Category: the Rant Board
I'm growing rather tired of the whole topic of and all the worry over either being offended or offending others. It seems these days that people just don't seem to know how to cope with hearing things they either dislike or just don't agree with. Is it just that there are more reasons to be offended than there used to be, or are people truly lacking in mechanisms to cope with life. Do people actually think they will go through life only hearing things they want to hear or just getting their way in general?
Another problem I have with the whole concept of offence is that the only person who is taken to task is the person who said the offending thing. In my view, that person does not hold all the responsibility, but only part. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the person who overreacts or is otherwise thin-skinned is also at fault and should take responsibility or suffer consequences as well? I honestly don't care what culture or ethnicity somebody comes from, this is just bothersome in principle.
I also find that people seem to get offended just because another person has a strong view they disagree with. I think most offence is not intentional, but I think people who are so vulnerable to get upset because somebody disagrees with their opinion and dares to say so, well, something needs to be done, but I wish I knew what.
And then you have people who have had to suffer through speaking their mind, having somebody run them through the wringer because they got offended, so now they dare not say anything or communicate at all for fear they might offend somebody. Is the feeling of being offended one of the worst things one can feel? True, I rarely get offended, but when I do, I feel it and I rant a bit, and then I'm done and I get on with things that are more interesting. The feeling of offence has never even threatened my life, nor ahs it been so much of a distraction that I can't get on with life. But more and more I'm convinced that I must be from outer space and not a true blue human, the way most people seem to act and think. I dunno.
people need to discuss more. certain members of society take their views as gospal, literally, and refuse to listen to the views of others. that's at the route of most of the so called offence on this site. thanks.
I agree with what Codiac just said.
There needs to be an example provided here, the original post is a bit vague. There are times when people say offensive comments and do offensive things out of ignorance, but once you have been given knowledge about your mistake, it's now your task to no longer be that ignorant person; if One Chooses to remain ignorant, and continue with such actions, then it's clear who the blame should fall on.
There are other times, as it has been pointed above, that a person is offended not because the comment was in mean spirit, or ignorant, but because it conflicts with their beliefs and views, and rather than face a bit of friction between view points, they prefer to simply get upset.
However, one must be careful when addressing issues such as ethnicity, sex, religion, especially if one is in the majority, and is speaking about a minority. Remember the majority, although perhaps is not meaning to offend, has the power to do much greater harm, simply because of it's great number and it's place in society. The minority, even though it may be meaning to be offensive, does not have those numbers or that place in society and therefore is given a bit more leniency when it comes to such things. This is something that the majority may see as unfair. It is not unfair.
For example, the high school football team who lightly taunts of a bookish kid in class may be only joking, and not at all meaning to do harm. But, they are a large and powerful group, and the bookish kid is just one guy.
an offensive comment coming from one guy, to a group, isn't at all that dangerous. But switch the situation around, and you might have a kid who has had a miserable high school career, and would have hated those years of their life.
What needs to be considered is not who the blame should fall on, whether it's 50% on one and 50% on the other, but rather, One should consider awareness, always. Be aware of who you are, and how and why others may perceive you, be aware of who others are, and why you perceive them in that way. Personal responsibility is the answer.
I see what poster 1 is saying. People are just to damned sensative these days. Certain of my podcast episodes get people rialed up...even livejournal entries of mine have comments such as "don't say that", "that's rude", etc.
I think it's our nature to be ass holes and we must work to fight it.
I was actually speaking much more in general terms and not about this site at all, as that's old news. On this site, there are people who think they can just say any ignorant stuff they wish and other people's feelings just don't matter because, well, they don't actually exist and are just collections of words typed on a keyboard. It's not like you're actually having to deal with them face to face, so you can let out the inner asshole you have to keep chained up in real flesh-and-blood life. This is my guess at what some people think and how they justify their behavior. But yeah, I think what bothers me the most is in the case of an offence, the person who did the deed seems to have to take a hundred percent of the responsibility even if they did not mean to cause offence. The offended party not only is not encouraged to apologize for their thin skin, but probably can excuse their volatile nature away one way or the other. I would wish that both parties in a case of offence share the responsibility, and those who are easily offended should find a way to toughen themselves against further damage to themselves. Wish I knew how, but I suppose it's up to the individual.
