How offended should we be?

[Alien826]

Years ago, when rock musicians were starting to grow their hair long, there was an interesting piece on British TV. Basically, a young man had been barred from technical college because his hair was long. They had the school principal and the young man on, with some others. It went on about various reasons that he should or should not be allowed to have long hair that don't apply to the subject of this thread. Anyway, at one point the principal said "It offends people". It seems so weird now, when everyone has their hair however they want and nobody cares, that this guy should think that long hair on a man was offensive, but he did.

On to my point.

How much onus does anyone have to so organize his hair, dress, or lifestyle to give the least offense to others?

On the other side, what is the limit to taking offense? Is it OK to take offense over the least thing (though obviously not small to the offendee)? How much onus is on us all to be as little offended as possible, given that in the Western world at least individual freedom is highly valued? I'm talking about things that are not physically harmful, like words, or physical appearance.

I'll throw in a few things to ponder.

"Cuss" words. Do they really do any harm? Why do they get bleeped out on TV?

Religious offense. How far should non-Muslims go to accommodate things like not publishing pictures of the Prophet? Should Muslims be less offended? Should there be "blue" laws that impose purely religious values on us all?

Cultural offense. Do jokes that target a particular race or culture do any harm? Should the "victims" have thicker skin?

Just questions, not reflective of my own views, well not much.

 

[Left Coast]

Years ago, when rock musicians were starting to grow their hair long, there was an interesting piece on British TV. Basically, a young man had been barred from technical college because his hair was long. They had the school principal and the young man on, with some others. It went on about various reasons that he should or should not be allowed to have long hair that don't apply to the subject of this thread. Anyway, at one point the principal said "It offends people". It seems so weird now, when everyone has their hair however they want and nobody cares, that this guy should think that long hair on a man was offensive, but he did.

On to my point.

How much onus does anyone have to so organize his hair, dress, or lifestyle to give the least offense to others?

On the other side, what is the limit to taking offense? Is it OK to take offense over the least thing (though obviously not small to the offendee)? How much onus is on us all to be as little offended as possible, given that in the Western world at least individual freedom is highly valued? I'm talking about things that are not physically harmful, like words, or physical appearance.

I'll throw in a few things to ponder.

"Cuss" words. Do they really do any harm? Why do they get bleeped out on TV?

Religious offense. How far should non-Muslims go to accommodate things like not publishing pictures of the Prophet? Should Muslims be less offended? Should there be "blue" laws that impose purely religious values on us all?

Cultural offense. Do jokes that target a particular race or culture do any harm? Should the "victims" have thicker skin?

Just questions, not reflective of my own views, well not much.

I find that giving a little grace and benefit of the doubt to people on either side helps deescalate conflicts around "offense" much of the time. Sometimes people are trying to be jerks, but often these things are unintentional or done out of ignorance.

Going out of your way to try to offend is often just counter-productive, if you want people to hear your message.

 

[Estro Felino]

Debate is sane.
In my opinion, people are free to say "I dislike this", or "I dislike that" because things are not people.

If someone speaks in general and not of determined people, why should you feel offended?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I am sure no one cares about the Bible or believes the Bible but I Corin 11:14 says that if a man has long hair it is a shame for him. Maybe the school was taking a religious view of it. Not saying if that was right or wrong but just pointing out that there is a religious side to it.

 

[Soandso]

Going out of your way to try to offend is often just counter-productive, if you want people to hear your message.

Depends. Sit-ins relied entirely on offending people, and it seemed to be an effective tool to utilize during the civil rights movement. Sometimes the punk rock approach is the correct one, IMO

 

[Stevicus]

Years ago, when rock musicians were starting to grow their hair long, there was an interesting piece on British TV. Basically, a young man had been barred from technical college because his hair was long. They had the school principal and the young man on, with some others. It went on about various reasons that he should or should not be allowed to have long hair that don't apply to the subject of this thread. Anyway, at one point the principal said "It offends people". It seems so weird now, when everyone has their hair however they want and nobody cares, that this guy should think that long hair on a man was offensive, but he did.

On to my point.

How much onus does anyone have to so organize his hair, dress, or lifestyle to give the least offense to others?

On the other side, what is the limit to taking offense? Is it OK to take offense over the least thing (though obviously not small to the offendee)? How much onus is on us all to be as little offended as possible, given that in the Western world at least individual freedom is highly valued? I'm talking about things that are not physically harmful, like words, or physical appearance.

I'll throw in a few things to ponder.

"Cuss" words. Do they really do any harm? Why do they get bleeped out on TV?

