0 Votes
Slutty Halloween Costumes?
| Demonstrates America's falling values | |
| Shows a lacks of personal class | |
| Reveals a person's suppressed, inner kink | |
| Great eye candy for watching |
0 Votes
What is OmniNerd?
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.
Voting Booth
35 votes,
4 comments
No option by Anonymous
They are all the same option.
Take Option 1 as the definition for all:
Option 2 ~ Lack of personal class = failing values
Option 3 ~ Revealing inner kink = failing values
Option 4 ~ Great eye candy = failing values
There are no options!
RE: No option by Anonymous
How does the Option 3 equate to failing values?
RE: No option by scottb
For that matter, how does option 4?
RE: No option by Occams
How about:
It’s a dumb celebration, having no relevance to our cultural values or beliefs, so let’s show it some disrespect.
RE: No option by scottb
I’m not sure I’d go that far. There’s no reason to disparage a culturally acceptable excuse to have a little harmless fun.
I just think the anonymous poster who thinks “slutty” costumes are symptoms of the end of civilization is raving a bit.
RE: No option by Occams
Sure its harmless, but since it is not tied to the culture or sincerely held beliefs of any particular minority group, it is fair game for insults. It is nice to have a custom that can be ridiculed and no one has a right to be offended, let alone not be offended.
RE: No option by scottb
I’d say that all customs are fair game for ridicule. Sure, people like to pretend they’re offended — and they may even feel offended — when someone “insults” Christmas, Easter, Yom Kippur, Thanksgiving, or Ramadan, but they don’t really have any such “right”.
RE: No option by Occams
but they don’t really have any such “right”
I agree completely. The absence of a right to not be offended is an important aspect of our free speech which I hope will be regularly exercised by prominent people publicly saying things that will offend the precious minorities who believe that they have a right to be protected from words that hurt them. This applies to Christians, Jews, Islamics, Native people, gays, all racial groups, Mormons, COS, JW, and all their prophets and holy people times and places. etc. etc. Even Republicans!
While I have no personal desire to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of these people, I think our society will be better when it can be done and reported in the media without any fear of retribution.
While I do not go out of my way to hurt the feelings of anyone (That would lack empathy and hence technically be psychopathic). If faced by a situation where I thought is desirable to do so, I personally would exempt in my own speech only people having mental or physical disabilities, or children, where I think it is, if not morally wrong, in extremely poor taste.
RE: No option by scottb
The absence of a right to not be offended is an important aspect of our free speech
I actually don’t quite like the phrasing of that. To be honest, they do have a right to be offended — they just don’t have a right to prevent others from causing that offense.
A week or so ago, a high-school classmate of mine posted on her Facebook page, this quote:
Like many of the things she posts (she’s a teabagger), I found that offensive. She had every right to post it, and I have every right to take offense at it. It’s a grotesque mis-representation of what Big Bang theory actually claims, and it says a lot more about the ignorance of the typical Christian than it does about atheist beliefs.
But, again, I have the right to take offense — I just don’t have the right to prevent her from posting stupid, offensive things, nor do I have the right to demand anyone else do so.
I responded with the obvious parallel quote:
Ironically, she took offense, insisting that my (borrowed) characterization of Christianity was unfair and inaccurate.
RE: No option by Occams
You mis-read me. My wording was precise. The important thing is that we do not have a right to not be offended. We have every right to be offended, and to complain about it, but nothing should be done in law to stop it.
Draw a cartoon of Muhammad and publish it, and the lives of everyone involved and many not involved become at risk from extremist Islamics who believe that they have a right to be so upset that they can riot and kill for religious sensitivity reasons. They have no right to be protected from ugly images of their prophet. Public images of Christian icons are probably illegal in their homelands, not for the same reason, but because they are extremely intolerant of the presence of other religions.
We do have racial vilification laws. Strictly, they are wrong in terms of the Constitution, but they make sense for good government, the protection of innocent people, and to accelerate the mental growth of Americans by flushing all that racist shit out of their system. Same for Gays I guess. No problem there, but it is inconsistent. These anomalies create the impression that some groups do have a right to not be offended.
RE: No option by scottb
Actually, in this thread, you’ve said it both ways…
no one has a right to be offended, let alone not be offended.
RE: No option by Occams
If I said that it was a mistake.
RE: No option by Travis
We do have racial vilification laws. Strictly, they are wrong in terms of the Constitution, but they make sense for good government, the protection of innocent people, and to accelerate the mental growth of Americans by flushing all that racist shit out of their system.
I would say that’s is precisely the problem… Once you create special groups or classes that “must” be protected by some special set of laws then all outsiders of that group are inherently victimized.
