HelenM

I think that those who say things which regularly offend others will end up hurting themselves more than anyone else. They will lack friends and be thought of as bigoted and/or an insensitive jerk.

On the other hand, being a bigot and an insensitive jerk, maybe they don't care

I think it's up to me whether I'm offended by what someone says or not. I never have to take it personally. That's easier said than done sometimes, but that is what I believe.

I believe that part of being an adult is admitting that how I respond is up to me, instead of blaming the world around me for how I react.

Helen

Dr. Retard

Hey, maybe so. I'm just trying to find out when it's OK to offend someone, and when you should change your behavior. And, on the other side, when it's OK to get offended, and when you should change your attitude.

This is a question apart from the issue of how being offensive will affect your personal life.

HelenM

It was meant to give an incentive for why it's worth caring about whether what you say offends others.

Basically, taking offense is a subjective thing. I think wise people consider in advance whether what they say is likely to offend a given audience, and then they decide whether there's benefit in saying it that outweighs the possible offense that will be taken. I doubt anyone would say that minimizing offense given should be pre-eminent over all other goals. On the other hand, it's hard for me to envisage many situations where maximizing offense given can be justified as a goal pre-eminent over all others.

Helen

Dr. Retard

Right, but I'm taking for granted that it's worth caring about. The question is when to change your behavior ("what you say" is one type, but I'm also concerned with what you do, more generally).

But it seems just as tough to figure out when the benefit of an action will outweigh the possible offense, as to figure out when the offender should yield and when the offended should yield.

What's more, your "outweighing" standard suggests that, if some offensive action is wrong, you can make it right, just by piling on more people who appreciate and value the action. So that, if there are enough bigots around, then malicious use of the n-word is A-OK.

HelenM

Oh, I thought your examples were mostly about what we say to each other.

Not necessarily. I was actually thinking more individually; I was thinking "the benefits of saying it in front of that person outweight the offense that person will take" rather than, "as long as there are enough bigots listening, it's worth saying". Some speakers do decide it's ok to be derogatory as long as the number of listeners who the derogatory comment is about is minimal compared to those who will laugh along with the speaker. By 'outweigh' I didn't mean that because I wouldn't be rude just because I could get away with it. Still, 'outweigh' is subjective. If you're looking for specifics then I can't give any because I would decide based on the context and circumstances. In general I prefer to avoid offense because an offended person is distracted by the offense so I just lost my audience (I am referring to one person, though, by 'audience'). I think people who respect us listen better to us. They won't respect us if they think we are lying just to please them but they also won't respect us if we get our kicks from offending them.

Helen

long winded fool

I agree that social pressure ought to be exerted on those who hold beliefs which conflict with the majority's, however I think that purposely offending those of different beliefs is unnecessary pressure. If I tell a joke which calls racists and bigots worthless pigs, who does that help? This is fanning the flames of hatred and further dividing an already highly polarized group of people.

I'll accept that P, in your example, is always the proper object of blame. Those who knowingly offend others, by this logic, are always the proper object of blame; of course, those who are offended are also equally to blame in my argument. You seem to be asking, "Which one should get their way? The offenders or the offended?" If both are wrong, then you are trying to choose the lesser of two evils. Whichever way you go, you must be wrong. The "right" (logical, I would think,) thing to do is never purposely offend another and never allow the behavior of others to emotionally control you. Just because this is idealistic and impractical, it doesn't suddenly make one correct and leave one incorrect. It may be that offending is "less wrong" than being offended in some cases, but it is still wrong. While we can hash out circumstances where the practical thing to do is to offend someone, I don't think this can ever be a right and moral behavior.

excreationist

I think that constructive criticism is ok, even if it may offend. But if people offend others unnecessarily (not in an attempt to help them, etc) then I think that is bad.

Dr. Retard

Maybe a quick question will advance things more than an exhaustive response.

Do you think that (discomfort-arousing) ridicule can never effect positive social change?

I think it can and does.

excreationist

I think overall, respecting people's opinions while offering rational arguments is better than trying to humiliate them.... (I think we often mirror each other's behaviour subconsciously to some extent) - although humiliation would work some of the time.

Dr. Retard

Sure, but my target here is the universal claim "It's always immoral to ridicule someone" (this falls under the broad "it's always immoral to knowingly bring about mental harms in others" claim). And if ridicule can, in certain cases, be used to effect positive social change, then that's a mark against the universal claim.

Here's something I found in Frederick Douglass (it's about slavery, of course):

"At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is
needed. Oh! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's
ear, I would to-day pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule,
blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it
is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle
shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the
earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the
conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the
nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be
exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed
and denounced."