RE: A thought on 'taking offense' and 'sensitivity'
May 31, 2009 at 12:16 pm
(This post was last modified: May 31, 2009 at 12:46 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
I Personally don't give a fuck at all. I'm not offended by anything.
I'm just saying that as it generally seems to be considered acceptable to 'take offense' then shouldn't taking offense to others 'taking offense' be accepted too? Otherwise it's unfair?
Because isn't it kind of hypocritical for Person A to 'take offense' to Person B but then when Person B is offended by the fact Person A's so easily offended over everything...Person B is treated as if he or she is not allowed to be offended by that - why is the 'offended' allowed to be 'offended' but that itself can seemingly never be considered offensive? Because isn't it kind of intolerant to act as if practically everything (or a very many things) are intolerant? Even in cases when they're not?
I think a lot of intolerance should be tolerated because...a lot of it really isn't 'intolerant' (or that intolerant) and it's just an overreaction from the 'offended' person...or it's no big deal in (at least) the particular case - and freedom of speech is more important!
If objecting to seemingly almost everything under the sun, being 'offended' by so much because it's 'intolerant' can be acceptable then shouldn't it also be acceptable to for that too be considerd offensive? Otherwise it's not really fair is it?
It's like 'It's ok...to be sensitive...and it's good to have a thick skin and be insensitive in some respects too. But to be sensitive to someone's oversensitive 'taking offense' that's not so acceptable. Because they're the offended ones!"
- Like it's okay to be 'sensitive' but not when it's being 'sensitive' to someone else's oversensitivity.
I think it's hypocritical of the 'offended person' if it can't go both ways....either both or neither should be acceptable in my opinion or it's unfair.
I think both should be acceptable for reasons of freedom of speech...for the 'offender' to be suppressed like he can't ever take offense to the 'offended' for 'taking offense' for no good reason - I think is unfair...
But I personally get offended by fuck-all.
Why would I get offended?
My own personal philosophy on the matter is one of two things are the case if someone says something 'offensive' to me: Either A: the 'offensive comment' or 'insult', etc, is nonsense, so in which case why get offended if it's nonsense? Or B: The 'offensive comment' or 'insult', etc, is truthful in which case why would I get offended, if they're telling the truth?.
I can't (at least as of late) think of a reason for me to ever simply be 'offended'...
But that's just me lol
EvF
Thanks to Phil1989's awesome Stephen Fry quote in his sig (that I've added myself on first glance - I had to (Ideally I think everyone should hehehehe, but that's just my own opinion and personal preference lol)) - and thanks to the help of google, I have found this article:
http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2006/02/03/sfw/.
I use it as a very simple counter argument to this argument (that I feel is a strawman anyway, and disagree with on principle to the core anyways) that I was presented with in secularchat:
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/swasticross.html.
Stephen Fry FTW I say: Thou Shalt Not Contradict Stephen Fry!
EvF
I'm just saying that as it generally seems to be considered acceptable to 'take offense' then shouldn't taking offense to others 'taking offense' be accepted too? Otherwise it's unfair?
Because isn't it kind of hypocritical for Person A to 'take offense' to Person B but then when Person B is offended by the fact Person A's so easily offended over everything...Person B is treated as if he or she is not allowed to be offended by that - why is the 'offended' allowed to be 'offended' but that itself can seemingly never be considered offensive? Because isn't it kind of intolerant to act as if practically everything (or a very many things) are intolerant? Even in cases when they're not?
I think a lot of intolerance should be tolerated because...a lot of it really isn't 'intolerant' (or that intolerant) and it's just an overreaction from the 'offended' person...or it's no big deal in (at least) the particular case - and freedom of speech is more important!
If objecting to seemingly almost everything under the sun, being 'offended' by so much because it's 'intolerant' can be acceptable then shouldn't it also be acceptable to for that too be considerd offensive? Otherwise it's not really fair is it?
It's like 'It's ok...to be sensitive...and it's good to have a thick skin and be insensitive in some respects too. But to be sensitive to someone's oversensitive 'taking offense' that's not so acceptable. Because they're the offended ones!"
- Like it's okay to be 'sensitive' but not when it's being 'sensitive' to someone else's oversensitivity.
I think it's hypocritical of the 'offended person' if it can't go both ways....either both or neither should be acceptable in my opinion or it's unfair.
I think both should be acceptable for reasons of freedom of speech...for the 'offender' to be suppressed like he can't ever take offense to the 'offended' for 'taking offense' for no good reason - I think is unfair...
But I personally get offended by fuck-all.
Why would I get offended?
My own personal philosophy on the matter is one of two things are the case if someone says something 'offensive' to me: Either A: the 'offensive comment' or 'insult', etc, is nonsense, so in which case why get offended if it's nonsense? Or B: The 'offensive comment' or 'insult', etc, is truthful in which case why would I get offended, if they're telling the truth?.
I can't (at least as of late) think of a reason for me to ever simply be 'offended'...
But that's just me lol
EvF
Thanks to Phil1989's awesome Stephen Fry quote in his sig (that I've added myself on first glance - I had to (Ideally I think everyone should hehehehe, but that's just my own opinion and personal preference lol)) - and thanks to the help of google, I have found this article:
http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2006/02/03/sfw/.
I use it as a very simple counter argument to this argument (that I feel is a strawman anyway, and disagree with on principle to the core anyways) that I was presented with in secularchat:
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/swasticross.html.
Stephen Fry FTW I say: Thou Shalt Not Contradict Stephen Fry!
EvF
