The Culture of Offendedness? article (SC/CC)

[Marylou]

"The risk of being offended is simply part of what it means to live in a diverse culture that honors and celebrates free speech. A right to free speech means a right to offend, otherwise the right would need no protection".

 

Anone who wants to read more of such from Albert Mohler's blog can find it here.

[beansprouts]

Nobody can offend me without my permission.

 

I think many people are offended because they choose to be.

[johnandtinagilbert]

I agree with both posts.

 

The very idea of walking about not offending anyone is difficult for me to find reasonable. With such great diversity in our nation, on this board, how can we never offend someone?

 

I'm very sad my post, meant to encourage and lift up husbands and wives, has turned into a hot mess this afternoon. My sincere apologies to SWB who provides such a place for us. I pray you understand my hearts intentions.

 

I should know better and stay on the curriculum side. I've been coming here since 2001 and somehow, things always turn out ugly when they could really be so simple. :(

[Jill- OK]

...I have NO idea what prefaced this, lol. (Hot topic, flame war in some buried thread I didn't see, etc.) What I'm going to say is therefore not an endorsement of something going on here that I'm unaware of, and it has no hidden, cryptic meaning, lol.

 

I think there's a balance to be found, personally.

 

"The right to offend" is a really popular thing in the 21st century. Civility is all but dead, IMO. And while many folks (even beansprouts, who I think is awesome and I hope won't hold this against me, lol) really believe the "No one can offend me without my permission" slogan...I have to disagree, somewhat.

 

I'll say flat out that there are ideas and people that have offended me, deeply.

 

If no one else is in any way responsible for our responses/feelings, then why do we get divorced? Why do we marry and expect a certain amount of fellowship? Why don't we just talk and associate with whoever happens to be out and about, rather than having "friends"?

 

Because some people "make" us happy, and some people put our teeth on edge. If we could control all of our own responses, we'd be neutrally interacting individuals, able to get along with anyone, wouldn't we?

 

This is coming from a Christian viewpoint, so anyone who doesn't subscribe to that approach will have to take this with a grain of salt, but Jesus both offended people with His message (the Truth) and loved people selflessly.

 

The folks I know who want the "Right to Be Offensive" don't usually hold with the "Loving Selflessly" thing. There's a huge difference between not wanting to have to take responsibility for anything you say, and simply sometimes offending people.

 

And...that's fine. Different strokes for different folks.

 

But you can't have it both ways. If you want to have the right to offend...don't you have to acknowledge that it's possible for you to be offensive?

 

I'm just saying that you can speak the truth, in love. It's a choice to be inflammatory (at least, I believe that it is if you're halfway intelligent), and it's a choice to at least give others a moment's thought, before you open your mouth.

 

That's not to say that you won't offend people, even if you're not trying. But it's always possible to either make it right, or simply acknowledge that this is one of those times where what you believe simply doesn't sit right with someone else.

 

And now, I'm off to put the finishing touches on dinner. I'll be back later to read the 50,000 responding posts telling me how I'm wrong...:D (I'll choose not to be offended, though, LOL)

Edited July 28, 2009 by Jill, OK
grammar

[Jill- OK]

I do agree with him about expecting some offense, while trying to minimize unnecessary offense.

 

Simple respect for others is becoming a lost art.

[Audrey]

 

But you can't have it both ways. If you want to have the right to offend...don't you have to acknowledge that it's possible for you to be offensive?

 

 

 

I think that's pretty much the crux of the matter.

[KrissiK]

I read that article yesterday and found it to be rather interesting. I've been loosely following the cross in San Diego story and I think it's the stupidest lawsuit I've ever heard. Of course, as civilized people we should not deliberately be offensive to others, however as a free society we should not choose to be offended and therefore seek to limit the free speech of others because we don't agree with it.

[Scarlett]

I'm very sad my post, meant to encourage and lift up husbands and wives, has turned into a hot mess this afternoon. My sincere apologies to SWB who provides such a place for us. I pray you understand my hearts intentions.

 

(

 

Well, notice whose post was deleted. That should tell you something.

 

I am rarely offended. For instance, I don't celebrate Christmas. And yet if you say to me Merry Christmas, especially as a mere greeting in a casual situation I just respond with 'thank you.'

 

And although I am a Christian, and I do pray and I pray for specific situations and people in my life....I don't chime in on 'please pray for me' threads of people I don't even know personally. But I'm not offended by the request or the thread.

 

My MIL told me my son's haircut was stupid and made his ears look big.THAT comment offended me. I said, 'you are hurting my feelings and I'm hanging up now.'

 

:bigear: :glare:

 

Shrug. Hard to offend me. I don't like to see posters like you and Colleen berated for trying to have genuine discussions.

[FO4UR]

Just a trend I see on message boards in general, and this one is no different:

 

Sometimes a poster will purposely spin a statement in order to make their own statement. It's a purposeful offense, if that makes sense. Some people get entertainment value out of stirring the pot....

