# Halloween costumes -- where is the taste line drawn?



## Bullgrit (Oct 28, 2013)

This being the season for costume parties, I'm seeing some news items lately that show various people in what the media (or someone) label as "offensive" or "insensitive".

One article showed a white celebrity costumed and apparently made up to look like a black character on a TV show. Her make up was labeled "black face", but her face wasn't black, it was more like a light tan. As I don't know the celebrity, (nor the character she was portraying), before reading the article, I didn't know the color wasn't normal for her, or how accurate it was to the character. Should people stick to their own race for a character costume?

A couple years ago, one of the British princes dressed in a Nazi uniform for a costume party. There was a lot of uproar about it. The problem struck  me as odd. He could have dressed as the devil, an axe murderer, a zombie, a medieval executioner, and no one would have had a problem. But somehow Nazi is over the line?

Where do you drawn the line for good taste in a Halloween costume? What if you went to a Halloween costume party. What would you consider a bad taste costume?

Bullgrit


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 28, 2013)

People need to understand that there is no right to not be offended.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 28, 2013)

goldomark said:


> People need to understand that there is no right to not be offended.




Yup.  There is no line.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 28, 2013)

In England, "Black face" seems to be anything to do with darkening one's complexion.
I have no interest in seeing anyone dressed up as a giant reproductive organ, but that's about it.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 28, 2013)

Blackface is just in bad taste, just get a rubber mask of the person and it is then okay...as long as you are not doing something offensive.  

Anything Nazi is in bad taste, just don't risk it.  

Body parts, no problem...people seem to like big body parts. 

Guys in drag, classic funny and girls are not offended by it for some reason and even will be feeling the guy up when they do.


----------



## gamerprinter (Oct 28, 2013)

Halloween costumes... while I'm not a fan of every costume idea, I don't consider any line not to cross as even existing. Halloween is all about pretending to be someone else. If you're doing that, why would there be some political line somewhere. The point of Halloween originally is almost to defy politics. Why change that to be "PC", screw "PC", I say.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 28, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> Anything Nazi is in bad taste, just don't risk it.



Wut!? They had great taste in costumes and symbols. And they make awesome vilains!


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 29, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Wut!? They had great taste in costumes and symbols. And they make awesome vilains!




Yeah, they were a really stylish little troupe.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 29, 2013)

gamerprinter said:


> The point of Halloween originally is almost to defy politics.




Do what, now?  The point of Halloween originally is a religious day to remember the dead, and to remember saints (All Hallow's Day is also known as All Saints Day in some religious circles).  It has nothing to do with defying politics.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 29, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Wut!? They had great taste in costumes and symbols. And they make awesome vilains!




[video=youtube;ToKcmnrE5oY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY[/video]


----------



## Morrus (Oct 29, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> A couple years ago, one of the British princes dressed in a Nazi uniform for a costume party. There was a lot of uproar about it. The problem struck  me as odd. He could have dressed as the devil, an axe murderer, a zombie, a medieval executioner, and no one would have had a problem. But somehow Nazi is over the line?




That's the tabloid press for you.  Famous person does something that the press figures out can be spun into an indignant news story.  Profit.


----------



## gamerprinter (Oct 29, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Do what, now?  The point of Halloween originally is a religious day to remember the dead, and to remember saints (All Hallow's Day is also known as All Saints Day in some religious circles).  It has nothing to do with defying politics.




Perhaps I'm wrong, but yes what you say applies to All Saints Day, but I'm talking of All Saints Day Eve, which is supposed to have it's own significance, if allowing for Celtic tradition to mix with the Catholic holiday - going back to the origins of marrying pagan holidays to Christian ones in order to more easily convert the pagans to Christianity. But I am not a religious historian of any kind, but my exposure has always alluded to this being truthful.


----------



## Janx (Oct 29, 2013)

gamerprinter said:


> Perhaps I'm wrong, but yes what you say applies to All Saints Day, but I'm talking of All Saints Day Eve, which is supposed to have it's own significance, if allowing for Celtic tradition to mix with the Catholic holiday - going back to the origins of marrying pagan holidays to Christian ones in order to more easily convert the pagans to Christianity. But I am not a religious historian of any kind, but my exposure has always alluded to this being truthful.




Originally, Halloween, as practiced by pagans was called Samhain (pronounced sow-when, probably a celtic or gaelic word).  One aspect of the holiday (like Thanksgiving) is as a Fall Festival, celebrating the bounty of the harvest, etc.

When Christianity was spread, as GP indicates, they'd merge/replace the old holidays with Christian versions.  Easter is like that, as it was formerly called Ostara and was a fertility holiday (hence the bunnies).

And as with most spiritual things, there was meaning associated to the opposite/reverse.  So if there's All Hallows Day, there is All Hallows Eve (the day before).

Per the History Channel, Halloween varied in its significance to various cultures.  It wasn't until the 20th century when the concept of dressing in costumes and going trick or treating evolved.  There was no religious association with the trick or treating idea, it was just a party/activity concept that evolved.

Ironically enough, knowing this history (having seen the Hitler Channel, knowing pagans, etc), there have been some religious groups in America who thought Trick or Treating was the pagan activity and "wrong"  So they've started having Fall Festivals on their church grounds for Halloween events.  This is ironic, because Fall Festival is in fact the original purpose of Samhain in early pagan culture.  So they are in fact shunning the very American non-pagan practice and adopting the pagan practice under the objective of avoiding a pagan practice.

Note, this is only intended as information and not a discussion on the merits of any given religion.  I cite the anti-halloween example to reflect how a few groups' ignorance about the holiday has unwittingly driven them back to the practice they allegedly sought to avoid under their declared reasoning for doing so.  There is nothing wrong with their chosen way to celebrate the holiday, but doing so under mistaken understanding of history is a darn shame.


----------



## Janx (Oct 29, 2013)

goldomark said:


> People need to understand that there is no right to not be offended.




I just wish people would stop abusing their Right to Be Offended.

Some dude dressing up as a Nazi for Halloween is not a thing worth getting upset about.

Some dudes dressing up as Nazis and burning crosses on lawns, dragging men down the street with their pickup, stopping shoppers who buy expensive things at a shop because their ethnic group doesn't usually have that kind of money are things we should rightly be upset about and seek to change.


----------



## gamerprinter (Oct 29, 2013)

Actually Samhain is the end of the sheep herding season when the sheep are brought to winter grounds. Lughnasadh, on August 1st is the Celtic Harvest festival, not Samhain.

 <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->@_*Janx*_<!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> - Christmas is like that too. Some evidence suggests Jesus was born in September, but his birthday was moved to accomodate and associate with the Winter Solstice festival in Germany to Christianize that holiday (as well as merge with Roman gift giving traditions of the same season, that was also pagan).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 29, 2013)

> Some dude dressing up as a Nazi for Halloween is not a thing worth getting upset about.




Context matters, though.

I don't have a problem with dressing like a Nazi as a costume- if I did it, it would be _HILARIOUS_ since I'm a black guy of Jewish (and other minority) descent- but the person in question was a prince of England.  That war was only a generation ago, and it was on their doorstep.  While I still wouldn't have a personal problem with it if I were in his circle of friends, I can easily see how it might not play well with his countrymen.

Can you imagine the uproar if Rick Perry, governor of Texas, went to a costume ball dressed as a Confederate general or John Wilkes Booth?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 29, 2013)

I can imagine the uproar, yes.  However, that does not mean that said uproar would be justified.  People - even (mayhap especially) when acting in unison - can be incredibly stupid.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 29, 2013)

Janx said:


> I just wish people would stop abusing their Right to Be Offended.
> 
> Some dude dressing up as a Nazi for Halloween is not a thing worth getting upset about.
> 
> Some dudes dressing up as Nazis and burning crosses on lawns, dragging men down the street with their pickup, stopping shoppers who buy expensive things at a shop because their ethnic group doesn't usually have that kind of money are things we should rightly be upset about and seek to change.



I know. Pick ups are terrible vehicules, consumes lots of oil and pollutes like hell. Most people do not even transport stuff in them!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 29, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I can imagine the uproar, yes.  However, that does not mean that said uproar would be justified.  People - even (mayhap especially) when acting in unison - can be incredibly stupid.




Any political position carries with it responsibilities both actual and symbolic, and "Prince of England" carries a lot more symbolic duty than most other political positions.  Dressing up in the uniform of an enemy- especially one as recent and reviled as the Nazis- without _clearly and unequivocally_ lampooning it is never going to be OK.

At best, Harry achieved "ironic".  Not good enough.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 29, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Any political position carries with it responsibilities both actual and symbolic, and "Prince of England" carries a lot more symbolic duty than most other political positions.  Dressing up in the uniform of an enemy- especially one as recent and reviled as the Nazis- without _clearly and unequivocally_ lampooning it is never going to be OK.
> 
> At best, Harry achieved "ironic".  Not good enough.




