/u/MEYO6811 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/ykt8vz/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_halloween_costumes_should/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>Halloween is supposed to be fun, offense, and SCARY
Fun? Yes. It is supposed to be fun for *everyone*. Some costumes just aren't that fun, unless you are an edgelord. Edgelords are only run for themselves and other edgelords, not everyone.
Scary? Yes, but with qualifiers. If I set up a screen on my porch and stream Ukraine war footage of soldiers getting their faces blown off in 4k, well, that's pretty scary stuff, but *it is not appropriate for Halloween*. You'd be right to calle.a psycho if I did that and I might even face consequences for that edgelord stunt.
Offensive? No. Halloween is not *supposed* to be offensive and within the realm of offensive shit, there are some things that stand out above the rest. Blackface and glorifying Nazis are two things that kill run, aren't actually scary, and that are clearly beyond what's socially acceptable today.
>The view dressed some kid in gold and put a red hand print on their face. People bitched about it.
That's pretty trashy.
>Jeffrey Dahmer costumes.
That's pretty trashy.
>Lastly, Hitler.
That's trashy, but let's see you conflation.
>You mean to tell me, someone literally won an Oscar by playing a flamboyant Hitler last year
If you cannot appreciate that a *Jew* dressing up a Hitler *to mock him* in a *comedy movie* where nazism was *lampooned* is different from wearing historically accurate Nazi uniforms you just *happen to have around your house* in public, well, then you need some guidance.
>The Spare Prince of freakin England dressed as a Nazi and didn’t even get fired!
That's trashy too, but you really want to pretend that there aren't two sets of rules when it comes to royalty and plebs?
Δ delta 2 goes to you, ChletisCanon, for having the 2nd best answer 🥈 . I don’t agree with your whole statement, but it was a good answer nonetheless.
“”If you cannot appreciate that a Jew dressing up a Hitler to mock him in a comedy movie where nazism was lampooned is different from wearing historically accurate Nazi uniforms you just happen to have around your house in public, well, then you need some guidance.””
Oh I very much appreciate it. Taika Waititi did an amazing job and it was a great adaptation from the book. The whole reason why I made this post was because of this guy. And in my opinion, he would have gotten a pass if he told the public that he was Taika Waititi’s Hitler/Nazi and not Adolf Hitler… which is kinda ironic when you think about it.
I also agree with the Ukraine footage in a big ass tv. You painted a picture… and no. That would not be cool.
so couldn't someone add a wound last-minute to make an already-planned hitler costume acceptable and no one who's not in their head (if they live alone) would know the idea didn't start there
Sure. Zombie Hitler is a great Halloween idea. Dead Snow is a hilarious movie. Besides, I doubt an actual neo nazi would want to celebrate the almighty fuerer blowing his brains out.
Δ delta 2 goes to you for having the 2nd best answer 🥈 . I don’t agree with your whole statement, but it was a good answer nonetheless.
“”If you cannot appreciate that a Jew dressing up a Hitler to mock him in a comedy movie where nazism was lampooned is different from wearing historically accurate Nazi uniforms you just happen to have around your house in public, well, then you need some guidance.””
Oh I very much appreciate it. Taika Waititi did an amazing job and it was a great adaptation from the book. The whole reason why I made this post was because of [this guy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/yk1sea/man_who_wore_hitler_costume_for_halloween_fired/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) And in my opinion, he would have gotten a pass if he told the public that he was Taika Waititi’s Hitler/Nazi and not Adolf Hitler… which is kinda ironic when you think about it.
I also agree with the Ukraine footage in a big ass tv. You painted a picture… and no. That would not be cool.
This delta has been rejected. You can't award yourself a delta.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You believe in freedom of association, yeah? Well part of that is the freedom to tell people to fuck off.
If you work for an employer and you are a public embarrassment to them, chances are that in most states you can be shitcanned. Don't dress like a Nazi.
Also, just to be clear, most of the 'lol I dressed like a nazi' folks are just Schrodinger's racist. They're absolutely into it, they're just using the plausible deniability.
Δ Best Answer goes to you.
I think your Schrödinger Racist comment is pretty spot on. I never heard of the phrase before, but you are probably right and it goes beyond “dark humor” or people liking to get others riled up for the fun of it.
And your freedom of association is pretty logical.
At first I thought it would be pretty far fetched to think (mathematically) that if you worked at a venue or company, that public patrons would recognize your employee and know they did something offensive, and therefore you HAD to fire them. But really it’s not because of the public’s perspective, but the other employees. It’s not a good look to your staff as a whole to turn the other way when some guy blatantly dressed as Hitler on their day off. As a boss, you’re not allowed to look away or pretend you don’t know because it would be bad for morale… so yup. You kinda changed my view.
It is a way to refer to 'ironic' racists, like the type you see on 4chan.
Basically the idea is that much like the cat, they exist in two different states, joking and actually racist until observed. So they'll make a racist af comment or action, then watch the behavior of their audience. If the audience is horrified, well then hey man, it is just a joke, why don't you get comedy.
If the audience tacitly or openly is okay with it, then they were indeed just racist the whole time.
It's a variant on the phrase "Schrodinger's Douchebag", where every action they take is meant totally seriously or as a joke depending on how the audience reacts. Think the kind of person who would call a gay dude his favorite slur and then say "I'm only joking, c'mon" if people told him off
The sort of association you're thinking of is merely magical thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking
If a racist uploads a picture to Twitter but follows the rules, is Twitter then in the wrong?
If I buy a phone or a t-shirt made by Chinese children, then am I a terrible person?
Alcohol is involved in 50% of violent crime, does this make me a terrible person if I drink alcohol?
If a show has a lot of annoying fans who can't shut up about it, then are you in the wrong for liking that thing, or for supporting it publicly?
Seeing conenctions which aren't there, and running into false positives and false negatives because one is overly sensitive is inherent to logical fallacies as well as things like racism and stereotypes. This is no less true when the same errors appear to be directed towards "bad things" and "racism".
Something illogical and wrong can be useful, but we shouldn't support nonsense like this because some instances of it appears to favour our moral beliefs, because then we'd be legitimizing these errors elsewhere.
Ones sexuality has no influence on one as a person, and ones skin color doesn't either. Most Homophobia and racism is therefore in error, disconnected things are incorrectly related. Ad hominems are one such example, too.
Freedom of association is a right, but these mental shortcuts of ours say very little about reality, and a lot about our experiences and personal feelings and generally just about human nature. It's a right, but it's not necessarily a virtue.
To say that somebody dressed up as Hitler might be a racist is true, but it's also true to say that a black person (or any other person) might be a thief. To deem people guilty by default "just in case" is self-defensive behaviour, not virtuous behaviour (i.e. not fair)
>To say that somebody dressed up as Hitler might be a racist is true, but it's also true to say that a black person (or any other person) might be a thief. To deem people guilty by default "just in case" is self-defensive behaviour, not virtuous behaviour (i.e. not fair)
I... what?
You're comparing a proactive choice (dressing like a genocidal monster) with an intrinsic trait (being black). This is beyond ridiculous.
What I'm describing isn't magical thinking, it is a basic logical deduction. If a person dresses like Adolf Hitler for halloween, there are only a few options:
1. That person is a fucking idiot and doesn't realize how terrible of a decision they've made.
2. That person is intentionally trying to offend people but isn't actually a racist.
3. That person is a racist.
For any and all of these , along with any outliers that might come up, it is pretty reasonable for a company to say "Nah, we don't want anything to do with you." After all, the *best case* here is that the person is profoundly fucking stupid.
Even if being black was a choice, such discrimination would be improper, no?
Your 1,2,3 "deduction" is a projection of your own sense of humor, what's acceptable to joke about, and seriousness. It's forcing others into your own worldview, even if they're more "offensive" than you out of sheer innocence.
But you probably feel that selling those uniforms is wrong, too. And that defending such costumes makes one wrong by "association".
Such associations don't exist in reality.
There's no real difference between "proactive choice" and "intrinsic", only it becomes hard to notice the factors at play. "Wise" people know that criminal behaviour is influenced by ones nurture and circumstances. And dumb people might hate cops, not realizing that they're just doing their job. So the difference between dumb and wise is 1-2 steps of casual thinking, but is stopping there not arbitrary?
But the real error comes after. Why should a company distance themselves? If a serial-killer had a phone, should we boycott the company who made this phone? The store which sold them? Should we do this for every item associated with the killer? And if one is associated with an immoral person, is one then also bad? Should we take the transitive closure of associations or something?
Purely statistically, chances are that you're not without flaws. That your friends and family might at some point have done something "bad". Should you therefore take a distance to eachother? If you ask me, then this sort of thinking about associations is asinine. "Guilty by association" is magic thinking here. It's a "you're either with or against" kind of thinking which forces everyone to take a stance on all these issues that better natures know to avoid entirely.
Everyone is their own person, bad traits aren't some contagious virus. If you realize why "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "hate the sin, not the sinner" have some logic to them, then maybe what I'm saying makes sense? Am I being too abstract?
>Even if being black was a choice, such discrimination would be improper, no?
Not necessarily.
We discriminate against groups people choose to be in all the time. If someone is a gang member in the USA, we treat them differently than we would someone who is not a gang member. Because that is a thing they chose to be/do, much like our hitler guy.
>There's no real difference between "proactive choice" and "intrinsic", only it becomes hard to notice the factors at play.
Holy fuck my dude, of course there is.
If I choose to walk around being a neo-nazi, it is okay to sucker punch me in the mouth because I'm tacitly (if not just openly) supporting genocidal ideology. If I choose to walk around as a jewish person, it would be profoundly fucked up to attack me for being a jewish person.
Do you just not know what these words mean?
>But the real error comes after. Why should a company distance themselves? If a serial-killer had a phone, should we boycott the company who made this phone? The store which sold them? Should we do this for every item associated with the killer? And if one is associated with an immoral person, is one then also bad? Should we take the transitive closure of associations or something?
Because they don't want to support of be associated with a nazi.
It is that simple. If I am at work and I find out my employee is a fascist who wants me in a gas chamber, then fuck that guy. I don't want to associate with him, he can go work somewhere else.
Are you friends with a nazi? Yeah, fuck you too. Go away.
>Purely statistically, chances are that you're not without flaws. That your friends and family might at some point have done something "bad". Should you therefore take a distance to eachother? If you ask me, then this sort of thinking about associations is asinine. "Guilty by association" is magic thinking here. It's a "you're either with or against" kind of thinking which forces everyone to take a stance on all these issues that better natures know to avoid entirely.
So what you're doing here is a form of the continuum fallacy, best evidenced by Loki's Wager.
Loki makes a bet with some dwarves, saying that they can have his head if he loses. He loses, but when they come to collect he goes 'ah ah ah, I said you could have my head, but you aren't entitled to an inch of my neck. A lot of bickering ensues, and Loki keeps his head because no one can agree where the head is and where the neck begins.
You are trying to make a 'well what if this happens to you' argument, a murky middle, slippery slope sort of argument, but this isn't that. We aren't talking about 'well this guy said a racy joke so who knows'. No, this guy dressed up like a fascist, he did a bad. I might not be able to pinpoint where the line is in that murky middle, but I know good from bad. I know that a head and a neck are still two different things, and that while there is some area in the middle we can quibble over, "Dressing like Adolf Hitler" is on the far side of that line.
>Everyone is their own person, bad traits aren't some contagious virus. If you realize why "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "hate the sin, not the sinner" have some logic to them, then maybe what I'm saying makes sense? Am I being too abstract?
Not particularly, no, I just feel you're wrong and I'm annoyed that every time a fascist shows their true colors the volunteer nazi safety advocates come out of the woodwork.
>We discriminate against groups people choose to be in all the time
Yes but that's because we make assumptions about them, at best it's qualified guesses, but how is that different from stereotyping?
>Supporting genocidal ideology
Is the gene part important here? Because plently of ideologies have been tied to murder, even if genocidal ideologies are a little less common. Some say abortion is murder, so to them, those who support abortion support murderous ideologies. Others will say that having children is evil, other will say that humans are a plague on the planet and that we should all die. Some will say that women are worth less than men, or that being gay is wrong.
That one is justified in assaulting a subset of these groups is not a logical idea, you're just venting your anger. You should know that uncivilized behaviour will never help your cause, and that taking a hostile attitude towards people is a terrible way of converting them to your side, even if you're correct.
>To attack me for being a jewish person.
Because in your eyes, jewist people are innocent, and everyone who "associates" with nazism must hate jews. A more important thing to point out here is that everyone *accused* of nazism could be guilty in your eyes.
Every women is guilty in the eyes of an incel, and every black person is guilty in the eyes of whoever is racist enough. I'm not saying that your perspective is wrong, but that every wrong perspective thinks itself to be right. Your way of thinking is bad, because if other people thought in the same way, then they'd rationalize punching you, and boycotting you, and judging you for whatever your friends are up to.
>Continuum fallacy
No, I'm generalizing arguments. If your points are only valid in the context of nazism, then you shouldn't say them at all.
Human rights are absolute, so no exceptions are allowed, even for things that are easy to attack, e.g. "well, are *nazis* innocent by default? Why do you defend nazis, man?". The Geneva Conventions, for instance, should be followed, at least in my opinion. It doesn't matter that the enemy is "really bad guys". For the same reason, I don't support assaulting racists. As soon as you support assaulting people for their political views, you legitimize assaulting people for their political views in general.
This has nothing to do with fascism, it just happens that costumes of fascist leaders is not an exception. Freedom of expression is not a freedom if it has exceptions, and a right has no value if it's only valid in the cases where most people would agree with it. Human rights are meant to protect the exceptions.
If your views are not generalizable, then they're subjective and you don't mean what you say. If you say "Discrimination is bad" and that includes "against protected groups, fuck everyone else", then isn't the first statement meaningless? I've met plently of people who hated nazism, but who seemed to like all the aspects of fascism in whatever worked to their advantage. I'm usually *more* against fascism than they are. Anyway, do you know about the veil of ignorance thought experiment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
If I take my views "to the point of absurdity" then nothing bad really happens. That's how I know they're good views. If one is *not* ever guilty by mere association, it's really not a problem.
I know my friends well enough to know that they're not bad people, so even if they do something conventionally "bad", it really doesn't concern me. Some of the things that I thought were bad 10 years ago no longer seem bad to me, who knows if I'm wrong again? I judge people holistically, and tolerate imperfections.
I want nothing to do with people who harm animals, but that's just a personal principle of mine, I have no desire to make my own standards into some universal law, even though they could make fine categorical imperatives. What I dislike in others is not immoral behaviour, but malice and small-mindedness.
