Sorry, but it’s your fault if you’re offended all the time

Your comment here says it all.

 

Some people simply wish to be enslaved.

 

But it's not being a jerk stating facts. People get offended and yell racist if you cite crime statistics. That's mental.

So is calling someone an Islamic terrorist when they actually are an Islamic terrorist insulting to you as a normal citizen? The WH is certainly offended which should offend every American. Why should the WH defend terrorists by trying to shift the narrative of the name? They are what they are. Call them what they are.

Irrationally offended people certainly have something deeply wrong with them.

Sorry I can't associate myself with people who continuously break the law so if someone calls someone a thug, that doesn't offend me as a normal law abiding citizen. It shouldn't offend you either unless you ARE a thug. But people with mental disorders get offended because they equate thuggery with being black which exposes more about their own issues than anyone else's.

I'll be offended as a Jew if someone says we cause all the worlds problems. Then again the person saying that is beneath my intelligence so who cares what a moron says? Unless that moron is in charge of a country and Obama wants to negotiate with that country and give them nukes. THAT offends me as a human and a Jew and an American.

As someone stated above revealing so much anger over things that don't concern you is the trick.

 

Crime statistics aren't offensive, in and of themselves. The trouble arises when people take them at face value to be saying something about an entire group of people, without any effort to understand the underlying problems that produce something like disproportionate representation. When they're used for the purpose of stereotyping, stigmatizing, and denigrating some group, that is indeed offensive. Not because of anything to do with the group itself, but because of the dishonesty inherent in exploiting statistics to make some flawed argument based on faulty premises.

As Twain said, claiming to quote Disraeli, "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics." They're the refuge of someone with weak arguments, and as such I avoid them.

People who try to twit me with political partisanship need to read my signature. I don't care what the WH says, and the opinion of the WH is frankly irrelevant to the more general discussion of offensiveness taking place here.

The trouble here is the attempt to imply a link between all of Islam and terrorism, which is dishonest. I personally have no use for religion so don't expect me to defend anything about Islamic beliefs. But I also believe people - including those who subscribe to Islamic beliefs - have a right to those beliefs and religious practices that don't unduly burden others. Obviously, terrorist acts fall far outside of what is acceptable, and the connection between extreme beliefs and terrorism is undeniable. So yes, we can talk about that link, but if one is going to start off by trying to stigmatize all of Islam based on a false premise, that is indeed going to offend people who know differently.

It's also a matter of focusing on the wrong thing. Islam isn't the problem; terrorism, and the use of extreme beliefs to justify terrorism are. When one puts the focus on the wrong thing, it should come as no surprise when some people find that upsetting and offensive.

One might say the same of people who use irrational arguments that are offensive, and are incapable of even considering the fact that their position may have flaws.

As always, context matters. So does the language used and how it's applied. "Thug" is somewhat inexact, but not necessarily offensive by itself. I consider your last statement to be false: People don't get offended because they equate thuggery with being black - they get offended when other people attempt that association in order to stigmatize all black people.

I'm seriously not going to follow you down this rabbit hole. This thread is about the issue of finding things offensive in general; it's not about introducing a separate topic on something that you personally find offensive. So I won't indulge this attempt to derail.

I don't think you're in charge of what does or should concern other people.

 

No, just asking perfectly straightforward questions...not that I expected anything resembling a straightforward response, so I'm not disappointed in the least.

 

If you didn't like the answer, it's because you recognized yourself in my response.

 

I understand when some people(like me for example) are offended by f.e. jumping on flags or calling America - "Worst country" I understand that our officials doing everything to make our country worse, but i really can't understand homosexuals - they already have more rights than average citizens, what else they wanna receive?

 

No, I don't like the answer because it's nothing but hackneyed armchair psychology that isn't responsive to the question in the least.

BTW, your attempt to offend is far too transparent to have the intended effect.

 

Not the only one, but we ware a minority.

Allow me to present a real life example. An outfit called "I'm A Girl" uses volunteers of around the mid 20's to promote their what-ever-the-cause on the street, and being straight-laced, eager and arrogant, they heed no "aggressive pan handling laws" that prevent people being hit on. They also work in pairs, a man and a woman, and kind of block off a sidewalk one on the right the other on the left. And they call out to you from several feet away, which is a by-law offense here.

So I, 66 years old, am walking with my cane [I have Menierre's] and they pinch me in and start "selling" me. I say to the woman who is the most vocal "stop hitting on me please." The guy goes nuts, says I am offensive etc.

Now, my point. As I dial 911 I inform the young moron that in Canada there is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that in there is the right of freedom of expression and begin to give examples of language that must be tolerated under that concept, a list of decidedly "offensive" words. He goes even more nuts, and the woman is outraged. "How dare you offend!"

Further, amid the growing volume, I informed them that in no constitution in the known universe is there a right not to be offended.

The cops gave them each a $125 ticket for aggressive panhandling and suggested they learn to accept being offended, (*)(*)(*)(*) happens. Shut up.


The left has baked itself into a cold pie with it's lust for political correctness, they can't have rights and non offensive behavior so they opt to get rid of rights, not theirs, yours.

