Getting offended: the new national pastime
Klundtasaur
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I tried to get some input on this in the New Comic thread for today, but it didn't get any traction. Probably the wrong forum, I decided. I'm seriously trying to make sure I'm not being a total jerk about this and missing some massive logical fallacy. So, copy/pasted:
Could I have someone tell me why I'm wrong to think that being offended is a choice that we make?
It seems to me like there's a lot of political/social commentary that, thanks to the internet, now has a lot more traction than it used to. Someone called them the "Offenderati"--and Liberal or Conservative, they always seem to be placing the blame on people not taking responsibility for their words/actions. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills sometimes, because to me, they're placing the responsibility for their REactions to these actions on the 'offending' party. I understand; there are crimes, and those who commit them ought to be punished. But it seems to me like getting (emotionally) offended is at least as much the responsibility of the offended party as the offend-er (hyphen to distinguish from actual criminal offenders).
I live in what is probably one of the most conservative cultures in America--Provo, Utah. We Mormons love us some rules and guidelines. I see people here who get offended at the drop of a hat (literally), or a joke spoken at the 'wrong' time, and it just seems silly to waste so much emotional energy telling other people that they have offended you. It's one thing to intentionally piss someone off, but getting mad and angry at someone who unintentionally offended you, or who said something that you and your particular circle of friends feel is "offensive" but is entirely unoffensive to him...
So, when I see feminists mad at the world, or entire countries threatening death because their particular spiritual value was not shared by another (remember the whole "Muhammad in cartoon" issue a few years back?), it just feels like such a waste of time and energy.
And I know that there's gotta be some logical and rational reason for me to be wrong about this. So, please, in all seriousness, help me see what I'm blind to with this idea of "being offended is a choice you make."
Could I have someone tell me why I'm wrong to think that being offended is a choice that we make?
It seems to me like there's a lot of political/social commentary that, thanks to the internet, now has a lot more traction than it used to. Someone called them the "Offenderati"--and Liberal or Conservative, they always seem to be placing the blame on people not taking responsibility for their words/actions. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills sometimes, because to me, they're placing the responsibility for their REactions to these actions on the 'offending' party. I understand; there are crimes, and those who commit them ought to be punished. But it seems to me like getting (emotionally) offended is at least as much the responsibility of the offended party as the offend-er (hyphen to distinguish from actual criminal offenders).
I live in what is probably one of the most conservative cultures in America--Provo, Utah. We Mormons love us some rules and guidelines. I see people here who get offended at the drop of a hat (literally), or a joke spoken at the 'wrong' time, and it just seems silly to waste so much emotional energy telling other people that they have offended you. It's one thing to intentionally piss someone off, but getting mad and angry at someone who unintentionally offended you, or who said something that you and your particular circle of friends feel is "offensive" but is entirely unoffensive to him...
So, when I see feminists mad at the world, or entire countries threatening death because their particular spiritual value was not shared by another (remember the whole "Muhammad in cartoon" issue a few years back?), it just feels like such a waste of time and energy.
And I know that there's gotta be some logical and rational reason for me to be wrong about this. So, please, in all seriousness, help me see what I'm blind to with this idea of "being offended is a choice you make."
Klundtasaur on
+1
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I don't think it's a new thing though, probably something more noticable now that we have the internet to complain anonymously.
The choice to yell and scream, "I am offended sir!" is certainly a choice though
There I said it.
The question of whether or not you are offended is distinct from whether your offense is justified -- that is, whether someone else was in the wrong for their words or actions. In general, though, it is simply polite to refrain from saying things that you have reason to believe that people will be offended by, and that if someone voices their offense to something it is similarly polite to offer a (possibly faint) apology and avoid doing it again in their presence.
People have a right to be as offensive as they please, and the offended have a right to voice their feelings. But just because you have a right doesn't mean you should exercise it; this goes both ways.
I'm glad you made this thread, because I think the topic of offense is pretty interesting. I agree that in too many cases, people are actively seeking to be offended and leverage said offense into some kind of political weapon. This happens across the political spectrum. There are also subcultures with a tendency to define themselves as victims, and taking offense bolsters this sense of victimhood identity. In general, I think we should avoid getting offended at things. I don't think getting offended serves much useful purpose.
However, I think another way to think about this question, especially with rape, is in terms of sensitivity. There are topics that make people uncomfortable, and they don't have any control over this. For example, joking about the Holocaust is probably going to make a Holocaust survivor uncomfortable. Even if the HC survivor isn't trying to get offended, the joke will remind him or her of trauma. So, you shouldn't make jokes about the Holocaust near Holocaust survivors.
