On taking blind offense

Great Debates
1

I’ve been having trouble with this concept for a while, but that could be partially because I am not easily offended. I tend to shrug off insults and let most things roll off my back, like water off some sort of large deck umbrella.

When person A insults person B, do I (as person C) have any real right or reason to be offended?

Regard: The George Allen Macaca fiasco. I think Allen was possible annoyed by Mr. Sidarth (the young man videotaping him at every public appearance) and was going for a dig at him. There may have been rash intent to offend. Sidarth may have in fact been offended. But do bystanders have a good reason to be offended? The remark wasn’t aimed at anybody but Sidarth. My feeling is that only Sidarth can and should decide whether or not the comment was offensive.

Sure, I can form opinions (or change existing ones) about Allen, such that he is a douchebag for saying what he said. I can be disgusted by what Allen said. I can lose faith in Allen (If I had any to begin with). I can decide not to vote for Allen, in the event I was planning to do so.

With regard to Sidarth (the target of the offensive comment or action), I can symapthise with his reaction if it is one of distress. I can offer comfort if it appears to be desired and welcomed. But what right do I have to be offended on his behalf? What if he wasn’t offended at all? What if Sidarth and Allen turned out to be good friends and he took the jab as in good spirits? Can I still claim to be offended?

Is “Offense By Proxy” a legitimate feeling of offense? That is what seems to have given rise to the phrase “The Offenderati” as a label for a person or group that looks for ways to take offense either (1) where none was intended, or (2) where the offended person or group was not the target of the offensive comment or action.

Regard further: When Ratzinger recently made remarks critical of the Muslim Community, Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin, a hardline Somalian cleric, reacted thusly:

So now any Muslim on the planet is worthy of looking into the soul of Mohammed to determine what offends him, and then carrying out an execution on his behalf? I know this is an extreme example, but it makes the point of being offended by proxy a little more clear.

By the way, was anybody offended by my reference to Pope Benedict as Ratzinger? The point I am trying to make in this thread is that nobody but Ratzinger himself has reason to be offended. Maybe Ratzi and I are drinking buddies from way back. You just never know.

Perhaps my offendometer is broken. I suspect that I may be in the minority here, and I hope I haven’t offended anyone. :wink:

2

I think that when the alleged offender in question is a leader whose views can affect a lot of other people beyond the individual target, like a pope or a politician, it’s probably worth looking into.

3

How is that different from being offended? I often don’t know what people really mean when they say they are offended, so this is an honest question, not a gotcha.

4

Why can’t you be offended at someone’s sense of decency, even if you are not personally the target of the offense?

5

A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person.

The offenderati can certainly go too far, and find offence where there is none, but the above quote (from Dave Barry?) often applies.

6

I think part of the probelm is the misuse of the word “offended.” certainly not alays, but clearly some of the time, “offended” is not used by a third party to describe him- or herself, but by ANOTHER third party seeking to discredit the reaction.

Sometimes I’m angry – justifiably so, in my own opinion – or disgusted, or contemptuous, about something…and someone who clearly disagrees with me politically will sneer, “You’re offended? Are your feelings hurt? Are you going to cry?”

That sort of use is intended to belittle the person who one doesn’t agree with. Even if that person isn’t harmed by your words, bystanders may be moved away from “agreeing with righteous anger” to “rolling their eyes at weakness.”

It’s used in other ways too, often by the offended parties, I’m not denying. But in a politcally charged case like the Macaca incident, such a question – indeed, even other attempts to frame who can and cannot be offended – might well be just attempts to distract bystanders, intimidate Allen’s political opposites, and invite scorn onto his detractors.

Sailboat

7

Well that’s where I’m stuck, and probably not articulating very well. I can have all of those reactions without necessarily being offended. I hear many people reacting to this and other incidents with great offense, and I often wonder why I don’t feel offended myself. Then I realise, well the remark wasn’t directed at me - no wonder I wasn’t offended. I dislike having to explain my lack of offense to people who think I might be in agreement with the speaker simply because I failed to demonstrate my offense. Not being offended ╪ sympathiser.

I think Sailboat hit it with misuse of the word “offended”. Most of the time people are probably disappointed, disgusted, etc. but like to claim offense as if that makes the act committed by the offending party especially heinous.

8

You may remember Howard Cosell, perhaps the only sportscaster to be polled “most loved” and “most hated” in the same poll. He made the call when a very quick running back eluded several tackles to make a long run. “Look at that little monkey go!” said an excited Cosell. Now, Cosell said he meant it in an affectionate way, and he called his grandchildren little monkeys.

After a firestorm of protest and thousands of people calling him a racist, Cosell was fired. The “little monkey” himself made a point of saying he was not offended; he had been interviewed by Howard, and he liked him. The genie was out of the toothpaste tube, though, and the most recognizable sports voice of his era never spoke another word on television.

