in Iraq was a mistake, if I believe the latest polls I have heard of, and if that proves anything it's that Bush is certainly not a perfect representation of the American opinion, as if anyone needed that to prove it... And there is no way that you would ever get me to say that I think the people over there with you are insensitive or anything that crazy, people are getting killed on all sides and that makes me sick, and furious. Now Sacharissa did jump out at you and Roman, I didn't ask her to, that's her own opinion, and on such a sensitive subject, opinions tend to get overstated and not always well expressed, like mine did. I didn't answer her, because I honestly didn't know what to say to that. And now I don't really know what to say to you either, except that you have no idea how sorry I am that you thought what I said was against you or any of the people who are trying to make things better out there. It really was quite the opposite.
Actually, I think I'll just leave everyone here alone for a bit and take my stupid self elsewhere and find someone else's feelings to hurt, as I'm obviously so damn good at it... Be seein' y'all...
Kat, Please don't go away for a while. This new topic and rehashing of what was already brought up was done by me in response to a challenge to do so. In no way is it meant to be a "rant on Katcal". There was never a need to apologize, I shared my feelings on something that upset me because I thought that it was good to share this feeling. The further posts, after my second one, were not in response to you, but to someone else. When serious matters are brought up, we should expect passions to be inflamed at times. Spirituality, morality, politics, life and death. But we would do, not only ourselves, but the state of humanity's discourse a disservice if we were to flee whenever we upset someone. Or if we avoided the "controversial" issues because we 'might' offend someone. You're a valued member of this community, too valuable to let a small disagreement drive you away.
I agree with Brad. You're a valued member of the community and I wouldn't like to see you leave over something that doesn't make me think any less of you.
No, Kat, please don't go....you only made a bad judgement on a joke and we all do that from time to time. It doesn't mean that we don't like you, it just means we can debate with you..... Like i said it would be such a shame to see you go! I don't talk to you much and would like to change that, you are a valuable, caring part of this community and it would be a pity to see you go for one daft comment. edited for stupid spelling mistakes!
No Kat - what MissWhiplash said is true, it is not worth leaving over a misunderstanding. Your contributions tend to be funny, but it can be hard to work out the context of anyone's comments on a message board. Take care
As I was just saying to Brad, and another person who wishes to remain anonymous in case people end up thinking he's a nice person, that post was a typical example of why I'll be taking a [i:c756ffd0b1]short [/i:c756ffd0b1]break. It sounds like I'm leaving forever, or I'm going to commit suicide by ingestion of suspicious seafood, and it's not that at all. I can't seem to make anything sound like what I actually mean at the moment, on this board or on others, in English or French, and Brad wasn't the only one I inadvertantly upset over the last few days/weeks... I have a nice long week-end coming up, and a loving and rather concerned husband to cheer me up and get me rolling straight again, and I'll be back to annoy the socks off everyone [i:c756ffd0b1]on purpose[/i:c756ffd0b1] before you even have time to miss me, I promise ! In fact, if I hadn't been such a drama queen in that last one, you wouldn't have noticed at all And thanks and loads of sloppy over-the-top kisses to all those who put time and effrt into showing they cared, even if it's a false alert that counts, it really does, thanks all... see you next week
Well thats ok then! if suicide or perminant leaving isn't an option then i take it all back! enjoy your hol from us sweetheart!
Brad, I can see why you were upset, but you have to read everything in context. 99% of people in the world, on message boards etc, are civilians who know absolutely fuck all about what war is like, whether they think they do or not, and have no real comprehension of what it’s like to be existing in such conditions. Yet, of course, civilians will talk about war and IDEs, bombs, legs being blown off, dead children and so on with their friends in bars or whatever, and those friends will nod, agree or laugh if they tell a joke about it. Some may even protest that it’s a little sick to joke about it, without realising just how sick, but they are so far removed from it that it may as well be a different planet they’re talking about. And, to be honest, I think that’s how most people want it to be; that’s how most of our respective government want it to be, they don’t want everyone knowing the full horror. What I mean is you shouldn’t get upset when you see someone write this stuff, or when you get back home and overhear some stupid prick saying, ‘What we should do is bomb the fuckin’ lot of em’, and seeing his/her friends sagely agreeing. You should be glad, in an odd sort of way, that you come from a country where people are so removed from war and life is pretty much at peace that they can have such ill-founded opinions in the first place, that the majority of countries in the world are in a state of relative peace and can afford the time for barroom experts. Of course this works both ways, other people who know you and what you do should appreciate what you’ve been living through and seeing and understand why you’d be upset at their jokes and philosophies on war. The above has nothing really to do with Katcal by the way, who I think is one of the best newish people we’ve had here in ages, but more an observation of the gaping metaphorical canyon that lies between civilians back home and soldiers at the most serious and deadly end of politics.
