NationStates Jolt Archive

I am very mildly offended by today's UN list "Rudest People." All of the nations at the top seem to be right-leaning, while all of the ones at the bottom are left-leaning. Does this mean that only things that offend leftists are considered "rude" while things that offend rightists are not?

I point to things like (warning, possibly offensive imagery in this link) Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ), television/radio shows that frequently discuss immoral sexual activities quite graphically or enjoin their listeners to perform them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opie_and_anthony) (especially in inappropriate places), most any form of rap music, some leftists' total lack of ability to comprehend that someone is deserving of politeness if they are of a high station, etc.

How is this list calculated, exactly? I think it shows the list maker's own bias.

P.S. I am not advocating banning these activities (at least in this thread), but I do think they qualify as rude, ie. offensive to many people and inappropriate to discuss, show, or perform in polite society.

Yeah, dammit. Let's find that nasty old algorithm and lynch him!

Lynching is not necessary. I have a feeling that the list simply takes the nations with the highest free speech levels (considered a characteristic of rightism these days, I guess) and says that such a nation would therefore become very rude. The problem is, if I ban racial slurs, ephitets against minority religions, and other things that leftists usually consider to be rude, I still allow all the things I mentioned in my first post. That does not make for a society that is less rude, it makes for one that is at least equally as rude.

Also consider that 'leftism' is usually associated with hippie flower children that don't allow anyone to say anything bad about anything. This sort of thought-policing is also not exactly a 'rightist' virtue.

Correspondence does not imply correlation, and a lack of provable correlation means that no reasonably certain statement can be made on the bias of the creator. While it is unfortunate you were very mildly offended, no matter how the system would work there would inevitably be some sort of unintentional correspondence which would offend somebody and so we are going to accept that as the cost of actually doing anything. It is, no offense, rather silly to demand change to a mild offense when certainly none was intended.

I was not basing my argument on the fact that I was offended. That was why I said that I was mildly offended, though I am sorry if I misled you, and in retrospect I should not have mentioned that.

Instead, I am trying to point out a way to more accurately gauge a nation's rudeness level. If the rudeness calculator is simply based on free speech, attitudes about race, and attitudes/treatment about/of minority positions, then it will be highly inaccurate. It also needs to take into account things like levels of and social acceptability of sexual promiscuity (and I know I've seen issues dealing with that), attitudes toward religion, and attitudes/treatment about/of majority positions.

I'll admit that I don't know anything about coding, and if all of this would create a lot of work for the coders, then there is no need to change anything. I'm just trying to get a better and more accurate "Rudeness" list.