Being Offended - Where Do You Draw The Line ?

[rpgamerd00d]

I have to say, the last few arguments I've seen (and participated in, in some cases) on this board have revolved around a group of people who get offended by either a statement (verbal or video) or a lifestyle choice that someone makes (and gets into the news or on TV). This ranged from "articulate" to "Edwards House" to "snickers ad" to "civil unions vs marriage".

This led me to open a new topic, which I pray will NOT (repeat, will NOT) re-hash those arguments, but instead maybe take a tangent.

My Question is: At what point does being offended fall onto the person who is offended vs. the person doing the perceived offensive thing?

I think its a worthwhile discussion, as long as we can act civilly and keep the snarkiness down to a minimum.

Obviously, certain things are viewed very universally as offensive - direct insults, for example. Calling someone a "moron" is clearly offensive on the part of the person issuing the insult. On the flip side, if someone is offended by the word "chair", most people would twirl their index finger around their ear while pointing at that person. At some point, there exists a line between what is universally offensive, and what is just a personal pet peeve that might bother you, but does not reflect upon the person committing the act or uttering the word or phrase.

I am not sure that this line could even be drawn clearly. Obviously, everything is a case by case basis. Was that offensive or are you just too sensitive? Did they cross the line or are you just self-deprecating ?

One habit I have learned over the years is never to jump to a conclusion about the meaning of what someone says. I almost always ask for a clarification first, based on what I think the meaning was, and I let the person clarify what they meant. Once its been clarified, then I feel that the communication process is complete, and and ambiguity is gone. I don't always do this, which is my own fault, but I try. I've noticed that a lot of people do not follow this process of asking for clarification. Many jump to conclusions. Sometimes, its obvious to jump to a conclusion about something. Sometimes, not so much.

Where do you draw the line between being offended vs. realizing you are perceiving an offense where none was really intended ?

[blonndee]

1. Another worthwhile question:

At what point, when you (collective you) are not offended by something, but find that a substantial group of people is, do you stop insisting that that group should NOT be offended (or find something offensive) and realize that perhaps you have NOT perceived an offense when in fact one does or may exist?

[KG]

2. my head hurts now.

:hi:

[rpgamerd00d]

4. Yes, a great second question !

I think this is a very big one when it comes to civil rights issues.

[Mandate My Ass]

12. Bra-vo

:applause:

Evidently it doesn't matter to some people how many people are personally offended, or explain clearly how a group of people are being offended. That entire group should just sit down and shut up if one person doesn't get it.

[zanne]

50. I'm always offended.

It saves time.

[LostinVA]

97. Yes,I love his mythical "group of people" who get offended by anything

Jeebus.

[Beelzebud]

3. The line is drawn at the first amendment.

Boycott, complain, make phone calls, whatever.

But the offender still ALWAYS has their right to free speech.

The nazi has free speech. The bigot has free speech. The warmongers have free speech.

[rpgamerd00d]

5. Oh, you're right. I didn't mean banning the offensive speech.

I just mean criticizing the source of it.

[Xenotime]

15. Except for Pugs...

I try to interrupt them as often as I can to keep them quiet.

[SayWhatYo]

6. This post offends me....

Just kidding, of course. I personally think that many people are too easily offended. Like you said, often times people jump to conclusions about what the person "really meant"... As for self-deprecating humour, well, I often times make fun of myself and that seems to offend some people at times. That is actually something which I really do not get, how people can get upset by me making jokes about myself...

Anyways, I tend to think people need to stop giving words so much power... If someone is truly trying to insult or offend you, then simply ignore it. By making a big deal about it then you're only doing what they want... Although, that's common sense. The real problem is that some people get offended by things which shouldn't really be offensive, unless you're looking to be offended. Did I offend anyone? :D

[Hoping4Change]

61. I'm LOL here. I too have a self-deprecating sense of humour and

have had the same reaction that you've had. I have come to realize that these people lack ANY sense of irony, they only process information literally.

[Hav]

80. .

Yeah, I once thought I'd be funny by saying "If I wanted to see ugly people, I could have just as well taken a look into the mirror" after someone posted a pic showing himself and some friends. It is still beyond me how anyone could have considered something like this a serious comment or that someone who has enough courage and confidence to post his pic in an online forum can have such a thin skin but that's the way some people are :shrug:.

[Hoping4Change]

100. Forget about dividing the wold into racial, ethnic, gender groupings.

IMHO the world can be divided into two groups: people who appreciate and engage in irony and those who don't.

[Selatius]

7. The 1st Amendment seems, to me, to be a sensible line

You can say whatever you want as per the 1st Amendment as long as it doesn't amount to the usual limitations on free speech entailing threats and false alarms and so forth.

