9 ms·

Don't Get Offended

81 points by zacharypinter 14y ago

pfarrell 14y ago
We have a mantra in the engineering dept at my current gig. We should all have "strong opinions; loosely held".
maqr 14y ago
This article seems likely to offend anyone that is easily offended.
martinced 14y ago
"After all, what's offensive to one person may not be so to another, and they may end up offending you by mistake." Including that sentence doesn't make the fact that it is undisputably a two-ways street go away. If it's an honest mistake, sure, don't get offended. But if the person does it on purpose, then we're talking about something else altogether and there's no reason to simply "don't get offended". In the later case I'm not offended by what I'm hearing (the person who's going to make me feel inferior ain't born yet) but I'm offended by the fact that the person is trying to be offending on purpose. There's a very easy way to be sure, you simply gently ask something like: "Are you trying to be offending?"
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  You can only control yourself. As such, you will never be able to control whether somebody else gets offended by something you say. You certainly can (and ought) to try not to offend, but, ultimately, you have no control over it. On the other hand, you always have control over whether you will be offended by what somebody else say, even if they are trolling to an extreme, trying to get a rise out of you. You can decide to let it roll off your shoulders or you can rise to the bait. And the other person may not even be intentionally baiting you.
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    So, my remote is broken, and occasionally turns off the TV when I try to change the channel, but usually the channel changes. Also, the volume goes up or down by a kind of random amount, but usually in the direction I poke. I have no control over my TV?
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      I'm sorry. I read it a couple times, but I'm really not understanding your analogy. Perhaps you can tell me how you would actually control somebody getting offended. Let's take an example: Hypothetical you[1] are in a group at a party, talking about current events. Naturally, same-sex marriage comes up. Not wanting to offend people you don't know, you simply say you hope the Supreme Court makes an intelligent decision. If a member of your group is a member of Westboro Baptist Church, I believe there is a good chance they will get offended, even though you didn't say anything offensive. How could you control that? 1. By hypothetical you, obviously I have no idea what your real beliefs are.
      - dllthomas 14y ago
        In the same way that when I push "volume up" it doesn't always go up, when you adjust your language to minimize offense it doesn't always lead to no offense. Sloppy control is still some control - I fully agree that you don't have perfect control; the comment I replied to said "no control", with the "no" italicized. I don't mean to just be pedantic; it seems central to the larger discussion. If I genuinely have no control over a system, it makes no sense to judge my actions in light of its effect on the system. If I have some control over a system, it makes sense to judge my actions in light of its effect (or expected effect) on the system.
        SoftwareMaven 14y ago
        There is certainly a symbiotic effect. And I agree, I need to be empathetic to the person I am interacting with, and, as a result of that empathy, change how I present myself. But these are all things I need to do. I'm not sure we are actually saying anything different. I just don't think that, in the end, I have any control over somebody else. I can influence. I can change my behavior. But the way they are ultimately going to react is, effectively, completely out of my control.
- kragen 14y ago
  > if the person does it on purpose, then we're talking about something else altogether and there's no reason to simply "don't get offended". You run the risk of becoming a source of cheap entertainment to them, like small children who poke a dog with sticks through a fence. If they do this to you in front of others — especially if they do it subtly — they can cause other people to see believe that you are unreasonable, unreliable, or overemotional. And, if you are in a competitive situation where your loss is their gain, they may be able to cloud your judgment with anger so that you make mistakes, making them better off. So even when people are trying to offend you on purpose, it isn't always beneficial to let them.
rfnslyr 14y ago
Ah yes, I struggle with this every day. Day in and day out I am surrounded by people who have formed their ideals and opinions by constantly being fed those opinions via media. People who are quick to release their tongue on an issue, but far from directly doing anything to influence that issue. It's a funny situation. You get people who are so vehemently for their cause, but when challenged are the first to act like victims.
Herring 14y ago
I've found this type of advice is easily misunderstood. Most people don't know how to not get offended. So either they try suppress their feelings (and feel depressed) or they defend themselves by lashing out at you. It takes an incredible amount of maturity and experience to learn how to let go. If you find it difficult living with people who can't let go, you're caught in the same trap they are.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- kijin 14y ago
