The Right to Offend

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

When the founders of this country wrote our Constitution, they very wisely set aside and enumerated certain "rights" which they thought should apply to all men.
These were listed as amendments to this Constitution but are in reality a listing of rights which should be enjoyed by any and all free men.
The first of these, as it is the foundation upon which the others are built, is the right of freedom of speech, which naturally involves the freedom of thought. To curb one will also hinder the free exercise of the other.
While we should all enjoy the freedom of speech, no one should believe they have any right to not be offended.
By censoring anothers ability to think and speak freely, so we are not offended, we are also denying them the same rights we hold dear for ourselves.
This can not be allowed to be done if we are to be a society which believes "all men are created equally".

Like I said, so long as you have the right to feedom of speech, you can not have the right to not be offended.

Unfortunately, the lateral thinking and thought process of todays electronic Kardashian generation goes something like this (thanks to institutionalized indoctrination and relentless propaganda).........

"If you state your opinion, it's called free speech, but, if I retort and state my opinion on your opinion, its called hate and intolerance"

Precisely like this..........(please watch, I promise you won't be disappointed or offended)

George Carlin: How language is used to mask truth etc. and how the world has become Ridiculously Offended

a reply to: intrptr

Can't mention Islam, only allude to it because that would make you as hateful as you claim Muslims are

Here you go...not so hard

Some of the actions of arabs purpoting to be practising muslims I find abhorrent and demeaning to women homosexuals and Jews,

I also find some of the actions of some Zionists (not all Israelites) akin to ethnic cleansing, whilst they shield themselves from criticism behind anti-semitism laws

I also find the actions of overzealous legislators purporting to be christians in enacting legislation coloured with their religious glasses unjust towards those who profess an ethical or moral compass sans guidance from outdated mosaic/christian laws

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If we ever come to a point where offensive speech is banned, then the world would be a very quiet place.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

and often or not, fighting words turn into fighting people. But luckily for us, the very state of being offended has never caused harm to any human being since the beginning of time and space

But it does cause threat/harm to ego and the ego wants vengeance and will manipulate the self to act.

And unless one can prove how guttural sounds, marks on paper or body language can physically affect or alter anything besides maybe the one who speaks them, they have no cause nor reason to enact the consequences they themselves deem justified

I get what you’re saying but you ignore the very real consequences of "act of words" "acts of legislation" that are mere abstract concepts but have very real world consequences upon us by being a citizen of the state.

What are laws other than an oppression to conformity by an individual to the ruling regime of the day (laws that may change depending on who is an "enemy state" one day and a favoured nation the next) - mere words/strokes of ink but with dire consequences

As usual LesMis a very good thread
S + F

a reply to: Astrocyte

It doesn't mean anything to the amygdala. Social acts - relational events - trigger the same areas of the brain that physical pain does. Any self-aware person knows and can recognize within themselves their vulnerability to a mean face, a disparaging voice, or a condescending words.

Again, EVOLUTION

Very true, but all LesMis is asking is that we pause consider and critique our reasoning before reacting in a knee jerk fashion.
Do you contend that we are mere automatons acting on impulse alone?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

In brief, more evil is perpetrated in the name of God than for any other reason.

Blaming God (or the devil) for what we are about to do unto others.

a reply to: awareness10

You're beautiful, thanks for bringing Sir George, he always nails it.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Because being a "loonie lefty" or "bleeding heart" does not make you a social outcast in the sense that being "racist" or "bigoted" does.

Why does that sting as much as it does if it doesn't apply?

I think people are pretty free in our culture to say whatever they want to say. If what you say prompts some kind of negative response (anymore) we now get a whole lot of blow back about political correctness

How many times have I heard in the past few years that a person should have the right to say what they want to say no matter how ugly without being called a bigot?

:-)

Kids - watcha gonna do?

a reply to: woodwardjnr

You actually are as polite as I'd like to be

I'm pretty OK with the word bigot. I never use it arbitrarily - it's always very purposeful. It's never malicious

It really is offensive

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Modern Edukayshun, Good Lord! I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

Actually it reminds me of something? Oh of course! American Universities!

a reply to: geezlouise

Thank you for your post.

About not caring what people think, I don't quite agree with that. I believe we should care about what people think, not only because we already do, but because without doing so, we cannot discern between valid or invalid criticisms. Sometimes what people say about us is true, and being dismissive of their thoughts and arguments to avoid criticism is missing out on a great deal of insight.

I fully disagree with the so called golden rule: "treat others how you wish to be treated". No one wants me to treat them how I wish to be treated. Mutual respect requires we treat others how they wish to be treated, to consider their wants and desires, to actually care what they think, and to compromise where needed.

I do not think a right to offend means one should go out and offend. Common decency goes a long way in a civil society, and being offensive arbitrarily just doesn't have any objective benefit. I watched the new Bond film recently (horrible movie), and M made a good point—Bond having a licence to kill does not mean he kills people because he can, it means he knows who and when to kill. The same could be applied to a licence to offend.

a reply to: lakesidepark

Did I offend anyone??? GOOD. That was my intention.

Intending to offend people is unnecessary, vulgar and will be met with scorn by our fellow members of society. Don't turn yourself into a pariah. Respect, fairness and manners is much easier than being disrespectful. Decency is much easier, more aesthetically pleasing, and more beneficial than indecency. Besides, as with any law, all it takes is an idiot to abuse a freedom in order to convince the authorities to limit it. I would argue abuse of a right is just as stupid as suppressing a right. Both show a disregard for this principle. Obviously the concerns over absolute free speech and the right to offend do not arise out of thin air.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

so calling someone a loonie lefty PC nut ag isn't an attempt to shut someone up? Interesting

Name-calling is for children, and is indeed an attempt to dismiss without warrant.

a reply to: Bluesma

The stories of De Sade- how much did they have to do with your life at the time of reading?