Whether or not I disagree with what you said is another matter. If I disagree, then the only request is that I be given time to explain my disagreement.

[Lerkfish]

8. rule of thumb: if someone is offended, it is ipso facto offensive.

The person making a comment concerning a group of people does not get the right to determine if that group should or should not take offense.

The bigger question is, once its established said group IS offended, why spend all the energy trying not to redress the offense, but to make the offended group more amenable to being offended?

[rpgamerd00d]

10. Wouldn't there be a line, though?

I mean, if a group of cultists who believe in the great Chair God were offended every time someone said the word "chair", wouldn't you continue to use the word "chair" and simply write off those people as nutjobs?

At what point do you take others offense to heart and lay blame at the source, instead of the destination ?

[Lerkfish]

18. do you feel that the level of the line is where you propose?

Do you think "articulate black man" or the snickers commercial are truly on the same level as the hypothetical cultist example you cite?

I don't object to your question, I think its a valid one. I just object to bringing up the question in the current context, as it appears to be belittling the offense some people have felt as being invalid, or out of proportion.

By asking where the line is (which would have to be determined on a case by case basis, btw.) you seem to be implying that any line is arbitrary, thereby negating or dismissing actual perceived offenses as arbitrary and therefore moot.

[rpgamerd00d]

23. I see your point.

I think that the arbitrariness might actually be the cause of conflict among people.

Many of the arguments on this board revolved around differences in perception of the offensive item, and when people categorized the act on one or the other side of "the line", they then began to argue that their categorization was the "right" one, and the other's was "wrong".

Maybe that is the nuts and bolts of it right there.

[JackRiddler]

29. Offended and offensive are two different things (as in the other thread)

If I am offended, it is so, as it pertains to my feelings, and not subject to debate. Whether something is offensive (in effect or intent) is always a matter for debate. Societies have changed their mind about what constitutes offense many times.

[Hoping4Change]

65. Well said.

:applause:

[Hoping4Change]

62. So if you and an racist witness an inter-racial couple kissing and

the racist tells you how he is personally offended by what he's sees, are you telling me you are going to say nothing in deference to his feelings?

[TahitiNut]

110. Funny how the "eye of the beholder" washes only one way, isn't it?

:eyes:

[Hoping4Change]

114. That's an understatement. It is absurb because every minority that

has over the last half century gained civil rights has done so by giving offense to people. Geez Louise Rosa Parks gave offense to people.

[Lerkfish]

121. wow, bravo. you atttempt to make my statement asking for

examination over whether a minority is being offended, and twist it into that I'm against minorities.

cool, dude. You like...are so awesome.

:crazy:

[Hoping4Change]

123. I am baffled by your POV. And incensed by it in so far as its

the argument Islamists make about the Danish cartoons, about Salman Rushdie etc. God effing forbid anyone to offend the sensitives of Muslims. God forbid their feeling might be hurt. Muslims who took offense want like yourself to completely erase the notion of intentionality. Did Rushdie write Satanic Verses simply to insult Muslims? No he wanted to poke fun at the notion that the Koran was written verbatim. Were the cartoons done simply to insult? No they were satire, they were satirizing religious sensibilities.

[Lerkfish]

125. LOL! now I"m an islamic extremist calling for the death of danish cartoonists?

welcome to my ignore list.

[Lerkfish]

120. I"m saying I don't have the right to say he can't be offended...read much?

try rereading my post again.

I'm saying, if person A does something, person A does not have the right to tell person B he can't be offended by what person A did. I further point out that we seem to be saying Person B is at fault for being offended, which completely bypasses whether Person A truly was offensive.

:shrug:

[Hoping4Change]

124. You wrote "if someone is offended, it is ipso facto offensive."

I don;t see how I am misinterpreting you.

[Hosnon]

9. How about if the majority of the target offendee group do not find

it offensive?

Those in the minority of that group are unreasonably offended (assuming the majority are rational).

[Lerkfish]

13. I disagree: context is important.

lets say its 1959 and the majority of african americans don't complain about having to use the "blacks only" water fountain.

Does that make the practice automatically non-offensive?

[Hosnon]

16. Are they not complaining because they, for all pratical purposes, can't or because

they don't find it offensive?

[Lerkfish]

20. ends up at the same place.

If you can't complain about an offense or you don't feel an offense, does not make a practice automatically unoffensive.

[Hosnon]

28. Perhaps.

But unoffensive to whom? If a remark is generally believed to be offensive to group X and a majority of the rational members of group X do not in fact find the remark to be offensive, is it offensive to group X? I would tend to say no.

Perhaps it is offensive to others but that is a different issue.

