The right to offend

[Hibbyradge]

I've read a few articles over the last year or so which have a go at what they call "snowflakes" for being concerned when others use offensive language etc. I've read similar sentiments on hibs.net from time to time.

Personally, I don't understand why people would want to offend others in the first place and the idea that it should be our right to do so is particularly baffling.

However, how does that viewpoint hold up in circumstances like this ...?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-42870619

[beensaidbefore]

I've read a few articles over the last year or so which have a go at what they call "snowflakes" for being concerned when others use offensive language etc. I've read similar sentiments on hibs.net from time to time.

Personally, I don't understand why people would want to offend others in the first place and the idea that it should be our right to do so is particularly baffling.

However, how does that viewpoint hold up in circumstances like this ...?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-42870619

I personally find that more offensive than some of the stuff we hear these days that make the news.

The trouble for me is there seem to be sections of society waiting with baited breath for the next thing to be offended about.

I am getting a bit offended that as a man we can be spoken about collectively like we are all Harvey Weinstein, and get paid more than my female colleagues for doing the same job, when in reality the vast majority are neither. But of course that doesn't sell papers.

[lapsedhibee]

Quite a long time since taking the p*ss out of a person's disability was considered funny by people with even half a working brain. I don't find the fake eyeballs offensive though, just unfunny. Not even close to the worst that goes on at fitba.

I think sometimes when people talk about the right to offend they are not necessarily arguing for the right to deliberately offend others - they may be talking about the desirability of being free to risk offending others, which is different.

[Hibbyradge]

I think sometimes when people talk about the right to offend they are not necessarily arguing for the right to deliberately offend others - they may be talking about the desirability of being free to risk offending others, which is different.

I've no problem with people taking risks, but once they know what they've done or said is offensive, they should stop.

I think people are arguing for the right to offend others, the right to be deliberately offensive.

[RyeSloan]

I've no problem with people taking risks, but once they know what they've done or said is offensive, they should stop.

I think people are arguing for the right to offend others, the right to be deliberately offensive.

Not sure what 'right' that actually is but to some degree these people have a point.

Just because one person or group happens to be offended doesn't automatically make the statement or comment offensive...it just as easily means the 'offended' are snowflakes [emoji16] It can be very subjective.

As to your link. That's not just offensive but abusive against someone with a disability which I think is not subjective but quite clearly a criminal offence, hence why the old bill has pulled them up for it.

[lapsedhibee]

I've no problem with people taking risks, but once they know what they've done or said is offensive, they should stop.

:agree:


I think people are arguing for the right to offend others, the right to be deliberately offensive.
Agree that does seem strange, but **** you anyway for disagreeing with me.


As to your link. That's not just offensive but abusive against someone with a disability which I think is not subjective but quite clearly a criminal offence, hence why the old bill has pulled them up for it.
If it's a 'quite clear criminal offence', isn't it only so under an Act which is in the process of being abandoned? Some others might think it's a bit of a waste of police time, like hunting down pitch invaders.

[Pretty Boy]

The argument about people 'choosing to be offended' is a nonsense. I've never really thought about what offends me, I do however choose to have an awareness of my actions and words and how they may impact or potentially be offensive to others even if they don't personally offend me.

I like jokes or actions that are quite close to the bone if there is an element of wit and thought behind them. On the complete flip side of that an acquaintance of mine shared a video on Facebook the other day of Chubby Brown telling a joke that went along the lines of 'how can these pakis be offended by Easter, they all have faces like a chocolate ****ing egg'. No wit, no thought process. Comedy for the moron. That's about the level of someone throwing a fake eyeball at someone with a disability. If someone can't see why either of those examples are potentially offensive or they have a 'right to offend' by saying them then they really aren't worth arguing with.

[beensaidbefore]

The argument about people 'choosing to be offended' is a nonsense. I've never really thought about what offends me, I do however choose to have an awareness of my actions and words and how they may impact or potentially be offensive to others even if they don't personally offend me.

