Yea the article confused me too. We do the right to be offended. Being offended is not that big a deal. It's perfectly within your rights to criticize, ridicule, and condemn others. Mockery and irony are usually effective methods.
The simple truth of the matter is that the people in modern societies no longer value freedom, even though their ancestors fought so hard to ensure it for them. In the heirarchy of values, it's below even the desire to not be irritated.
On March 27 2012 04:38 liberal wrote: The simple truth of the matter is that the people in modern societies no longer value freedom, even though their ancestors fought so hard to ensure it for them. In the heirarchy of values, it's below even the desire to not be irritated.
What does this have to do with anything? What a random thing to say.
What's with the weird equivalence of Being Offended = Censorship. You realize Being Offended => Protesting which is a core American value.
I don't give a shit if anyone is offended and I don't get offended. Remember that old saying, words will never hurt me?
It's just stupid. How could I feel personally offended if someone insults my race, gender, hair-type, height, weight, lifestyle or anything else meant in a demeaning manor, why would I give a shit about what someone else thinks?
Wrong: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Oh, I am so offended!
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: No we aren't, because ____________
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Thanks for sharing your views, but I don't care.
Anyone who get's offended by statements such as "White men can't jump", "White men shouldn't listen to hip-hop", "Females should get in the kitchen" are just 100% attention whores.
People stating they are offended/irritated by other people's statement of being offended.
...
None of it is really surprising and the quote carries little value. Both sides are silly, and it's sad, yet predictable, that this is a contentious topic.
On March 27 2012 04:42 rea1ity wrote: I don't give a shit if anyone is offended and I don't get offended. Remember that old saying, words will never hurt me?
It's just stupid. How could I feel personally offended if someone insults my race, gender, hair-type, height, weight, lifestyle or anything else meant in a demeaning manor, why would I give a shit about what someone else thinks?
Wrong: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Oh, I am so offended!
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: No we aren't, because ____________
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Thanks for sharing your views, but I don't care.
Anyone who get's offended by statements such as "White men can't jump", "White men shouldn't listen to hip-hop", "Females should get in the kitchen" are just 100% attention whores.
What about a law that pays men less because they are lazy? Would you be offended by that? Or would you not care?
On March 27 2012 04:36 DoubleReed wrote: Yea the article confused me too. We do the right to be offended. Being offended is not that big a deal. It's perfectly within your rights to criticize, ridicule, and condemn others. Mockery and irony are usually effective methods.
What's wrong with telling someone to shut up?
No you don't have the right to be offended. You have the privilege to be offended. Not the same thing. That's why the article warned the reader that it shouldn't be read by people too stupid to tell the difference.
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it.
This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended.
We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something.
Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun.
Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc.
So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok.
So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons.
No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment).
When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech.
If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice.
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended.
Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap.
The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there.
Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want.
What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given.
Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
On March 27 2012 04:36 DoubleReed wrote: Yea the article confused me too. We do the right to be offended. Being offended is not that big a deal. It's perfectly within your rights to criticize, ridicule, and condemn others. Mockery and irony are usually effective methods.
What's wrong with telling someone to shut up?
No you don't have the right to be offended. You have the privilege to be offended. Not the same thing. That's why the article warned the reader that it shouldn't be read by people too stupid to tell the difference.
No it's a right. Freedom of Speech. I have the right to say "I am offended!!" all fucking day long.
Just like I have the right to say that sociology is bullshit and that article is bullshit. Big deal.
On March 27 2012 04:42 rea1ity wrote: I don't give a shit if anyone is offended and I don't get offended. Remember that old saying, words will never hurt me?
It's just stupid. How could I feel personally offended if someone insults my race, gender, hair-type, height, weight, lifestyle or anything else meant in a demeaning manor, why would I give a shit about what someone else thinks?
Wrong: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Oh, I am so offended!
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: No we aren't, because ____________
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Thanks for sharing your views, but I don't care.
Anyone who get's offended by statements such as "White men can't jump", "White men shouldn't listen to hip-hop", "Females should get in the kitchen" are just 100% attention whores.
Anyone who makes comments like "Females should get in the kitchen" are either attention whores seeking attention through shock value or are actually legitimate misogynistic assholes. They say such comments with the intent of being offensive.