Wrong.  Sometimes a costume is just a costume and the good prince wasn't even alive when that uniform meant anything more than snazzy clothes.  For god's sake, man, Neville Chamberlain took less grief than you're giving the prince and he did a damned sight more than wear a costume.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Oct 29, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Wrong.  Sometimes a costume is just a costume and the good prince wasn't even alive when that uniform meant anything more than snazzy clothes.  For god's sake, man, Neville Chamberlain took less grief than you're giving the prince and he did a damned sight more than wear a costume.




For good or bad, though, public figures are held to different standards than the general public.  And, among public figures in the UK, the royal family is one of the most prominent.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 29, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I can imagine the uproar, yes.  However, that does not mean that said uproar would be justified.  People - even (mayhap especially) when acting in unison - can be incredibly stupid.




Does the uproar need to be justified in your opinion? In a free society it certainly does not. People get to make their own decisions of whether the complaints they make are justified. 

Ultimately, Prince Harry apologized and the whole incident has pretty much blown over - eight years ago - whereas Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy has pretty much never actually blown over (though most of the outrage over Munich came after the war started - support in Britain was relatively high when he signed the accord).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 29, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Wrong.  Sometimes a costume is just a costume and the good prince wasn't even alive when that uniform meant anything more than snazzy clothes.  For god's sake, man, Neville Chamberlain took less grief than you're giving the prince and he did a damned sight more than wear a costume.




I'm not giving him ANY grief- as I said, and you apparently didn't read:



> While I still wouldn't have a personal problem with it if I were in his circle of friends...




I'm just recognizing the political reality of what he did.  The reaction he got was entirely predictable.

And as for that uniform meaning nothing more than snazzy clothes these days, you do realize, don't you, that that uniform and variations upon it are still worn in utmost seriousness by some pretty hate-filled people around the US and Europe?

When you're in the public eye, especially at the pinnacle of society, different rules apply, for good and ill.  Prince Harry isn't just one of us, he's part of the new era of the British monarchy.  As such, he has certain obligations and expectations to fulfill.  One of those is to be a shining symbol of his country's glory.  Arguably, that is his SOLE actual job.

And in that case, he fell short.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 29, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not giving him ANY grief- as I said, and you apparently didn't read:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nobody cared except Rupert Murdoch's comic-books and the _Daily Fail_.  Manufactured tabloid press outrage.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 29, 2013)

It made news on _this_ side of the pond...but you were there and I wasn't!


----------



## Janx (Oct 29, 2013)

gamerprinter said:


> Actually Samhain is the end of the sheep herding season when the sheep are brought to winter grounds. Lughnasadh, on August 1st is the Celtic Harvest festival, not Samhain.




Good to know.  I reckon some pagans didn't see the difference and thus that bit of lore didn't make it up the chain.

Your info does make more sense, at least in my native climate.  End of harvesting is september.  November is snowy cold. Makes sense to bring some animals in around that time.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 29, 2013)

NewJeffCT said:


> For good or bad, though, public figures are held to different standards than the general public.  And, among public figures in the UK, the royal family is one of the most prominent.




So what?  He's just a man and anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool.  One of the very major things wrong with this world is all the extra crap we've decided to assign to people who are for whatever reason perceived as a station above us.  That's wrongheaded.  I'm not saying people _don't _see him as someone who's supposed to be better for whatever dumbass reason they've decided was good enough, I'm saying it's _wrong _to do so and, therefore, those silly notions shouldn't apply.



billd91 said:


> Does the uproar need to be justified in your opinion? In a free society it certainly does not. People get to make their own decisions of whether the complaints they make are justified.




And that still doesn't make them right.  People feel the Earth is only six thousand years old - and I assure you they have their own justifications for that belief.  Is that enough, in your eyes, to make them right?

Anyhoo, lucky for me, I also get to make _my _own decision about whether or not someone's complaint is justified.  In this case, 'he's royalty' just doesn't cut it.  Cuz all I have to do to rebut is say 'so what'.



> Ultimately, Prince Harry apologized and the whole incident has pretty much blown over - eight years ago - whereas Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy has pretty much never actually blown over (though most of the outrage over Munich came after the war started - support in Britain was relatively high when he signed the accord).




For the first part, he shouldn't have apologized and it's sickening people asked him to.  Actually, the fact he apologized for it disgusts me far more than the outfit.  For the second, ever hear of hyperbole?  Hell, I even added a  emoticon.  



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not giving him ANY grief- as I said, and you apparently didn't read:




Exaggeration for effect.  C'mon, man.  I know you know how we roll and I even gave you a  emoticon to help.



> I'm just recognizing the political reality of what he did.  The reaction he got was entirely predictable.




And I'm rejecting that reality as invalid.  Predictable or not it doesn't make it right.  It's predictable that a skinhead will shout racial slurs toward people of color.  That don't make it ok.  Two different discussions and while I realize I may have been the cause for the shift (I honestly don't know if that's the case - nor do I care), this line, IMO, is more interesting and more valid.  I don't care what dumb people think.  I do care, though, that what dumb people think seems to be justification enough in some peoples' eyes for their dumb behavior.



> And as for that uniform meaning nothing more than snazzy clothes these days, you do realize, don't you, that that uniform and variations upon it are still worn in utmost seriousness by some pretty hate-filled people around the US and Europe?




*sigh*

And _you _realize, I hope, that the prince isn't one of those people and wasn't acting like one.  That he wore the _costume _as a costume and not as a uniform and therefore did it for some other reason than hatred.  Context, bro.  It's kinda really f'in important.



> When you're in the public eye, especially at the pinnacle of society, different rules apply, for good and ill.  Prince Harry isn't just one of us, he's part of the new era of the British monarchy.  As such, he has certain obligations and expectations to fulfill.  One of those is to be a shining symbol of his country's glory.  Arguably, that is his SOLE actual job.
> 
> And in that case, he fell short.




Wut?  'Pinnacle of society'?  Who the hell says?  He's _a man_.  Nothing more.  Whatever BS you've decided to ascribe to him has nothing to do with that reality.  You can expect all you want from him beyond what you'd expect from me - that's your business.  Thing is, it's also totally unfair to him, to me and to you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 29, 2013)

> Wut? 'Pinnacle of society'? Who the hell says? He's a man. Nothing more. Whatever BS you've decided to ascribe to him has nothing to do with that reality. You can expect all you want from him beyond what you'd expect from me - that's your business. Thing is, it's also totally unfair to him, to me and to you.



He is a mortal man, yes, and thus, not my nor anyone else's inherent superior.  Puts his pants on one leg at a time, bleeds, etc.  Stipulated and not even argued.

But "Pinnacle of society" in terms of personal wealth, opportunities available just because of _who he is_ as opposed to his merits, connections, etc.- yes, he is a 1%er.  With the good comes the bad- he has restrictions on his life none of us will likely face.  Despite apparently earning his way up the ranks, he was still withdrawn from deployment, seemingly much to the disappointment of himself and his fellow squad mates.

Life at that level is simply different.  Like the saying goes, "The difference between rich and wealthy is that the rich make lots of money...and the wealthy sign their paychecks."  My family is rich.  But we still have all the concerns of my less fortunate relatives down the road, including balancing the monthly budget.  The Monarchy doesn't really have that concern.

Don't pretend you don't understand that reality. Is it fair?  Arguable, but I lean towards no.  But this is the world we live in, not the normative one.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 29, 2013)

Ultimately it comes down the a question of good taste and good judgment. A costume that is judged to be in bad taste, or is done in a way that shows bad judgment, is really a question that can only be decided by the person donning it and the people viewing it.

If I go to a halloween party dressed, Prince Harry style, as a Nazi officer, and my Jewish friends get upset, I would probably call their reaction perfectly understandable and justifiable. On the other hand, if I went to a party of really easy going friends in a full body stocking with a fig leaf over the ... lower region ... and everyone thinks its a laugh, then I would call my costume a success.

Point being, my choice of costume should give attention to who is going to be there and what their reasonable reaction to my costume might be. A public figure wearing a nazi costume or blackface is bound to attract attention, and much of it will be negative.

As someone else said: You have the right to wear what you like, and if I don't like it, I have the right to express my disapproval. The question you need to ask is whether my disapproval, or that of the general public, is worth the cost of wearing the costume you want.

Though I do agree at least part of the point of Halloween is to enact a carnival atmosphere, explore our shadow side, and overturn the usual rule of power and morality. However, even in that context, there can be going too far.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 29, 2013)

goldomark said:


> People need to understand that there is no right to not be offended.




