I only read the first paragraph; then I got offended.

Last paragraph pretty well sums it up:

"...it’s fine to laugh at someone for something they’ve done, but not for something they can’t help. Laugh at them for having a stupid haircut, by all means, but not for having stupid hair, because they’ve probably being crying themselves to sleep every night over that ever since they hit puberty."

Seems like sensible policy to me.

Nice one, seanyboy - it frequently take a Brit to point out the absurdity of the world around us. I often think that Political Correctness is a term dreamed up by its detractors. I prefer to think of PC behavior as Personal Courtesy.

The thing is, if no one got offended - and it’s a choice, you don’t have to do it - nothing could be offensive. And the world would be a much happier place.

That's right. If those darkies, fags, and womenfolk could just've kept from getting het up, we'd all be so much happier. Well, some of us, anyway.

I'm still searching for the right to live unoffended. Can't seem to find it anywhere.

It's a priviledge that some people are born to, trinity, and usually an unexamined one.

It seems to me that kicking someone while they're down is frowned upon when done physically, but downright encouraged when it's done verbally.

I sound have said, "encouraged by some".

I don't understand your vehemence miko, and I'm utterly confused by your "darkies, fags and womenfolk" comment. The article says ...

All that was years ago, of course, and I thought we’d moved on. And, by and large, we have, because of that wonderful thing (no irony) called (though only by its detractors) Political Correctness - you know, the social manifestation of those changes in the lawbook which gave women the right to vote, stopped homosexuals being gaoled for falling in love, and punished landlords who refused to rent rooms to darkies.

The offense the author talks about is an offense to those things which don't affect anybody. Being offended by other peoples religious beliefs (for example), or being offended because someone swore.

This isn't an article about denying people the right to gain equality. It's an article about not getting "het up" about the fact that you may be working or living next door to someone who is a different colour, sex or sexuality than you.

The short version (or my take on it anyway)

We should be free to do what we want provided it doesn't harm others
Offense is not a harm ("atheist" buses don't harm anyone, for example) because we can choose not to be offended
But wait a minute, that only applies to us white boys
Hmmm....
How about this? You can choose not to be offended over something you’ve done, but not for something you can’t help.

No doubt I've made that sound more patronizing than the article, but I'm not sure by how much. It seems an honest attempt to think through a problem faced by anyone who values liberty but also cares about oppression. The problem (for me at least) is that it seems to say, "don't tease him for being a Paki; he can't help it". Which is very patronizing, both of minorities and, by being so simple, of the problem generally.

But I could be overthinking the whole thing.

Second me with the overthinking - I recently received an email announcing "Come to Jamal's retirement party. His beard is so long it's against Council regulations so he has to retire!". Jamal is Muslim, and wears a full beard, so my Council manager's reaction was "Oh, we could be sued!" but my colleague-of-Jamal's reaction was "hahahahahaha!".

My boyfriend tells our English friends that 'Paki' would be a perfectly acceptable term in Australia - Australians shorten everything - but the term would never be used pejoratively in Aus, where it is here (in Australia they'd likely be referred to as 'Indian'). I think offence is definitely related to social subjugation.

He's missing an important connection - that it's not for anyone else to decide what another person should or shouldn't find offensive. No one has that power over anyone else.

It's a time-honored tactic to minimize the concerns of people who believe they have been the target of an offense by suggesting that they are choosing to "take offense," rather than accepting that they may have something legitimate to say about the inclusion or consideration of their point of view. This is simply a way of shifting the burden of inquiry off the potential offenders and onto the person who has had the temerity to object and, thus, potentially upset the social order that makes the offender - or nonconfrontational bystander - happy.

Offense isn't just something that people choose to take. In some meaningful way, it requires that there has been an offense. Saying you're "offended" is a response to the offense, the perceived attack -- and that attack can be tacit and implied, or direct and clearly rude, or in fact only imagined or misunderstood. However, there has been an attack perceived. "Being offended" doesn't arise in a vacuum. It's a response to a precipitating event.

