Ah yes. This reminds me of a 'debate' I had some months ago on a chat board with a catholic school teacher about why she believes in god and creation, in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. When she had exhausted all of her 'somebody must have created all of this, it's too complicated' type responses and had no intelligent response to give to my questions, she finished by saying "you know Lisa, most people just choose to live this way, and you should respect that." Sadly, most others in attendance thought that this was a reasonable response and finale to the 'debate'.
Ugh, she's teaching children and instead of encouraging an informative debate and exchange of knowledge, as she should as a teacher, she instead quickly prescribes to the 'they may be right, but I'll just act offended and make them go away' camp. And everyone else agrees. So disturbing.
A lot of people confuse what it means to "respect other people's views." Sometimes, if you're at a family dinner or just trying to get along without friction, it means not arguing or disagreeing. All that really matters is making sure that people are comfortable.
But real respect for a view means you DO argue with it, if you think it's wrong. You work on the assumption that, in the long run, the other person cares more about truth, than about protecting their own ego from disagreement.
A lot of times that's not true. People would rather be wrong than corrected and 'made' to feel bad. It's all about them, and the actual issue doesn't matter. But I can't imagine anything more insulting -- or arrogant -- than treating all people as if they were this weak and egotistical, and capable of no better.
This kind of ignorant response was exemploified in the report on CBC, "Gatineau parents lose fight to skip diversified religion course", (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/08/26/ot-religion-080826.html), where the Catholic mayor & others have hissy fits over their kids being exposed to ideas. Ignorant fools!
And some people just choose to believe in the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, the flat earth and the faked moon landing. Does that mean she would just happily accept their beliefs? How about a belief in Zeus or Poseidon? Would the Catholics say "well, some people just choose to believe in Zeus, so we should just respect that" - even if they are WRONG? Only there would be absolutely no proof that the Zeus side were more (or less) wrong than the Catholic side.
Yeah, some people just choose to live that way. And some people just choose to avoid those people and their woo. But that doesn't mean we have to respect the woo just to spare their feelings.
There are only two models for solving these problems: (1) the Amish, who voluntarily withdraw from all that offends them; and (2)) the Taliban. There's not much wiggle room between those two positions.
Wow. That didn't go anywhere near where i thought it would.
When i'm truly offended, i'm just flat offended.
But the whole "pc motivated" being offended, i've found, means i'm afraid i secretly agree with the sentiment of the racist/sexist/etc statement, and that someone will find out, judge me, and find me wanting.
I wish it were that simple. I'm pretty sure a lot of people just get offended about stuff because it makes them feel important and they haven't figured out a more decent way to find meaning for their lives.
Would the Catholics say "well, some people just choose to believe in Zeus, so we should just respect that" - even if they are WRONG? - Heather
Well we know the answer to that one, Heather: forced conversion, destruction of their temples, and if those didn't work (sometimes even if they did), torture and murder.
cute. do wish though that you'd mentioned that it's from the comic strip "non-sequitur". i've been trying to get a couple of friends who visit this site to follow it for ages now.
Non Sequitur too often comes across as the poor man's Calvin & Hobbes. I kept reading it thinking I would enjoy it, but it can seem to decide if its political, social commentary, or a story about a little girl. I think the strip trys to do too much and winds up being mediocre.
I'd suggest you consider "being offended" to be made illegal. In my experience, the people who claim to be offended are clearly the dangerous ones who pose a direct threat to everyone in an open and free society.
People would rather be wrong than corrected and 'made' to feel bad. It's all about them, and the actual issue doesn't matter.
Recently I heard a well-educated adult man in the professional medical field repeatedly use the non-words "criterias" and, indeed, "irregardless." Apparently he was never corrected on this because it would, of course, have made him feel terrible. That is simply the worst thing one could do. Better he sound like a moron. Myself, I'd rather someone let me know if I've got spinach in my teeth, you know?
Wiley Miller often has some good commentary up his sleeve, but he has his own blindspots, too, just like all of us. It seems he can't stand new media, particularly webcartoonists who are actually succesful. Of course, that could just be my perception, but I've seen more than a litte bias from him about those who are "big on the internet".
And some people just choose to believe in the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, the flat earth and the faked moon landing. Does that mean she would just happily accept their beliefs?
Welcome to the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship! ;)
Coming at my atheism from the 'skeptic movement' angle, I always find it a bit ironic when other atheists argue that it should be okay to mock or criticize religion because it is, after all, considered socially acceptable to mock or criticize pseudoscience and the paranormal.
Oh yeah? You should hear the pseudoscientists and paranormalists scream and whine and piss and moan over the "insensitivity" and "lack of respect" and "arrogance" and "mean-ness" of those who can't just accept that maybe some people DO know more than the smarty-pants scientific experts, and have become mystically aware through the Cosmic Consciousness that Bigfoot was a space alien who built the pyramids using psychokenesis and energy crystals. People should be allowed to believe what they want! No criticizing! We're being offended!
and have become mystically aware through the Cosmic Consciousness that Bigfoot was a space alien who built the pyramids using psychokenesis and energy crystal
That's insanity. EVERYONE knows bigfoot was created to pilot the flying saucer that Elvis took after his faked death to outer space to travel back in time and fake the moon landings.
(New to this site. Sorry if I don't know the etiquette.)
Heather @ #8
You make an excellent point, but I prefer going straight for the jugular: "Some people honestly believe the Holocaust never happened. Am I supposed to respect that, too?"
It seems to me that the fallacies of the "offended" are two-fold.
First that when someone states something contrary to one's personal beliefs, his ability to hold those beliefs is impeded. People are allowed to believe whatever tripe they choose, and this is perfectly consistent with others pointing out that it is a load of tripe.
Second, and more often commented, is the fallacious notion that merely being offended is an action that puts some obligation on the "offender." The proper response to someone taking offense is not an automatic apology, but rather a reasoned inquiry as to whether that person's offense was reasonable in the first place. Allowing the weenie battle cry of "I am offended" be the trump card in any debate merely has the effect of reducing all discourse to the tepidity of the most thin-skinned among us.
But the whole "pc motivated" being offended, i've found, means i'm afraid i secretly agree with the sentiment of the racist/sexist/etc statement, and that someone will find out, judge me, and find me wanting.
Hear that, libruls? If you don't like racists trying to spread more racism, it's because you're the real racists.
I used to fume when people would preach about respecting each other. Now I go on the attack.
Me: Why should I hold you in high esteem? What is there about you that I should admire? Make a list, starting now. Speak clearly so everybody can hear.
Idiot: [gobsmacked -- cannot start bragging for fear of ridicule]
I don't know, this cartoon sounds like just about every creationist troll I've encountered. 'You wouldn't be bothered by creationism being taught in schools, if you weren't afraid that it's true.'