Religious offense. How far should non-Muslims go to accommodate things like not publishing pictures of the Prophet? Should Muslims be less offended? Should there be "blue" laws that impose purely religious values on us all?

Cultural offense. Do jokes that target a particular race or culture do any harm? Should the "victims" have thicker skin?

Just questions, not reflective of my own views, well not much.

I don't know, but I think times do change. Attitudes change. However, I think when it comes to certain inalienable human rights, a certain consistent, solid set of principles must still reign. If we base the standard on whatever is popular or fashionable at the moment, then that could be problematic somewhere down the line.

But as for long-haired freaky people, they can now apply for any job they want.

 

[Left Coast]

Depends. Sit-ins relied entirely on offending people, and it seemed to be an effective tool to utilize during the civil rights movement. Sometimes the punk rock approach is the correct one, IMO

I'm not claiming an absolute dogma, just a trend. In my experience, most people who go out of their way simply to offend basically alienate others, deepening conflict and hardening contrary opinions.

We see it here on RF, even.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you aren't actually hurting and harming someone, like physically attacking someone or poisoning them or causing a disruption that is objectively demonstrable (like noise levels) then it's really best just to mind our own business. It's easier that way, a mature and adult way of doing it, and best ensures our own whatevers won't be taboo or banned tomorrow.

 

[Quagmire]

I think a lot of offense is rooted in fear.

@Alien826 Going back to your example in the op, if I'm right and you're talking about an incident that took place sometime in the early 60s, I would say that at the time long hair on a male was so new and unorthodox that people didn't know how to take it or what it meant.

I think it would raise the question: "If this person is so willing to disregard an established social norm like the length of his hair, what other social norms and mores is he going to disregard"?

Its unfamiliar and in this case what's going on on the outside of this guy's head raises questions about what may be going on inside his head.

I think it's the same with a lot of things: when we see someone acting, grooming, dressing, or doing anything in unconventional ways some part of us is thinking, "This person is different. How different are they, and in what ways?"

I don't think it's applicable in the majority of instances when somebody's being offended, but to answer this part of your question:

How much onus does anyone have to so organize his hair, dress, or lifestyle to give the least offense to others?

I think it's a matter of choice, but I also think it's worthwhile taking moment to try and see things from the other person's perspective.

If something about your appearance or behavior is evoking fear, mistrust, or discomfort in someone else, I don't think that means you're necessarily obligated to change anything about yourself, but it does help to understand where this sense of being offended is coming from.

 

[John53]

Years ago, when rock musicians were starting to grow their hair long, there was an interesting piece on British TV. Basically, a young man had been barred from technical college because his hair was long. They had the school principal and the young man on, with some others. It went on about various reasons that he should or should not be allowed to have long hair that don't apply to the subject of this thread. Anyway, at one point the principal said "It offends people". It seems so weird now, when everyone has their hair however they want and nobody cares, that this guy should think that long hair on a man was offensive, but he did.

On to my point.

How much onus does anyone have to so organize his hair, dress, or lifestyle to give the least offense to others?

On the other side, what is the limit to taking offense? Is it OK to take offense over the least thing (though obviously not small to the offendee)? How much onus is on us all to be as little offended as possible, given that in the Western world at least individual freedom is highly valued? I'm talking about things that are not physically harmful, like words, or physical appearance.

I'll throw in a few things to ponder.

"Cuss" words. Do they really do any harm? Why do they get bleeped out on TV?

Religious offense. How far should non-Muslims go to accommodate things like not publishing pictures of the Prophet? Should Muslims be less offended? Should there be "blue" laws that impose purely religious values on us all?

Cultural offense. Do jokes that target a particular race or culture do any harm? Should the "victims" have thicker skin?

Just questions, not reflective of my own views, well not much.

It seems to be way over the top these but it's not hard to be non offensive. I have friends who don't like swearing so I refrain from swearing around them. It seems getting offended by people getting offended is the latest craze.

 

[JustGeorge]

Its interesting to see how the 'offenses' change.

Back in the 90s-early 2000s, my appearance totally offended some people. I can wear the same thing today, and few care. We've gotten more lenient regarding some things.

However, we tend to get much more offended by personal beliefs. As each year goes by, I share less and less of my thoughts and opinions with the general populace. I remember being at work a decade ago, and two people of differing outlooks(political, religious, otherwise) could sit down and have a discussion about it, and still keep up a positive relationship. Fighting over it was the exception, not the norm.

 

[Alien826]

I think a lot of offense is rooted in fear.

@Alien826 Going back to your example in the op, if I'm right and you're talking about an incident that took place sometime in the early 60s, I would say that at the time long hair on a male was so new and unorthodox that people didn't know how to take it or what it meant.

