Another question on racism/bigotry: Should it always be up to the offended to decide...

[daedalus_dude]

...whether a specific case constitutes discrimination/prejudism/bigotry?

I don't think so.

Actually, I think that while the fact that someone feels offended by alledged bigotry should be considered strong evidence that actual bigotry is taking place, ultimately the offended person may specifically NOT be the correct person to make the final judgement.

I view this sort of like a criminal court case.

Most legal systems investigate more or less any crime that is being reported. And I think that is the way it should be with discrimination. The fact that someone feels discriminated (based on gender, race, orientation or whatever) should always be taken seriously.

But there is a reason that we call for an independent party (jury or peers, judge or whatever) to decide whether the evidence leaves it beyond any reasonable doubt
that person A commited crime X against person B (and not leave it up to person B to decide).

The reason is that the objective judgement of the victim may be clouded by the feeling of being
violated and perhaps by past experiences with similar matters.

Important though IMO is that among those who make that final jugdement should be some that have personal experience with similar matters (but are not personally involved with the specific case at hand).

[vadawg]

1. i think the problem with the offended getting to decide whats bigotry is that

its easy to be offended, not sure if i like the idea of someones livelihood/freedom etc being being at risk due to a perceived offence, some people are always looking to be offended and im sure everyone knows at least one person in their lifes who fits this mould.

[Luminous Animal]

4. Well, that was a nice pile of grammatical nonsense.

I will counter your brilliant observation that "some people are always looking to be offended" with "some people are always looking to offend". A bunch of them have regular access to a wide audience via the corporate media... Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage...

[vadawg]

5. and how does that take away the idiots who find offense in mundane stuff

why the hell should i be able to label you just because you offended me, most often without any malice on your part.. or is this some brilliant plan that will have a fixed set of rules on what is deemed offensive and whats not..

[Luminous Animal]

7. What mundane stuff would that be?

Be specific.

[vadawg]

8. okay the dude who thinks the word "blackmail" is meant as a racist insult

the person who finds the phrase "look for the chink in their armour" offensive, i am sure you could have a million more common words and phrases that you really have to look for the offense, but none the less someone will try to say its offensive.

[Luminous Animal]

2. Absolutely! Let's take face to face interaction out of..

the equation all together! Sure you've offended someone but don't take their word for it. Obviously, a bunch of other people should judge whether or not that person is offended.

[EFerrari]

3. That would resolve the problem of angry black men once and for all!

:sarcasm:

[Luminous Animal]

6. Oh sure. And angry women, too!

[Karenina]

9. Wait till Bloo finds this one..

:hide:

[daedalus_dude]

10. What will happen?

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Yes

[FLDCVADem]

12. Sure

Let the offended decide. However, the offended shouldn't expect everyone else to agree with the assessment, nor should anyone or everyone else be expected to cater to the offended's individual definition.

[Starry Messenger]

13. I'd say yes.

The court system is hardly free of bias within the context of our culture either. We can claim that it is a free and impartial judge in theory, but I'm sure this is not always the case in reality.

[noamnety]

14. year or two ago I would have said yes absolutely

Now I still mostly believe that, but after watching some of the flamefests here over the concept of "oppression olympics" I don't know how to answer it. There are clearly instances where two (or more) oppressed parties are convinced that the other is holding their position because they are bigots.

Are all parties involved bigots because each has been accused by a member of the other oppressed group?