How is one 'offended'?

[Admiral Squish]

I don't think I really understand what's going on when somebody says they're offended by something in media, but I feel like I should probably make an effort to.

I don't think I've ever really experienced that kind of response to something non-personal. I've been offended by personal (or at least localized) attacks, by things other people have said about me in particular, or about groups I'm a part of. But I don't understand how one can be offended by things that aren't attacking anyone, how somebody could find the mere presence of something offensive. Like, cursing, or nudity. It seems some people take the very existence of certain concepts to be abhorrent, but I just can't understand what drives that. I mean, I'm a generally laid-back kind of guy, but even I've seen things, in the shadowy corners of the internet, that have made me wince and cry out 'oh, god, WHY?'. But I've never experienced the kind of 'how DARE this thing EXIST' sort of gut reaction to something, the kind of response that seems so common in the world at large. Like, the people who go to a movie and come out complaining about how the movie offended them with strong language or graphic violence or the depiction of a same-sex couple. What's going on in that particular sort of mind that I'm not grasping?

[cobaltstarfire]

People that are offended by those things are offended by those things because their appearance in a piece of media in some way condones or encourages it, "it" being something they feel is morally wrong/dangerous/reprehensible. Sometimes even viscerally bothering/discomforting people to their very core.

[Avin]

I've been offended by personal (or at least localized) attacks, by things other people have said about me in particular, or about groups I'm a part of. But I don't understand how one can be offended by things that aren't attacking anyone, how somebody could find the mere presence of something offensive.

So, I suspect that at least some people getting offended by certain subjects are engaging in the same kind of thinking you are, they just define "groups I'm a part of" and "attacks" very differently.

For example: from what I can tell, many people into traditional (heterosexual, monogamous) marriage perceive certain things outside those bounds - could be anything from same sex couples to casually portrayed sex/nudity outside of wedlock - as an "attack" on their group, the people practicing more traditional sexuality. I don't want to make too many assumptions about speaking for this group, as I am not a member of it, but I can understand how someone might view an alternative way to practice sexuality to be "competing" with their own way, competing as in threatening to replace it in common practice.

And they may have a point: I strongly suspect there is proportionately less monogamous heterosexual marriage going around, now that many people are pursuing other options and society is gradually becoming okay with that, compared to say Victorian times when your choices were traditional marriage or social ostracism. The main point of contention seems to be whether this is a bad thing.. but that's another discussion.

[The Glyphstone]

There's also the 'moral guardian' variant, where people believe, erroneously or otherwise, that they need to be the ones to stand up to Corrupting Influence X before it can permeate mainstream society, because allowing it to spread would harm other people. Think of the 'For the Children' archetype protester - often misguided, but most of them do have what they believe to be good intentions at heart.

[Bobblit]

My experience agrees with what has been said until now. I have felt offended by stuff in the media sometimes (especially back when I was a dumb teenager :smalltongue:) that I perceived as an "attack" against me / the things I stood for. It normally wasn't, however, and after a while I usually noticed that, but only after honestly reflecting about it. It's a quite visceral thing, in my case at least; I wouldn't feel nearly as offended if I was being rational about it, but often I am not, even if I try my best not to see it.

[thorgrim29]

Some people (who typically have a more authoritarian bend) have a hard time dealing with differing opinions. My hypothesis is that this is mainly projection, they want to impose their world view on everyone so people who they disagree with must be trying to impose that on them right? So when they flip out. You tend to find these people in pretty much every group or ideology though they tend to congregate to the more moralistic arm of whatever part of the ideology/political party/religion whatever they are in.

[Raimun]

I would like to say that I don't really understand how you could be offended about something that doesn't really affect you but I suddenly remembered something I read/heard about once and that certainly did offend me. It was about this guy who's intention was to make "art" out of animal cruelty. Extremely disrespectful animal cruelty at that. Court found him guilty because there was evidence on videotape. Something as senseless and distasteful as that does offend me.

Basically, one gets offended when one perceives something is immoral. What one perceives as immoral or moral is an another thing.

[Wardog]

...how somebody could find the mere presence of something offensive. Like, cursing

In that case, at least, cursing is supposed to be offensive, or at least close to it. It's the whole point.

(Although what is considered to be "cursing" can vary for all sorts of reasons, some more sensible than others).

[Hiro Protagonest]

Something that I can recall being somewhat offended about is the portrayal of Hisao, the main character of Katawa Shoujo, in Hanako's story. Katawa Shoujo is five different stories and there are essentially five versions of Hisao, one per story. Hanako and Emi both have very flawed versions, but Emi's story has a strong theme of self-improvement while Hanako's story... just kind of flops. It is just one of the problems with the story, but I don't like that the kind of dumbass Hisao is in that story is the personality they decided on for someone who loves Hanako.

[BRC]

I don't think I really understand what's going on when somebody says they're offended by something in media, but I feel like I should probably make an effort to.

I don't think I've ever really experienced that kind of response to something non-personal. I've been offended by personal (or at least localized) attacks, by things other people have said about me in particular, or about groups I'm a part of. But I don't understand how one can be offended by things that aren't attacking anyone, how somebody could find the mere presence of something offensive. Like, cursing, or nudity. It seems some people take the very existence of certain concepts to be abhorrent, but I just can't understand what drives that. I mean, I'm a generally laid-back kind of guy, but even I've seen things, in the shadowy corners of the internet, that have made me wince and cry out 'oh, god, WHY?'. But I've never experienced the kind of 'how DARE this thing EXIST' sort of gut reaction to something, the kind of response that seems so common in the world at large. Like, the people who go to a movie and come out complaining about how the movie offended them with strong language or graphic violence or the depiction of a same-sex couple. What's going on in that particular sort of mind that I'm not grasping?

It's hard to make a work that does not take a stance in some sort of culture war. When somebody is Offended by something, it usually means the work took the opposite stance on some front.

One thing to remember is that oftentimes an "Attack" is only seen as such by those it is targeting, even if the author did not intend it as such.

Consider the following scene: A heroic Detective kicks down a door, shoots a group of criminals, and rescues a hostage. Heroic music plays and people cheer.

Nothing offensive there, at least, not unless you feel attacked.

In the context of that scene, The Detective was in the right to shoot the criminals and save the hostage.

But, to somebody in the audience who, say, shares a demographic with the criminals on screen, it seems like an attack. "This movie is saying that we're all criminals who deserve to die". Sure, in THIS MOVIE it's a bunch of vile kidnappers who coincidentally happen to be a certain race. That's almost certainly what the writers thought, and what most of the audience thinks, but to the people who see themselves dying on screen, it is an Attack.

The Detective is shown to smoke regularly. The scenes are framed to make him look cool doing so. To everybody else, it's just a cool visual effect, but to somebody who believes strongly that Smoking is harmful, and encouraging it is wrong, it is an attack. To everybody else, the detective is having a cigarette, To them, the movie is saying "Look how cool this heroic detective is while smoking. You should be like him and smoke".

The Villain is shown taking sadistic pleasure from going duck hunting. The movie uses this to show that he is evil because he enjoys killing the ducks for sport. To most people, this is just a way to demonstrate his cruelty and sadism. To somebody who enjoys hunting, this seems like an attack on them. If the movie uses hunting to show that the villain is sadistic and cruel, it is calling them sadistic and cruel.

Even if something does not seem to be a direct attack, by encouraging, normalizing, or criticizing something, people can feel like the film is attacking their beliefs.

[T-Mick]

Offended might not be the right word. I've been in situations where media expresses or depicts ideals, practices, or whatnot that I disagree with personally. The feeling, at least for me, is closest to sadness, maybe pity. Hard to call it.

The reason is that, especially with entertainment, its very easy to absorb ideas unwittingly. Consider moral tales, fables, epics, all the stories from the old days, I guess you could say. Not fairy tales though. You tell fables to children to illustrate in an easily digested form right behavior. You cultivate epics to instill national identity. Now it isn't 100% perfect, and nobody wants their son to imitate, say, Zeus and Ares, but Odysseus may have his place. The point is that stories are, in part, receptacles for ideas.

I think that this is a subconscious thing. If Aesop seems trite now, its because the ideas are indeed well known. Adults don't need the ant and the grasshopper to remind them the value of work. We know that already. But it doesn't mean that we're immune to that form of teaching.

So when, lets say, Seinfeld, a show I love, values sex outside of marriage as an ideal, and one which I think (for xyz reasons, take your pick according to viewer) wrong, the feeling is sadness. For one, someone is already astray in creating this. But what's more, there is the potential that the idea slips into other heads. It can happen. But what can I do about it?

Where offended comes in, I think, is in those more visceral reactions. I think this view has been expressed. If you go from Winnie the Pooh to The Hangover, it's a drastic change. Or even any dramatic shift from an isolated world to an open, wild, and perhaps corrupt one. Too much, too fast.

As for my views of this, I think there is a middle ground. While I still get that twinge of sadness, I enjoy works that disagree with me. My beliefs are very much instilled and stable, and it takes more than a cross-dresser on M*A*S*H* to get me worked up. Not so for everyone. In Burkean terms, it's important to have a well-developed moral imagination to appreciate certain things. Is Pulp Fiction a good movie? Yes. Is it a crude and violent movie? Absolutely. But from the right perspective, it can be morally edifying. But you have to be ready, and you can't be a passive observer.

You can disagree with my ideas and values as you please, but do remember that last bit. Being a passive viewer does no one any good.

Cheers!

[Razade]

You can disagree with my ideas and values as you please, but do remember that last bit. Being a passive viewer does no one any good.

The brunt of the rest of your post boils down to the bolded so I condescend. The fact of the matter is that you can be a passive observer especially when Culture(tm) stands against you. Taking your "sex before marriage" thing, complaining the culture depicted in media doesn't comport with your more conservative and narrow (in the culture's eye) view of things loudly makes you look less like a brave vocal foil and more like, at best, old fashioned and somewhat the butt of a joke.

