I want to offend you.

[WWWTT]

Mark Twain said it, so it must be Right.

Fact of the matter is that you, as the offender, don't have any right to dictate when others are offended. You do not get a say over another's feelings nor is it for you to pass normative judgments on what they should or should not be offended by. This kind of immature and some would argue abusive behaviour is called gaslighting. In the manner you've expressed in your post it's abusive in the sense that you deny the victim their own emotional or even rational state of being offended by deeming that your offensive (and therefore abusive) statements are not offensive and abusive. It makes them question their own sanity and thereby deflects the questioning of your offensive remarks, making them believe it is something wrong with them, rather than you as the abuser.

The ironic thing is that the ones dictating what others should or should not be offended by would not like being told what it is they should not be offended by!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I do get to define whether or not I'm being offensive.

If I'm not, and someone is offended anyway, that's their problem. Not that I mind.

You are saying that you get to define what the rules are.

This is false!

WWWTT

[Argus]

Because adults don't have feelings? We've already made the distinction between being offended and acting on that. There's appropriate and inappropriate ways of handling it. Just as there's appropriate and inappropriate ways to conduct yourself when you're being offensive.

By 'adults' I meant "grow the hell up", okay?

Don't get so easily offended by anything which challenges your (Not you but the general your) mindset or thinking or politics or moral or social beliefs. Accept that people have different ones and don't act like an old lady who just found out young people are kissing outside of marriage.

[Argus]

The irony here is that people seem to be protesting being unjustly called something but they`re doing the same thing to me.

You brought up Muslims. Muslims are not a race. Yet, as you acknowledge, you have described people's statements about Muslims as 'racism'. Further, the people who dislike "Muslims" in general, don't dislike them because of any implied racial or genetic predispositions or characteristics but because of observations made on their (in general) social beliefs and behaviour. That is simply not racism unless you decide that the word means what you want it to mean and not what the dictionary says it means.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Argus

[Guest]

You are saying that you get to define what the rules are.

This is false!

WWWTT

No it's not.

I get to decide if I'm being offensive or not. If someone tells me I am, and in a rare case, I agree that I have been, albeit inadvertantly, (because I can't remember ever having been deliberately offensive) offensive, then I would apologise.

But in most cases, it would just be someone taking offense at a fact or a reasonable opinion because they either don't believe it or they believe it but don't think it should be stated. In which case, tough. It would be ridiculous of me to censor myself for the sake of someone else's fragile outlook on life.

For instance, there are those on this site who might be offended by my signature. If one of them asked, should I remove it and apologise, or leave it there because I believe it to be true?

Edited January 19, 2013 by bcsapper

[Guest]

The ironic thing is that the ones dictating what others should or should not be offended by would not like being told what it is they should not be offended by!

WWWTT

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't want to dictate to others what they should or should not be offended by. In fact, I think I've said so a few times in this thread.

Case in point:

It's not that they don't have a right to be offended. They should just go ahead and be offended.

[Michael Hardner]

You brought up Muslims. Muslims are not a race. Yet, as you acknowledge, you have described people's statements about Muslims as 'racism'. Further, the people who dislike "Muslims" in general, don't dislike them because of any implied racial or genetic predispositions or characteristics but because of observations made on their (in general) social beliefs and behaviour.

I concur that prejudice against Muslims doesn't constitute racism. But it's really the same thing to commit prejudice against races and religions. I can make a case against races based on statistics too, how is it different ?

Somehow people feel that this is a slight against them if you point out that it's basically the same mistake and if you imply that their beliefs mirror racism... well I have seen them "go off".

In other words they get offended.

[Michael Hardner]

I get to decide if I'm being offensive or not.

No - it's a function of whether you are offending or not. As such, it's a societal norm.

[Guest]

No - it's a function of whether you are offending or not. As such, it's a societal norm.

Okay, I get to decide if I'm offending or not.

[Michael Hardner]

Okay, I get to decide if I'm offending or not.

Offense is a reaction to your communication. One "takes offence" as a reaction to your communication. If many people take offense to you, you are offensive.

[Guest]

Offense is a reaction to your communication. One "takes offence" as a reaction to your communication. If many people take offense to you, you are offensive.