I was a fan, though I acknowledged his faults. I was watching the night of his gaffe, and I smacked my forehead. Jesus, that was dumb.

9

Add me to the list of those who are unclear as to what “offended” means if not forming opinions, being disgusted and losing faith in a person based on something they did or said. That’s a pretty good description of what “offended” means to me.

Where one may take offense at something said to an individual is generally determined by how broadly such a statement could be applied to others. Calling one person a “nigger” is offensive to other people, becase it indicates a lack of respect for a whole race, and we’ve decided that’s a Bad Thing.

I don’t think others would be “offended” if Allen had said, “Hey, you with the raspberry jelly stain on your tie”, it’d be clear he was using it as an identifier, not a judgement against raspberry jelly lovers. “Hey, you with the stupid haircut…” could go either way. It’s a personal thing, but potentially applicable to others. Might the Mullet Association of America be offended? Okay, sure, but that’s because the insult could be construed as applying to them as well, that is, that Allen thinks mullets are stupid.

Should we all be tiptoeing around one another? No. I do think people, especially reporters and their editors and producers looking for a good headline, are too quick to take offense and too slow to forgive. But should a politician perhaps refrain from using words he doesn’t know the meaning of? Uh…yeah. I want my politicians to be politically aware of the repercussions of their actions, an I’m afraid an impulsive representative isn’t what I need.
But I totally get how someone could unwittingly offend. The other day, my toddler was sitting on the floor being cute (natch!) munching some saltines. I smiled at her and cooed, “Who’s Mommy’s little cracker?” the same way I’ve called her Mommy’s little pumpkin, Mommy’s little monkey or Mommy’s little pooper. Only when the word “cracker” came out of my mouth did I shock myself - realizing that that particular endearment in a public setting would be absolutely offensive, even if I didn’t mean it in a racial way at all!

I’d be absolutely mortified if I called my daughter a cracker in front of a room full of reporters. Of course it’d be misconstrued! I can forgive Allen his slip in using a word he thought he’d made up, but it was the “Welcome to America” comment that really chaps my hide. (Um, was that offensive to cowboys? Sorry.)

10

And I just have to say that, as a person of limited sight, I find the title of the OP very offensive.

(I have to say it because I’m a smart ass. I’m not really offended. :smiley: )

11

I started to write something else, but I’ve re-read the OP and I must say I’ve now decided I agree.

If Person A made a racial slur against Person B, and Person C is of the same race and overheard, Person C could not be offended (thought the slur could still be said to be offensive, since it offended person B.)

Person C might be angry, or outraged, or embarrassed, or any number of emotionally charged, negative things. But I think the OP is right in saying that Person C could not be directly offended by Person A’s remarks.

Thus, the statement is offensive. The person taking offense is the person to whom the statement was directed. Those overhearding the statement will react according to their own bias, but cannot be offended (which is not the same as being angry or hurt or embarrassed, etc.)

Or am I way off here?

Cheers,
G

12

I’ve offended the cows, by overhearding them and spelling even that poorly. Moo!

Overhearing, of course.

Cheers,
G

13

If I hear A call B a name and I feel unpleasant because of it, and my feelings are an honest reaction, then yes, I am offended. My feelings are my feelings. They just are. I can have some control over them, but I don’t just decide that I’m going to be offended and then feel that way!

I didn’t know what Macaca means when George Allen said it. But when I found out, I really winced and thought Why would he do that? Just the “caca” part alone would have kept me from using it.

Then on Sunday on Meet the Press, Allen said he just made it up on the spot. I couldn’t believe he said that with a straight face! Now I am really offended first-hand.

Haven’t you ever seen someone making fun of a slow-witted person and you feel hurt for that person even when he doesn’t know he’s being ridiculed?

14

Yes.

You, along with the OP, are inventing a novel definition of offend that doesn’t jibe with actual use of the word. That’s pretty off-base.

15

Exactly. Apparently the idiot wing has turned “offended” into a political insult. Come of our more sheep-like citizens accept the perversion without criticizm and go out of their way to avoid the slur. Thus, we hear idiotic bragging about how someone doesn’t get offended easily, and flat-out confusion over what the word even means (and it’s not a big vocabulary word).

Mouse droppings offend me. Loud conversations offend me. Button-down oxfords offend me. White politicians who speak derisively about others because of their ethnic background for the amusement of their consituency offend me. I’m a sane human with opinions and standards.

Anyway, perhaps the word you’re looking for is “insulted” (or maybe even “personally insulted”).

16

Allen’s insult was not aimed at Sidarth as an individual, but as a member of a group. Therefore any member of that group has reason to take personal offense.

Third parties not of that group have reason to take note of an offensive remark, especially when expressed by a politician, but that’s not–as pointed out–the same thing as taking personal offense.

17

Try callimg someone a nigger in public. Offense would be felt everywhere. Call them a yid, polock or guinnie. It is a disparaging term and all members of the group feel it. I dont think people were trying to feel offended but were offended.