[Pronounceable]

People (except for the moral guardian variant, who're all dumbasses) usually get offended by media for lacking a proper thickness of skin. It's usually a genetic and chronic ailment and extremely widespread. Sometimes age cures it but usually it's terminal. Anyone who goes around looking for "slaps in the face" will find them on every corner. Very rarely, there will be an actual and real justification, as in the animal torture "artist" mentioned above. But in general, almost every case of media offense is just someone being a thin skinned, lily livered, tree hugging pansy OR a dumbass moral guardian.

Also "media" offense is absolutely and completely different from "real" offense, which is aimed at real world and real things in it. Those are a different matter entirely and anyone who attempts to conflate these two things is a total ****ing idiot.

[Hida Reju]

People have hit this on the head, most times offense is something people take for mostly personal reasons that will make little sense to anyone not with the same mindset.

A person with strong views against same sex relationships see this as an attack on everyone that is not in one. It is essentially a narcissistic thought process since people often only relate to things with their own personal set of rose colored glasses. Anyone can wear a pair of these glasses and few of them are 100% alike. But groups often share traits and ideas in common with each other.

This
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc sums up how this seems to spread.

[SuperPanda]

I actually taught a class about something connected to this today though a different example than the one used upthread.

I am an English Literature teacher teaching an American high school curriculum to students here in China - this is important because we're about 40 pages into To Kill a Mocking Bird and I needed to have a stern talk with the students about the language they'll soon be encountering in the book.

These teenagers don't have any cultural background or knowledge about the "N" word apart from how its used in modern "black" culture. I've known people here in China who only know the word from listening to rappers refer to each other that way and so think it is a perfectly innocent word.

For me, I've never been in a community where that word was used. I've never been around people who would use that word. I'm not of the community that that word is an attack against. I was raised to believe in ideals to which that word represents the antithesis and I needed to make clear to the students that I would come down on them like a hammer for using it outside of direct quotes. I'd rather they threw F--- around all day long than mention that one word once in my hearing, and I explained to them what it meant.

I still find the continued relevance of that word offensive on the deepest levels* - not because it is an attack on me but because it is an attack on the ideals I still believe we are all capable of. It represents the embracing of our lowest and worst qualities as a species - a profound failure of spirit and mind.

---

The second example I can think of for this thread is something that will continue to amuse me until I can no longer remember it (some day many many years from now). I had a co-worker some years back who, though nearly 30 at the time, acted almost exactly like Holden Caufield from The Catcher in the Rye (another book some people find offensive). I've admired the artistry of that book for a while - which is part of why I dislike it so much. It beautifully captures a piece of the human experience that I find unpleasant.
As such when I told this co-worker that he reminded me of Holden, I meant it as perhaps the most cutting insult I have ever given another person.
Turns out that this was his favorite book and he felt I'd given him the greatest compliment anyone ever could.

I decided to think like Atticus and allow him to carry on being a catcher in the rye while I went back to not killing mockingbirds - content that I'd said my piece and that it had been heard (if not understood).

I know that many works of literature are/were deeply offensive in one form or another. Catcher in the Rye thrives in vulgar language and features an extremely immature protagonist - causing some to glorify immaturity even as the book itself scathingly criticizes it. To Kill a Mocking Bird features an unsubtle attack on the racist history of the American South by showing it through the eyes of an unusually bright child with a uniquely wise and fair father. The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn does much the same as mockingbird but through the eyes of an unusually slow child with no father - suggesting that even an idiot could see that something was wrong.

I did not enjoy Catcher but I was not offended by it. I find that people offended by Catcher usually missed the point of the book making it an interesting example for this thread.
I know that there are people who are offended by the use of the word I mention above in Mocking Bird and Huck Finn. Again, these are people who are offended because they missed the point. There are also people in the world still who are offended because they understand the point and disagree with it (and that this is still true and will probably always be true is a very depressing thought).

The thread already has great answers, I hope my examples help add to the discussion.

There are certainly trivial things people take offense to out there (this is what fuels most of the internet it seems).
(i.e. "This person likes a different pokemon than I do, I'm offended.")

There are things which should be offensive which few people find offensive.
(i.e. "yet another extremist militant group is killing innocents and the world can't be bothered to help.")

There are things which are genuinely truly offensive to anyone who understands the history and intent behind it.
(i.e. The word mentioned above and trying to deny/justify: Japanese Internment, "The Rape of Nanking," The holocaust)


*Note: I recognize that the word I refer to only as "The word", because I will not type it, has been re-purposed by some members of "black culture" but the new shared meaning would be closer to "person who has shared my suffering and pain" or "other person who has been hated like this" than anything else. Not being a member of that community and therefore not having shared that history of suffering and pain it is not a word I have the right to use. I would be very happy if the word was left to die in ink as a record of a time when our species was simply "less than" but I know that day is not today because there are still people using its original meaning, and as such this new meaning is still relevant to people younger than me today - a truth I find terribly depressing. When neither useage of the word has any shared relevance any longer - I hope it will be left to die.

[Razade]

I actually taught a class about something connected to this today though a different example than the one used upthread.

I am an English Literature teacher teaching an American high school curriculum to students here in China - this is important because we're about 40 pages into To Kill a Mocking Bird and I needed to have a stern talk with the students about the language they'll soon be encountering in the book.

These teenagers don't have any cultural background or knowledge about the "N" word apart from how its used in modern "black" culture. I've known people here in China who only know the word from listening to rappers refer to each other that way and so think it is a perfectly innocent word.

For me, I've never been in a community where that word was used. I've never been around people who would use that word. I'm not of the community that that word is an attack against. I was raised to believe in ideals to which that word represents the antithesis and I needed to make clear to the students that I would come down on them like a hammer for using it outside of direct quotes. I'd rather they threw F--- around all day long than mention that one word once in my hearing, and I explained to them what it meant.

I still find the continued relevance of that word offensive on the deepest levels* - not because it is an attack on me but because it is an attack on the ideals I still believe we are all capable of. It represents the embracing of our lowest and worst qualities as a species - a profound failure of spirit and mind.

I certainly understand you feel that way but why censor? "Come down on them like a hammer"...why not just censor but censor so sharply and severely? Especially in a culture where that word doesn't have the same meaning. Why push your distaste with a word onto other people who have no context with it? Why not just explain the context of the word and allow them to come to their own conclusion even if that opinion is counter to yours? Words don't have magical power. The "F Word" is only a curse word because you lend it that sort of way. Same with the "N" word. The distaste you have for it is entirely within you. It's not going to kick a puppy if you speak it allowed. This isn't to say I don't have a problem with the word, I don't use it. Not because I think the word is some sort of attack...because that's just nonsense...but because other people think it's rude and we live in a society and being in society means you have to follow some rules of decorum. If someone else wants to use it I'm not going to angrily tell them not to say it, I probably won't say anything at all. Because words don't hurt. Actions do. All someone using a word like "N" do is display the sort of person is. Doesn't effect me in any way. Nor does any slur that actually applies to me of which there are numerous.

[blunk]

the movie offended them with strong language or graphic violence or the depiction of a same-sex couple. What's going on in that particular sort of mind that I'm not grasping?I think you're taking the word "offend" more broadly than you should. To quote dictionary.com: "1. to irritate, annoy, or anger; cause resentful displeasure in; 2. to affect (the sense, taste, etc.) disagreeably"

That doesn't require a "how dare this thing exist" mindset, so if somebody is "offended" by something, they may have found it simply personally disagreeable.

If you're wondering how people can generalize personal disagreeableness to the extent of believing the thing should be eradicated, that's a separate question that really has nothing to do with the word "offend".

[SuperPanda]

I certainly understand you feel that way but why censor? "Come down on them like a hammer"...why not just censor but censor so sharply and severely? Especially in a culture where that word doesn't have the same meaning. Why push your distaste with a word onto other people who have no context with it? Why not just explain the context of the word and allow them to come to their own conclusion even if that opinion is counter to yours? Words don't have magical power. The "F Word" is only a curse word because you lend it that sort of way. Same with the "N" word. The distaste you have for it is entirely within you. It's not going to kick a puppy if you speak it allowed. This isn't to say I don't have a problem with the word, I don't use it. Not because I think the word is some sort of attack...because that's just nonsense...but because other people think it's rude and we live in a society and being in society means you have to follow some rules of decorum. If someone else wants to use it I'm not going to angrily tell them not to say it, I probably won't say anything at all. Because words don't hurt. Actions do. All someone using a word like "N" do is display the sort of person is. Doesn't effect me in any way. Nor does any slur that actually applies to me of which there are numerous.

I honestly don't know how I'd respond if students do begin to casually use the word in class. The main point of my threat (which I failed to make clear that was what it was) is the ensure that if they do choose to use that word - they do so on purpose.

Its a word which has only two meaningful contexts today. One is expressing shared membership in a group that has been hated and the other is to express hatred of that other group. To the best of my knowledge neither context applies to the students I am teaching (they don't have enough contact with the group in question to hate them with the strength that this word represents and they also aren't members of that group).

Also, I'm trying to prepare them to attend university in the states at which point their choice to use that word could have very real effects on those around them. I want it to be a conscious this when/if they choose to use it. If they choose to embrace it because they agree with what it means I will be very sad (not offended). If they choose to ebrace it because of continued ignorance I would consider myself as having failed to prepare them.

Looking back on how I phrased it I recognize I failed to express this clearly, and this is doubly ironic because in the book I'm teaching, the character I'm trying to be more like excuses rude language because children will be children and are just looking for attention. I simply wanted to make sure that they knew what they were saying it before they started using it around someone who might know what it was. I'll reflect on this though and think about approaching it differently next time.


Lastly, as a Literature teacher I would have to say I completely disagree with the idea that "words don't hurt" or that a word as an attack is nonsense.

A number of absolutely awful "acts" in history were pushed forward and motivated by the "words" of others. An incredible amount of "inhumane" deeds have been done because people mentally classified other people as sub-human. The words did their work before the acts did in many of those cases, making acts that would never have been acceptable normally easier and easier to follow through on.