So if a lot of people decide something is so, that makes it so?

[Michael Hardner]

So if a lot of people decide something is so, that makes it so?

In this case it does. You can get into a philosophical discussion along the lines of 'what is beauty ?' if you like, but the adjective offensive describes somebody who has given offense so there's not other way to read that in my mind.

[betsy]

But doesn't common sense enter into this at all?

You could have a lot of people - like a mob - deciding something is okay, therefore that becomes the norm? You get a collective mindset like the ones during the French Revolution who thinks it's their right to take from and kill the rich...so what we get is mob rules?

Now we get a collective mindset dicating what is offensive or not....what is bullying or not....etc..,

Jokes - as an example - are not what they used to be...although I see no problem for Letterman to make fun of individuals! Certain individuals.

Edited January 19, 2013 by betsy

[Guest]

In this case it does. You can get into a philosophical discussion along the lines of 'what is beauty ?' if you like, but the adjective offensive describes somebody who has given offense so there's not other way to read that in my mind.

What if i'm in a room with 300 people, and 25 find what I say offensive, while the other 275 say, "no, no' he's absolutely right"?

What about my signature? Do you find it offensive? Am I being offensive because some might?

What about my views on abortion and gay rights? Offensive to some religious people, or just offensive.

I understand the dictionary defenition of offensive but if you stick to that in this argument the word loses all meaning, because somebody, somewhere, is going to be offended. So it's like special. If everyone is special, then no-one is.

The Pakistani politician who died because he wanted blasphemy laws changed such that someone would not be executed on the word of another. Offensive? He sure was to some, but it's not what I'd want to see on his gravestone.

Edited January 19, 2013 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

What if i'm in a room with 300 people, and 25 find what I say offensive, while the other 275 say, "no, no' he's absolutely right"?

What about my signature? Do you find it offensive? Am I being offensive because some might?

What about my views on abortion and gay rights? Offensive to some religious people, or just offensive.

I understand the dictionary defenition of offensive but if you stick to that in this argument the word loses all meaning, because somebody, somewhere, is going to be offended. So it's like special. If everyone is special, then no-one is.

The Pakistani politician who died because he wanted blasphemy laws changed such that someone would not be executed on the word on another. Offensive? He sure was to some, but it's not what I'd want to see on his gravestone.

I guess you can chalk it up to the imprecision of language then. Not my fault. What does "fat" mean ?

Think of Potter Stewart - from wikipedia:

"Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it.""

[Argus]

I concur that prejudice against Muslims doesn't constitute racism. But it's really the same thing to commit prejudice against races and religions. I can make a case against races based on statistics too, how is it different ?

No, it's not the same. Racism is based on an innate belief that a certain type of person is inferior due to genetics. Black people are not and never can be as smart as white people because of their genetics. Racism would say they are thus less than human, or perhaps a lessor breed of humans.

I'll agree that prejudice can be related, but using it as a synonym is simply sloppy. You can be prejudiced (pre judging) any group based on anything. I've seen people prejudiced against men, women, whites, blacks, natives, muslims, indians, Irish, English, French, priests, lawyers, newspaper reporters, etc. etc. etc.) But in essence this means that you are 'pre judging' an individual based upon your view of the whole. You pre-judge a lawyer because you think lawyers are crooks, say. That would make you prejudiced against lawyers.

But pre-judging doesn't necessarily apply when speaking of the group as a whole. As Dennis Miller once said of the Muslim world. "I'm not pre-judging them, I'm judging them." And I think when you make an assessment of a nation (Iran say) or a large group (Muslims) based upon a quantity of information you can't be said to be doing anything but judging them, regardless of whether your judgement is good or not. I think I fall into that category on the Muslim world. I'm a news junkie, and have been for decades. I've seen any number of stories, some by westerners some by Muslims, some short and shallow reports, some long, detailed personal testimonies of life in many parts of the Muslim world. I think that my judgement of the Muslim world is formed upon that basis, and not affected by any innate sense that Muslims, as a group, are physically, intellectually or genetically inferior.

Now if I decided not to rent a room to a Muslim, or not to hire one, simply because I knew they were a Muslim, without accepting that they are individuals, then that would be prejudiced.