I think it would raise the question: "If this person is so willing to disregard an established social norm like the length of his hair, what other social norms and mores is he going to disregard"?

Its unfamiliar and in this case what's going on on the outside of this guy's head raises questions about what may be going on inside his head.

I think it's the same with a lot of things: when we see someone acting, grooming, dressing, or doing anything in unconventional ways some part of us is thinking, "This person is different. How different are they, and in what ways?"

That's very likely correct, but my point was more, when these things arise who should change and to what extent? Should the young man have cut his hair? Should the Principal have realized that "times were a changing" and let it be? The young man was being very reasonable in the TV interview and even offered to wear a hair net in class (they were talking about getting his hair caught in machinery in "shop" lessons). He seemed totally inoffensive to me, but still the Principal was "offended".

I have a feeling it's often more about losing control over others than fear.

I don't think it's applicable in the majority of instances when somebody's being offended, but to answer this part of your question:

I think it's a matter of choice, but I also think it's worthwhile taking moment to try and see things from the other person's perspective.

If something about your appearance or behavior is evoking fear, mistrust, or discomfort in someone else, I don't think that means you're necessarily obligated to change anything about yourself, but it does help to understand where this sense of being offended is coming from.

Of course we should always try to understand others. But if something I do makes someone uncomfortable and after my efforts to placate them they are still uncomfortable, I'm sorry I'm still going to do it. Otherwise I'm putting myself under that other person's control.

 

[Alien826]

Its interesting to see how the 'offenses' change.

Back in the 90s-early 2000s, my appearance totally offended some people. I can wear the same thing today, and few care. We've gotten more lenient regarding some things.

Yes. Shorts skirts for women and tattoos spring to mind. My question is, why did people get offended in the first place? Obviously these things are not inherently offensive, or they still would be.

I'll run something up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes it.

People tend to have pictures in their minds of "how things should be". When they see something that differs from one of those pictures they have a negative reaction. What then happens varies. At one end of the scale is shock! horror! and an attempt to change that thing to fit their picture of the world. At the other end, "meh".

 

[Vinayaka]

Some folks offend without knowing they're offending, because they project their sense of what's offensive onto others. To me, it's up to the person feeling offended to decide. So if anyone says to me, "I'm offended' I know they are, and try to apologise, and not repeat the same mistake. For example, if you use a racial slur, not knowing it is a racial slur, and find out about it after the fact, then change that. I'm personally not offended by much but am aware that others may feel differently. To go out of your way to offend people, for your own 'enjoyment' or whatever, borders on cruelty in my mind.

 

[JustGeorge]

Yes. Shorts skirts for women and tattoos spring to mind. My question is, why did people get offended in the first place? Obviously these things are not inherently offensive, or they still would be.

I'll run something up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes it.

People tend to have pictures in their minds of "how things should be". When they see something that differs from one of those pictures they have a negative reaction. What then happens varies. At one end of the scale is shock! horror! and an attempt to change that thing to fit their picture of the world. At the other end, "meh".

Sometimes it wasn't even 'showy' stuff... Someone once called the cops on me for prostitution. I was, indeed, standing on the corner. However, I was fully covered(I had on a huge coat, it was the dead of winter).... waiting at a bus stop. I was also only a kid(17). Someone was bothered by a blue haired person in a black dress with fun make up, though. Why? Because its 'different'. They were offended by my 'differentness'.

Probably preconceived notions on what I stood for(sex and drugs in their mind, even though I was 100% square in reality) seems likely. I see a lot of people do that: "I don't like [this or that] worldview because they all do/think [this or that behavior/thought].

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Years ago, when rock musicians were starting to grow their hair long, there was an interesting piece on British TV. Basically, a young man had been barred from technical college because his hair was long. They had the school principal and the young man on, with some others. It went on about various reasons that he should or should not be allowed to have long hair that don't apply to the subject of this thread. Anyway, at one point the principal said "It offends people". It seems so weird now, when everyone has their hair however they want and nobody cares, that this guy should think that long hair on a man was offensive, but he did.

I've asked this question, that I'm going to bring up to you, a number of times, and I've never gotten an answer to it. Ok, so I've seen footage on youtube, of former civil war soldiers. These were taken during the 30's, I presume. And in these videos, these people, who were of the age to be your grandparents, sometimes had long hair and wild beards, and they were getting old, by that time. Ok, so exactly when did that become non-respectable? Because you know, you can look at these 19th century paintings and photos all these wild, wild hairstyles

Now, I'm not saying that a hippie would get along with someone from one of those photographs. (But maybe?) But the fact is, those people were supposedly the respected elders of the straight-edge looking guys from the 50's. That shaved up looking guy from the 50's either must have known that, or at some point, a parallel universe overtook ours, and the the wild hair tradition was erased supernaturally. I say that, because the sharp change in fashion and etiquette seemed so radical, or counter-radical, that is actually implausible.