What makes rape a special case—and here is where I'm flabbergasted that Tycho and Gabe are so confused about this—is that rape is an incredibly common trauma. One in four women have been raped. So while, yes, it's no more "offensive" than jokes about pedophelia or murder, the chances are much higher that if you joke about rape, you are making someone uncomfortable.
I disagree, depending on the medium sometimes the intent is to cause offense, why apologize for your intended action? Like PA in general has always been offensive, so why should be demand an apology when they finally hit your limit for offense? Why demand of them to adhere to a standard they don't have?
pleasepaypreacher.net
For example, if a woman who was raped gets offended at a rape joke, because it makes light of her trauma, which she had no control over, that is perfectly understandable.
If a Muslim gets offended at a mocking drawing of Muhammad, because the Muslim believes Muhammad is a magical prophet that cannot ever be criticized or even drawn, this is not understandable, and this person's viewpoint ought to be dismissed as delusional and dangerous. (Though, I don't think offending such people should be done for its own sake, since people may actually die.)
I can see that. I mean, like has been mentioned before, Gabe and Tycho don't do jokes about illegal drugs because of the really awful personal stuff they've been through. But I don't know that I've ever heard them tell someone else not to make jokes about that because "It's offensive."
That's another thing--that phrase, "It's offensive" seems to carry with it the idea that, not only am I (the statement maker) offended, but everyone is also offended, because what offends me must be universally offensive.
This, I think, is the core of my possible blind spot. I've always thought that emotions are no excuse for actions. Emotions change on a whim, and I believe that we control our emotions. If someone does something that I don't like, I choose to be angry at them. I could just as likely choose to ignore them, or choose to have some other feeling.
Now, I don't think that choosing an emotion is usually a conscious decision, or even an easy one, but I still think that it's a choice we make.
That is different, and I suppose I should have made that distinction clearer.
Surely you can recognize the difference between South Park and, say, Mel Gibson's rants.
But this poses a problem--by whose standard do we measure what is "Stupider"? I don't think, especially in our increasingly connected society, we can come to a consensus that won't violate at least one groups level of sacred/stupid.
We can, however, choose our reactions to others stances.
Well of course, Gibson's rants were not intended to be public (what he intended is anyones guess). And I recognize that, I just hate when people get upset at media that they can turn off or not watch.
Like you can hate southpark thats cool I think their libertarian viewpoint is narrow and they actively hurt discourse in this country by enabling mouth breathers to parrot the "BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME!" junk, so I don't watch the show, its offense or none offense is a none entity in my life.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah I agree- and again in the context this discussion was framed around (PA's strip), I think that the second thing definitely applies.
However in the theoretical it was taken to, I believe that the onus is not completely "on the victim" so to speak.
I mean, you can say the same thing about morals. Everyone has different morals, so in this sense relativism is obviously true, but this doesn't mean we can't use our brains and our empathy to try to work out which moral systems make more sense than others. Relativism doesn't (necessarily) mean "therefore all standards should be treated equally."
I agree with this mostly--if you hurt someone unintentionally (especially someone you care about), the polite thing to do is apologize. But it's this "legitimately offended" bit; it's one thing to be hurt by another's comments or actions, but it's another entirely to expect them to conform to your worldview because of it.
Not entirely off base- What if you are offended that someone believes women have no place in the workforce?
I would hope you see the legitimacy in being offended by that opinion, and thus expecting that individual to conform to yours.
No, people definitely leverage the offensive "reaction" to their benefit. What makes it bullshit is that it works all the time.
I would love to see a cite for "one in four." I've heard every variant, from one in four women have been raped to one in four women knows someone who has been raped to one in four men has raped a woman, and never a cite. I would also like to see what proportion of women have been kept in camps where they are raped to sleep every night by mythical creatures.
There is also the belief that when someone attempts to offend you personally getting offended is the worst reaction, because then you give them what they want. Like racists, by getting angry at their bullshit you give them something they don't deserve.
Like members of the phelps clan, they want counter protests because it shows people are paying attention, where as if you walked by laughed and went on with life they would burn themselves out in outrage that no one is paying attention.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Fair enough- and again in the instance where the intent is to provoke, the onus is certainly on the offended and not the offensor.
However, this is not a rule that can be applied unilaterally.