Edit: A different issue in that we would then be talking about an unqualified offense - which may not even exist. It seems more practical to talk about whether the targets of the remark find it offensive. Not whether any conceivable other group finds it offensive.

Edit #2: And it wouldn't make the remark non-offensive. It would just make it justifiable to say that it is unreasonable for a member of group X to take offense.

[rpgamerd00d]

14. Heh, that's great on paper, but unrealistic in the real world.

But its a good talking point! :)

[Hosnon]

17. It would be difficult to take a poll constantly. But if it really came down to it and

you could conduct the poll. I think it would be a good measure.

[piedmont]

105. If you poll Americans, beware the result you get

We got another term for Bush in 2004.

[Catherine Vincent]

11. Your signature offends me and I want you to change it.

Thanks.

[johnnie]

19. I think it is human nature to want to be accepted

I also think it is human nature to feel you aren't being treated as equally as others and as long as you have other people who feel the same, it is easier to speak out against things. Anyone can take anything and turn it into something that can be construed as offensive and if they have enough people on their side then it can become a big issue.

I don't think there is a line as to where do you draw one, it is more, how do you draw one.

I can't tell others what to be offended about, and even if I think someone is being "thin skinned" I don't feel it is up to me to say so. I think there is to much to consider when trying to draw a line, so I don't think there will ever be a time where no one does anything offensive and no one is offended.

When I was a kid, Randy Newman put out a song called "Short People". A lot of people looked at it as a funny little song that didn't mean anything offensive. I was like 10 or 11 and I was always small for my age. That friggin' song caused me so much shit it wasn't funny. I had no choice in being short and there was nothing I could do about it. In fact, I couldn't even try to hide the fact I was shorter than the other kids my age.

After the 3,000th crack at my height and that song, I just blew it off. I am 42 years old now and hear a "short" joke at least once a week. I still hate that song though..lol. I don't find it offensive, I just think that Randy Newman is a talentless shit for brains.

[Lerkfish]

22. actually, you were societally conditioned to accept offensive behavior.

that did not make the behavior less offensive, it only made you more compliant by reptition.

[TwilightZone]

35. "Short People" was satire.

Though, obviously a lot of people didn't understand that.

In a recent interview, he expressed surprise that people didn't realize it was satire and noted, "Most people understood that no one’s that insane."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16945502/site/newsweek/

[johnnie]

46. As a little kid, I didn't care that it was satire..lol

It really didn't bug me, it was how other kids were. Actually, there were many adults who thought it was funny to sing it to me too.

[TwilightZone]

49. I definitely understand. My best friend had exactly that experience.

And, you're right - it's not the intent of the song (or Randy Newman) that was the problem. It was the interpretation others chose to make.

Actually, Randy's "surprise" at its misunderstanding fits the topic of this thread perfectly. He never imagined that people wouldn't "get" it and would be offended by it!

[Hoping4Change]

90. There are many people who don't, in any way, get irony.

Up the thread a DUer relates how some people get offended when he engages in self-deprecating humour. I can relate to that because the same has happened to me. Actually I have over the years severely limited interaction with people in work settings because irony is my preferred mode of interaction and its has become apparent to me that engaging in irony with people who don't get creates wrong impressions. Now when interacting with co-workers, I am just super sincere.

[TwilightZone]

111. I'm a bit more overt.

My preferred medium is sarcasm. People tend not to get that, either, particularly out here in red-state-land.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

21. where do you draw that line ?

I could say in space. or it really doesn't matter at all in the universe, but for us mortals I would have to say intent to be offensive. Peace be with you all.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. if we were all on the same power level.

if women had equal power to men

blacks to whites

gays to straights

when making a joke is not perpetuating a negative stereotype to disadvantaged groups

[rpgamerd00d]

38. I think I like this answer the best. Very intriguing.

The idea that offense comes from those with power, to those without power, and never the other way around, is interesting.

I wonder, then, what that power really is. Is it wealth? Stature? Social position? A measure of equality?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. power is a sum total of wealth/political/social power.

and yes gays can make mock straights but straight people have very little to lose when this happens. its not their marriage rights at dispute. they cant get fired for being straight. noone bashes straight people on account of their sexual orientation.

[rpgamerd00d]

43. Wow, thats pretty deep.

Offense in these circumstances, then, is not merely superficial (feelings being hurt) but in fact, true harm to those offended.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. exactly. this is why perpetuating stereotypes and building on existing hatred

is immoral and offensive.