  The author follows up with an article titled "How to Not Get Offended". http://lesswrong.com/lw/gwx/how_to_not_get_offended/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gwx/how_to_not_get_offended/ Not sure whether this addition will be any help to people who are seriously determined not to "let go", though.
kscaldef 14y ago
This article very early makes the statement that "while getting offended by something sometimes feels good and can help you assert moral superiority, in most cases it doesn't help you figure out what the world looks like." Implicit in this statement is that "figur[ing] out what the world looks like" -- and then accepting that status quo -- is, or ought to be, the goal of all people. However, assuming one has an understanding of the status quo, and a desire to change it, "getting offended" can be a useful, and rational, response. (I include the quotes because there is an amount of subjectivity in what various people label as "getting offended".) In particular, such responses can serve to educate other people about behaviors which perpetuate the aspects of the status quo which the expresser desires to change. So, while this article presents itself as a highly rational and neutral argument, embedded within it is actually a deeply conservative point of view.
- pdonis 14y ago
  "figur[ing] out what the world looks like" -- and then accepting that status quo -- is, or ought to be, the goal of all people I don't see where the article says that you have to accept what the world looks like once you figure it out. Figuring out that the world is f--ked up and deciding to try and change it based on that knowledge is, it seems to me, perfectly consistent with what the article is saying. such responses can serve to educate other people about behaviors which perpetuate the aspects of the status quo which the expresser desires to change The article talks about this, under the heading of using "getting offended" to manipulate people. It's different because you are choosing to act offended to accomplish a goal, rather than involuntarily responding to something by being offended, even if it hinders you from accomplishing a goal.
  - kscaldef 14y ago
    It is somewhat difficult to divine the precise intent of the author of the article, or of the submitter of the article to HN; but I think it's important to acknowledge that some people are going to use this article to criticize and dismiss anyone who "gets offended" as someone who hasn't reached a certain ideal of detachment. Your very statement that you think it's okay to "act offended", as opposed to "getting offended", gets to my point of the subjective nature of the issue.
parennoob 14y ago
Being a non-American person in the United States (and a 'person of colour', as I believe the term is), I have sometimes had to deal with people ridiculing my culture in a mostly unintended way. At first, I used to be just angry at them, and most of my day would be ruined. Alternately, I would react in an angry or indignant manner (and my day would still be ruined.) Occasionally, even now, my "useful habits are shut down", like the article says, for an entire day when someone makes an insensitive or rude comment. But by logically evaluating the words of the offender, I have often seen that they are the result of ignorance, or plain thoughtlessness rather than an innate lack of respect. Hence, now, when sometimes people say things that I perceive as being culturally insensitive or even mildly racist, I have learned to either let go, or calmly but firmly point out the bias involved in their wording, which has led to a better understanding and rapport between me and the people I interact with here.
- kragen 14y ago
  I think this is a good strategy. Balpreet Kaur's response to such an incident could be an example to us all: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/sikh-protests-jk-rowling-misplaced http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/s... http://jezebel.com/5946643/reddit-users-attempt-to-shame-sikh-woman-get-righteously-schooled http://jezebel.com/5946643/reddit-users-attempt-to-shame-sik...
Jach 14y ago
A case for purposefully trying to offend someone, or just playing devil's advocate for something that might cause offense: getting to know people's level for what they are offended by, and thereby measuring their rationality and whether or not they're worth talking to seriously. If someone blows up over one thing, odds are they'll blow up over other things too. Jonathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal" could probably have been used as a litmus test many years ago--nowadays it's just too easy to dismiss it as "trolling", or treat it as nothing more than the satire and social commentary it is, rather than having an emotional reaction to it or attempting at least a somewhat serious analysis of whether or not his solution would be feasible in different dimensions and whether or not it would likely help the problem. I like to ask if people operate by (or will operate by having seen the link) Crocker's Rules[0], which tells me whether or not they take responsibility for their own mind. (Looks like it's mentioned in the comments on LW too.) This reminds me of esr's recent commentary about a controversial piece of advice.[1] Can you see past preconceptions, and either engage reality as reality, or even hypotheticals as hypotheticals, and not respond on a purely emotional level? Emotions are fine; I like my emotions, I just try not to be ruled by them as much as I can, especially the less productive ones. ("Speak the truth even if your voice shakes.") [0] http://www.sl4.org/crocker.html http://www.sl4.org/crocker.html [1] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4270 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4270
