Let me be real clear: this message board does NOT need conservatives

The BBQ Pit
624

That seems pretty obvious to me. There is a basic rule of social interactions that you do not unnecessarily offend, and that you apologize if you offended unintentionally. That way you don’t wind up making people angry and then they don’t want to listen to you or even be around you.

Sure, sometimes you mean to offend, but then you’ll want to do it knowingly. You’ll want to know why exactly it’s offensive to know if you want to go there. You don’t want to communicate something you didn’t intend.

There is no obligation, however, to decide that, because there are some people who are not offended by a word that it isn’t offensive to you. That’s going to always be a case-by-case situation. And, even if there is a good case that the term is not offensive, you can’t suddenly change how that word makes you feel. A decent person would, of course, still apologize for saying it and at least temporarily avoid it.

I’d also just say that, nine times out of ten, that “case by case” situation is going to wind up in the favor of the person offended, as it will be a term that has a history of being said with a bigoted meaning. So it makes sense to err on that side than the other.

There’s also just nearly always another way to say whatever it is you wanted to say. Like, when I didn’t want to refer to a piece of software that “crippled” my machine, I was able to ask and receive tons of alternatives–the one I use most is now “nerfed.” I use “moronic” instead of “retarded.” I can use the correct pronouns when referring to a trans person easily enough, too. And I can say 'transmittion" about as fast as “tranny.” I can say I was “conned” or “tricked” instead of “gypped.”

It’s not like this is anything new, anyways. It’s been a part of navigating the world since the day I was born. There are always social mores that someone doesn’t know about and then learns about.

The real question I have is why there are people who get so offended by the fact that something is offensive to someone. It’s such a ridiculous reaction. It really just seems to be about putting other people in their place.

At least with offensive terms, there’s an underlying reason why they are a problem, some harm they do.

625

By the way, and maybe this deserves a Cafe Society thread of its own instead of a tangent in a monster Pit thread, but I don’t think that just because a work is silly or intended for children that it cannot have literary merit or should not be analyzed. Elf may be a silly children’s movie, but some very serious adult spent $33 million very real, very serious dollars getting it made. It was created by people with both artistic interest and monetary interest in the film, and in the course of making it they made millions of decisions, some tiny and some huge. Their thoughts and beliefs are reflected in every one of those decisions.

626

Excellent analysis. I’ll just add that the specific term for this sort of thing is “minced oath.”

627

I think the point is that it’s impossible to avoid offending everyone, because some people are looking for reasons to be offended. And Hitchens clearly did not think avoiding offense should be a priority, to say the least.

There’s a third case. Sometimes people are offended by ideas, rather than the words used to express them. Then you can try to use a reasonably inoffensive wording, but ultimately it may be impossible to avoid offending someone, even though that is not your intention.

628

It’s not symmetric though, because one claim does not need to speak for all people, while the other does.

Put it like this:
Imagine I were to say that “we” find it disgusting when you fart at the dinner table, and would appreciate you not doing that. A bad faith response would be to say “No, it’s not disgusting” because there does not need to be unanimous agreement, or even a consensus, for it to be disgusting to some people.

A valid response would be to ask “Who is ‘we’, and do you represent a significant number of people?” because (if this doesn’t bend the analogy too far), it could be a table of 10,000 where only 2 people mind anyone farting. In which case there’s a debate to be had, because if you condemn farting on that basis you may end up condemning just about everything.
But not saying “No, it’s not disgusting” which is belittling and ignorant at best.

629

To that point, BigT seems to be fixated on the fact that the words or actions (of others) might “make people angry”, and therefore they shouldn’t engage in said behavior.

But in many cases, people get angry of their own volition.

If wearing a green hat makes people angry, should I by necessity refrain from wearing a green hat?

630

The consensus seems to be that if it offends a significant number of people, you should indeed refrain from wearing a green hat. (A red baseball cap might have been a more apt example.)

Of course in reality it rather depends who is being offended. @BigT has not declared himself averse to offending people in general, only people he doesn’t want to offend.

631

Are you all just discovering that social mores exist?

632

They are just discovering that they change over time.

633

I’d recommend not wearing this green hat around Proud Boys.

:wink:

634

Right. It’s a matter of degree.

If something offends a small number of people a little…well that may be unavoidable, since that’s going to be true for a *lot* of things.

But if it’s something that is very offensive to lots of people…then maybe a considerate person would avoid doing that.

And sure, it’s hard to figure out precisely where to draw the line, but this is true of almost everything in life. The critical thing isn’t how we classify things in the gray area anyway, it’s what we do about the things that are clearly on one side or the other.

635

How high a priority should avoiding offence be? I’m inclined to think it has become too high a priority in current society, both in terms of the effort required, and in how it is hurting free expression. Toleration of difference is an underappreciated value, and demanding other people change how they speak and act, and even think, to avoid offending you is a species of intolerance.

636

Which is why you totally support the Pit, right?

637

Well, we’ve done this, in other threads. I doubt a consensus is going to be reached now in the Pit.

However, in terms of this discussion, I’m not sure we need to address this question anyway. My original point was only that “cotton-picking” is offensive to a non-trivial number of people, and I’d recommend avoiding it.

638

Ok so go against the grain and don’t give a shit about whether you offend anyone or not. There’s nothing more boring than people complaining about the limits they placed on themselves.

639

That’s basically enabling the mob to decide social mores. There have been many times in the past where large numbers of people found things offensive that today we would recoil at.

For example, in the early and mid 20th century African-Americans had to curtail a lot of activities and speech not because it was illegal, hut because it would be ‘offensve’. For example, eating lunch in an all-white diner. The ‘offense’ argument was commonly employed to criticise such behaviour. “Sure, you’re free - but you don’t have to be offensive about it.”

Also, it seems clear to me that many partisans use ‘offense’ as a weapon. When presented with an argument you don’t like and can’t refute, “How Dare You!” is a very efficient way of shutting down the debate. Terms are constantly re-defined for force people to change their behaviour, Behaviours that are acceptable for ine side are verboten for the other. For example, the notion that minorities cannot possibly be racist aginst white people, because racism is always ‘punching down’. Or that it’s totally okay to call a religious Tea Partier a ‘tea bagger’ knowing it’s horribly offensive to them, while excoriating someone from the right who doesn’t add the ‘ic’ to the end of ‘Democrat’ because it’s so offensive to not say 'Democratic".

I am the arbiter of my own words. I tend to not be offensive to anyone unless they need offending, because I believe we should by default be decent to each other. But that’s my choice, and it won’t be dictated by anyone else.

I absolutely reject controls on my behaviour based on what ‘a lot’ of people want me to do. I have my own moral code, and I will follow it and I don’t care what anyone has to say about it.

640

I’m not sure that “offend” is the right word to use. I might offend someone if I tell them that they do look fat in those jeans. Dismissing someone’s gender as a disorder, or being casually racist is more than offensive. What is changing in society is our concepts of morality. Civil rights are just one example of that.

ETA: Sam Stone and I have come up with parallel thoughts. We went completely different places with it, however.

641

Great, now quit whining about it all of the goddamn time.

642

Touche!

643

That makes no sense. I am perfectly free to take offense if people are offensive to me, and vice versa. If I walked into a Tea Party meeting and yelled, “How you doing, you filthy Tea Baggers?” I would fully expect to be tossed out on my ass.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t take offense at whatever offends you. I’m saying your offense has no claim on my moral code. You might persuade me through logic and reason, but not by shrieking, ‘How dare you!’

Mr. Heinlein summed it up best:

Italics mine.