[Hoping4Change]

112. I can't disagree more. Using your logic no one should be able

to satirize Islamists. You would have everyone kowtowing to Islamists who don't want anyone satirizing their extreme beliefs, beliefs which I might add oppress women, keeping them inferior. Using your reasoning, God forbid anyone lampoon those who stone women to death.


edit to add keeping them

[La Lioness Priyanka]

113. but islamic men have all the power in middle eastern countries.

i dont understand how this makes my premise false.

besides even in countries where islamic men dont have power, they still have more power than islamic women.

[Hoping4Change]

116. But they don't have power in Europe, at least not the power

they have in the Middle East where they have so much power no one dares satirize them.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

117. do they have more power than islamic women in these societies?

oppressors are complex. an islamic women is more opppressed because she has multiple oppressors.she is oppressed by racist society because she is islamic and by her male family members because she is a woman.

in europe/america if we are defending the rights of islamic women its because they are more oppressed than islamic men

[Hoping4Change]

118. Do they have more power than women.? Hmmmm. That's a tough

one. A women is raped but she the one who is sentenced to die. Women adulterers are stoned to death but not men. Your question is disingenuous. The point I'm making is that power is not neatly divided as you would make us believe. And you contend that only people without power can make offensive jokes, you contend that people in power should not do the offending. Given that premise do you condemn the Danish cartoonists or Salman Rushdie for giving offense to Islamists, keeping in mind that Islamists in Europe lack status.

[Hoping4Change]

108. Before jumping to that conclusion please consider the following.

Laughter is capable of unmasking false greatness and overthrowing obsolete authorities. (Dziemidok 1993)

Objections, digressions...the delight in mockery are signs of health: Eveything unconditional belongs in pathology. (Nietzsche 1966)


Humour is one the highest human faculties. Humour is the great leveler, its breaks down barriers between people regardless of status. Control humour, control who gets to use its corrosive power and you have either a fascist or theocratic state.

[Dora]

25. Gaaah! I am dealing with this very issue in my home right now.

It happened last night, and I've been tormented all day. Did I behave offensively, or is my beloved's offense his own creation? I don't expect or want any answers to that question, I just wanted to illustrate that the OP's query has Hit Home for Me.

[Dora]

36. Addendum...

I work with a woman who likes to say about my boss who has a reputation for thoughtlessness that comes off as elitism and uncaring...

"No, she didn't intend to be so thoughtless, but she didn't intend NOT to be thoughtless either."

And I think that's a very good point.

[Madspirit]

26. All Over the Place

You're just everywhere, aren't you, defending your right to offend people.

I think it's a question of desensitization. If you tell ten rape jokes a day, for example and then your daughter comes home, raped, look me in the eyes and tell me it would matter as much to you as it should.

I don't use bias words that offend people and you know what, it's not difficult to not offend. If you find it THIS difficult to not offend people, maybe you should look inside yourself. You doth protest too much. I really think you should look at that.
Madspirit

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. great post!

:thumbsup:

[uppityperson]

39. Thank you for your post.

Just don't get started on fault and responsibility again with OP and rape. Thank you for your post. I appreciate the madspirit of you Madspirit.

[Maven]

56. Uh huh

That's what this backlash is about.

A bunch of crybabies bellyaching that they have to "see things someone else's way" and "be considerate of other people" and stuff like that.

:cry:

[AbbyR]

104. I've been thinking about these offense threads, too

Today a woman came in to the paper and asked us to run an announcement for an African-American women's banquet she's having. She said she had been having a hard time finding an appropriate speaker (she wanted an African-American woman). I wanted to suggest a friend of mine who is a school administrator and black, and I was having these conversations with myself in my head - "What do I say about her? She's a smart person, a great educator? Is that offensive because she's black?"
I kept thinking "No, don't say 'articulate'" even though I would never use that term in reference to a black person - I do know better and did, even before this started. It was like "Don't think about an elephant." We've been talking about it so much that I was afraid I'd say it.

Anyway, she didn't want my friend, the school person, to be her speaker because she didn't think she was an inspirational enough speaker. But I did say "Whew!" when she left and worried all day that I might have said something inappropriate, when I honestly wanted to suggest a good speaker for her.

[Madspirit]

109. I guess

If I had been speaking about Obama and I was just dying to use the word "articulate" I would have said, "he's one of the most articulate politicians around." That would have immediately compared him to other politicians rather than to other black people. The problem is, Biden did say "black". He is an articulate black, as though...wow, what a rarity. I wouldn't have minded insulting politicians...<g> Now that I know that black people actually consider the word "articulate" offensive, I will never use it again about a black person. If it bothers blacks, that's very nearly reason enough, for me. I don't mind allowing the oppressed to tell me what they find offensive.
Madspirit

[Burnsey_Koenig]

27. Intention has nothing to do with it.

Really, it does not have anything to do with it at all. Anyone can say something patently offensive without the intent to offend. Some people don't have a clue as to how offensive they are, and since they have no clue, they have no intent. But just because they have no intent to offend, it doesn't make the remarks any less offensive.