Many times speech is offensive because it isn't true, and it never had anything to back it up at all, and still we're subjected to the same canned lies that we saw through when we were teenagers.
It all comes down to the small difference between insulting and offensive. I had a falling out with a "friend" recently because he didn't understand this small difference. Basically he wanted to discuss religion (a mormon), but only if I would accept it as truth and for no other reason than because he did. He was offended by my disbelief, and would become insulting. My sig goes into the difference between insulting and offensive.
I don't know, this cartoon sounds like just about every creationist troll I've encountered. 'You wouldn't be bothered by creationism being taught in schools, if you weren't afraid that it's true.'
And if our only response to creationist drivel was to call it offensive and try to shut it down on that basis, they might have a point.
Danae in the cartoon reminds me of neocons, creationists, new agers, psychics, and godbots in general. Don't confuse them with the facts.
We need to keep repeating, free speech means that you are going to be offended on occasion. And respect does not mean we have to agree with you first.
I just heard this on the radio last night and it somewhat pertains to the thread. The Swiss government pardoned and apologized to the last witch that it had prosecuted. Unfortunately for her, the pardon came more than 200 years after the Swiss government executed her.
Ahhh, the good old days when a woman who offended a man, the church, or the prevailing order could be brought to trial as a witch and then executed.
The sad and pathetic thing about this story is that they consulted with the church prior to her pardon.
"Many times speech is offensive because it isn't true, and it never had anything to back it up at all, and still we're subjected to the same canned lies that we saw through when we were teenagers."
Are you actually offended by what creationists say? Really? I don't find it offensive at all. Just wrong. Being offended would be like being offended by someone sincerely believing in the Easter Bunny.
You know what isn't offensive? The pictures of cats in an opening Powerpoint presentation.
Also, thanks for being the only prof on campus so far who knows how to use PowerPoint -- that is to say, you don't write your slides, then read them word for word in a monotone without going into examples. Professors that assume they need to spend classtime reading Powerpoint slides aloud with no extra data are annoying. Your lecture was not annoying.
But from the back of the room, I noticed that there are powerful things instilled in the heads of these kids about what it means to be in a class -- a science class especially. I saw dozens of people dutifully copying from the slide: "Science is not a catalog of facts." In bullet points. It's ironic, and it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Are you actually offended by what creationists say? Really?
I'm offended when they say I cannot have any morals because morals only come from the Sky Daddy. This is a step toward profiling atheists as likely criminals.
I'm offended when they say I cannot have any morals because morals only come from the Sky Daddy. This is a step toward profiling atheists as likely criminals.
If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
Yeah, I get a little angry occasionally. But mostly I just tell them that their religion makes them brainless, and that I will take amoral over stupidity any day. I seem to strike a nerve every time.
Conflate often? Just because the wingbats confuse subjects is no reason for you to do the same. A conspiracy theory is not the same sort of thing as an hypothesized animal.
Or does the thought of undiscovered species offend you? How did you react when you first heard that rats giggle when they're tickled? Are you offended when you learn that some of what you were taught in school is wrong?
The primary role of science is error correction. If you must take offense at having your errors corrected, you are not doing science.
I'm not a regular reader of Non Sequiter (and I can tell from the comments that most people aren't either), but every once in a while I see something good.
I've got a Carlin-esque view of it all: did you ever notice it's phrased as "taking offense"? Hmmm. It would seem that by taking offense you are accepting something as offensive. Why take offense if it bothers you? How about just saying no thanks, I don't want any offense?
There...No offense is taken! All are happy.
To me, many people are usually just looking for some reason to throw a hissy fit. It has very little to do with what I say or do for them to take offense.
A corollary to this is the 'So...or what?" question from my wife. Any statment/question from her that has the form of "So...or what? I don't even have to know or listen to whatever is between those three words, I just know that I'm in for some sort of argument.
Sorry, I can't support your posting of Non Sequitur, which is a horrifically shitty comic strip.
And in case anyone is wondering, yes I intended to imply that my opinion of comics is the final word. If you disagree with me on this, you are mentally deficient.
Even the most appalling comic strip will screw up and somehow insert an apt remark that appeals to our particular irritation. If it denigrates religion, then that particular strip I will find appealing and usually cut it out and save it. "Shoe", "Zippy", and several others will have a theme of irrational thinking and behavior and so serve to remind us that there are several of these strips that are apt to our way of thinking. "Pogo" is a lost strip that was not only funny but made many commentaries on human foibles. Max and Dan would have been apt targets for their irrational foibles.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with an old friend last week (we see each other perhaps twice a year as she lives in Van.)
As a Greek-Orthodox-raised apologist, she's offended by the militancy of the new atheists. Her argument for religion and why it's horrible that her university-educated liberal friends criticise her religiosity? It was important to her while growing up (delivered with a touch of verging-on-tears-hysteria).
That's it. That's the argument. For the sake of not ruining our semiannual get-together, I quickly changed the subject to something less likely to cause a blowout (sex, if I recall correctly.)
How does that saying go again? "Your emotionality is not evidence" or something like that?
Yeah, I get a little angry occasionally. But mostly I just tell them that their religion makes them brainless, and that I will take amoral over stupidity any day. I seem to strike a nerve every time.
As if your blog comment to a creationist has any effect on whether or not these fuckers are going to try to build a theocracy over us.
Yeah, been there myself. A nice, liberal, intelligent Christian friend of mine said that not only did she not mind me questioning her beliefs, but that she wanted me to. When I explained why some of those beliefs were unjustified, she was unable to respond, so she played the "I'm offended" card. Basically, I felt that she was making it my fault that her beliefs were devoid of logic. It was very frustrating.
Well, there's other reasons. I'm not angry, but it has more to do with the fact that I am an uber misanthrope with pitch black supercooled blood flowing listlessly through my hard, pitiless veins, pumped by a heart that long ago ossified into a hard substance that stop neutrinos. You have to care about the country or the world or whatever to get angry over this nonsense. People tell me I'm an awful person for that POV, but, well, I don't care. :)
But mostly I just tell them that their religion makes them brainless, and that I will take amoral over stupidity any day. I seem to strike a nerve every time.
Well, I'd wager that walking up to any person at random and calling them brainless will strike a nerve. I don't think it has much to do with the quality or even the basic subject matter of the surrounding argument.
As if your blog comment to a creationist has any effect on whether or not these fuckers are going to try to build a theocracy over us.
Oh come on, it was light-hearted banter made in the company of fellow atheists. I never said this was going to stop them from fucking us over. Calm down.
Dave Haaz-Baroque @ 56
Hellava frog; instead of the egg there should have been the cracker! The response from the retards would have been a screeching howl! Screw them!
53: How does that saying go again? "Your emotionality is not evidence" or something like that?