On March 27 2012 04:38 liberal wrote: The simple truth of the matter is that the people in modern societies no longer value freedom, even though their ancestors fought so hard to ensure it for them. In the heirarchy of values, it's below even the desire to not be irritated.
What does this have to do with anything? What a random thing to say.
What's with the weird equivalence of Being Offended = Censorship. You realize Being Offended => Protesting which is a core American value.
You think everyone is content with just being offended and expressing their own opinion? You really don't think it goes beyond that? Even once we get people fired for speaking, we are getting into murky waters. Not strict government censorship, but effective social censorship.
Give it a few more time zones changes, I guarantee we'll hear calls for outright censorship by the government.
On March 27 2012 04:42 rea1ity wrote: I don't give a shit if anyone is offended and I don't get offended. Remember that old saying, words will never hurt me?
It's just stupid. How could I feel personally offended if someone insults my race, gender, hair-type, height, weight, lifestyle or anything else meant in a demeaning manor, why would I give a shit about what someone else thinks?
Wrong: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Oh, I am so offended!
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: No we aren't, because ____________
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Thanks for sharing your views, but I don't care.
Anyone who get's offended by statements such as "White men can't jump", "White men shouldn't listen to hip-hop", "Females should get in the kitchen" are just 100% attention whores.
Anyone who makes comments like "Females should get in the kitchen" are either attention whores seeking attention through shock value or are actually legitimate misogynistic assholes. They say such comments with the intent of being offensive.
I agree, but that's not the point I was making so let's try to stay on topic shall we and probably not, they say them with the intention of being funny, they're not supposed to be genuine insults to women, they know society has evolved, which is the root of the joke...
On March 27 2012 04:42 rea1ity wrote: I don't give a shit if anyone is offended and I don't get offended. Remember that old saying, words will never hurt me?
It's just stupid. How could I feel personally offended if someone insults my race, gender, hair-type, height, weight, lifestyle or anything else meant in a demeaning manor, why would I give a shit about what someone else thinks?
Wrong: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Oh, I am so offended!
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: No we aren't, because ____________
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Thanks for sharing your views, but I don't care.
Anyone who get's offended by statements such as "White men can't jump", "White men shouldn't listen to hip-hop", "Females should get in the kitchen" are just 100% attention whores.
What about a law that pays men less because they are lazy? Would you be offended by that? Or would you not care?
I wouldn't be offended, why the fuck would I? I'd question it though. What are you trying to say?
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it.
This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended.
We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something.
Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun.
Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc.
So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok.
So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons.
No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment).
When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech.
If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice.
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended.
Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap.
The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there.
Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want.
What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given.
Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended.
We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something.
Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun.
Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc.
So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok.
So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons.
No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment).
When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech.
If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice.
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended.
Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap.
First--the bold part. The atheist has a right to call the Christian a liar just as much as the Christian has the right to preach. Both parties can choose to ignore it or be offended. The atheist cannot punch or threaten the Christian, and the Christian cannot punch or threaten the atheist. The atheist calling the Christian a liar is not suppressing his freedom of speech--he is simply expressing himself just like the Christian.
Second--the rights granted in the Constitution (more specifically in the Bill of Rights) only protect you from the government. If a private person infringes on your freedom of speech, they may violate some federal or state law, but not the Constitution. If the police show up and muzzle you when you are trying to give a speech, that is a violation of your freedom of speech. If a private citizen says, "Shut up or I will punch you in the face," the Bill of Rights does not have any application--but there are laws for threatening people with imminent physical harm. If a worker at Apple gets called into his bosses office and the boss says, "If you make one more speech about how Apple victimizes its laborers, you are fired," the Bill of Rights has no application. Even though speech is being suppressed (in fact, political speech--the most protected form of speech) the Bill of Rights does not apply, because the government is not suppressing the speech.
Third--the article fundamentally misstates the rights/privileges distinction in American law. In America, you start with the fundamental idea that you are free to do absolutely everything you want. The Constitution grants the government specific powers to limit this absolute freedom--such as to criminalize certain behaviors (e.g. robbery and murder) and regulate certain activities (immigration and interstate commerce). Some rights were deemed so important that the framers of the Constitution decided to specifically list the freedoms that the government cannot infringe. Free speech is one of these "fundamental rights." You have other rights that are granted by states and counties and municipalities through laws and ordinances. A privilege, on the other hand, is something that someone besides you enables you to do, and that, should they decide to stop, you are without recourse under the law. A good example is driving. States regulate the licensing of drivers, Without the government there would be no roads, no traffic lights, no traffic enforcement, and no emergency services. Therefore, the government can set rules under which it can take away your driving privilege.
