Gibson, because of the scope of his audience, was potentially hurtful.
That's fine. I just don't personally care. And I think it would behoove others not to care either since Gibson's opinions are irrelevant to their lives. I find the idea that verbal restraint is a matter of social propriety rather than a subtle form of social bondage to be disturbing. It's because of that kind of hockey that Muslim culture was waging war against cartoonists; "Don't hurt our feelings or we'll firebomb you!" I think it was Al Sharpton who pulled the same kind of crap with Larry Elder by going straight to KABC and threatening to push out their sponsorship unless his show was taken off the air.
Were they wrong to respect the dead and the living who mourned them?
If they truly wanted to, then no it's not wrong. But if they're holding back more radical feelings for the sake of propriety, then I do find there's a form of oppression at work.
Was it wrong to get mad at the people who danced and celebrated when the towers came down?
"Wrong" isn't the word because it wasn't
wrong and no one else should feel it was
wrong of them to do; it's just their culture. At the same time, that doesn't mean it would be improper of us to resent their actions even if we don't respect their reasons for doing it. It's not wrong. It's just in their nature as a culture.
Just saying that the fact that it's okay when done indirectly doesn't make it okay when it's done pointedly.
I think the world would be a better more honest place if no one saw a difference.