Is the act of using hurtful/hateful language worse than the act of following through on it? Of course not. Does the use of hurtful/hateful language cause emotional duress to people in real danger of hurtful/hateful actions? Of course it does.

Are there enough examples in history to suggest that hurtful/hateful actions and words are strongly linked? Yes. Causation? The evidence suggests its not as simple as words causing action or words correlated to actions. There is an influence of the words on the action and the action on the words.

If the world had no more hurtful/hateful acts then I'd be inclined to agree that the damage words can do is too limited to mater. As it stands now the ability to do real damage with words by motivating action in others, provoking reasonable fear for ones safety, causing understandable emotional duress, and I'm sure others.

This is not to say that "no one should ever say anything bad ever again." That's wishful thinking that doesn't allow for human nature. As long as humans exist we will use words to hurt in one way or another. One of the paradoxes in this specific case is that people keep trying to find polite ways to talk about "those people" without stopping to realize that there isn't one. The very concept of "those people" is antagonistic once you understand human behavior. I no longer believe I will live to see the day when we stop identify groups of "us" and "them" because of superficial categories - the evidence that we have so far is that this is simply part of how the human brain works.

Still. Like it or not, agree with it or not: If my students would like to finish their school here and attend university in the states talking like and sounding like people filled with extreme hatred for others - they will do so because they chose that and not because they think it makes them "cool." I'll be sad, but I'll have given them the choice and the knowledge to understand what it means.

[Kitten Champion]

I've been offended by graphic violent and sexual content when it's not being used for any artistic purpose, simply to make up for its own failings as a work of fiction. "Offended" is relative here, and I'm unlikely to engage in any form of censorship outside of providing the world with more ****ing asterisks.

There's an existing rating system which - while far from perfect - does directly tell you about violent and sexual content going in. I wouldn't see a film that genuinely disturbed my sensibilities because that's... like, $12-13.50 I'd be wasting just to have conniptions watching, say, Jesus being tortured for over an hour or whatever happens in A Serbian Film. The gratuitous violence/sexuality is the stuff that's generally highlighted beforehand and is actually a selling point, and most of us have agency over what we choose to watch or not.

Now, there are works where "What did you expect, it's Violence Jack? You have fingers, eye, and access to Google!" isn't quite a substantive argument, like the increasingly rape-tastic nature of Sword of Truth books... but that's few and far between.

[Razade]

I honestly don't know how I'd respond if students do begin to casually use the word in class. The main point of my threat (which I failed to make clear that was what it was) is the ensure that if they do choose to use that word - they do so on purpose.

Its a word which has only two meaningful contexts today. One is expressing shared membership in a group that has been hated and the other is to express hatred of that other group. To the best of my knowledge neither context applies to the students I am teaching (they don't have enough contact with the group in question to hate them with the strength that this word represents and they also aren't members of that group).

Right but context can change. Language is mutable and saying "this is what this word means so don't use it" is in effect stifling the evolution of a word. Words change and context changes.


Also, I'm trying to prepare them to attend university in the states at which point their choice to use that word could have very real effects on those around them. I want it to be a conscious this when/if they choose to use it. If they choose to embrace it because they agree with what it means I will be very sad (not offended). If they choose to ebrace it because of continued ignorance I would consider myself as having failed to prepare them.

Right? I did say that it was important to teach them the historical context of the word, yes? However you didn't fail them, you don't need my permission to feel otherwise and I won't condescend to you by saying "you're free to feel that way", but if they wish to use it in a negative context its their fault. They failed themselves, no one made them use the words but them. It's not your responsibility to make sure they use the information you give them in a way you personally feel as moral or forthright.


Looking back on how I phrased it I recognize I failed to express this clearly, and this is doubly ironic because in the book I'm teaching, the character I'm trying to be more like excuses rude language because children will be children and are just looking for attention. I simply wanted to make sure that they knew what they were saying it before they started using it around someone who might know what it was. I'll reflect on this though and think about approaching it differently next time.

I understand and I appreciate you taking the time to explain yourself. However.



Lastly, as a Literature teacher I would have to say I completely disagree with the idea that "words don't hurt" or that a word as an attack is nonsense.

I didn't say this. I said words don't have magical power. That's to say calling someone a racial slur does not diminish the person its being used upon merely by utterance. Words aren't spells and they can't manifest physical harm in the real world. Can they hurt your feelings? Sure. Can someone's words make you feel like you're worthless? Absolutely. I've been and know many others who have suffered verbal abuse. Perhaps its callous to say "its you who let the words effect you" but that's simply the truth. It's harder to shrug off harsh words from people you care about sure but at the end of the day offense isn't given it's taken and hurt feelings are the same.


A number of absolutely awful "acts" in history were pushed forward and motivated by the "words" of others. An incredible amount of "inhumane" deeds have been done because people mentally classified other people as sub-human. The words did their work before the acts did in many of those cases, making acts that would never have been acceptable normally easier and easier to follow through on.

Except there you go pairing words with actions. It's not the words it's the things the people did to back up those words. If a man stands in the city square shouting the sky is purple it doesn't make the sky purple regardless of how strongly he believed it. If he had three hundred other people who believed it was purple and then, under this belief, managed to erect a massive skybox of purple it's still not the words and the belief that made it so it's the 301 people and the money and manpower they had that did it. You and a thousand other people can believe you're Napoleon. You can dress as Napoleon, learn Corsican and French and have everyone call you Napoleon. Still doesn't make you the Emperor. Nice skirting around Godwin's Law though.


Is the act of using hurtful/hateful language worse than the act of following through on it? Of course not. Does the use of hurtful/hateful language cause emotional duress to people in real danger of hurtful/hateful actions? Of course it does.

See above. There is no mandate that says someone can or should block people from saying things because they might cause you to feel a little bad. Or even a whole lot bad. So long as the words and beliefs don't lead to harmful action or the infringement of anyone else's right to say or do as they please under the same criteria then it's all kosher. Otherwise it's censorship.


Are there enough examples in history to suggest that hurtful/hateful actions and words are strongly linked? Yes. Causation? The evidence suggests its not as simple as words causing action or words correlated to actions. There is an influence of the words on the action and the action on the words.

Another skirting around Godwin's Law I suppose. You're ignoring that people in a culture tend towards following the cultural norm for fear of being ostracized or the target of violence themselves. Once again it's not the words that's the push towards harmful actions it's the fear of violence or in many cases actual violence. If you think green people are terrible but you live in a community of primarily green people you're not going to be doing much harm to the green people by telling them how you feel. Not to them at least, your standing in their culture will probably take a hit and they won't want you around for being a virulent racist.



If the world had no more hurtful/hateful acts then I'd be inclined to agree that the damage words can do is too limited to mater. As it stands now the ability to do real damage with words by motivating action in others, provoking reasonable fear for ones safety, causing understandable emotional duress, and I'm sure others.

I hate to keep repeating this but it's not the words that is the primary or even tertiary factor in the motivation to commit atrocities (generally, can't account for 100% of people in such a broad discussion) but factors such as Mob Theory that is the main drive along with culture and cultural history. If you're raised on a culture that finds green people to be detestable and the green people are the minority it's not your Grandfather saying "Greenies spread disease so avoid them" that's motivating you to feel that, it's just a booster. It further cements the overall culture you're brought up in to start with added in on top of not wanting to be cast out of your society for harboring sympathies for a minority the culture has determined to be "The Other". Simply saying "Words cause action!" is terribly reductive and misses so many much larger factors in the growth, spread and the acceptance of marginalization of counter-cultures and minorities.


This is not to say that "no one should ever say anything bad ever again." That's wishful thinking that doesn't allow for human nature. As long as humans exist we will use words to hurt in one way or another. One of the paradoxes in this specific case is that people keep trying to find polite ways to talk about "those people" without stopping to realize that there isn't one. The very concept of "those people" is antagonistic once you understand human behavior. I no longer believe I will live to see the day when we stop identify groups of "us" and "them" because of superficial categories - the evidence that we have so far is that this is simply part of how the human brain works.

You probably won't because that's not how evolution and biology wire us.


Still. Like it or not, agree with it or not: If my students would like to finish their school here and attend university in the states talking like and sounding like people filled with extreme hatred for others - they will do so because they chose that and not because they think it makes them "cool." I'll be sad, but I'll have given them the choice and the knowledge to understand what it means.

Can't stop you from doing what you want to do, think I've made a (hopefully) strong argument that I shouldn't even have the ability to do so if I wanted.

[SuperPanda]

I've kept my long form in spoiler tag so as not to derail the thread any longer than I already have.

The short version is: I am pretty sure at this point that we actually mostly agree on all points differing only in degrees here and there. The one point of difference would be on censorship where I personally agree with you in general but also allow that certain limited contexts provide exceptions (so again, differing only in degrees). I'm also sure that this was my fault for phrasing my original statements too strongly.


Right but context can change. Language is mutable and saying "this is what this word means so don't use it" is in effect stifling the evolution of a word. Words change and context changes.


Right? I did say that it was important to teach them the historical context of the word, yes? However you didn't fail them, you don't need my permission to feel otherwise and I won't condescend to you by saying "you're free to feel that way", but if they wish to use it in a negative context its their fault. They failed themselves, no one made them use the words but them. It's not your responsibility to make sure they use the information you give them in a way you personally feel as moral or forthright.

I see I wasn't clear here. I meant that if they went to the states after my classes without knowing what the word means today and its historical uses and got in trouble because of it: then I would say that I failed them.

If they understand the current uses and meaning of the word and wish to use it anyway I would be less than pleased with that outcome - but I agree that it is not within my control even if I wanted it to be. I will be disappointed that I did not have a more positive impact, but I will feel that I have fulfilled my responsibility (empower them to make informed choices).




I understand and I appreciate you taking the time to explain yourself. However.