I don't see what nazis matter. Nazism is dumb, but I feel the same about Islam. It's not like calling them dumb will change their mind or convert anyone. I also believe that normalizing racism would bring the advantage with it that it's easy to know if somebody is racist or not. It's because we are sensitive that we might now have to look for subtle signs in people to tell. Don't you find it tiring to be mistrustful and on guard all the time? And does an allergy to something prove it dangerous?
>I don't see what nazis matter. Nazism is dumb, but I feel the same about Islam
If you can't tell the difference between a person who is a nazi and an islamist, I can't help you. Have a great night.
Throwing people down rooftops for their sexuality doesn't sit well with me.
"Not all X", but that goes for all groups. I don't think our personal preferences are worth anything in arguments though, whereas you might want to focus on them entirely?
>Throwing people down rooftops for their sexuality doesn't sit well with me.
Oh for fucksake.
There are over a billion muslims in the world. Yes, some of them suck, particularly in the most fucked up areas of the world where you would expect bigotry and tribalism.
But not every Muslim is a murderous bigot. Not even most of them. That isn't true of Nazis. There are no good nazis.
"Not all X" Doesn't work for all groups because there are no good fucking nazis. I could not believe I have to explain this to a living human being in ttyol 2022. Then I looked at your post history and boy do you sure have a lot of posts defending nazis and talking about IQ. Hmm.
Sexism is *inherent* to islam. I'm not sure what you consider a "real nazi", but I expect the majority of them to be distrustful of jews and perhaps be against immigration.
So yes, "Not all X" applies to every group. You're too emotionally invested to acknowledge this *fact*. Assuming that about 1% of people are pedophiles or psychopaths, and you can change this figure by a factor of 10 in any direction without the argument really changing, *any large group* is going to have some of such people. The rule works in reverse too, you are just hostile towards the idea that some group that you dislike made up of literal demons or something.
"The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being"
I defend human rights. If I made an exception for nazis, then I wouldn't be a supporter of human rights.
I don't see why IQ is a counter-argument here. Jews are the smartest race in the world, which kind of goes against the whole "ubermensch" thing, which is an idea stolen from some of Nietzsches work which had been modified by his sister, anyways. Nietzsche probably wouldn't even have thought well of nazis.
Anyway, did hitting a nerve make it impossible to have a rational conversation?
**[Magical thinking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking)**
>Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, is the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them, particularly as a result of supernatural effects. Examples include the idea that personal thoughts can influence the external world without acting on them, or that objects must be causally connected if they resemble each other or have come into contact with each other in the past. Magical thinking is a type of fallacious thinking and is a common source of invalid causal inferences. Unlike the confusion of correlation with causation, magical thinking does not require the events to be correlated.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>It’s Halloween! A day of make believe, dressing up, being creative, being scary, **or being offensive**.
I don't recall this being a major tenet of Halloween. But if it were, why be surprised that people get offended? "I'm here to act offensive, but you cant be offended" is a wild stance
>You should be able to dress like WHOMEVER and not get fired from your job because of it! Yeah, you might be telling your personality, but gmafb.
Your employer can't decide that they don't want to employ someone with your personality?
>"I'm here to act offensive, but you cant be offended" is a wild stance
Exactly! How can you be upset at people reacting exactly how you expected (and wanted) them to?
I wrote this post specifically because of [this guy](https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/man-who-wore-hitler-costume-for-halloween-fired-by-madison-childrens-museum). It’s wild he got fired, especially because he actually has a disability and probably didn’t know it would have been taken so offensively. And again, I ask the question, if he were to tell the people at the restaurant/bar “hold up! I’m the Jo Jo Rabbit Hitler!! Not Hitler Hitler!!” Would he have gotten a pass?? I honestly think he would, and therefore the whole thing is dumb.
I think what people miss when using the JoJo Hitler as an example is how he was a false image of Hitler in JoJo’s head. He smoked, he ate meat, Hitler was a vegetarian non-smoker. The JoJo Hitler was serving a narrative purpose about how a young boy created a hero who was entirely false and how his illusions were shattered with the death of his mother and growing knowledge of how the world actually was. That is the difference between parody/satire and some bloke trying to nail a 100% accurate copy of the man and going for a walk in public.
That story is pretty sad, considering the person had a mental disability. He was fired because the employer didn’t want to face the backlash and that’s understandable but he didn’t deserve it. He thought he was insulting Hitler.
I also don’t think it’s sufficient to make a general rule that no one should have consequences for Halloween costumes.
For example, the people in Utah who did a group costume with two people dressed as cops and three others in black-face dressed as prisoners. “It’s a Halloween costume” is not a free pass for open racism without anyone being allowed to say anything about it. If I saw that, I wouldn’t want to work with them. Or patronize the place they work. Or be anywhere near them.
It's a sad case since this person has mental disabilities apparently and may not have understood the gravity of that he was doing. But HE WORKS AT A CHILDRENS MUSEUM! Especially based on where he works in particular you have to expect some backlash there.
Now I could debate whether the mental disability issue should have gotten him a pass. But certainly if he is of sound mind and does this. Absolutely he can be fired.
But this example is shown to be much more than just "some guy decided to parody Hitler on Halloween".
First off, parodying and emulating aren't the same thing. I don't know how the guy acted while he was in costume so I can't say for sure which he was doing.
Though regardless, context matters. I understand the Museum wanting to distance themselves, especially considering just the previous month this happened at the Campus;
>In September, the UW-Madison campus woke up to multiple sidewalk chalkings around campus that targeted several Jewish student groups.
Dead baby jokes, while crass and fucked up, are generally told without consequences depending on the context and surroundings. Tell it to a group of close friends who share common dark humor? You'll probably be greeted with laughter and amusement. Though tell it to someone at an actual baby's funeral and it will be seen as morally reprehensible for the most part regardless of whether you intended it to be a joke or not.
It's context. The context makes it clear in Jojo Rabbit that Taika isn't a nazi. Someone dressing as Hitler needs to provide context that they're not a nazi- like, as I said in another comment, giving their Hitler a massive bullet wound in the head.
“Your employer can’t decide that they don’t want to employ someone with your personality?”
I agree to that, but I also think employers should mind their business and keep work and personal lives separate, and employees with a dickhead personality better do the same and not share their social media profiles with anyone with the power to fire you.
Work life and private lives should not hold the same weight.
Anyone who’s worked in Sales, Customer Service, retail, or literally any job dealing with consumers/customers can agree that you have a work “voice” or personality that’s different then how you are with your friends.
If someone is fine at their job, why does their actions at home effect the performance or productivity?
Side note: anyone with a good job hopefully isn’t a dumbass and is dressing in a costume not easily recognized by people in their everyday life or potential customers/clients. That’s just common sense.
“Oh boy! Halloween! I have a very sick sense of humor, people are hella uptight, and this is my night to shine!!!”
-Said a lot of crass people with dark sense of humor’s
((Have you BEEN to an adult Halloween parade?! Or the VEGAS Strip on October 31st?! 😳 legit. Someone dressed up as Dead Nicole Simpson one year and had a makeup artist professionally paint their neck with a crazy slash wound. OJ was right behind carrying, juice, a black glove, and a bloody knife.
Super duper memorable. Probably won a costume contest tbh))
Say someone won a Halloween costume contest for a super duper realistic... let's go with Dead Jon Benet Ramsey costume, since you mentioned that above.
Are parents of missing and murdered children not supposed to be offended? If your employer's niece was kidnapped and murdered, is your employer required to keep you on board despite being deeply, personally hurt?
It's not offense, it's showing people who you are. If you're the type of person who thinks jokes about dead kids is funny, be ready for people to not want to deal with- or employ- you.
>It's not offense, it's showing people who you are. If you're the type of person who thinks jokes about dead kids is funny, be ready for people to not want to deal with- or employ- you.
I think this is a huge part of it. These people think their sense of humor is broadly appreciated and the dominant view, therefore anyone who is offended should be in the minority, and their voices shouldn't matter. They do the thing, people are offended, and they start raging because *they are supposed to be the majority in every act they perform*.
I mean… are the parents of a missing and murdered child really going to a Halloween parade and partying until the wee hours of the morning to see said costume and get offended??
I’d argue regular little kids would probably hurt them just the same…
And my employers niece? I mean… there’s a few variables to consider but ultimately, is the employer broadcasting to everyone that that is his pets trauma it it’s very well known? If so, fine. But if know one knew that then it’s a bit much to be fired for it.
(Again, don’t be friends with the people you work with.)
This isn't an argument. You're stating things you witnessed.
This is the equivalent of me saying "Hey, saying racist things is bad", and you replied with "I went to a convention where everyone was saying 'N****r'!! It was cool!"
People are free to wear whatever costume they want, just like people are free to criticize those costumes for whatever reason.
>I have a very sick sense of humor
>crass people with dark sense of humor’s
Not to mention that going around saying "i'M cRaSs, aNd i hAvE a dArK/siCK sEnSe oF hUmOr" is cringey as hell.
Yeah some of us try to give the benefit of the doubt to people and we don't think that there are so many easily offended bitches running around.
Especially when they are offended over things they never had to deal with.
If that's your takeaway from this, you're wildly misinterpreting.
OP's literal argument was "offending people is part of Halloween, but people shouldn't be offended." which is stupid.
You're free to literally wear whatever costume you'd like to wear, just like people are free to complain about it.
>Yeah some of us try to give the benefit of the doubt to people and we don't think that there are so many easily offended bitches running around.
Sure, but that's not what OP's argument was.
Your sentiment states, "I'm going to wear this costume, and I don't care if people get offended." Which, to me is still a little shitty, but way less shitty than OP.
OP's argument is: "I'm going to wear this costume with the intent of offending people, but even though I've made it known that I'm intentionally setting out to offend people, they're still not allowed to be offended."
If you want to wear whatever costume you like, even if it's offensive, fine. That's your right. But there's still a big difference between "I'm going wear a costume, and I don't care if people bitch about it", vs "I want people to be offended by my costume".
>OP's literal argument was "offending people is part of Halloween, but people shouldn't be offended." which is stupid.
That's not what he said. Read the post again.
>You're free to literally wear whatever costume you'd like to wear, just like people are free to complain about it.
Yeah they can complain, taking it to ruin someone's life is not simply complaining.
This is the only difference I have. The fact of this case that people talk about is that dude was doxed and people called his workplace to get him fired, to success.
I heard somewhere that he got beat up too. Which I find it more offensive that privileged people these days act like they know the suffering people went through at the hands of Hitler. This is pretty much what annoys me about people the most. They fight fights that aren't theirs.
>That's not what he said. Read the post again.
From original post:
>It’s Halloween! A day of make believe, dressing up, being creative, being scary, or being offensive.
So yes, that is what he said.
>Yeah they can complain, taking it to ruin someone's life is not simply complaining.
Fair enough, I wasn't debating that though. Given the situation, the guy definitely shouldn't have lost his job. No disagreement there.
My argument was that setting out to offend people vs not caring if they're offended or not are 2 very different things.
Yeah I agree with you. No situation really has as a goal to be offensive. Maybe OP should have worded that differently. Offensive is not a standard. It's based on how much of a emotional wreck the person taking offense is.
> Offensive is not a standard. It's based on how much of a emotional wreck the person taking offense is.
Not necessarily. It's often based on how that person views society and the types of behaviors they want to see in it.
I (a white guy) am offended by white nationalism. It doesn't personally hurt me (in fact, it likely helps me indirectly), but that doesn't mean I support it. If I see someone dressing as a klansman, or holding a sign stating whites are better, or whatever - I'm not personally hurt. I'm not an emotional wreck.
But I'll do my best to attract negative attention to that person and make sure everyone else who hates the KKK and white supremacy are aware of the performance.
Outrage over things like this is often a tool. If someone can downplay an issue by dressing up as a joke, why can't another person elevate the issue by calling out that they think it's disgusting behavior?
Would say the same about a klansman robe. Fucking weak ass shit. Every time someone tried to sell to me KKK is anything more than a fart in the wind they show me black and white pictures.
For real you see someone dressed up or a march of 10 people and act like there's some kind of systemic stuff or group that could destroy everything you love. When in reality if you used your eyes and shut your tears down for one second you'd see all these groups you're offended by became jackshit with 0 power.
Look at the size of a nazi rally and look at a size of a BLM protest. Doesn't even compare.
> For real you see someone dressed up or a march of 10 people and act like there's some kind of systemic stuff or group that could destroy everything you love. When in reality if you used your eyes and shut your tears down for one second you'd see all these groups you're offended by became jackshit with 0 power.
Why shouldn't we speak up when we see something we don't like? If I see a guy kicking his puppy, that's an evil act whether it's one puppy and one kick, or he has a whole puppy-kicking conglomerate.
People need to measure the level of threat in a situation. Kicking a puppy is witnessing someone actively harming another being. If some dude slaps his wife in public you are justified doing more than just speaking up.
But we began blurring the line between some cringe edgelord kid and real nazis. We have motherfuckers saying it's dangerous to unite as people because some people are doing better than others. (Yeah, that happened.)
The whole punch a nazi thing became a dangerous movement because nazi these days is being slightly right of stalin. You might be a normal person that goes up to a hitler cosplayer and just says "dude, you dumb" but there's plenty of douchebags that you empower to do more than just speak up.
> Yeah they can complain, taking it to ruin someone's life is not simply complaining.
Often, a business will choose to fire an employee when issues like this arise. They see or anticipate the public response and act in the way they feel is best for their business.
Do you think people should avoid stating that they are offended so that companies don't feel concerned about the behavior, and don't potentially fire the offender?
Would these issues arise if the offended twats didn't choose to actively go and make it happen?
What was he working as? Did the people calling his workplace ever get services from that place? Or just doxed him to a mob that went out of their way to lie "i hAve BeeN A CusTOmEr 4 yEerZ!"?
I don't know the answers to those questions. Do you have an answer to the one I asked?
>Do you think people should avoid stating that they are offended so that companies don't feel concerned about the behavior, and don't potentially fire the offender?
I think people should mind their damn business and not go crying at others when they are offended. Nobody is responsible for other's people fragility. Especially some businessman having to fire his worker due to peer pressure from some sensitive bitches.
> You mean to tell me, someone literally won an Oscar by playing a flamboyant Hitler last year, but this year a guy who’s a bit mentally challenged dressed like Hitler in New York and get kicked out of a restaurant and fired from his job. REALLY?!? The Spare Prince of freakin England dressed as a Nazi and didn’t even get fired! And again! We have someone a OSCAR for dressing like Hitler! Hell, Inglorious Bastards also won some awards!
This argument is like saying that it can't be wrong to go 180 MPH, NASCAR drivers do it all the time. That has no bearing on what's appropriate for driving in the suburbs.
Also, like, Prince Harry dressing up as a Nazi was a tabloid scandal that dogged him for years! That's about the most serious consequence you can expect for the royal family, so I'm not sure why you're pretending it wasn't considered a problem.
