The DC mayor is a POS....

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Levin

I wasn't offended. If I was black, I would have been. The comparison is offensive. Do you not see why? Then you need to study the racial history in our country again and the South's massive resistance to desegregating. What DC is doing is not even close. And it's not about race; it's about guns.

So, just to make sure I understand you correctly: you weren't offended, you were just saying the analogy is offensive on behalf of others?

Perhaps I have reading comprehension problems but I understood the comparison to be about Federal might winning out over local/state defiance. It may or may not be apt; however, I don't see why it is offensive just because the federal/state battle happened to be about segregation. It would be helpful if you could please explain why.

After your explanation, I have some follow-up question(s) for you: Do you think any analogy/story/topic involving blacks/segregation is offensive? If not, would you mind explaining the dividing line between what is and isn't offensive if an analogy/story/topic involves blacks/segregation? How does one know what one can and can't say about blacks/segregation without offending?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

So, just to make sure I understand you correctly: you weren't offended, you were just saying the analogy is offensive on behalf of others?

Perhaps I have reading comprehension problems but I understood the comparison to be about Federal might winning out over local/state defiance. It may or may not be apt; however, I don't see why it is offensive just because the federal/state battle happened to be about segregation. It would be helpful if you could please explain why.

After your explanation, I have some follow-up question(s) for you: Do you think any analogy/story/topic involving blacks/segregation is offensive? If not, would you mind explaining the dividing line between what is and isn't offensive if an analogy/story/topic involves blacks/segregation? How does one know what one can and can't say about blacks/segregation without offending?

Easy. If one is offended by something you say, it is because one chooses to be offended.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

So, just to make sure I understand you correctly: you weren't offended, you were just saying the analogy is offensive on behalf of others?

Perhaps I have reading comprehension problems but I understood the comparison to be about Federal might winning out over local/state defiance. It may or may not be apt; however, I don't see why it is offensive just because the federal/state battle happened to be about segregation. It would be helpful if you could please explain why.

After your explanation, I have some follow-up question(s) for you: Do you think any analogy/story/topic involving blacks/segregation is offensive? If not, would you mind explaining the dividing line between what is and isn't offensive if an analogy/story/topic involves blacks/segregation? How does one know what one can and can't say about blacks/segregation without offending?

If the DC government actually had just reenacted a gun ban, then you're right, the analogy would have been apt, and you wouldn't have heard a peep from me. The DC government didn't do that. But some emotional extremism as it relates to guns caused people here to conjure up comparison to black children being water-hosed and Governor Wallace blocking the doors to black students -- all of which were done in direct defiance of federal law. Here, the DC government isn't defying anything: they're just doing as little as the Supreme Court said they had to. That's why it was offensive: our nation's racial history was opportunistically used to cover up a sloppy and emotional argument about owning guns.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Easy. If one is offended by something you say, it is because one chooses to be offended.

I actually agree with you: but can't you recognize something as being offensive without you yourself being offended?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Levin

I actually agree with you: but can't you recognize something as being offensive without you yourself being offended?

Yes, I can see why something could be considered offensive.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Levin

If the DC government actually had just reenacted a gun ban, then you're right, the analogy would have been apt, and you wouldn't have heard a peep from me. The DC government didn't do that. But some emotional extremism as it relates to guns caused people here to conjure up comparison to black children being water-hosed and Governor Wallace blocking the doors to black students -- all of which were done in direct defiance of federal law. Here, the DC government isn't defying anything: they're just doing as little as the Supreme Court said they had to. That's why it was offensive: our nation's racial history was opportunistically used to cover up a sloppy and emotional argument about owning guns.

I never said the analogy was apt so I can't t be "right" or "wrong" because I'm not making a claim. I asked for an explanation of your opinion, which you have provided. Thank you for that. Unfortunately, you didn't answer the follow-up questions.

Another curious thought I had: You also just said you weren't offended so how can you claim the analogy was offensive? Do you have some insight on what the average black person would think if they heard the analogy? If so, how did you gain such insight?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Levin

But some emotional extremism as it relates to guns caused people here to conjure up comparison to black children being water-hosed and Governor Wallace blocking the doors to black students -- all of which were done in direct defiance of federal law.

Are you really ascribing that to me? After I have said I misread it?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Are you really ascribing that to me? After I have said I misread it?

No; I was thinking of Waters.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

I never said the analogy was apt so I can't t be "right" or "wrong" because I'm not making a claim. I asked for an explanation of your opinion, which you have provided. Thank you for that. Unfortunately, you didn't answer the follow-up questions.

Another curious thought I had: You also just said you weren't offended so how can you claim the analogy was offensive? Do you have some insight on what the average black person would think if they heard the analogy? If so, how did you gain such insight?

I ascribe to the camp that you can understand how something could be offensive to others without being offended yourself.

As to your follow-up questions; when analogies and such are apt, they're apt. So if comparisons to the struggle for racial equality are apt, use them by all means. When you opportunistically cover up a sloppy and weak argument with them, I'll take aim and fire. But not b/c I think it is a big deal or that anybody here are racists; but to get some clarity on the arguments being deployed.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Levin

I actually agree with you: but can't you recognize something as being offensive without you yourself being offended?

I can't. Something is offensive if it one deems it to be such. The term "offensive" is by definition a subjective term.

If something isn't offensive to me then I really have a hard time understanding why someone else would find it offensive. Conversely, if something offends me, I really don't understand why it wouldn't offend others. I'm careful to avoid taking offense and I'm careful about doing/saying something that I personally would consider offensive but I conclude it is impossible to learn what every other individual on the earth would consider offensive. Heck, I think it is impossible to learn about and try to avoid subjects that only the individual I interact with consider offensive. Because it is impossible, I deem it irrational to consider or worry about what someone else might think is offensive.