I like jokes or actions that are quite close to the bone if there is an element of wit and thought behind them. On the complete flip side of that an acquaintance of mine shared a video on Facebook the other day of Chubby Brown telling a joke that went along the lines of 'how can these pakis be offended by Easter, they all have faces like a chocolate ****ing egg'. No wit, no thought process. Comedy for the moron. That's about the level of someone throwing a fake eyeball at someone with a disability. If someone can't see why either of those examples are potentially offensive or they have a 'right to offend' by saying them then they really aren't worth arguing with.

You are absolutely correct in what you say, but I think there are folk out there let's say who can't wait to be 'second hand offended'which is quite common on social media. Folk who weren't actually offended, but become offended because someone else was. Eg.The recent vegan chef case where the woman was getting hundreds of messages when there were only 8 vegan diners to start with. I think it's daft and petty at times.

[Hibbyradge]

You are absolutely correct in what you say, but I think there are folk out there let's say who can't wait to be 'second hand offended'which is quite common on social media. Folk who weren't actually offended, but become offended because someone else was. Eg.The recent vegan chef case where the woman was getting hundreds of messages when there were only 8 vegan diners to start with. I think it's daft and petty at times.

I'm not sure that's what happens.

Injustice is a huge trigger for me.

For example, I get deeply angry when I see or read about someone being bullied.

I'm not being bullied, but my blood still boils.

It's not too much of a stretch to think that people might genuinely feel angered/upset when someone is being offended, deliberately or not.

[Scouse Hibee]

Offence can never be given, only taken.
In other words, before you can offend me, I have to allow you to do so.

It's understandable that many people don't realise this - given a strong emotional reaction to a subject, I may instantly feel offended by something someone said. I make no conscious decision, and the only action I perceive is the original statement - it looks like simple cause and effect.

However, the important word is perceive - sure, it looks to me as if my offence was a direct effect of the statement, but that's not actually true.

Offend me. No, really - go on...
Call my mother names. Impugn my political affiliation. Assert things about my sexuality. Go on - post comments or e-mail me, if you like. All of these things can be reliably guaranteed to cause offence to people, but I promise I won't get offended by any of them. How can this be?

It's because I've simply chosen not to take offence at them. This much is obvious, but wait - if a statement is or is not "offensive", how can I choose whether or not to be offended? If "being offended" is a direct consequence of the statement, how can I opt out, and merely decide not to be?

The point here is that being offended is a choice. It might be the default choice - one I usually take automatically, or without even being consciously aware of it - but if I can choose not to be offended, surely that proves the opposite choice (being offended) is also a choice?

If offence can only ever be taken, then the "offensiveness" is your reaction to a statement, not a property of the statement itself. Moreover, it's not even a reaction the speaker can necessarily predict ahead of time - I make a statement, and then you decide whether you're offended by it.

Always remember this fact - every time you are offended, it's because you have chosen to feel that way. The nasty feeling you have is a direct consequence of your choice, not of the statement which motivated it.

The case of deliberate provocation
Obviously, some statements are made with the deliberate intent to offend you. It's understandable (though not admirable) that in these situations it's hard to overrule that emotional reaction - when someone tries to insult you, it's hard not to be offended.

To see why this is a problem, let's reason by analogy:

When babies are born, they have no bowel control - if their bowel is full, they'll ****. As far as the baby's concerned it's an automatic process.

However, as we grow and develop we learn that although excreting is an automatic process, we can learn to make it a conscious choice. Even if (through some biological problem) we can't do this, we at least recognise it's a fault within ourselves and strive to ameliorate it (for example, with diapers, medication, colostomy bags, and the like).

What seems like an automatic process we have no control over can - with recognition and effort - be mastered and controlled. And the more we practice it, the less difficult it becomes, until our chosen option becomes the automatic one (seriously - when was the last time you took a conscious choice not to **** yourself?).

Likewise, although "being offended" feels for many people as if it's something beyond their control, this is an illusion caused by their own lack of self-control. It's effectively emotional incontinence.

Given this, how fair is it to demand others change their actions based on a flaw within ourselves? It seems to me rather like demanding that everyone else carry around a potty at all times, just in case I want to take a ****.