[quote:2e2ad981ed="Bradthewonderllama"] Okay, some people might not know what an IED is. Spiky's post right after Garner was an indication of that, as well as when I tell people 'IED' who've never heard it before I almost always get "What's an IED?". IED stands for Improvised Explosive Device, basically a homemade bomb. [/quote:2e2ad981ed] I feel a little stupid I just thought it was yet another fancy acronym for a complicated military weapon. My bad. As to the rest: It seems a fairly minor fracas (possibly rumpus) and I don't see any reason for anyone to leave because of it.
[quote:80fdc5e80f="Maljonic"]Of course this works both ways, other people who know you and what you do should appreciate what you’ve been living through and seeing and understand why you’d be upset at their jokes and philosophies on war.[/quote:80fdc5e80f] As well as people who've gone through foreign service should try and understand why their filosophies on war might be offensive to some civilians back home. Now, the individual soldier can't and shouldn't be held responsible for a nation's politics, but he should probably be prepared to argue his choice to bear arms, should he engage in discussions on war.
Here is from my own point of view. 1. President Bush says that he is sad at the demise of children, as if this is an exceptional quality of character rather than something taken as a given, in western democracies at least. 2. Katcal took this statement of the blatantly obvious and dealt with its inherent absurdity by spinning it on its head. 3. You took it as an insult to your fallen comrades. Now let's get some things out of the way. IEDs are awful. So are guns, grenades, cannon balls, daggers, sabres, nuclear missiles, Mycobacterium tuberculosis and broken glass. Untimely death is also awful. For children, soldiers, cyclists, nurses, sheep herders, plumbers, civil servants and anyone you care to name. What is also awful is the way you are living Brad. You are in a situation where you comrades are the only ones you can trust with your life and in order to keep being alive you have to defend them with all your might, like they do for you. Same goes for you Roman. Keeping members of the security personnel going in and out the bathrooms just in case the tourists answering the calls of nature are actually wrapping themselves with explosives [i:9be86084a6]in an airport where the passengers have already gone through security checks[/i:9be86084a6] is not normal. This knee-jerk reaction (bad joke against Bush->"go tell it to the dead sons of mothers and fathers of children that could very easily be me") is more commonly found in the institutionalised. You two pull yourselves together. You have us to remind you that there is a world somewhere out there when disagreement and dissent does not mean we are not concerned for your safety and your well being. The least you can do for us is spare us the emotional blackmail.
I agree with Avgi. Katcal, sit down. You're not going anywhere. I'll defend peoples rights to make bad taste jokes until the end of time. A few months ago, I told a dead baby joke to someone at work. I later found out that person had once had a still birth. Faux pas! These things happen. Sometimes, an ill judged joke in the wrong place at the wrong time can have poor effects. But, I'm damned if I'm going to sit and criticise people for making an off the cuff joke. Every so often, people on TV get fired for making some joke that some people take offence to. Like, when the tsunami hit. A sports presentet made the joke "david beckham was going to sign for newcastle united, until he found out what devastation the toon army wrecked in asia" Now, for those that dont know, newcastles fans are called the toon army. I personally thought that was a reasonably amusing joke, but the guy lost his job over it. Personally, i find that ridiculous. In a similar vein, the fucking uproar over those stupid cartoons about the prophet. When people are dying over a joke, the worlds went wrong. In the end, it comes down to what people find funny. I was laughing at a joke about the london underground bombings the day after it happened, I have laughed at 9/11 jokes, I have chuckled at dead baby jokes, retard jokes, leprosy jokes and so on and so forth. I mean, I can see why people can get upset by jokes, but in that regard people are fucking hypocrites. You can laugh at a joke that would offend someone else, but if someone tells a joke you take exception to? Yeah. Another great example of why people are crap. If a joke is being told with no purpose other than degrading people or things, then yeah, I can see a good reason to be upset about it. But an off the cuff, satirical joke? If you can't laugh at yourself, you shouldn't laugh at anything. Perhaps what katcal said was offensive to some people, but then again, what isn't offensive to some people these days? What Mal said is quite right. Detachment means just that. Getting upset about it doesn't do anyone an good. So yeah. Katcal, you're not going anywhere. Edit: I should like to point out that I don't think katcals joke was even that offensive. I certainly didn't think twice about it when I read it.