I didn't say this. I said words don't have magical power. That's to say calling someone a racial slur does not diminish the person its being used upon merely by utterance. Words aren't spells and they can't manifest physical harm in the real world. Can they hurt your feelings? Sure. Can someone's words make you feel like you're worthless? Absolutely. I've been and know many others who have suffered verbal abuse. Perhaps its callous to say "its you who let the words effect you" but that's simply the truth. It's harder to shrug off harsh words from people you care about sure but at the end of the day offense isn't given it's taken and hurt feelings are the same.


Except there you go pairing words with actions. It's not the words it's the things the people did to back up those words. If a man stands in the city square shouting the sky is purple it doesn't make the sky purple regardless of how strongly he believed it. If he had three hundred other people who believed it was purple and then, under this belief, managed to erect a massive skybox of purple it's still not the words and the belief that made it so it's the 301 people and the money and manpower they had that did it. You and a thousand other people can believe you're Napoleon. You can dress as Napoleon, learn Corsican and French and have everyone call you Napoleon. Still doesn't make you the Emperor. Nice skirting around Godwin's Law though.

See above. There is no mandate that says someone can or should block people from saying things because they might cause you to feel a little bad. Or even a whole lot bad. So long as the words and beliefs don't lead to harmful action or the infringement of anyone else's right to say or do as they please under the same criteria then it's all kosher. Otherwise it's censorship.

Another skirting around Godwin's Law I suppose. You're ignoring that people in a culture tend towards following the cultural norm for fear of being ostracized or the target of violence themselves. Once again it's not the words that's the push towards harmful actions it's the fear of violence or in many cases actual violence. If you think green people are terrible but you live in a community of primarily green people you're not going to be doing much harm to the green people by telling them how you feel. Not to them at least, your standing in their culture will probably take a hit and they won't want you around for being a virulent racist.

I hate to keep repeating this but it's not the words that is the primary or even tertiary factor in the motivation to commit atrocities (generally, can't account for 100% of people in such a broad discussion) but factors such as Mob Theory that is the main drive along with culture and cultural history. If you're raised on a culture that finds green people to be detestable and the green people are the minority it's not your Grandfather saying "Greenies spread disease so avoid them" that's motivating you to feel that, it's just a booster. It further cements the overall culture you're brought up in to start with added in on top of not wanting to be cast out of your society for harboring sympathies for a minority the culture has determined to be "The Other". Simply saying "Words cause action!" is terribly reductive and misses so many much larger factors in the growth, spread and the acceptance of marginalization of counter-cultures and minorities.

I think we actually agree with each other here and are just approaching it from opposite sides. We agree that words contain the power to do harm and have an impact (however small) on harmful actions. We agree that words are used to communicate and reinforce the societal norms, even if that is only a "booster" it is still a contributing factor. We both also agree that words are not the root cause of these problems or even the most important part of these problems.

Specific to a classroom that examines what power words do have, I'm inclined to focus on that side and also to exercise a certain amount of censorship within the classroom. I'll be the first to acknowledge that this is not the best way to solve the world's problems or even to (as I'm hoping the reading will do) encourage and develop their sense of empathy. We're reading the book for those things - focusing on the power words have to help and to challenge and re-shape societal norms.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood/misrepresented your thoughts on these things before. As I see things right now we are (and started out) looking at the same things from opposites sides. Words are not a major factor vs words still are a factor/ regardless of how small. And with different ideologies: the factor words play is so small that censoring free expression is worse / a small number of specific words and contexts have a strong enough history and or meaning to warrant some introspection before they are used, as an authority figure in this part of the world I have a small number of tools to encourage that an no real control so I'll use the tools the students are familiar with (ie. threats) and see what happens.

For my part I've acknowledged that my ideological approach is one I'll be revisiting because I largely agree with you that the damage of limiting free expression is larger than the damage of misplaced words.



You probably won't because that's not how evolution and biology wire us.

Yeah, I know. I was attempting to express the idealism I had somehow caught from Star Trek: The Next Generation, re-runs of Quantum Leap, and other feel good shows that seemed to encourage the best in humanity. I know enough about the brain to know that we aren't likely to ever abandon superficial definitions of greenie / not greenie or such despite there being no biological evidence for such categorization.

I try to cling to that idealism because, in striving to make the impossible happen we might just find something better than we thought possible at the end.


Can't stop you from doing what you want to do, think I've made a (hopefully) strong argument that I shouldn't even have the ability to do so if I wanted.

Yeah, you have and I do respect your opinion and insight. They have encouraged me to revisit how I've done things and improve myself going forward. I've enjoyed having a respectful and intelligent conversation on the topic and I mostly strove to make myself clear. Hope you have a wonderful day (though neither would nor could stop you if you don't want to :smalltongue:)

[T-Mick]

The brunt of the rest of your post boils down to the bolded so I condescend. The fact of the matter is that you can be a passive observer especially when Culture(tm) stands against you. Taking your "sex before marriage" thing, complaining the culture depicted in media doesn't comport with your more conservative and narrow (in the culture's eye) view of things loudly makes you look less like a brave vocal foil and more like, at best, old fashioned and somewhat the butt of a joke.

While I can see how you would understand my post in that way, I think you are inserting ideas that are not mine into it. When I warn against passive observation, I very specifically mean of media, entertainment and such, not of culture at large. I thought that, given its context in my post, which is primarily concerned with the ways in which stories affect socialization, this would be fairly clear.

EDIT: I want to clarify further. By active viewing I mean that action by which we come to realize, say, how the events of "The Crucible" correspond to the McCarthy hearings. Passive observation reveals a story about puritans, accusations of witchcraft, and love affairs. Only active reading allows useful and applicable thoughts to be extracted. Passive is being entertained, worthwhile in itself, but active is valuable to the individual and to society. To Culture(tm), if you will.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, there's stuff I find unpleasant, uninteresting, or even irritating, so I don't watch it, and will leave if I find myself in the middle of watching it unexpectedly. Does that count as "offended?"

Excessive violence. I actually tend to like action films, adventure films, and war films, but there is a line I draw somewhere beyond which the violence depicted makes me sick to my stomach. Entrails, brains blown out, popped eyeballs, whatever -- I like the excitement and thrill of the danger, not an endless exploration of innards.

Torture. Can't stand it, again tends to make me physically ill AND I find it disturbing. I guess I've seen too many people I care about in great pain from illnesses and injuries to want to watch deliberate infliction of the same.

Excessively graphic sex. No, I'm not a puritan, and I enjoy amatory activity as much as the next person. But I also enjoy eating pizza, but that doesn't necessarily mean I want to watch a closeup of the interior of someone's mouth chewing a slice of pizza, right?

Animal cruelty. Just ... no.

Excessively blatant didactic and/or moralizing content. This I tend to find more irritating and tedious than anything; it doesn't matter the exact perspective, either. Hitting me over the head with an obnoxiously transparent "lesson" of something I agree with 100% is just as tiresome as the same with a viewpoint I disagree with.

Do I have an urge to censor any of this? With the exception of animal cruelty, no. I just don't watch what I don't enjoy. For example, I suspect that Deadpool is past my violence threshold, so I'm not going to watch it, probably ever. But I'm still glad that other people enjoy it; more power to 'em.

Not sure if that sheds any light on the question of offense from the limited perspective of Thinky Dog. But there are my two copper pieces.

[cobaltstarfire]

I didn't say this. I said words don't have magical power. That's to say calling someone a racial slur does not diminish the person its being used upon merely by utterance. Words aren't spells and they can't manifest physical harm in the real world. Can they hurt your feelings? Sure. Can someone's words make you feel like you're worthless? Absolutely. I've been and know many others who have suffered verbal abuse. Perhaps its callous to say "its you who let the words effect you" but that's simply the truth. It's harder to shrug off harsh words from people you care about sure but at the end of the day offense isn't given it's taken and hurt feelings are the same.


Saying "its you who let the words effect you" and making it the fault of the person who has been hurt by words kind of ignores that humans are not sensible things. It's the fault of the person using those words, just as much as a black eye is the fault of someone punching you in the face, not you for getting punched. We can't just decide that words can't/won't hurt you, that you will ignore them. Well you can try, but for many people they're still going to hurt and can leaves scars. The pain people can suffer emotionally can still be interpreted by the brain as physical pain and persist just as much as physical pain, and no amount of rationalizing it can make it magically go away.

[obryn]

Saying "its you who let the words effect you" and making it the fault of the person who has been hurt by words kind of ignores that humans are not sensible things. It's the fault of the person using those words, just as much as a black eye is the fault of someone punching you in the face, not you for getting punched. We can't just decide that words can't/won't hurt you, that you will ignore them. Well you can try, but for many people they're still going to hurt and can leaves scars. The pain people can suffer emotionally can still be interpreted by the brain as physical pain and persist just as much as physical pain, and no amount of rationalizing it can make it magically go away.
Yeah. Speech is action. Nobody thinks words are magic - but words can (and do) change the world. Language is powerful. It can have consequences.

It may be trivially true that - say - racist language isn't actually doing anything physcial in the world other than vibrating the air and then the eardrums of its listeners. But that's a short-sighted, narrow view that ignores how language changes thought - both of the speaker and the listeners.

[Clertar]

Yeah. Speech is action. Nobody thinks words are magic - but words can (and do) change the world. Language is powerful. It can have consequences.

It may be trivially true that - say - racist language isn't actually doing anything physcial in the world other than vibrating the air and then the eardrums of its listeners. But that's a short-sighted, narrow view that ignores how language changes thought - both of the speaker and the listeners.

Very true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj7wkh6nONE

[Razade]

While I can see how you would understand my post in that way, I think you are inserting ideas that are not mine into it. When I warn against passive observation, I very specifically mean of media, entertainment and such, not of culture at large. I thought that, given its context in my post, which is primarily concerned with the ways in which stories affect socialization, this would be fairly clear.

EDIT: I want to clarify further. By active viewing I mean that action by which we come to realize, say, how the events of "The Crucible" correspond to the McCarthy hearings. Passive observation reveals a story about puritans, accusations of witchcraft, and love affairs. Only active reading allows useful and applicable thoughts to be extracted. Passive is being entertained, worthwhile in itself, but active is valuable to the individual and to society. To Culture(tm), if you will.

