"I'm Offended"

[Deathbydefault]

Why is it that people seem to think those two words constitute an argument?

There is much of this going on in the world today and in the past as well.
There have been plenty of instances where people will act out when they get offended.
Resorting to violence is childish, it's the grownup equivalent to throwing a temper tantrum.

Is it alright to offend others purposefully?
Do you feel that offending others should be avoided?
Is it okay to with you to avoid offending a party who incites violence when criticized, and because they are criticized?

Please answer my questions as you may and commence discourse .

 

[Mister Emu]

I think Stephen Fry said everything that needs to be said about taking offense:

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ****ing what.

 

[Skwim]

Just to note, offense isn't given, it's taken. Whether or not a statement is deemed offensive depends entirely on the recipient. He and he alone decides. Personally, unless I truly respect and value someone's opinion, I don't take offense at what they say. And , of course, if someone takes offense at what I say, and I don't particularly respect them, I'm inclined to echo Fry's response, "Well, so ****ing what?"

My unsolicited advice: If your feelings are easily hurt then stay away from places where this likely to happen.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Quite right. I worded the OP carefully in consideration of that distinction.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I'm becoming a quick fan of this person the both of you have mentioned.

 

[Politesse]

Well, there used to be this expectation of decency in public. I guess now everyone just wants a food fight instead. Another symptom of the death of adulthood, I suspect.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Well, there used to be this expectation of decency in public. I guess now everyone just wants a food fight instead. Another symptom of the death of adulthood, I suspect.

Adulthood is overrated.
So is verbal decency.

 

[Zardoz]

Them's Fightin' Words...

Seriously, if you intentionally verbally abuse others, like let's say calling them the N word, they should just take it?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Them's Fightin' Words...

Seriously, if you intentionally verbally abuse others, like let's say calling them the N word, they should just take it?

No, they should give back.

 

[Laika]

Voted "Some other Answer".

Sadly, a fair number of "critics" are most often offended by people who do not share their appreciation for what they believe is "commonsense". The majority of criticism consists in asserting authoritarian rules of social control to humilitate and discipline those who think differently, rather than being based on a shared understanding of each others arguments. from a position of ignorance, many engage in criticism which is often baseless and a serious waste of time. free thought requires the ability to challange our own views and to re-examine why we arrived at them. I'd measure the seriousness of a critic by how willing they are to admit fault rather than simply see it in others.

This is not an argument against criticism however, but the qaulitity of criticism. it is really rewarding to see two people engage in a civil discussion with each other when they recognise they are coming from different points of view and appreciate that they may not automatically reach the same conclusion. it can often take very unexpected and interesting turns in the conversation as people investigate why they have arrived at different beliefs rather than simply recognising that they are different.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well, there used to be this expectation of decency in public. I guess now everyone just wants a food fight instead. Another symptom of the death of adulthood, I suspect.

This statement offends me. Don't you feel guilty?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Voted "Some other Answer".

Sadly, a fair number of "critics" are most often offended by people who do not share their appreciation for what they believe is "commonsense". The majority of criticism consists in asserting authoritarian rules of social control to humilitate and discipline those who think differently, rather than being based on a shared understanding of each others arguments. from a position of ignorance, many engage in criticism which is often baseless and a serious waste of time. free thought requires the ability to challange our own views and to re-examine why we arrived at them. I'd measure the seriousness of a critic by how willing they are to admit fault rather than simply see it in others.

This is not an argument against criticism however, but the qaulitity of criticism.

I agree with your criticism of critics.
Sadly they have to be allowed lest we give up the freedom of speech.
I voted "yes" on my poll, for the record.

it is really rewarding to see two people engage in a civil discussion with each other when they recognise they are coming from different points of view and appreciate that they may not automatically reach the same conclusion. it can often take very unexpected and interesting turns in the conversation as people investigate why they have arrived at different beliefs rather than simply recognising that they are different.

While I agree to an extent, there are other methods.
Not everything works for everyone, what I'm going to mention below works for me but probably not for most.

One other method is a form of humiliation.

Let's say you are in an argument with someone who asserts they have knowledge that is impossible to have on god(s) or whatever.
You, being in control of the facts, completely dismantle his argument.
That's well and dandy, but the point of him being incorrect may not get through that way.
Some people require verbal aggression to get a point across, that extra push to get past the wall of idiocy.
Hitchens can give a good few examples of how this tactic works.

 

[Deathbydefault]

The groups I feel should be offended the most are those of religion.
They need to build up a tolerance to it, so things like murder over cartoons doesn't happen.
Absolute childish idiocy.

I make of point of being a little insulting when I post towards deeply religious people.
Call it snobbish of me but I think what I have to say gets through the brain better when it comes in as an insult.

 

[Laika]

I agree with your criticism of critics.
Sadly they have to be allowed lest we give up the freedom of speech.
I voted "yes" on my poll, for the record.

yeah. sadly.