But you're missing an important point, I think. The research (e.g., John Kotter) on change management is clear that data, facts and reason alone are rarely sufficient to effect real change in people's thoughts and actions. Our emotions are necessarily part of the process -- our hearts need to be stirred (so to speak).
I'm offended when they say I cannot have any morals because morals only come from the Sky Daddy. This is a step toward profiling atheists as likely criminals.
But what they are really saying is that they don't have morals, just fear of getting caught by the "Sky Daddy". They accuse of of not having morals because they cannot conceive of doing "good" and not doing "evil" on their own merits without being threatened with the ultimate "time out". Adults with the morality of a child, they just substitute one strict parent for another. They do not want to have to think about what is "good" and "bad", they just want to be told. So when we say we reject that, they can only think of us in equally childish terms, that we reject so we can be "naughty". So in this case PeeWee Herman's response is perfect, "I know you are, but what am I?"
Oh come on, it was light-hearted banter made in the company of fellow atheists. I never said this was going to stop them from fucking us over. Calm down.
You do not get to dictate how other people choose to engage in conversation. It is not a sin for others to speak seriously when you would prefer that they be lighthearted.
Some catholic organizations from Brazil protested because the local edition of Playboy included some pictures of a naked woman holding a rosary, which apparently "offends their feelings". Result: a judge banned the issue and ordered the offending photos won't be used again
Here's the news in Portuguese and in Spanish (couldn't find an English reference, sorry).
A nice, liberal, intelligent Christian friend of mine said that not only did she not mind me questioning her beliefs, but that she wanted me to. When I explained why some of those beliefs were unjustified, she was unable to respond, so she played the "I'm offended" card.
This made me laugh. I've been in a few such situations myself, with liberal, intelligent, "spiritual" people claiming they love and welcome exciting challenges to their beliefs -- and then you find out they don't really mean it.
I think this is because most theists have only a very vague understanding of real criticism of religion. They expect to hear things like "isn't hell a mean idea?" or "why can't more Christians be like Christ?" -- criticisms which they themselves often make, and which don't really get to the heart of the matter on whether or not religious claims are actually true, or whether 'having faith' should really be considered a virtue.
What's most bothersome about the "I'm offended" card is that it's usually played as a debate stopper. It's not "this poster is offensive because it is wrong, and here is my argument on why apocrypha should not be used as historical fact." It's "this poster is wrong because I am offended."
What's most bothersome about the "I'm offended" card is that it's usually played as a debate stopper. It's not "this poster is offensive because it is wrong, and here is my argument on why apocrypha should not be used as historical fact." It's "this poster is wrong because I am offended."
Kneejerk responses that amount to "there's never anything wrong with being offensive," or "you're wrong because you're offended," are just as stupid as "this is wrong just because it is offensive."
Maybe people should make lists of things that offend them, then walk around with the list pinned to their chests, and we would all know where we stand.
Then again it might not be a good idea for a lot of religious people, they might trip up over their own lists.
Grammar RWA @69: Kneejerk responses that amount to "there's never anything wrong with being offensive," or "you're wrong because you're offended," are just as stupid as "this is wrong just because it is offensive."
My point is no one can be offensive, only people can take offense. Go ahead, try to be offensive. I cannot be offended by whatever you choose to do because I choose not to take offense.
If you (or anyone else for that matter) wants to be offended by something I say or do, I have no control over that. Call that attitude stupid if you will, but I don't think you understand.
I would agree with the idea that when I am offended it is me that is taking offense. being offended is to take offense which is an action on my part I am not very often offended by an argument position that disagrees with me but I do some times find myself reacting automatically to personal attacks or negative judgments about me personally. Like when I was having a political discussion with a "ditto head" conservative and was called a traitor like all other liberals because I did not agree with the particular issue at hand, I kind of came unglued.
It was a completely emotional reaction on my part.
the problem of being personally offended and /or offensive is a difficult one, emotions are not very amenable to reason. nor is "religion" or belief without awareness of the role emotion has in it.
My point is no one can be offensive, only people can take offense. Go ahead, try to be offensive. I cannot be offended by whatever you choose to do because I choose not to take offense.
Your point is no doubt persuasive to middle schoolers.
In your formulation, when racists burn crosses on the lawns of black families, the black folks are at fault because they are "choosing to be offended."
If you (or anyone else for that matter) wants to be offended by something I say or do, I have no control over that. Call that attitude stupid if you will, but I don't think you understand.
Gosh, yes, it's a brand new idea that no one has ever heard before. I must just not understand your brilliance!
All that you propose is a license to be a rude asshole to anyone you want, while being absolved of any consequences, by blaming the targets of your abuse for letting you abuse them.
A few months ago I saw Michael Medved at a debate sponsored by a local AM1280, The Patriot. His Medheads (Deadheads might be more accurate) were there shouting and clapping for his inanity as he debated Ed Schultz from AM950 Air America.
Anyhow, being a newbie here, I wondered if PZ ever posted on MM. So, I did a search and found an old post "How people convince themselves to vote for idiots for president" because I wanted to see what PZ thought of Michael Medved. Go to the post if you want to see what PZ thought (which wasn't very complimentary.)
The only reason I bring this up is that when linking into Medved's article, I noticed that beneath every post was a little flag icon with the words "Flag if offensive".
It seemed to fit with today's post and all by accident. Or was it the thought waves of the FSM!
What's most bothersome about the "I'm offended" card is that it's usually played as a debate stopper.
Sastra, that's' precisely what bothers me so much about theists using the 'I'm offended' card. Because someone simply doesn't have an intelligent response to your questions about their beliefs, all of a sudden, in one short phrase, you're now just the big bad atheist and the debate's over. Ugh, it's so frustrating. No matter how nice and mild mannered I am when engaging in such debates, it usually ends up this same way. Has anyone figured out the secret of getting around this 'you're mean and offensive, I win!' strategy?
I would much rather listen to someone who's cranky and offensive AND CORRECT than someone who is kind, courteous, and totally divorced from reality. I fear this is the minority view.
Well LisaJ, the only way is "So do you actually have a point and/or want a debate"? Really "I'm offended", and "I don't want to talk about this anymore" are the same thing, and they should know as much. Don't go in the kitchen if you can't stand the heat, etc. If one is actually having an intelligent/philosophical debate, then no idea, no matter how vile and nasty ought to be out of bounds. And saying "your religion is a fairy tale" is pretty tame really.
There is a news report about the crucified frog on the Internet News, and the cesspit vatican's anger over it. This isn't the first time that the Italians have denigrated the papist's feelings in his backyard. Love it! I believe at one time Rome wanted to take over the vatican for some other purpose or other, I cannot remember what, but it made news and the papist was getting ready to unleash those trillions of angels to counsel those wayward Italians! I believe there are a lot of atheists among the Italians, sort of the wolves in sheep's clothing!