Sure.  But there's no right to not be seen as offensive, either.

A costume is a form of communication.  As with any communication, you ought to consider your audience.  With your "right" to speak comes a responsibility to do so thoughtfully.  Failing to think about what your costume will say to others is, by definition, being thoughtless.  If you're going to be willfully thoughtless, then you get what you deserve if you cheese folks off.

And if you're willfully choosing things that will cheese folks off - if you specifically seek the shock value - then you *really* get what you ask for if you cheese them off.  You lose your right to be indignant at the response when a particularly bright turnip would know people would be annoyed by the costume.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 29, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Wut?  'Pinnacle of society'?  Who the hell says?  He's _a man_.  Nothing more.  Whatever BS you've decided to ascribe to him has nothing to do with that reality.  You can expect all you want from him beyond what you'd expect from me - that's your business.  Thing is, it's also totally unfair to him, to me and to you.




Socio-politically, no, he's not "just a man".  He is a prince - that's a very specific position within his society.  It comes with responsibilities.

If he abdicates his right to the throne, he's "just a man".  If he wants to stay in that office, he takes with it all the burdens of that office.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 29, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Sure.  But there's no right to not be seen as offensive, either.



That is covered by freedom of speech.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Oct 29, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> So what?  He's just a man and anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool.  One of the very major things wrong with this world is all the extra crap we've decided to assign to people who are for whatever reason perceived as a station above us.  That's wrongheaded.  I'm not saying people _don't _see him as someone who's supposed to be better for whatever dumbass reason they've decided was good enough, I'm saying it's _wrong _to do so and, therefore, those silly notions shouldn't apply.
> .




Sorry, just because you say it shouldn't apply does not mean that it does not apply.  

It's something that has applied to humans for thousands of years.  Public figures - be they politicians, kings, queens, emperors, or other celebrities - have different standards than the general public.  If the Pharaoh of ancient Egypt tripped & fell down the steps of the pyramid and broke his neck, it's an event that affects the entire kingdom and most likely it would be news throughout the kingdom.  If one of the slaves who built the pyramid tripped & fell and broke his neck, nobody but his immediate family would care.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Oct 29, 2013)

goldomark said:


> That is covered by freedom of speech.




Freedom of speech means the government cannot makes laws restricting the freedom of speech.  A private newspaper like the one Murdoch runs is free to outraged at Prince Harry if they want.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 29, 2013)

What's freedom of speech to do with anything? Who's being denied that? Harry exercised his. The newspapers exercised theirs. People in this thread are exercising _ theirs_. I don't get why it's an issue.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 29, 2013)

NewJeffCT said:


> Freedom of speech means the government cannot makes laws restricting the freedom of speech.



I do not see the mention of guberment. 



> A private newspaper like the one Murdoch runs is free to outraged at Prince Harry if they want.



And?


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 29, 2013)

Morrus said:


> What's freedom of speech to do with anything? Who's being denied that? Harry exercised his. The newspapers exercised theirs. People in this thread are exercising _ theirs_. I don't get why it's an issue.



Ask Umbran.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 29, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Ask Umbran.




Umbran hasn't mentioned it. You have, though.


----------



## Janx (Oct 29, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Sure.  But there's no right to not be seen as offensive, either.




True as well.

I do believe a person should give courtesy to TRY not to be offensive.

But I also believe a person should TRY to assume that offense was not intended.


Thus, while Harry didn't appear to be trying to not be offensive, given that he didn't start rounding jews up and shooting them, we as the reciever of his message don't need to assume the worst.

To me, it's the fine line of being offensive vs. taking offense.  With the latter being artificial and arbitrary in nature on the reciever's part, and the former being deliberately hurtful on the sender's part.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 29, 2013)

> I do believe a person should give courtesy to TRY not to be offensive.
> 
> But I also believe a person should TRY to assume that offense was not intended.



While I agree, it is an unfortunate issue with being human: the emotional, limbic systems in our brains engage faster than our rational portions.  In other words, we react, then rationalize.

The speed at which our limbic system reacts is one reason that negotiations training involves teaching would-be mediators to avoid the question "Why?"- it's a word almost magical in its ability to make parties revert to emotional positions, to start justifying themselves in their personal narrative- as opposed to logically thinking about the reasons for their assertions.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 29, 2013)

Well, I think it's worth wondering what "message" the costume sends. In the case of Harry, suspect there was one set of messages intended, and another set that the costume sends totally independently of the wearer. The costume can send a message, regardless of the wearer that ranges anywhere from "I'm an insensitive clod" to "I really think Hitler was boss" to "I'm playing a Nazi in the movie they're shooting down the way." The wearer can never prevent that message from being sent, even if they're wearing it "ironically." The only exception is if they wear it as express parody, a la "Springtime for Hitler" or Charlie Chaplain's "the Great Dictator."


----------



## NewJeffCT (Oct 29, 2013)

Since we're discussing Prince Harry, the UK freedom of speech rules should be used - and, there is a whole swath of exceptions to free speech in the UK:

>>>
_United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[85] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[86][87][88] sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature),[89][90][91] incitement,[92] incitement to racial hatred,[93] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[92][94] glorifying terrorism,[95][96][97] collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[98][99] treason including compassing or imagining the death of the monarch or advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted),[100][101][102][103][104] sedition,[101] obscenity,[105] indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[106] defamation,[107] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[108][109] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[109] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[109][110] time, manner, and place restrictions,[111] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country


----------



## NewJeffCT (Oct 29, 2013)

Morrus said:


> What's freedom of speech to do with anything? Who's being denied that? Harry exercised his. The newspapers exercised theirs. People in this thread are exercising _ theirs_. I don't get why it's an issue.




People were saying that if Harry if people were offended by Prince Harry wearing a Nazi uniform, it's too bad it's freedom of speech and you can't do anything about it and that you shouldn't be offended.   

However, there are a whole slew of exceptions to freedom of speech in the UK (as well as in Canada, the US and elsewhere) and Harry potentially violated several by wearing the nazi uniform in so public a manner _(exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals))_ or  _corruption of public morals and outraging public decency_ or  _incitement to racial hatred,[93] incitement to religious hatred,_


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 29, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Umbran hasn't mentioned it. You have, though.



Indeed, cause I do have a right to express myself and have nothing happen to me, as opposed to what Umbran said. ;-)


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 29, 2013)

But remember, Eric's grandmother is watching.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 29, 2013)

Remus Lupin said:


> But remember, Eric's grandmother is watching.



Cartman?


----------



## NewJeffCT (Oct 29, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Indeed, cause I do have a right to express myself and be offensive, as opposed to what Umbran said. ;-)




and, if the powers that be at enworld wanted to boot you off the website, they could do that, too.  And, in a public forum, you could be in legal trouble if you engaged in certain types of speech.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 29, 2013)

NewJeffCT said:


> and, if the powers that be at enworld wanted to boot you off the website, they could do that, too.




That wouldn't curtail his ability to speak, though. The opinion isn't universally banned.  He could post what he wanted elsewhere, or release a song about it, or publish a novel about it. That's not curtailing freedom of speech; it's just us choosing not to publish it here. There's an important difference.


----------



## camoudragon (Oct 30, 2013)

As a European and german guy i feel i should write something. 
If a very well known public figure puts on a nazi uniform in public he offends a lot of people who lost a lot because of the horrible things the nazis did and he kind of promotes something that most of us fight really hard to get rid of - racism. Some of the people who survived the concentration camps are still alive - that was a very unsensible thing to do and caused a lot of press all over europe.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 30, 2013)

Flowchart to the rescue.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2013)

Nice!


----------



## Lindeloef (Oct 30, 2013)

Janx said:


> Some dude dressing up as a Nazi for Halloween is not a thing worth getting upset about.




If I would do it, I am pretty sure, there would be lots of people getting upset


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 30, 2013)

Well, in Germany it will most probably get you arrested...


----------



## delericho (Oct 30, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> This being the season for costume parties, I'm seeing some news items lately that show various people in what the media (or someone) label as "offensive" or "insensitive".
> 
> Where do you drawn the line for good taste in a Halloween costume? What if you went to a Halloween costume party. What would you consider a bad taste costume?




It's contextual. Last time I was out in a pub at Halloween, the place was full of women dressed as "slutty ..." Which, given the context, was entirely appropriate. But if a teacher were to turn up at a school Halloween party dressed as "slutty ..." that would be inappropriate. The same costume, even worn by the same person, may be appropriate in one place and wildly inappropriate in another.



> One article showed a white celebrity costumed and apparently made up to look like a black character on a TV show. Her make up was labeled "black face", but her face wasn't black, it was more like a light tan. As I don't know the celebrity, (nor the character she was portraying), before reading the article, I didn't know the color wasn't normal for her, or how accurate it was to the character. Should people stick to their own race for a character costume?