I mean, the 50's aesthetic came entirely out of whole cloth. That look, that they valued, had no precedent in all of history.

 

[Alien826]

Sometimes it wasn't even 'showy' stuff... Someone once called the cops on me for prostitution. I was, indeed, standing on the corner. However, I was fully covered(I had on a huge coat, it was the dead of winter).... waiting at a bus stop. I was also only a kid(17). Someone was bothered by a blue haired person in a black dress with fun make up, though. Why? Because its 'different'. They were offended by my 'differentness'.

Probably preconceived notions on what I stood for(sex and drugs in their mind, even though I was 100% square in reality) seems likely. I see a lot of people do that: "I don't like [this or that] worldview because they all do/think [this or that behavior/thought].

I'll suggest a thought process on behalf of the police. I see someone with blue hair. (Here it gets more instinctive) I don't approve of that, it offends me. How can I punish that person for offending me? I'll accuse her of prostitution, she is standing on the corner. I know it won't stand up in court but she will get a much needed lesson. I'll do it anyway.

 

[Alien826]

I've asked this question, that I'm going to bring up to you, a number of times, and I've never gotten an answer to it. Ok, so I've seen footage on youtube, of former civil war soldiers. These were taken during the 30's, I presume. And in these videos, these people, who were of the age to be your grandparents, sometimes had long hair and wild beards, and they were getting old, by that time. Ok, so exactly when did that become non-respectable? Because you know, you can look at these 19th century paintings and photos all these wild, wild hairstyles

Now, I'm not saying that a hippie would get along with someone from one of those photographs. (But maybe?) But the fact is, those people were supposedly the respected elders of the straight-edge looking guys from the 50's. That shaved up looking guy from the 50's either must have known that, or at some point, a parallel universe overtook ours, and the the wild hair tradition was erased supernaturally. I say that, because the sharp change in fashion and etiquette seemed so radical, or counter-radical, that is actually implausible.

I mean, the 50's aesthetic came entirely out of whole cloth. That look, that they valued, had no precedent in all of history.

I don't see it as all that mysterious. First, context. In history, well that's history, it doesn't affect me. The soldiers, well I guess they had been out in the field and couldn't get to a barber. Pictures of wild haired prophets on mountaintops, they're special it doesn't apply to everyone.

In the 50's though, we'd just come out of a war when many men had been subject to army (and other services) barbers, who knew "short back and sides" and nothing much else. This reflected the army standard that everything must be neat and tidy. These barbers came out of the services and set up their own hair cutting businesses where they continued to (guess what) do "short back and sides". It was almost impossible to get them to do anything different and some guys I knew went to female hairdressers, though that was very suspect culturally.

All this was enough to make the change to longer hair very suspect to many people, as it seemed to be changing an established standard, which is always resisted.

 

[JustGeorge]

I'll suggest a thought process on behalf of the police. I see someone with blue hair. (Here it gets more instinctive) I don't approve of that, it offends me. How can I punish that person for offending me? I'll accuse her of prostitution, she is standing on the corner. I know it won't stand up in court but she will get a much needed lesson. I'll do it anyway.

Well, it was a person in the neighborhood of the bus stop who called(she had the good heart to come out and let me know that she'd called, to which I replied "ma'am, I am waiting for a bus"), but yes, the thought process you mention is entirely probable.

Though I wonder, where does the instinct come in to want to punish people for being different? I see people of all walks do it... Why? Simple tribalism?

 

[Heyo]

Well, it was a person in the neighborhood of the bus stop who called(she had the good heart to come out and let me know that she'd called, to which I replied "ma'am, I am waiting for a bus"), but yes, the thought process you mention is entirely probable.

Though I wonder, where does the instinct come in to want to punish people for being different? I see people of all walks do it... Why? Simple tribalism?

Tribalism paired with tradition. My grandparents are tribal, my parents are tribal and so am I.
And that tribalism was useful in olden times. Having a reputation of being "neat" attracted neat people who were more likely to contribute to the community.
Today we are more tolerant - sometimes to a fault. Tolerance is not indifference. We have to ask ourselves "who's problem is that?". Blue hair and rags and feathers aren't really a problem at all - crime is. But reporting a crime is more dangerous than reporting a blue haired girl.