Fourth--"the choice to listen" is irrelevant. The article claims that you are free to disregard what you hear/read (the example being the offensive PETA brochure). This choice has no impact on your right to be offended. If someone hands you a note that says, "I have a gun, give me your money or I will kill you," you certainly are free to disregard that note and keep walking. But whether you ignore it or whether you comply is irrelevant with respect to whether you have a right to react in a certain way--whether you ignore it or give the guy your money or faint, it does not impact your right not to be robbed. Certainly we can choose to some extent whether to get mad at something offensive, and what to do about it. But the ability to ignore does not have anything to do whatsoever with whether you have a right to be offended.
Finally, when somebody begins their article like this: "STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it," you can pretty much assume you are going to read something pretty stupid. Especially if they follow it up by saying, "everyone who disagrees with my point is stupid/ignorant/a dopesmoking buffoon," as they did here. Einstein never said, "I have this theory that is the smartest thing you have ever seen. If you don't get it, you are a moron." He just explained why he was right.
Good ideas and arguments don't need the "I'm smart, agree with me or you're dumb," rhetoric. They stand on their own.
After all, I'm a genius--and if you disagree, you should be sterilized to preserve the gene pool.
On March 27 2012 04:38 liberal wrote: The simple truth of the matter is that the people in modern societies no longer value freedom, even though their ancestors fought so hard to ensure it for them. In the heirarchy of values, it's below even the desire to not be irritated.
What does this have to do with anything? What a random thing to say.
What's with the weird equivalence of Being Offended = Censorship. You realize Being Offended => Protesting which is a core American value.
You think everyone is content with just being offended and expressing their own opinion? You really don't think it goes beyond that? Even once we get people fired for speaking, we are getting into murky waters. Not strict government censorship, but effective social censorship.
Give it a few more time zones changes, I guarantee we'll hear calls for outright censorship by the government.
But it goes both ways. You shouldn't censor offended people and you shouldn't censor offensive people.
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it.
This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended.
We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something.
Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun.
Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc.
So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok.
So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons.
No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment).
When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech.
If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice.
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended.
Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap.
The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there.
Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want.
What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given.
Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Just to correct something even though I generally understand/agree - you have the right to be offended in the same way you have the right to free speech - as expressing being offended is the same as expressing any other idea. You don't have the right to NOT be offended, as that would require other people not saying/doing things you don't agree with.
(29:20 min, seems like the time link didn't work.)
“Either if I see a YouTube film or read a blog, my eyes go below to the bottom of the screen. Because I get so fantastically upset by people who write comments. I don’t even know anybody who writes comments! I think that’s the point. The kind of people who put comments are themselves so weird and unhappy and alone and strange, it’s called ‘trolling’, you know, vicious comments about things. I mean, really weird. Either politically weird or religiously weird or just so intolerant or so desperate to be heard! So offensive! Just pleading: “Please listen to meeee!” they’re saying all the time. “Listen to me!” And of course you don’t want to, and if you do it just gets upset, you might even be tricked into replying with an aggressive reply to some idiot, and with vile opinions about things. Which they will use on a complete… it might be a puppy running around, some random Youtube thing, and it somehow manages to get a thread of nastiness into it. And they just want to be heard, and they are so resentful, and so annoyed, especially due to other people’s blogs, the fact that somebody’s reading someone else’s blog and not theirs is madly enough!” — Stephen Fry
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it.
This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended.
We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something.
Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun.
Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc.
So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok.
So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons.
No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment).
When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech.
If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice.
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended.
Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap.
The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there.
Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want.
What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given.
Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Just to correct something even though I generally understand/agree - you have the right to be offended in the same way you have the right to free speech - as expressing being offended is the same as expressing any other idea. You don't have the right to NOT be offended, as that would require other people not saying/doing things you don't agree with.
Expressing being offended is excercising the right to free speech. It is using that right to express that you feel the privilege of being offended by the topic. That's not the same as a right to be offended.
EPT
and probably not, they say them with the intention of being funny, they're not supposed to be genuine insults to women, they know society has evolved, which is the root of the joke...