Applying this reasoning to incontinence makes the reaction seem ludicrous - obviously my lack of self-control is my problem to deal with. Anyone who insisted everyone else has to scramble to solve their own problem while they themselves did nothing would be considered enormously selfish, demanding and immature.

So why when the issue is an emotional lack of control do so many people insist others change their behaviour, instead of asking what it says about them?

Can we as a society stop thinking of "offendedness" as a blameless condition, and start thinking of it as a lack of self-control? Can we stop advocating banning "offensive" things, and instead strive to fix the flaws within ourselves that mean they bother us so much?

Please - if you've remotely enjoyed this post at all, I want you to promise me something. Next time you read or hear something really offensive - something that really makes your blood boil - do me a favour.

Instead of shouting back or demanding something be banned, I want you to sit back, count to ten, and ask yourself

Am I ****ting myself in public?
And if you are, and you decide to do it anyway, and then blame it on someone else, what does that say about you?

Thoughts on this?

[Pretty Boy]

You are absolutely correct in what you say, but I think there are folk out there let's say who can't wait to be 'second hand offended'which is quite common on social media. Folk who weren't actually offended, but become offended because someone else was. Eg.The recent vegan chef case where the woman was getting hundreds of messages when there were only 8 vegan diners to start with. I think it's daft and petty at times.

I think social media has definitely given people a chance to express their opinion, displeasure and opposition with minimal effort. There's probably an element of people wanting to fee like they are doing 'sonething'.

Probably off topic but I think there is an increasing unwillingness to accept people can change. The social media footprint is such that indiscretions can't be left behind in a way that they could when a handful of people in a room heard an off colour remark. It's quite possible now for thousands of people to judge someones current character on comments from almost a decade ago.

[hibsbollah]

I'm not sure that's what happens.

Injustice is a huge trigger for me.

For example, I get deeply angry when I see or read about someone being bullied.

I'm not being bullied, but my blood still boils.

It's not too much of a stretch to think that people might genuinely feel angered/upset when someone is being offended, deliberately or not.

:agree: Exactly.

[jonty]

I'm not sure that's what happens.

Injustice is a huge trigger for me.

For example, I get deeply angry when I see or read about someone being bullied.

I'm not being bullied, but my blood still boils.

It's not too much of a stretch to think that people might genuinely feel angered/upset when someone is being offended, deliberately or not.

there's a difference between being offensive, and being abusive.
I wouldn't like to see anyone being abused, but I'd quickly dismiss someone who is being offensive as a dick.

[beensaidbefore]

I'm not sure that's what happens.

Injustice is a huge trigger for me.

For example, I get deeply angry when I see or read about someone being bullied.

I'm not being bullied, but my blood still boils.

It's not too much of a stretch to think that people might genuinely feel angered/upset when someone is being offended, deliberately or not.


I know what you mean. I just feel there are a lot who are kinda looking for the next thing to be offended about. Maybe it's just social media that gets on my tits😂

[beensaidbefore]

Offence can never be given, only taken.
In other words, before you can offend me, I have to allow you to do so.

It's understandable that many people don't realise this - given a strong emotional reaction to a subject, I may instantly feel offended by something someone said. I make no conscious decision, and the only action I perceive is the original statement - it looks like simple cause and effect.

However, the important word is perceive - sure, it looks to me as if my offence was a direct effect of the statement, but that's not actually true.

Offend me. No, really - go on...
Call my mother names. Impugn my political affiliation. Assert things about my sexuality. Go on - post comments or e-mail me, if you like. All of these things can be reliably guaranteed to cause offence to people, but I promise I won't get offended by any of them. How can this be?

It's because I've simply chosen not to take offence at them. This much is obvious, but wait - if a statement is or is not "offensive", how can I choose whether or not to be offended? If "being offended" is a direct consequence of the statement, how can I opt out, and merely decide not to be?