While I agree to an extent, there are other methods.
Not everything works for everyone, what I'm going to mention below works for me but probably not for most.

One other method is a form of humiliation.

Let's say you are in an argument with someone who asserts they have knowledge that is impossible to have on god(s) or whatever.
You, being in control of the facts, completely dismantle his argument.
That's well and dandy, but the point of him being incorrect may not get through that way.
Some people require verbal aggression to get a point across, that extra push to get past the wall of idiocy.
Hitchens can give a good few examples of how this tactic works.

I will disagree with you on this. humiliation is essentially a political weapon. in terms of crowd psychology it is a way for an individual to manipulate people emotionally to trivalise and dismiss someone's point of view. it is however very difficult to resist as this is about our social nature and the "them and us" mentality.

the purpose of criticism is to change or even just evaluate someone's views. humiliation is an admission that you cannot change a persons views based on reason, but can marginalise them instead by peer pressure and abusing them. it is better to live and let live. in the rare occassions that is not enough because the arguments led to strongly divergent and conflicting paths of action, in the real world, that leads to violence.

I would therefore not define humiliation or ridicule as a form of criticism. we cannot "will" another person to change their views, and even under extreme methods such as torture- it only changes how a person behaves in the presence of coercion, rather than permantly alter the content their beliefs.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I will disagree with you on this. humiliation is essentially a political weapon. in terms of crowd psychology it is a way for an individual to manipulate people emotionally to trivalise and dismiss someone's point of view. it is however very difficult to resist as this is about our social nature and the "them and us" mentality.

the purpose of criticism is to change or even just evaluate someone's views. humiliation is an admission that you cannot change a persons views based on reason, but can marginalise them instead by peer pressure and abusing them. it is better to live and let live. in the rare occassions that is not enough because the arguments led to strongly divergent and conflicting paths of action, in the real world, that leads to violence.

I would therefore not define humiliation or ridicule as a form of criticism. we cannot "will" another person to change their views, and even under extreme methods such as torture- it only changes how a person behaves in the presence of coercion, rather than permantly alter the content their beliefs.

Well there's also the case of getting them used to it.
Letting them know there are other viewpoints in the world that can disagree with or even hate the one they might have.

I've built up an extremely strong resistance to insults.
My nature is extremely violent, being insulted day after day for years... doesn't even faze me anymore.
I guess you could call that desensitization, though. Not something I'm trying to advocate.

 

[Laika]

Well there's also the case of getting them used to it.
Letting them know there are other viewpoints in the world that can disagree with or even hate the one they might have.

I've built up an extremely strong resistance to insults.
My nature is extremely violent, being insulted day after day for years... doesn't even faze me anymore.
I guess you could call that desensitization, though. Not something I'm trying to advocate.

well, I was in a minority and it isn't easy. it stresses relationships with freinds and family members and then it becomes personal. its different when it is a stranger doing the criticism, but it becomes an issue when you have beliefs that no-one around you will talk or hear about. you are muzzled and every conversation could be the one you get angry, tell the truth and want everyone else to f-off. dissent is very lonely and having tried it, I can admire and respect those who pull it off even if I don't agree with them. I am however intolerant to ideological cowardice; looking away from uncomfortable truths as they can be really important when people act on their beliefs.

If I met a nazi who could justify their beliefs and didn't dodge the hard stuff, I'd respect them. it would be unnerving though and would take some getting used to. there is always that someone's supreme confidence can expose and shake your own beliefs. I find you have to admire it, even if you hate what they are using it for. people like that are rare though.

 

[Deathbydefault]

well, I was in a minority and it isn't easy. it stresses relationships with freinds and family members and then it becomes personal. its different when it is a stranger doing the criticism, but it becomes an issue when you have beliefs that no-one around you will talk or hear about. you are muzzled and every conversation could be the one you get angry, tell the truth and want everyone else to f-off. dissent is very lonely and having tried it, I can admire and respect those who pull it off even if I don't agree with them. I am however intolerant to ideological cowardice; looking away from uncomfortable truths as they can be really important when people act on their beliefs.

I understand the minority issue.
Kansas city public schools are full of two things, Christians and delinquents.
Being an outspoken atheist wasn't a wise move on my part, neither was coming out as asexual.
I often told my bullies how I honestly felt about them, I was often beat up as well.
Hmm, I wonder if there was a connection there...

