You can believe them (or not). But what do you do about it? After all, as the old saying goes, “just 'cause you’re offended doesn’t mean you’re right.”
For example, does the writing of a book, or the drawing of a cartoon, that some deem “offensive”, justify sanctions or even violence against the creator(s) of the “offending” artefact?
My dad used to make up from scratch faggots with THE most awesome peppery gravy.
We have a gay older member of the family. He used to enjoy me asking him if he’d like to put his feet up on the Pouffe.
I am not offended by it personally should someone describe me in such a manner, but I do recognize that it has been used in the pejorative sense as a homophobic slur, and I do not use it in the context of ascribing a characteristic to a person. It’s not a word I use generally to describe something as unusual either. There’s no need, as there are plenty of synonyms like “unusual”. I also call a bundle of sticks gathered with rope, “a bundle of sticks gathered with rope”.
This concept is part of the problem - it’s a personal thing.
Just because someone is offended by something does not imply intent to offend on the part of the person making the ‘offensive’ comment.
If you are aware you’ve made an offensive comment unitentionally, then it would be natural to apologise to the individual and learn from it. Sadly there is too much escalation of situations where the ‘offensive’ party was clumsy or genuinely did not realise they would cause offence.
If someone is intentionally offensive for whatever reason they are unlikely to change their views/opinions even if externally compelled to do so, and perhaps it would make them more entrenched in their views.
Intent, carelessness, ignorance, indifference? So what? Intent to offend is irrelevant. I have offended people through my own ignorance. I take full responsibility, and have tried to become better informed and more aware of how my words could be perceived, regardless of their intent.
We then have the confusion of various offended parties ‘reclaiming’ offensive words which you are only ‘allowed’ to use if you belong to that group, and while I appreciate that may be to diffuse matters I think it can seem divisive. ‘We can use this term, you can’t because you’re not one of us’.
I’d actually prefer to see the bigotry related inferences replaced by the terms being used for their original meanings which should transcend any later derogatory meanings when used in an appropriate context.
With respect, that’s my point - any person with a conscience would learn from their mistakes, we’re human, we all make mistakes in all avenues of life. Those who don’t care will have no compulsion to learn.
It does seem, however, that the threshold of choosing to be offended has reduced quite significantly over the last few years, whereby we’re now in a position that, whatever our viewpoint might be, someone will not only disagree, which is more than fine, but will call us out for even having that opinion.
For me, the “problem” is that some people feel their right to offend is under attack, and argue against being criticized for it. They are seemingly passionate about the right to be careless, ambiguous and sometimes downright hateful in their speech. I’ll not argue generally against preserving rights to free speech, but I don’t really see a positive outcome in continuing to deliberately offend others, simply to defend some imagined principle.
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to offend others, simply that people shouldn’t offend others.
Who decides? It’s a fascinating discussion, and we are increasingly prevented from airing sensitive issues, I’d not be surprised to see this thread disappear but without discussion we are only being dictated to and by whom?
Last time I checked, you’re “allowed” to use whatever words you like. But don’t imagine that people won’t make an inference about your character from your choices.
Yes, but if a word is offensive to a ‘group’ with particular ‘characteristics’ even if used in a celebratory context, why is it wrong for those outside the group to use it if the intent is similar and not intentionally offensive? Just suggesting it’s a minefield for faux pas.