I get skeptical any time I see anyone, no matter how well intentioned, suggest that others are overreacting to some social statement when they say they are offended. It's a tactic that's been employed throughout history as a means of deflecting criticism from the oppressing group and onto the victim group, which can now be seen as oversensitive, whiny, weak, or in need of attention. When successfully employed, this tactic spins the spotlight 180 degrees, and the party originally calling out the attack is now in the position of having to defend their own gall at claiming that they've even been attacked. This removes the precipitating event from review and critique handily. This is one of the most common dynamics visible in situations of broad-based discrimination and oppression.

There's a fundamental irony in this blogger objecting that people shouldn't find certain statements offensive, when if we have indeed "moved beyond" all that, then it is largely because this attempt to shift the focus from the offense-giver to the offended party was ultimately rejected, and because gradually, we held people accountable for the statements they made in civil society, rather than merely holding the audience accountable for their reactions. Without this tactic of resolutely refocusing on the perpetrators, we wouldn't have arrived at a point where the language in my comment was unacceptable. Or was it? Did you "take" offense?

Or did I offer it?

People will continue to be offended, and people will continue to make all kinds of statements. I don't mean to say that all people who claim offense are reasonable all the time. But that doesn't matter in this question. All we are called upon as a society is to make a collective determination about what's in-bounds in terms of speech and discourse and interaction and legal structure. We aren't called to tell other people whether or not they "should" be offended. That's hubris. Especially when people who are part of a privileged group, part of a group not currently being the target of offense, critique others for being too easily offended - people in the privileged group are not feeling the same sting - often not even aware of the offense as it's taking place. And there is thinking and unthinking prejudice - both can be equally offensive, and both can be equally a subject for examination, and both can give offense.

I also disagree with the blogger that Christians seeing these athiest bus ads aren't truly "offended." Of course they are. Now, that doesn't mean they have the moral high ground, or have the right to not see those messages, or that their feelings of offense need to result in a change in advertising policy or law or the bus schedule. It just means that their worldview has undergone an attack. A statement has been made and it has had an effect. (Of course counterattacks directed from Christians to athiests are abundant as well). But I strongly believe people have the right to state their feelings of having been on the receiving end of an offence, that those statements should be fairly heard, and that it is no one else's right to dictate whether or not those people "should" feel that they've been attacked.

"Don't take it so hard, it's just a joke" or "They didn't mean it, they're just not thinking" - they're classic tropes of defensive response to the very assertions of personal worth that are responsible for us "moving beyond," to some degree, outright racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination. There's really no way to say "we're done with all the truly offensive things; now you're just being irritating" without making an implicit assertion that the person determining the relative worth of claims of offense is simply claiming dominant enough status to tell others how they should and shouldn't feel.

It happens in communities. It's tough. People get offended. Then, you have to have conversation.

When that conversation arrives at "Well, I have the answer -- just don't be offended," progress stops.

And for those interested in that part of the discussion, a little OK rundown on WikiPedia about the term "political correctness" and how it came to carry all the connotations it does. Susurration, I like your interpretation, and I'm gonna steal it!

miko:

Offense isn't just something that people choose to take.
I believe that offense is something that people do choose to take. There's a consensual communal anger that builds up with people who decide that they don't like this sort of person or that sort of person. It's a weird echo chamber that starts with people (for example) feeling uncomfortable with homosexuality and ends with the pitchforks and the burning torches. You highlighted the etymology of the word offense, and you're right. We take offense because of a perceived offense. However - the perception of that offense should be examined rationally before we go on to wind up large sections of the community.

I also disagree with the blogger that Christians seeing these athiest bus ads aren't truly "offended." Of course they are.
To a degree, they are offended because they are told to be offended. I think there's a distinction to be made between a collective mob offense and individual offense. If I see a sign saying "God hates fags", then I'm personally offended, but I'm not going to whip myself and my congregation up into a frenzy over it. (Actually - I might. But it's probably wrong to do that)

Religion is interesting because the taking of offense over religious beliefs has had such a damaging effect on humanity. Asking people not to take offense (even when they can't help initially to feel that offense) is a good thing. "Love thy neighbour" has no caveats.
Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum" I said.