The point here is that being offended is a choice. It might be the default choice - one I usually take automatically, or without even being consciously aware of it - but if I can choose not to be offended, surely that proves the opposite choice (being offended) is also a choice?

If offence can only ever be taken, then the "offensiveness" is your reaction to a statement, not a property of the statement itself. Moreover, it's not even a reaction the speaker can necessarily predict ahead of time - I make a statement, and then you decide whether you're offended by it.

Always remember this fact - every time you are offended, it's because you have chosen to feel that way. The nasty feeling you have is a direct consequence of your choice, not of the statement which motivated it.

The case of deliberate provocation
Obviously, some statements are made with the deliberate intent to offend you. It's understandable (though not admirable) that in these situations it's hard to overrule that emotional reaction - when someone tries to insult you, it's hard not to be offended.

To see why this is a problem, let's reason by analogy:

When babies are born, they have no bowel control - if their bowel is full, they'll ****. As far as the baby's concerned it's an automatic process.

However, as we grow and develop we learn that although excreting is an automatic process, we can learn to make it a conscious choice. Even if (through some biological problem) we can't do this, we at least recognise it's a fault within ourselves and strive to ameliorate it (for example, with diapers, medication, colostomy bags, and the like).

What seems like an automatic process we have no control over can - with recognition and effort - be mastered and controlled. And the more we practice it, the less difficult it becomes, until our chosen option becomes the automatic one (seriously - when was the last time you took a conscious choice not to **** yourself?).

Likewise, although "being offended" feels for many people as if it's something beyond their control, this is an illusion caused by their own lack of self-control. It's effectively emotional incontinence.

Given this, how fair is it to demand others change their actions based on a flaw within ourselves? It seems to me rather like demanding that everyone else carry around a potty at all times, just in case I want to take a ****.

Applying this reasoning to incontinence makes the reaction seem ludicrous - obviously my lack of self-control is my problem to deal with. Anyone who insisted everyone else has to scramble to solve their own problem while they themselves did nothing would be considered enormously selfish, demanding and immature.

So why when the issue is an emotional lack of control do so many people insist others change their behaviour, instead of asking what it says about them?

Can we as a society stop thinking of "offendedness" as a blameless condition, and start thinking of it as a lack of self-control? Can we stop advocating banning "offensive" things, and instead strive to fix the flaws within ourselves that mean they bother us so much?

Please - if you've remotely enjoyed this post at all, I want you to promise me something. Next time you read or hear something really offensive - something that really makes your blood boil - do me a favour.

Instead of shouting back or demanding something be banned, I want you to sit back, count to ten, and ask yourself

Am I ****ting myself in public?
And if you are, and you decide to do it anyway, and then blame it on someone else, what does that say about you?

Thoughts on this?

That's what I meant to say😂😂

[beensaidbefore]

I think social media has definitely given people a chance to express their opinion, displeasure and opposition with minimal effort. There's probably an element of people wanting to fee like they are doing 'sonething'.

Probably off topic but I think there is an increasing unwillingness to accept people can change. The social media footprint is such that indiscretions can't be left behind in a way that they could when a handful of people in a room heard an off colour remark. It's quite possible now for thousands of people to judge someones current character on comments from almost a decade ago.

I seriously dislike social media.

Totally agree wig your second point. It's becoming a little unfair in some circumstances, and I think it kinda comes back to the offence thing again. What's not fair is judging people for comments that were commonplace at at a moment in time, but deemed offensive now.

[lapsedhibee]

Thoughts on this?

Very good, though the point about offensiveness being in the eye of a group of beholders does not, I think, mean that it is any the less real. Putting a jobbie through the letterbox of someone who's (say) a paedophile is definitely offensive, even though the offensiveness does depend on people other than the jobbie-putter agreeing to perceive it as such.

[danhibees1875]

Thoughts on this?

I thought it was about as long winded a way to talk absolute ***** as I've ever seen. 😂

[Hibbyradge]

Offence can never be given, only taken.
In other words, before you can offend me, I have to allow you to do so.