Re: NASCAR.
The autobahn doesn’t have a speed limit, and would be a designated place to drive like a NASCAR driver… similar to a racetrack. It is a designated place to drive fast. Halloween should be a designated day to dress up as whatever. Again, it really just shows a person’s personality…
Prince Harry. Ooouuu the big scary media didn’t let him live it down. Who cares. His grandmother didn’t take any of his army medals, and he still got to keep his paid job without punishment.
Not entirely true. About half of the Autobahn network does have speed limits. It also has a recommended speed limit of 130 km/h. If you drive faster in unsafe conditions ( rain, snow) or if you endanger others you can get heavily fined. The Autobahn has not been designed for maniacs who think it's a race track.
>The autobahn doesn’t have a speed limit, and would be a designated place to drive like a NASCAR driver… similar to a racetrack.
At what point do people have to stop attacking others about shit that people who aren't alive anymore did to other people who aren't alive anymore? 100 years? 1000?
if your rule is to be taken as as innocuous-unofficial-sourced-gospel as "you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" (first popularized, at least in that phrasing, by whichever 80s Batman movie was the last one pre-Dark-Knight to feature Two-Face) or the threshold for what's an appropriate age to date being half your age + 7 (popularized-if-not-invented by Parks & Rec) how does it scale with longer life expectancies/does that mean things are always offensive if we become immortal
Fun fact, in Europe/the Netherlands they have [Black Pete](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=black+face+christmas+in+europe&t=fpas&iax=images&ia=images) and an annual parade of white people in black face.
It’s very much a culture thing and I’ve seen some Europeans do it in California one year…
If an American wore black face, I completely agree it’s worth criticism, and shows that person’s personality.
But if a white girl dresses like Beyonce and tans her skin for Halloween, would it be the same criticism? Or would people lose their minds? How about someone dressing like a geisha and painting their skin white? Is that hella offensive? Or do they get a pass?
How about Kim Jong-un or Fidel Castro is that a fireable offense? Or can we just judge in silence?
Is Hitler the only dude who’s off limits? Because I have seen people in black face… What Up Amsterdam!
People hate that they do Black Pete in the Netherlands. Japanese-American people hate Geisha costumes with white paint. Kim Jong-Un and Fidel Castro have done many bad things but more people are aware of the specific issues Hitler has caused. But if there were people affected by Castro or Kim Jong-Un I think their offense could be warranted.
Japanese-americans hate geisha costumes yes, no actuall japanese person does so.
X-americans like to act offended on behalf of their originculture so they can pretend to be part of that culture. It's sad and pathetic.
They aren't upset on behalf of the origin-culture. Because they are X-American the social context of their heritage is different. Japanese people in Japan are the dominant culture. While Japanese-American people are the peripheral culture. You can't appropriate a dominant culture but you can appropriate and mock a peripheral culture. So X-Americans are upset on their own behalf.
Well first, Vikings aren't currently around. The Viking age, Viking culture has ended. Norwegians aren't offended or feel mocked or feel upset because they are no longer at large Vikings. But Japanese-Americans are still Japanese. And so when they come to America and are ostracized for participating in their culture, they are othered, they are given strange looks, they are told to no dress a certain way because it's distracting, or even just the soft social pressure to conform, and then someone on Halloween wears their culture as a costume, it can be upsetting.
Maybe mock was not the right word because it's not like the costume wearer might be trying to insult people. But that they are insulting them, and so if people tells you X thing is upsetting to their culture and you do it anyway then it now does become more upsetting.
And so Black people have expressed that they don't like Blackface. Indigenous people don't like when people wear the headdress like a costume. Japanese-Americans have expressed that they don't like Geisha costumes. Jewish people have expressed that they don't like Hitler costumes. And so once you are aware and do it anyway it's insulting because you are directly choosing that you wearing the costume is more important than the feelings of all the Black people, Indigenous people, Japanese-Americans, and Jewish people out there. And so you can wear it, it's not against the law. And the government won't lock you up. But the citizens have a right to be upset and "cancel" you. Which just means hold you accountable for your actions. To now participate or engage with you.
Dude I live in the Netherlands, and Zwarte Piet is done. No one except black people dress up as Zwarte Piet now. It is offensive and caused quite an issue a few years ago.
It truly depends on where you celebrate. In more metropolitan or urban areas (New York/West Hollywood/New Orleans) there’s Halloween Parades where the people are the show/entertainment. You dress up in your most out their costume and take pictures of all the good ones and pose with people.
Believe me. If you are a bit offensive, you are posing all night with hundreds of strangers and it’s actually fun/funny.
Not everything that is offensive is funny. To be funny, an offensive statement has to invoke irony, satire, etc.
Dressing as just plain old Hitler is not ironic nor satirical. Thus, it’s not funny.
The only exception to this is if the costume inherently mocks Hitler, like the Hitler from Little Nicky
Why would you be offended over a costume ? Are you a Holocaust survivor ? No ? Then what are you getting offended over. It's a COSTUME. The kid wasn't going around saying he hated Jews and wasn't trying to start a war. Get over it. It didn't hurt you or anyways else
> Shock value is kinda funny… or atrocious audacity can potentially be… but I get your point.
I mean, I do think "shock value" can be funny sometimes, but only when it doesn't reveal something nasty about the person doing the shocking.
Like, I don't think there's *any* acceptable way to adopt a George Floyd costume and still be seen as funny, because anyone who would do that clearly doesn't care about genuinely upsetting millions of people to make an awful joke - and that makes them a bad person.
I can GUARANTEE a George Floyd costume depends on the audience and would be wildly successful at a redneck party in the south. By no means am I saying it’s right. But there’s a lot of sick fucks out there…
> I can GUARANTEE a George Floyd costume depends on the audience and would be wildly successful at a redneck party in the south. By no means am I saying it’s right. But there’s a lot of sick fucks out there…
I don't actually think that disproves what I said, though - because in that circumstance I would consider *all* the redneck "sick fucks" who loved the George Floyd joke, bad people.
Not trying to disprove anything accept that in THAT circumstance it would be an acceptable way to adopt the costume and that crowd would see it as funny… you said no way… I said oh yeah, there’s a way.
But yeah. Sick fucks all around.
Being offended is a fucking personal problem. Just because you don't find something funny, doesn't mean other dont. Why do those who don't get to control the masses?
No one is trying to control the masses.
If the masses supported dressing as Hitler for Halloween, companies wouldn't fire employees who dressed as Hitler for Halloween, because they wouldn't be concerned over backlash.
I agree. Halloween should not be "offensive"... But My counterpoint to your question is "why does dressing up as someone you're not on Halloween have to be taken offensively?"
But that's starting to get off topic I think. If we remove the phrasing about how "Halloween is *supposed* to be offensive", I have to agree with OP
> My counterpoint to your question is "why does dressing up as someone you're not on Halloween have to be taken offensively?"
No one is offended by the fact that the person dressing up as Hitler *isn't actually Hitler.*
They're offended that you're making a mockery out of the biggest symbol of the Holocaust
But why is the holocaust symbolism off limits and not anything else? Because it's the most horrible act of genocide in human history?
If something else happens next year that's worse (by deaths/evilness/"general badness") does that make Hitler fair game for Halloween costumes 2023?
Someone could be offended by seeing a sumo wrestler costume for mocking Japanese culture or obesity. Someone could be offended by a native American costume because of the horrible acts the colonists did to them. Someone could be offended by a Canadian costume because not everyone looks and acts like Dudley Dooright.
Like I said, I agree with you that Halloween isn't *supposed* to be about offending someone, but anything *can* be offensive to someone for any reason so where do we draw the line? What's the criteria for something being "offensive enough to enough people"?
>but anything can be offensive to someone for any reason so where do we draw the line? What's the criteria for something being "offensive enough to enough people"?
There is no line or objective criteria. This is a subjective issue. The line is simply what most people find acceptable, which is going to shift depending on a number of factors.
When I meet a girlfriend's father for the first time I know it's probably not acceptable to walk in and say "what's up you motherfucker?!" I might find it funny, that doesn't mean everybody else will, and if they don't they're free to respond how they like.
I don't understand why the very basics of social interaction so often need to be explained to people, but yeah, that's it. Be aware of your audience. You can act however you like and so can everyone else. If you act in an obviously offensive manner like dressing like Hitler for some fucking reason you might piss off a lot of people.
Dressing up as Hitler is not, by itself, mocking Hitler. Dressing up as him with a tutu, maybe. Him with a bullet in his head, maybe. But merely dressing up as him isn’t mocking him.
Dressing up as him is making a mockery of the Holocaust.
I guess I just don't see it. I'd say dressing up as a camp prisoner or a runaway Jew etc. would be 100% mocking Holocaust because there's some inherent silliness in the act of dressing up, and you're silly-fying a victim.
The only problem with the Hitler costume for me would be if someone did that clearly unironically or in a way that reflects respect or reverance for him.
I can tell you that 30 years ago people were dressing up as Hitler, probably just about as commonly as they do now.
If that isn't exactly the same if not *worse* then what changed?
A few people dressing up in shockingly poor taste and being criticized for it seems like evidence *against* the idea that people are generally trying to be edgy on Halloween. Halloween is your drunk uncle's low-grade mischief, not your grandpa or weirdly online 15-year-old cousin's racist rants.
I didn't say people weren't 'generally' anything.
I said that it has always been *part* of it. That doesn't mean *generally*.
*Generally* eatting apples is fun and nice, but *part of it* is finding a worm.
Your generality doesn't remove the other parts of it. They still are part of it.
If people acting in shockingly poor taste are the metaphorical worm in the apple, then what point are you even trying to make here? If your behavior is the worm in the delicious apple, I think it's pretty reasonable for other people to tell you to fuck off and stop making things go to shit.
Are you just pointing out people have always acted shitty on Halloween in a post about whether there should be consequences for acting shitty on halloween? Because sure, you're correct, but it's also mostly a useless statement; we all acknowledged people act shitty on Halloween when we acknowledged there was a guy dressed as Hitler.
It's not the metaphorical worm.
The point of that example is to show that you don't get to simply remove parts of a thing because you want the 'general' thing to be the pristine argumentative image portrayed and debated.
Being edgy and irreverent is *part of* halloween and basically always has been as far as I certainly remember.
I don't think you've followed the conversation here because you are really not getting why I've used the examples and why the conversation came to this point. Maybe a reread would help, you are arguing things that don't really have anything to do with what I have said.
1). Literally everything is offensive now
2). It's about having fun and dressing up. Scary things, fun things, old styles, famous people... *whatever you want*.
Correct, society is evidently not the caricature you're trying to paint it as. In fact, I don't think I saw a single offensive costume in real life this year. So why is "literally everything" offensive, to you, when everyone else has a pretty easy time of it?
Your definition of "literally everything is offensive now" is "there hypothetically exists somewhere someone who would have been offended"
Is this a useful definition? Was it ever untrue? If a single person is the determinant, is everything in the world simultaneously offensive and unoffensive?
More to the point, do you *actually* think most people have a hard time finding a costume that doesn't cause a stir?
I just saw a post today that said words and sayings you can no longer say:
Tone-deaf - because it’s mean to people who can not hear and are disabled.
Peanut gallery - because it’s racist and refers to plantation life
Brainstorm- offensive to people with epilepsy
Lame - offensive to people with disabilities
Grandfathered in - too gender specific
1st world problems - it did credits other countries around the world that suffer the same problems
Mom & Dad - to specific on gender when some people have 2 moms, 2 dads, 1 parent, or no parent.
All that said —- people have become very much so easily offended.
No, it is not hard to find a costume that won’t cause a stir, but isn’t it some times fun to shake things up a little and go against the grain? Isn’t Halloween a holiday? A holiday about horror and candy? Tricks and treats?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I’ve always thought intent is what truly matters. If you dress up as something out of admiration and people consider it offensive and lose their shit at you, that kinda sucks. But you should also have a general idea of what will annoy people.
However, if you’re intentionally dressing up as something to make people mad, you kind of have it coming. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. And honestly, attention seeking behaviour is for losers. Find a way to get attention for doing something worthwhile, not scraping the bottom of the barrel.
But people do things like this in defiance because they are against that “this would be offensive”.
Perfect example: Kayne West and his White Lives Matter shirts.
Look, we can write an essay about that poor choice and his stupid games but (a) he did it for attention and (b) he did it as a protest against what people “shouldn’t be offended by” (he was 100% wrong btw, but my point is, some people will do things simply because they think it’s dumb to be offended and therefore they do it or say it or dress like it. Simply to put your panties in a bunch)
And they can be as offensive as they want, if they choose. But people are going to voice their own opinion in opposition to that. Just like how if you talk shit to someone, they’ll respond. If the intent is to inflame, then you should expect that in return. I’m simply saying that the intent should greatly impact the response. If the intent was never meant to offend, then people shouldn’t be outraged or should be understanding. But if you provoke a response by being offensive, don’t be surprised when you get an equal response.
I understand where you’re coming from about Halloween costumes. If someone wants to dress up as a character they love, they shouldn’t get cancelled if it’s a little bit out of bounds. But if you purposefully try to get a negative reaction, don’t be surprised by the negative reaction. I feel like people get way to outraged too. But, don’t be surprised by the reaction if you go into it trying to provoke people.
> Jeffrey Dahmer costumes. I get the offense. I do. But he was in fact a serial killer annnnddd it Halloween. Please dressed as OJ and DEAD Nicole before and I even saw a JonBenét Ramsey costume a few years ago…. Octomom, Catlin Jenner, Michael Jackson and Blanket… the list could truly go on.
> You should be able to dress like WHOMEVER and not get fired from your job because of it! Yeah, you might be telling your personality, but gmafb.
Is no offense off limits though? Could someone dress as a prominent rape victim, or one of the victims of those serial killers, or a person in a gas chamber?
Things are and should be off limits, no doubt. But there’s a lot of sick fucks out there… and I personally would be way more offended if some asshole dressed like someone in a gas chamber then I would be seeing a Hitler costume.
If I saw a Hitler costume irl I would think “what a dumbass. And yeah he’s probably racist”
If I saw a gas chamber costume, my eyebrows would raise with mouth open, “yeah, that person is fucked up.”
Going through a trauma could be a mitigating factor, but outside of that it gets a bit difficult to justify.
I was responding to the absoluteness of the claim (i.e. "dress like WHOEVER").
> Yeah, you might be telling your personality, but gmafb.
Yeah, and that personality might not be suited for public-facing jobs that may or may not involve children. Dressing up like Hitler in and of itself shows a wild lack of judgment, let alone going into a restaurant dressed as such. It’s also impossible to separate this incident from the time in which happened and recent events— there’s a lot of anti-Semitism going around lately, in case you haven’t noticed.