By dismissing the "Don't be offended" line, you're essentially saying that it is a bad thing to tell people to calm down, step back and look at things rationally.

Also, the article never even went near "Well, I have the answer -- just don't be offended". He's happy to talk through his beliefs and discuss the issues. But he does, correctly in my view, put forward the view that people shouldn't be "offended". (Again - this is not the same as not being offended - It's "shouldn't" be offended.)

You say - "We aren't called to tell other people whether or not they "should" be offended. That's just hubris."
I can tell people that they shouldn't be jealous, that they shouldn't feel too much pride, or be so angry. I don't see how this is different.

In other words - Calm down love and don't worry your little head about it.
(I just said that to wind you up. I'm joking. I know you hate those kind of jokes, and that's why I said it. I'm sorry.)

I do see where you're coming from on this. There's a guy in my circle I not-so-affectionately call Racist Gary. I find his beliefs abhorrent, and I state as much. And good people - people I consider to be my friends - call me out on that, tell me not to be so offended.

I find his beliefs offensive, and (even though it may cost me those good friends), I'll continue to let people know that what he believes offends me. I'm willing to disrupt the group because of my beliefs, and I believe that not to do so would be wrong.

So I can see where you're coming from. But, semantic difficulties aside, I still think this article makes some good & well reasoned points about the nature of offense in a modern society. It shouldn't be dismissed because of a generalised theory of offense and why we need it to move society on.

Hmmm, context is so important in communication, isn't it? On reading Miko's first comment, I gave a little chuckle at her humour. How inappropriate that I considered that a joke when it was an indignant outburst (well, a small one, anyway).

I agree with everything that Miko, seanyboy and the blogger whatshisname said. All at the same time, which is likely to make my head explode or means I'm a philosopher or something I suppose. I am one of those people who pour scorn on Political Correctness because, from my perspective, the term denotes the totally false attempts to pay lip service to equality in ways like changing "manhole" to "personal access facility" and similar. I'm all in favour of true equality, where all people have the right to the same opportunities to be all they can be (which is not the same as saying that everyone has the right to have the same opportunities - not everyone has the same capacity). I go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that staff (and potential staff) are not denied opportunities by anything other than their competence in the job and the contribution they can make to the team. Sometimes that trouble gets me in trouble via complaints from others about favouritism and similar. This winds me up no end, because of all the trouble I go to to be sure that doesn't happen.

See, there is equality and there is equality. There are plenty of people bitter because they didn't take advantage of opportunities and looking for someone to blame rather than admit that they screwed up. An action or opportunity can seem heaven-sent or a glimpse of hell to two different people.

See, now you've got me ranting about things I don't understand. Goodnight.

I'm really enjoying this discussion, but now I'm worried that what I said above reads as my own view. It was supposed to be my summary of the blogger's position.

the term denotes the totally false attempts to pay lip service to equality in ways like changing "manhole" to "personal access facility" and similar.

But see, I don't personally have a problem with this and don't see why people should be scorned for taking language and words seriously seriously. "Manhole", as a single example, may seem silly, but in the context of American English and the pervasive use of "man" to mean both "masculine" and "neutrally human" (with the connotation that "woman" is the other or a special case), I do see this as a big problem that should be addressed. If changing "manhole" to "access hole" is how someone wants to do that, then bully for them.

There are plenty of people bitter because they didn't take advantage of opportunities and looking for someone to blame rather than admit that they screwed up.

On the other hand, it's hard to admit that sometimes, people just don't have the chance to take advantage of opportunities, or society smacks them down so often that it's understandable they'll lose faith in the system and get angry or disaffected. That's what I took away from watching The Wire, at least.