But you're missing an important point, I think. The research (e.g., John Kotter) on change management is clear that data, facts and reason alone are rarely sufficient to effect real change in people's thoughts and actions. Our emotions are necessarily part of the process -- our hearts need to be stirred (so to speak).
Sinbad, in this case (and especially with this person), she was using emotionality as a show-stopper. In other words, because a particular issue causes her to stop and breathe deeply so as to fight back tears, decent interlocutors should stop arguing and respect her claims on the basis that she feels so damn strongly about them.
In my experience she uses this tactic far, far too often. I consider such poor technique to be akin to a cardinal sin since she's got a Master's in political science, but I'm pragmatic enough to know when to order another beer and when to cut the conversation short (and then order another beer).
I should have been clearer, Brownian. I'm sure you're correct as to that person and, were I in your shoes, would have reacted similarly. My would-be point was more general in nature and relates to the presumption many of us have that a good case alone, without an emotional component, can change people's ideas and actions. On the other hand, as (I think) Charles Colson said (pre-conversion and paraphrased), "When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will surely follow."
I think the cartoon hits it. I actually always saw the easily-offended types as being weak-minded, that their ideas were so fragile any challenge was terrifying. But there's more to it; they are quite suspicious that they are wrong, but either their argumentative faculty or their self-esteem is too weak to allow them to confront it. Ultimately it's cowardice, a clear rejection of Socrates' encouragement to live an examined life -- one in which you consider your ideas, and accept that others may be right.
And I generally agree with you on that point, Sinbad.
Not to belabor the idea, but I guarantee the "Pop-sci Book Meme" thread will produce a number of comments about books that influenced the commenter to pursue science and rationality because the book so successfully appealed to the emotion that many secular rationalists feel about a material universe.
"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" did that for me. I wanted to become a physicist at 11-years-old because Richard Feynman sounded so damn irreverently cool and smart.
If the KKK burned a cross at me I would not feel offended I would feel threatened. A burning cross is not just an offensive statement it is a threat saying we will bring "god's wrath and destruction" on all who we decide stand against us.
there is a real difference between being threatened and being offended. I think there is much confusion about this.
The reaction to "cracker desecration" seemed like it was more to a threat than to some kind of insult. It had the stink of fear to it.
Does religion foster fear? with hell and feed on the fear of death?
If the KKK burned a cross at me I would not feel offended I would feel threatened. A burning cross is not just an offensive statement it is a threat saying we will bring "god's wrath and destruction" on all who we decide stand against us.
there is a real difference between being threatened and being offended. I think there is much confusion about this.
Then there's a simple reformulation, to which this objection does not apply. "When racists burn crosses on the lawns of black families, if anyone else but the black family being threatened complains, then they are just choosing to be offended." It still means the assholes get a free pass from most of the community, and it's still ridiculous.
I would be offended if someone in my community was harassing black people. But this is not an indictment of me, it is an indictment of the harassers. They are the ones who are choosing to act. The principle is the same even if they are not making threats, just yelling racial slurs.
Instead of this simplistic playground bullshit, where bullies are encouraged to act with impunity and victims hold sole responsibility for avoiding abuse, let's just recognize that sometimes "I'm offended" is a red herring, and sometimes it's a legitimate complaint, and there's probably no bright line that can tell us in advance which is which.
We have a right to be offended, we don't have the right to be prevented from it. People can find anything and everything offensive, one point where tolerance has gone too far is that we think that we have the duty not to offend others as it causes them distress.
I'm sure it's been said multiple times in the comments, but the words "I'm offended" shouldn't ever be a means to gain the moral highground. It's a weak debating strategy used by those who cannot hold their own position. Being offended doesn't change the truth of the idea in question, in effect it's the reverse ad hominem.
"When racists burn crosses on the lawns of black families, if anyone else but the black family being threatened complains, then they are just choosing to be offended."
that is where you are incorrect if you think that you are not threatened also anyone who disagrees with that kind of threat and "takes offense" is also under threat as well.
an insult only hurts me personally if I allow it, if it makes me feel bad about myself. I can not control your thoughts and opinions about me but your actions are a different matter there are many remedies I may chose to take still without ever having my feelings hurt.
I agree that the comment about being offended is a "bull shit" comment and is used to illicit some level of pity and at the same time feelings of superiority.
that is where you are incorrect if you think that you are not threatened also anyone who disagrees with that kind of threat and "takes offense" is also under threat as well.
Now you are blurring the lines between threat and offense just to make yourself sound right. This is the fallacy of equivocation.
I live in a northern state and I am not threatened at all by the actions of southern racists. But I am offended by them. And my offense is legitimate. You can say it's "bull shit" but you are just wrong.
What you are saying is that the targets of harassment are responsible for the harassment, simply because they perceive it as harassment. You're being ridiculous, and no one can take you seriously. Grow up and drop the playground mentality.
What you are saying is that the targets of harassment are responsible for the harassment, simply because they perceive it as harassment.
that is exactly not what I am trying yo say. If you are being harassed you have recourse to law for a remedy because the law recognizes a damage from harassment.
If you or I object to some threat made in a more remote location from us like in another state or region and those who are making the threat do not have the power or ability to do anything make no mistake it is still a real threat to all who disagree.
I take the meaning of "to take offense" as to have some emotional reaction, of having my feelings hurt. That seems to be the way it is used in context of seeing a poster on a campus wall. I would speculate here that the emotional reaction if it is real and not just a way to object a tactic, is a reaction out of fear. further that religion is to a large extent psychologically based in fear and the more reactionary sects more so.
if the believers truly truly believed it would not make any difference what any one else did or said instead what we actually see is very different. It looks to me though that they want to be seen to be believers instead.
that is exactly not what I am trying yo say. If you are being harassed you have recourse to law for a remedy because the law recognizes a damage from harassment.
Too strict a definition of harassment. Not what I'm talking about.
If you or I object to some threat made in a more remote location from us like in another state or region and those who are making the threat do not have the power or ability to do anything make no mistake it is still a real threat to all who disagree.
Irrelevant. You're still saying that I should not get offended about it. No thanks.
A racist could use racial slurs every time he sees someone he doesn't like. That would be constitutionally protected speech, and there'd be nothing actionable about the harassment if he weren't following particular individuals around. Nevertheless, this is offensive. I know this shit goes on today, and I am offended. You are telling me that this offense is illegitimate. Just admit you were wrong.
Again, instead of this simplistic playground bullshit, where bullies are encouraged to act with impunity and victims hold sole responsibility for avoiding abuse, let's just recognize that sometimes "I'm offended" is a red herring, and sometimes it's a legitimate complaint, and there's probably no bright line that can tell us in advance which is which.