Oh, I just read Margorp's reply, and I've got to differ with one point. I do not think people are assholes by nature. Yeah, people are ignorant, not necessarily on purpose, although some try not to be. I also think that although people think of themselves and their needs first, people try to think of others, too. Balancing acts aren't easy and I suppose it's not always easy to get it all straight on a consistent basis. I mean, unless I'm fooling myself, and anyone reading this can feel free to disagree, I do not see myself as an asshole. Cynical, blunt, yes on both counts, but to me, an asshole is a sadist, and I do not find it fun or pleasurable to hurt others, assassinate their characters for the sake of my own image, whatever the hell image is, or whatever else assholes do. Being mean to people will not make them turn into something you find more desirable, so there's no point in expending the energy.
this is a interesting topic. I do agree that people are very sensitive to certain topics, and I can understand why. But I also think that a bit of understanding why certain groups or people get offend is that we must walk a day in someone else shoes. No one in this world knows what others go thru, what they have to deal wtih, what they are faced with and so on. But until we can open our minds to the challenges of others, see what people are, read into them for every thing they are and more. We can not see why things offend one another. Read between the lines people. People do need to keep a open mind on things, there views, thoughts, opinions, knowledge is not is not the only one in the world, that others have the same things. And it makes our world a much better place if we share those things, that we learn about people, we "try" to understand those things, and we keep a open mind to the fact that others have differenting opinions, thoughts, views and knowledge of the world. Yes I know, i know this is a love and peace kind of view on the world, but there are way too many close minded people. And again i understnad why they are that way, or why they feel they have to be that way.
Generally i like to think people are good at heart, and not assholes, i know many many people who put others before themselves, myself included. I do think that websites and sites such as this do give people the feeling that we are just words, not people, but we are not computers generatoring the words, we have feelings. I do think it is about personal responsiblity, understanding, knowledge, power, bonds and so on.
I think that most of us are missing the initial thrust of Godzilla's post; i.e, that the offended person is not asked to take any responsibility for their actions. I am fully behind this rant, as it really really winds me up that society pampers meladramatic foolish people, just because they use the magic words "he/she offended me." That begs the question of why offense was felt. Is it because you're a woman and the insulter's a male? If so, then chin up ducky, and get on with life. You'll never change the fact that you're a woman, so stop being so sensitive about it. Instead, why not try sassing him right back.
If you got offended because someone told you you smelled, well now, that's a different matter. You can do something about that. Either stop being so sensitive, or go take a bath. No, I haven't gone mad. I'm just trying to point out that offending comments can also result in changes for the better. Maybe that bookish kid in highschool was forced to explore other interests after being taunted. Maybe offence encourages us to grow as people.
But now i'm guilty of the same thing; ignoring the real rant behind this post. I tell you one thing which really makes me angry. All of these equality laws in the UK. They started off with a really altruistic, wonderful goal of making everyone equal. However, they've just gone mad now. You can't call a dark skinned person black any more, even though they are, and even though they prefer to be called black instead of coloured. You can't refer to a person as blind on an application form. They have to be visually impaired. Well, bisually impaired tells you nothing, absolutely nothing, about how bad their vision is. Employers can't ask how you do things due to your blindness, even though it might directly impact on the job in question. You can't wish someone Happy Christmas any more. You can't sing Christmas Carols in the street. The world has just gone mad! And this all to mollycoddle the poor little folks who can't handle being faced with anothers' culture, beliefs, disability, sex, etc etc.
So, in short, yes Godzilla, I agree with you, and think it's wrong of society to encourage this dependant, shying away, overdramatic behaviour and display of emotions that are given out by the offended party. Really, they should be encouraged to sit down with the one causing the strife, and have a discussion. Sort out why offense was given, and how it can be rectified. I hate this tit for tat culture that we've turned into. If you're offended, deal with it, sort it somehow, and move on.
FM
FM is totally right. Case in point, I read on the news two weeks ago that applications for a flight controller in the south east of England were made availible in braille, because of equality laws. I, for one, would not want to be anywhere near an airport with a blind flight controller I must tell you.
Basically, in our society, the one who offends is the culprit, the insensitive ass hole if you will (oh, did I utter an offensive term, I mean the rectumized one) and offenses are always insubstantial and unjustified. I also see a very strange trend, e.g. in American culture. On the one hand swear words, for instance, are completely blocked out on tv stations, even the word "suicide" was bbeeped over on MTV, but then, when you watch movies and special cartoons on less sensorred networks they have to use the f word in every single sentence, it becomes rather lame and comic. I wonder if this suppressing of behaviors is leading to unreasonably angry outbursts and problems in general. I think offensive words (or swear words), for instance, have their place in life, when you're really frustrated or angry, but do not need to be present in every single sentence that you utter. So I think our attitude towards offenses have become less and less reasonable and more and more childish.
ok, off topic, but B's post sparked a need to give you another case in point. And that case is I, me, yours truly.