 

I haven't read the prayer thread mentioned above, so I'm not pointing any fingers.....just saying I see it happen all.the.time!

 

I love a good debate on a hot topic, but taking things to a personal level - over the INTERNET - is just not wise. The old cliche of picking your battles wisely comes to my mind....

[Danestress]

so I don't really know if there is a background to this. But my response would be that while I greatly value my right to offend and that I think free speech is a right worth fighting (literally) for, I think sometimes the wise person chooses not to exercise that right.

 

Sometimes speaking the truth is important. Other times, taking a high road and thinking carefully about how to say something or simply deciding that you really don't need to say it is also good. We all have opinions. We certainly have the right to spout them. But we also have the option of not doing so, and under-exercised right it seems at times.

[FO4UR]

We all have opinions. We certainly have the right to spout them. But we also have the option of not doing so, and under-exercised right it seems at times.

 

:iagree:

[Nicole M]

Maybe we've just gone overboard, overcorrecting for cultural conspiracies of silence? I mean, I think it's appropriate to be offended by racism, for instance.

 

I will have to think more on this. We're having a heat wave here, and it's hard to order my thoughts.

[amsunshine]

I read the article linked. I believe the author mischaracterizes the Mount Soledad cross controversy. The central issue in the case is not that people feel "offended" by looking at a religious symbol. The issue is that it is a religious symbol set upon government property and, by virtue of this location, there exists a potential violation the principle of separation of church and state. The parties who want to keep the cross where it is have fought to do so by denying it is a religious symbol and claiming it is a war memorial (these claims did not surface until after the original lawsuit to remove the cross was filed, from what I understand). So, at any rate, the cross "proponents" are trying to keep the cross where it is, not by fighting for their right to be offensive and proclaim their religious freedom of speech, but by denying its Christian connections. Interesting. I just don't think the citation to this controversy supports any point the author is trying to make.

[lionfamily1999]

Sure, you have a right to offend me (still no eye roll smiley), but I also have the right to call you out for instigating. You have the right to be rude and I have the right to tell you you're rude.

 

It's all hand in hand.

 

Oooooh, and if I opened up a forum on the internet I would have the right to ban you and delete your post for any reason I want.

[Melissa in Australia]

I am glad I am in a different time zone, and when I get to read the posts, the offensive ones are already deleted.:lol:

I just thought it must be an American thing. us Aussies would never post something offensive, we are just to good natured.:tongue_smilie:

[kalanamak]

I just thought it must be an American thing. us Aussies would never post something offensive, we are just to good natured.:tongue_smilie:

 

Good natured or not, the to, too, two mixups offend me "to the max".

 

I love the John Cleese comment about the American in Monty Python.

"He's American, so it's either "that's really, really great" or "that really p*sses me off"."

 

I don't, personally, recall ever being offended. Some language is "offensive", but it means I dislike hearing it, not that I am offended. I am disappointed in how someone behaves, or saddened, or it makes me very wary of of them, but I don't recall being offended. Even when someone does something infradig...I think it is not "honorable", but I feel disapproval, and perhaps a desire to move away, not offense.

 

Maybe it was crucial year I spent in Australia, the year Holt was eaten by a shark.:D

[Peela]

a)I think I am responsible for myself 100% and if I am offended, that is my responsibility.

 

AND

 

b) I am responsible for being as kind and considerate as I can be when I state an opinion likely to offend. Including whether or not it is important for me to state it at all, taking into consideration the whole circumstance. Its easy to speak one's opinon, but if it is to have benefit, the whole situation needs to be taken into account, not just one's own right to speak it. One's motivation is everything.

 

BOTH are my responsibility. In other words, my responsibility is more important than my right, or as important, but certainly not less important.

 

And I can't be responsible for anyone else who doesn't want to be responsible for either part a) or part b) above. I can only behave within my own integrity. If others dont, nothing I can do.

[Melissa in Australia]

Good natured or not, the to, too, two mixups offend me "to the max".

 

I

Maybe it was crucial year I spent in Australia, the year Holt was eaten by a shark.:D

oh, dear sorry about the to, too. :blush:

 

 

OF course it was because you lived in Australia for a year, why else?:thumbup:

[Geo]

a)I think I am responsible for myself 100% and if I am offended, that is my responsibility.

 

AND

 

b) I am responsible for being as kind and considerate as I can be when I state an opinion likely to offend. Including whether or not it is important for me to state it at all, taking into consideration the whole circumstance. Its easy to speak one's opinon, but if it is to have benefit, the whole situation needs to be taken into account, not just one's own right to speak it. One's motivation is everything.

 

BOTH are my responsibility. In other words, my responsibility is more important than my right, or as important, but certainly not less important.

 

And I can't be responsible for anyone else who doesn't want to be responsible for either part a) or part b) above. I can only behave within my own integrity. If others dont, nothing I can do.

 

 

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

 

This is what I've been taught. Not often easy, but always right. Others

can "hurt" me, but what I do with that hurt is my responsibility.

 

Geo