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  > If someone blows up over one thing, odds are they'll blow up over other things too. Not necessarily true. There is one -- and only one -- "hot button" issue that absolutely makes me fume. And my position on it comes after a lot of careful, introspective thought. For all other issues, nothing would really upset me.
- nandemo 14y ago
  > getting to know people's level for what they are offended by, and thereby measuring their rationality and whether or not they're worth talking to seriously. So you're saying you disagree with (IMO) the central assumption in the article? > People who would be level-headed about evenhandedly weighing all sides of an issue in their professional life as scientists, can suddenly turn into slogan-chanting zombies when there's a Blue or Green position on an issue. Most people have such a Blue vs. Green issue. I'd wager that if you wanted to commit social suicide you could easily manage to offend over 95% of your friends by simply choosing your trolling topics carefully (without name-calling). But that hardly means you should dismiss your friends. > nowadays it's just too easy to dismiss it as "trolling", I suggest Gulliver's Travels, if you haven't read it. It's still very current. As for esr, he's saying much more than that. He's claiming that, after you have read Derbyshire's article, you're supposed to answer "no" to those 5 questions. There are a lot of implicit assumptions in there. I answered "yes" to the 5th question, i.e. I concluded the author is probably racist, but that doesn't imply my answer is result of my emotions clouding my judgement. It could simply be that my definition of "racist" is different from esr's. Interestingly, someone mentioned in the comments that Derbyshire admitted elsewhere being a "racist and homophobe, but a tolerant one".
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jacoblyles 14y ago
If you support a minority or unpopular viewpoint you should never, ever get offended. It's counter-productive and convinces nobody. Getting offended only works to win an argument if a large enough group of people already agrees with you.
richardjordan 14y ago
Without going into the detail of the article I think in general this is just great advice for life. One of the best decisions I ever made was to try to take people at face value, and not second guess them or discern imagined motivations (which is usually where we get our sense of offense from in the first place). Not naively, but as a conscious and knowing choice. Recognizing that good people sometimes say and do bad things. That none of us were born with an instruction manual to life - we're all just trying to figure it out in our own way, and figure out how to extract a bit of happiness out of it. It leads you to a compassionate view of people. But that doesn't mean you have to like everyone. Nor agree with the disagreeable. Far from it. And I certainly don't bat 1.000 when it comes to practicing it. But it's a sound approach that I think has made me happier. As a side-effect I also find I am more effective, particularly as there are many people who try to put you off kilter by deliberately causing offense as a tactic in negotiation or just everyday interaction. Where it's an inadvertent style of theirs it means I find it easier to defuse things, and when it's (unpleasantly) deliberate it removes that tactic from their playbook and resets things.
RyanMcGreal 14y ago
An essential part of "figur[ing] out what the world looks like" is recognizing that humans are hard-wired for emotion, and that we all have a responsibility to understand the emotional impact our words and actions will have on other people. "Don't get offended" may be an important message for you to assert to yourself to avoid losing your cool; but if you find yourself telling someone else not to get offended after saying or doing something offensive to that person, there's a good chance you are using this argument in a self-serving manner rather than the spirit of enlightened rationalism. In other words, don't use "don't get offended" as an excuse to be a douchebag.
- chandr19 14y ago
  Could not agree more. While rational thought is encouraged in most situations, there are bound to be some issues on which we all have a personal connection and are bound to get offended. "Don't get offended" is certainly not universal there.
- __--__ 14y ago
  Being a douchebag varies by culture and context. What you're really saying is, let your current society tell you what is acceptable to say and what isn't. How does that work in a society where PC is in overdrive and almost anything you say can and will be taken in an offensive light? Being an east coast boy, I see this taken to the extreme in California. It reduces most conversations to talking about the weather or beating up on a socially acceptable strawman, like copyright law.
mercurial 14y ago
Quite relevant after the Adria Richards debacle. That said, if you consider the amount of abuse she got from her post, "don't get offended" as a matter of principle asks for more moral fortitude than most people possess.
dreen 14y ago
This reminds me of the brilliant quote by Stephen Fry: "It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