In theory, one person dressing up as another specific person should be fine. And that should include the use of cosmetics to change skin tone, whether that's to lighten it or darken it.

But "blackface", of course, has a whole lot of historical baggage associated with it - specifically in its use by white performers because black ones weren't allowed to perform at all, or its use to lampoon or ridicule entire races. Rightly or wrongly, the use of "blackface" has become inextricably linked with racism.

I personally wouldn't try it. And, equally, I personally wouldn't automatically take offense at someone who _did_, unless the manner in which they did so was itself racist. But I'm not surprised that some people took offense.



> A couple years ago, one of the British princes dressed in a Nazi uniform for a costume party. There was a lot of uproar about it. The problem struck  me as odd. He could have dressed as the devil, an axe murderer, a zombie, a medieval executioner, and no one would have had a problem. But somehow Nazi is over the line?




For anybody else, a Nazi would have been fine. And, even for Harry, dressing as a Nazi _should_ have been fine - he was a young man going to a (private) costume party! But, again, it wasn't a surprise that some people took offense, and that some newspapers saw opportunity to sell manufactured offense.

(That said, I'm not 100% sure Harry didn't know it would create a stir, and chose to do it anyway. Like his grandfather, quite a lot of his popularity seems to come from his 'gaffes' - the Nazi costume, the "strip billiards"... Besides, even when he says or does something quite reasonable, it's likely to be taken out of context for outrage purposes, such as his comments about taking enemy combatants "out of the game".)


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 30, 2013)

With all the stuff that a person can dress up as, why even go as something that could cross the line?  You just are not thinking and kind of dumb or you are trying to cause issues.


----------



## Klirshon (Oct 30, 2013)

There are many lines to cross at the University of Colorado (Boulder).


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 30, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> He is a mortal man, yes, and thus, not my nor anyone else's inherent superior.  Puts his pants on one leg at a time, bleeds, etc.  Stipulated and not even argued.
> 
> But "Pinnacle of society" in terms of personal wealth, opportunities available just because of _who he is_ as opposed to his merits, connections, etc.- yes, he is a 1%er.  With the good comes the bad- he has restrictions on his life none of us will likely face.  Despite apparently earning his way up the ranks, he was still withdrawn from deployment, seemingly much to the disappointment of himself and his fellow squad mates.
> 
> ...




And _you _kindly don't pretend you didn't see the rest of my post.  You made some silly comment about what the uniform means when people who espouse Nazi beliefs wear it as though that had something to do with the prince when it most certainly did not.  Remember that 'c' word I used?  'Context'?  Let's talk about that.

That said, yeah, I don't care if you think he's better cuz he's rich.  I don't.  And, well, context.  I know you don't wanna talk about that but, well, it's kinda the most important piece of this particular puzzle.  He didn't wear the _costume_ during a UN event, did he?  Nope.  He wore it to a _costume _party on Halloween.  Oops!  Looks like I found yet another important 'c' word: costume.  You say uniform when the prince said costume.  Now if you truly put all of this excellence into the man, respect your better and take him at his word.  He wore it as a _costume _and not as a uniform.  That difference is key - regardless of whether or not you believe some people deserve to live by different rules.  So yeah, let's talk about _that_.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 30, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Socio-politically, no, he's not "just a man".  He is a prince - that's a very specific position within his society.  It comes with responsibilities.
> 
> If he abdicates his right to the throne, he's "just a man".  If he wants to stay in that office, he takes with it all the burdens of that office.




Nope, he's just a man.  Everything assigned to him beyond that has _been assigned to him_.  In other words, it's not innate to him or the position.  It's a construct and has no value.  The reason people of that station are of that station is because people like us are all too willing to put them there.  

Aside from that, what responsibility is it of his to have his Halloween costume approved by the general public?  Again, this comes down to context and, for reasons unknown to me, why some of you seem hell bent on ignoring it in certain cases.



NewJeffCT said:


> Sorry, just because you say it shouldn't apply does not mean that it does not apply.
> 
> It's something that has applied to humans for thousands of years.  Public figures - be they politicians, kings, queens, emperors, or other celebrities - have different standards than the general public.  If the Pharaoh of ancient Egypt tripped & fell down the steps of the pyramid and broke his neck, it's an event that affects the entire kingdom and most likely it would be news throughout the kingdom.  If one of the slaves who built the pyramid tripped & fell and broke his neck, nobody but his immediate family would care.




So ... the prince's _costume_ had the same impact as his death would have?  IMO, his death wouldn't have any real impact on the country either.  It's not as though he performs any real functions.  Prince is mostly a ceremonial title nowdays, ain't it?  So yeah, I _am _right and it _does _mean nothing.  

And, again, ya'all don't seem to give a hoot about context.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 30, 2013)

But _who he is_ is part of the context. He himself, as a member of the royal family (and believe me, as a staunch republican - of the small "r" variety - royal families generally don't mean much to me except as something to be against) carries a symbolic weight that an ordinary person wearing that kind of outfit in public wouldn't.

If I dressed as a nazi for Halloween, that would probably be in bad taste (almost certainly), but it would just be me doing it. But when Harry does it, he represents the royal family, and thus the central unifying symbol of the British monarchy. Maybe it's not as bad as if Prince Charles had done it, but it still represents a breach of his responsibility to hold up the highest public standards of the monarchy.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 30, 2013)

But the monarchy doesn't really mean anything.  And, you know, there's the intent - which is the part of the context I'm talking about.  His intent was to wear a costume.  People, because of this silly notion of station, have decided to ignore that intent.  A Halloween party and a UN meeting or a public address or myriad other political functions are very, very different things and it's insane to act otherwise.  I could agree that if the prince was caught in this uniform outside the confines of politics _or _a Halloween costume party that some uproar would be warranted.  That's not at all what happened, though.  It's incredibly obvious that he intended to wear a costume at a costume party.  That's ... harmless.  People need to get over royalty and get over themselves, too.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 30, 2013)

nothing to see here


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 30, 2013)

Well, I'll let the people who live under the monarchy comment about what it might or might not mean (though, if current employment possibilities come to pass, I may be among them soon!). I'm simply stating that Prince Harry is more than just a guy. In his person he carries huge symbolic weight, so what he does is evaluated on the basis of that weight.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 30, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> But the monarchy doesn't really mean anything.  And, you know, there's the intent - which is the part of the context I'm talking about.  His intent was to wear a costume.  People, because of this silly notion of station, have decided to ignore that intent.  A Halloween party and a UN meeting or a public address or myriad other political functions are very, very different things and it's insane to act otherwise.  I could agree that if the prince was caught in this uniform outside the confines of politics _or _a Halloween costume party that some uproar would be warranted.  That's not at all what happened, though.  It's incredibly obvious that he intended to wear a costume at a costume party.  That's ... harmless.  People need to get over royalty and get over themselves, too.




But then how would Rupert Murdoch sell newspapers?  It's not like he ever reports actual news.


----------



## delericho (Oct 30, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> But the monarchy doesn't really mean anything.




Are you from the UK? Because from where I'm sitting it means a whole lot more than you might think. Sure, it's not something we talk about a lot... until, that is, someone starts talking about getting rid of it.



> People need to get over royalty and get over themselves, too.




You might well be right. But once you get to requiring that, you might as well be shouting at the tide to go back.


----------



## Bullgrit (Oct 30, 2013)

Morrus said:
			
		

> But then how would Rupert Murdoch sell newspapers? It's not like he ever reports actual news.



You've invoked this name about three times in this thread. Who hates who most: he hates the Royals, or you hate him? (I'm only presuming he has some problem with the Royals, because you keep bringing him up in this context.) 

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Oct 30, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> You've invoked this name about three times in this thread.




It's the answer to your question, that's why.  You said:  "A couple years ago, one of the British princes dressed in a Nazi uniform  for a costume party. There was a lot of uproar about it."  I'm pointing out that there _wasn't_ lots of uproar about it, outside of his newspapers plus, perhaps, the Daily Mail.  Nobody else here gave a crap.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 30, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Nope, he's just a man.




I repeat, form a sociopolitical viewpoint, he is more than "just a man".  You don't believe me?  Imagine you personally trying to make a change in your society.  Now imagine him trying to make a change in his.  Who will have the easier time of it?  Probably him - he carries a heck of a lot more social weight than you or I do, or any "normal man" does.  Ergo, he's not "just a man" in these terms.



> Everything assigned to him beyond that has _been assigned to him_. In other words, it's not innate to him or the position. It's a construct and has no value.