 

[Laika]

I understand the minority issue.
Kansas city public schools are full of two things, Christians and delinquents.
Being an outspoken atheist wasn't a wise move on my part, neither was coming out as asexual.
I often told my bullies how I honestly felt about them, I was often beat up as well.
Hmm, I wonder if there was a connection there...

lol. that sucks honestly. I was lucky I never got beaten up but mainly because I didn't go into the deep end until depression kicked in. I did economics at University, hoping there might be room for more "unorthodox" ideas, but it turned into something resembling a course in capitalist apologetics. there were 30 people on our course, and there were three people who did it out of conviction. me, from the far left, a BNP sympathiser who I sat, debated and had lunch with a few times, and a free market monetarist who I only got to know at the end of the year. the last two quit and switched the politics. having explored that option (and found I couldn't afford it) I scraped into the second year by a whisker in september 2008.

then the global financial system collapsed along with Lehmann Brothers. I remember the morning I got up to go to my bussiness cycle lecture. the lecturer stated catagorically that "it is debatable even whether this module should exist because economists don't believe business cycles exist." That sort of floored me (as my interest in the subject went back to learning about the great depression at secondary school). he went on to compare economists watching stock market crashes to volcanologists; they both have the habit of getting burned. that was one of the thing that pushed me to leave the course anyway. the onset of depression because of how trapped I felt was the final straw. then I finally got more radical after I left. (that was seven years ago). I've had many hours spent on long walks thinking about whether it was right or not since then.

 

[Augustus]

There is much of this going on in the world today and in the past as well.
There have been plenty of instances where people will act out when they get offended.
Resorting to violence is childish, it's the grownup equivalent to throwing a temper tantrum.

I'm offended by rape, bullying, etc. and hope that people would act out as a result of this.

Offence is necessary to society as it is a reaction to what you deem unacceptable. We all get offended by things, it's just that some people feel they have a right to never be offended.

Also there is a difference between someone being excessively thin skinned and someone getting annoyed as a result of something like a racial insult which relates as much to their 'place' in society as it does to the word itself. If you never experience racism or sexism it's easy to laugh off a jibe, but less so if it reflects repeated and tangible experiences.

Is it alright to offend others purposefully?
Do you feel that offending others should be avoided?

It depends what you mean.

If the purpose is simply to offend someone for no reason other than to upset them then that's just being a **** and you shouldn't be surprised if the response is a headbutt.

It's ok to say something you know will offend others if you believe that it serves a more important purpose. I'd try to avoid offending people as much as possible out of politeness, but reserve the right to do so if I consider it necessary.

Is it okay to with you to avoid offending a party who incites violence when criticized, and because they are criticized?

It's a personal decision. At school most people probably acted differently to those who could kick their arse than those who couldn't.

In relation to things like jihadi terrorism: if you are a newspaper editor, you have to consider that you are responsible for the safety of other workers (cleaners, accountants, receptionists, etc.) who might not share your journalistic desire for unfettered free speech, also families, etc.

In an ideal world it wouldn't deter people, but it is a very effective deterrent. It's not only because people are cowardly, but also due to a sense of responsibility for others. It's different when you risk other people's safety as well as your own.

 

[Deathbydefault]

lol. that sucks honestly. I was lucky I never got beaten up but mainly because I didn't go into the deep end until depression kicked in.

It's a pain you get used to.
They broke my left wrist once, and dislocated my right shoulder.
Otherwise it's never gone further than cutting me up a bit.
The basics for those who don't submit to dominate powers in inner city public school.

I did economics at University, hoping there might be room for more "unorthodox" ideas, but it turned into something resembling a course in capitalist apologetics. there were 30 people on our course, and there were three people who did it out of conviction. me, from the far left, a BNP sympathiser who I sat, debated and had lunch with a few times, and a free market monetarist who I only got to know at the end of the year. the last two quit and switched the politics. having explored that option (and found I couldn't afford it) I scraped into the second year by a whisker in september 2008.

then the global financial system collapsed along with Lehmann Brothers. I remember the morning I got up to go to my bussiness cycle lecture. the lecturer stated catagorically that "it is debatable even whether this module should exist because economists don't believe business cycles exist." That sort of floored me (as my interest in the subject went back to learning about the great depression at secondary school). he went on to compare economists watching stock market crashes to volcanologists; they both have the habit of getting burned. that was one of the thing that pushed me to leave the course anyway. the onset of depression because of how trapped I felt was the final straw. then I finally got more radical after I left. (that was seven years ago). I've had many hours spent on long walks thinking about whether it was right or not since then.

Hmm. I love education for the sake of education.
I'm not really attending college with any particular goal in mind, just a degree in science.

My similar story would have to be the last year and a half I spent with my parents.
They are people I reference often and are responsible for many issues I have along with a bigoted position I can't shake.
I hate them, to say the least. Spending my childhood, what I remember of it, was bad enough.
It got even worse as I got older, they stopped feeding me and I had to support myself.
Saying I could have died isn't far fetched.

Being kicked out, for the final time, at 18 was the best thing to happen to me in life thus far.
I feel absolutely free, at least in my own way.
What I regret is not standing up for myself against them.
I really wanted to, but if I did I wouldn't be here talking to you now.