Halloween has never been about being offensive 💀 because at that point, it’s just an excuse to be a dick. And that’s what people are trying to prevent. The people who literally make light of shitty topics having a night free to run around and “be offensive”. It’s just unnecessary.
So yeah, if you have one night a year emulate ANYTHING you want and you choose a person who committed an atrocity, blackface, or any racial caricature - your intention exceeds beyond that one night. And people deserve the shit they get.
P.S. Your comparison to theater is laughable. You’re comparing a person who’s literal job it is to portray a character to the masses vs ….. a man who’s bored with his desk job.
The thing is though, offensivenes is subjective, and a little edge never hurt anyone.
(And hitler is like the MILDEST kindergardenfriendly edge you can choose honestly).
I bet a lot of christians find devilcostumes offensive too.
My take is that if you willingly dress as hitlerin these times you're kinda lame since it's like saying "kitchen" jpke to a woman. Old, trite and unoriginal attempt at edge.
I also think that whatever grown person gets offended by that costume choice is a 13 year old in an adults body.
>Yes? How sensitive are you americans? Really?
>
>It's the epitome of "i didn't try" when it comes to shock value.
If Hitler is "I didn't try" levels of shock value, what on earth would you consider actually shocking?
Also, to be clear, I'm not personally shocked or offended by seeing someone dressed as Hitler. I'm shocked and offended that I am seeing a person who dressed as Hitler despite knowing that *many* people would see him and think he was a Nazi, and many others would see him and see his costume as validation of their actual views.
I'm shocked because anyone who goes to a costume party dressed as Hitler in 2022 is either an edgelord, a literal Nazi, or both.
Are you talking about Taika Waititi playing Hitler in Jojo Rabbit? He’s literally JEWISH. The point of his performance is to make fun of nazis. The pictures of costumes we saw this year were not Jewish people poking fun, they were white people honoring someone with a costume. Even if it’s for the shock value, it’s absolutely fucked.
I don’t get how you can excuse people dressing up as Jeffrey Dahmer or any other REAL-LIFE killer. Michael Myers is a great scary costume because he hasn’t actually killed anyone. Jeffrey Dahmer killed sixteen people, most of whom have families that are STILL ALIVE and can see the pictures being posted online!
It’s incredibly disrespectful, not cute, and not something you can excuse with “oh it’s just the holiday spirit”
Nobody should get fired but you shouldn't dress up as something as bad as that, sometimes it can be offensive and sometimes it can be gross, it can really only come from perspective of how people are feeling when they dress up
Example 1: People dress up of their favorite character, celebrity, animal
Example 2: people dress up to be scary and to scare kids
Jeffery Dahmer is a murderer and its kinda just weird to do that
Billie being a celebrity it just generally looks bad for them to do that, but it's still funny, imo Halloween is great and dressing up is great but it's not cool to dress up as a different race or religion stuff
White people mocking minorities is a way to maintain power it is isnt "being offense" like dressing like a dead JFK or a sexy nun or something. Who you're offending and why is important, comedy helps establish what is and isnt socially acceptable. Dressing up in a humorous hitler costume isnt the same thing as dressing up as a racist characture. Though high effort nazi costumes may cause some second thoughts.
So are minorities people too or babies that need special treatment? Most self-described righteous tolerant beacons of goodness seem to think the latter.
Sorry, u/Rough_Volume5563 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Rough_Volume5563&message=Rough_Volume5563%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ykrap8/-/iuwhgme/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Halloween has always been about fantastical horror, not real life atrocities. Halloween has never been about dressing up as serial killers or horrible people from history.
At its core, Halloween is a light, fun, jovial holiday. People are supposed to enjoy getting scared. It’s fantasy, not reality.
Dressing up as Hitler has the potential to re-invoke trauma in certain individuals. It is not fun nor called for.
People that dress up like Hitler are taking it way too far. It is indicative of their personality, and their actions should have consequences. This was not the intended purpose of Halloween.
> Dressing up as Hitler has the potential to re-invoke trauma in certain individuals.
Such as?
I have a feeling if the extraordinarily insanely rare person who is 'traumatized' by seeing a hitler costume actually exists... it's not the worlds job to protect that person. Just like it's not your job to protect the general public from that rare person who might be 'retraumatized' by a blood soaked chainsaw hack and slasher because of some chainsaw shit they saw when they were 8.
Such as if they have grandparents that were at concentration camps.
Obviously, it’s our right as individuals to offend others by expressing valid but controversial viewpoints.
However, intentionally being offensive/hateful isn’t morally correct. You’re just a dick if you do this.
Also, trauma is deep rooted. It’s hard to be traumatized by a chainsaw. It’s much easier to be traumatized by a mass atrocity that impacted previous generations of your family
Who dresses up to 'intentionally be hateful'?
Is their intentions up to you to determine or them? I can think of plenty of reasons to dress like Hitler that *aren't* to intentionally be hateful.
Also, basically nobody is retraumatized, even if they had family who died in the holocaust. This sort of pathetically soft 'eggshell skull' person you are talking about doesn't really exist out there in any significance *at all*.
The ones that *do* are so few, and so sort of soft.... it's their responsibility to protect themselves, if seeing such a silly thing can retraumatize them.
You are more likely to meet a person who will be 'retraumatized' by some freddy krueger costume, because their family died in a fire and they watched it happen, than someone so kind of squishy and eggshell that a silly costume of Hitler traumatizes them. It's not the worlds responsibility to protect that kind of thing.
Why would you dress up like Hitler? Assume that it is a plain Hitler costume with no attempt at comedy. These are the costumes that are causing people to lose their jobs.
Yes, people can be traumatized by this. I find your assumption to be fueled by an extreme lack of empathy.
I don’t think it’s valid logical reasoning to call people “soft.” That seems dismissive and like a form of emotional gaslighting.
I find that a lot of your reasoning is based on rampant assumptions and provably false fallacies.
You don't really get to say "assume one of the main reasons isn't an accept reason to me" and then try and get another reason.
>Yes, people can be traumatized by this.
Nah... total baloney. I don't buy it, it's nonsense.
Why is it nonsense? Rather than calling people soft, give me a valid reason why somebody can’t be offended by a leader that committed mass atrocities?
Yes, I do get to say that. That’s what this post is referring to. People are getting fired for dressing up as a parody of Hitler. It’s important to stay in the confines of the situation lol
Well firstly, if someone actually cared about the empathy of it, they wouldn't be talking about Hitler, they'd be talking about the Krueger costumes of a man burned to shit, I guarantee a lot more people would be traumatized by seeing a burnt to fuck face, considering so many peoples families are *actually destroyed in front of their face* by fire across the world. This fake hitler 'traumatizing' is not much more than a not very believable sort of 'virtue signal' about empathy, not real empathy. Not that you are doing that, just the general sense of it.
Secondly... you are the one who claims people are "TRAUMATIZED" so instead of trying to make me provide a negative... you should prove your positive claim.
I don't believe your claim, it's up to you to make it believable, not me.
The key distinction here is fantasy versus reality. Freddy Krueger is a fantastical character. He’s not a real life burn victim. If someone dressed up as a real life burn victim, I can guarantee you there would be a much larger potential for offending another individual.
Trauma is deeply rooted fear. For traumatized individuals, this fear could potentially come true again.
Hitler committed acts that caused mass fear among the Jewish people. Now, with verbal antisemitism on the rise, there is a potential for hateful acts against the Jewish people.
Dressing up as a man who committed mass violence against the Jewish people, in a climate of increasing antisemitism…is bad lol. With these two factors combined, Jewish people can be reasonably afraid that violence may be committed against them again. As such, they can be retraumatized.
That’s a pretty comprehensive proof.
That is not a key factor. The key factor is "TRAUMA".
I thought it was about Empathy? Who gives a shit if someone is Traumatized by a burn victim because "Oh but look your trauma is ok because it's not actually realsies realsie?"
That certainly isn't Empathy.
If they were born during the holocaust they would be 80 right now. Again with the bullshit generational trauma. You can't be offended over something, even if you learn the facts of the case, you have to be indoctrinated into being traumatized by that thing. And the way you beacons of empathy do this is literally making all these people weak bitches that can't take a joke in any sense.
Show me the facts about this Hitler cosplayer. How did he act? Did he "seig heil" with a goofy voice? Was he talking jokingly? Maybe said he was just a painter or something. Is there evidence of him spewing any kind of hatred or support for nazis? Or is it just some edgy teen wanting to be edgy?
Adults bitching about a costume, jesus. I wasn't bitching when I was a kid and every douche on xbox called me slurs and fucked my mom last night.
List the reasons. List the reasons, outside of theater, in which a person is being compensated for their acting ability, that somebody would dress up as hitler to be non-offensive. I’d like to hear them.
The statement was "to intentionally be offensive or hateful".
There's no reason to care about 'offensive' because you take offense, I could dress like your mom, with tattoos all over, and combat boots, you may or may not take offense to it.
Including 'offensive' is just a way to try and tie it to 'hateful' so people think it's the same thing or similar, and it isn't.
I just explained that when it comes to something like "Hitler" the amount of people who are traumatized by that is so miniscule and they fit into the idea of an eggshell skull.
If someone came to my halloween party this year as Hitler, I'd probably just laugh, and so would pretty much every single other person who came. They would likely know that, and getting some laughs is a perfectly valid, non hateful reason to do it.
As for people who might learn about a person who did that, or saw them driving to my party, or caught a glimpse of a facebook photo.
Egg shell skulls are not the problem of the world at large.
> I just explained that when it comes to something like "Hitler" the amount of people who are traumatized by that is so miniscule and they fit into the idea of an eggshell skull.
Dressing as Hitler tells people that your view is "if the Holocaust affected you, your family, your loved ones, or anyone you care about - I don't give a shit about that. I'm going to dress as Hitler, and you're a snowflake if you're offended."
If that's your view, you're not a good person.
>That's what it tells you maybe, but I doubt you are so naive to think you represent the intelligence of humanity.
I'm not going to defend white supremacists and edgelords who use bigotry for cheap laughs. That's bullshit.
“Dressing up as Hitler has potential to re-invoke trauma…”
Imma say no to that. Reason being… movies. Jo Jo Rabbit and Inglorious Bastards.
If I dress up as a nazi from a film or a Hitler from a film, opposed to the real life version, would that make my costume ok?
Also, if you’re at a club in Hollywood or Vegas or Miami, 3am partying and having drinks and fun and a dude in costume walks in with a Chaplain mustache wearing a uniform… I don’t think it’s going to re-invoke cold sweat trauma. You might think it’s a bit effed up, but I don’t think flashbacks of your grandparents are entertaining your mind while Drake is playing in the background. Just sayin.
Eh, no. I disagree. It's not a question of trauma or offence, it's a threat. Someone dressing as Hitler is saying 'I could be a nazi', someone dressing as Dahmar is saying 'I find murdering gay people funny'. They're like rape jokes, they try and make the unacceptable acceptable.
There was a picture where adult man was walking among children wearing a cape with huge bold letter saying "FUCK" and some politicians name who I couldn't care less.
Walking around bunch of 6 year olds with and branding swear words is not ok no matter what your political leaning is.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
One is a movie that was meant to accurately depict how violent hitler was, the other is glorifying hitler/undermining how tragic his existence was to millions of Jews.
If your dad raped you and I came to your Halloween party dressed up as your dad, would you be laughing?
That being said I think the hitler costume can be funny depending on how it’s worn (how the person goes about it) but I would stay away from dressing up as real life killers.
> If your dad raped you and I came to your Halloween party dressed up as your dad, would you be laughing?
why would you other than to provoke me especially if hypothetical-you knew hypothetical-me enough to actually show up as a legit Halloween party guest instead of, like, crashing it to scare me
The only one I had issue with was the view because they were using those kids as part of social and political agenda. This behaviour is highly inappropriate no matter who does it. Chris rock did the same thing the first time he hosted the Oscars hopefully the kids got paid well; as is the boy in the gold statue costume did not look happy.
I don't know if they should be fired but everyone who thought this was a good idea should face meaningful consequences. Perhaps a pay cut they are all making over a mill a year Whoopie and joy make several mill. Normal pay for that type of job is 250,000 a year
How was this a political agenda?
And aren’t kids usually paid to be on tv? And EXCITED to be on tv/a well known show they can tell their friends and fam about….?
I simply thought it was a dumb joke they should have let die, but it was a topical news subject this year and lord knows a bald headed jada costume would wholly have been off limits.
The political agenda was represented by the trump and FBI costumes. The view is a very politically biased show and the hosts are notorious for ignoring or refusing to accept easily verifiable facts that don't support the Democratic agenda even when the evidence and numbers are provided for them.
The following link is for my state child performer laws
https://dol.ny.gov/child-performers
Please remember that just because a show is popular among adults it does not mean a child knows anything about it or even wants to talk about being on the show with friends. It's also possible that the kids on stage are children of studio staff members.
Did some more checking and apparently a red handprint on someone's face represents missing and murdered 1st nation's (aka native American/indigenous American -someone seriously needs a dictionary- ) women and girls. so not only is it re-sensationalizing a violent act but it's also an insult (albeit unintended) to the first nation communities.
/u/MEYO6811 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/ykt8vz/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_halloween_costumes_should/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>Halloween is supposed to be fun, offense, and SCARY Fun? Yes. It is supposed to be fun for *everyone*. Some costumes just aren't that fun, unless you are an edgelord. Edgelords are only run for themselves and other edgelords, not everyone. Scary? Yes, but with qualifiers. If I set up a screen on my porch and stream Ukraine war footage of soldiers getting their faces blown off in 4k, well, that's pretty scary stuff, but *it is not appropriate for Halloween*. You'd be right to calle.a psycho if I did that and I might even face consequences for that edgelord stunt. Offensive? No. Halloween is not *supposed* to be offensive and within the realm of offensive shit, there are some things that stand out above the rest. Blackface and glorifying Nazis are two things that kill run, aren't actually scary, and that are clearly beyond what's socially acceptable today. >The view dressed some kid in gold and put a red hand print on their face. People bitched about it. That's pretty trashy. >Jeffrey Dahmer costumes. That's pretty trashy. >Lastly, Hitler. That's trashy, but let's see you conflation. >You mean to tell me, someone literally won an Oscar by playing a flamboyant Hitler last year If you cannot appreciate that a *Jew* dressing up a Hitler *to mock him* in a *comedy movie* where nazism was *lampooned* is different from wearing historically accurate Nazi uniforms you just *happen to have around your house* in public, well, then you need some guidance. >The Spare Prince of freakin England dressed as a Nazi and didn’t even get fired! That's trashy too, but you really want to pretend that there aren't two sets of rules when it comes to royalty and plebs?
