>>You claim that what I say is deeply offensive to black people, but when I say it in front of actual real-life black people, they don't see it as a reason not to be my friend.

Surely that's not quite right.

"You claim that what I say is deeply offensive to black people, but when I say it in front of real-life black people who happen to be my friends, they don't see it as a reason not to be my friend"

The important part there is the friend thing. There are many potentially offensive things you can say to a friend which they would not find offensive simply because they are your friend but would offend someone you were not friends with.

>>Some of my best friends, unlike you, are black, and I don't have to watch my mouth around them, and they, unlike you, don't think I'm a racist

This is also probably closer to the truth if phrased as "Some of my best friends, unlike you, are black, and I don't have to watch my mouth around them, and they, unlike you, don't think that I am a racist but they do find that sometimes I say racist things but they let it slide because I am their friend and they know that deep down I don't believe these things or alternatively it is only friendly abuse between friends that results in some horseplay."

I have friends who, on occasion, say comments which, in the wrong company, would result in a brief stay in hospital.

"If a gay man is standing in front of you, telling you that he is offended, it does no good to mention the existence of some of your gay friends. There is no reason for him to give a damn."

Well yes, but only in this limited case.

There is, however, a case - another "specific" case - where the SoMBFA[insert chosen victim group] argument does hold.

If the target held that not only was the remark offensive, but also that it was indicative of a more general prejudice against the target's chosen victim group, then the SoMBFA[insert chosen victim group] would be a relevant defence.

In this case, the target has assumed bad motive on the part of the remarker and therefore breaks rule 1 of giving and taking offence. SoMBFA[insert chosen victim group] is a valid attempt to show that the assumption of bad motive is misplaced.

Mupwangle,

> "You claim that what I say is deeply offensive to black people, but when I say it in front of real-life black people who happen to be my friends, they don't see it as a reason not to be my friend"

I'm assuming that your friends were allowed to meet you and get to know you before they became your friends.


> "Some of my best friends, unlike you, are black, and I don't have to watch my mouth around them, and they, unlike you, don't think that I am a racist but they do find that sometimes I say racist things but they let it slide because I am their friend and they know that deep down I don't believe these things or alternatively it is only friendly abuse between friends that results in some horseplay."

But someone who believes that what they just said was racist wouldn't be trying to argue the point in the first place.


Cleanthes,

> If the target held that not only was the remark offensive, but also that it was indicative of a more general prejudice against the target's chosen victim group, then the SoMBFA[insert chosen victim group] would be a relevant defence.

Absolutely right, yes.

>>If the target held that not only was the remark offensive, but also that it was indicative of a more general prejudice against the target's chosen victim group, then the SoMBFA[insert chosen victim group] would be a relevant defence.

Really? I meet people pretty much every day who have friends of a particular group in spite of their prejudices. I used to see it a lot in Scotland with the whole sectarian thing and it is rampant here with the BNP. Delete as applicable:- "I think all muslims/catholics/protestants/jews/buddhists should be shot - except for Iqbal/Fidelma/Derek/Brian/Richard Gere - he/she's different."

I can think of about a dozen people who are quite racist and/or bigotted who would quite happily use that defence to get them out of trouble and it would be completely invalid.

It's a bit moot anyway since it should be generally agreed that getting offended on another person's behalf is just dumb - especially when the slight is debatable in the first palce. ;-)

> I can think of about a dozen people who are quite racist and/or bigotted who would quite happily use that defence to get them out of trouble and it would be completely invalid.

Oh, sure; it's often invalid for certain people. The point of my post was a response to those people — and there are a lot of them — who insist that the argument is completely invalid for everyone all the time, to the extent that not only does it not work but even using it actually constitutes evidence of prejudice in their eyes.

I'm not prejudiced against any group of people. I am, however, postjudiced in all sorts of ways.

Mupwangle,

I think I need to make myself clearer.

I said:

"If the target held that not only was the remark offensive, but also that it was indicative of a more general prejudice against the target's chosen victim group, then ... "

Which very obviously precludes statements which are very obviously indicative of a general prejudice as opposed to being merely offensive to that particular individual.

I am really struggling to think of a situation where someone who is generally in the habit of declaring that "All Bhuddists should be shot" who end up with a number of Bhuddist best friends. In which case he would be lying if he were to deploy SoMBFA[insert chosen victim group].

But that is not what S2 is suggesting: SoMBFA[insert chosen victim group] is shot down as being irrelevant, not untruthful. Indeed it is judged SO irrelevant that the defence constitutes evidence of racism, precisely because it (that SoMBFA[insert chosen victim group]) is true.

I find that indiscriminate misanthropy saves a great deal of time and disappointment.

Ah, yes: the "All of my best friends are utter bastards" argument.

>>who insist that the argument is completely invalid for everyone all the time,

Yeah, from a logical perspective it would be completely valid to argue that having friends of a particular group gives you a better insight into what they would find offensive than someone who did not have such friends but unfortunately it has become such a cliche that it would immediately be dismissed as invalid. A very similar thing would be the phrase "I'm not [insert prejudice as applicable], but..." which is a perfectly valid thing to say if you are not [insert prejudice as applicable] but, for example, agree with a something that [nasty prejudiced person] said about [potentially [insert prejudice as applicable] subject] that you happen to agree with. Unfortunately, I think that it is pretty universal to suggest that anyone hearing the words "I'm not [insert prejudice as applicable], but..." immediately brace themselves for some diatribe which confirms beyond any shadow of a doubt how ingrained the [insert prejudice as applicable] is.

Cleanthes - the Buddhist mention was, due to mentioning religion, I wanted to be inclusive but didn't have the time to be exhaustive hence why buddhist is mentioned and not Hindi, Sikh, etc. I can't believe though that it would be impossible to be in such a situation with Buddhists. Possibly you just haven't met the right Buddhists.

>>Indeed it is judged SO irrelevant that the defence constitutes evidence of racism, precisely because it (that SoMBFA[insert chosen victim group]) is true.

It can't be irrelevant then. Sorry. ;-)

>>Ah, yes: the "All of my best friends are utter bastards" argument.

Nah. Everyone is an utter bastard but some of them won't leave me alone. ;-D

"Possibly you just haven't met the right Buddhists."

Yes, I did leave myself open to that.

"It can't be irrelevant then. Sorry. ;-) "

Touché...

"Unfortunately, I think that it is pretty universal to suggest that anyone hearing the words "I'm not [insert prejudice as applicable], but..." immediately brace themselves for some diatribe which confirms beyond any shadow of a doubt how ingrained the [insert prejudice as applicable] is."

It is indeed unfortunate, because it is wrong and - wait for it - prejudiced. Prejudiced against truth and honesty.

Take the following example: There had been a sharp rise in the number of cases of AIDS in a fairly limited geography and this was, naturally, raising concerns. Govt agencies went on a publicity drive to talk about safe sex etc etc. In fact the rise was confined largely to immigrants in Sub-Saharan Africa, who had contracted the disease there prior to immigration. This fact was undeniable but unpalatable. Worse still, the Govt response was counter productive, by wasting resources in a futile campaign that could have been targetted at the relevant (small, identifiable) sector of the population.

Merely recounting these facts can be enough to have you labelled a racist.

One is almost required in today's fevered state to give some kind of caveat before discussing such matters. I would argue that is a bad thing.