First, yes, it is a construct.  But "construct" does not mean "has no value".  The computer you use to post is a construct, but it has value to you, no?  Millions of people pay money for sci-fi and fantasy novels.  So they have value - even fictions can have value!  FIctions you don't personally care for have value!  The construct is only minimally relevant to those not of England, but that's still millions of folks who have a stake, and who seem to get a lot out of it.  So, I don't think we can say it is of no value.

Second, the need to be respectable is part of the "modern Prince" construct - it *is* innate to the position.  Until his people change the construct, that's what it is.



> The reason people of that station are of that station is because people like us are all too willing to put them there.




Irrelevant.  Now that they have put him there, and he agrees to be there, the rest follows - with the power, prestige, and wealth comes responsibilities to uphold.  So long as he does not abdicate, he is open to criticism.

Consider it this way - you have a job, right?  Do the people you do that job for have a right to criticize your performance?  Yes.  Well, think of being a prince as his job.



> Aside from that, what responsibility is it of his to have his Halloween costume approved by the general public?  Again, this comes down to context and, for reasons unknown to me, why some of you seem hell bent on ignoring it in certain cases.




His position is part of the context.  It makes him such a public figure that pretty much every action of his is "public".  It goes with the job - he gets almost zero privacy.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 30, 2013)

Remus Lupin said:


> Well, I'll let the people who live under the monarchy comment about what it might or might not mean (though, if current employment possibilities come to pass, I may be among them soon!). I'm simply stating that Prince Harry is more than just a guy. In his person he carries huge symbolic weight, so what he does is evaluated on the basis of that weight.




In this case, though, what he did was improperly evaluated.  I keep saying context, I keep saying costume at a costume party and nobody wants to talk about it.  So apparently placing people above us means that reality should no loner apply to them ... or something.



Morrus said:


> But then how would Rupert Murdoch sell newspapers?  It's not like he ever reports actual news.




Good point.    Oh!  He could ... he could ... maybe hack celebrity cell phones?  Nah ... 



delericho said:


> Are you from the UK? Because from where I'm sitting it means a whole lot more than you might think. Sure, it's not something we talk about a lot... until, that is, someone starts talking about getting rid of it.




What can he _do_.  If the answer is 'nothing' or 'not a whole lot' then maybe - just maybe - some of the expectations you have for his behavior are a little out of scope?  



> You might well be right. But once you get to requiring that, you might as well be shouting at the tide to go back.




Fair.  What's also fair, though, is that no change ever happened because nobody even bothered to talk about the problem.  By the way, I have no illusions of changing the incredible stupidity of humans deciding to place other humans above themselves for no good reason at all.  I mean, if we think that coming out of a specific woman's hoo-hoo is reason enough to elevate a man above us, well, there's no reasoning with someone like that, is there?  At any rate, it's something that bothers me and this is a message board so, you know, I get carried away.  



Umbran said:


> I repeat, form a sociopolitical viewpoint, he is more than "just a man".  You don't believe me?  Imagine you personally trying to make a change in your society.  Now imagine him trying to make a change in his.  Who will have the easier time of it?  Probably him - he carries a heck of a lot more social weight than you or I do, or any "normal man" does.  Ergo, he's not "just a man" in these terms.




The fact that there is a difference is the problem I'm currently railing against.  You say there is a difference and I say there is not - however, that's sort of a short hand articulation of the issue.  I'm saying there should not be because, in reality (er, the reality that should matter) there isn't one.



> First, yes, it is a construct.  But "construct" does not mean "has no value".  The computer you use to post is a construct, but it has value to you, no?  Millions of people pay money for sci-fi and fantasy novels.  So they have value - even fictions can have value!  FIctions you don't personally care for have value!  The construct is only minimally relevant to those not of England, but that's still millions of folks who have a stake, and who seem to get a lot out of it.  So, I don't think we can say it is of no value.




What value does the construct 'prince' have?  Sure, I suppose it does increase the preceived value of the queen's lady bits but what value does it actually have?  Do you suggest it has as much as a computer - something physical which does actually accomplish things, aids in day to day life and is, in no small part, responsible for the world as we know it today?

What - and this is an honest question - do people in England get out of having a prince?  Is what they get out of it something they couldn't get any other way?

Sorry for the loads of questions, it's just that this thought process baffles me.  That and the examples posted to counter my assertions thus far have been, well, completely different from what I'm supposed to relate them to.  I'm honestly trying to understand here.



> Second, the need to be respectable is part of the "modern Prince" construct - it *is* innate to the position.  Until his people change the construct, that's what it is.




Respectable, unfortunately, is a very nebulous term.  Some people can and actually did find what he did perfectly within the scope of 'respectable behavior' because, to some, _wearing a costume as as costume to a Halloween costume party _is something perfectly normal for anyone - even beloved princes - to do.  

And that's the problem with silly constructs like this: The rules don't exist.  And that's another reason why I say this particular construct has no value because it obviously has no set meaning.  It's crap.



> Irrelevant.  Now that they have put him there, and he agrees to be there, the rest follows - with the power, prestige, and wealth comes responsibilities to uphold.  So long as he does not abdicate, he is open to criticism.




What responsibility did he fail to uphold?  Remember, some of the people you agree are fit to judge did not judge him negatively for his behavior.

And what, exactly, is 'the rest'?  Is it really something of value to add 'cannot wear costumes I'm personally uncomfortable with ('I' being your random English citizen) to Halloween costume parties' to 'the rest'?  



> Consider it this way - you have a job, right?  Do the people you do that job for have a right to criticize your performance?  Yes.  Well, think of being a prince as his job.




Define a prince's job.

Secondly, I _do _have a job and I would most likely eat a steaming pile were I to wear a Nazi uniform to the Halloween costume contest later this week.  However, I would _not _eat a steaming pile for wearing a Nazi uniform to a friend's party on the weekend.  You see, I wouldn't be at work at the time.  Again, he didn't wear this to a UN event or a press conference or a military dance or a ... Why is that so easy for some to ignore?



> His position is part of the context.  It makes him such a public figure that pretty much every action of his is "public".  It goes with the job - he gets almost zero privacy.




Wrong.  He is entitled to his privacy as much as anyone else.  The fact that some people are sick-o vultures does not mean he isn't allowed a private life.  What you're saying is that because people pry he has no right to expect a life free from prying.  That's unfair.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2013)

> The rules don't exist.



Just because you or I don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist.

As I posted upthread, if the Governor of Texas had chosen to wear a confederate- or worse, blackface- costume, he'd get crucified in the press for doing so.  Are there guys out there who wear confederate costumes for Halloween and other parties, without repercussion?  Sure.

But they're not in the public eye.  More specifically, they're not in government.

Fair?  Probably not.  But that is the reality.


> He is entitled to his privacy as much as anyone else.




The law says differently.  Shorthand: if you are a public person, different rules apply.  It's one reason people often cite for declining to run for certain offices or quitting certain jobs- they don't want the scrutiny.



> Define a prince's job...(edit)...Why is that so easy for some to ignore?




We aren't ignoring it.

A prince's job is, in no small part, to be a symbol of his government and his people.  As such, when he is in public, he is expected to maintain a certain decorum.  That means he can't get away with doing dumb stuff like 99.99% of the populace could like wearing an offensive costume once in a while.

If he wants the freedom to wear stupid costumes without taking flak in the international press, his option is to quit the job- abdicate.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 30, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just because you or I don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist.




Well then maybe someone can enlighten us?  Or, maybe, they're so nebulous that the effectively don't exist.



> The law says differently.  Shorthand: if you are a public person, different rules apply.  It's one reason people often cite for declining to run for certain offices or quitting certain jobs- they don't want the scrutiny.




Not quite that simple.  There are also rules in place that dictate what the vultures can and cannot do.  Why? Because some people in the public eye still do have a (reasonable) expectation of some level of privacy.



> We aren't ignoring it.
> 
> A prince's job is, in no small part, to be a symbol of his government and his people.  As such, when he is in public, he is expected to maintain a certain decorum.  That means he can't get away with doing dumb stuff like 99.99% of the populace could like wearing an offensive costume once in a while.




Offensive to who?  Plenty of people_ didn't_ take offense to it.  If they've the same agency to criticize as those that did, why don't they count?  Seems sort of selective to me ... which means that the rules are too vague to matter.

Let's say you're right - that he can't get away with doing dumb stuff like 99.99% of the population.  What makes wearing a costume to a costume party on Halloween dumb?  That's the context that nobody has bothered to address.



> If he wants the freedom to wear stupid costumes without taking flak in the international press, his option is to quit the job- abdicate.