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
I don't understand what on earth your point is asking for the number of women who have been raped by dickwolves. It appears you didn't internalize my point, which was that if you joke about rape with a rape victim, there is a good chance you will make said victim uncomfortable and remind her of her trauma. Thus, it's kind of a dick thing to do. Because there are so many victims, it's also probably not the best thing to joke about in mass media.
It doesn't excuse the offender (or hereby known as the asshole), and being the bigger man is fucking hard, but I swear we'd have less of them if people would stop giving them the attention. Its just like a child throwing a tantrum except replace vile hate for crying and pounding their fists.
Same theory as internet trolls, when they get no bites they try different bait, when that fails they walk away and try again.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Mass media can be consumed at your leisure, no one is forced to read PA, so if they do a joke you don't like, don't read them? Its not like they sent it to someone, nor is the first rape joke they've ever put in the comic. In fact there was one that was more explicit involving male on male rape I don't recall even getting any controversy (the freaky flyers prison joke).
pleasepaypreacher.net
But here again, 'offended' carries this emotional component that I don't know has a legitimate place in a "right or wrong" discussion.
"Expecting that individual to conform" is the problem here. Our society has laws; if you want to live in our society, you obey them. But that shouldn't have anything to do with "being offended." (Using quotes here because I'm considering being offended as a choice made)
Please don't let this spark more "rape" debate.
Yes, but sometimes, there are offensive opinions the likes of which are intolerable enough that they actual damage the ability of others to function in society.
Not in all cases, certainly, but there are indeed times wherein it is a good idea to attempt to make the asshole realize he is extremely off base here.
This comic? Nahhhh doesn't fall under this heading.
Look, you can't have it both ways. Yeah, you can say whatever you want, but it is certainly my right to get offended by it. And if that offense makes me write a letter or start a campaign, well that certainly falls under my rights as well.
Should everyone just relax? Maybe. But if my sister or girlfriend had ever been raped by dickwolves, regular wolves, or a guy named Wolf, you can bet I'd probably be slightly put out by the comic.
Not that Jerry and Mike should censor themselves, but don't act all butt-hurt when someone takes your little picture box poorly.
I am sorry that not everyone is a Vulcan, but emotions and emotional reactions to potentially inflammatory comments is a thing you should expect.
I have no problem with the offense I have a problem with the attempt to censor caused by the offense.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I agree that there do exist cases like the one's you imply here. Racism, for example, is an excellent one. And for those cases where "offense" and emotion are vastly outweighed by justice, we create laws. I'm not trying to argue here that racism is gone, or that all laws are enforced perfectly, etc, but I'm trying to draw the distinction here between emotional offense and keeping society functioning.
So being in a rape camp is a subset of rape, which is itself a subset of sex. Are we allowed to joke about sex, even though some people have had sex unwillingly?
Also, do you have a cite with the functional definition?
Stop this.
It is not conducive to the specific discussion. This is not a "rape culture thread" this is an "offended thread"
You are offending me so I am taking action
Agreed. I'm certainly no "Pillar of Emotional Constraint," but I just don't like the social atmosphere that gives emotion precedence over logic.
If I understand this correctly I think I can get behind it.
Basically, you don't like that the emotional reaction (like getting offended, pulling the racist card or anything of the sort) has far more leverage than a reasonable explanation.
I believe this is totally fair.
To me, it's about respecting your audience. Statistically speaking, a significant chunk of PA's audience has been raped. This is not the case with other "offensive" subject matters. If you know your joke will make a significant proportion of your readers extremely uncomfortable, and for a perfectly understandable reason, why knowingly do that to your audience?
I mean, there is always a tradeoff. There is probably some portion of PA's male audience that have been the victims of rape. Or pedophelia, or other subjects they've joked about. And humor is difficult especially when you have to censor yourself. However, I think it's sort of callous to dismiss people who get uncomfortable with rape jokes with "you don't have to read the comic." There's too many of them. I think the statistics tip the balance in the tradeoff.
Yes, and I mostly agree. However, there is also the other side of the coin- you can follow a logical path and eschew the emotional response to arrive at a position wherein you realize that certain comments or actions are offensive either to you or to society at large.
What my point is, is that not all emotional responses are based in wibbly-wobbly irrational things like emotions.
Giving it a bit more thought (I had missed these points while replying and wanted to acknowledge that I'd seen them) I still feel like our current culture really feeds off of the emotional component more than it ought. Definitely, it is someone's right to react emotionally however they choose. But I don't see the distinction that it is a CHOICE. I feel like most people take the "It's offensive to me and therefore OUGHT to be offensive to others" and deny that there is an active (if subconscious) choosing of one option over another in their feelings.