Sorry, I can't support your posting of Non Sequitur, which is a horrifically shitty comic strip.
But it's spot on the money sometimes with its commentary.
Pffft. Non Sequitur has it's bad weeks (and months) but occasionally it comes up gold.
Stephen, would you say that Non Sequitur....offends you?
Ah yes. This reminds me of a 'debate' I had some months ago on a chat board with a catholic school teacher about why she believes in god and creation, in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. When she had exhausted all of her 'somebody must have created all of this, it's too complicated' type responses and had no intelligent response to give to my questions, she finished by saying "you know Lisa, most people just choose to live this way, and you should respect that." Sadly, most others in attendance thought that this was a reasonable response and finale to the 'debate'.
Ugh, she's teaching children and instead of encouraging an informative debate and exchange of knowledge, as she should as a teacher, she instead quickly prescribes to the 'they may be right, but I'll just act offended and make them go away' camp. And everyone else agrees. So disturbing.
I like it.
A lot of people confuse what it means to "respect other people's views." Sometimes, if you're at a family dinner or just trying to get along without friction, it means not arguing or disagreeing. All that really matters is making sure that people are comfortable.
But real respect for a view means you DO argue with it, if you think it's wrong. You work on the assumption that, in the long run, the other person cares more about truth, than about protecting their own ego from disagreement.
A lot of times that's not true. People would rather be wrong than corrected and 'made' to feel bad. It's all about them, and the actual issue doesn't matter. But I can't imagine anything more insulting -- or arrogant -- than treating all people as if they were this weak and egotistical, and capable of no better.
This kind of ignorant response was exemploified in the report on CBC, "Gatineau parents lose fight to skip diversified religion course", (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/08/26/ot-religion-080826.html), where the Catholic mayor & others have hissy fits over their kids being exposed to ideas. Ignorant fools!
Religion is a great evil.
And some people just choose to believe in the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, the flat earth and the faked moon landing. Does that mean she would just happily accept their beliefs? How about a belief in Zeus or Poseidon? Would the Catholics say "well, some people just choose to believe in Zeus, so we should just respect that" - even if they are WRONG? Only there would be absolutely no proof that the Zeus side were more (or less) wrong than the Catholic side.
Yeah, some people just choose to live that way. And some people just choose to avoid those people and their woo. But that doesn't mean we have to respect the woo just to spare their feelings.
There are only two models for solving these problems: (1) the Amish, who voluntarily withdraw from all that offends them; and (2)) the Taliban. There's not much wiggle room between those two positions.
Right on Heather.
Wow. That didn't go anywhere near where i thought it would.
When i'm truly offended, i'm just flat offended.
But the whole "pc motivated" being offended, i've found, means i'm afraid i secretly agree with the sentiment of the racist/sexist/etc statement, and that someone will find out, judge me, and find me wanting.
But obviously we're all different :)
I wish it were that simple. I'm pretty sure a lot of people just get offended about stuff because it makes them feel important and they haven't figured out a more decent way to find meaning for their lives.
Would the Catholics say "well, some people just choose to believe in Zeus, so we should just respect that" - even if they are WRONG? - Heather
Well we know the answer to that one, Heather: forced conversion, destruction of their temples, and if those didn't work (sometimes even if they did), torture and murder.
I like the cartoon, america needs a lot less easily offended people.
Is that what people really mean when they say they're offended by Fred Phelps's travelling menagerie demonstrating at a funeral? Who knew.
Of course, what the cartoon is saying is that's what other people mean.
cute. do wish though that you'd mentioned that it's from the comic strip "non-sequitur". i've been trying to get a couple of friends who visit this site to follow it for ages now.
Non Sequitur too often comes across as the poor man's Calvin & Hobbes. I kept reading it thinking I would enjoy it, but it can seem to decide if its political, social commentary, or a story about a little girl. I think the strip trys to do too much and winds up being mediocre.
A mirror is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
I'd suggest you consider "being offended" to be made illegal. In my experience, the people who claim to be offended are clearly the dangerous ones who pose a direct threat to everyone in an open and free society.
Recently I heard a well-educated adult man in the professional medical field repeatedly use the non-words "criterias" and, indeed, "irregardless." Apparently he was never corrected on this because it would, of course, have made him feel terrible. That is simply the worst thing one could do. Better he sound like a moron. Myself, I'd rather someone let me know if I've got spinach in my teeth, you know?
The worst sort are those who claim to be offended "because of the children."
Wiley Miller often has some good commentary up his sleeve, but he has his own blindspots, too, just like all of us. It seems he can't stand new media, particularly webcartoonists who are actually succesful. Of course, that could just be my perception, but I've seen more than a litte bias from him about those who are "big on the internet".
Heather #8 wrote:
Welcome to the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship! ;)
Coming at my atheism from the 'skeptic movement' angle, I always find it a bit ironic when other atheists argue that it should be okay to mock or criticize religion because it is, after all, considered socially acceptable to mock or criticize pseudoscience and the paranormal.
Oh yeah? You should hear the pseudoscientists and paranormalists scream and whine and piss and moan over the "insensitivity" and "lack of respect" and "arrogance" and "mean-ness" of those who can't just accept that maybe some people DO know more than the smarty-pants scientific experts, and have become mystically aware through the Cosmic Consciousness that Bigfoot was a space alien who built the pyramids using psychokenesis and energy crystals. People should be allowed to believe what they want! No criticizing! We're being offended!
That's insanity. EVERYONE knows bigfoot was created to pilot the flying saucer that Elvis took after his faked death to outer space to travel back in time and fake the moon landings.
(New to this site. Sorry if I don't know the etiquette.)
Heather @ #8
You make an excellent point, but I prefer going straight for the jugular: "Some people honestly believe the Holocaust never happened. Am I supposed to respect that, too?"
It seems to me that the fallacies of the "offended" are two-fold.
First that when someone states something contrary to one's personal beliefs, his ability to hold those beliefs is impeded. People are allowed to believe whatever tripe they choose, and this is perfectly consistent with others pointing out that it is a load of tripe.
Second, and more often commented, is the fallacious notion that merely being offended is an action that puts some obligation on the "offender." The proper response to someone taking offense is not an automatic apology, but rather a reasoned inquiry as to whether that person's offense was reasonable in the first place. Allowing the weenie battle cry of "I am offended" be the trump card in any debate merely has the effect of reducing all discourse to the tepidity of the most thin-skinned among us.
Being exposed to a video of two females and a single cup perhaps?
Hear that, libruls? If you don't like racists trying to spread more racism, it's because you're the real racists.
Deep thoughts!
Faith to believe in something we can't prove is one thing; faith to deny things that we can is something altogether different.
Every time I hear the word 'respect' I cringe...