I think the problem is, you need common sense to what's genuinely offensive and what's just political correctness.

But when it comes to people like Carol Thatcher and Prince Harry, they don't have any common sense because they've never had to interact with common people.

So you get all this obnoxious sniggering from them: "tee hee, fancy those silly politically correct types getting all upset just because I call someone a paki or a gollywog."

If they'd ever had to live in the real world they'd know that those are real insults, because they would have heard them being hurled as insults.

I can tell people that they shouldn't be jealous, that they shouldn't feel too much pride, or be so angry. I don't see how this is different.

It's not different, but I disagree that you're ever right to tell someone else how they should feel. It's just outside your area of designated authority. Doesn't matter how you think people should feel. People feel the way they feel for factors you are simply not in charge of and never will be. Their reactions aren't within your power to dictate.

By dismissing the "Don't be offended" line, you're essentially saying that it is a bad thing to tell people to calm down, step back and look at things rationally.

No, I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying "Don't minimize their point of view; only by taking it seriously, rather than refuting their right to feel as they feel, can you even hope to have a 'rational' look at things.

And rationality is nice, but when people are giving and taking offense, you are in the realm of emotionality, not rationality.

I fundamentally disagree with you about this issue. Your ability to determine what is offensive ends at your own skin-atmosphere boundary. It's far too easy for someone who is not being offended to tell others not to take offense at patently offensive and repugnant things. If you want to arrive at a rational, solutions-oriented discourse, just skip this step. Don't try to convince another person they're not offended, or shouldn't be - how paternalistic and narcissistic is that? Recognize that offense is happening and often the reasons are legitimate - whether or not that incident would offend you is immaterial.

If the perceptions are not legitimate, that will come to light - but first, the feelings brought up by the precipitating offense need to be examined and understood. Dismissal is belittling and humilating and too often an attempt to silence objections that have merit.

The human rights movements that have brought us closer to equality - and I think there can definitely not be different kinds of 'equality' ! - were successful largely because people did not set their legitimate responses to offense aside. They insisted that the offenses be noted, recognized, and dealt with.

I'm sorry, but I thought this was a poor piece of writing and thinking. It's also nothing new - this point of view (which is, quite essentially, 'don't worry your pretty little head') has been advanced by many over the years, which is why I'm surprised at seeing it get so much traction here.

Well said.

* though I will add, lest I appear needlessly hostile, that the impulse toward building a peaceful civil society, central to the piece, is laudable. I just disagree with the proposed path toward it. We can live through being uncomfortable with other people's feelings and come out better for it.

We can live through being uncomfortable with other people's feelings and come out better for it.

Or in other words.

The thing is, if no one got offended - and it’s a choice, you don’t have to do it - nothing could be offensive. And the world would be a much happier place.

I'm saying "Don't minimize their point of view; only by taking it seriously, rather than refuting their right to feel as they feel, can you even hope to have a 'rational' look at things.
There was never a suggestion that peoples perspectives shouldn't be taken seriously, and this is the second time you've come back to this. It's one of the reasons I think there's a bit of a semantic gap between what you're saying and what I'm saying.

I disagree that you're ever right to tell someone else how they should feel.
So you're *never* right to tell someone how they should feel??? You surely can't believe that there are not situations where you can and/or should tell someone how they should feel?

By taking this stance, you're cutting yourself away from a large percentage of friend-to-friend conversations ("You need to get over her Dude") as well as things like neuro-linguistic programming, self-help books and pretty much, the whole of modern literature.

Don't try to convince another person they're not offended, or shouldn't be - how paternalistic and narcissistic is that?
It's neither paternalistic or narcissistic. If anything, I'd say it was maternalistic and whatever the opposite of narcissistic is.

Or in other words.