Not too much. I bought it out of curiosity, along with some other banned books. I find when reading, I cannot help but to picture what is being described. It was the pedophilia, the rape and the torture described in detail that got to me. At the time, it triggered my disgust. I didn't like the pictures it inspired me to generate in my head. This wasn't necessarily the last time I was offended, but definitely the last time I destroyed a book because of what I thought it did to me.

The pen may not be mightier than the sword in literal sense, but we know what we're talking about, don't we? Language has power. Power to influence, to manipulate, to move others.... So that they carry out what we don't. So we can sit back show our palms and say, "hey! I didn't do anything! Did you see me get out of this chair? I just said/wrote something. I am innocent!" You can always do that- enjoy the power, and decline the responsibility.

Metaphorically, yes we do know what we're talking about. Literally we do not. The metaphor just doesn't match up to the reality, and that is what I am calling in to question. Language does not have power. It doesn't have the ability to force anything, let alone human beings. There is something other than the language that deserves our ire. I think the language has power trope is only considered true because it has been repeated so many times. We have been taught to believe words are powerful, that they can hurt, that they can manipulate, and I think it has become something like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I disagree. I think it means that when a person is aware that what he/she is going to say or write is controversial, and will probably cause a certain type of disruption and emotions by others, then their choice to put it out there is also a choice for those reactions. If the Marquis was worried about people throwing his book out, if it bothered him, he probably wouldn't have done it.

Hell, whenever I go to participate in a thread, I look for the angle that is not being represented by anyone yet- the empty chair. Problems arise as a result because if that chair was empty, is usually because it is the angle that most are not comfortable looking at, hearing about, or thinking about! To take it on means agreeing beforehand to take a lot of flack and resentful blame afterwards. I can't blame them for reacting as they do when I make that choice! THAT would be denying the chain of causation and responsibility!

But some people are comfortable looking at it. The link we are overlooking resides somewhere in the offended party.

I think the Marquis knew what he was doing, and knew full well the reaction 120 Days of Sodom would get. I think all his work was banned in France until the 1960's.

Hitchens nailed it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I entirely agree about not being dismissive about other people's insights; even when someone calls you a balloon knot, they've been triggered to do that and it could only expand your own personal horizons if you investigated what triggered them to respond to you in such a way. I'm a fan of all that and I agree with you completely, and I think it's natural for us to care about what others think. But sometimes, or a lot, I admit I can be pretty dismissive of a strangers insights after I've judged that their insights are imaginary and based in ignorance and thus it becomes harder for them to insult/offend me with said insights.

I get lost when you say mutual respect requires that we treat others how they wish to be treated. I start imagining people who want to be treated in strange, even abusive and unhealthy ways and then the awkward meetings that might transpire between two individuals who hold very different ideas about how they should be treated. I start imagining what it means to be a guest in someone else's house and respecting the house, to the house respecting the guest, and everything gets kind of confusing... because what if they can't find common ground to meet? Basically you lose me there, but it's ok. I'm a fan of finding ways to bridge those gaps and coming together, and as you said, compromising where it's needed as long as the compromise doesn't take from the quality of life and etc.

And yes, it's a double edged sword. At the risk of sounding even more cliche I want to say... with great power comes great responsibility. I'm smelling what you're stepping in and I'm a fan.

Thank you again for the thoughtful response. I've enjoyed everyone's insights thus far! What a great thread.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

The stories of De Sade- how much did they have to do with your life at the time of reading?

Not too much. I bought it out of curiosity, along with some other banned books. I find when reading, I cannot help but to picture what is being described. It was the pedophilia, the rape and the torture described in detail that got to me. At the time, it triggered my disgust. I didn't like the pictures it inspired me to generate in my head. This wasn't necessarily the last time I was offended, but definitely the last time I destroyed a book because of what I thought it did to me.

I understand.
Now imagine you read those same descriptions about someone near you, say, a man who works in your corner grocery store. You read in detail that he did these acts to local children. The repulsion you feel, would it influence your attitude about/to this man?
Some people would be so moved and disgusted by the images in mind it stirred, those would become prejudiced against the man .... even if it was all a very elaborate lie.
Emotions sometimes distort our critical thought.

Metaphorically, yes we do know what we're talking about. Literally we do not. The metaphor just doesn't match up to the reality, and that is what I am calling in to question. Language does not have power.

Okay. we can agree to disagree on that. I observe what I think is very clear evidence that Bernays was right, The Engineering of Consent and Manipulating Public Opinion can celebrate their success.

I think the media has been able to manipulate the masses in a truly amazing way, in the production and distribution of ideas, which influence actions.

The link we are overlooking resides somewhere in the offended party.

I think the Marquis knew what he was doing, and knew full well the reaction 120 Days of Sodom would get. I think all his work was banned in France until the 1960's.

Yeah, I am quite sure he did. I've kinda always had a bit of affection for artists who challenge our traditional or habitual limits, even if I feel the crash of my own walls when I witness their work.
I consider the responsibility of each one - he was partly responsible because he chose to do something he knew would shock and disgust;
the reader who bought the book is responsible because they chose to buy a book they knew would challenge their moral senses (maybe the very first few people who read it could be exempt, but I doubt it, he had a reputation...).

I think with the every day offense accusations, it is often Games People Play, enjoying deep down the whole play of being offended and being offender. In my mind it is like anything else - all is okay, in moderation. Complete freedom or complete protection are both positions I would object to.