It's understandable that many people don't realise this - given a strong emotional reaction to a subject, I may instantly feel offended by something someone said. I make no conscious decision, and the only action I perceive is the original statement - it looks like simple cause and effect.

However, the important word is perceive - sure, it looks to me as if my offence was a direct effect of the statement, but that's not actually true.

Offend me. No, really - go on...
Call my mother names. Impugn my political affiliation. Assert things about my sexuality. Go on - post comments or e-mail me, if you like. All of these things can be reliably guaranteed to cause offence to people, but I promise I won't get offended by any of them. How can this be?

It's because I've simply chosen not to take offence at them. This much is obvious, but wait - if a statement is or is not "offensive", how can I choose whether or not to be offended? If "being offended" is a direct consequence of the statement, how can I opt out, and merely decide not to be?

The point here is that being offended is a choice. It might be the default choice - one I usually take automatically, or without even being consciously aware of it - but if I can choose not to be offended, surely that proves the opposite choice (being offended) is also a choice?

If offence can only ever be taken, then the "offensiveness" is your reaction to a statement, not a property of the statement itself. Moreover, it's not even a reaction the speaker can necessarily predict ahead of time - I make a statement, and then you decide whether you're offended by it.

Always remember this fact - every time you are offended, it's because you have chosen to feel that way. The nasty feeling you have is a direct consequence of your choice, not of the statement which motivated it.

The case of deliberate provocation
Obviously, some statements are made with the deliberate intent to offend you. It's understandable (though not admirable) that in these situations it's hard to overrule that emotional reaction - when someone tries to insult you, it's hard not to be offended.

To see why this is a problem, let's reason by analogy:

When babies are born, they have no bowel control - if their bowel is full, they'll ****. As far as the baby's concerned it's an automatic process.

However, as we grow and develop we learn that although excreting is an automatic process, we can learn to make it a conscious choice. Even if (through some biological problem) we can't do this, we at least recognise it's a fault within ourselves and strive to ameliorate it (for example, with diapers, medication, colostomy bags, and the like).

What seems like an automatic process we have no control over can - with recognition and effort - be mastered and controlled. And the more we practice it, the less difficult it becomes, until our chosen option becomes the automatic one (seriously - when was the last time you took a conscious choice not to **** yourself?).

Likewise, although "being offended" feels for many people as if it's something beyond their control, this is an illusion caused by their own lack of self-control. It's effectively emotional incontinence.

Given this, how fair is it to demand others change their actions based on a flaw within ourselves? It seems to me rather like demanding that everyone else carry around a potty at all times, just in case I want to take a ****.

Applying this reasoning to incontinence makes the reaction seem ludicrous - obviously my lack of self-control is my problem to deal with. Anyone who insisted everyone else has to scramble to solve their own problem while they themselves did nothing would be considered enormously selfish, demanding and immature.

So why when the issue is an emotional lack of control do so many people insist others change their behaviour, instead of asking what it says about them?

Can we as a society stop thinking of "offendedness" as a blameless condition, and start thinking of it as a lack of self-control? Can we stop advocating banning "offensive" things, and instead strive to fix the flaws within ourselves that mean they bother us so much?

Please - if you've remotely enjoyed this post at all, I want you to promise me something. Next time you read or hear something really offensive - something that really makes your blood boil - do me a favour.

Instead of shouting back or demanding something be banned, I want you to sit back, count to ten, and ask yourself

Am I ****ting myself in public?
And if you are, and you decide to do it anyway, and then blame it on someone else, what does that say about you?

Thoughts on this?

That's an unrealistic philosophical discussion.

People have their own values, principles, morals and sensibilities. They make us what we are.

The idea that everyone should behave like automatons and just choose not to be offended is naive in the extreme.

A lovely idea for an academics to mull over, but ultimately useless.

[RyeSloan]

:agree:

Agree that does seem strange, but **** you anyway for disagreeing with me.


If it's a 'quite clear criminal offence', isn't it only so under an Act which is in the process of being abandoned? Some others might think it's a bit of a waste of police time, like hunting down pitch invaders.