Don't Get Offended

81 points by zacharypinter 14y ago

pfarrell 14y ago

We have a mantra in the engineering dept at my current gig. We should all have "strong opinions; loosely held".

maqr 14y ago

This article seems likely to offend anyone that is easily offended.

martinced 14y ago

"After all, what's offensive to one person may not be so to another, and they may end up offending you by mistake." Including that sentence doesn't make the fact that it is undisputably a two-ways street go away. If it's an honest mistake, sure, don't get offended. But if the person does it on purpose, then we're talking about something else altogether and there's no reason to simply "don't get offended". In the later case I'm not offended by what I'm hearing (the person who's going to make me feel inferior ain't born yet) but I'm offended by the fact that the person is trying to be offending on purpose. There's a very easy way to be sure, you simply gently ask something like: "Are you trying to be offending?"

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
You can only control yourself. As such, you will never be able to control whether somebody else gets offended by something you say. You certainly can (and ought) to try not to offend, but, ultimately, you have no control over it. On the other hand, you always have control over whether you will be offended by what somebody else say, even if they are trolling to an extreme, trying to get a rise out of you. You can decide to let it roll off your shoulders or you can rise to the bait. And the other person may not even be intentionally baiting you.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  So, my remote is broken, and occasionally turns off the TV when I try to change the channel, but usually the channel changes. Also, the volume goes up or down by a kind of random amount, but usually in the direction I poke. I have no control over my TV?
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    I'm sorry. I read it a couple times, but I'm really not understanding your analogy. Perhaps you can tell me how you would actually control somebody getting offended. Let's take an example: Hypothetical you[1] are in a group at a party, talking about current events. Naturally, same-sex marriage comes up. Not wanting to offend people you don't know, you simply say you hope the Supreme Court makes an intelligent decision. If a member of your group is a member of Westboro Baptist Church, I believe there is a good chance they will get offended, even though you didn't say anything offensive. How could you control that? 1. By hypothetical you, obviously I have no idea what your real beliefs are.
    - dllthomas 14y ago
      In the same way that when I push "volume up" it doesn't always go up, when you adjust your language to minimize offense it doesn't always lead to no offense. Sloppy control is still some control - I fully agree that you don't have perfect control; the comment I replied to said "no control", with the "no" italicized. I don't mean to just be pedantic; it seems central to the larger discussion. If I genuinely have no control over a system, it makes no sense to judge my actions in light of its effect on the system. If I have some control over a system, it makes sense to judge my actions in light of its effect (or expected effect) on the system.
      - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
        There is certainly a symbiotic effect. And I agree, I need to be empathetic to the person I am interacting with, and, as a result of that empathy, change how I present myself. But these are all things I need to do. I'm not sure we are actually saying anything different. I just don't think that, in the end, I have any control over somebody else. I can influence. I can change my behavior. But the way they are ultimately going to react is, effectively, completely out of my control.
kragen 14y ago
> if the person does it on purpose, then we're talking about something else altogether and there's no reason to simply "don't get offended". You run the risk of becoming a source of cheap entertainment to them, like small children who poke a dog with sticks through a fence. If they do this to you in front of others — especially if they do it subtly — they can cause other people to see believe that you are unreasonable, unreliable, or overemotional. And, if you are in a competitive situation where your loss is their gain, they may be able to cloud your judgment with anger so that you make mistakes, making them better off. So even when people are trying to offend you on purpose, it isn't always beneficial to let them.

rfnslyr 14y ago

Ah yes, I struggle with this every day. Day in and day out I am surrounded by people who have formed their ideals and opinions by constantly being fed those opinions via media. People who are quick to release their tongue on an issue, but far from directly doing anything to influence that issue. It's a funny situation. You get people who are so vehemently for their cause, but when challenged are the first to act like victims.