I'm not yet ready with forming an overall opinion about this yet, I am vaguely siding with Mal and Kapten.. Doors - ... as far as I could decipher the posts in this thread, there is no further need to defend Katcal, is there? (I also want her to stay, needless to say.) In his second post in this thread, Brad makes it clear that he didn't start this thread to stomp on her, but picked up the discussion that rose from the initial communicative clash over her jokeand that's what Saccharissa is picking up in her response. The answer Katcal gave indicates the matter was more or less cleared between them; of course either side can correct me if I am wrong. As for bad jokes -and this is [i:ff9468c39f]absolutely [/i:ff9468c39f]not referring to anyone- I don't want the state to censor them out or anything, and I remember quite some debates where hypocricy was involved in so far that those things are often red herrings where people can openly demonstrate their moral standards on easy targets. But I personally, in a discussion, can judge them like any remark, on their quality, if they are intelligent or stupid, provocative or primitive, fit to the context or completely out of place, or whatever. There will other opinions than mine, and it can be discussed. But I am not per se a hypocrite because I maybe stumble about a remark -joke or not joke- I find offensive. That something went wrong when people die over a joke is of course absolutly right. But I think that is a completely different scale than expressing your dismay at a joke made on a message board, or in a pub, or at work. I do know that this post may make me look like a humourless dork. That's probably completely right... :?
I think there is a difference between 'being offensive' and 'taking offence' and an insult and a joke. I think people who 'take offence' at jokes, tend to...add more to what the joke is. They tend to actuallise it. While, for me, a joke is a constructed world, not a real one. For example: A dead baby joke... people who 'Take offence' at these jokes, normally say something like 'babies dying isn't funny'. And in real life, a baby dying clearly *isn't* funny (unless it's killed by a clown). While a "baby" in joke world dying, can be funny, becuase it's not real. Also, I think sometimes people forget who the butt of the joke is aimed at, and just see the shock value. So, say we take a shocking joke, suck as 'Rape is Just Surprise Sex' For me, the humour of this joke (though it's not the best one out there) comes from to things. One is the relabeling of something horrible into something nice. 'oh, It's not rape...it's um, surpirse sex!' It's like what bussnesses do, 'we're not sacking you, we're just downsizing'. The second point of humour comes from the idea that this is the rapist trying to defend his rape, trying to justify it by re-labelling it, and that is [i:c764356374]laughable[/i:c764356374]. Now, if you laugh at this joke, your not taking away from the horror or seriousness of rape, your not laughing at the at act of rape, or at the suffering of the victim, but at the Rapist, who is deserving of are comtempt and laugher. Context and situnation count for a lot, obivously, someone whos lost a baby, isn't going to enjoy a pun about babies dying, becuase of the bad memmories it will stir. But, I don't think that means these jokes shouldn't be made, or arent funny (though lots of them aren't.) um,... I have more to say on this later, when I'm more sleepy and (slighty) less incoherant. [/i]
[quote:c97864862a="Saccharissa"]Here is from my own point of view. 1. President Bush says that he is sad at the demise of children, as if this is an exceptional quality of character rather than something taken as a given, in western democracies at least. 2. Katcal took this statement of the blatantly obvious and dealt with its inherent absurdity by spinning it on its head. 3. You took it as an insult to your fallen comrades. Now let's get some things out of the way. IEDs are awful. So are guns, grenades, cannon balls, daggers, sabres, nuclear missiles, Mycobacterium tuberculosis and broken glass. Untimely death is also awful. For children, soldiers, cyclists, nurses, sheep herders, plumbers, civil servants and anyone you care to name. What is also awful is the way you are living Brad. You are in a situation where you comrades are the only ones you can trust with your life and in order to keep being alive you have to defend them with all your might, like they do for you. Same goes for you Roman. Keeping members of the security personnel going in and out the bathrooms just in case the tourists answering the calls of nature are actually wrapping themselves with explosives [i:c97864862a]in an airport where the passengers have already gone through security checks[/i:c97864862a] is not normal. This knee-jerk reaction (bad joke against Bush->"go tell it to the dead sons of mothers and fathers of children that could very easily be me") is more commonly found in the institutionalised. You two pull yourselves together. You have us to remind you that there is a world somewhere out there when disagreement and dissent does not mean we are not concerned for your safety and your well being. The least you can do for us is spare us the emotional blackmail.