I want to offend you.

[Scotty]

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.

What if she's offended because I say women shouldn't be in the work place but should be at home looking after their children? Would I dare make that opinion known around the office? And if I did, would women complain to the boss and get me in trouble? And don't try to suggest circumstances where I'm trying to intimidate someone. That's not the meaning of the 'offending' question. Suppose I tell it to a male colleague, and he tells it to some women and the women at the office find out. Could I not be subjected to some sort of HR complaint? In Europe I bet I could. There are far more limits on freedom of speech in Europe in order to control offensive opinions and behavior.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Scotty

[Scotty]

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

This is not about defining whether people get offended. It is about whether we do too much to protect people from being offended. By all means, if you really want to, be offended. But don't ask the government, or human resources, or a web site administrator to punish someone because their opinion offends you. Because I believe the more we're protected from ideas and words that offend us the more insular we become and thus the more easily we become offended by anything which challenges our comfortable assumptions.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Scotty

[Scotty]

It is a little insensitive.

What is 'sensitive'? How sensitive should we, as members of a society, be acting? Should we be walking on tippy toes in everything we say and do so as to not cause offense? Much like all those stores with their big "HOLIDAY SALE" which everyone knows is for Christmas but which they don't say for fear of giving offense. Which of course, itself causes offense.

[Scotty]

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.

I am very much in favour of growing a thicker skin.

[Scotty]

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

What if you strongly hold a particular opinion on social mores or politics and it offends someone? Should you repress your views?

[cybercoma]

You can - but you are telling people how to behave to a degree. It's a choice.

Of course and as a member of civil society, we ought to expect a certain standard. Spray painting Swastikas on Synagogues is rightfully condemned, for example.

[cybercoma]

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.

You're using the term colloquially. There is such a thing as clinical antisocial personality disorder. It has a very particular definition, which admittedly only tangentially has anything to do with being offensive.

[cybercoma]

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.

This is a pretty pedantic view of the matter. Being insufferable while in the company of others would not keep you in the company of others very long. Hence, it's anti-social behaviour because people rightfully won't put up with you unless forced to.

[cybercoma]

What if she's offended because I say women shouldn't be in the work place but should be at home looking after their children? Would I dare make that opinion known around the office? And if I did, would women complain to the boss and get me in trouble? And don't try to suggest circumstances where I'm trying to intimidate someone. That's not the meaning of the 'offending' question. Suppose I tell it to a male colleague, and he tells it to some women and the women at the office find out. Could I not be subjected to some sort of HR complaint? In Europe I bet I could. There are far more limits on freedom of speech in Europe in order to control offensive opinions and behavior.

I'm not really interested in organizational policy, so I'm not really sure how this relates to my arguments in this thread so far.

[cybercoma]

This is not about defining whether people get offended. It is about whether we do too much to protect people from being offended. By all means, if you really want to, be offended.

Who is we? You seem to be suggesting that there are inappropriate laws or business practices that protect people from being offended, but you haven't given any particular examples or expanded on the argument enough that I'm even sure what you're talking about.

[cybercoma]

What if you strongly hold a particular opinion on social mores or politics and it offends someone? Should you repress your views?

You certainly shouldn't force your views on someone that finds them offensive.

Say you're black and I happen to hate black people. Should I be able to tell you every day that I think you're a nigger and tell you what filthy scum you are? Should I go on to tell you that I think you should be hung or shipped back to Africa? That's just a viewpoint. Should it be repressed?

If someone doesn't want to be exposed to things that they find offensive, they should be free to escape those things. The problem arises when they're not free to escape them and you force them to be subjected to them against their will.

[GostHacked]

Who is we? You seem to be suggesting that there are inappropriate laws or business practices that protect people from being offended, but you haven't given any particular examples or expanded on the argument enough that I'm even sure what you're talking about.

Hate speech laws are an example of an inappropriate law that prevents people from being offended by someone inciting hate.

[cybercoma]

Show me the exact law that you're talking about and tell me what parts you have a problem with and why.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course and as a member of civil society, we ought to expect a certain standard. Spray painting Swastikas on Synagogues is rightfully condemned, for example.

I'm not a moralist, I guess. I see these rules as producing a result and I feel comfortable living by the Golden Rule but I don't see them as necessary. There are lots of types of people who feel it's necessary to offend and I don't think less of them, necessarily.

[Guest]

What is 'sensitive'? How sensitive should we, as members of a society, be acting? Should we be walking on tippy toes in everything we say and do so as to not cause offense? Much like all those stores with their big "HOLIDAY SALE" which everyone knows is for Christmas but which they don't say for fear of giving offense. Which of course, itself causes offense.

I forgot to add, "but that's okay". There's nothing wrong with being insensitive. In fact, I would imagine, like being offended, it's not a choice.

[Guest Manny]

I forgot to add, "but that's okay". There's nothing wrong with being insensitive. In fact, I would imagine, like being offended, it's not a choice.

To you it's ok, but to some others it's not. What about passing judgement, deciding, as opposed to being non-judgemental of others. How are you with that kinda stuff

[Guest]

I guess insensitive would be the same as being over sensitive. Sometimes one can help it, sometimes one can't. Either way, I would hate to be judged on it.

[Guest Manny]

Yeah, I think I understand what you mean now. Not having strong emotions about things.

[cybercoma]

Yes, we should all be stoics.

[Guest Manny]

Yes, we should all be stoics.

Or cowboys

[cybercoma]

Cowboy Stoics

[Argus]

Yes, we should all be stoics.

Or adults.

[Shady]

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

He likes to characterize a lot of people as racist. The funny thing is, that when I called somebody a bigot for posting what I thought was a bigoted opinion, I received a 30 day suspension. Funny how that works.

[Michael Hardner]

He likes to characterize a lot of people as racist.

I don`t think so. If you have some links that show me calling lots of people racist then I will concur.

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

[cybercoma]

Or adults.

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.