Offense -Whose Is It?

The thread certainly doesn't offend me. It does, however, puzzle me just a tad. Is there a specific (recent) event or incident that prompts this discussion? Has anything or anyone offended you recently on these boards?

So you're saying that one shouldn't be offended on behalf of the offended? I hear that as we shouldn't have empathy. Sorry. Can't go there.

No, no, no. The subject came up over in the "Romney 2012?" thread. They started talking about whther Romney was insulting Jews and Palestinians. Someone said he usually lets offended people decide for themselves whether they should be offended, and off we went. I just moved it over here to not clog that one.

Nope, not saying we can't have empathy. Here's a scenario:

A black republican is told that they should be ashamed of and insulted by something Ann Coulter said. The reply is that "I'm a grown man, and I know what offends me and what doesn't better than anyone else, and that doesn't offend me." Now, I personally would shake my head and think thoughts about the guy being a sellout as I walked away, but - isn't he right?

Sure. Have you read about the recent non-wedding in Crystal Springs, MS? A few folks let the pastor know in no uncertain terms that if the wedding of a black couple took place in their church as intended then they'd make sure he was out on his ear. He officiated the wedding in a nearby church. Some folks feel bad on behalf of the couple, some folks feel bad on behalf of the minister, some folks feel bad on behalf of themselves being painted with the wide bigotry brush. One black man walked into services on Sunday and said he didn't feel bad being in that church. He probably did more towards healing the rift than all of the others combined.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/wedding-banned_n_1725233.html

I remember the threads you mention, snood. I personally thought the tar baby thing evoked lots of gratuitous use of the term just to annoy the offended. Essentially, I think we must take each offense on its own merits. After all, the Tea Party is perpetually offended like a hill of fire ants. Many native Americans do not want to be called Indians. Yet I have associated with many who call themselves Indians and I have never in person heard anyone describe themselves as Native Americans, only on line and in a few papers. Sports teams are not known for sensitivity. If it were me, I would rename the Redskins. But I don't expect anybody to respect that opinion. It seems we could use a little sensitivity when it is obvious people are seeking respect.

Yup JPB - been keeping up with that story, and I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I think its a shame they couldn't just get hitched by the preacher in that church and everyone go on about their business.

On the other hand, I feel very strongly about not patronizing establishments that demonstrate they don't want me there (if there is a choice about where to get the service that establishment offers). and I have some other 'other hands', too...

Yeah, we ALL could stand some refurbishing of our empathy softwares, I'm sure.

Hey ed - if everyone was like you, there'd be no problem. And I don't just mean that kiddingly - you and I have completely disagreed about some things and somehow found a way to come out of it without being totally diagreeable. That's the stuff I wish everyone -including me - practiced more.

Most of our disagreements have centered on religion based themes. Mostly based on emotions of the moment.

Joel Chandler Harris

Russell Means, an Ogalala Souix and a prominent Indian activist in the 1960s and -70s apparently had not problem with it. In 1968, he joined AIM, the American Indian Movement. It was kind of hilarious, too, in that i went to Wikipedia to get the right dates, and they describe him as a Native American activist. We're all Native Americans (those of us born in North America).

It can get seriously carried away. The University of North Dakota faced NCAA sanctions if they didn't change the name of their sports teams, which had been called the Fighting Souix. The NCAA recognizes the right of a handful of teams to use such names, if they are approved by the group so referred to. The Spirit Lake Souix band approved the use of Fighting Souix, but that apparently wasn't good enough for the NCAA when an Souix activist from South Dakota complained. The state had passed a law requiring the university to use the name Fighting Souix last year, but in the face of the NCAA sanctions, and the NCAA's refusal to accept the Spirit Lake band's approval of the name, voters in a referendum allowed the university to drop the name.

This is taking offense on behalf of others carried to a rediculous extreme. One spokesman for the Spirit Lake band would not speak to the press, his wife saying he was heartbroken about the incident.

I agree with you about the Redskins--there's probably many thousands of people, at least, who are offended by the name. But the North Dakota incident is an example of the concept being taken too far.

Which is why in my universe we ought to take each case on an individual basis.

I agree it is in the face of the offended.

Its funny because I tend to have a high tolerance for most things, but there are a few I am more sensitive about - as I imagine others are as well. At that point though - in most cases I simply ignore and think it is just that person's ignorance (not meaning to offend - meaning not really understanding)

The one thing is though, if some one does say something/do something/image or otherwise initially without any maliance or intend to offend, you should give that person the benefit of the doubt.

However, once this person realizes they have offending some one else, if they truly do care and do not wish to offend, they should not continue with such words, etc. rather than say just get over it. - that is if they do really care not to offend.

who decides who has the 'right' to be offended/bothered by something?

(??) (In my opinion of course...)

The offended party has more of a "right" to decide whether they should be offended or not than anyone else. What part of this seems to be hanging you up?

Good one, Irish.

Okay then. Who decides who an 'offended party' can be?

Is an offended party only the person who is actively being discriminated against/believes they are personally being discriminated against?

I rea-lly think you're overcomplicating this. Yeah, I think the "offended party" is referring to the person against whom some perceived offense has occured.