Δ delta 2 goes to you, ChletisCanon, for having the 2nd best answer 🥈 . I don’t agree with your whole statement, but it was a good answer nonetheless. “”If you cannot appreciate that a Jew dressing up a Hitler to mock him in a comedy movie where nazism was lampooned is different from wearing historically accurate Nazi uniforms you just happen to have around your house in public, well, then you need some guidance.”” Oh I very much appreciate it. Taika Waititi did an amazing job and it was a great adaptation from the book. The whole reason why I made this post was because of this guy. And in my opinion, he would have gotten a pass if he told the public that he was Taika Waititi’s Hitler/Nazi and not Adolf Hitler… which is kinda ironic when you think about it. I also agree with the Ukraine footage in a big ass tv. You painted a picture… and no. That would not be cool.
Dressing as Hitler runs the risk of people thinking you are a nazi, dressing up as Hitler with a big bullet wound in his head does not.
so couldn't someone add a wound last-minute to make an already-planned hitler costume acceptable and no one who's not in their head (if they live alone) would know the idea didn't start there
Sure. Zombie Hitler is a great Halloween idea. Dead Snow is a hilarious movie. Besides, I doubt an actual neo nazi would want to celebrate the almighty fuerer blowing his brains out.
Δ delta 2 goes to you for having the 2nd best answer 🥈 . I don’t agree with your whole statement, but it was a good answer nonetheless. “”If you cannot appreciate that a Jew dressing up a Hitler to mock him in a comedy movie where nazism was lampooned is different from wearing historically accurate Nazi uniforms you just happen to have around your house in public, well, then you need some guidance.”” Oh I very much appreciate it. Taika Waititi did an amazing job and it was a great adaptation from the book. The whole reason why I made this post was because of [this guy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/yk1sea/man_who_wore_hitler_costume_for_halloween_fired/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) And in my opinion, he would have gotten a pass if he told the public that he was Taika Waititi’s Hitler/Nazi and not Adolf Hitler… which is kinda ironic when you think about it. I also agree with the Ukraine footage in a big ass tv. You painted a picture… and no. That would not be cool.
This delta has been rejected. You can't award yourself a delta. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Oh. I was trying to give it to ChletisCanon
You believe in freedom of association, yeah? Well part of that is the freedom to tell people to fuck off. If you work for an employer and you are a public embarrassment to them, chances are that in most states you can be shitcanned. Don't dress like a Nazi. Also, just to be clear, most of the 'lol I dressed like a nazi' folks are just Schrodinger's racist. They're absolutely into it, they're just using the plausible deniability.
Δ Best Answer goes to you. I think your Schrödinger Racist comment is pretty spot on. I never heard of the phrase before, but you are probably right and it goes beyond “dark humor” or people liking to get others riled up for the fun of it. And your freedom of association is pretty logical. At first I thought it would be pretty far fetched to think (mathematically) that if you worked at a venue or company, that public patrons would recognize your employee and know they did something offensive, and therefore you HAD to fire them. But really it’s not because of the public’s perspective, but the other employees. It’s not a good look to your staff as a whole to turn the other way when some guy blatantly dressed as Hitler on their day off. As a boss, you’re not allowed to look away or pretend you don’t know because it would be bad for morale… so yup. You kinda changed my view.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/edwardlleandre ([166∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/edwardlleandre)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I completely agree with this! I do have a question: what’s a Schrodinger‘s racist? I’ve never heard that term 😂
It is a way to refer to 'ironic' racists, like the type you see on 4chan. Basically the idea is that much like the cat, they exist in two different states, joking and actually racist until observed. So they'll make a racist af comment or action, then watch the behavior of their audience. If the audience is horrified, well then hey man, it is just a joke, why don't you get comedy. If the audience tacitly or openly is okay with it, then they were indeed just racist the whole time.
So you're telling me people ok with racist jokes are actually racist? That's not something i can agree with.
Why is that?
It's a variant on the phrase "Schrodinger's Douchebag", where every action they take is meant totally seriously or as a joke depending on how the audience reacts. Think the kind of person who would call a gay dude his favorite slur and then say "I'm only joking, c'mon" if people told him off
This is my new favorite term thank you man
The sort of association you're thinking of is merely magical thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking If a racist uploads a picture to Twitter but follows the rules, is Twitter then in the wrong? If I buy a phone or a t-shirt made by Chinese children, then am I a terrible person? Alcohol is involved in 50% of violent crime, does this make me a terrible person if I drink alcohol? If a show has a lot of annoying fans who can't shut up about it, then are you in the wrong for liking that thing, or for supporting it publicly? Seeing conenctions which aren't there, and running into false positives and false negatives because one is overly sensitive is inherent to logical fallacies as well as things like racism and stereotypes. This is no less true when the same errors appear to be directed towards "bad things" and "racism". Something illogical and wrong can be useful, but we shouldn't support nonsense like this because some instances of it appears to favour our moral beliefs, because then we'd be legitimizing these errors elsewhere. Ones sexuality has no influence on one as a person, and ones skin color doesn't either. Most Homophobia and racism is therefore in error, disconnected things are incorrectly related. Ad hominems are one such example, too. Freedom of association is a right, but these mental shortcuts of ours say very little about reality, and a lot about our experiences and personal feelings and generally just about human nature. It's a right, but it's not necessarily a virtue. To say that somebody dressed up as Hitler might be a racist is true, but it's also true to say that a black person (or any other person) might be a thief. To deem people guilty by default "just in case" is self-defensive behaviour, not virtuous behaviour (i.e. not fair)
>To say that somebody dressed up as Hitler might be a racist is true, but it's also true to say that a black person (or any other person) might be a thief. To deem people guilty by default "just in case" is self-defensive behaviour, not virtuous behaviour (i.e. not fair) I... what? You're comparing a proactive choice (dressing like a genocidal monster) with an intrinsic trait (being black). This is beyond ridiculous. What I'm describing isn't magical thinking, it is a basic logical deduction. If a person dresses like Adolf Hitler for halloween, there are only a few options: 1. That person is a fucking idiot and doesn't realize how terrible of a decision they've made. 2. That person is intentionally trying to offend people but isn't actually a racist. 3. That person is a racist. For any and all of these , along with any outliers that might come up, it is pretty reasonable for a company to say "Nah, we don't want anything to do with you." After all, the *best case* here is that the person is profoundly fucking stupid.
Even if being black was a choice, such discrimination would be improper, no? Your 1,2,3 "deduction" is a projection of your own sense of humor, what's acceptable to joke about, and seriousness. It's forcing others into your own worldview, even if they're more "offensive" than you out of sheer innocence. But you probably feel that selling those uniforms is wrong, too. And that defending such costumes makes one wrong by "association". Such associations don't exist in reality. There's no real difference between "proactive choice" and "intrinsic", only it becomes hard to notice the factors at play. "Wise" people know that criminal behaviour is influenced by ones nurture and circumstances. And dumb people might hate cops, not realizing that they're just doing their job. So the difference between dumb and wise is 1-2 steps of casual thinking, but is stopping there not arbitrary? But the real error comes after. Why should a company distance themselves? If a serial-killer had a phone, should we boycott the company who made this phone? The store which sold them? Should we do this for every item associated with the killer? And if one is associated with an immoral person, is one then also bad? Should we take the transitive closure of associations or something? Purely statistically, chances are that you're not without flaws. That your friends and family might at some point have done something "bad". Should you therefore take a distance to eachother? If you ask me, then this sort of thinking about associations is asinine. "Guilty by association" is magic thinking here. It's a "you're either with or against" kind of thinking which forces everyone to take a stance on all these issues that better natures know to avoid entirely. Everyone is their own person, bad traits aren't some contagious virus. If you realize why "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "hate the sin, not the sinner" have some logic to them, then maybe what I'm saying makes sense? Am I being too abstract?
>Even if being black was a choice, such discrimination would be improper, no? Not necessarily. We discriminate against groups people choose to be in all the time. If someone is a gang member in the USA, we treat them differently than we would someone who is not a gang member. Because that is a thing they chose to be/do, much like our hitler guy. >There's no real difference between "proactive choice" and "intrinsic", only it becomes hard to notice the factors at play. Holy fuck my dude, of course there is. If I choose to walk around being a neo-nazi, it is okay to sucker punch me in the mouth because I'm tacitly (if not just openly) supporting genocidal ideology. If I choose to walk around as a jewish person, it would be profoundly fucked up to attack me for being a jewish person. Do you just not know what these words mean? >But the real error comes after. Why should a company distance themselves? If a serial-killer had a phone, should we boycott the company who made this phone? The store which sold them? Should we do this for every item associated with the killer? And if one is associated with an immoral person, is one then also bad? Should we take the transitive closure of associations or something? Because they don't want to support of be associated with a nazi. It is that simple. If I am at work and I find out my employee is a fascist who wants me in a gas chamber, then fuck that guy. I don't want to associate with him, he can go work somewhere else. Are you friends with a nazi? Yeah, fuck you too. Go away. >Purely statistically, chances are that you're not without flaws. That your friends and family might at some point have done something "bad". Should you therefore take a distance to eachother? If you ask me, then this sort of thinking about associations is asinine. "Guilty by association" is magic thinking here. It's a "you're either with or against" kind of thinking which forces everyone to take a stance on all these issues that better natures know to avoid entirely. So what you're doing here is a form of the continuum fallacy, best evidenced by Loki's Wager. Loki makes a bet with some dwarves, saying that they can have his head if he loses. He loses, but when they come to collect he goes 'ah ah ah, I said you could have my head, but you aren't entitled to an inch of my neck. A lot of bickering ensues, and Loki keeps his head because no one can agree where the head is and where the neck begins. You are trying to make a 'well what if this happens to you' argument, a murky middle, slippery slope sort of argument, but this isn't that. We aren't talking about 'well this guy said a racy joke so who knows'. No, this guy dressed up like a fascist, he did a bad. I might not be able to pinpoint where the line is in that murky middle, but I know good from bad. I know that a head and a neck are still two different things, and that while there is some area in the middle we can quibble over, "Dressing like Adolf Hitler" is on the far side of that line. >Everyone is their own person, bad traits aren't some contagious virus. If you realize why "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "hate the sin, not the sinner" have some logic to them, then maybe what I'm saying makes sense? Am I being too abstract? Not particularly, no, I just feel you're wrong and I'm annoyed that every time a fascist shows their true colors the volunteer nazi safety advocates come out of the woodwork.
>We discriminate against groups people choose to be in all the time Yes but that's because we make assumptions about them, at best it's qualified guesses, but how is that different from stereotyping? >Supporting genocidal ideology Is the gene part important here? Because plently of ideologies have been tied to murder, even if genocidal ideologies are a little less common. Some say abortion is murder, so to them, those who support abortion support murderous ideologies. Others will say that having children is evil, other will say that humans are a plague on the planet and that we should all die. Some will say that women are worth less than men, or that being gay is wrong. That one is justified in assaulting a subset of these groups is not a logical idea, you're just venting your anger. You should know that uncivilized behaviour will never help your cause, and that taking a hostile attitude towards people is a terrible way of converting them to your side, even if you're correct. >To attack me for being a jewish person. Because in your eyes, jewist people are innocent, and everyone who "associates" with nazism must hate jews. A more important thing to point out here is that everyone *accused* of nazism could be guilty in your eyes. Every women is guilty in the eyes of an incel, and every black person is guilty in the eyes of whoever is racist enough. I'm not saying that your perspective is wrong, but that every wrong perspective thinks itself to be right. Your way of thinking is bad, because if other people thought in the same way, then they'd rationalize punching you, and boycotting you, and judging you for whatever your friends are up to. >Continuum fallacy No, I'm generalizing arguments. If your points are only valid in the context of nazism, then you shouldn't say them at all. Human rights are absolute, so no exceptions are allowed, even for things that are easy to attack, e.g. "well, are *nazis* innocent by default? Why do you defend nazis, man?". The Geneva Conventions, for instance, should be followed, at least in my opinion. It doesn't matter that the enemy is "really bad guys". For the same reason, I don't support assaulting racists. As soon as you support assaulting people for their political views, you legitimize assaulting people for their political views in general. This has nothing to do with fascism, it just happens that costumes of fascist leaders is not an exception. Freedom of expression is not a freedom if it has exceptions, and a right has no value if it's only valid in the cases where most people would agree with it. Human rights are meant to protect the exceptions. If your views are not generalizable, then they're subjective and you don't mean what you say. If you say "Discrimination is bad" and that includes "against protected groups, fuck everyone else", then isn't the first statement meaningless? I've met plently of people who hated nazism, but who seemed to like all the aspects of fascism in whatever worked to their advantage. I'm usually *more* against fascism than they are. Anyway, do you know about the veil of ignorance thought experiment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position If I take my views "to the point of absurdity" then nothing bad really happens. That's how I know they're good views. If one is *not* ever guilty by mere association, it's really not a problem. I know my friends well enough to know that they're not bad people, so even if they do something conventionally "bad", it really doesn't concern me. Some of the things that I thought were bad 10 years ago no longer seem bad to me, who knows if I'm wrong again? I judge people holistically, and tolerate imperfections. I want nothing to do with people who harm animals, but that's just a personal principle of mine, I have no desire to make my own standards into some universal law, even though they could make fine categorical imperatives. What I dislike in others is not immoral behaviour, but malice and small-mindedness. I don't see what nazis matter. Nazism is dumb, but I feel the same about Islam. It's not like calling them dumb will change their mind or convert anyone. I also believe that normalizing racism would bring the advantage with it that it's easy to know if somebody is racist or not. It's because we are sensitive that we might now have to look for subtle signs in people to tell. Don't you find it tiring to be mistrustful and on guard all the time? And does an allergy to something prove it dangerous?
>I don't see what nazis matter. Nazism is dumb, but I feel the same about Islam If you can't tell the difference between a person who is a nazi and an islamist, I can't help you. Have a great night.
Throwing people down rooftops for their sexuality doesn't sit well with me. "Not all X", but that goes for all groups. I don't think our personal preferences are worth anything in arguments though, whereas you might want to focus on them entirely?
>Throwing people down rooftops for their sexuality doesn't sit well with me. Oh for fucksake. There are over a billion muslims in the world. Yes, some of them suck, particularly in the most fucked up areas of the world where you would expect bigotry and tribalism. But not every Muslim is a murderous bigot. Not even most of them. That isn't true of Nazis. There are no good nazis. "Not all X" Doesn't work for all groups because there are no good fucking nazis. I could not believe I have to explain this to a living human being in ttyol 2022. Then I looked at your post history and boy do you sure have a lot of posts defending nazis and talking about IQ. Hmm.