Fair enough, ''tis still the law currently though [emoji6]

Any way you cut it though the mocking of someone for their disability when they are at their work and in a public place is reprehensible and beyond just merely being offensive I would say.

[Steve-O]

You are absolutely correct in what you say, but I think there are folk out there let's say who can't wait to be 'second hand offended'which is quite common on social media. Folk who weren't actually offended, but become offended because someone else was. Eg.The recent vegan chef case where the woman was getting hundreds of messages when there were only 8 vegan diners to start with. I think it's daft and petty at times.

Some of the worst examples are the numerous news articles, particularly on social media, that state groups of people are offended / outraged about one thing or another, when that story itself is usually the spark that makes people offended!

[makaveli1875]

if you value freedom of speech then you have no right to be offended

[lapsedhibee]

Any way you cut it though the mocking of someone for their disability when they are at their work and in a public place is reprehensible and beyond just merely being offensive I would say.

Do you think the mocking in question is on a par with genuine hate crime? Shirley the fake eyeballs incident doesn't really belong in the same space as lynching people because of their skin colour? Also, the mockee in question here has previously freely chosen as the public place in which he does his work Ibrox Park, a perpetual cesspit of something much nearer to hate crime than what was thrown on the pitch. (Not saying his footballing history in any way justifies being mocked for his disability, but isn't context a thing?)

[RyeSloan]

Do you think the mocking in question is on a par with genuine hate crime? Shirley the fake eyeballs incident doesn't really belong in the same space as lynching people because of their skin colour? Also, the mockee in question here has previously freely chosen as the public place in which he does his work Ibrox Park, a perpetual cesspit of something much nearer to hate crime than what was thrown on the pitch. (Not saying his footballing history in any way justifies being mocked for his disability, but isn't context a thing?)

I didn't compare it to lynching people for their skin colour....a rather hyperbolic comparison I say!

All I'm saying is that I think what happened was pretty damn low and I'm glad the people involved have been collared for it.

As for him having previously worked at Ibrox, I'm not sure that has any relevance to him being able to play football without people openly mocking his disability.

Anyhoo it's not something that's keeping me up at night so if we are disagreeing then that's cool, happy to leave it here [emoji106]

[Hibbyradge]

if you value freedom of speech then you have no right to be offended

I disagree.

Freedom of speech merely allows people to say offensive things.

It doesn't preclude people from being offended by those things.

[Scouse Hibee]

Being offended has become almost trendy it would seem.

[CropleyWasGod]

if you value freedom of speech then you have no right to be offended

I can't agree. "Freedom of speech" (as I understand its meaning) gives people the right to actually say that they're offended.

[Speedy]

I thought it was about as long winded a way to talk absolute ***** as I've ever seen. 😂

Concurred.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Suck it up. There is no right not to be offended, and creating one leads us to the top of a slippery slope.

Anyway, its literally impossible to please everyone.

If something or someone offends you, ignore them, judge them, call them am ********.

What you shouldn't do is follow them on twitter and click on evey article that mentions them just so you can get offended by them all over again.

[lord bunberry]

I disagree.

Freedom of speech merely allows people to say offensive things.

It doesn't preclude people from being offended by those things.
:agree: If people have the right of freedom of speech, they can’t then complain if someone is offended. Personally very little offends me. I don’t get offended by proxy and generally speaking I don’t care what others say. I find racism, homophobia and other such things to be wrong, but as they don’t affect me, I don’t find myself offended by them. I live in a world where everyone just gets on with life.

[Pretty Boy]

A lot of the most offended people I encounter are people who are offended about being challenged about their own offensiveness. 'It's freedom of speech' or 'stop being a snowflake' doesn't cut it. Freedom of speech is a right that comes with a level of responsibility and part of that is being willing to defend your stance when challenged. Freedom of speech doesn't equate to the inalienable right to say what you like without challenge or question.

The idea that we can simply choose not to be offended is an interesting angle but it's fundamentally flawed. It would rely on people being able to switch off their emotions, forget their life experiences and ignore their own feelings. Essentially it's asking people to ignore a huge part of what makes them human.

