I want to offend you.

[Argus]

For people who use the words "the left" can you tell me what those words mean to you? I like to know for sure before I become offended. lol.

People whose political beliefs and positions are based largely on emotions rather than reason, logic or common sense.

[Michael Hardner]

Clearly.

Well, if you have an example of my misinterpreting that then please go ahead and cite and we can discuss.

If I'm offended by anything it's hypocrisy. As I've said before, the Left's horror at condemnation of 'brown people' is itself blatant, paternalistic bigotry because it arises out of the assumption, even if unspoken, that brown people are incapable of any real standard of behavior, and that, regardless, they certainly can't be held to the same standards as white people - who are civilized, after all.

Well, you`re clearly not talking about me here as I haven`t felt or - I think - expressed `horror` over such views, merely showed why they are mostly wrong.

An unprejudiced person would hold all people and peoples to the same standard, regardless of their skin pigmentation, religion or culture.

Such standards themselves can be culturally significant. One of the issues with expressions of cultural superiority is that the traits tend to be traits owned by onesself or one`s culture. Hence, Germans may prize organization, drive, cleanliness and militarization, French may value cooking, making love, and playing accordion.

Who has the right to set the `standards` of which you speak ? We have societal standards encoded in our constitution, which include tolerance itself.

Beyond that, I read posts from people decrying wearing religious garments for example. Why is that a standard ?

Your assumption that I am offended is, like your understanding of racism, mistaken.

You just said that hypocrisy offends you, so clearly something in these discussions does.

[Argus]

The man who takes offense where none was intended is a fool. The man who takes offense where it was intended is a bigger fool. - Mark Twain.

[cybercoma]

The man who takes offense where none was intended is a fool. The man who takes offense where it was intended is a bigger fool. - Mark Twain.

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.

[Guest]

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

Mark Twain was right.

[cybercoma]

What responsibility do those who are being offensive have?

So there's two distinct things that could occur as far as I can tell.

1) You act offensively, but are unaware of it.

2) You're aware that you're being offensive, but continue to do it anyway.

The first category is not much of a problem. Most people, I believe, upon finding out they're being offensive would apologize and try not to do it in the future. Those who fall into category 2 are quite simply anti-social.

[Guest]

3) You are not being offensive, but some people are offended anyway.

Lots of posters I've read on here fall into that category.

[cybercoma]

3) You are not being offensive, but some people are offended anyway.

Lots of posters I've read on here fall into that category.

Not possible. You don't get to define whether or not another person is offended.

[Guest]

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.

[cybercoma]

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

This doesn't even make sense. Whether or not you're offensive is entirely dependant on the subject being offended.

[Guest]

So if that offends me, are you 1) or 2)?

[cybercoma]

So if that offends me, are you 1) or 2)?

1, but why do you find this offensive?

[Guest]

I don't. That's why I said if.

But if I did, you would apologise and endeavor not to do it in the future? Instead of reacting in the much saner manner and saying tough luck, deal with it.

My offense doesn't decide your intention, just as another's offence doesn't decide mine. And it's my intention that matters.

[Guest]

This is an apt thread. I just found out I might have given offense by asking an innocent question about religious practices.

I have no idea who was offended, and I'm certainly not sorry.

In fact, I'm still curious about the issue.

[Guest Manny]

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.

Gee, sounds a little... insensitive

[Guest]

It is a little insensitive.

[msj]

CC, you may find this article of interest: The Supposed Virtue of Not Being Offended

Here are some quotes from an article that I think is very well written:

I often encounter people who are Not Offended by bigotry or microagressions and are very proud of that fact. In fact, because they’re Not Offended, they think that nobody else should be offended by the thing they’re Not Offended by, either. ...

Sometimes the way people cope is by growing a thicker skin. While that’s not something I’ve ever really been capable of, it’s none of my business how other people cope. It’s also none of my business what other people are and are not offended by.