No, the statements are not equivalent in a very important way that you're missing. It might bother you that someone else is offended; yet the solution to that is not for them not to be offended. The solution is to recognize that you aren't able to control what someone else finds offensive, and then move on to deal with their point of view - or just ignore it, if that's your style. The blog author is asking others not to be offended so he can be more comfortable - not asking himself to be more comfortable with others' objections to hurtful or dismissive incidents. As long as you're locating a solution not in what you should do, but in what someone else should do, you're not finding a solution - you're attempting to control the rest of the world.

So you're *never* right to tell someone how they should feel??? You surely can't believe that there are not situations where you can and/or should tell someone how they should feel?

No, you're never right to do so, and I surely do believe it, finally, at last, thanks to a lot of hours in therapy, and thank God for it - because when I didn't believe it, I was fucked up and fucking up other people's lives, too.

By taking this stance, you're cutting yourself away from a large percentage of friend-to-friend conversations

No, that's false. Your friends can still have heart-to-hearts with you. The thing is, your friends aren't you, and don't actually know what you "should" do. They can say "My perspective is..." or "If i were you, I would," or "You know, you don't have to feel X way," ...but one hugely important thing in relationships is to realize that you aren't inside the other person, and you honestly may be quite wrong about what they need, what's right for them, and what they should do. Telling others about their "shoulds" can become a very bad thing in relationships. I personally don't think I'm cut off from anyone just because I don't let anyone define me or tell me what my course of action "should" be. There are suggestions and perspectives, and then there are presumptive commands. Friends don't make presumptive commands.

It's really, really not okay with me to assume I know better than someone else how they should feel, act, or think or what they should do. I might have some good ideas to offer them, but I don't live their life, I can't see the future, and I really, really don't know. I'm entitled to my opinion but not entitled to tell them how they should live - as if I know. At best, I am an informed outsider who will only be observing the consequences of their decisions. At worst, I'm an intrusive meddler who is implying that they need to live by my rules.

There was never a suggestion that peoples perspectives shouldn't be taken seriously,

In itself, suggesting that someone else shouldn't be offended, simply because you decided so, is a suggestion that their feelings of offense aren't important. It's just not for you to decide! You don't have their experience.

And, finally, telling someone that your judgement about things would be an excellent substitute for their own is pure narcisissm. Maternalism and paternalism are essentially the same in this regard - controlling someone else by assigning them the role of child and you as parent and decider, so that language is spot on, as well.

I think we've got to the nub of it now, I think I've worked out what it is you're saying and I do believe there's a semantic difference.

I saw the authors statement that people "should not be offended" as nothing more than a suggestion. A strongly worded suggestion, but a suggestion. We're talking about feelings here (and the fostering of those feelings in a recursive counter productive way), and there's a world of difference between...

- having someone tell you how you should be feeling, and dismissing you as weak if you continue to feel in that particular way. (Your interpretation)

- Having someone tell you that you shouldn't be feeling a certain way, and them telling you you that full in the knowledge that what you're feeling is (a) unavoidable and (b) a natural human response. (My interpretation)

Please note that I'm not saying that your interpretation is any less valid than mine. I'm not arguing that you're wrong here.

(Also - Apologies if I'm reading you wrong on this. I'm second guessing a lot.)

Anyway - The former is abhorrent, and it's one of those psychological tricks that society and abusive partners/friends use to keep us feeling inadequate and less than human. If I've got this right, then of course - I agree with you.

The second is hard for me to explain (and that's possibly one of the reasons why we're at loggerheads on this), so I'm going to try doing this with examples...

- I do some work, but I'm not happy with it. It can't be right because I'm in a bad mood and I think everything I do is shit.
- My boss tells me I should be proud of the work I've done.
- I know he's not ordering me to be proud. He's telling me that it's good work, and in his opinion, I should be proud of it.

- I'm raging at some advert on the television I consider offensive.
- My friend tells me I shouldn't get so offended at it.
- Again, I know he's not ordering me to feel a certain way. (Because - as a rule - we're not that in control of our feelings). I do know that he's telling me that IN HIS OPINION, it's doing me harm to get wound up, and it's possibly upsetting to him. He's saying (albeit in a strong way), that - if it were him, he'd let this one go.