Here's someone else getting all offended.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/28/italy
I have always found that hunger-strikes amount to little more than overgrown kids holding their breathes. I say starve the bastard.
I used to fume when people would preach about respecting each other. Now I go on the attack.
Me: Why should I hold you in high esteem? What is there about you that I should admire? Make a list, starting now. Speak clearly so everybody can hear.
Idiot: [gobsmacked -- cannot start bragging for fear of ridicule]
I was juuuuuuuuust about to order lunch. Now, not so much.
Yeah, we often use the terms "offensive" and "disgusting" interchangeably, don't we?
I don't know, this cartoon sounds like just about every creationist troll I've encountered. 'You wouldn't be bothered by creationism being taught in schools, if you weren't afraid that it's true.'
Many times speech is offensive because it isn't true, and it never had anything to back it up at all, and still we're subjected to the same canned lies that we saw through when we were teenagers.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Excellent cartoon.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/summers_is_out_for_school.php
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07/summers-vi…
It all comes down to the small difference between insulting and offensive. I had a falling out with a "friend" recently because he didn't understand this small difference. Basically he wanted to discuss religion (a mormon), but only if I would accept it as truth and for no other reason than because he did. He was offended by my disbelief, and would become insulting. My sig goes into the difference between insulting and offensive.
And if our only response to creationist drivel was to call it offensive and try to shut it down on that basis, they might have a point.
This must be the right place to ask if anyone has noticed Al Gore at the Democratic Convention.
Danae in the cartoon reminds me of neocons, creationists, new agers, psychics, and godbots in general. Don't confuse them with the facts.
We need to keep repeating, free speech means that you are going to be offended on occasion. And respect does not mean we have to agree with you first.
2 words: chocolate mousse.
I just heard this on the radio last night and it somewhat pertains to the thread. The Swiss government pardoned and apologized to the last witch that it had prosecuted. Unfortunately for her, the pardon came more than 200 years after the Swiss government executed her.
Ahhh, the good old days when a woman who offended a man, the church, or the prevailing order could be brought to trial as a witch and then executed.
The sad and pathetic thing about this story is that they consulted with the church prior to her pardon.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_re_eu/switzerland_witch_1
"Many times speech is offensive because it isn't true, and it never had anything to back it up at all, and still we're subjected to the same canned lies that we saw through when we were teenagers."
Are you actually offended by what creationists say? Really? I don't find it offensive at all. Just wrong. Being offended would be like being offended by someone sincerely believing in the Easter Bunny.
You know what isn't offensive? The pictures of cats in an opening Powerpoint presentation.
Also, thanks for being the only prof on campus so far who knows how to use PowerPoint -- that is to say, you don't write your slides, then read them word for word in a monotone without going into examples. Professors that assume they need to spend classtime reading Powerpoint slides aloud with no extra data are annoying. Your lecture was not annoying.
But from the back of the room, I noticed that there are powerful things instilled in the heads of these kids about what it means to be in a class -- a science class especially. I saw dozens of people dutifully copying from the slide: "Science is not a catalog of facts." In bullet points. It's ironic, and it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Perhaps you should be offended when they call scientists liars, and tell children that believing in science will doom them to hell.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I'm offended when they say I cannot have any morals because morals only come from the Sky Daddy. This is a step toward profiling atheists as likely criminals.
If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
Yeah, I get a little angry occasionally. But mostly I just tell them that their religion makes them brainless, and that I will take amoral over stupidity any day. I seem to strike a nerve every time.
Heather, #8
Conflate often? Just because the wingbats confuse subjects is no reason for you to do the same. A conspiracy theory is not the same sort of thing as an hypothesized animal.
Or does the thought of undiscovered species offend you? How did you react when you first heard that rats giggle when they're tickled? Are you offended when you learn that some of what you were taught in school is wrong?
The primary role of science is error correction. If you must take offense at having your errors corrected, you are not doing science.
This is wonderful.
I'm not a regular reader of Non Sequiter (and I can tell from the comments that most people aren't either), but every once in a while I see something good.
Personally, I'm a Pearls Before Swine guy.
I've got a Carlin-esque view of it all: did you ever notice it's phrased as "taking offense"? Hmmm. It would seem that by taking offense you are accepting something as offensive. Why take offense if it bothers you? How about just saying no thanks, I don't want any offense?
There...No offense is taken! All are happy.
To me, many people are usually just looking for some reason to throw a hissy fit. It has very little to do with what I say or do for them to take offense.
A corollary to this is the 'So...or what?" question from my wife. Any statment/question from her that has the form of "So...or what? I don't even have to know or listen to whatever is between those three words, I just know that I'm in for some sort of argument.
Sorry, I can't support your posting of Non Sequitur, which is a horrifically shitty comic strip.
And in case anyone is wondering, yes I intended to imply that my opinion of comics is the final word. If you disagree with me on this, you are mentally deficient.
Even the most appalling comic strip will screw up and somehow insert an apt remark that appeals to our particular irritation. If it denigrates religion, then that particular strip I will find appealing and usually cut it out and save it. "Shoe", "Zippy", and several others will have a theme of irrational thinking and behavior and so serve to remind us that there are several of these strips that are apt to our way of thinking. "Pogo" is a lost strip that was not only funny but made many commentaries on human foibles. Max and Dan would have been apt targets for their irrational foibles.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with an old friend last week (we see each other perhaps twice a year as she lives in Van.)
As a Greek-Orthodox-raised apologist, she's offended by the militancy of the new atheists. Her argument for religion and why it's horrible that her university-educated liberal friends criticise her religiosity? It was important to her while growing up (delivered with a touch of verging-on-tears-hysteria).
That's it. That's the argument. For the sake of not ruining our semiannual get-together, I quickly changed the subject to something less likely to cause a blowout (sex, if I recall correctly.)
How does that saying go again? "Your emotionality is not evidence" or something like that?
As if your blog comment to a creationist has any effect on whether or not these fuckers are going to try to build a theocracy over us.
@Eric #37
Yeah, been there myself. A nice, liberal, intelligent Christian friend of mine said that not only did she not mind me questioning her beliefs, but that she wanted me to. When I explained why some of those beliefs were unjustified, she was unable to respond, so she played the "I'm offended" card. Basically, I felt that she was making it my fault that her beliefs were devoid of logic. It was very frustrating.
Here's someone else getting all offended.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/28/italy
I'm offended by that because the 'crucified frog' was so stolen from 'Meet the Feebles.'
If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
Well, there's other reasons. I'm not angry, but it has more to do with the fact that I am an uber misanthrope with pitch black supercooled blood flowing listlessly through my hard, pitiless veins, pumped by a heart that long ago ossified into a hard substance that stop neutrinos. You have to care about the country or the world or whatever to get angry over this nonsense. People tell me I'm an awful person for that POV, but, well, I don't care. :)
But mostly I just tell them that their religion makes them brainless, and that I will take amoral over stupidity any day. I seem to strike a nerve every time.