Except media exists within Culture. You can't decouple media and entertainment from the culture that produces it. If a media exposes something as popular or "correct" then it's indicative of the prevailing culture. If a media expresses something counter to that its, hold on to your seat, counter-culture. I'm not inserting ideas into your rhetoric, I'm telling you your rhetoric is reductive and lacks a broader understanding of the context which explains why you're "offended" by media. The culture has shifted


Saying "its you who let the words effect you" and making it the fault of the person who has been hurt by words kind of ignores that humans are not sensible things. It's the fault of the person using those words, just as much as a black eye is the fault of someone punching you in the face, not you for getting punched. We can't just decide that words can't/won't hurt you, that you will ignore them. Well you can try, but for many people they're still going to hurt and can leaves scars. The pain people can suffer emotionally can still be interpreted by the brain as physical pain and persist just as much as physical pain, and no amount of rationalizing it can make it magically go away.

Except I said that too. Couple of times actually. Not sure exactly what you're saying against me here because we agree.


Yeah. Speech is action. Nobody thinks words are magic - but words can (and do) change the world. Language is powerful. It can have consequences.

It may be trivially true that - say - racist language isn't actually doing anything physcial in the world other than vibrating the air and then the eardrums of its listeners. But that's a short-sighted, narrow view that ignores how language changes thought - both of the speaker and the listeners.

Which isn't my position. There's broader social issues going on that account for "language changes thought" which I already went into. Radicalization or even just general pervasive racism is more than just hearing someone use racial slurs all the time and if you want to argue that it's just the language used it's not me being short sighted. Words can lead to action if there's some ability to enact that action. Even if that is just the ability to purchase a weapon and shoot up a school. But it's not the words that gunned an innocent person down. It's the person with the gun.

[cobaltstarfire]

Perhaps its callous to say "its you who let the words effect you" but that's simply the truth.


I'm pointing out that this is not the truth, and that the people who let words effect them are not at fault for it.

[Kalmageddon]

There are some things I do not want to see. That includes animal cruelty.
If I see a movie with explicit animal cruelty in it, I won't be pleased. I don't know if the term "offended" would apply, because I know the movie is probably not encouraging animal cruelty, but I might feel like it's not giving the subject a proper treatment and regardless of that, I might feel uncomfortable about it.
I guess rational people can feel the same way about a variety of things. They have a personal dislike towards something, or are particularly sensitive about it, and they don't like it when it's part of a media they are enjoying.
That helps?

[thorgrim29]

I'm pointing out that this is not the truth, and that the people who let words effect them are not at fault for it.

You're not responsible for your initial reaction, but everything you do after that of course you are. There's a reason people say offense is always taken and never given.

[TheThan]

People (except for the moral guardian variant, who're all dumbasses) usually get offended by media for lacking a proper thickness of skin. It's usually a genetic and chronic ailment and extremely widespread. Sometimes age cures it but usually it's terminal. Anyone who goes around looking for "slaps in the face" will find them on every corner. Very rarely, there will be an actual and real justification, as in the animal torture "artist" mentioned above. But in general, almost every case of media offense is just someone being a thin skinned, lily livered, tree hugging pansy OR a dumbass moral guardian.

Also "media" offense is absolutely and completely different from "real" offense, which is aimed at real world and real things in it. Those are a different matter entirely and anyone who attempts to conflate these two things is a total ****ing idiot.

I agree here. Some people… no quite a few people live to be offended. They look for opportunity to shout loudly that they have been offended. It’s irritating and irrational. Much of the time these people use this speech to attack those things they find offensive. Whether that’s a difference of opinion on something inconsequential or some greater moral, social or political issue; they strive to censure those that think or believe differently than them. People just can’t stand the very notion that someone might have a different viewpoint; one that’s perfectly viable and reasonable if heard out. They seek to destroy that which is different to their personal belief system.


As to language being powerful. I totally agree as well. It’s a powerful tool one should wield with care. It’s at once a destructive weapon and a means of creating peace.

[Lethologica]

You're not responsible for your initial reaction, but everything you do after that of course you are. There's a reason people say offense is always taken and never given.
Yeah, and the reason is that it's convenient to dismiss offense as purely the burden of the offended, not that it's actually true.

[J-H]

I think that "being offended" is often a defensive reaction associated with insecurity. In some cases it's personal insecurity; in some cases, it's conscience (an addict defending his/her habit knows he/she is wrong, doesn't want to admit it); in some cases, it's a learned behavior (certain college campuses). People who are certain in their hearts that they are right about something are less likely to be offended; I think the calmness of older age typically reduces the "public outcry" part of being offended as well. As I've aged and had a kid (#2 on the way!), my priorities have shifted.

Some offended groups get more favorable press, while others get ignored... that's probably part of it also.

There's a lot of stuff I can certainly find offensive in society. I just write it off as "not worth bothering about" because I have other things to do, because other people being wrong doesn't bother me much, and because I can't fix it. My religious views line up with 25-50% of the American population...and yet the last mainstream TV character I can recall that even came close to what I believe was the joke named Ned Flanders (I haven't watched the Simpsons in at least a decade). Nobody in Hollyweird seems to even comprehend the religious views that something like half of Americans at least claim to hold. I can either be offended and waste my time bloviating about it, or I can do what I've done - I haven't had a TV for a dozen years, I don't watch TV, and I only go to a couple of movies a year.

[obryn]

Some people… no quite a few people live to be offended. They look for opportunity to shout loudly that they have been offended.
What's your evidence that this is the case, as opposed to a derogatory narrative you're placing upon them?

[T-Mick]

Except media exists within Culture. You can't decouple media and entertainment from the culture that produces it. If a media exposes something as popular or "correct" then it's indicative of the prevailing culture. If a media expresses something counter to that its, hold on to your seat, counter-culture. I'm not inserting ideas into your rhetoric, I'm telling you your rhetoric is reductive and lacks a broader understanding of the context which explains why you're "offended" by media. The culture has shifted.

I'd never contend that media can be divorced from culture. If it were, everything I said in the last two posts would be completely invalidated.* I do understand why it is that my sensibilities are offended. You are certainly right in saying that culture has shifted from my ideals. Where I disagree is in your thinking my understanding narrow, and my rhetoric reductive. If my rhetoric is reductive, then remember that it matches yours, at least with regards to the culture of offensiveness.

As for narrow thinking, I agree that I participate in that. But I am not closed-minded. The whole point of the exercise of active participation in media is open-mindedness, which serves both me and society as a whole. Narrow thinking is different. If my thinking is narrow, then it's like a road is narrow. If Route 66 were as wide, open, and free and the countryside it travels, then it would no more be a road than a supermarket parking lot. Even the parking lot has limits: lines, spaces, arrows, guides. There is no good thinking in an absolutely free environment. If I continue to question the foundations of my own person, my senses, my ability to think, the existence of anything outside of me, and otherwise radical skepticism, then the foundation on which I think is lost. Not even reason is safe from that.

But when I begin to narrow my thought, it is not being narrowed like a stream of snuffed light shining through a prison door, but focused like a laser. It need not be focused in one direction only: that would be the prevailing, and too true, idea of narrow-mindedness, which, as I said, is part of what I think results in those visceral reactions of being offended. In consideration of media, I want to know what is good for me, as a person, and what is good for society, as a whole. That's the focal point. Some people are not prepared to take in Fight Club. I don't need to tell you that the point of the movie is not to begin analogous clubs.

Now where culture, in the sense of people in general, enters into all this, is when previous experience and as rational authority as is available and consumed leads to the recognition of certain trends in that culture towards things that I know are wrong. Are unhealthy. Put yourself in my position. We all have cherished beliefs that fit. But what can we do? Obviously, we can't outright censor everything that disagrees with us. We can't really prevent others from consuming those things either. But we can talk about our ideas peaceably, and, while we indulge in our enjoyment of whatever media is at hand, we can be sure that we, at least, do not mindlessly absorb what it offers. A critical eye, if you will. My rhetoric is not concerned with who or why people are offended. I'm concerned with bringing it to an end. In my view, it requires some degree of self-control. SuperPanda mentions a co-worker who not only resembles, but even seems to identify with, Holden Caulfield. There is much good to be culled from The Catcher in the Rye. Imitation of the narrator isn't among that though.

I've written quite a bit more than I intended to. Razade, this is primarily directed towards your replies: I really think that we're in the same camp, as hard as that is to see via posts on a Role playing, webcomic-centered internet forum. I'd be more than happy to clarify things more, if you still would like.

If this doesn't make sense to you, the way I see it is that stories/art/what-have-you are such an important part of culture that we have to be very careful about what we include. Culture/Counter-Culture doesn't enter into my consideration. If you prefer a more mainline cultural example, a television program depicting the glorious and noble attempts of the Ku Klux Klan to silence the political participation of the newly-liberated, and thoroughly degenerate (for these reasons, outlined by the heroes and presented in a positive and rational light), black population would offend an extraordinary large portion of the population. I think, presented with such a form of entertainment, you and I both would share that feeling of sadness (How could we get to this point?), though the elimination of the thing would be far easier when the majority consensus is against it.

[TheThan]

What's your evidence that this is the case, as opposed to a derogatory narrative you're placing upon them?

Really?
A courtesy glance around the internet should suffice. Just pick a topic really; you’ll find people taking offense to all sorts of things; some serious, some less than so. Many of these people are doing so just to make their voices hear and causing a scene (well as much as someone can cause a scene on the internet).

Sure there are people that have a legitimate complaint; but most of the biggest noise makers are doing it just to make noise.

[cobaltstarfire]

You're not responsible for your initial reaction, but everything you do after that of course you are. There's a reason people say offense is always taken and never given.

I'm not really sure how that relates to someone being hurt in a lasting way by words.(not even talking about offense at this point, I don't usually think of offensive behavior as being hurtful since it's usually born out of a mix of ignorance rather than any true desire to do harm).