There is an element of trust in both these situations, but I'd argue that I had the same amount of trust in the author. He spoke empathically and calmly about a subject that has most people foaming at the mouth. As a consequence, I trusted that his exhortation that we "should not be offended" also came from a place of empathy.

"This is my moral compass," he is saying, "My perspective is that we should try not to get so offended about these contentious things."

seanyboy - let me recontextualize your examples a little bit:

- You did some work, and you're happy with it, but your boss says it's shit and refuses to show it to the client. Then he says, "Don't get upset."

- Your friend tells a "salty" joke about how blondes are stupid but brunettes are ugly. You get offended, and your friend responds, "You shouldn't get so wound up."

In other words, you seem to be ignoring the element of agency. When the author says, "You shouldn't get offended", he's saying this from the perspective of the majority, if not the same majority that is causing offense in the first place. In his mind, he sees himself as a trusted friend and ally, but to the offended party he may be just another guy dictating what we should be feeling and thinking and doing. That's why it's so important for allies with priviledge to sit down and listen, rather than try to engage all the time - I fall in to the same sorts of traps and it's something I'm working on.

I don't know what an element of agency is, so I'm going to guess.

If you're saying that we have to take into account intent, then yes - I agree with you. If you're saying that he means to forcibly dictate a position, then yes - I agree, if he were doing that, with what is actually an emotion, then that would be wrong.

But it doesn't have to be that way. It could just be a suggestion for better living, and (admittedly) because I agree with everything else he's saying, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

the term denotes the totally false attempts to pay lip service to equality in ways like changing "manhole" to "personal access facility" and similar.

But see, I don't personally have a problem with this ... "Manhole", as a single example, may seem silly, but in the context of American English and the pervasive use of "man" to mean both "masculine" and "neutrally human" (with the connotation that "woman" is the other or a special case), I do see this as a big problem that should be addressed. If changing "manhole" to "access hole" is how someone wants to do that, then bully for them.

If you're saying that we have to take into account intent, then yes - I agree with you.

But isn't this the key? If you use a word to describe me that may be considered as derogatory and I know you and know that you don't use it with the intent of belittling me, I'm less likely to be offended than I am if a stranger uses it, because I don't know their intent. Most people use words and phrases to and about our friends that we would never use to strangers for this very reason - we know they are likely to take offence but we know our friends will take it in the spirit of the way it is intended, because they have the context of knowing how we think.

There are plenty of people bitter because they didn't take advantage of opportunities and looking for someone to blame rather than admit that they screwed up.

On the other hand, it's hard to admit that sometimes, people just don't have the chance to take advantage of opportunities, or society smacks them down so often that it's understandable they'll lose faith in the system and get angry or disaffected. That's what I took away from watching The Wire, at least.
Well, I was using a personal observation that some people I know spend huge amounts of energy blaming everyone else for their own refusal to grasp life's opportunities instead of using that energy to take advantage of those opportunities, which was careless of me. There are people (and groups of people) who are understandably reluctant to expose themselves because history has taught them that society won't let them succeed but, for every one of these, there is another that is simply too lazy to help themselves and too ignorant to accept responsibility for their laziness.

for every one of these, there is another that is simply too lazy to help themselves and too ignorant to accept responsibility for their laziness.

And for at least every one of those, there is another that is in a privileged groups who don't deserve the success they've achieved based on their actual merit; they've simply coasted into that position and are now too lazy to examine all of the reasons why they got there when others didn't, and too ignorant to understand that their unthinking comments can represent and perpetrate truly damaging patterns of discrimination.

I believe that whenever someone is accused of being "too sensitive" or "too easily offended," it's worthwhile to look very hard at what's going on there. Having the spotlight on a potential injustice can be uncomfortable for people who benefit from, or at least not harmed by that injustice; so they often make efforts to focus instead on the 'offended' party and suggest that they should just be more easygoing, shrug off the slights, and succeed despite obstacles. And some people manage to, though it always takes additional effort and resources beyond what the privileged group has to employ. However, that doesn't mean that the overall pattern of injustice doesn't exist and shouldn't change.