 

What?

To disagree is to be offended?

What on line college taught you that?

Oh, feel free to be offended. I could give a fiddler's (*)(*)(*)(*)

 

"Those of you who think you are always right are becoming offensive to those of us who are"

Do you defenders of offensiveness fart loudly in crowded elevators much? Better yet, do you bathe often?

Because, if you don't, or do, then you are doing that just so to avoid offense to others, are you not?.

Coming on a board like this with overtly offensive viewpoints lacking any sort of justification is verbally the same, IMO. (And yes, I've done that, nerds are famous for underarm stains)

In other words and just as an example, Naziism stinks. If you're going to espouse Naziism it might behoove you to spray some good perfume as you go, and don't be surprised when people still look at you funny, hold their nose and exit the room

OTOH, this is hard and sweaty work, verbal confrontation often brings on hard words. We discuss politics here and the best analogy I've heard for us is that we're workmen cleaning a septic tank. We should make an effort not to be that repelled by the essential nature of our activity, as we all produce it and it all smells the same.

And, as always, No offense intended . That's another thing here. I'm certainly not an innocent in re offensiveness but I HAVE usually have tried not to take offense at someone taking offense.On the contrary, I apologize. For if they were offended I miscommunicated, since I intended none, (or, conversely, succeeded ) and I am grateful to know that

 

Bravo!! Great post.

And definitely, we're all human; we'll offend and be offended. That's for sure.

 

Simply put if you are offended all the time, you are a wuss!!!!

 

That isn't absolutely true.

Very strong individuals can surely be offended.

How they handle it is what reflects their actual character.

 

I never "intend to offend." I speak the truth - period - and if someone is offended, they have made a personal choice to be offended.

 

Dunno who in Hell you think you're kidding.

 

Do you never tire of posts that say nothing? If a conversation is over your head - that's fine - it happens to many, but don't you think it'd be prudent to just avoid those topics?

 

When folks assume someone's identity is a problem... it's only seems reasonable to counter that maybe folks having a problem with that identity is the real problem.




​

 

I notice that the OP only names liberal supported issues in their list of things that people whine about.

He forgets that the same people complaining about liberals whining about being offended whine just as much, and often about things that are not actually offensive.

1; Far right Christians whine when non-christians, especially those who own stores, do not say Merry Christians during the holidays, or worse yet, say Happy Holidays.

2; Far right Christians whine, about Christians not being given an exemption from the separation of church and state, and Christian prayers not being allowed as official parts of tax paid events, such as public school functions.

3; Far right gun owners whine about anyone saying anything bad about guns. The NRA condemned TIm McGraw, a lifelong gun owner and hunter and first amendment supporter, because he did a concert raising money for a charity started by the families of the children killed at Sandy Hook, and supporting measures to protect children, and mental health screenings for gun owners. In other words. the NRA IS OFFENDED BY ANYONE WHO IS OFFENDED BY THE MURDER OF CHILDREN, OR WHO WANT LAWS PASSED TO KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF NUTJOBS.

 

Of course I do. That's why I have >100 names on my i-list; and something tells me it won't be long before yours is among them.

This is not a conversation. This is me asking perfectly straightforward questions and you answering with irrelevancies and passive aggression.

 

Good then you agree the right needs to stop being offended by abortion and gay marriage then right?

 

I answered you completely - if you viewed it as passive/aggression, that was a defensive choice you made. This is an interesting thread and I don't see any reason why you have to come along and troll it. From what I can tell, not a lot of members here put much stock in your opinions, and it's obvious as to why. It appears that you're working on ironing out some things you're struggling with, both socially and emotionally. That's all cool, but I'm beyond that mud wrestling stage. It would behoove both of us if you scroll over my posts - and I'll do the same for yours.

I'm more into honest discussions with posters who really have something to say. Have a nice day.

 

Killing unborn babies goes far beyond being offended. Could you bring yourself to kill a 7 pound unborn baby.? Abortion doctors do!!!!! Thats why I say there must be a special place in Hell for abortion doctors right next to Hitler and Stalin.

 

Since when is that defined as "with nothing that bears on the question"?

Actually, viewing anything in any particular way is never by the choice of the viewer, whether or not that view is (as in my case in this instance) correct; but congratulations on swerving into the general vicinity of the original question, if only by dumb luck.

If you find mysterious my motivation for asking perfectly straightforward questions and refusing to pretend I've gotten anything like straight answers when the opposite is clearly the case, well bummer for ya. Happily, I suffer no such perceptual deficiency WRT your motivation.

That would be a rule 5 violation, so it makes a helluva lot more sense to report it than to snivel about it.

That's hardly any concern of yours.

I'll do whatever I damn well please.

 

All of the above is just disjointed ranting and as such, deserves no response.

Actually, it IS my concern since noting a general consensus gives me clues as to any specific member's participation patterns, which allows me to form an educated opinion.

Of course, you're free to continue to post nonsensical questions and then claim they weren't answered - that's your right. I was just trying to propose a sensible compromise. But, you probably ought to qualify your final statement with, "ONLY within the rules of the forum," because to step outside those guidelines might be deemed an infraction.