I'm looking for a job at the moment, working as a physiotherapist. Throughout my training, I had real difficulty with assessing the minute factors which make up a person's ability to step, i.e, how bent is the ankle? What angle does it strike the floor at? Is their step length equal on both sides? Do their shoulders sway in correct counterpoint to the hips? Position of the head in relation to the feet?
A job came up in a gait analysis lab for a physio. This is a place where patients come to have their walking analysed in minute detail, right down to how much weight they commit to each step, and how much innertia is used to move forward. I thought i'd have a little fun and see if they'd let me apply and be interviewed, bearing in mind all these issues. You know what? They did! I put in my application, and got a response saying that I was being considered for the interview short list. It was then that I told them I didn't want the job.
So, all for the risk of offending me, they were prepared to let me practice in a field in which i had little skill with the finer points, treat patients who were beyond my professional knowhow, and try and battle through a career choice which was clearly unsuitable. And this, I tell you, to illustrate the point that, by protecting the offended person with platitudes and smiles only serves, in the long run, to wound them even more.
FM
Here is the point that has been overlooked: the issue is not about being offended, but rather why the person took offense and what the offenses were. Again, this is a matter of majority VS minority.
Industrialized nations are taking a more inclusive approach with their laws for employment and discrimination, not because they are becoming weaker, or society is generally being oversensitive, but because the minorities, whether those minorities are blind, female, black, Hispanic, deaf, are becoming stronger and have more purchasing power as a whole. And yes, when people have some power and they make noise, even if they are the minority, the majority must at one point begin to listen, or in many cases risk being replaced. Hopefully the majority becomes aware, and listens out of concern, not out of fear or greed.
How simple life seems if we simply say to a person, oh, you've been offended, just carry on, you'll get over it someday. The thing is that it's not that simple at all.
If you feel this way, and you are not part of the majority, then you should reconsider as to why you feel as if the majority should continue to hold its elite place in society, and you, the minority should just shrug your shoulders about it and move on. There is a difference between whining and calling out shenanigans when it’s due.
Are we saying that because a physiotherapist is blind, or visually impaired, that he or she should not be given consideration as a candidate for a position? One would assume that if you had applied for the position, it was because you were qualified to do the job, and not because you thought it would be fun to send in an application to test some already biased experiment.
A flight controller’s application is available in Braille, because accessibility is key when filling out job applications. It would be discrimination to have applications for the sighted and the jobs they can do, and then have alternative applications for the blind and what the majority assumes what job they can do.
Perhaps the word blind is no longer in use during job interviews because it carries negative connotations, as were visually impaired, or non sighted can describe the same situation with out all that negative attachment. This would be terribly important when looking for work, and the technique of using words that do not bring up strong opinions and emotions, instead of using words like “blind” or criminal, or contract, is a regular practice just about everywhere.
As for the original post,
Yes, observation and awareness are important in so that offenses are not committed in the first place. It's not a matter of the party that was offended taking some responsibility for being offended. The thing is, asking the offended party to take responsibility for being hurt is like asking them to apologize for being hit over the head with a blunt object. Now, it might be that the reason they were hit in the first place was because they were not being cautious and were not aware of their surroundings, but this realization can only come with time and self introspection.
Look, the fact of the matter is, our society is, for lack of a better term, pussified. Highly pussified.
"Look, the fact of the matter is, our society is, for lack of a better term, pussified. Highly pussified.”
This is an excellent example of majority VS minority.
The pussification of society, by which I'm assuming that One is making a connection between a more sensitive society to effeminacy, just shows how again, a minority, in this case women, is being associated with a collapse of the supposed more preferable less tolerant male (the majority) rule.
All that is happening, is that those who did not have the ability to speak up before, and say something like: Hey, you have offended me, can now do it, not only that, but when they do, it’s likely that someone might listen.
Of course there are going to be people who will use this to simply whine.
Ok Sure, but isn't that the point of the original post. This newfound freedom and rights is great, and what you said about majority vs minority is a very interesting point which definitely is making me think, a new perspective. But, I guess, the piont is that too many people abuse this freedom and the trend is moving too far the other side, if someone is offended today that person can say "oh, he's a white male, he has no right to say I'm wrong for dropping out of college/having 6 kids with six guys and living on wellfare) or something. There are instances where comments, which seem offensive, should be considered, there are also lots of cases where such comments are ill founded and wrong and say more about the offender than offendee (isn't that a word)?
