This is certainly how I interpreted it.
There is no “Right to not be offended.”
Good editors need good editors. Brains are weird when it comes to stuff we’ve already written. I don’t know why.
Aha! Finally after all the above, an interpretation that is comprehensible and sensible. It certainly does require an interpretative leap of Evel Knievel proportions to read it that way, though. As originally stated, it really does seem to say that we have an affirmative duty to be offended by some unspecified thing(s). Which, in turn, seems to imply that we have an active duty to report things that offend us – clearly NOT what was intended.
No, I reserve the right to not be offended and no rules of this message board can take that right from me. “There is no right to not be offended” is identical to “there is no right to be unoffended”.
I hope Jonathan Chance revises the sentence, I can understand it but the literal meaning is confusing. My vote is for something like Riemann’s phrasing: “you have no right to stop other people saying things that offend you”. Or maybe “An offensive post is not against the rules just because you find it offensive, but it may still violate other rules such as the rule against personal insults or threats.”
~Max
Apparently so.
I read it the same way you did: its literal meaning is that I must take offense at what other posters say; I don’t have the right not to do so. (We’d all have to be going around in high dudgeon while posting.) I assumed the sentence had either one too few or one too many negatives.
I’d go with “A post does not violate board rules just because you personally find it offensive.”
At least, I’m pretty sure that’s the idea, 
It makes sense to me, but if this many people are having trouble understanding it, that is evidence that it could be written more clearly. Given what Jonathan Chance says the meaning is, I would propose the following rewrite:
“Just because a post or poster offends you does not mean their post breaks the rules.”
However, I question the usefulness of such a guideline. It’s describing people doing something they are nearly always unaware they are doing. I’ve never seen anyone claim someone is breaking the rules simply because they were offended. They will always have a rule they think is being violated. If they don’t explain it to you, it’s because they think it’s obvious.
As such, a better guideline might be
“Moderators can’t act simply because you are offended. You must tell us what rule you think was violated and why.”
A few things:
- I’ve made a change to that part to read:
Posters and their opinions may offend you. This does not necessary mean they are trolling.
- People report things as offended them often. Trust me on that.
This is essentially the “safe space” vs free speech issue.
It offends me that some posters don’t understand the point being made… and I demand satisfaction!!!
Maybe if you could somehow work this Bloom County into the FAQ…
If I could, I would.
Wait, now you’re telling me I do have the right to remain unoffended by other eat’s, shoots and leaves? This is even more confusing.
Sorry, but you do not have the right to remain unconfused.
I think you meant “not necessarily mean.”
Nearly 40 years have passed since that strip was published, and I still didn’t need to click through to know which one it would be.
There was a MAD cartoon decades ago that addressed this topic (similar to the Bloom County one). Damned if I can find it, but maybe someone else can.
It had several panels of a TV show, a baggy-pants comedian with a dummy, trading seemingly innocuous, vaudevillian-style banter. Next page were the letters the TV station received. Each one was offended by a different joke. “A priest, a rabbi, and a plumber walk into a bar…” generated nasty letters from the Catholic Diocese, the B’nai B’rith, and the National Association of Pipe-fitters, for example.
For reruns, the show was censored to remove all offensive material (that’s what networks should do, right?). The same panels where shown again, but this time…all of the balloons were blank.
Anyone know where to find this MAD article?
Somehow I find that position slightly offensive. 