Herring 14y ago

I've found this type of advice is easily misunderstood. Most people don't know how to not get offended. So either they try suppress their feelings (and feel depressed) or they defend themselves by lashing out at you. It takes an incredible amount of maturity and experience to learn how to let go. If you find it difficult living with people who can't let go, you're caught in the same trap they are.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
kijin 14y ago
The author follows up with an article titled "How to Not Get Offended". http://lesswrong.com/lw/gwx/how_to_not_get_offended/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gwx/how_to_not_get_offended/ Not sure whether this addition will be any help to people who are seriously determined not to "let go", though.

kscaldef 14y ago

This article very early makes the statement that "while getting offended by something sometimes feels good and can help you assert moral superiority, in most cases it doesn't help you figure out what the world looks like." Implicit in this statement is that "figur[ing] out what the world looks like" -- and then accepting that status quo -- is, or ought to be, the goal of all people. However, assuming one has an understanding of the status quo, and a desire to change it, "getting offended" can be a useful, and rational, response. (I include the quotes because there is an amount of subjectivity in what various people label as "getting offended".) In particular, such responses can serve to educate other people about behaviors which perpetuate the aspects of the status quo which the expresser desires to change. So, while this article presents itself as a highly rational and neutral argument, embedded within it is actually a deeply conservative point of view.

pdonis 14y ago
"figur[ing] out what the world looks like" -- and then accepting that status quo -- is, or ought to be, the goal of all people I don't see where the article says that you have to accept what the world looks like once you figure it out. Figuring out that the world is f--ked up and deciding to try and change it based on that knowledge is, it seems to me, perfectly consistent with what the article is saying. such responses can serve to educate other people about behaviors which perpetuate the aspects of the status quo which the expresser desires to change The article talks about this, under the heading of using "getting offended" to manipulate people. It's different because you are choosing to act offended to accomplish a goal, rather than involuntarily responding to something by being offended, even if it hinders you from accomplishing a goal.
- kscaldef 14y ago
  It is somewhat difficult to divine the precise intent of the author of the article, or of the submitter of the article to HN; but I think it's important to acknowledge that some people are going to use this article to criticize and dismiss anyone who "gets offended" as someone who hasn't reached a certain ideal of detachment. Your very statement that you think it's okay to "act offended", as opposed to "getting offended", gets to my point of the subjective nature of the issue.

parennoob 14y ago

Being a non-American person in the United States (and a 'person of colour', as I believe the term is), I have sometimes had to deal with people ridiculing my culture in a mostly unintended way. At first, I used to be just angry at them, and most of my day would be ruined. Alternately, I would react in an angry or indignant manner (and my day would still be ruined.) Occasionally, even now, my "useful habits are shut down", like the article says, for an entire day when someone makes an insensitive or rude comment. But by logically evaluating the words of the offender, I have often seen that they are the result of ignorance, or plain thoughtlessness rather than an innate lack of respect. Hence, now, when sometimes people say things that I perceive as being culturally insensitive or even mildly racist, I have learned to either let go, or calmly but firmly point out the bias involved in their wording, which has led to a better understanding and rapport between me and the people I interact with here.

kragen 14y ago
I think this is a good strategy. Balpreet Kaur's response to such an incident could be an example to us all: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/sikh-protests-jk-rowling-misplaced http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/s... http://jezebel.com/5946643/reddit-users-attempt-to-shame-sikh-woman-get-righteously-schooled http://jezebel.com/5946643/reddit-users-attempt-to-shame-sik...

Jach 14y ago

A case for purposefully trying to offend someone, or just playing devil's advocate for something that might cause offense: getting to know people's level for what they are offended by, and thereby measuring their rationality and whether or not they're worth talking to seriously. If someone blows up over one thing, odds are they'll blow up over other things too. Jonathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal" could probably have been used as a litmus test many years ago--nowadays it's just too easy to dismiss it as "trolling", or treat it as nothing more than the satire and social commentary it is, rather than having an emotional reaction to it or attempting at least a somewhat serious analysis of whether or not his solution would be feasible in different dimensions and whether or not it would likely help the problem. I like to ask if people operate by (or will operate by having seen the link) Crocker's Rules[0], which tells me whether or not they take responsibility for their own mind. (Looks like it's mentioned in the comments on LW too.) This reminds me of esr's recent commentary about a controversial piece of advice.[1] Can you see past preconceptions, and either engage reality as reality, or even hypotheticals as hypotheticals, and not respond on a purely emotional level? Emotions are fine; I like my emotions, I just try not to be ruled by them as much as I can, especially the less productive ones. ("Speak the truth even if your voice shakes.") [0] http://www.sl4.org/crocker.html http://www.sl4.org/crocker.html [1] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4270 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4270