Institutional Insensitivity is some sort of offensive behavior unconsciously passed from generation to generation without anyone completely understanding that they are passing on offensive beliefs. My family used to always use the term "Jewed them down" when they were discussing driving a hard bargain. It was a common phrase and I used it without understanding the implications it held until a friend explained it to me. I never intended to offend anyone, but did none the less. I no longer use the term and am more careful when using "slang" or trying to be funny.

Many of us are tired of being told to "lighten-up" when we are offended, or being told "It was just a joke". Well, ha ha ha, funny, but words have consequences. Humor, without understanding the possible implications, is always wrong, regardless of who does it.

A better question might be: Why are people offended and defensive when they are confronted with their own offensive behavior?

[SmokingJacket]

30. Of course the line can't be drawn clearly. Here's how I handle it...

When I'm the person making a remark, I try to draw the line so that I'm SURE the vast majority of people won't be unintentionally hurt by what I say. That might mean some self-censoring, but if it's the usual business (just making jokes or chit-chat, not defending someone's life or honor!), well, so what. So I'm over-cautious!

If I'm the target of a remark, I try to give the speaker as much benefit of the doubt as possible. In other words, I draw the line in a whole different place.

If I'm just an observer, such as on DU, it's trickier... you have to weigh both sides.

[porphyrian]

32. You can't control other people, but you can control how you react to them, if at all.

That's it, in a nutshell.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. actually you can control other people. its called the law.

i say it because had their been no civil rights legislation rampant sexism/racism in the workplace would be acceptable. now its not.

and none of this stuff would have gotten accomplished if people werent offended by the sentiments of racism/sexism etc

[porphyrian]

37. Nope. The law doesn't control anyone. It provides recourse after the fact.

If laws were preventative, no one would break them. Again, the only person you control is yourself.

[Hosnon]

44. Laws are certainly preventative.

The law does more than one thing.

[porphyrian]

48. Wrong and right.

Wrong, laws are not preventative. People break them every day, all the time. If I want to break one, nothing will stop me unless I'm caught, and that is, as I said, after the fact (and it would be the law enforcement officer that stopped me, not the law).

Right, the law does more than one thing.

[Hosnon]

51. Just because a law doesn't ultimately stop you from doing something

does not mean it is non-preventative.

Many people refrain from doing things, like speeding or running a stop sign, simply because it is illegal.

[porphyrian]

54. Yes, it does, by definition.

Just because some people decide not to break a law doesn't mean they can't - that's their choice, not the law preventing them from doing so.

Many people refrain from doing things like speeding or running a stop sign because they think it's stupid to do so, but it isn't stupidity preventing them from doing it.

[Hosnon]

58. Hardly.

If I want to break the law in a specific instance but refrain from doing it for 11 months and finally do it on the 12th month because of my fear of the consequences, the law has prevented me from doing it those 11 months. Because I decide to eventually break the law does not negate the preventative nature of the law for those other 11 months.

Your position would conclude that a dam can never be said to hold back water until the end of time, because it may one day break and then its effectiveness never existed.

Individuals do not go around ignorant of the law. The law influences us including and up until its consequential effects occur. The deterrent nature of law is quite effective.

[porphyrian]

64. No, you're externalizing responsibility.

Laws are an agreement, not a barrier. People are free to break them at any time.

Your 11 month example shows personal discipline/desire, not any preventative quality of a law. You could've broke the law at any time during the time, and the only thing that prevented it was you.

A dam does hold back water because it isn't an agreement between the water and everything below it, it's an actual barrier between the water and everything below it.

Most people go around ignorant of most laws. The law only influences people indirectly and usually after the fact, which is, by definition, not preventative.

[Hosnon]

68. You seem to be completely ignoring any coercive effect that the illegality

of a particular action has on a person's decision not to perform that act. Saying the only thing that prevented it was me is inaccurate. It ignores why I chose to prevent myself from doing it.

[porphyrian]

77. Coersion is not prevention.

The why isn't the law itself, but your unwillingness to break it for whatever reason. The law doesn't stop you, it allows for punishment after the fact, and then it's too late. If laws were preventative, there would be no accidental manslaughter, for example.

[Hosnon]

84. I've acknowledged the semantic confusion downthread.

And I acknowledge that I misinterpreted what you meant by control/prevent.

And I assume you acknowledge that the law has a coercive effect.

Edit: And as I side note, dictionary.com defines "preventative" in a less strict way than you are here.