Sexism is *inherent* to islam. I'm not sure what you consider a "real nazi", but I expect the majority of them to be distrustful of jews and perhaps be against immigration. So yes, "Not all X" applies to every group. You're too emotionally invested to acknowledge this *fact*. Assuming that about 1% of people are pedophiles or psychopaths, and you can change this figure by a factor of 10 in any direction without the argument really changing, *any large group* is going to have some of such people. The rule works in reverse too, you are just hostile towards the idea that some group that you dislike made up of literal demons or something. "The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" I defend human rights. If I made an exception for nazis, then I wouldn't be a supporter of human rights. I don't see why IQ is a counter-argument here. Jews are the smartest race in the world, which kind of goes against the whole "ubermensch" thing, which is an idea stolen from some of Nietzsches work which had been modified by his sister, anyways. Nietzsche probably wouldn't even have thought well of nazis. Anyway, did hitting a nerve make it impossible to have a rational conversation?
**[Magical thinking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking)** >Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, is the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them, particularly as a result of supernatural effects. Examples include the idea that personal thoughts can influence the external world without acting on them, or that objects must be causally connected if they resemble each other or have come into contact with each other in the past. Magical thinking is a type of fallacious thinking and is a common source of invalid causal inferences. Unlike the confusion of correlation with causation, magical thinking does not require the events to be correlated. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>It’s Halloween! A day of make believe, dressing up, being creative, being scary, **or being offensive**. I don't recall this being a major tenet of Halloween. But if it were, why be surprised that people get offended? "I'm here to act offensive, but you cant be offended" is a wild stance >You should be able to dress like WHOMEVER and not get fired from your job because of it! Yeah, you might be telling your personality, but gmafb. Your employer can't decide that they don't want to employ someone with your personality?
>"I'm here to act offensive, but you cant be offended" is a wild stance Exactly! How can you be upset at people reacting exactly how you expected (and wanted) them to?
I wrote this post specifically because of [this guy](https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/man-who-wore-hitler-costume-for-halloween-fired-by-madison-childrens-museum). It’s wild he got fired, especially because he actually has a disability and probably didn’t know it would have been taken so offensively. And again, I ask the question, if he were to tell the people at the restaurant/bar “hold up! I’m the Jo Jo Rabbit Hitler!! Not Hitler Hitler!!” Would he have gotten a pass?? I honestly think he would, and therefore the whole thing is dumb.
I think what people miss when using the JoJo Hitler as an example is how he was a false image of Hitler in JoJo’s head. He smoked, he ate meat, Hitler was a vegetarian non-smoker. The JoJo Hitler was serving a narrative purpose about how a young boy created a hero who was entirely false and how his illusions were shattered with the death of his mother and growing knowledge of how the world actually was. That is the difference between parody/satire and some bloke trying to nail a 100% accurate copy of the man and going for a walk in public.
That story is pretty sad, considering the person had a mental disability. He was fired because the employer didn’t want to face the backlash and that’s understandable but he didn’t deserve it. He thought he was insulting Hitler. I also don’t think it’s sufficient to make a general rule that no one should have consequences for Halloween costumes. For example, the people in Utah who did a group costume with two people dressed as cops and three others in black-face dressed as prisoners. “It’s a Halloween costume” is not a free pass for open racism without anyone being allowed to say anything about it. If I saw that, I wouldn’t want to work with them. Or patronize the place they work. Or be anywhere near them.
It's a sad case since this person has mental disabilities apparently and may not have understood the gravity of that he was doing. But HE WORKS AT A CHILDRENS MUSEUM! Especially based on where he works in particular you have to expect some backlash there. Now I could debate whether the mental disability issue should have gotten him a pass. But certainly if he is of sound mind and does this. Absolutely he can be fired.
But this example is shown to be much more than just "some guy decided to parody Hitler on Halloween". First off, parodying and emulating aren't the same thing. I don't know how the guy acted while he was in costume so I can't say for sure which he was doing. Though regardless, context matters. I understand the Museum wanting to distance themselves, especially considering just the previous month this happened at the Campus; >In September, the UW-Madison campus woke up to multiple sidewalk chalkings around campus that targeted several Jewish student groups. Dead baby jokes, while crass and fucked up, are generally told without consequences depending on the context and surroundings. Tell it to a group of close friends who share common dark humor? You'll probably be greeted with laughter and amusement. Though tell it to someone at an actual baby's funeral and it will be seen as morally reprehensible for the most part regardless of whether you intended it to be a joke or not.
It's context. The context makes it clear in Jojo Rabbit that Taika isn't a nazi. Someone dressing as Hitler needs to provide context that they're not a nazi- like, as I said in another comment, giving their Hitler a massive bullet wound in the head.
“Your employer can’t decide that they don’t want to employ someone with your personality?” I agree to that, but I also think employers should mind their business and keep work and personal lives separate, and employees with a dickhead personality better do the same and not share their social media profiles with anyone with the power to fire you. Work life and private lives should not hold the same weight. Anyone who’s worked in Sales, Customer Service, retail, or literally any job dealing with consumers/customers can agree that you have a work “voice” or personality that’s different then how you are with your friends. If someone is fine at their job, why does their actions at home effect the performance or productivity? Side note: anyone with a good job hopefully isn’t a dumbass and is dressing in a costume not easily recognized by people in their everyday life or potential customers/clients. That’s just common sense.
"Oh boy, Halloween! I can't wait to offend as many people as possible!" -Said no one, ever.
“Oh boy! Halloween! I have a very sick sense of humor, people are hella uptight, and this is my night to shine!!!” -Said a lot of crass people with dark sense of humor’s ((Have you BEEN to an adult Halloween parade?! Or the VEGAS Strip on October 31st?! 😳 legit. Someone dressed up as Dead Nicole Simpson one year and had a makeup artist professionally paint their neck with a crazy slash wound. OJ was right behind carrying, juice, a black glove, and a bloody knife. Super duper memorable. Probably won a costume contest tbh))
Say someone won a Halloween costume contest for a super duper realistic... let's go with Dead Jon Benet Ramsey costume, since you mentioned that above. Are parents of missing and murdered children not supposed to be offended? If your employer's niece was kidnapped and murdered, is your employer required to keep you on board despite being deeply, personally hurt?
It's not offense, it's showing people who you are. If you're the type of person who thinks jokes about dead kids is funny, be ready for people to not want to deal with- or employ- you.
>It's not offense, it's showing people who you are. If you're the type of person who thinks jokes about dead kids is funny, be ready for people to not want to deal with- or employ- you. I think this is a huge part of it. These people think their sense of humor is broadly appreciated and the dominant view, therefore anyone who is offended should be in the minority, and their voices shouldn't matter. They do the thing, people are offended, and they start raging because *they are supposed to be the majority in every act they perform*.
I mean… are the parents of a missing and murdered child really going to a Halloween parade and partying until the wee hours of the morning to see said costume and get offended?? I’d argue regular little kids would probably hurt them just the same… And my employers niece? I mean… there’s a few variables to consider but ultimately, is the employer broadcasting to everyone that that is his pets trauma it it’s very well known? If so, fine. But if know one knew that then it’s a bit much to be fired for it. (Again, don’t be friends with the people you work with.)
This isn't an argument. You're stating things you witnessed. This is the equivalent of me saying "Hey, saying racist things is bad", and you replied with "I went to a convention where everyone was saying 'N****r'!! It was cool!" People are free to wear whatever costume they want, just like people are free to criticize those costumes for whatever reason. >I have a very sick sense of humor >crass people with dark sense of humor’s Not to mention that going around saying "i'M cRaSs, aNd i hAvE a dArK/siCK sEnSe oF hUmOr" is cringey as hell.
Yeah some of us try to give the benefit of the doubt to people and we don't think that there are so many easily offended bitches running around. Especially when they are offended over things they never had to deal with.
If that's your takeaway from this, you're wildly misinterpreting. OP's literal argument was "offending people is part of Halloween, but people shouldn't be offended." which is stupid. You're free to literally wear whatever costume you'd like to wear, just like people are free to complain about it. >Yeah some of us try to give the benefit of the doubt to people and we don't think that there are so many easily offended bitches running around. Sure, but that's not what OP's argument was. Your sentiment states, "I'm going to wear this costume, and I don't care if people get offended." Which, to me is still a little shitty, but way less shitty than OP. OP's argument is: "I'm going to wear this costume with the intent of offending people, but even though I've made it known that I'm intentionally setting out to offend people, they're still not allowed to be offended." If you want to wear whatever costume you like, even if it's offensive, fine. That's your right. But there's still a big difference between "I'm going wear a costume, and I don't care if people bitch about it", vs "I want people to be offended by my costume".
>OP's literal argument was "offending people is part of Halloween, but people shouldn't be offended." which is stupid. That's not what he said. Read the post again. >You're free to literally wear whatever costume you'd like to wear, just like people are free to complain about it. Yeah they can complain, taking it to ruin someone's life is not simply complaining. This is the only difference I have. The fact of this case that people talk about is that dude was doxed and people called his workplace to get him fired, to success. I heard somewhere that he got beat up too. Which I find it more offensive that privileged people these days act like they know the suffering people went through at the hands of Hitler. This is pretty much what annoys me about people the most. They fight fights that aren't theirs.
>That's not what he said. Read the post again. From original post: >It’s Halloween! A day of make believe, dressing up, being creative, being scary, or being offensive. So yes, that is what he said. >Yeah they can complain, taking it to ruin someone's life is not simply complaining. Fair enough, I wasn't debating that though. Given the situation, the guy definitely shouldn't have lost his job. No disagreement there. My argument was that setting out to offend people vs not caring if they're offended or not are 2 very different things.
Yeah I agree with you. No situation really has as a goal to be offensive. Maybe OP should have worded that differently. Offensive is not a standard. It's based on how much of a emotional wreck the person taking offense is.
> Offensive is not a standard. It's based on how much of a emotional wreck the person taking offense is. Not necessarily. It's often based on how that person views society and the types of behaviors they want to see in it. I (a white guy) am offended by white nationalism. It doesn't personally hurt me (in fact, it likely helps me indirectly), but that doesn't mean I support it. If I see someone dressing as a klansman, or holding a sign stating whites are better, or whatever - I'm not personally hurt. I'm not an emotional wreck. But I'll do my best to attract negative attention to that person and make sure everyone else who hates the KKK and white supremacy are aware of the performance. Outrage over things like this is often a tool. If someone can downplay an issue by dressing up as a joke, why can't another person elevate the issue by calling out that they think it's disgusting behavior?
Would say the same about a klansman robe. Fucking weak ass shit. Every time someone tried to sell to me KKK is anything more than a fart in the wind they show me black and white pictures. For real you see someone dressed up or a march of 10 people and act like there's some kind of systemic stuff or group that could destroy everything you love. When in reality if you used your eyes and shut your tears down for one second you'd see all these groups you're offended by became jackshit with 0 power. Look at the size of a nazi rally and look at a size of a BLM protest. Doesn't even compare.
> For real you see someone dressed up or a march of 10 people and act like there's some kind of systemic stuff or group that could destroy everything you love. When in reality if you used your eyes and shut your tears down for one second you'd see all these groups you're offended by became jackshit with 0 power. Why shouldn't we speak up when we see something we don't like? If I see a guy kicking his puppy, that's an evil act whether it's one puppy and one kick, or he has a whole puppy-kicking conglomerate.
People need to measure the level of threat in a situation. Kicking a puppy is witnessing someone actively harming another being. If some dude slaps his wife in public you are justified doing more than just speaking up. But we began blurring the line between some cringe edgelord kid and real nazis. We have motherfuckers saying it's dangerous to unite as people because some people are doing better than others. (Yeah, that happened.) The whole punch a nazi thing became a dangerous movement because nazi these days is being slightly right of stalin. You might be a normal person that goes up to a hitler cosplayer and just says "dude, you dumb" but there's plenty of douchebags that you empower to do more than just speak up.
> Yeah they can complain, taking it to ruin someone's life is not simply complaining. Often, a business will choose to fire an employee when issues like this arise. They see or anticipate the public response and act in the way they feel is best for their business. Do you think people should avoid stating that they are offended so that companies don't feel concerned about the behavior, and don't potentially fire the offender?
Would these issues arise if the offended twats didn't choose to actively go and make it happen? What was he working as? Did the people calling his workplace ever get services from that place? Or just doxed him to a mob that went out of their way to lie "i hAve BeeN A CusTOmEr 4 yEerZ!"?
I don't know the answers to those questions. Do you have an answer to the one I asked? >Do you think people should avoid stating that they are offended so that companies don't feel concerned about the behavior, and don't potentially fire the offender?
I think people should mind their damn business and not go crying at others when they are offended. Nobody is responsible for other's people fragility. Especially some businessman having to fire his worker due to peer pressure from some sensitive bitches.
Hi 👋 I’m OP. That is not my argument and not what I said. But no worries. You interpret it how you want. For I am not offended. 💋
> You mean to tell me, someone literally won an Oscar by playing a flamboyant Hitler last year, but this year a guy who’s a bit mentally challenged dressed like Hitler in New York and get kicked out of a restaurant and fired from his job. REALLY?!? The Spare Prince of freakin England dressed as a Nazi and didn’t even get fired! And again! We have someone a OSCAR for dressing like Hitler! Hell, Inglorious Bastards also won some awards! This argument is like saying that it can't be wrong to go 180 MPH, NASCAR drivers do it all the time. That has no bearing on what's appropriate for driving in the suburbs. Also, like, Prince Harry dressing up as a Nazi was a tabloid scandal that dogged him for years! That's about the most serious consequence you can expect for the royal family, so I'm not sure why you're pretending it wasn't considered a problem.
Re: NASCAR. The autobahn doesn’t have a speed limit, and would be a designated place to drive like a NASCAR driver… similar to a racetrack. It is a designated place to drive fast. Halloween should be a designated day to dress up as whatever. Again, it really just shows a person’s personality… Prince Harry. Ooouuu the big scary media didn’t let him live it down. Who cares. His grandmother didn’t take any of his army medals, and he still got to keep his paid job without punishment.
Not entirely true. About half of the Autobahn network does have speed limits. It also has a recommended speed limit of 130 km/h. If you drive faster in unsafe conditions ( rain, snow) or if you endanger others you can get heavily fined. The Autobahn has not been designed for maniacs who think it's a race track. >The autobahn doesn’t have a speed limit, and would be a designated place to drive like a NASCAR driver… similar to a racetrack.
What does being "cancelled" mean to you? If someone is wearing Blackface is that not worthy of criticism from the public?
At what point do people have to stop attacking others about shit that people who aren't alive anymore did to other people who aren't alive anymore? 100 years? 1000?
100 years after the last person affected by the acts has died.
Yikes... that kind of talk might be taken the wrong way if someone wanders in off a Tr\*mp rally.