In this case you refer to racial laws which in turn create racial classes. I am not saying there is inequality between races but that creating special laws for certain racial classes further increases the inequality; either by resentment or by successfully and potentially making a class superior in terms of advantages as a result of such laws. All I’m saying is that creating class or group laws are discriminating and no equal, and often lead to unintended effects.
No with regards to free speech… I think this country has gone way overboard on infringing on that right. However, I do think it is dangerous to assert that it should be ok to let anyone spew anything they want out of their mouth just because it’s only words. There must be self control and values taught to minimize the impact of hurtful speech. That said I think people do need to toughen up a bit to not take offense especially when not intended.
As a question… are slander laws an infringement on free speech? If so is it a necessary evil? I think there’s been a thread on this before.
RE: No option by Occams
I agree, Travis. We do have laws like that already that have broad community support: regarding racial vilification and homosexuals. These laws are very PC, and cannot be challenged without it making you appear to be a total bastard, and certainly unelectable.
Most people do not understand the free speech implications and are really not interested. They see it as being about human decency: which it certainly is.
Getting back to the original thread, I see no problem with ridiculing Halloween using slutty costumes. The whole anniversary is absurd in the modern context, and so anything that makes it more ridiculous is quite appropriate. Obviously, taste and decency should kick in at a certain point.
RE: No option by Travis
Yeah, I suppose the intended thread is about slutty costumes. In that regard…
How is Halloween any more absurd “in the modern context” than our other holidays? If anything I’m for strengthening the holiday importance if only to get another day off work ;). I guess what I’m getting to is why “slut out” Halloween over any other holiday? Or even better why “slut out” at all in view of others? This of course is alluding to the idea that such costumes are being worn in public or limited public settings. I don’t care how kinky one gets with celebrating any holiday as long as it’s done in the privacy of their own homes.
I guess I don’t follow how degrading anything because of our own view point is healthy in any regard. More specifically why is it so important to make a public statement on how one views Halloween by dressing up like a “slut?” To what end? To end an absurd holiday for everyone because a few people want to make a statement that the holiday is absurd?
I personally think that the increase in slutty costumes being worn (specifically aimed at women and targeting younger and younger ages) is a reflection of the degradation of our values. Perhaps that’s just my perception but I am amazed what young girls where on Halloween.
RE: No option by Occams
How is Halloween any more absurd “in the modern context” than our other holidays?
I guess I feel that way because it relates to ancient superstitions that no one has anymore. It is all pretense, and extremely shallow as a celebration of nothing.
However, it is good to have some fun, and I am not knocking that. I just think it deserves no reverence, and slutty costumes may be a way of expressing that.
I think it is harmless fun for kids, but adults should keep out of it.
RE: No option by scottb
However, I do think it is dangerous to assert that it should be ok to let anyone spew anything they want out of their mouth just because it’s only words.
and…
As a question… are slander laws an infringement on free speech?
Kind of point out a contradiction. The law already understands the problems with letting people say anything they want “just because it’s only words”. That’s why we have laws against defamation (slander and libel). In a similar vein there’s Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr’s famous passage from Schenk v US:
The fact is the law does protect a man who shouts fire in a theater and causes a panic—if there really is a fire. Likewise, truth is almost always adequate defense against defamation charges. The key point here is that we have no desire to protect false speech.
So, if the words are true, then they should be protected no matter what.
Now, there’s another aspect to this. We should all, “defend to the death” people’s right to say whatever they want, regardless of whether we approve of the content (so long as it’s true), but that doesn’t mean we should let it go un-answered.
Bad speech should be provoke us to better speech, not censorship. The Westboro Baptist Church must absolutely be allowed to say “God Hates Fags”, we mustn’t stop them, but we should all treat them as the lunatics they are — voice our disgust, stage counter protests, preferably with a gay “kiss-in” or some thing similar, expose them to the ridicule they so richly deserve. That’s the right response.
RE: No option by Travis
Scott,
Thanks for the quote from Schenk v US…
Would it be going too far to interpret the quote to mean that it is a combination of speech and what it incites? I mean you’d probably get sued either way if you yelled fire in a crowded theater and someone got hurt or killed because of the hysteria that ensued. However, in the truth telling scenario the intent was to warn, not to cause harm and you’d be protected, while the false scenario you have no leg to stand on?
I ask to expound on my previous statement that it’s dangerous to assert it should be ok to say anything you want. As an example… verbal abuse (cyber or personal) that leads to suicide. Should there be punitive results to such speech?
Were I was personally going is that I think this is more of a cultural concern that a legislative one. I think that although it may be true doesn’t always make it right to say it. Should we not teach ourselves constraint? And on the same token learn to not overly react when constraint is not practiced?
I think I agree with most of what you are saying.
RE: No option by scottb
Would it be going too far to interpret the quote to mean that it is a combination of speech and what it incites?