[TwilightZone]

71. As you noted, it's a difference between influence and control

Many laws influence behavior, but they certainly don't control it.

Some laws may not influence behavior at all. Some people argue that the death penalty, for example, isn't a deterrent. If that's true, it doesn't even influence behavior.

[porphyrian]

82. The only people deterred by laws are those who wouldn't willingly break them in the first place...

...or who don't want to deal with the consequences should the be caught. However, that is a personal decision, not something they're prevented from doing by the existence of a law.

[Madspirit]

53. Huh?!

Of course laws are preventative. That's the strangest thing I've ever read. Do they work perfectly? No. Still, they do work.
Madspirit

[porphyrian]

55. You're saying you can't speed because there are speeding laws?

No, you choose not to speed because of the law, not because the law prevents you from doing so.

[Madspirit]

60. Playing with words

That is the law preventing me from doing it.

Actually, I don't speed because I think it's unethical and immoral to play with a 3000 pound weapon, at other's expense. More people die from speeding than from drinking and driving. I think speeders should have to spend the night in jail the same way drunks do.

Anyway, you're just playing with words.
Madspirit

[porphyrian]

69. Not really, I'm using the actual definitions.

It's really not that hard to understand if you want to. If laws were preventative, you wouldn't be able to accidentally break them. But, in the world in which we live, you can break laws unintentionally or accidentally. It's not playing with words, it's using them correctly.

[Madspirit]

78. Only if you mean

"Preventative" as perfect. A vaccine is a preventative. ..and yet, most are only about 80-90% effective. A condom is a preventative and yet...etc.

You are playing with words by the very fact that NO one claimed perfection. If ANY ONE doesn't do something because it is against the law, that law is preventative, even if not perfect.
Madspirit

[porphyrian]

85. Well, you're just wrong.

People who choose to obey the law are not prevented from breaking it simply by its existence. The barrier is internal (fear, code of honor, laziness, etc.), not external (a law, a cage, a wall, etc.).

This isn't about perfection.

[Madspirit]

89. No

You're just wrong. ...and hey, let's go around and around and around and around about this 400 more times, OK. Blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Madspirit

[porphyrian]

93. OK. Blah blah blah blah blah. I'm right, you're wrong. - n/t

[Hosnon]

59. I see where this is going. It's a semantic difference.

Of course laws do not absolutely prevent someone from doing something. But they do have a coercive element.

[porphyrian]

86. But only on those who are likely to obey them anyway. - n/t

[Hosnon]

88. And that does not diminish the coercive effect of the law. nt.

[treestar]

75. It's still a choice

I used to have clients say "can he do that?" (not pay child support or whatever). I'd say, "of course he CAN do that. There may be legal consequences, but he can do it."

Anyone can do anything they want. It's just the consequences and in fact, only of being caught.

Otherwise you'd be saying you don't break the law only because there is a law. Without a law against stealing, you'd steal. Without a law against speeding, you'd speed.

[EFerrari]

34. Isn't it always both? I mean, my reactions belong to me, are mine to manage

but as communication is a give and take, the transaction also belongs to the other person.

[SoCalDem]

41. I am difficult to "offend", because I choose to be open-minded

and I also realize that people often speak without thinking (without intending harm)

[MrSlayer]

42. It's really, really hard to offend me with words.

As kids we would rip on each other without mercy about any and everything. In construction we have a saying "let no affliction go unnoticed". You'd better have a thick skin around here or you're going to be mad or offended all the time. There is very little, if anything, that people can say to offend me. Just don't touch me.

[TwilightZone]

47. I think that we sometimes look for things to be offended by.

By "we", I mean society. It seems that we spend way too much time looking for reasons to be pissed off.

Maybe the problem is our short-attention-span culture. We want quick answers, so we tend to ignore context more often than not. We make snap judgments without all of the information, and misconceptions are born. Those misconceptions are built upon and used as a basis to fuel anger that is possibly misplaced.

I'm not saying that offensive words or actions aren't out there, because they certainly are. My point is that if one looks for things to take offense to, chances are that you'll find them. The question is then whether or not the "offensive" events were worth the effort.

[slackmaster]

52. Getting offended often has much to do with a person's personal background

I know people who take serious offense that there is a Christian cross on top of a hill in San Diego, maintained by public funds. Not just the expenditure, but the symbolism of the cross itself offends them, usually because they perceive themselves as members of one group or another that has been historically mistreated by Cristianity.

The cross doesn't bother me a bit, other than my objection to spending public funds on it. It certainly doesn't offend me. I have a hard time putting myself in the shoes of a person who finds it offensive, but I have chosen to recognize and respect the feelings of people who do honestly feel offended.