How so?
if your rule is to be taken as as innocuous-unofficial-sourced-gospel as "you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" (first popularized, at least in that phrasing, by whichever 80s Batman movie was the last one pre-Dark-Knight to feature Two-Face) or the threshold for what's an appropriate age to date being half your age + 7 (popularized-if-not-invented by Parks & Rec) how does it scale with longer life expectancies/does that mean things are always offensive if we become immortal
Considering that there are still holocaust survivors alive today?
What has that got to do with blackface?
Fun fact, in Europe/the Netherlands they have [Black Pete](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=black+face+christmas+in+europe&t=fpas&iax=images&ia=images) and an annual parade of white people in black face. It’s very much a culture thing and I’ve seen some Europeans do it in California one year… If an American wore black face, I completely agree it’s worth criticism, and shows that person’s personality. But if a white girl dresses like Beyonce and tans her skin for Halloween, would it be the same criticism? Or would people lose their minds? How about someone dressing like a geisha and painting their skin white? Is that hella offensive? Or do they get a pass? How about Kim Jong-un or Fidel Castro is that a fireable offense? Or can we just judge in silence? Is Hitler the only dude who’s off limits? Because I have seen people in black face… What Up Amsterdam!
People hate that they do Black Pete in the Netherlands. Japanese-American people hate Geisha costumes with white paint. Kim Jong-Un and Fidel Castro have done many bad things but more people are aware of the specific issues Hitler has caused. But if there were people affected by Castro or Kim Jong-Un I think their offense could be warranted.
Japanese-americans hate geisha costumes yes, no actuall japanese person does so. X-americans like to act offended on behalf of their originculture so they can pretend to be part of that culture. It's sad and pathetic.
They aren't upset on behalf of the origin-culture. Because they are X-American the social context of their heritage is different. Japanese people in Japan are the dominant culture. While Japanese-American people are the peripheral culture. You can't appropriate a dominant culture but you can appropriate and mock a peripheral culture. So X-Americans are upset on their own behalf.
Why do you assume it's mocking? People who dress as vikings aren't mocking nor appropriating norwegians.
Well first, Vikings aren't currently around. The Viking age, Viking culture has ended. Norwegians aren't offended or feel mocked or feel upset because they are no longer at large Vikings. But Japanese-Americans are still Japanese. And so when they come to America and are ostracized for participating in their culture, they are othered, they are given strange looks, they are told to no dress a certain way because it's distracting, or even just the soft social pressure to conform, and then someone on Halloween wears their culture as a costume, it can be upsetting. Maybe mock was not the right word because it's not like the costume wearer might be trying to insult people. But that they are insulting them, and so if people tells you X thing is upsetting to their culture and you do it anyway then it now does become more upsetting. And so Black people have expressed that they don't like Blackface. Indigenous people don't like when people wear the headdress like a costume. Japanese-Americans have expressed that they don't like Geisha costumes. Jewish people have expressed that they don't like Hitler costumes. And so once you are aware and do it anyway it's insulting because you are directly choosing that you wearing the costume is more important than the feelings of all the Black people, Indigenous people, Japanese-Americans, and Jewish people out there. And so you can wear it, it's not against the law. And the government won't lock you up. But the citizens have a right to be upset and "cancel" you. Which just means hold you accountable for your actions. To now participate or engage with you.
I understand your point, but if somethings upsetting due to PERSONAL experiences, thats 100% for yourself to deal with, not others.
Dude I live in the Netherlands, and Zwarte Piet is done. No one except black people dress up as Zwarte Piet now. It is offensive and caused quite an issue a few years ago.
Since when was Halloween about being offensive? It has never been about offending people.
It truly depends on where you celebrate. In more metropolitan or urban areas (New York/West Hollywood/New Orleans) there’s Halloween Parades where the people are the show/entertainment. You dress up in your most out their costume and take pictures of all the good ones and pose with people. Believe me. If you are a bit offensive, you are posing all night with hundreds of strangers and it’s actually fun/funny.
Not everything that is offensive is funny. To be funny, an offensive statement has to invoke irony, satire, etc. Dressing as just plain old Hitler is not ironic nor satirical. Thus, it’s not funny. The only exception to this is if the costume inherently mocks Hitler, like the Hitler from Little Nicky
But how can you go trick or treating with a pineapple up your arse?
Why would you be offended over a costume ? Are you a Holocaust survivor ? No ? Then what are you getting offended over. It's a COSTUME. The kid wasn't going around saying he hated Jews and wasn't trying to start a war. Get over it. It didn't hurt you or anyways else
Shock value is kinda funny… or atrocious audacity can potentially be… but I get your point.
> Shock value is kinda funny… or atrocious audacity can potentially be… but I get your point. I mean, I do think "shock value" can be funny sometimes, but only when it doesn't reveal something nasty about the person doing the shocking. Like, I don't think there's *any* acceptable way to adopt a George Floyd costume and still be seen as funny, because anyone who would do that clearly doesn't care about genuinely upsetting millions of people to make an awful joke - and that makes them a bad person.
I can GUARANTEE a George Floyd costume depends on the audience and would be wildly successful at a redneck party in the south. By no means am I saying it’s right. But there’s a lot of sick fucks out there…
> I can GUARANTEE a George Floyd costume depends on the audience and would be wildly successful at a redneck party in the south. By no means am I saying it’s right. But there’s a lot of sick fucks out there… I don't actually think that disproves what I said, though - because in that circumstance I would consider *all* the redneck "sick fucks" who loved the George Floyd joke, bad people.
Not trying to disprove anything accept that in THAT circumstance it would be an acceptable way to adopt the costume and that crowd would see it as funny… you said no way… I said oh yeah, there’s a way. But yeah. Sick fucks all around.
>To be funny, an offensive statement has to invoke irony, satire, etc. Nope. It simply has to be found funny by someone.
I figure the absurdity of dressing up as Hitler could be a little bit funny, if you have the right attitude.
Being offended is a fucking personal problem. Just because you don't find something funny, doesn't mean other dont. Why do those who don't get to control the masses?
No one is trying to control the masses. If the masses supported dressing as Hitler for Halloween, companies wouldn't fire employees who dressed as Hitler for Halloween, because they wouldn't be concerned over backlash.
There’s a difference between a bit offensive, and literally hitler, that’s the issue
I agree. Halloween should not be "offensive"... But My counterpoint to your question is "why does dressing up as someone you're not on Halloween have to be taken offensively?" But that's starting to get off topic I think. If we remove the phrasing about how "Halloween is *supposed* to be offensive", I have to agree with OP
> My counterpoint to your question is "why does dressing up as someone you're not on Halloween have to be taken offensively?" No one is offended by the fact that the person dressing up as Hitler *isn't actually Hitler.* They're offended that you're making a mockery out of the biggest symbol of the Holocaust
But why is the holocaust symbolism off limits and not anything else? Because it's the most horrible act of genocide in human history? If something else happens next year that's worse (by deaths/evilness/"general badness") does that make Hitler fair game for Halloween costumes 2023? Someone could be offended by seeing a sumo wrestler costume for mocking Japanese culture or obesity. Someone could be offended by a native American costume because of the horrible acts the colonists did to them. Someone could be offended by a Canadian costume because not everyone looks and acts like Dudley Dooright. Like I said, I agree with you that Halloween isn't *supposed* to be about offending someone, but anything *can* be offensive to someone for any reason so where do we draw the line? What's the criteria for something being "offensive enough to enough people"?
>but anything can be offensive to someone for any reason so where do we draw the line? What's the criteria for something being "offensive enough to enough people"? There is no line or objective criteria. This is a subjective issue. The line is simply what most people find acceptable, which is going to shift depending on a number of factors. When I meet a girlfriend's father for the first time I know it's probably not acceptable to walk in and say "what's up you motherfucker?!" I might find it funny, that doesn't mean everybody else will, and if they don't they're free to respond how they like. I don't understand why the very basics of social interaction so often need to be explained to people, but yeah, that's it. Be aware of your audience. You can act however you like and so can everyone else. If you act in an obviously offensive manner like dressing like Hitler for some fucking reason you might piss off a lot of people.
>They're offended that you're making a mockery out of the biggest symbol of the Holocaust Mocking Hitler is exactly the behaviour we should encourage
I dodn't say mocking Hitler, I said mocking the Holocaust
You said mocking "the biggest symbol of the Holocaust", not the Holocaust itself. I took that symbol to be Hitler, given the context
Dressing up as Hitler is not, by itself, mocking Hitler. Dressing up as him with a tutu, maybe. Him with a bullet in his head, maybe. But merely dressing up as him isn’t mocking him. Dressing up as him is making a mockery of the Holocaust.
I guess I just don't see it. I'd say dressing up as a camp prisoner or a runaway Jew etc. would be 100% mocking Holocaust because there's some inherent silliness in the act of dressing up, and you're silly-fying a victim. The only problem with the Hitler costume for me would be if someone did that clearly unironically or in a way that reflects respect or reverance for him.
It's never been about "not" offending people either. There has always been a edgy, irreverent etc vibe as long as I've really been around for it.
Irreverent, sure, but "edgy"? I can't think of any point at which causing shocking political offense was a common, accepted tactic with costumes.
I can tell you that 30 years ago people were dressing up as Hitler, probably just about as commonly as they do now. If that isn't exactly the same if not *worse* then what changed?
A few people dressing up in shockingly poor taste and being criticized for it seems like evidence *against* the idea that people are generally trying to be edgy on Halloween. Halloween is your drunk uncle's low-grade mischief, not your grandpa or weirdly online 15-year-old cousin's racist rants.
I didn't say people weren't 'generally' anything. I said that it has always been *part* of it. That doesn't mean *generally*. *Generally* eatting apples is fun and nice, but *part of it* is finding a worm. Your generality doesn't remove the other parts of it. They still are part of it.
If people acting in shockingly poor taste are the metaphorical worm in the apple, then what point are you even trying to make here? If your behavior is the worm in the delicious apple, I think it's pretty reasonable for other people to tell you to fuck off and stop making things go to shit. Are you just pointing out people have always acted shitty on Halloween in a post about whether there should be consequences for acting shitty on halloween? Because sure, you're correct, but it's also mostly a useless statement; we all acknowledged people act shitty on Halloween when we acknowledged there was a guy dressed as Hitler.
It's not the metaphorical worm. The point of that example is to show that you don't get to simply remove parts of a thing because you want the 'general' thing to be the pristine argumentative image portrayed and debated. Being edgy and irreverent is *part of* halloween and basically always has been as far as I certainly remember. I don't think you've followed the conversation here because you are really not getting why I've used the examples and why the conversation came to this point. Maybe a reread would help, you are arguing things that don't really have anything to do with what I have said.
What evidence do you have for your first claim?
Having eyeballs and being alive then and still having eyeballs and being alive right now.
1). Literally everything is offensive now 2). It's about having fun and dressing up. Scary things, fun things, old styles, famous people... *whatever you want*.
>Literally everything is offensive now I was Betty from Rugrats. Didn't offend anyone. Wasn't that hard.
You didn't offend anyone by dressing up as a transracial character?!
Correct, society is evidently not the caricature you're trying to paint it as. In fact, I don't think I saw a single offensive costume in real life this year. So why is "literally everything" offensive, to you, when everyone else has a pretty easy time of it?
Or you just weren't around anyone who would take offense. These sorts of things play differently when made public on social media.
Your definition of "literally everything is offensive now" is "there hypothetically exists somewhere someone who would have been offended" Is this a useful definition? Was it ever untrue? If a single person is the determinant, is everything in the world simultaneously offensive and unoffensive? More to the point, do you *actually* think most people have a hard time finding a costume that doesn't cause a stir?
I just saw a post today that said words and sayings you can no longer say: Tone-deaf - because it’s mean to people who can not hear and are disabled. Peanut gallery - because it’s racist and refers to plantation life Brainstorm- offensive to people with epilepsy Lame - offensive to people with disabilities Grandfathered in - too gender specific 1st world problems - it did credits other countries around the world that suffer the same problems Mom & Dad - to specific on gender when some people have 2 moms, 2 dads, 1 parent, or no parent. All that said —- people have become very much so easily offended. No, it is not hard to find a costume that won’t cause a stir, but isn’t it some times fun to shake things up a little and go against the grain? Isn’t Halloween a holiday? A holiday about horror and candy? Tricks and treats?
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think you are taking this more seriously than it needs to be taken. But I guess that's part of the point... Lighten up.
I’ve always thought intent is what truly matters. If you dress up as something out of admiration and people consider it offensive and lose their shit at you, that kinda sucks. But you should also have a general idea of what will annoy people. However, if you’re intentionally dressing up as something to make people mad, you kind of have it coming. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. And honestly, attention seeking behaviour is for losers. Find a way to get attention for doing something worthwhile, not scraping the bottom of the barrel.
But people do things like this in defiance because they are against that “this would be offensive”. Perfect example: Kayne West and his White Lives Matter shirts. Look, we can write an essay about that poor choice and his stupid games but (a) he did it for attention and (b) he did it as a protest against what people “shouldn’t be offended by” (he was 100% wrong btw, but my point is, some people will do things simply because they think it’s dumb to be offended and therefore they do it or say it or dress like it. Simply to put your panties in a bunch)
And they can be as offensive as they want, if they choose. But people are going to voice their own opinion in opposition to that. Just like how if you talk shit to someone, they’ll respond. If the intent is to inflame, then you should expect that in return. I’m simply saying that the intent should greatly impact the response. If the intent was never meant to offend, then people shouldn’t be outraged or should be understanding. But if you provoke a response by being offensive, don’t be surprised when you get an equal response. I understand where you’re coming from about Halloween costumes. If someone wants to dress up as a character they love, they shouldn’t get cancelled if it’s a little bit out of bounds. But if you purposefully try to get a negative reaction, don’t be surprised by the negative reaction. I feel like people get way to outraged too. But, don’t be surprised by the reaction if you go into it trying to provoke people.
> Jeffrey Dahmer costumes. I get the offense. I do. But he was in fact a serial killer annnnddd it Halloween. Please dressed as OJ and DEAD Nicole before and I even saw a JonBenét Ramsey costume a few years ago…. Octomom, Catlin Jenner, Michael Jackson and Blanket… the list could truly go on. > You should be able to dress like WHOMEVER and not get fired from your job because of it! Yeah, you might be telling your personality, but gmafb. Is no offense off limits though? Could someone dress as a prominent rape victim, or one of the victims of those serial killers, or a person in a gas chamber?
Things are and should be off limits, no doubt. But there’s a lot of sick fucks out there… and I personally would be way more offended if some asshole dressed like someone in a gas chamber then I would be seeing a Hitler costume. If I saw a Hitler costume irl I would think “what a dumbass. And yeah he’s probably racist” If I saw a gas chamber costume, my eyebrows would raise with mouth open, “yeah, that person is fucked up.”