Well, I'd wager that walking up to any person at random and calling them brainless will strike a nerve. I don't think it has much to do with the quality or even the basic subject matter of the surrounding argument.
Gob-dammit Big Dumb Chip, You reverend, you've let the Elvis out of the bag. Shhhhh! Now go forth and telleth no more. ;)
Speaking of non sequiturs and comics: http://stonemakerargument.com/1.html
Oh come on, it was light-hearted banter made in the company of fellow atheists. I never said this was going to stop them from fucking us over. Calm down.
Dave Haaz-Baroque @ 56
Hellava frog; instead of the egg there should have been the cracker! The response from the retards would have been a screeching howl! Screw them!
53: How does that saying go again? "Your emotionality is not evidence" or something like that?
But you're missing an important point, I think. The research (e.g., John Kotter) on change management is clear that data, facts and reason alone are rarely sufficient to effect real change in people's thoughts and actions. Our emotions are necessarily part of the process -- our hearts need to be stirred (so to speak).
What's up with Clayton county in Georgia? School system is losing it's accreditation.
I don't have any more details for the moment...
Exactly. That's why I had an RTG-powered blender installed in my chest.
I'm offended when they say I cannot have any morals because morals only come from the Sky Daddy. This is a step toward profiling atheists as likely criminals.
But what they are really saying is that they don't have morals, just fear of getting caught by the "Sky Daddy". They accuse of of not having morals because they cannot conceive of doing "good" and not doing "evil" on their own merits without being threatened with the ultimate "time out". Adults with the morality of a child, they just substitute one strict parent for another. They do not want to have to think about what is "good" and "bad", they just want to be told. So when we say we reject that, they can only think of us in equally childish terms, that we reject so we can be "naughty". So in this case PeeWee Herman's response is perfect, "I know you are, but what am I?"
You do not get to dictate how other people choose to engage in conversation. It is not a sin for others to speak seriously when you would prefer that they be lighthearted.
Speaking about "being offended" and such:
Some catholic organizations from Brazil protested because the local edition of Playboy included some pictures of a naked woman holding a rosary, which apparently "offends their feelings". Result: a judge banned the issue and ordered the offending photos won't be used again
Here's the news in Portuguese and in Spanish (couldn't find an English reference, sorry).
MH #55 wrote:
This made me laugh. I've been in a few such situations myself, with liberal, intelligent, "spiritual" people claiming they love and welcome exciting challenges to their beliefs -- and then you find out they don't really mean it.
I think this is because most theists have only a very vague understanding of real criticism of religion. They expect to hear things like "isn't hell a mean idea?" or "why can't more Christians be like Christ?" -- criticisms which they themselves often make, and which don't really get to the heart of the matter on whether or not religious claims are actually true, or whether 'having faith' should really be considered a virtue.
What's most bothersome about the "I'm offended" card is that it's usually played as a debate stopper. It's not "this poster is offensive because it is wrong, and here is my argument on why apocrypha should not be used as historical fact." It's "this poster is wrong because I am offended."
This, and Glen D @ 35, are useful contributions.
Kneejerk responses that amount to "there's never anything wrong with being offensive," or "you're wrong because you're offended," are just as stupid as "this is wrong just because it is offensive."
Maybe people should make lists of things that offend them, then walk around with the list pinned to their chests, and we would all know where we stand.
Then again it might not be a good idea for a lot of religious people, they might trip up over their own lists.
Here's my list anyway:
I like it when people get all offended and huff and snort. Most of them look just like PZ's little icon of Bill Donahue.
Grammar RWA @69:
Kneejerk responses that amount to "there's never anything wrong with being offensive," or "you're wrong because you're offended," are just as stupid as "this is wrong just because it is offensive."
My point is no one can be offensive, only people can take offense. Go ahead, try to be offensive. I cannot be offended by whatever you choose to do because I choose not to take offense.
If you (or anyone else for that matter) wants to be offended by something I say or do, I have no control over that. Call that attitude stupid if you will, but I don't think you understand.
I would agree with the idea that when I am offended it is me that is taking offense. being offended is to take offense which is an action on my part I am not very often offended by an argument position that disagrees with me but I do some times find myself reacting automatically to personal attacks or negative judgments about me personally. Like when I was having a political discussion with a "ditto head" conservative and was called a traitor like all other liberals because I did not agree with the particular issue at hand, I kind of came unglued.
It was a completely emotional reaction on my part.
the problem of being personally offended and /or offensive is a difficult one, emotions are not very amenable to reason. nor is "religion" or belief without awareness of the role emotion has in it.
Your point is no doubt persuasive to middle schoolers.
In your formulation, when racists burn crosses on the lawns of black families, the black folks are at fault because they are "choosing to be offended."
Gosh, yes, it's a brand new idea that no one has ever heard before. I must just not understand your brilliance!
All that you propose is a license to be a rude asshole to anyone you want, while being absolved of any consequences, by blaming the targets of your abuse for letting you abuse them.
A few months ago I saw Michael Medved at a debate sponsored by a local AM1280, The Patriot. His Medheads (Deadheads might be more accurate) were there shouting and clapping for his inanity as he debated Ed Schultz from AM950 Air America.
Anyhow, being a newbie here, I wondered if PZ ever posted on MM. So, I did a search and found an old post "How people convince themselves to vote for idiots for president" because I wanted to see what PZ thought of Michael Medved. Go to the post if you want to see what PZ thought (which wasn't very complimentary.)
The only reason I bring this up is that when linking into Medved's article, I noticed that beneath every post was a little flag icon with the words "Flag if offensive".
It seemed to fit with today's post and all by accident. Or was it the thought waves of the FSM!
Sastra, that's' precisely what bothers me so much about theists using the 'I'm offended' card. Because someone simply doesn't have an intelligent response to your questions about their beliefs, all of a sudden, in one short phrase, you're now just the big bad atheist and the debate's over. Ugh, it's so frustrating. No matter how nice and mild mannered I am when engaging in such debates, it usually ends up this same way. Has anyone figured out the secret of getting around this 'you're mean and offensive, I win!' strategy?
I would much rather listen to someone who's cranky and offensive AND CORRECT than someone who is kind, courteous, and totally divorced from reality. I fear this is the minority view.