My Question is: At what point does being offended fall onto the person who is offended vs. the person doing the perceived offensive thing?

I think it's impossible to make a meaningful answer that is broad enough to cover all possibilities one could imagine. If I say it's ALWAYS on the shoulders of the person feeling offended, I'm confident that someone at DU could think of a sufficiently perverse situation in which highly offensive material is forced on someone who has no way to avoid it.

[Hoping4Change]

57. Jane Austen cautioned people " not to take offense where none is intended."

It seems that nowadays people are ready to take offense without a moment's thought of whether or not offense was is intended.

[Madspirit]

66. So it's Ok then

...that my East Texas cousin says "nigger" and then says..."but I don't mean anything by it".

Yeah right.
Not.
Madspirit

[Hoping4Change]

76. Knock, knock, knock. Is someone there? I just stated that

intention is everything. If your cousin is best friends with a black man and they use in friendly banter than it wouldn't be offensive at least to those involved. Someone overhearing it might take offense because they wouldn't be privy to the context. However if your cousin is a racist and uses that term to abuse another than it is indeed offensive.

[Madspirit]

83. I just don't agree

I think some words are offensive, with or without context. Look the words up. The very definition will say "derogatory". ...and I don't speak to my cousin or anyone else who shares my DNA.
I hate racism and homophobia and bigotry. Not offending people with words is not difficult. I find it off-putting and odd that anyone on a leftist site would defend it.
Madspirit

[Madspirit]

87. ...and...

Read post 26. It's also about desensitization. You can get to where you hear something so much, you just don't care.

I would much prefer people were overly sensitive to this issue then insensitive to this issue.

...and if liberals don't call themselves on these things, we are no better than the Right Wingnuts.
Madspirit

[treestar]

79. Oh come on. He means to offend.

That's a little better known than "articulate." Though I'm still at a loss - it seems we cannot comment on any AA person's ability to speak, good or bad. It's a good thing Chimpy's not AA.

But some areas are grey enough that the person may not mean to offend.

This kind of oversensitive reaction hinders intellectual debate. It gets in the way and prevents the very things from happening that we want happening (equality) by creating resentment in the target group.

Real racists like the cousin you describe are why it's so effed up to nag white liberals over slipping and saying something so horribly offensive like they think Senator Obama speaks well.

[Jonathan50]

63. I find the term "alcohol and drugs" offensive

Alcohol *is* a drug.

The term "alcohol and drugs" is propaganda designed to disguise that fact.

And *everyone* says it without thinking.

See, the propaganda works.

But I'll bet that all of you will keep on saying it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

67. who does it harm? and how much harm?

[Jonathan50]

91. It harms those imprisoned for "drug offenses"

I have a loved one imprisoned for a non violent drug offense.

If people were to realize that alcohol is a drug then perhaps the drug war would come to a more rapid end.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html

US notches world's highest incarceration rate

A report highlights extent to which many citizens have served time in prison.

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.
It's the first time the US government has released estimates of the extent of imprisonment, and the report's statistics have broad implications for everything from state fiscal crises to how other nations view the American experience.

If current trends continue, it means that a black male in the United States would have about a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during his lifetime. For a Hispanic male, it's 1 in 6; for a white male, 1 in 17.

The numbers come after many years of get-tough policies - and years when violent-crime rates have generally fallen. But to some observers, they point to broader failures in US society, particularly in regard to racial minorities and others who are economically disadvantaged.

Is that enough "harm" for you? "The land of the free" is the largest imprisoner of human beings on the planet.

[Madspirit]

106. Aha!!

Pothead here...<g> NOW I get where you are coming from. Still, these are euphemisms, not the same as "nigger" but that's exactly why I also said I am offended by euphemisms.

When was the last time you heard of a pothead breaking a beer bottle on someone else's head. I understand and forgive my NOT understanding a minute ago. I still think it's not quite the same but I share your being offended.
Madspirit

[KenHodson]

72. What about "HASH BROWNS"?

Don't forget "HASH BROWNS"!!!
Don't forget "HASH BROWNS"!!!
Don't forget "HASH BROWNS"!!!
Don't forget "HASH BROWNS"!!!
Don't forget "HASH BROWNS"!!!
Don't forget "HASH BROWNS"!!!
Don't forget "HASH BROWNS"!!!

[Madspirit]

73. Perfect Example

Of someone who doesn't give a shit. Yeah, these terms are just as offensive as "nigger" "queer" "wop"...yeah right.

...and just fyi, you are speaking of euphemisms, not derogatory language AND "alcohol" is actually the technically correct term for the TYPE of drug.