People being offended on the other hand, well I dunno everyone is different in how they feel offended and what by. And I don't think it's wrong to be offended, to express it, or to even debate over whether it really should be considered offensive. Dialogue is good, even when between people who disagree with one another.

Though to me there's a matter of magnitude. Some people take it too far sure, that's true in everything.


It's not easy for me personally to find fiction to be offensive. Or at the very least I can't think of any easily at the moment that has offended me a whole lot. Most "offensive" ideas in media are there because there needs to be a bad guy, or because the piece of media wants the viewers to think critically about something.

That said I'm someone who has had to learn to practice mindfulness, so for me if I'm offended by something I like to ask myself why and if I find that I shouldn't feel offended I gradually learn not to have the strong knee jerk response to it anymore. Similarly, I think it would be interesting to talk with people about why they are offended by something, and find out together whether it's reasonable to feel that offense.

[Razade]

I'm pointing out that this is not the truth, and that the people who let words effect them are not at fault for it.

I didn't attribute fault. It's both parties faults. It is the truth that you let the words effect you, it's at the end your decision. It may just not be one you can control. But it's a decision to get over it. Or take medication if you can't. That's a method of getting over it too. I'm not abolishing blame for the person saying it, I'm saying it's not all their fault.


You're not responsible for your initial reaction, but everything you do after that of course you are. There's a reason people say offense is always taken and never given.

Yeah, this.


I'd never contend that media can be divorced from culture. If it were, everything I said in the last two posts would be completely invalidated.* I do understand why it is that my sensibilities are offended. You are certainly right in saying that culture has shifted from my ideals. Where I disagree is in your thinking my understanding narrow, and my rhetoric reductive. If my rhetoric is reductive, then remember that it matches yours, at least with regards to the culture of offensiveness.

"We're both equally reductive!" Except we're not. My world view allows for both your beliefs and the common culture to live in perfect harmony regardless of the clash because that's how culture evolves. I don't get offended by media, I honestly can't think of the last time I was offended by something anyone said to me even outside of media. I'm arguing that you should do the same. Why get offended when you see a depiction of sex before marriage in movies for example? You're not having sex before marriage, characters are. It's because it doesn't comport with your moral structure regardless of whether you want to remove the media or not. You still feel -sadness- over them being in movies what ever the hell that means.


As for narrow thinking, I agree that I participate in that. But I am not closed-minded. The whole point of the exercise of active participation in media is open-mindedness, which serves both me and society as a whole. Narrow thinking is different. If my thinking is narrow, then it's like a road is narrow. If Route 66 were as wide, open, and free and the countryside it travels, then it would no more be a road than a supermarket parking lot. Even the parking lot has limits: lines, spaces, arrows, guides. There is no good thinking in an absolutely free environment. If I continue to question the foundations of my own person, my senses, my ability to think, the existence of anything outside of me, and otherwise radical skepticism, then the foundation on which I think is lost. Not even reason is safe from that.

No....just no....Free Thought and being broad minded doesn't mean not to question things. Not liking something isn't a rejection of something. I don't reject coffee just because I don't like the taste. Preferences aren't rejections. Saying "I don't want this to be in media because it offends me!" is however a rejection. It's censorship which I think I've made a fairly strong argument through out this thread -against-. I'm anti-censorship. That doesn't mean I share or agree with every view that's floated my way. I freely and vehemently fight for everyone getting to do what they want to do and see what they want to see so long as they're not trying to stop others from doing the same. That doesn't mean I'm practicing "Radical Skepticism" though I admit I spit coke out my nose reading that line. Question everything, even the notion of questioning everything. That's the basis to a rational mind. That which comports with reality is true.


But when I begin to narrow my thought, it is not being narrowed like a stream of snuffed light shining through a prison door, but focused like a laser. It need not be focused in one direction only: that would be the prevailing, and too true, idea of narrow-mindedness, which, as I said, is part of what I think results in those visceral reactions of being offended. In consideration of media, I want to know what is good for me, as a person, and what is good for society, as a whole. That's the focal point. Some people are not prepared to take in Fight Club. I don't need to tell you that the point of the movie is not to begin analogous clubs.

My goodness but aren't you fond of purple prose.


I've written quite a bit more than I intended to. Razade, this is primarily directed towards your replies: I really think that we're in the same camp, as hard as that is to see via posts on a Role playing, webcomic-centered internet forum. I'd be more than happy to clarify things more, if you still would like.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain but I can say pretty much with certainty we're not really in the same camp. Our camps have the same approach sure but it seems to me your camp is "It's a shame this is the way it is but there's nothing I can do to change it." and mine is "There's nothing wrong here and it shouldn't be changed." We both aren't working to effect change on the situation but something tells me if you had the chance and the ability to you'd very much do so. You can correct this assumption however but if you wouldn't change it the follow up question would be "then why is it a shame it is the way it is". If you don't want to change it even if you could...it just seems weird to me that you think there's a problem.

[HardcoreD&Dgirl]

let me get this straight... I am a white woman, who was born and raised in the south... when I see someone (true story) teach there dog to play dead when asked "Would you rather be a dead dog or a live (N WORD)" that if I take offense at that it is MY FAULT?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?

How about this one... if (another true story)me and my best friend (a guy) walk into a game and the DM is making rape jokes, and my friend knows it bugs me since my mother was... if he tells the guy to knock it off, it isn't really anything because neither of us should "Take offense"

[obryn]

Really?
A courtesy glance around the internet should suffice. Just pick a topic really; you’ll find people taking offense to all sorts of things; some serious, some less than so. Many of these people are doing so just to make their voices hear and causing a scene (well as much as someone can cause a scene on the internet).

Sure there are people that have a legitimate complaint; but most of the biggest noise makers are doing it just to make noise.
I understand that's your assertion. I don't know where you're divining their motivations from.

e: I mean it's basically an ad hominem to easily dismiss someone else's potentially legitimate concerns. "Oh don't mind him, he just loves being outraged."

[Dienekes]

let me get this straight... I am a white woman, who was born and raised in the south... when I see someone (true story) teach there dog to play dead when asked "Would you rather be a dead dog or a live (N WORD)" that if I take offense at that it is MY FAULT?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?

How about this one... if (another true story)me and my best friend (a guy) walk into a game and the DM is making rape jokes, and my friend knows it bugs me since my mother was... if he tells the guy to knock it off, it isn't really anything because neither of us should "Take offense"

Eh, taking offense is always your own fault, unless you can't keep your emotions in check. Which is personally something I strive for, but I know others seem to value them, for some reason that honestly I cannot comprehend.

That doesn't mean that your offense is not justifiable. Bigotry is generally seen as a rather reasonable reason to be offended by something. But that is still your emotion, it's on you for being offended, just as it is on that racist for being a racist.

[Razade]

let me get this straight... I am a white woman, who was born and raised in the south... when I see someone (true story) teach there dog to play dead when asked "Would you rather be a dead dog or a live (N WORD)" that if I take offense at that it is MY FAULT?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?

Well I'm not someone to tell you you can't be offended. But you're not getting offended against your will are you? The fault is on both sides. The woman used a word. The word makes you upset and offends you. It takes two to tango.


How about this one... if (another true story)me and my best friend (a guy) walk into a game and the DM is making rape jokes, and my friend knows it bugs me since my mother was... if he tells the guy to knock it off, it isn't really anything because neither of us should "Take offense"

No, you can take offense. The person telling the joke just doesn't have to care you're offended and doesn't have to not tell the jokes because you don't like them.

[obryn]

Well I'm not someone to tell you you can't be offended. But you're not getting offended against your will are you? The fault is on both sides. The woman used a word. The word makes you upset and offends you. It takes two to tango.

It takes two to get punched in the face - the puncher and the punchee. The fault is on both sides. Whether or not it hurts and how you react to it is up to you. It takes two to tango.

It takes two to be mugged...

[Dienekes]

It takes two to get punched in the face - the puncher and the punchee. The fault is on both sides. Whether or not it hurts and how you react to it is up to you. It takes two to tango.

It takes two to be mugged...

Meh, one is the direct target of an action they have no control over (in theory, some times people really are asking to be punched in the face), while the other is their own response to an action, their response they do have control over.*

A more accurate version is "it takes two to punch someone back for getting punched in the face - the one who threw the initial punch, and then the other who punched the guy who just punched them. The fault is on both sides."

Which, is actually how schools in my state deal with fights.

*With some exceptions, generally caused by various mental strains and disorders that are very real problems.

[Razade]

It takes two to get punched in the face - the puncher and the punchee. The fault is on both sides. Whether or not it hurts and how you react to it is up to you. It takes two to tango.

Well yes...the punchee could then punch the person back. Maybe the punchee was punched before he or she was doing something to get punched. Why do you assume that the punchee is guiltless? Because it fits your narrative if the punchee is just sitting there minding their own business and some random person just walks up and punches them in the face. Come on. Even if that was the case, the reaction is on the punchee. Right?


It takes two to be mugged...

Sure does! Having been car-jacked I was absolutely involved and I have some of the blame for my car being taken at gun point. How I reacted was I started shouting bloody murder, spooked the guy and he drove off with my car but I didn't get shot. I'm still at fault for the car getting jacked, I let it happen. Just as I'd have been at fault for struggling with the dude and getting shot and maybe killed.

Actions and words don't exist in some vacuum. Actions and words have consequences, no one here is denying them. Everyone involved in an action has some culpability for the reaction.

[cobaltstarfire]

Emotional pain is the sort of thing that often lingers, it might fade away, it might not, not everyone can decide that they won't feel that pain anymore, and that isn't their fault. They can decide not to let it seep into the outside world yes, or not, at which point yeah, I suppose it starts to become a persons "fault"

Really I think the problem with the conversation is with the word "fault" it carries negative baggage. Most people can't just decide to ignore things, or they may ignore things, but it comes up so persistently as to eventually make them pop.