Oooooor ... he could say f-you to the morons that think he did something terrible because he quite plainly didn't.  It's a shame he chose not to.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 30, 2013)

NewJeffCT said:


> and, if the powers that be at enworld wanted to boot you off the website, they could do that, too.  And, in a public forum, you could be in legal trouble if you engaged in certain types of speech.



That would be censorship. A very bad thing, don't you agree? 

And maybe I could sue. If this guy could sue for a contract he signed with another non-gubermental entity and won, why not for free speech?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Well then maybe someone can enlighten us?  Or, maybe, they're so nebulous that the effectively don't exist.




Nebulous rules exist and are enforced every day.

One I have personally have to live with because of what I do is to "...avoid the appearance of impropriety."

If I don't, I could lose my job.  FWIW, the governor of Texas has a similar clause, as do judges and a bunch of other jobs.  I tried to buy lunch for some border guards.  They couldn't accept my offer without losing their jobs.

You'll see similar clauses in pro sports contracts, too.





> Not quite that simple.  There are also rules in place that dictate what the vultures can and cannot do.  Why? Because some people in the public eye still do have a (reasonable) expectation of some level of privacy.




True, but the boundaries that cover public figures are so broad and porous that most people wouldn't want to deal with them.  There are situations where you or I might be able to prevent our picture being used without permissionand public figures simply would not be able to do so.  The injunction hearing would last as long as it took for a judge to swing a gavel and say "dismissed".



> Offensive to who?




It was a Nazi uniform, you do the math.



> Let's say you're right - that he can't get away with doing dumb stuff like 99.99% of the population.  What makes wearing a costume to a costume party on Halloween dumb?  That's the context that nobody has bothered to address.




Please, with the strawmen!

Wearing a costume to a costume party is not offensive, its expected.  Wearing a _NAZI_ costume anywhere but as part of a theatrical or cinematic production is a social landmine waiting to explode.  Wearing such a costume as a public figure is holding a sledgehammer over the trigger.

See also Homicidal Squirrel's amusing flow chart.


> Oooooor ... he could say f-you to the morons that think he did something terrible because he quite plainly didn't.  It's a shame he chose not to.




You do know he got raked over the coals in private, don't you? His family chewed his ass off.  He almost lost his admission to Sandhurst over this.

There's a meme out there, "You had one job...", followed by pictures of failures of that job.  Had this happened today, Harry's costume gaffe might well be in the gallery.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 30, 2013)

You all do realize that certain folks are only taking part in this discussion out of their own amusement over everyone else's reactions right?


----------



## Klirshon (Oct 30, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Wearing a costume to a costume party is not offensive, its expected.  Wearing a _NAZI_ costume anywhere but as part of a theatrical or cinematic production is a social landmine waiting to explode.  Wearing such a costume as a public figure is holding a sledgehammer over the trigger.




This could be offensive to residents of San Juan de la Vega.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 30, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Indeed, cause I do have a right to express myself and have nothing happen to me, as opposed to what Umbran said. ;-)




Before you quote rights, make sure you understand them fully.

The US "Right to free speech" is a right to not have *government* impinge upon your right to speak.  Morrus and the mods, not being government, are not covered.  EN World is a private enterprise, and within it, the proprietor can legally restrict speech.  This is well-established in legal precedent - many folks have tried lawsuits on this basis, and lost.  You'd probably not even get into a court with such an argument today.

Note, especially that you _*agreed *_to the terms of service when you created your account.  Having entered into that agreement, you lose a lot of your right to gripe about the rules.  Don't like it?  Post elsewhere.



goldomark said:


> That would be censorship. A very bad thing, don't you agree?




Censorship by a government is usually a bad thing.  Within the confines of a private arena, not so much.  I sure as heck think it is okay for me to have the right to eject someone from my home if they, say, start verbally abusing my wife.  It is technically censorship, but I fail to see how it is "very bad" for me to do so.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 30, 2013)

trappedslider said:


> You all do realize that certain folks are only taking part in this discussion out of their own amusement over everyone else's reactions right?




Maybe, but as long as we're civilly and rationally discussing the issue, he's free to amuse himself all he wants, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 30, 2013)

Remus Lupin said:


> Maybe, but as long as we're civilly and rationally discussing the issue, he's free to amuse himself all he wants, as far as I'm concerned.




I did put an "s" on folks...so there's about 3 of them lol


----------



## Umbran (Oct 30, 2013)

trappedslider said:


> You all do realize that certain folks are only taking part in this discussion out of their own amusement over everyone else's reactions right?




Sure.  And, in taking on someone like, say Danny, who is well versed on the subject and can continue such a discussion quite civilly until the other side is well and truly shown to be a troll, ignorant, or deficient in reasoning power, they don't do themselves any favors.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 30, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Sure.  And, in taking on someone like, say Danny, who is well versed on the subject and can continue such a discussion quite civilly until the other side is well and truly shown to be a troll, ignorant, or deficient in reasoning power, they don't do themselves any favors.




They aren't so much as trolls as folks who enjoy causing heated discussions over nothing...It's how it went down back over at WoTc's forums.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 30, 2013)

trappedslider said:


> You all do realize that certain folks are only taking part in this discussion out of their own amusement over everyone else's reactions right?



Is that what you are doing? That's bad form. People are having a discussion. There is no need for you to go and derail it.

On Topic:Correct me if I'm wrong, Bullgrit, but the first example, the one about the white girl dressing up in black face, that's about Julianne Hough dressing up as the character _Crazy Eyes_ from the show _Orange is the new black _on Netflix. Here is a pic of her.
[sblock]


[/sblock]
She did a pretty bad job with her costume. This is the actual character.
[sblock]

[/sblock]
Was Hough trying to be offensive or racist? Probably not. Still, she should have known that some people may have been offended. And yes, people don't have the right to be offended blah blah blah. People also don't have a right to be angered because others are offended. 

Same goes for Prince Harry. Sure, he can dress as a Nazi if he wants, but people should realize that some people will find it offensive. Nazis have a wonderful history, and there are still people that continue with the philosophy of Nazis. So while he may not have intended to offend anyone, he still did. 

That being said, you guys seem to be forgetting something very important. Prince Harry is a soulless redhead, so yeah, the soul see scumbag probably did it to be offensive. The soulless creatures that are redheads are offensive in all context. So screw that guy, someone hit him in the face with a shovel.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 30, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Before you quote rights, make sure you understand them fully.



Is being condescending civil?



> The US "Right to free speech" is a right to not have *government* impinge upon your right to speak.  Morrus and the mods, not being government, are not covered.  EN World is a private enterprise, and within it, the proprietor can legally restrict speech.  This is well-established in legal precedent - many folks have tried lawsuits on this basis, and lost.  You'd probably not even get into a court with such an argument today.
> 
> Note, especially that you _*agreed *_to the terms of service when you created your account.  Having entered into that agreement, you lose a lot of your right to gripe about the rules.  Don't like it?  Post elsewhere.



Yes, yes, I know all this BS. I refere you this case. Not about free speech, but freedom of religion. I find it interesting because and similar since it is a question of rights. Here we have someone who bought a condo, not from guberment, and agreed to the rules of that condominium, still not guberment. Afterwards, he claimed that the rules violated his freedom of religion, it went all the way to the surpeme court and... won. So, this idea that rights exist only to protect you from teh ebil of guberment, yeah not so much.

That was the legal angle. From the moral angle, censorship is a terrible thing, no matter who does it. Obviously, the internet is an extention of the public sphere and freedom of speech should be protected here too from the censorship of guberment, yes, and corporations. As corprations take more and more space in the public sphere, gain more power and influence, they become almost parallel guberments, or at least counter powers. They need to be kept on a short leesh and the public protected from their abuse. It is just the natural evolution of rights and freedoms. 



> Censorship by a government is usually a bad thing.  Within the confines of a private arena, not so much.



Why the double standard? Why is one bad and one good, why is not always bad. Whether it is the guberment that prevents me from saying Putin is naughty or Facebook, it makes no difference. Both are censorship and both are condemnable. 



> I sure as heck think it is okay for me to have the right to eject someone from my home if they, say, start verbally abusing my wife.  It is technically censorship, but I fail to see how it is "very bad" for me to do so.



False analogy.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 30, 2013)

Well, I see the descent into snark has begun.

Let me just note that the issue of civil freedom of speech is subtly different from freedom of religion. Religion is generally deemed to be a "protected class" that can't be discriminated against, not only by the government but also in private accommodation, in much the same way as race or gender. The issue of speech is different, as the supreme court has ruled on a number of cases that it applies to government suppression of political speech, not just anybody's suppression of just any speech.

And the issue remains, in a private forum, the person running the forum has a right to decide the rule of conduct in that forum. If I can't walk into Morrus's living room and begin shouting profanity, I can't do it here. But if I want to stand in the middle of Times Square and decry the evil's of Barack Obama, I am free to do so and the government can't stop me (though, as it turns out, they can shunt me into an ironically named "free speech zone" to do it).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2013)

> Not about free speech, but freedom of religion.