Xcelerate 14y ago
> If someone blows up over one thing, odds are they'll blow up over other things too. Not necessarily true. There is one -- and only one -- "hot button" issue that absolutely makes me fume. And my position on it comes after a lot of careful, introspective thought. For all other issues, nothing would really upset me.
nandemo 14y ago
> getting to know people's level for what they are offended by, and thereby measuring their rationality and whether or not they're worth talking to seriously. So you're saying you disagree with (IMO) the central assumption in the article? > People who would be level-headed about evenhandedly weighing all sides of an issue in their professional life as scientists, can suddenly turn into slogan-chanting zombies when there's a Blue or Green position on an issue. Most people have such a Blue vs. Green issue. I'd wager that if you wanted to commit social suicide you could easily manage to offend over 95% of your friends by simply choosing your trolling topics carefully (without name-calling). But that hardly means you should dismiss your friends. > nowadays it's just too easy to dismiss it as "trolling", I suggest Gulliver's Travels, if you haven't read it. It's still very current. As for esr, he's saying much more than that. He's claiming that, after you have read Derbyshire's article, you're supposed to answer "no" to those 5 questions. There are a lot of implicit assumptions in there. I answered "yes" to the 5th question, i.e. I concluded the author is probably racist, but that doesn't imply my answer is result of my emotions clouding my judgement. It could simply be that my definition of "racist" is different from esr's. Interestingly, someone mentioned in the comments that Derbyshire admitted elsewhere being a "racist and homophobe, but a tolerant one".

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jacoblyles 14y ago

If you support a minority or unpopular viewpoint you should never, ever get offended. It's counter-productive and convinces nobody. Getting offended only works to win an argument if a large enough group of people already agrees with you.

richardjordan 14y ago

Without going into the detail of the article I think in general this is just great advice for life. One of the best decisions I ever made was to try to take people at face value, and not second guess them or discern imagined motivations (which is usually where we get our sense of offense from in the first place). Not naively, but as a conscious and knowing choice. Recognizing that good people sometimes say and do bad things. That none of us were born with an instruction manual to life - we're all just trying to figure it out in our own way, and figure out how to extract a bit of happiness out of it. It leads you to a compassionate view of people. But that doesn't mean you have to like everyone. Nor agree with the disagreeable. Far from it. And I certainly don't bat 1.000 when it comes to practicing it. But it's a sound approach that I think has made me happier. As a side-effect I also find I am more effective, particularly as there are many people who try to put you off kilter by deliberately causing offense as a tactic in negotiation or just everyday interaction. Where it's an inadvertent style of theirs it means I find it easier to defuse things, and when it's (unpleasantly) deliberate it removes that tactic from their playbook and resets things.

RyanMcGreal 14y ago

An essential part of "figur[ing] out what the world looks like" is recognizing that humans are hard-wired for emotion, and that we all have a responsibility to understand the emotional impact our words and actions will have on other people. "Don't get offended" may be an important message for you to assert to yourself to avoid losing your cool; but if you find yourself telling someone else not to get offended after saying or doing something offensive to that person, there's a good chance you are using this argument in a self-serving manner rather than the spirit of enlightened rationalism. In other words, don't use "don't get offended" as an excuse to be a douchebag.

chandr19 14y ago
Could not agree more. While rational thought is encouraged in most situations, there are bound to be some issues on which we all have a personal connection and are bound to get offended. "Don't get offended" is certainly not universal there.
__--__ 14y ago
Being a douchebag varies by culture and context. What you're really saying is, let your current society tell you what is acceptable to say and what isn't. How does that work in a society where PC is in overdrive and almost anything you say can and will be taken in an offensive light? Being an east coast boy, I see this taken to the extreme in California. It reduces most conversations to talking about the weather or beating up on a socially acceptable strawman, like copyright law.

mercurial 14y ago

Quite relevant after the Adria Richards debacle. That said, if you consider the amount of abuse she got from her post, "don't get offended" as a matter of principle asks for more moral fortitude than most people possess.

dreen 14y ago

This reminds me of the brilliant quote by Stephen Fry: "It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."