[/quote:c97864862a] I don't think that you quite understand what I've been saying. First of all, it's hard to insult the dead. They're dead. It's the living who take insult. Secondly, other than his first 'I agree with what Brad said', Roman hasn't gotten involved. Q: Have you heard about the new German microwave oven? A: It seats twelve. The humor in that joke isn't "ha ha, Jews were cooked", or "ha ha, Germans are Nazis" (well, not to most people), but more the fact that it's "wrong". How many times has a joke been put out and you think "that's just wrong" while snickering. But, If someone got upset at that, say someone who has been affected by the Jewish Holocaust, would you compare that anger to someone who is institutionalized's behavior? And would the joke still be funny, assuming that anyone did in the first place? Now, I don't have this persecuted complex where I think that no one cares about me or what's going on here. I do think that most people don't really care to hear the specifics of what's going on here. And that's fine, it's mostly dull here anyway. So please don't accuse me of thinking that people don't care about my wellbeing. So, let me say this again. It wasn't the mention of the word IED. It wasn't the lampooning of pres. Bush. I don't think that I've said word one about the various other lampoonings of pres. Bush. It wasn't that I thought that it was disrespectful to the dead. It was that the "we" mentioned in the joke is the US gov't, which includes me and my comrades. What was meant as an insulting joke about pres. Bush also painted me. There's enough inadvertant blood on the hands of the coalition military here without the suggestion that we purposefully blow up children. And yes, I realize that that was not the intent of the joke. It goes back to what Rinso was saying about the difference between something "being offensive" and "taking offence" at something. This was something that I actualized in my mind. Mal, as for what you said, I agree with you. But, if someone says "Bomb them all and let God sort it out" would you be surprised if someone verbally disagreed with that? If I made an error it was in allowing that hot streak of anger dictate what I say. But, even thinking about for an hour or two I only came up with that or "That offended me". And "That offended me" wasn't going to cut it. Doors, of course peole have to the right to tell bad jokes. If you're going to defend their right from me you're going to have an awfully boring battle. However, I will not curtail my expression either. "Freedom of Speech" isn't a one way street. And Kapten, anyone can ask me why I chose to bear arms for my country regardless of the topic. And as for being prepared for my philosophies being offensive to some people I think that an earlier post of mine mentioned that. [quote:c97864862a="Brad"] When serious matters are brought up, we should expect passions to be inflamed at times. Spirituality, morality, politics, life and death. But we would do, not only ourselves, but the state of humanity's discourse a disservice if we were to flee whenever we upset someone. Or if we avoided the "controversial" issues because we 'might' offend someone.[/quote:c97864862a] edit: coding
Just a short remark about Rinso's post: You were right about a lot of things, and incidentally "a dead baby isn't funny, unless it was killed by a clown" was quite funny, I thought. But I remember the having a passing by newbit having your example -"It's not rape, it's surprise sex"- having as his signature, and within 24 hours he was pointedly asked to change it, which no one disagreed to. Hm. Constructed or not, I just think there are jokes that do mean to express a point of view - none of the jokes I ever red on this board really counts in there, but what about an inmate of the German Big Brother camp making Holocuast jokes live on TV, for example? Or, another take on context: A woman I've known had -thirty years ago, mind you- a rough start with a bunch of colleagues at a place where a qualified woman still was a real novelty. For the entire first year, one of them kept tellying jokes that were, even after gracious standars, pretty mysoginist, when she was around (and only then) to make fun of her reaction (whichever it was). That's what I meant with context, too: Jokes can be used as an offense that you are not allowed to take offense in "because it was only a joke".