I think that’s part of what Holmes was getting at. A reasonable person understands that shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater will likely cause a panic. In a sense, the person shouting “fire!” is taking responsibility for that panic. If there’s really a fire, then the effect of the panic in getting people out of the theater is desirable, and he shouldn’t be punished, even if someone should happen to be injured in the press. If there’s no fire then clearing the theater isn’t justified and the injuries are his fault and he should be punished.
I ask to expound on my previous statement that it’s dangerous to assert it should be ok to say anything you want. As an example… verbal abuse (cyber or personal) that leads to suicide. Should there be punitive results to such speech?
That’s an interesting scenario. My suspicion is that verbal abuse that leads to suicide is almost certainly likely to enter into the area of defamation, leaving it unprotected.
There are probably a few cases — like the recent attention given to gay teen suicides — that may not. A teen getting “outed” can face a hard life in quite a few parts of the country. Still, I have a hard time putting the blame for the suicide on the individual speaker — the real cause of the suicide is the intolerance in the larger culture. One bully doesn’t make a suicide, it’s the entire town sticking up for the bully instead of the victim that does.
Were I was personally going is that I think this is more of a cultural concern that a legislative one. I think that although it may be true doesn’t always make it right to say it. Should we not teach ourselves constraint?
I think that goes without saying — sensible, civilized people exercise that restraint unless they’re given legitimate cause to do otherwise. But that “legitimate cause” is the key thing. What seems legitimate to me may not to you, so you might not see my breaking the taboo as legitimate.
For example, I think religion is a significant cause of problems in the world and that it’s not just harmless nonsense, and most definitely not beneficial in any way. This leads me to say things that many deeply religious folks find offensive. I think they need to be said, precisely because talking about religion in a negative light is a cultural taboo.
And on the same token learn to not overly react when constraint is not practiced?
This is where I think we fail most often.
I’ve said this before — the Constitution outlines a set of cultural choices that go a lot deeper than just the surface interpretation, and I think all Americans ought to feel themselves bound by them: innocent until proven guilty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process, and so on. To me, that means it’s a personal failing to think OJ or Casey Anthony is really guilty — we gave it our best shot at proving they did it and we couldn’t. You should be angry when someone defaces a “controversial” billboard, regardless of whether you agree with it. You should be offended by the fact that only Protestant Christians can get elected to be President. “Extraordinary rendition” and the military detentions in Guantanamo Bay are shameful.
So, yes — when we shouldn’t overreact when someone says something we don’t like. It’s the “American way” in the truest sense of the word to recognize that people must be free to speak their minds, no matter how unpopular their words may be. If we don’t have that freedom, we can’t ensure the others.
RE: No option by VnutZ
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
I love it.
RE: No option by Occams
I think this raises an interesting question:
Do some people earn the right to not be offended?
Many of us would probably give that right to war veterans to whom we all owe an immense debt. However, the right to criticize our involvement in wars in which many soldiers may have suffered and died is one of the most important aspects of free speech.
It is a shame that we just can’t expect them to appreciate the constitutional point and should expect them to often take it very badly, and perhaps even react violently. Try telling the marines that their sacrifice was wasted? The Vietnam vets did not understand, and took it very personally, adding to their PTSD neurosis. Perhaps this could have been avoided by anti-vilification laws, but the lessons of Vietnam had to be learned by all of us, whether we were involved or not.
Another example might be medical professionals who work for free in ghastly places and at great risk: those who are fighting AIDS in African war zones for example. While I would find it hard to criticize these wonderful people, some may feel that AIDS is God’s punishment which should not be interfered with, and they have a right to express such a crazy opinion.
What about women and children. Do they have a right to be shielded from filthy language. It always makes my flesh creep when I am with a classy lady and some street trash says inappropriate things in her hearing.
I once camped with my young family in a tent, when later a group of Hell’s Angels arrived and camped next to us …
What about police? Possibly not, because we must avoid the police state and be able to criticize them freely. But we put them in the position of having to deal with the worst dregs of our society on our behalf, and it is unreasonable to expect them to tolerate unfair abuse, even in the media.
RE: No option by scottb
Do some people earn the right to not be offended?
I think the answer is an unqualified “no”.
The only way to prevent such offense is censorship, but the remedy for bad speech is good speech, not censorship.
I think the recent Hank Williams, Jr., debacle is a fine example. He said something a lot of people found offensive. The voices raised in complaint were enough that ESPN decided they were better off distancing themselves from him and they terminated his contract. That’s how it works — bad speech is followed by good speech: voices raised in protest.
RE: No option by Occams
It would be good if it always worked that way.
Expensive Costumes by VnutZ
So this poll apparently caused the lingerie company Yandy to pop as highly relevant by Google Ads. I was amazed to see the price of some of those skimpy costumes upwards of $200!!
Maybe I should make and sell those instead of developing software …