When it becomes my business, though, it when such people start implying that because they’re not offended, nobody else should be, either. That’s when they lose me. It seems like some people haven’t really learned that 1) everyone is entitled to their feelings, whether those feelings are “rational” and “logical” or not, and 2) your feelings don’t have to be everyone else’s feelings too.

The other issue with this is the sense of superiority that such people often have. Being Not Offended becomes somehow morally better, or a sign of strength or “maturity” or “perspective.” It’s also assumed to be the “healthier” option, because being offended means you’re “holding a grudge” or something equally ridiculous.....

Of course, even if being Not Offended were healthier, that wouldn’t really matter because it’s not a choice. While we can choose whether and how to act upon our feelings, we can rarely choose which ones to have. It’s not really your choice whether to be upset by something or not, and I believe the technical term for considering yourself superior to others because of things they can’t control is Being A Dick....

Ok, I quoted these parts as a teaser but the whole article is worth a read.

Edited January 17, 2013 by msj

[dre]

But you often characterize my arguments as racist, don't you?

I do. You ARE a racist.

[Guest Manny]

It is a little insensitive.

I took a look at your other thread question and I thought it wasn't really a bad question. But I noticed that a lot of other people jumped n there ridiculing the views of the religious, which I thought was kind of out of line.

Do you really expect to get honest answers from religious people in that thread, the way that it stands now?

[Guest Manny]

Ever thought you might be a ... sociopath?

[Guest]

I took a look at your other thread question and I thought it wasn't really a bad question. But I noticed that a lot of other people jumped n there ridiculing the views of the religious, which I thought was kind of out of line.

Do you really expect to get honest answers from religious people in that thread, the way that it stands now?

You were the only one who answered the thread that was deleted. The one where you said "nay". I just wanted to see if the new thread would be deleted too.

Apparently one can ask a question of Roman Catholics that one can't ask of Jews and Muslims.

[Guest]

Ever thought you might be a ... sociopath?

Who me? Hell no, I'm far too nice.

I feel empathy for just about anything.

[Bonam]

I think this thread perhaps more than any other best illustrates the utter alienness and otherness of mindsets between posters from differing sides of the political/ideological spectrum. That one must limit one's own expression to avoid any offense, real or imagined, on behalf of any who might be reading or listening, and that such self-censure is some kind of virtue... I find this idea to be abomination.

And msj... in regards to your linked blog: it is plain wrong. Of course it is one's choice whether to be offended or not. A person should be in control of their emotions, not the other way around, or else they are insane and irrational. Someone who is helplessly adrift on the current of their emotions which can be set flowing by the idle words of another, either in offense or approval, is simply not an emotionally and mentally mature and fit human being.

[Guest]

I think this thread perhaps more than any other best illustrates the utter alienness and otherness of mindsets between posters from differing sides of the political/ideological spectrum. That one must limit one's own expression to avoid any offense, real or imagined, on behalf of any who might be reading or listening, and that such self-censure is some kind of virtue... I find this idea to be abomination.

And msj... in regards to your linked blog: it is plain wrong. Of course it is one's choice whether to be offended or not. A person should be in control of their emotions, not the other way around, or else they are insane and irrational. Someone who is helplessly adrift on the current of their emotions which can be set flowing by the idle words of another, either in offense or approval, is simply not an emotionally and mentally mature and fit human being.

I agree, but I also believe it's also okay to just be offended. The one doing the offending has no obligation to do anything about it.

If those advocationg for further gun control after recent events in the US found they were offending some NRA members by trampling on their second amendment rights, are they supposed to stop and apologise?

Sometimes one just gets to be offended, and have done.

Edited January 17, 2013 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

I think this thread perhaps more than any other best illustrates the utter alienness and otherness of mindsets between posters from differing sides of the political/ideological spectrum. That one must limit one's own expression to avoid any offense, real or imagined, on behalf of any who might be reading or listening, and that such self-censure is some kind of virtue... I find this idea to be abomination.

Uh... maybe I have missed something but we're just talking about being offended. Who is saying that you need to limit one's expression ?

I like these types of discussions but you seem to have drawn a conclusion based on nothing, from what I've seen.