Tequila wrote:
Some people (extremists, usually) take offence at nearly any difference of opinion or of criticism even if that criticism is polite and moderate. You can't mollify those people without censoring one's own right to free speech.
What about people who become offended on someone else's behalf on topics that, if the person who was meant to be offended was actually there, wouldn't actually be offended at all and would actually tell the "offence taker for others" to grow the hell up?
First, bear in mind that I said quite clearly that there is no compulsion on the person causing offence. I can tell you that what you are saying is offensive, but, absent some prohibitive rules, I can't stop you from saying it. But it is now up to you to decide whether what you are saying is more important, than the offense you are causing me, or whether there is a way to say what you want to say without doing so.
As for the third parties--they are entitled to their opinions. They are entitled to take offense. And you are, generally speaking, entitled to view their taking offense as less important than what you have to say. But if these third parties are, say, co-workers, and they believe that your offensiveness is causing a hostile workplace environment, then they have every right to use the tools at their disposal if you persist in behaviour to which they object.
We are talking about the compromise that we all make to our personal interests in order to participate in a larger society. Rigid insistence on the right to engage in offensive behaviour, and rigid insistence on the right to take offense at such behaviour both are impediments to that compromise. At the end of the day, we have to find a way to get along.
_________________
--James
30 Jan 2013, 9:32 am