Baiscally I think it's something we must consider on a case by case basis and we can't rush to conclutions or write off comments immediately based on who was involved. With freedom of speech comes responsibility, to think before you speak and to respect people around you. But many people would do well to listen. I still don't think a blind person should be considered as a pilot or flight controller, there are things they cannot due and shouldn't try to do, but of ocurs it's a tricky trend and who is to decide. I'm sure blind people were considered unsuitable for programming jobs 20 years ago, but not so much today, so you got a point there. I'm just tired of the political correctness, that I can't use the word "blck" or "blind" because it may be offensive to some people, that I think is wrong. If the word itself like "handicap" or the n word, were used, there is a clear negative conjutation right away and those should not be used, but when words are this neutral and, in their nature, unbiast, we should be free to use them. I hate it when people hesitate and do not know what to call me for fear of offending me and end up with "visually challenged", say blind for goodness sake, that's what I am, I may or may not like it, but I am blind, white (not cocation, or differently black or off gray).
That's the point I'm trying to make. ;)
cheers
-B
wildebrew
, How is this new freedom being abused, is this an observation, an opinion, or something that you have found some data on, or at least a theory which can be somewhat backed up by facts?
Let's take your post for example:
"But, I guess, the point is that too many people abuse this freedom and the trend
Is moving too far the other side, if someone is offended today that person can say "oh, he's a white male, he has no right to say I'm wrong for dropping
out of college/having 6 kids with six guys and living on welfare) or something."
So what you are saying is, that in this case, a white male, in other words, a person who belongs to the least oppressed group of all people in the world; is in the right when speaking about a female, which by this post seems to be underprivileged, a conclusion I arrived at by her dropping out of college, having a group of kids with different fathers, and being on welfare which are all factors that in this society point to having limited choices? Doesn’t the situation which this woman is in point to something deeper than just making bad choices? Underprivileged is a key word here, as I doubt a wealthy woman would have ended up in the same situation. And if this woman says, you can’t point out my mistakes to that white male, because he is a white male, she just might be right, unless that white male is offering a practical way for her to change her situation.
Again, having a pilot’s exam, or a flight controller’s questioner in available in Braille does not reflect the desire for blind pilots and flight controllers, rather, it reflects the need for things to be accessible, especially something as important as job applications.
There might be blind people that do not feel comfortable being called blind, especially by people who are sighted. The word blind, outside of the blind community, and outside of those communities who have a deeper understanding for all people, might think of negative stereotypes when saying, or hearing the word blind. If you choose to be called blind, that is something that you have decided, something that you have made a part of who you are, but this does not go for all people, especially in the job market: a place where you want to make yourself as desirable as possible.
The point you want to make is that you are who you are, and you don’t want someone sugar coating that, or doing anything else for that matter: you are who you are.
The point I’m trying to make is that you should consider who you are: you might just be a projection of the majority, and might feel comfortable with the status quo.
OK Sure
You've just highlighted the point I was trying to make with my previous posts.
Ok, so you say that a person shouldn't be called blind. Why not? It's a medical diagnosis. Blind is the appropriate and correct terminology for someone who can't see. Is it then wrong to say that someone with cerebral palsy has cerebral palsy? Should we stop calling people deaf because they don't like it? Should we just do away with all of these diagnosis words, and have doctors say to folks, "Well, you're ill with this condition. It effects your eyes, but I can't give you an exact idea of how much you're affected, because it might offend you." I'm sorry, but that's just going too far in my book.
If there is real reason for offence to be taken, then yes, by all means, be offended, scream and shout, stamp your feet, yell until somebody, somewhere sits up and takes notice. But, if a person comments on something which has no real reason for a person to become upset over, then move on. There are plenty of other, more important things, to waste all of that energy on that would otherwise be used in coddling your offended state.
FM
“Ok, so you say that a person shouldn't be called blind. Why not? It's a medical diagnosis. Blind is the appropriate and correct terminology for someone
Who can't see. Is it then wrong to say that someone with cerebral palsy has cerebral palsy? Should we stop calling people deaf because they don't like
It? Should we just do away with all of these diagnosis words, and have doctors say to folks, "Well, you're ill with this condition. It affects your eyes,
But I can't give you an exact idea of how much you're affected, because it might offend you." I'm sorry, but that's just going too far in my book.”
I never said that people should not be called blind.
Remember that words and their meanings change over the years, and ask yourself, who is responsible for these changes?
Blind might be what people without sight may be referred to now, but it does not mean that the word and its meaning will not change.