Completely different standards- legal apples and legal oranges.

The right to free speech is one that is directed mainly- _but not solely_- at protecting the rights of speakers against censorship by the government.

The right to freedom of religion is a far broader right, and intersects most areas of federal, state and civic law.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 30, 2013)

goldomark said:


> That would be censorship. A very bad thing, don't you agree?
> 
> And maybe I could sue. If this guy could sue for a contract he signed with another non-gubermental entity and won, why not for free speech?




Just so I'm clear - you _don't_ agree with the conditions you stated you agreed with when you joined my little messageboard?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 30, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Just so I'm clear - you _don't_ agree with the conditions you stated you agreed with when you joined my little messageboard?



That's not what he is saying, nor is it what the article is implying. Also, it appears you guys are getting too emotionally invested in a simple discussion, so it would probably be best to just closed the thread down. If you can't handle the topic, you shouldn't be participating in it.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 30, 2013)

Um, huh?


----------



## Morrus (Oct 30, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's not what he is saying, nor is it what the article is implying. Also, it appears you guys are getting too emotionally invested in a simple discussion, so it would probably be best to just closed the thread down. If you can't handle the topic, you shouldn't be participating in it.




Are you trying to censor me?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 30, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Are you trying to censor me?



I never try anything. I just do it.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 30, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I never try anything. I just do it.




/win


----------



## Umbran (Oct 30, 2013)

trappedslider said:


> They aren't so much as trolls as folks who enjoy causing heated discussions over nothing...It's how it went down back over at WoTc's forums.




What happened on the WotC forums is irrelevant.  We don't care.  We only care about what they do here.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 30, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Are you trying to censor me?



He is evil. He wants squirrels to take over. Be warned.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 31, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Why the double standard? Why is one bad and one good, why is not always bad.




Because, simply put, they are apples and oranges.  The government has police, armies, and jails.  All a private concern can do is have you not speak in one particular place or venue (virtual or real-space).  The government can shut you up completely and permanently.



> Whether it is the guberment that prevents me from saying Putin is naughty or Facebook, it makes no difference.




Says a man who probably doesn't know anyone who has spent time in a gulag.   Which sounds melodrmatic, but is demonstrative of what the Right is supposed to prevent.

If Facebook prevents you for saying Putin is naughty, you can go whine about him on G+, or one of a hundred other social sites.  If, for historical example, the Soviet government prevented you from saying something like it, you may not have ever been heard from again.  This is a perspective that is often lost on modern Americans, who have had so little restriction on their speech for so long.  



> False analogy.




Nope.  Speech is speech.  Private venue is private venue.  Unless you want to start splitting hairs over what is allowed where - and I think you'll find that a tangle that won't serve your argument at all, because the lines between private home and private place of business are thin indeed, as are the lines between personal abuse and other forms of speech. 



> Also, it appears you guys are getting too emotionally invested in a simple discussion, so it would probably be best to just closed the thread down. If you can't handle the topic, you shouldn't be participating in it.




Quick slide to the _ad hominem_, hm?  We say things because we are emotional, so we can be dismissed?  I'm afraid that's an obvious and transparent ploy to avoid actually addressing the point.  Weak sauce, rhetorically speaking.  Got anything better?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 31, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Quick slide to the _ad hominem_, hm?  We say things because we are emotional, so we can be dismissed?  I'm afraid that's an obvious and transparent ploy to avoid actually addressing the point.  Weak sauce, rhetorically speaking.  Got anything better?



 That's not an ad hominem, it's a diagnosis. That'll be $750. Cash or bank money order only, thanks.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 31, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's not an ad hominem, it's a diagnosis. That'll be $750. Cash or bank money order only, thanks.




Can i pay you in bitcoin?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 31, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's not an ad hominem, it's a diagnosis. That'll be $750. Cash or bank money order only, thanks.




No, it was _ad hominem_, now followed by a flippant remark.  If we were emotionally engaged, we might react poorly, and not notice the further distraction from the points made in the discussion.  Being rational, though, the dodge is obvious.  This does not qualify as anything better, rhetorically.

Now I can simply say: Keep it on topic, please.  There may still be those who want to discuss the topic of the thread.  If you don't, then please leave it be for those who do.  Thanks.


----------



## mattingly (Oct 31, 2013)

I expect to offend several people at the office with my "cyborg ninja pirate Jesus" costume.

--
Dave Mattingly
Christian Gamers Guild


----------



## jonesy (Oct 31, 2013)

You could try replacing the pirate with something non-criminal, like a cop.


----------



## mattingly (Oct 31, 2013)

The illustration of "cyborg ninja pirate Jesus" has been floating around the internet for several years. This is my first time dressing as a meme. I also considered "hipster Jesus," who has the Old Testament on vinyl.

--
Dave Mattingly
Christian Gamers Guild


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 31, 2013)

Umbran said:


> No, it was _ad hominem_, now followed by a flippant remark.



No, it was a diagnosis followed by an explanation that it was a diagnosis. 







> *If we were emotionally engaged, we might react poorly*, and not notice the further distraction from the points made in the discussion.  Being rational, though, the dodge is obvious.  This does not qualify as anything better, rhetorically.



You did. You reacted very poorly to a comment that wasn't aimed at you. 


> Now I can simply say: Keep it on topic, please.  There may still be those who want to discuss the topic of the thread.  If you don't, then please leave it be for those who do.  Thanks.



Pardon me, Mr. Pot, but Mr. Kettle can't take your call at the moment.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 31, 2013)

jonesy said:


> You could try replacing the pirate with something non-criminal, *like a cop*.



 How is that not criminal?


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Because, simply put, they are apples and oranges.  The government has police, armies, and jails.  All a private concern can do is have you not speak in one particular place or venue (virtual or real-space).  The government can shut you up completely and permanently.
> 
> Says a man who probably doesn't know anyone who has spent time in a gulag.   Which sounds melodrmatic, but is demonstrative of what the Right is supposed to prevent.
> 
> If Facebook prevents you for saying Putin is naughty, you can go whine about him on G+, or one of a hundred other social sites.  If, for historical example, the Soviet government prevented you from saying something like it, you may not have ever been heard from again.  This is a perspective that is often lost on modern Americans, who have had so little restriction on their speech for so long.



Weak sauce if your best argument is that corporations can't throw you in jail or kill you so their censorship is ok. If jail and/or death are the only standards to judge of the morality of an action, than we are in deep trouble.

I also see you didn't adress what the supreme court said about freedom of religion and how it does not just apply to guberment oppressing people.

And I am not an USian if that is what you ment by American. 



> Nope.  Speech is speech. Private venue is private venue.



A home is not a public website. I'll point to you're apple and orange comment. 

Edit: Didn't see the ironic "stop the off topic" post before I posted this one. I was writting it.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 31, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Pardon me Mr. Pot, but Mr. Kettle can't take your call at the moment.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 31, 2013)

goldomark said:


> A home is not a public website. I'll point to you're apple and orange comment.




And the owner of a publicly viewable website isn't a government. The public may be able to view it, but membership and active participation is on the owner's terms because it is still the owner's site. Fundamental laws designed to limit the power of government in favor of individual liberties simply don't apply. Moreover, if you were to attempt to exert civil liberties on a privately owned site, you'd quickly run into a clash of two of them - freedom from censorship and freedom to assemble/associate which is typically taken to also mean the freedom to choose with whom you assemble. So, you may assert freedom from censorship, but the site owner still has his freedom of assembly to weed out the people he doesn't want there.

Meanwhile, the rulings of the Canadian Supreme Court have little bearing on a website owned by a Briton who isn't living or hosting his site in Canada.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2013)

billd91 said:


> And the owner of a publicly viewable website isn't a government.



Good thing I didn't say it was guberment. Nice strawman.  



> Fundamental laws designed to limit the power of government in favor of individual liberties simply don't apply.



This is more libertarian mythology and ethnocentricity than universality (see ruling I link and other countries). I disagree that they were designed to only limit the power of guberment (see ruling I linked) and that they should be limited to guberment. The internet is something new, rights were not designed with it in mind. Times change, communication, the definition of public space, corporations, their power and influence, the nature and significance of rights and their application.

Let us face it, rights, how they are applied and to what they are applied is arbitrary. Chosen by the powers that be. In representative democracies, we have the unique opportunity to define rights. Why agree to censorship or uncodify censorship? Why give corporation unchecked power?