The person telling rape jokes should care, because rape isn't and shouldn't be treated like it's funny. Treating it like a joke is easily seen as condoning rape. But I also think it's not the best example to work with for this discussion because of how strongly charged of a thing it is.

Which comes full circle to why people get offended, because something is happening and possibly being condoned that they feel is morally reprehensible.


The real problem I think is whether the person is as Razade said, justifiably offended or not. That's why I think it's good to stop and think about why one may feels offended by something, and if one finds that it's a good reason, it's good to speak up and explain what the problem is. Not to be obnoxious, but to speak up about it. The offending person can decide to not care, and they can also deal with whatever social repercussions comes from it if it happens to be something that on careful consideration really isn't cool or funny.

[Lethologica]

I didn't attribute fault. It's both parties faults. It is the truth that you let the words effect you, it's at the end your decision. It may just not be one you can control. But it's a decision to get over it. Or take medication if you can't. That's a method of getting over it too. I'm not abolishing blame for the person saying it, I'm saying it's not all their fault.

Yeah, this.
Generally, when you agree with the statement "offense is always taken, never given," that's understood as attributing fault. Here's a thought: what if, when you consider the blame that attaches to the person whose behavior was offensive, you call that the offense that was given? That's what the rest of us do.

[Razade]

Generally, when you agree with the statement "offense is always taken, never given," that's understood as attributing fault. Here's a thought: what if, when you consider the blame that attaches to the person whose behavior was offensive, you call that the offense that was given? That's what the rest of us do.

Well hey, I followed it up with "the fault is on both people". Here's a thought, the offense is "given" when it was intended to be offensive but if it wasn't it was taken. And even if it was intended to be offensive maybe the person -taking- offense should realize that and not put any weight on it because it's obvious the person is trying to be rude. How about people have accountability for their feelings? How about we don't pamper people just because they feel a little sad because a TV show showed a gay couple? How about we don't censor art or music because there's a portion of the species that just can't handle a world that doesn't comport with their delicate sensibilities?


Emotional pain is the sort of thing that often lingers, it might fade away, it might not, not everyone can decide that they won't feel that pain anymore, and that isn't their fault. They can decide not to let it seep into the outside world yes, or not, at which point yeah, I suppose it starts to become a persons "fault"

Well I did say that internalzing what people say isn't always a conscious choice even if it is a decision to take things said to heart. Plenty of reasons you're accountable for it, you just may not have any control over said accountability.


Really I think the problem with the conversation is with the word "fault" it carries negative baggage. Most people can't just decide to ignore things, or they may ignore things, but it comes up so persistently as to eventually make them pop.

Would you prefer accountability?


The person telling rape jokes should care, because rape isn't and shouldn't be treated like it's funny. Treating it like a joke is easily seen as condoning rape. But I also think it's not the best example to work with for this discussion because of how strongly charged of a thing it is.

No. You don't think rape is funny and shouldn't be treated as a joke. I for one don't think it's anyone's position to tell anyone what is and isn't funny because it's not their business. Humor is a way to deal with serious and dark and nasty issues. That's why we have Black Humor. Telling someone "that's not funny, you should feel bad and shouldn't tell that joke" is censorship. If you're pro-censorship well...we're done because there's nothing more to discuss. You think people should be told what to say based on how you personally feel and there's nothing I can say or do to dissuade you of that.


Which comes full circle to why people get offended, because something is happening and possibly being condoned that they feel is morally reprehensible.

As is their right. Just as it's my right to tell them I don't care that they're offended.


The real problem I think is whether the person is as Razade said, justifiably offended or not. That's why I think it's good to stop and think about why one may feels offended by something, and if one finds that it's a good reason, it's good to speak up and explain what the problem is. Not to be obnoxious, but to speak up about it. The offending person can decide to not care, and they can also deal with whatever social repercussions comes from it if it happens to be something that on careful consideration really isn't cool or funny.

Even if they are justified in being offended or not, that doesn't mean I have to care. I personally do care because I don't want to be rude but the point remains that that's a personal feeling and not a motivation for everyone.

[Lethologica]

Well hey, I followed it up with "the fault is on both people".
I know you like to say that. But the rest of your commentary consistently puts the onus entirely on the offended person to suck it up, regardless of justification. When you live up to putting the fault on both people, I'll believe you when you say it. (Also, the fault isn't necessarily with both people in all or even most cases--sometimes it's with one or the other or neither.)


Here's a thought, the offense is "given" when it was intended to be offensive but if it wasn't it was taken.
Blame and intent are not coextensive. Nor is blame a zero-sum game between offender and offended.


And even if it was intended to be offensive maybe the person -taking- offense should realize that and not put any weight on it because it's obvious the person is trying to be rude.
See above re: onus placement.


How about people have accountability for their feelings? How about we don't pamper people just because they feel a little sad because a TV show showed a gay couple? How about we don't censor art or music because there's a portion of the species that just can't handle a world that doesn't comport with their delicate sensibilities?
How about we don't assume people who assign non-zero weight to the act of giving offense automatically want to eliminate all sources of possible offense? Thanks.

[Dienekes]

Emotional pain is the sort of thing that often lingers, it might fade away, it might not, not everyone can decide that they won't feel that pain anymore, and that isn't their fault. They can decide not to let it seep into the outside world yes, or not, at which point yeah, I suppose it starts to become a persons "fault"

Really I think the problem with the conversation is with the word "fault" it carries negative baggage. Most people can't just decide to ignore things, or they may ignore things, but it comes up so persistently as to eventually make them pop.

This I think is interesting, since I view fault as rather similar to responsibility. And I firmly believe ultimately each of us are responsible for ourselves. That's why we're people, we have and take responsibility, and fault, for ourselves. Though I disagree with negative connotation for the word, I guess the language of the conversation could be changed.


The person telling rape jokes should care, because rape isn't and shouldn't be treated like it's funny. Treating it like a joke is easily seen as condoning rape. But I also think it's not the best example to work with for this discussion because of how strongly charged of a thing it is.

This however, I disagree with. I also firmly believe that nothing, absolutely nothing, should be held as too sacred, too important, or too whatever that it can not or should not be made fun of. Gotta know your audience though, of course.



The real problem I think is whether the person is as Razade said, justifiably offended or not. That's why I think it's good to stop and think about why one may feels offended by something, and if one finds that it's a good reason, it's good to speak up and explain what the problem is. Not to be obnoxious, but to speak up about it. The offending person can decide to not care, and they can also deal with whatever social repercussions comes from it if it happens to be something that on careful consideration really isn't cool or funny.

Agreed, being offended can actually be helpful if it is used as motivation to help something or create a discourse. But just saying "I'm offended" and demanding that something stop to cater to your specific world view is in itself probably more harmful than not. Though that might be the demand aspect rather than the part of actually being offended.

[cobaltstarfire]

No. You don't think rape is funny and shouldn't be treated as a joke. I for one don't think it's anyone's position to tell anyone what is and isn't funny because it's not their business. Humor is a way to deal with serious and dark and nasty issues. That's why we have Black Humor. Telling someone "that's not funny, you should feel bad and shouldn't tell that joke" is censorship. If you're pro-censorship well...we're done because there's nothing more to discuss. You think people should be told what to say based on how you personally feel and there's nothing I can say or do to dissuade you of that.




Yeah there's a difference between someone with dark humor, and the kinds of jokes rape jokes are. And no they don't have to care, as I said they should because of the social ramifications, but they don't have to.

And no, I'm not pro-censorship, don't put words into my mouth, if you're interested in not being rude as you say then exercise some tact next time you respond to people.

[Razade]

I know you like to say that. But the rest of your commentary consistently puts the onus entirely on the offended person to suck it up, regardless of justification. When you live up to putting the fault on both people, I'll believe you when you say it. (Also, the fault isn't necessarily with both people in all or even most cases--sometimes it's with one or the other or neither.)

Except I do put blame on both people and I've said it lays on both. Again, I believe in accountability. I went to court and put the dude who stole my car in jail for a really long time. Wouldn't have done that if I didn't think he was at fault. Not that I honestly care if you believe me or not.


Blame and intent are not coextensive. Nor is blame a zero-sum game between offender and offended.

Except they are because actions don't exist in a vacuum nor am I arguing that blame is an all or nothing thing. Blame lies on both sides which I think I've been saying this entire time. It doesn't weigh equal either in every case. It's not like there's a scale of accountability that gets weighed and measured at the end of every transaction.


See above re: onus placement.

Onus is on both. People shouldn't say rude things to be rude, people shouldn't take rude things said to be rude to heart.


How about we don't assume people who assign non-zero weight to the act of giving offense automatically want to eliminate all sources of possible offense? Thanks.

I would but you assign non-zero weight on the person being offended so unless you've got some other suggestion on how to stop offense givers from giving offense I don't see how you're not for censorship.


Yeah there's a difference between someone with dark humor, and the kinds of jokes rape jokes are. And no they don't have to care, as I said they should because of the social ramifications, but they don't have to.

And no, I'm not pro-censorship, don't put words into my mouth, if you're interested in not being rude as you say then exercise some tact next time you respond to people.

No you assign the difference. The difference is a difference to you. Others may share your feelings on that difference but that doesn't make it so. I also didn't say you were Pro-Censorship. I said "If" you're pro-censorship because I don't know if you are. I was asking if you are. I was asking since you believe that there are "lines" that shouldn't be crossed what your thoughts were on making sure they're not.

[Lethologica]

I would but you assign non-zero weight on the person being offended so unless you've got some other suggestion on how to stop offense givers from giving offense I don't see how you're not for censorship.
If all I have to do is be better than you on this issue? Well, it's said that the cure to speech is more speech, and if a legitimately offended party chooses to express that offense in ways that cast the offender in a bad light, I think that's their prerogative, just as much as it was the offender's prerogative to commit the offense in the first place. You seem to think such a reaction is abandoning accountability, though.