Words like Colored, oriental, blind and disabled have changed, because people have wanted them to change. These words were accepted at one point…
Again I must say this, contentment with the status quo does not translate into something positive, and it might just mean that one feels safe, secure, in maintaining beliefs and opinions and taking the actions that one is accustomed to, out of fear of change.
We give words power simply by saying, "oh my, that's tabu, it's just not right." We can make other people comfortable buy using the word.
Consider the blind example:
Person A. is a blind indevidual as is person B.
Now, person A. does not like to here "your blind."
Person B. proudly says "I'm blind, big deal."
Now, I ask you, who has the more protruding character?
Also I want to fight with wb on the wellfare case based on things I've seen in my life.
Is it still wrong for that white man to say anything when
The afercan american woman is offered child care, a wellfare to work program/paid for schooling while the children are taken care of, and they attend the school and say out loud in front of anyone who will listen i don't care if I pass my classes or anything. I'm just here in order to continue getting money from the government.
I am by no means racest, and I know white people have doen this as well, but I agree that there comes a point where your responcibilities are sherked and you take offence based off of that.
Another case in point. I worked with a co worker who like mmyself was a customer service represenative.
This co worker was blind and worked at an organization for the blind. She RAIRILY IF EVER HAD HER JOB DONE BY THE END OF THE DAY> She was constantly on personal phone calls. She took off for long lunch breaks and eventually started polling no shows at work. When they fired her what did she do? She went to a lawyer and played the I'm offended and discriminated against because i'm black blind and female, and the company was forced to hire her back.
I know these are extreme examples, but really they aren't as extreme as they would have ben 10 years ago, and is this soon going to be ok? Is it acceptible for them to cry offence when they have made thesedecissions?
The problem with these examples is that often we overlook one very important point when examining the behavior and actions of others, and then passing judgment on them. Take another look at these examples:
"This co worker was blind and worked at an organization for the blind. She RAIRILY IF EVER HAD HER JOB DONE BY THE END OF THE DAY> She was constantly on
personal phone calls. She took off for long lunch breaks and eventually started polling no shows at work. When they fired her what did she do? She went
To a lawyer and played the I'm offended and discriminated against because I’m black blind and female, and the company was forced to hire her back."
Would the company have noticed a thing, if she was not doing her job as required, and did not happen to be “black, blind and female?”
In other words, it’s very possible that she was let go because she was indeed “black, blind and female.”
Had she done her job like she was supposed to, do you think she would have been moving upwards in the company with as much ease as someone who was not blind, black and female?"
Perhaps this woman abused the system, but honestly, a system in place to serve and benefit will always be open to abuse, or for free rides.
And in the example below:
“Is it still wrong for that white man to say anything when
The African American woman is offered child care, a welfare to work program/paid for schooling while the children are taken care of, and they attend the
School and say out loud in front of anyone who will listen I don't care if I pass my classes or anything. I'm just here in order to continue getting money
from the government.”
The point too take into focus here is not whether an individual can judge another, but rather, whether an individual is judging another based on a stereotype.
Would this “white man” have said anything to a white woman who was doing the same, or would he just have passed it off as just another one of those lazy people. Would this man speak up against someone who was also “white” if he had witnessed the same carelessness, would he have judged as harshly, would he have addressed the individual making this bad choices as that, an individual and not a group of people being represented by the actions of one woman?
For those claiming that words only have the power that we allow them to have, that political correctness is somehow a negative rather than a positive, think of the following examples, and really ask yourself, honestly what do you see in your mind when you encounter the words:
Welfare recipient
Drug Dealer
Prowler
Intruder
Unwed parent
Now, think of these words and consider what you imagine:
Lawful gun owner
Average worker
Typical person
Lawful citizen.
Did anyone honestly not attribute any color, ethnicity, gender, to those words?
I did not! I do not say certain people tend to do such and such because...well, simply put, that is not correct.
Okay, statistics show the certain groups sometimes tend to act a certain way but we cannot say that this is always the case.
Statistics cannot be used in relation to people. I make bring this up on my next episode of kjsisco's podcast (my podcast) by the way.
I fear we, as a whole, have much to learn.
"I did not! “Could this be because in your mind, these words already have a set description? Typical person for example is equal to a white male? Let's put it another way, when you think of the typical person, do you think of a black female? Is the average guy, in your mind black or Mexican, or Japanese, or is he white?
As far as statistics go, they can be used in relation to people, they will tell you the who, what, where, when, what they will not tell you is the why. I'm certainly one to trust statistics; however, I always look for the why.
I believe the why is much more important than anything else. Statistical analysis on people is rediculous because people are random; they cannot always be predictable.