> Moreover, if you were to attempt to exert civil liberties on a privately owned site, you'd quickly run into a clash of two of them - freedom from censorship and freedom to assemble/associate which is typically taken to also mean the freedom to choose with whom you assemble. So, you may assert freedom from censorship, but the site owner still has his freedom of assembly to weed out the people he doesn't want there.



Interesting stuff for the legislative to sort and legislate on. 



> Meanwhile, the rulings of the Canadian Supreme Court have little bearing on a website owned by a Briton who isn't living or hosting his site in Canada.



More strawman, woot!


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 31, 2013)

You guys are aware that Umbran is a mod and Morrus actually _owns the website_, right?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 31, 2013)

Yes, so?


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 31, 2013)

I don't know, I just think it's a good general policy not to be obnoxious to the mods. But please, suit yourself.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 31, 2013)

Remus Lupin said:


> You guys are aware that Umbran is a mod and Morrus actually _owns the website_, right?




Yes.  But that doesn't mean folks can't disagree with us - merely that if they are rude in so doing, they are sure to get caught.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You reacted very poorly to a comment that wasn't aimed at you.




I don't see anything "poor" about my reaction. I am remaining rational, civil and thoughtful in my responses.  Unless noting holes in your argument is what you consider "poor", I don't think the word applies.  



goldomark said:


> A home is not a public website. I'll point to you're apple and orange comment.




Ah, but the functional bit for our purposes is not the difference between home and business, but the difference between governmental and private.

Whether it is a home or a business, it is still owned by a private entity.  There's a basic point about rights and freedoms, which can be summed up as, "Your right to swing your fist about ends at the tip of my nose."  Whether it is my home or my business, it is *mine*.  So, if you enter into the space (real or virtual) of another private citizen, we have a clash of rights - yours and the owner's.  The person with the home-field advantage wins on the matter of personal expression.  

This does not apply to the government.  It does not have rights, as such, to clash with yours.


----------



## evilbob (Oct 31, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> A couple years ago, one of the British princes dressed in a Nazi uniform for a costume party. There was a lot of uproar about it. The problem struck  me as odd. He could have dressed as the devil, an axe murderer, a zombie, a medieval executioner, and no one would have had a problem. But somehow Nazi is over the line?



Someone else has probably said this already, but:

The Nazis murdered millions of people in real life.  It was called the holocaust because it was so horrible.  This is one of the worst things that has ever happened in recorded history.

Zombies are fictional characters.

You are still unclear about why one is over the line and one is not?

As for blackface:  yes this is offensive.  Whether you understand the social implications, complex history, or the true face of prejudice or not, you don't get to make the rule about whether or not this is offensive to many people.

Also, since these discussions ALWAYS come back to this:  this isn't about censorship.  There's a difference between what you CAN do and what you SHOULDN'T do.  Of course you have the right to think dressing in blackface is ok.  But you will also deal with the consequences of that (which, especially in a private setting like a forum, may include infractions, for example).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 31, 2013)

> I don't see anything "poor" about my reaction. I am remaining rational, civil and thoughtful in my responses. Unless noting holes in your argument is what you consider "poor", I don't think the word applies.




"Diagnosing" is something he does.  I don't know why.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Ah, but the functional bit for our purposes is not the difference between home and business, but the difference between governmental and private.
> 
> Whether it is a home or a business, it is still owned by a private entity.  There's a basic point about rights and freedoms, which can be summed up as, "Your right to swing your fist about ends at the tip of my nose."  Whether it is my home or my business, it is *mine*.  So, if you enter into the space (real or virtual) of another private citizen, we have a clash of rights - yours and the owner's.  The person with the home-field advantage wins on the matter of personal expression.



Except it doesn't really work like that. Even if both are private property, they are not the same on every aspect of the law. You can say that no black people can come into your home, but you can't say that about your restaurant, you can't discriminate based on skin color even if it is your business (well officially that is). 







> No one may, through discrimination, inhibit the access of another to public transportation or a public place, such as a commercial establishment, hotel, restaurant, theatre, cinema, park, camping ground or trailer park, or his obtaining the goods and services available there.






> This does not apply to the government.  It does not have rights, as such, to clash with yours.



Strawman.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 31, 2013)

You do realize that just throwing out the names of logical fallacies does not mean that your opponent has actually used them, right?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 31, 2013)

Danny, Morrus and anyone else I was having a spirited yet civil discussion with, I must apologize now for leaving it.  I cite the below two quotes as my reason:



trappedslider said:


> You all do realize that certain folks are only taking part in this discussion out of their own amusement over everyone else's reactions right?




So is that what you're up to?  I had no idea you could read my mind.  And bro?  This  was tired back on WotC's board.  I thought you'd be able to refrain from stalking us and impugning our character on a new forum.  I guess not.



Umbran said:


> Sure.  And, in taking on someone like, say Danny, who is well versed on the subject and can continue such a discussion quite civilly until the other side is well and truly shown to be a troll, ignorant, or deficient in reasoning power, they don't do themselves any favors.




So it's cool for mods to call users trolls?  What the  kind of place is this?  How dare you.  You don't know the first thing about me and yet you assume I'm trolling?  Remember that conversation we had about respect?  This?  This is why you don't have mine and won't.  

Morrus: Is this really the sort of person you want representing you?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 31, 2013)

> Except it doesn't really work like that. Even if both are private property, they are not the same on every aspect of the law. You can say that no black people can come into your home, but you can't say that about your restaurant, you can't discriminate based on skin color even if it is your business (well officially that is).




The rights in question have a different scope- the legal apples & oranges thing again.  The lengths the law will go to to protect your rights as a person of color or as a religious practitioner are much greater than for protecting free speech.  That's because the right to free speech is mainly framed in the terms of protection from the government or its agencies as opposed to rights that are protected against government, businesses and even individuals' actions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 31, 2013)

> So it's cool for mods to call users trolls? What the  kind of place is this? How dare you. You don't know the first thing about me and yet you assume I'm trolling? Remember that conversation we had about respect? This? This is why you don't have mine and won't.




Key word in Umbran's response: "until".  Nobody was called a troll.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 31, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Danny, Morrus and anyone else I was having a spirited yet civil discussion with, I must apologize now for leaving it.  I cite the below two quotes as my reason:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Don't use profanity, please. And yes, an important part  - maybe the most important part - of a moderator's job is to evaluate, detect, and prevent trolling (none of which Umbran has done so far - if he thought you were trolling, he'd have warned you, threadbanned you, or similar; your continued presence here indicates otherwise).  If you are unclear, you may email me or Umbran.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2013)

Remus Lupin said:


> You do realize that just throwing out the names of logical fallacies does not mean that your opponent has actually used them, right?



It can also mean he did. When did I say guberment had rights?


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 31, 2013)

I think you're misunderstanding the point of his argument:

As I read it (correct me if I've got this wrong, Umbran), he's saying that a private entity, either a home or a business, can restrict free speech because the home-or-business owner has a right to decide what's said or done on his/her property. A government cannot restrict speech precisely because it does not, per se, have rights. So the idea that free speech in public requires free speech in private is rooted in an improper identification of private rights with public responsibilities.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 31, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Now I can simply say: Keep it on topic, please.  There may still be those who want to discuss the topic of the thread.  If you don't, then please leave it be for those who do.  Thanks.




*raises hand*

I was one of those people ... right up until you called me a troll.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 31, 2013)

Remus Lupin said:


> You guys are aware that Umbran is a mod and Morrus actually _owns the website_, right?




Yes, I am.  Morrus has behaved in a manner indicative of his position and Umbran has not.  That is why I've addressed Morrus one way and Umbran another.  He may think his mod badge gives him the right to act like an ass toward others but it does not.  I don't know about you but a mod badge isn't enough for me to accept being treated poorly.  Then again, I don't think a prince is anything special so maybe I'm kwazy ...


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 31, 2013)




----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 31, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Key word in Umbran's response: "until".  Nobody was called a troll.




Reading comprehension: In citing your abilities he implied the outcome was predetermined.  Cut the legalese crap, this isn't a court of law and you know damned well what he was implying with that comment.


----------



## Joker (Oct 31, 2013)

Just a note about the royals.  They don't have a purely symbolic function.  They generate more money than they cost.  Either directly through tourism or by opening up business opportunities between countries.
While I don't appreciate there being people that are worth more than I socially, they're good to have around from an economic point of view.

On blackface, I take it traditional black face (black make up with red lips) is as insensitive as a Hitler costume or a costume of a skyscraper with a plane through it.  But what about dressing up as a specific person, either real or fictional, from a different race?  How do you feel about that 2nd grader that dressed up as Martin Luther King?


----------



## Morrus (Oct 31, 2013)

OK, this thread has been turned into something pretty ugly now, and certainly isn't about Halloween costumes any more.  Clunk.


----------