You may find euphemisms offensive. I actually do too but that is not what this topic is about. It is about slanderous, offensive terms applied to groups of PEOPLE.
Madspirit

[Jonathan50]

94. Then the phrase should be "alcohol and other drugs"

To say "alcohol and drugs" is to say "one drug and other drugs".

Doesn't really make much sense when you say it that way.

[TwilightZone]

96. "Drugs and alcohol" is usually intended to mean "illegal drugs and alcohol".

Since alcohol is legal, I don't quite see the problem with the differentiation.

[TwilightZone]

81. Not all drugs are illegal.

I don't see the problem with making the distinction, because it's little different than distinguishing between prescription drugs and illegal drugs.

Or nicotine, for that matter. Nicotine is a drug, but I doubt anyone is going to lump it into the generic "drugs".

[Jonathan50]

95. Alcohol is a mind altering drug

Alcohol is legal and yet people, including a loved one of mine, are doing hard time simply for posessing drugs which are far less harmful than alcohol.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/addictiv.htm

Relative Addictiveness of Various Substances
In Health, Nov/Dec 1990

100 Nicotine
99 Ice, Glass (Methamphetamine smoked)
98 Crack
93 Crystal Meth (Methamphetamine injected)
85 Valium (Diazepam)
83 Quaalude (Methaqualone)
82 Seconal (Secobarbital)
81 Alcohol
80 Heroin
78 Crank (Amphetamine taken nasally)
72 Cocaine
68 Caffeine
57 PCP (Phencyclidine)
21 Marijuana
20 Ecstasy (MDMA)
18 Psilocybin Mushrooms
18 LSD
18 Mescaline

Research by John Hastings
Relative rankings are definite, numbers given are (+/-)1%

[TwilightZone]

99. Ok, so what exactly is your point?

Do you want alcohol criminalized? Or the other drugs de-criminalized?

This is an honest question. I guess I simply don't understand why you think the legal drug alcohol should be lumped in with illegal drugs.

To be clear, I agree with you completely that alcohol is as destructive (or more so) as any illegal drug. I just don't see the point in lumping it in with illegal drugs. That would seem to deemphasize its singular destructiveness instead of focusing upon it.

[treestar]

70. The problem is more the question of giving offence

Most of us are well meaning and don't mean to give offense. Including Joe Biden or whoever made that Snickers commercial or John Kerry when he slipped up about the troops, etc. People taking offense at that seem to do so for political reasons.

Always assume the person bumbled first, until they make it clear they mean offense. Otherwise you just throw too much hatred and ill will around. Most people don't like to hear that they've offended someone else. It is an unpleasant guilty feeling, but makes one angry too, when one realizes one didn't intend any such thing.

I was always told growing up "Don't be so sensitive" so it's hard to find that the rule seems not to apply to anyone else!

[Hoping4Change]

103. I 100% agree with you that people take offense for political reasons.

I believe that taking offense at a drop a a hat is a power play, what better way to gain advantage than to claim victim status right off the mark.

[aikoaiko]

74. I'm jumping in late on this, but from my point of view being offended is no longer compelling

Every form of speech seems to offend some one at some point in time. Saying that your offended just doesn't register much concern anymore. Some Christians are offended by Happy Holidays, some republicans are offended when I say Bush lied, some atheists are offended by In God we Trust, some Rednecks get offended at redneck jokes, some fathers are offended by sitcom dad's, and now we have this snickers commercial.

:shrug:

[Darkhawk32]

92. Exactly. Crying wolf never helps.

[dysfunctional press]

98. if you learn to take absolutely nothing seriously- you can never be offended.

and it's A LOT easier to enjoy every minute of the one and only VERY VERY short life we ALL have.

lighten up people- you could be dead tomorrow.

enjoy.

[The Straight Story]

101. Maybe you should have asked - why are people offended if I am not offended?

It seems more people are offended that some are not offended at something that offended them :) (say that real fast)

[mainegreen]

102. Pretty much I have to be mis-represented to be offended.

That's about it.

[Subdivisions]

107. I draw the line at taking offense in the first place. You are just NOT

going to change some peoples' minds.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

115. I think some people are only happy when they are offended.

[Initech]

119. I don't really find anything offensive.

In the words of George Carlin - "They're only words."

When I do get offended is when someone resorts to personally attacking my character in an argument (eg - resorting to grade school name calling, saying I'm un-American, etc).

[mondo joe]

122. I think "offense" is a useless thing, generally speaking, in that it is (or should be)

personal.

I am far more interested in issues of rights, and I think discussion of offense often distracts time and energy from that more important matter.

[pinto]

126. Locking.

Sorry, but this thread is developing as the others. Recognizing that civil discussion has been left in the dust around this of late, we're going to lock.

Thanks for your understanding.