Somehow people feel that this is a slight against them if you point out that it's basically the same mistake and if you imply that their beliefs mirror racism... well I have seen them "go off".

In other words they get offended.

Are you saying you are intentionally offensive towards people? If so, why? Because you are offended by their opinions?

[Argus]

In this case it does. You can get into a philosophical discussion along the lines of 'what is beauty ?' if you like, but the adjective offensive describes somebody who has given offense so there's not other way to read that in my mind.

The problem is the massive differential between what different people believe constitutes 'offensive'. It's not offensive to many to say gay people should never be allowed to marry. It IS offensive to many others. Who's right? There is no universal except for outright deliberately offensive personal statements. "You're ugly" can't be seen as anything but an offensive statement. "All women are whores" would certainly be universally offensive, at least to women, and I would assume most men (who have mothers, sisters, daughters). Someone walking down a hallway, making loud noises and shoving people out of the way would be universally seen as offensive. A beautiful woman showing a lot of cleavage would only be offensive to some (mostly some women).

[Michael Hardner]

No, it's not the same. Racism is based on an innate belief that a certain type of person is inferior due to genetics. Black people are not and never can be as smart as white people because of their genetics. Racism would say they are thus less than human, or perhaps a lessor breed of humans.

No - you suggested that I wasn't using the proper definition and now I suggest the same thing:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racism

It doesn't necessarily mean genetics are involved. You can be racist and believe cultural factors are to blame.

But pre-judging doesn't necessarily apply when speaking of the group as a whole. As Dennis Miller once said of the Muslim world. "I'm not pre-judging them, I'm judging them."

But you're judging individuals based on a group, without a clear correlation as to what group factors cause the judgeable factors to occur. Again, you can make the very same assessment of African Americans based on a narrow selection of facts.

I think that my judgement of the Muslim world is formed upon that basis, and not affected by any innate sense that Muslims, as a group, are physically, intellectually or genetically inferior.

The physical inferiority is a red herring. You're judging a group based on unknown factors and making decisions about individuals or related groups based on that. It's wrong, as in "incorrect".

Now if I decided not to rent a room to a Muslim, or not to hire one, simply because I knew they were a Muslim, without accepting that they are individuals, then that would be prejudiced.

Right.

Are you saying you are intentionally offensive towards people? If so, why? Because you are offended by their opinions?

I'm not offended by racism. That's why I'm able to talk about why it's factually incorrect, rather than taking a moral stand against it.

I'm not intentionally offensive towards people, but - we're back to the group definition here. As an analogy - would people deem it offensive if I called Klan members 'racist' or would I be calling a spade a spade ?

Honestly, I'm shocked (not offended) at the stupidity of people who recoil when I point out that their arguments are incorrect, and point out how the arguments as they make them could apply to African Americans. "But I'm NOT talking about African Americans - that would be racist" they cry, offended.

[Michael Hardner]

The problem is the massive differential between what different people believe constitutes 'offensive'. It's not offensive to many to say gay people should never be allowed to marry. It IS offensive to many others. Who's right?

You can only make an assessment based on accepted norms in whatever group you're talking about. There is no universal, but there are rules in certain contexts. We have coded rules here that make it easier.

[Argus]

No - you suggested that I wasn't using the proper definition and now I suggest the same thing:

http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/racism

It doesn't necessarily mean genetics are involved. You can be racist and believe cultural factors are to blame.

You are misreading your own cite. It requires that you believe they are inferior BECAUSE of their race.

But you're judging individuals based on a group,

No, you're simply judging the group. None of the discussions on this site have involved pre-judging individuals because they're Muslims but rather, judging Muslims as a group.

You're judging a group based on unknown factors and making decisions about individuals or related groups based on that. It's wrong, as in "incorrect".

It's only your opinion it's wrong. And I'm judging a group based on factors I know. You don't need to. The point is I"m judging them, not pre-judging them, and on no factor related to race, skin colour or genetics.

I'm not offended by racism. That's why I'm able to talk about why it's factually incorrect, rather than taking a moral stand against it.

Your behaviour here belies both sentences above. You do take a moral stand on it.

I'm not intentionally offensive towards people, but - we're back to the group definition here. As an analogy - would people deem it offensive if I called Klan members 'racist' or would I be calling a spade a spade ?