Seanyboy, I agree that I interpret the writing differently than you do - that's exactly my point. My life experience has included many instances in which someone in a privileged position tries to focus on the behavior of a person with a grievance, rather than the initial cause of the grievance. Because of this experience I do detect here the fallback strategy of blaming the discomfort we experience in an unjust society on the insistence of those whose perspectives are being left out that their concerns be heard.

I've learned the very hard way that I don't control other people or even understand the world in the same way they do, and so that when they say "I'm offended, and here's why," it's up to me to believe they do feel offended, understand that they might have a real reason, and examine whether there was any demonstrable injustice in the 'why' - by listening to them.

I don't believe going back to intent is a terribly good solution. For the very same reasons that healthy personal boundaries involve not telling others how they "should" feel, it's not possible to discern someone's intent. Intent is invisible. People can be multilayered, conflicted, or duplicitous, or even act against their own intent sometimes. People of good intent work to show it by their actions, in ways that are visible and audible. Changing actions changes conditions for people seeking equality; changing intent might change actions, but changing intent alone doesn't change conditions.

Right now, this blogger's actions include writing a blog entry that suggests people who are offended are making things worse for society, and that if they didn't get offended, we'd all be happier. As an example he gives himself, describing incidents that just don't offend him, and suggesting that we all adopt this strategy because we'll be happier. That doesn't really look like good intent. Happy doesn't equal just.

If this person really is well-intended, then he may eventually move on from this point of view. It would mean that he stop expecting other people to assign the same relative value to offenses that he does. I don't actually believe the blogger is truly incapable of taking offense. Slights and attacks hurt, and they are more or less hurtful to different people based on how important the area they've been slighted in is to their identity. This blogger thinks people get too worked up over religion and race, but neither of those categories is especially important to his identity, so it's hard for him to understand how deeply slights in those areas can be felt. But I have a feeling that if you attacked the blogger for something he holds more precious - say about his level of writing skill, how much money he makes, his critical intelligence, or his degree of success in life - he would probably be rightfully offended. But I can't say for sure how he would feel - just pointing out that, just as he is in position to remain indifferent to attacks on religion and race, there are areas in which he is likely far more sensitive to attacks and far more likely to be offended. He simply doesn't share sensitive areas with the groups he's discussing in his examples, so of course those groups look needlessly wrought up to him. His position of relative privilege means he esteems those slights much less than if he, himself, suffered from them.

It's certainly fine if you want to say "I personally take offense at absolutely nothing; nothing offends me at all." It's an extreme position and I don't think I've ever met anyone who could say that with any honesty, but it's fine to take it as a position if you want. However, when you step over the line - the line at which your personal boundary ends and other people's lives begin - and suggest "If only everyone else would be just like me, we'd all be fine and happy," there I put the brakes on. Not only is that statement totally false, as history shows, it has the effect of minimizing the concerns of other people by blaming their own temperaments - rather than the putative act of injustice - for their concerns...whether or not that's the intent. Some people employ this deflection strategy knowlingly; some people arrive at it as a defense mechanism; and some are truly ignorant that these patterns exist and truly don't understand that others could be more hurt by an incident than they think should be the case. They could be people of very good intent, but once alerted to this dynamic, good intent would be to say "oh, okay. Well, I still won't get offended, then, but I'll recognize that other people sometimes do, and when they do I'll look at the reason and try to understand their perspective. When I don't agree with them that there's truly an injustice then we'll talk about why I don't agree. But I'll allow them to be who they are and feel how they feel, because I'm not in a position of control over them, and because my ideas for a solution might not actually be superior."

And for at least every one of those, there is another that is in a privileged groups who don't deserve the success they've achieved based on their actual merit; they've simply coasted into that position and are now too lazy to examine all of the reasons why they got there when others didn't, and too ignorant to understand that their unthinking comments can represent and perpetrate truly damaging patterns of discrimination.