[quote:e34f0d2e2b="KaptenKaries"] [quote:e34f0d2e2b="Maljonic"] Of course this works both ways, other people who know you and what you do should appreciate what you’ve been living through and seeing and understand why you’d be upset at their jokes and philosophies on war. [/quote:e34f0d2e2b] As well as people who've gone through foreign service should try and understand why their filosophies on war might be offensive to some civilians back home. Now, the individual soldier can't and shouldn't be held responsible for a nation's politics, but he should probably be prepared to argue his choice to bear arms, should he engage in discussions on war. [/quote:e34f0d2e2b] [quote:e34f0d2e2b="Bradthewonderllama"] And Kapten, anyone can ask me why I chose to bear arms for my country regardless of the topic. And as for being prepared for my philosophies being offensive to some people I think that an earlier post of mine mentioned that.[/quote:e34f0d2e2b] That's great Brad. This wasn't directly aimed at you by the way, it was more of a general statement. I respect your choice to be a soldier, and after 25 years of modern life I'm quite exposed to the concept of militarism by now, so it doesn't really offend me, just sadden me. Since I'm allowed to, here I go: Why did you choose to bear arms for your country? Also, that earlier post you mentioned, I couldn't find it, but I didn't really look that thorough either, could you point me in the right direction? Edit: spelling.
[quote:58560b2dd2="KaptenKaries"]That's great Brad. Smile This wasn't directly aimed at you by the way, it was more of a general statement. I respect your choice to be a soldier, and after 25 years of modern life I'm quite exposed to the concept of militarism by now, so it doesn't really offend me, just sadden me. Since I'm allowed to, here I go: Why did you chose to bear arms for your country? Also, that earlier post you mentioned, I couldn't find it, but I didn't really look that thorough either, could you point me in the right direction?[/quote:58560b2dd2] I quoted the relevant part of my earlier post after my statement. [quote:58560b2dd2="Brad"]When serious matters are brought up, we should expect passions to be inflamed at times. Spirituality, morality, politics, life and death. But we would do, not only ourselves, but the state of humanity's discourse a disservice if we were to flee whenever we upset someone. Or if we avoided the "controversial" issues because we 'might' offend someone.[/quote:58560b2dd2] All philosophies can be considered serious matters, as someone usually holds their philosophies dear. But, we can not allow ourselves to be silent for fear of being offended. And for your question. I suppose that there are many reasons, little things here and there. Too much watching GI JOE as a child, perhaps... But, the largest reason is that I am not a pacifist. I'm not a warmonger, but I do believe that at times a nation must fight for somethings using arms. WWII is an example that pops to mind. I also think that the US should have intervened in the Sudan, and in Liberia. So, I do believe in the use of war, as horrid as it is. I did not feel comfortable with having these opinions and yet having never served. So, I enlisted as a medic in the Pennsylvanial National Guard (similar to the UK territorial army).
[quote:e896cf2e44="Bradthewonderllama"]When serious matters are brought up, we should expect passions to be inflamed at times. Spirituality, morality, politics, life and death. But we would do, not only ourselves, but the state of humanity's discourse a disservice if we were to flee whenever we upset someone. Or if we avoided the "controversial" issues because we 'might' offend someone.[/quote:e896cf2e44] I agree. [quote:e896cf2e44="Bradthewonderllama"]And for your question. I suppose that there are many reasons, little things here and there. Too much watching GI JOE as a child, perhaps... But, the largest reason is that I am not a pacifist. I'm not a warmonger, but I do believe that at times a nation must fight for somethings using arms. WWII is an example that pops to mind. I also think that the US should have intervened in the Sudan, and in Liberia. So, I do believe in the use of war, as horrid as it is. I did not feel comfortable with having these opinions and yet having never served. So, I enlisted as a medic in the Pennsylvanial National Guard (similar to the UK territorial army).[/quote:e896cf2e44] It is honorable of you to participate in what you believe in, using the means you see best fit for the job.
