U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-09-2017, 10:19 PM
Status: "I'm an unmherkun puppy-kicking Socialist" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
3,943 posts, read 2,083,406 times
Reputation: 3695

Advertisements

Offense is a word a lot of people throw around on C-D or other places. What I have yet to see anywhere is a post about offense itself is. Is it just a verbal weapon used to try to intimidate others, or strong pain felt only by so-called “oversensitive crybabies”? Or is it truly a strong hurtfulness reasonable people can feel at being demeaned? Not simply rebuked for something universally considered unethical or immoral, demeaned because they have some kind of shortcoming or another. The answer: It depends on the context, tone and the totality of relevant facts surrounding the matter: tone, personal track record, or overall reputation of the person’s saying or hearing the remark.

In brief, I see offense used either too broadly or too narrowly. One side uses the term in a disparaging way to rationalize, excuse, or justify plainly disparaging and even bigoted behavior toward another due to the target's opinion alone. Another side uses it as a way to make a person back off a perfectly legitimate point because that side doesn't want to wrestle with uncomfortable truths (or at least good points).

Personally, I used to think it obvious what it means, but both the broad and narrow uses are a distortion of the actual spirit of the term. Put simply, there’s a HUGE difference between an actually offensive comment and a merely uncomfortable or controversial one.

Controversial statements are simply expressions of views that are unpopular or uncomfortable to hear, but cannot in any way be reasonably be seen as a personalized insult, belittlement, or degradation of the people who hold those views.

Offensive statements necessarily include a tone and/or content the average person is likely to see as hurful, harmful, or demeaning to the dignity of others – especially if said with intent to do so, or with clear willful indifference (practically any example of an ad hominem qualifies, but Style Over Substance also qualifies, as does any other aesthetic-based argument for that matter. The list is potentially endless). This conflating of “offense” and “controversial” only breeds distrust of “the other”, making any helpful exchange of view far more difficult – and I’d say outright toxic for democracy, republics, or whatever you care to call our system of government.[/quote]

Am I on solid ground here? Or am I overlooking something? Or is some other error present?

 
Old 12-09-2017, 11:24 PM
 
2,870 posts, read 1,656,192 times
Reputation: 1933
Saying that something is offensive is just a way to censor the opposition. Whole groups of people (Leftists) have turned being offended into an art form. They look to be offended and discuss with each other how offended they are by something that was said by someone. People like this are the trash of society.
 
Old 12-10-2017, 12:38 AM
 
Location: CA
4,168 posts, read 1,796,771 times
Reputation: 5339
liberalism
 
Old 12-10-2017, 01:39 AM
Status: "I'm an unmherkun puppy-kicking Socialist" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
3,943 posts, read 2,083,406 times
Reputation: 3695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai View Post
Saying that something is offensive is just a way to censor the opposition. Whole groups of people (Leftists) have turned being offended into an art form. They look to be offended and discuss with each other how offended they are by something that was said by someone. People like this are the trash of society.
Censorship. I don't mean government preventing you from speaking. That is what censorship is. Besides, when did you have midnight visits from the Feds because you said something online? Beyond this, the Constitution only says the government may not abridge freedom of speech. It says nothing about preventing private entities or individuals that prevent others from speaking.

Beyond this, even assuming censorship includes parents censoring their children, or teachers and principals censoring minors who are students, it does not follow that all censorship (under THIS broad a definition, at least) is unfair. It's done all the time to prevent disruption of serious discussions, especially with regard to tone, spirit, etc. Again, I'm talking of non-governmental situations.

"Look to be offended". Suppose they actually are offended - if you define offense as being subject to remarks the average person would consider highly dignity-robbing, can affect others' view or social standing of that person (rationally or irrationally), and the average person would not tolerate in that circumstance? If they are actually offended, then perhaps that's a clue that the person used unreasonably harsh language given the situation, and should apologize for their disrespectful treatment of that person - especially if the speaker themself would never tolerate such tones or twisting of their words.

"they are trash of society". So what you're saying, in effect, is that it should be socially permissible (completely aside from legalities) to demean or severely humiliate others even if over some mere nitpicky, non-character shortcoming they have? I'm sure you yourself would object to people degrading your personhood merely on account of some harmlessly different trait or viewpoint you have.

In the end, if you disagree with something, then simply state why they're mistaken, and list reasons why they are wrong - as opposed to implying they deserve severe disrespect merely due to their making a claim you perceive as in error.


Quote:
Originally Posted by neko_mimi View Post
liberalism
Actually, it's conservatism and traditionalism - especially when people make them justify traditional and/or conservative beliefs. See how that sword cuts both ways?

Last edited by Phil75230; 12-10-2017 at 01:48 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top