I want to offend you.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

I disagree, as expression can be and is limited here by such a framework (e.g. forum rules), and not just for maintaining a certain decorum. In Canada, it ultimately manifests itself as "hate speech" laws and HRCs.

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree, as expression can be and is limited here by such a framework (e.g. forum rules), and not just for maintaining a certain decorum.

Disagree how ? You think Bonam is correct that this thread shows a division on how people 'should limit' self-expression.

I haven't read that. I suspect he arrived on the thread with his conclusions already in his pocket.

[cybercoma]

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

Your intentions are irrelevant when it comes to another's offence. Do you think sexual harassment, for example, depends on the harasser's intent? "I didn't mean to harass her. She's just taking it the wrong way." That doesn't raelly fly.

Edited January 17, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

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:

[/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/color]

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

Ha! Thanks. That is a good article and really gets to the point I'm trying... and failing.... to make here.

[cybercoma]

I feel empathy for just about anything.

Except people being offended by your remarks?

[cybercoma]

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.

You obviously didn't read the article. People are not in control of their feelings. You don't just turn your feelings on and off. You choose whether or not to act on your feelings. That's a different thing.

And self-censure is a virtue. If you're incapable of not being an offensive prick, then it's not a virtue to embrace the fact that you're an asshole.

[Guest]

Except people being offended by your remarks?

No, but I like puppies.

[cybercoma]

Disagree how ? You think Bonam is correct that this thread shows a division on how people 'should limit' self-expression.

I haven't read that. I suspect he arrived on the thread with his conclusions already in his pocket.

I made the statement that if you offend someone, you should try not to be offensive going forward. I think that's common courtesy. Imagine a society taken to the n^th degree where everyone unabashedly goes around saying and doing things that they know are offensive to others. It would be utter chaos and it really speaks to the mindset of the more Hobbesian, antisocial posters here that believe human nature is a war of all against all. Indeed, some of them believe it is a virtue that we are at war with one another and that losing is just a consequence of the "game".

[Guest]

Your intentions are irrelevant when it comes to another's offence. Do you think sexual harassment, for example, depends on the harasser's intent? "I didn't mean to harass her. She's just taking it the wrong way." That doesn't raelly fly.

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?

If you don't mean to give offense, you don't mean to give offense. It would be up to the individual, based on the individual situation, to decide if another person's interpretation of their comments was valid, and therefore warranting further explanation, or an apology.

Edited January 17, 2013 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

I made the statement that if you offend someone, you should try not to be offensive going forward. I think that's common courtesy.

I think you called it anti-social, which I agree with. If people choose to be anti-social, then so be it. Most won't, but I can't moralize against them that does or those that do.

[cybercoma]

Of course you can moralize against people for being anti-social. In psychology it's a disorder for good reason. It's quite easy to make a value judgment about people being intentionally anti-social.

[Guest]

Being offensive for the sake of it would be anti social. Holding valid views that others find offensive due to different beliefs would not be.

[bush_cheney2004]

Disagree how ? You think Bonam is correct that this thread shows a division on how people 'should limit' self-expression.

I haven't read that. I suspect he arrived on the thread with his conclusions already in his pocket.

Yes, I agree that such 'social' constraints limit self expression. It has become a disease commonly called 'political correctness" in certain contexts.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course you can moralize against people for being anti-social. In psychology it's a disorder for good reason. It's quite easy to make a value judgment about people being intentionally anti-social.

You can - but you are telling people how to behave to a degree. It's a choice. One thing I see liberals and conservatives agree on is telling people what to do or not to do.

"Don't get gay married"

"Ok, then don't you get a gun"

"Ok, then don't you smoke weed"

"Ok, then don't you occupy Gaza"

etc.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, I agree that such 'social' constraints limit self expression. It has become a disease commonly called 'political correctness" in certain contexts.

They're only constraints to people who wish to think of themselves as social, and yet want to say whatever they want. Paradoxical.

And, Bonam's point was some murky association with right/left which I haven't seen.

[Bonam]

You can - but you are telling people how to behave to a degree. It's a choice. One thing I see liberals and conservatives agree on is telling people what to do or not to do.

Yes that's because both sides are really the exact same side: big government authoritarians.

[Bonam]

And, Bonam's point was some murky association with right/left

No, it wasn't. There are many other spectra of ideology besides the shallow and ill-defined right/left dichotomy. You'll notice I used neither word in my original post.

[GostHacked]

Of course you can moralize against people for being anti-social. In psychology it's a disorder for good reason. It's quite easy to make a value judgment about people being intentionally anti-social.

How is being anti-social a disorder? I may consider myself anti-social, it's not a disorder, but just the way I have always been. but I am sure there is a prescription I could get to cure my anti-social behaviour. All other aspects of my life are just fine, and I am also ok with being mostly anti-social.

[GostHacked]

Being offensive for the sake of it would be anti social. Holding valid views that others find offensive due to different beliefs would not be.

Being offensive is not anti-social behaviour. Self seclusion is anti-social.

[Michael Hardner]

No, it wasn't. There are many other spectra of ideology besides the shallow and ill-defined right/left dichotomy. You'll notice I used neither word in my original post.

Then what is it that you saw on this thread ?

[Michael Hardner]

Being offensive is not anti-social behaviour.

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

[bush_cheney2004]

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

Not necessarily....many good comics are quite social by doing so. Maybe you are too young to remember Don Rickles !

[Michael Hardner]

Not necessarily....many good comics are quite social by doing so. Maybe you are too young to remember Don Rickles !

Right - I should remember to caveat insult-comics. We haven't had any insult comics on here lately.

[msj]

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.

You obviously didn't read the article. People are not in control of their feelings. You don't just turn your feelings on and off. You choose whether or not to act on your feelings. That's a different thing.

And self-censure is a virtue. If you're incapable of not being an offensive prick, then it's not a virtue to embrace the fact that you're an asshole.

While CC has pretty much answered this I just want to emphasize that none of us really control our feelings.

We feel what we feel.

Now, our behaviour - how we respond and react to those feelings, is something that is more under our control.

This really shouldn't be controversial. If anything, it should be obvious.

[GostHacked]

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

If you are being offensive to someone you are being social, sure not in a very nice manner, but it is not anti-social behaviour.