Klan members by definition are racist. You don't join them if you're not.

Honestly, I'm shocked (not offended) at the stupidity of people who recoil when I point out that their arguments are incorrect, and point out how the arguments as they make them could apply to African Americans. "But I'm NOT talking about African Americans - that would be racist" they cry, offended.

Who? Not me. I have no difficulty applying group judgements on any group, including African Americans. And my judgement of African Americans will have nothing to do with their skin pigmentation.

[Michael Hardner]

You are misreading your own cite. It requires that you believe they are inferior BECAUSE of their race.

Because of their race, ie. because they belong to a certain group.

No, you're simply judging the group. None of the discussions on this site have involved pre-judging individuals because they're Muslims but rather, judging Muslims as a group.

Setting policies based on negative group generalizations and applying them to individuals - yes that is prejudice.

It's only your opinion it's wrong. And I'm judging a group based on factors I know. You don't need to. The point is I"m judging them, not pre-judging them, and on no factor related to race, skin colour or genetics.

The implication here is that there's nothing objectively incorrect in generalizing about races or religion, as long as its not done on genetic factors, skin colour or biological factors - is that right ? And you will make your case objectively in such a way that every objective person can determine that you are indeed correct, regardless of their race ? Indeed even thinking people of the race in question will be obliged to agree with your facts, right ?

Your behaviour here belies both sentences above. You do take a moral stand on it.

I may have been sucked into that inadvertently, but more often I detect a sense of morality in those making such arguments and I play the logic back to them. Also the term "wrong" is ambiguous - it means immoral and incorrect both.

Klan members by definition are racist. You don't join them if you're not.

So then I shouldn't be offensive to them if I called them racist. They should thank me.

Who? Not me. I have no difficulty applying group judgements on any group, including African Americans. And my judgement of African Americans will have nothing to do with their skin pigmentation.

So if you feel intellectually justified in casual saying that African Americans have certain negative attributes but not due to biology - and in fact you have 'no difficulty' doing so, do you do so often ? To anyone ?

I'm intrigued. Others here recoil from their arguments and turn tail pretty quickly but you're not like them, I admit. What's the reaction when you drop such comments in mixed company ?

[Argus]

Because of their race, ie. because they belong to a certain group.

The point is that even by your own cite, judging peoples poorly based on an assessment of that group's culture does not constitute racism.

Setting policies based on negative group generalizations and applying them to individuals - yes that is prejudice.

Now here you're correct. There's no way of getting around it. If you apply a policy on a group and that policy affects individuals then that is prejudice. That's something to be avoided where possible. Unfortunately, sometimes it's not. Sometimes you just go with the statistics, as we do in our normal lives. We don't buy certain types of cars or appliances or electronics because we've come to understand they have higher failure rates than others. That doesn't mean every one of them is going to fail, of course. Most won't. But we know, statistically, that the failure rates are higher. In the same way, if we know that immigrants from certain parts of the world do poorly in Canada compared to others, we should avoid bringing in people from those areas.

I concede that would be prejudice against those individuals, however, it would be statistically logical and in Canada's best interests in getting the best immigrants possible. And we don't owe foreigners anything.

The implication here is that there's nothing objectively incorrect in generalizing about races or religion, as long as its not done on genetic factors, skin colour or biological factors - is that right ?

There is no implication. There is a definition of the term 'racism' and it's applicability. There is no 'objective assessment". It is simple fact.

There is no moral judgement attached to this. Even racism would not be immoral if it were based on logic. But it isn't. Therefore, it's based on hate and ignorance.

So then I shouldn't be offensive to them if I called them racist. They should thank me.

Logic does not necessarily apply to when or how people take offense. However, I would not think that anyone who joins the KKK could honestly object to the label. That doesn't mean they wouldn't, of course.

So if you feel intellectually justified in casual saying that African Americans have certain negative attributes but not due to biology - and in fact you have 'no difficulty' doing so, do you do so often ? To anyone ?

Well, it would be rude, depending on circumstances. Many African American leaders have made negative assessments about aspects of their own culture often enough. But they tend to be defensive when outsiders do so. So even while agreeing, they might well take offense if an outsider makes a negative assessment.