[Razade]

If all I have to do is be better than you on this issue? Well, it's said that the cure to speech is more speech, and if a legitimately offended party chooses to express that offense in ways that cast the offender in a bad light, I think that's their prerogative, just as much as it was the offender's prerogative to commit the offense in the first place. You seem to think such a reaction is abandoning accountability, though.

No I don't. Reacting isn't abandoning your accountability it is your accountability. How you react is how you're accountable in this transaction. If you punch someone in the face for saying a word, you're accountable for that. When I got my car stolen, I was accountable for it getting stolen because I didn't stop the guy when I could have. I'd have been shot and killed which I'd have been accountable for that too. It's not like it's this A or B thing, accountability isn't just one monolith. Life is a branching series of paths and every action has a reaction. No one is free from that unless they die and well...doesn't really matter because they're dead.

[HardcoreD&Dgirl]

No I don't. Reacting isn't abandoning your accountability it is your accountability. How you react is how you're accountable in this transaction. If you punch someone in the face for saying a word, you're accountable for that. When I got my car stolen, I was accountable for it getting stolen because I didn't stop the guy when I could have. I'd have been shot and killed which I'd have been accountable for that too. It's not like it's this A or B thing, accountability isn't just one monolith. Life is a branching series of paths and every action has a reaction. No one is free from that unless they die and well...doesn't really matter because they're dead.

this is crazy... it's not your fault you got robed... it's not my fault some jerk made light of a subject that adults should know better then to make light of. It's not my fault the people where I grew up were raceist.

It is my responsibility (and everyone's) to call out people when they do things we find inappropriate...

You have the right to swing your fist... it ends where my nose begins... If you hit me in the nose YOU AND ONLY YOU are in the wrong...

You have the right to say what you want, if it is hateful and objectionable then you need to be careful who you say it around...

[Razade]

this is crazy... it's not your fault you got robed... it's not my fault some jerk made light of a subject that adults should know better then to make light of. It's not my fault the people where I grew up were raceist.

It's not crazy. I was living in an area with high crime and I should have been more careful, I didn't have to live there either I just did it because it was cheap. I didn't have to let the guy take the car, I could have stopped him. If you live in an area that's not racist and you're not racist move somewhere that isn't racist. If you can't then just don't associate with the people who are racist.


It is my responsibility (and everyone's) to call out people when they do things we find inappropriate...

I understand you feel that it is. Anticipate people telling you to mind your own business though. It's not my responsibility to tell people they're doing something inappropriate when I feel they are. I don't agree with your directive.


You have the right to swing your fist... it ends where my nose begins... If you hit me in the nose YOU AND ONLY YOU are in the wrong...

Yep except words aren't physical violence. So long as the words don't lead to physical violence people are free to say what they want to say. You know, shouting fire in a crowded movie theater isn't protected speech but saying your nose is big is.


You have the right to say what you want, if it is hateful and objectionable then you need to be careful who you say it around...

Certainly, still can say it though. That goes back to accountability. If you say the N word in Harlem...well that's on you.

[Lethologica]

To phrase my previous comment slightly differently--I don't have to make speech illegal to think it shouldn't be said. I'm perfectly willing to come down on people like a hammer for things that I think they should be allowed to say.


No I don't. Reacting isn't abandoning your accountability it is your accountability. How you react is how you're accountable in this transaction. If you punch someone in the face for saying a word, you're accountable for that. When I got my car stolen, I was accountable for it getting stolen because I didn't stop the guy when I could have. I'd have been shot and killed which I'd have been accountable for that too. It's not like it's this A or B thing, accountability isn't just one monolith. Life is a branching series of paths and every action has a reaction. No one is free from that unless they die and well...doesn't really matter because they're dead.
Okay, well, find me the part where you came to the conclusion that you're arguing with people who don't believe the offended party is accountable for, say, punching the offender, or stealing their car, or whatever. Which is very different from believing the offended party often isn't the one to blame for being hurt by the offense.

[huttj509]

It's not crazy. I was living in an area with high crime and I should have been more careful, I didn't have to live there either I just did it because it was cheap. I didn't have to let the guy take the car, I could have stopped him. If you live in an area that's not racist and you're not racist move somewhere that isn't racist. If you can't then just don't associate with the people who are racist.

Up and moving your life to another venue is not particularly feasible for a lot of people.

[Dienekes]

this is crazy... it's not your fault you got robed... it's not my fault some jerk made light of a subject that adults should know better then to make light of. It's not my fault the people where I grew up were raceist.

Agreed.


It is my responsibility (and everyone's) to call out people when they do things we find inappropriate...

Disagreed.


You have the right to swing your fist... it ends where my nose begins... If you hit me in the nose YOU AND ONLY YOU are in the wrong...

Agreed.


You have the right to say what you want, if it is hateful and objectionable then you need to be careful who you say it around...

Disagreed.

But really, it's what we consider our responsibility. No one is under any moral, contractual, or legal reason to call out things they find offensive. You can, it's entirely your choice to do so, and if what you find offensive happens to correlate with what I find offensive, kudos to you, I'm rooting for ya. But it is no more your responsibility than it is mine to care for every sick animal I come across. It'd be nice if someone did, but something nice and something that is your responsibility are two different things.

I also don't think you need to be careful who you say things around. It'd be nice if people knew their audience and it'd be nice if people guarded their speech in front of those it might offend, but that brings all sorts of inner contradictions. There are people who are offended by homosexuality, should we not talk about homosexual rights to them, because it offends them? No, of course not, that's ridiculous because some people benefit from those points being made. The only way that certain points can be made is if we talk about them, and discourse, and joke, and do whatever. And through that culmination of interactions societal changes, both good and bad, are made. Now it would be nice if people didn't say things others think are offensive in certain situations, but no one is under any moral obligation to be nice. It is not needed, it is not a necessity, it's just something that is nice, on occasion.

[Razade]

To phrase my previous comment slightly differently--I don't have to make speech illegal to think it shouldn't be said. I'm perfectly willing to come down on people like a hammer for things that I think they should be allowed to say.

And then they're allowed to come down on you like a hammer for coming after them for saying something they don't like. And then you go after them again and it just becomes a viscous circle with no end. Because you felt you had a right to tell them what to say and how to say it.



Okay, well, find me the part where you came to the conclusion that you're arguing with people who don't believe the offended party is accountable for, say, punching the offender, or stealing their car, or whatever. Which is very different from believing the offended party often isn't the one to blame for being hurt by the offense.

K.


this is crazy... it's not your fault you got robed... it's not my fault some jerk made light of a subject that adults should know better then to make light of. It's not my fault the people where I grew up were raceist.

Anything else you need big guy?


Up and moving your life to another venue is not particularly feasible for a lot of people.

Completely understand and grant that. Sometimes life sucks and you're not going to be living in a place that makes you happy nor do you have the power or action to effect change.

[Lethologica]

I also don't think you need to be careful who you say things around. It'd be nice if people knew their audience and it'd be nice if people guarded their speech in front of those it might offend, but that brings all sorts of inner contradictions. There are people who are offended by homosexuality, should we not talk about homosexual rights to them, because it offends them? No, of course not, that's ridiculous because some points need to be made. The only way that certain points can be made is if we talk about them, and discourse, and joke, and do whatever. And through that culmination of interactions societal changes, both good and bad, are made. Now it would be nice if people didn't say things others think are offensive in certain situations, but no one is under any moral obligation to be nice. It is not needed, it is not a necessity, it's just something that is nice, on occasion.
I don't think you're describing contradictions so much as complications. Yes, often something offensive should be said anyway because overriding concerns prevail, but in saying so you're actually reinforcing the point that if those concerns aren't in the picture, the offensiveness becomes normatively dispositive (though legally irrelevant).


And then they're allowed to come down on you like a hammer for coming after them for saying something they don't like. And then you go after them again and it just becomes a viscous circle with no end. Because you felt you had a right to tell them what to say and how to say it.
And I do. As much of a right as they had to say whatever they said in the first place. Whether or not I'm in the right, whether or not they're in the right, and how we resolve such a conflict, necessarily comes down to situational judgment--and let me add, you don't get to write that resolution for me just because it'd be convenient for your argument if every such conflict had the worst-case outcome.

[Dienekes]

I don't think you're describing contradictions so much as complications. Yes, often something offensive should be said anyway because overriding concerns prevail, but in saying so you're actually reinforcing the point that if those concerns aren't in the picture, the offensiveness becomes normatively dispositive (though legally irrelevant).

The contradiction was more, as I saw it, with HardcoreD&Dgirl's view that we should not try to offend people, then also confront them about saying things that offend us. I explained this weird, but my thought went right away to homosexual rights, where if someone says something homophobic she has every right to be offended, but by the restrictions of needing to not offend others she should in theory never confront them about their statements.

I explained that weird in the above post (and probably did here as well).

Anyway, my only point is, there is no needs, there are no universal moral responsibilities that can ever be agreed upon. You can do what you think is best, but commanding that others do what you do or are offended by what offends you is ridiculous and when that command is issued that we need to do things their way it's stifling to the growth of each individual to believe as they would and do as they would. So long as physical trauma isn't involved there is no legal response to people. You are free to be the biggest ******* you can possibly be, and no one can stop you. I find that strangely beautiful, myself, even as I find such a person actually living like that absolutely disgusting.

[Razade]

And I do. As much of a right as they had to say whatever they said in the first place. Whether or not I'm in the right, whether or not they're in the right, and how we resolve such a conflict, necessarily comes down to situational judgment--and let me add, you don't get to write that resolution for me just because it'd be convenient for your argument if every such conflict had the worst-case outcome.

I never said it was every such conflict. I know it's easier for you to dismiss a point by assuming that's what I meant but it's not what I meant at all. I was asking, hypothetically, what if it was the worst case outcome, not every outcome always goes to the worst case scenario. I was asking when does it stop for you because I know what it stops for me. It doesn't start for me. When someone says something I personally disagree with I ignore it and have a good laugh later. Or argue over it on a gaming forum because why not, but I'm still laughing on the other side of the monitor all the same.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.