Taking Offense

[Oblongato]

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

Somehow, observing the rise of political correctness and and the increasing thinness of the skins of my fellow world citizens, it would appear that the sense of this adage has been reversed. (Well, maybe sticks and stones can still break bones, but in the day of MTV's "Jackass" that doesn't seem to be a concern anymore.)

Maybe it was always so, but I don't remember people being quite so sensitive - sensitive about being dissed, but also sensitive about their opinions not being respected. It is as if they see no difference between the two.

It doesn't even seem to matter who is doing the dissing or disagreeing - it could be a total stranger.

On a world scale, there is a growing reluctance to say anything negative about anyone or anyone's ideas, culture, behavior, religion, dress, taste etc. Governments must open business channels even to countries whose cultural practices could easily be compared to slavery (Saudi Arabia's cultural restrictions on women, for example) or whose ruthless dictators squelch any dissent, with scarcely a word of criticism. Western governments everywhere apologized for the free press when a few mildly critical cartoons were published that portrayed the Muslim prophet Mohammad. So great was the offense for a few images deemed offensive in Islam that people died in the protests - and the cartoons were not even published in Islamic countries or drawn by Muslims. Offense, apparently, reaches across borders better than any other form of interaction.

Even on this board heated personal discussions arise from simple disagreement, as if it were possible to show disrespect simply by disagreeing with an idea.

Are we too polite? Can disagreement be disrespect? Should we restrict our speech to avoid offending the sensibilities of those who could find it offensive?

[Kellanved]

First, I am completely with you when you say that people are too sensitive in general.

Sometimes I think an individual's overreaction in an everyday situation is not entirely genuine (they're not truly offended, they're just seeking interactive power by having social backup and opressing the person's remarks). It comes to a point that one has to carefully inspect every word that they will utter, in fear of such a social interception.

However, in the example you mentioned - the political cartoons against muslims - some of the reactions were likely genuine. While many of them were probably just people who were trying to attain world pity by displaying the 'hardships' they must endure, many of the responders truly were offended because their conviction to the ideals of their religion was so focused and dedicated that any slight hint of discredit would shatter their entire perception of reality. That is the case for all religious fanatisicm, and in my opinion, is one of the greatest downfalls of religion.

[Toucan]

I once fired a Muslim at work because he refused to work on Fridays. He said he had to make prayers on Fridays, my response was simply that this was a chemical plant and we make chemicals on Fridays.
He attempted to make a case against us but he never got as far as court before employee and consumer protection hit it on the head.

Personally I don't think we did anything wrong, he said he didn't want to to work on Fridays, the job had work that must be done on Fridays, if he couldn't do it then he couldn't do the job. Not going to pay you for nothing.

[femoimal]

i am sick and tired of all that abnegism:

http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/Null-P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

What are we breeding ? A seamless sea of un-debating lobotomized consumers ? Politicians have forgotten ideological debates, should we also kill the ideas debate between citizen by castrating it ? I vomit generously on political correctness. I shit on clergy respect and spit bile on intelligent design. I support clearly the fact that some cultures are more human than others (hint: the ones who don't treat women as cattle, as Oblongato said before) and say that abolishing intellectual jousts is pure dysgenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics).

Look at the Genocide Alive case. His brewing, sarcastic comments where a pure delight. With a sharp tool, precise language, he is a true heir of Montaigne, Rabelais, Oscar Wilde and Sasha Guitry. Each of his one-liners is like a haiku, tailored to tease and turn into a fertile soil for reflection. He toils at deepening his irony and tailoring his sarcasm with great modesty and self-derision. He nudges at archaic beliefs, bigotry and hypocrisy. And now what, he is thrown in the deep tartarus of rep, a deep bottomless well of -23798353 ? This is scandalous, and a testimony of how possessing two brain hemispheres and as many balls can make you a target.

Character, personality and true personal ideas are forged through competition, lively discussion and idea debates. You are always going to get offended and offend someone. If you do not brush against other's convictions, how can you test yours? Words fly, ideas remain. Kids are always going to be beaten up at school, or beat someone else: its a natural process we HAVE to keep going. Fuck cheap freudian traumatic theories, if i want to avoid debate i just talk to my golden retriever.

We need non-castrated debates: the only ones wanting to abolish those are mullah and marketing managers. I hell am not to let my world be governed by either of those.