I'm intrigued. Others here recoil from their arguments and turn tail pretty quickly but you're not like them, I admit. What's the reaction when you drop such comments in mixed company ?

That depends on the context. Most of my assessments on African Americans would be based purely on statistical evidence and fact, as well as being drawn from statements made from African American leaders themselves. The whole subject is a complex one, depending on which part of 'culture' you're addressing. But I would not shrink from addressing it, or any other culture, including native culture in Canada. I don't understand why people do, other than the predictable accusations of racism.

How do you understand a thing without discussing it? How do you discuss a thing without disagreement of some kind? Must everyone admire every facet of every culture or people or group as if they were all flawless? Is doing otherwise racism?

Edited January 20, 2013 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

The point is that even by your own cite, judging peoples poorly based on an assessment of that group's culture does not constitute racism.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

How so ? Both of these definitions mean that generalizing or discriminating based on race is racism. They don't specify that it's due to the appearance of race, culture of race and any of these generalization are definitely considered racist if they're made in practice. When somebody says such-and-such a race is lazy, nobody asks whether or not the speaker is making an observation on culture or biology - they will assess the comment as racism.

if we know that immigrants from certain parts of the world do poorly in Canada compared to others, we should avoid bringing in people from those areas.

People aren't made by machines, though, so there is a danger in assessing the wrong factors when determining how successful they are. That would be both unfair and impractical to Canada if, say, we assessed what religion or hair colour an immigrant had instead of things like criminal record, education and so on.

And there are practical limits to what is and can be recorded in such assessments.

There is no implication. There is a definition of the term 'racism' and it's applicability. There is no 'objective assessment". It is simple fact.

There is no moral judgement attached to this. Even racism would not be immoral if it were based on logic. But it isn't. Therefore, it's based on hate and ignorance.

Explain to me, then, why racism based on biology is wrong when racism [as I call it] based on cultural practices is not wrong.

Physical differences between races are as sure as cultural differences. Why do you think one is illogical and the other not ?

Logic does not necessarily apply to when or how people take offense. However, I would not think that anyone who joins the KKK could honestly object to the label. That doesn't mean they wouldn't, of course.

I guess that means that I'm not being offensive, then, if I call viewpoints racist when they meet the definition.

Well, it would be rude, depending on circumstances. Many African American leaders have made negative assessments about aspects of their own culture often enough. But they tend to be defensive when outsiders do so. So even while agreeing, they might well take offense if an outsider makes a negative assessment.

That's very strange - in the end it seems you're more politically correct than me in that you silence your true views on race in order to be polite. I guess this is what the OP is talking about.

How do you understand a thing without discussing it? How do you discuss a thing without disagreement of some kind? Must everyone admire every facet of every culture or people or group as if they were all flawless? Is doing otherwise racism?

I thought about this for a long time, then concluded that cultures can be different and can have 'facets' that I don't agree with but that it doesn't make my culture (whatever that is) superior to theirs. Cultures are infinitely faceted so you can't reduce them to a number that communicates utility to Canada.

Discussing it is very important, I agree, and discussing it with people from that culture would probably be best.

[Guest Manny]

The problem is the massive differential between what different people believe constitutes 'offensive'. It's not offensive to many to say gay people should never be allowed to marry. It IS offensive to many others. Who's right? There is no universal except for outright deliberately offensive personal statements. "You're ugly" can't be seen as anything but an offensive statement. "All women are whores" would certainly be universally offensive, at least to women, and I would assume most men (who have mothers, sisters, daughters). Someone walking down a hallway, making loud noises and shoving people out of the way would be universally seen as offensive. A beautiful woman showing a lot of cleavage would only be offensive to some (mostly some women).

It used to be quite clear, and gay bashing openly accepted and condoned, not too long ago. I remember there bei g halloween rituals to go gay bashing, in Toronto. Fags were hated.

Times are changing, and moral attitudes are changing quickly.

But theres still lots of places in Canada were gays are not tolerated, and ethnics. Maybe, 49%.

[eyeball]

Being offensive on purpose certainly is anti-social by definition.

Being offended on purpose can be just as bad if not a lot worse sometimes.