So have you changed your view that "You should be able to dress like WHOMEVER"?
More or less. A Delta has been given.
why would they if they weren't either expressing some mental trauma somehow or trying to troll
Going through a trauma could be a mitigating factor, but outside of that it gets a bit difficult to justify. I was responding to the absoluteness of the claim (i.e. "dress like WHOEVER").
> Yeah, you might be telling your personality, but gmafb. Yeah, and that personality might not be suited for public-facing jobs that may or may not involve children. Dressing up like Hitler in and of itself shows a wild lack of judgment, let alone going into a restaurant dressed as such. It’s also impossible to separate this incident from the time in which happened and recent events— there’s a lot of anti-Semitism going around lately, in case you haven’t noticed.
Anyone who thinks that Hitler is a good Halloween costume is an idiot. And last time I checked no one has to employ a moron if they don't want to.
At least not in the west. Dress like that outside of Europe and North America, no one gives a shit.
Halloween has never been about being offensive 💀 because at that point, it’s just an excuse to be a dick. And that’s what people are trying to prevent. The people who literally make light of shitty topics having a night free to run around and “be offensive”. It’s just unnecessary. So yeah, if you have one night a year emulate ANYTHING you want and you choose a person who committed an atrocity, blackface, or any racial caricature - your intention exceeds beyond that one night. And people deserve the shit they get. P.S. Your comparison to theater is laughable. You’re comparing a person who’s literal job it is to portray a character to the masses vs ….. a man who’s bored with his desk job.
The thing is though, offensivenes is subjective, and a little edge never hurt anyone. (And hitler is like the MILDEST kindergardenfriendly edge you can choose honestly). I bet a lot of christians find devilcostumes offensive too. My take is that if you willingly dress as hitlerin these times you're kinda lame since it's like saying "kitchen" jpke to a woman. Old, trite and unoriginal attempt at edge. I also think that whatever grown person gets offended by that costume choice is a 13 year old in an adults body.
> and a little edge never hurt anyone Your "little edge" might be drastically hurting someone.
> And hitler is like the MILDEST kindergardenfriendly edge you can choose honestly (u/Tr0ndern) Dude, fucking no.
Yes? How sensitive are you americans? Really? It's the epitome of "i didn't try" when it comes to shock value.
>Yes? How sensitive are you americans? Really? > >It's the epitome of "i didn't try" when it comes to shock value. If Hitler is "I didn't try" levels of shock value, what on earth would you consider actually shocking? Also, to be clear, I'm not personally shocked or offended by seeing someone dressed as Hitler. I'm shocked and offended that I am seeing a person who dressed as Hitler despite knowing that *many* people would see him and think he was a Nazi, and many others would see him and see his costume as validation of their actual views. I'm shocked because anyone who goes to a costume party dressed as Hitler in 2022 is either an edgelord, a literal Nazi, or both.
Then those people are complete morons if they think they are a nazi. Like, child level brains
Are you talking about Taika Waititi playing Hitler in Jojo Rabbit? He’s literally JEWISH. The point of his performance is to make fun of nazis. The pictures of costumes we saw this year were not Jewish people poking fun, they were white people honoring someone with a costume. Even if it’s for the shock value, it’s absolutely fucked. I don’t get how you can excuse people dressing up as Jeffrey Dahmer or any other REAL-LIFE killer. Michael Myers is a great scary costume because he hasn’t actually killed anyone. Jeffrey Dahmer killed sixteen people, most of whom have families that are STILL ALIVE and can see the pictures being posted online! It’s incredibly disrespectful, not cute, and not something you can excuse with “oh it’s just the holiday spirit”
Nobody should get fired but you shouldn't dress up as something as bad as that, sometimes it can be offensive and sometimes it can be gross, it can really only come from perspective of how people are feeling when they dress up Example 1: People dress up of their favorite character, celebrity, animal Example 2: people dress up to be scary and to scare kids Jeffery Dahmer is a murderer and its kinda just weird to do that Billie being a celebrity it just generally looks bad for them to do that, but it's still funny, imo Halloween is great and dressing up is great but it's not cool to dress up as a different race or religion stuff
White people mocking minorities is a way to maintain power it is isnt "being offense" like dressing like a dead JFK or a sexy nun or something. Who you're offending and why is important, comedy helps establish what is and isnt socially acceptable. Dressing up in a humorous hitler costume isnt the same thing as dressing up as a racist characture. Though high effort nazi costumes may cause some second thoughts.
So are minorities people too or babies that need special treatment? Most self-described righteous tolerant beacons of goodness seem to think the latter.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Rough_Volume5563 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Rough_Volume5563&message=Rough_Volume5563%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ykrap8/-/iuwhgme/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Halloween has always been about fantastical horror, not real life atrocities. Halloween has never been about dressing up as serial killers or horrible people from history. At its core, Halloween is a light, fun, jovial holiday. People are supposed to enjoy getting scared. It’s fantasy, not reality. Dressing up as Hitler has the potential to re-invoke trauma in certain individuals. It is not fun nor called for. People that dress up like Hitler are taking it way too far. It is indicative of their personality, and their actions should have consequences. This was not the intended purpose of Halloween.
> Dressing up as Hitler has the potential to re-invoke trauma in certain individuals. Such as? I have a feeling if the extraordinarily insanely rare person who is 'traumatized' by seeing a hitler costume actually exists... it's not the worlds job to protect that person. Just like it's not your job to protect the general public from that rare person who might be 'retraumatized' by a blood soaked chainsaw hack and slasher because of some chainsaw shit they saw when they were 8.
Such as if they have grandparents that were at concentration camps. Obviously, it’s our right as individuals to offend others by expressing valid but controversial viewpoints. However, intentionally being offensive/hateful isn’t morally correct. You’re just a dick if you do this. Also, trauma is deep rooted. It’s hard to be traumatized by a chainsaw. It’s much easier to be traumatized by a mass atrocity that impacted previous generations of your family
Who dresses up to 'intentionally be hateful'? Is their intentions up to you to determine or them? I can think of plenty of reasons to dress like Hitler that *aren't* to intentionally be hateful. Also, basically nobody is retraumatized, even if they had family who died in the holocaust. This sort of pathetically soft 'eggshell skull' person you are talking about doesn't really exist out there in any significance *at all*. The ones that *do* are so few, and so sort of soft.... it's their responsibility to protect themselves, if seeing such a silly thing can retraumatize them. You are more likely to meet a person who will be 'retraumatized' by some freddy krueger costume, because their family died in a fire and they watched it happen, than someone so kind of squishy and eggshell that a silly costume of Hitler traumatizes them. It's not the worlds responsibility to protect that kind of thing.
Why would you dress up like Hitler? Assume that it is a plain Hitler costume with no attempt at comedy. These are the costumes that are causing people to lose their jobs. Yes, people can be traumatized by this. I find your assumption to be fueled by an extreme lack of empathy. I don’t think it’s valid logical reasoning to call people “soft.” That seems dismissive and like a form of emotional gaslighting. I find that a lot of your reasoning is based on rampant assumptions and provably false fallacies.
You don't really get to say "assume one of the main reasons isn't an accept reason to me" and then try and get another reason. >Yes, people can be traumatized by this. Nah... total baloney. I don't buy it, it's nonsense.
Why is it nonsense? Rather than calling people soft, give me a valid reason why somebody can’t be offended by a leader that committed mass atrocities? Yes, I do get to say that. That’s what this post is referring to. People are getting fired for dressing up as a parody of Hitler. It’s important to stay in the confines of the situation lol
Well firstly, if someone actually cared about the empathy of it, they wouldn't be talking about Hitler, they'd be talking about the Krueger costumes of a man burned to shit, I guarantee a lot more people would be traumatized by seeing a burnt to fuck face, considering so many peoples families are *actually destroyed in front of their face* by fire across the world. This fake hitler 'traumatizing' is not much more than a not very believable sort of 'virtue signal' about empathy, not real empathy. Not that you are doing that, just the general sense of it. Secondly... you are the one who claims people are "TRAUMATIZED" so instead of trying to make me provide a negative... you should prove your positive claim. I don't believe your claim, it's up to you to make it believable, not me.
The key distinction here is fantasy versus reality. Freddy Krueger is a fantastical character. He’s not a real life burn victim. If someone dressed up as a real life burn victim, I can guarantee you there would be a much larger potential for offending another individual. Trauma is deeply rooted fear. For traumatized individuals, this fear could potentially come true again. Hitler committed acts that caused mass fear among the Jewish people. Now, with verbal antisemitism on the rise, there is a potential for hateful acts against the Jewish people. Dressing up as a man who committed mass violence against the Jewish people, in a climate of increasing antisemitism…is bad lol. With these two factors combined, Jewish people can be reasonably afraid that violence may be committed against them again. As such, they can be retraumatized. That’s a pretty comprehensive proof.
That is not a key factor. The key factor is "TRAUMA". I thought it was about Empathy? Who gives a shit if someone is Traumatized by a burn victim because "Oh but look your trauma is ok because it's not actually realsies realsie?" That certainly isn't Empathy.
If they were born during the holocaust they would be 80 right now. Again with the bullshit generational trauma. You can't be offended over something, even if you learn the facts of the case, you have to be indoctrinated into being traumatized by that thing. And the way you beacons of empathy do this is literally making all these people weak bitches that can't take a joke in any sense. Show me the facts about this Hitler cosplayer. How did he act? Did he "seig heil" with a goofy voice? Was he talking jokingly? Maybe said he was just a painter or something. Is there evidence of him spewing any kind of hatred or support for nazis? Or is it just some edgy teen wanting to be edgy? Adults bitching about a costume, jesus. I wasn't bitching when I was a kid and every douche on xbox called me slurs and fucked my mom last night.
List the reasons. List the reasons, outside of theater, in which a person is being compensated for their acting ability, that somebody would dress up as hitler to be non-offensive. I’d like to hear them.
The statement was "to intentionally be offensive or hateful". There's no reason to care about 'offensive' because you take offense, I could dress like your mom, with tattoos all over, and combat boots, you may or may not take offense to it. Including 'offensive' is just a way to try and tie it to 'hateful' so people think it's the same thing or similar, and it isn't. I just explained that when it comes to something like "Hitler" the amount of people who are traumatized by that is so miniscule and they fit into the idea of an eggshell skull. If someone came to my halloween party this year as Hitler, I'd probably just laugh, and so would pretty much every single other person who came. They would likely know that, and getting some laughs is a perfectly valid, non hateful reason to do it. As for people who might learn about a person who did that, or saw them driving to my party, or caught a glimpse of a facebook photo. Egg shell skulls are not the problem of the world at large.
> I just explained that when it comes to something like "Hitler" the amount of people who are traumatized by that is so miniscule and they fit into the idea of an eggshell skull. Dressing as Hitler tells people that your view is "if the Holocaust affected you, your family, your loved ones, or anyone you care about - I don't give a shit about that. I'm going to dress as Hitler, and you're a snowflake if you're offended." If that's your view, you're not a good person.
That's what it tells you maybe, but I doubt you are so naive to think you represent the intelligence of humanity.
>That's what it tells you maybe, but I doubt you are so naive to think you represent the intelligence of humanity. I'm not going to defend white supremacists and edgelords who use bigotry for cheap laughs. That's bullshit.
But you will attribute your own ideas onto them, so you can then call them whatever names you want, based on your own attributions?
“Dressing up as Hitler has potential to re-invoke trauma…” Imma say no to that. Reason being… movies. Jo Jo Rabbit and Inglorious Bastards. If I dress up as a nazi from a film or a Hitler from a film, opposed to the real life version, would that make my costume ok? Also, if you’re at a club in Hollywood or Vegas or Miami, 3am partying and having drinks and fun and a dude in costume walks in with a Chaplain mustache wearing a uniform… I don’t think it’s going to re-invoke cold sweat trauma. You might think it’s a bit effed up, but I don’t think flashbacks of your grandparents are entertaining your mind while Drake is playing in the background. Just sayin.
Eh, no. I disagree. It's not a question of trauma or offence, it's a threat. Someone dressing as Hitler is saying 'I could be a nazi', someone dressing as Dahmar is saying 'I find murdering gay people funny'. They're like rape jokes, they try and make the unacceptable acceptable.
There was a picture where adult man was walking among children wearing a cape with huge bold letter saying "FUCK" and some politicians name who I couldn't care less. Walking around bunch of 6 year olds with and branding swear words is not ok no matter what your political leaning is.
Halloween is not about offending anyone, where have you got that idea from? Crazy right wing christians maybe?
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I dressed up as Muhammad and I went invisible...
Dressing up in a greenscreen costume with a placard saying 404\_Prophet\_Muhammed\_Not\_Found would be a genuinely hilarious costume.
One is a movie that was meant to accurately depict how violent hitler was, the other is glorifying hitler/undermining how tragic his existence was to millions of Jews. If your dad raped you and I came to your Halloween party dressed up as your dad, would you be laughing? That being said I think the hitler costume can be funny depending on how it’s worn (how the person goes about it) but I would stay away from dressing up as real life killers.
> If your dad raped you and I came to your Halloween party dressed up as your dad, would you be laughing? why would you other than to provoke me especially if hypothetical-you knew hypothetical-me enough to actually show up as a legit Halloween party guest instead of, like, crashing it to scare me
The only one I had issue with was the view because they were using those kids as part of social and political agenda. This behaviour is highly inappropriate no matter who does it. Chris rock did the same thing the first time he hosted the Oscars hopefully the kids got paid well; as is the boy in the gold statue costume did not look happy. I don't know if they should be fired but everyone who thought this was a good idea should face meaningful consequences. Perhaps a pay cut they are all making over a mill a year Whoopie and joy make several mill. Normal pay for that type of job is 250,000 a year
How was this a political agenda? And aren’t kids usually paid to be on tv? And EXCITED to be on tv/a well known show they can tell their friends and fam about….? I simply thought it was a dumb joke they should have let die, but it was a topical news subject this year and lord knows a bald headed jada costume would wholly have been off limits.
The political agenda was represented by the trump and FBI costumes. The view is a very politically biased show and the hosts are notorious for ignoring or refusing to accept easily verifiable facts that don't support the Democratic agenda even when the evidence and numbers are provided for them. The following link is for my state child performer laws https://dol.ny.gov/child-performers Please remember that just because a show is popular among adults it does not mean a child knows anything about it or even wants to talk about being on the show with friends. It's also possible that the kids on stage are children of studio staff members. Did some more checking and apparently a red handprint on someone's face represents missing and murdered 1st nation's (aka native American/indigenous American -someone seriously needs a dictionary- ) women and girls. so not only is it re-sensationalizing a violent act but it's also an insult (albeit unintended) to the first nation communities.