Oh, absolutely. There are successful people all around us who don't deserve any of it and often are clueless to the fact that they don't deserve it. The difference between those who whine about their failure when they refuse to take the steps needed to succeed and those who crow about their success while being ignorant to the fact that they contributed nothing to that success is pure dumb luck - they are the same type of people at opposite ends of the luck spectrum.

As usual, Miko, you are absolutely right in what you say, but I'm not sure that I completely agree with you. I suspect this is to do with differing personalities - I am something of a cynic about people and you seem to have the ability to relate to people on their own level and to accept them without criticism or judgement. Me, I can accept people for what they are and actually value diversity in the people around me (ie I don't expect everyone to be like me - god forbid), but I have trouble accepting "the world owes me a living, damnit" as a worldview in others. I have had to work for any success I've had and that's the way it should be as far as I'm concerned. If you aren't prepared to work for it, don't complain to me when success eludes you.

Perhaps I live too much in that middle band of society where almost everyone I interact with is comfortable financially (in that they have plenty to eat and somewhere safe and secure to live) and where people aren't primarily part of a minority that stacks the deck against them. Maybe I should get out more.

To come back to the original topic, it is easy for people who don't have real problems in their life to not get offended by the views or actions of others, because it doesn't have any real impact on them. For those who are continually denied opportunities, it is easier to take offence at comments that reinforce the stereotype that keeps them in that position - perhaps in a "straw that breaks the camel's back" way. This is where intent goes out the window and context takes over - it's hard to be offended by being labelled a certain way by someone you know when that label doesn't reflect an issue that prevents you from succeeding, but much easier (and quite understandable) to be offended by a stranger pigeon-holing you based on a single fact when that person knows nothing about you and is ignorant of that label being a major barrier to your life success.

Or something. I don't rite gud.

miko:

I tried to bring my g/f over to my side on this and she disagrees with me too.

me: blah, blah, offense, blog, blah, blah, & that's why she's wrong.
g/f: You shouldn't tell people not to get offended.
me: But you see, blah, blah, more of a suggestions, etc, blah, intent.
g/f: Written by some priviledged white middle class man was it?
me: Gg. Ach. er. nnn.
g/f: 'Xactly.
me: ...

Anyway - I been mulling this over for the last twenty four hours, and I think I've been getting caught up in minor points.

The author doesn't (at any time) say people shouldn't get upset by things. In fact, he goes on to talk about not using language which upsets people. He understands that people can get upset and he talks about what he can do to stop that.

He does say that people shouldn't be offended, and he does that within the context of two news story. Chief amongst these is the Brand/Ross affair where, after saying upsetting things, the newspapers and thousands of people (who hadn't heard the upsetting things) decreed that Brand and Ross were a moral outrage.

I think he sees "being upset by" and "being offended by" as separate things.

Ironically, in this situation one of the chief differences between the two is an implied intent. To paraphrase the offended: Ross and Brand deliberately tried to upset an old man. The BBC is deliberately destroying the moral fibre of the nation. The Athiests are deliberately trying to kill God and upset Christians.

You say that we shouldn't assume intent, and despite this being too prescriptive a policy for my liking (e.g. I assume that my friends intend the best for me - is this bad?), I believe that the author is (in his own way), saying the same thing as you. He doesn't want to tell people to not be upset, he want's people to personalise it, say - This advert about God not existing upsets me - instead of saying - This advert about God not existing is an attack on the moral fibre of the country and should not be allowed.

You also started off with a semantic look at offended. i.e. an Offense has been committed against you. "Offense" implies a misdeed which SHOULD be judged as guilty by society. So again - Ironically, telling person (a) that they shouldn't get offended, is to tell them that person (a) they shouldn't be telling other people (bcd) what they SHOULD feel.

Again - this is exactly the position that you've taken, and although I disagree with this as an overriding principle, it is another place in which you're agreeing with the author.