I fit those descriptors quite well. You'll have to ask my wife about
Well LisaJ, the only way is "So do you actually have a point and/or want a debate"? Really "I'm offended", and "I don't want to talk about this anymore" are the same thing, and they should know as much. Don't go in the kitchen if you can't stand the heat, etc. If one is actually having an intelligent/philosophical debate, then no idea, no matter how vile and nasty ought to be out of bounds. And saying "your religion is a fairy tale" is pretty tame really.
ma drid @ 30
There is a news report about the crucified frog on the Internet News, and the cesspit vatican's anger over it. This isn't the first time that the Italians have denigrated the papist's feelings in his backyard. Love it! I believe at one time Rome wanted to take over the vatican for some other purpose or other, I cannot remember what, but it made news and the papist was getting ready to unleash those trillions of angels to counsel those wayward Italians! I believe there are a lot of atheists among the Italians, sort of the wolves in sheep's clothing!
Sinbad, in this case (and especially with this person), she was using emotionality as a show-stopper. In other words, because a particular issue causes her to stop and breathe deeply so as to fight back tears, decent interlocutors should stop arguing and respect her claims on the basis that she feels so damn strongly about them.
In my experience she uses this tactic far, far too often. I consider such poor technique to be akin to a cardinal sin since she's got a Master's in political science, but I'm pragmatic enough to know when to order another beer and when to cut the conversation short (and then order another beer).
I should have been clearer, Brownian. I'm sure you're correct as to that person and, were I in your shoes, would have reacted similarly. My would-be point was more general in nature and relates to the presumption many of us have that a good case alone, without an emotional component, can change people's ideas and actions. On the other hand, as (I think) Charles Colson said (pre-conversion and paraphrased), "When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will surely follow."
Quoting Mr. Wonderful from a thread on Pandagon, "They love indignation because it feels like self-esteem."
Seems to fit the bill here as well.
I think the cartoon hits it. I actually always saw the easily-offended types as being weak-minded, that their ideas were so fragile any challenge was terrifying. But there's more to it; they are quite suspicious that they are wrong, but either their argumentative faculty or their self-esteem is too weak to allow them to confront it. Ultimately it's cowardice, a clear rejection of Socrates' encouragement to live an examined life -- one in which you consider your ideas, and accept that others may be right.
And I generally agree with you on that point, Sinbad.
Not to belabor the idea, but I guarantee the "Pop-sci Book Meme" thread will produce a number of comments about books that influenced the commenter to pursue science and rationality because the book so successfully appealed to the emotion that many secular rationalists feel about a material universe.
"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" did that for me. I wanted to become a physicist at 11-years-old because Richard Feynman sounded so damn irreverently cool and smart.
If the KKK burned a cross at me I would not feel offended I would feel threatened. A burning cross is not just an offensive statement it is a threat saying we will bring "god's wrath and destruction" on all who we decide stand against us.
there is a real difference between being threatened and being offended. I think there is much confusion about this.
The reaction to "cracker desecration" seemed like it was more to a threat than to some kind of insult. It had the stink of fear to it.
Does religion foster fear? with hell and feed on the fear of death?
Then there's a simple reformulation, to which this objection does not apply. "When racists burn crosses on the lawns of black families, if anyone else but the black family being threatened complains, then they are just choosing to be offended." It still means the assholes get a free pass from most of the community, and it's still ridiculous.
I would be offended if someone in my community was harassing black people. But this is not an indictment of me, it is an indictment of the harassers. They are the ones who are choosing to act. The principle is the same even if they are not making threats, just yelling racial slurs.
Instead of this simplistic playground bullshit, where bullies are encouraged to act with impunity and victims hold sole responsibility for avoiding abuse, let's just recognize that sometimes "I'm offended" is a red herring, and sometimes it's a legitimate complaint, and there's probably no bright line that can tell us in advance which is which.
Good one.
In fact I made some very similar observations a couple of times - once relating to religious "offence" at an atheist billboard, for example.
Damn, posted the comment without the other link -
the other time I mentioned the "offense as fear" idea was when I wrote about the cracker uproar.
We have a right to be offended, we don't have the right to be prevented from it. People can find anything and everything offensive, one point where tolerance has gone too far is that we think that we have the duty not to offend others as it causes them distress.
I'm sure it's been said multiple times in the comments, but the words "I'm offended" shouldn't ever be a means to gain the moral highground. It's a weak debating strategy used by those who cannot hold their own position. Being offended doesn't change the truth of the idea in question, in effect it's the reverse ad hominem.
"When racists burn crosses on the lawns of black families, if anyone else but the black family being threatened complains, then they are just choosing to be offended."
that is where you are incorrect if you think that you are not threatened also anyone who disagrees with that kind of threat and "takes offense" is also under threat as well.
an insult only hurts me personally if I allow it, if it makes me feel bad about myself. I can not control your thoughts and opinions about me but your actions are a different matter there are many remedies I may chose to take still without ever having my feelings hurt.
I agree that the comment about being offended is a "bull shit" comment and is used to illicit some level of pity and at the same time feelings of superiority.
Now you are blurring the lines between threat and offense just to make yourself sound right. This is the fallacy of equivocation.
I live in a northern state and I am not threatened at all by the actions of southern racists. But I am offended by them. And my offense is legitimate. You can say it's "bull shit" but you are just wrong.
What you are saying is that the targets of harassment are responsible for the harassment, simply because they perceive it as harassment. You're being ridiculous, and no one can take you seriously. Grow up and drop the playground mentality.
What you are saying is that the targets of harassment are responsible for the harassment, simply because they perceive it as harassment.
that is exactly not what I am trying yo say. If you are being harassed you have recourse to law for a remedy because the law recognizes a damage from harassment.
If you or I object to some threat made in a more remote location from us like in another state or region and those who are making the threat do not have the power or ability to do anything make no mistake it is still a real threat to all who disagree.
I take the meaning of "to take offense" as to have some emotional reaction, of having my feelings hurt. That seems to be the way it is used in context of seeing a poster on a campus wall. I would speculate here that the emotional reaction if it is real and not just a way to object a tactic, is a reaction out of fear. further that religion is to a large extent psychologically based in fear and the more reactionary sects more so.
if the believers truly truly believed it would not make any difference what any one else did or said instead what we actually see is very different. It looks to me though that they want to be seen to be believers instead.
Too strict a definition of harassment. Not what I'm talking about.
Irrelevant. You're still saying that I should not get offended about it. No thanks.
A racist could use racial slurs every time he sees someone he doesn't like. That would be constitutionally protected speech, and there'd be nothing actionable about the harassment if he weren't following particular individuals around. Nevertheless, this is offensive. I know this shit goes on today, and I am offended. You are telling me that this offense is illegitimate. Just admit you were wrong.
Again, instead of this simplistic playground bullshit, where bullies are encouraged to act with impunity and victims hold sole responsibility for avoiding abuse, let's just recognize that sometimes "I'm offended" is a red herring, and sometimes it's a legitimate complaint, and there's probably no bright line that can tell us in advance which is which.
You're still here?
We're still here?
I gotta get out of this place.