[Newry Hibs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

Steve Hughes - Aussie comic.

struggling to imbed the link

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

A lot of the most offended people I encounter are people who are offended about being challenged about their own offensiveness. 'It's freedom of speech' or 'stop being a snowflake' doesn't cut it. Freedom of speech is a right that comes with a level of responsibility and part of that is being willing to defend your stance when challenged. Freedom of speech doesn't equate to the inalienable right to say what you like without challenge or question.

The idea that we can simply choose not to be offended is an interesting angle but it's fundamentally flawed. It would rely on people being able to switch off their emotions, forget their life experiences and ignore their own feelings. Essentially it's asking people to ignore a huge part of what makes them human.

That last bit is true, but we do that all the time - human ideas or constructs trump human instincts or nature a lot.

It is wrong to be violent, despitr it being a very natural reaction, it is wrong to stare at women despite it being quite natural instinct to 50% of the population, it is wrong to dececate in publix despitd it being very natural.

Free speech is a construct, but a brilliant one, and if it reaults in some people being offended, then im afraid thats a price worth paying. In the same way that i habe to accept that i cant just punch someone who offends me.

Of coursr that doesnt mean its fine to go out to offend.

Abuse is a different matter of course, and there is probably quite a fine line between the two.

Interesting thought though... what would a right not to be offended mean for fitba fans? Possibly where the Offensive Comms Act went wrong, is that probably half of all fitba chants are supposed to be offensive, we try to cause offence. Is that wrong?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

Steve Hughes - Aussie comic.

struggling to imbed the link

Saw him at the fringe one year at late & live - he was brilliant.

Tour link is both funny, and spot-on imo!

Id theres one thing you can count on aussies for, its cutting through the bullcrap!

[The Pointer]

Being offended has become almost trendy it would seem.

This is almost exactly what I find myself saying more and more frequently. It's become quite fashionable to take offence.

Personally there's almost nothing which would offend me (ignorant people who ask if Hibs are like an Edinburgh version of Celtc causes a sharp intake of breath and a sneer and a quick re-education), although there are many things which get severely on my threepennys, often while watching the news.

The Dean Shiels thing is not very nice but I wouldn't say offensive. What about Stevie Fulton 'booked for being ugly'? Funny as and he just laughed it off - although he didn't really have any option!

[Hibbyradge]

I haven't noticed taking offence becoming fashionable or trendy.

Presumably, if that's the perception, there must be dozens of examples of this faux sensitivity.

Would it be possible to list a few so I understand it better?

[RyeSloan]

I haven't noticed taking offence becoming fashionable or trendy.

Presumably, if that's the perception, there must be dozens of examples of this faux sensitivity.

Would it be possible to list a few so I understand it better?

I assume you need to be a twitter aficionado to really notice it.

Well I assume so as most 'offended' stories reported in the press always seem to include phrase like twitter storm and social media outrage...

[Hibrandenburg]

I assume you need to be a twitter aficionado to really notice it.

Well I assume so as most 'offended' stories reported in the press always seem to include phrase like twitter storm and social media outrage...

I think that people have always been offended by certain things, it's just that social media gives people a platform to air their grievances in safety.

[lapsedhibee]

I haven't noticed taking offence becoming fashionable or trendy.

Presumably, if that's the perception, there must be dozens of examples of this faux sensitivity.

Would it be possible to list a few so I understand it better?

Virtue signalling's certainly more fashionable than it was a decade ago. Then, you could wear or not wear a poppy with no consequences. Now there's a world of people offended by your not wearing a poppy. "Look at me, I'm wearing a poppy. You're not and therefore I care more than you about the WW dead and therefore I'm more virtuous than you."

Analagously, "Look at me, I'm outraged at people throwing fake eyeballs on to a football pitch and you're not, therefore I care more about disabled people than you and therefore I'm more virtuous than you."

And slightly off topic, Dean Shiels is missing an eye but he's hardly disabled. He's a professional athlete FFS.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I assume you need to be a twitter aficionado to really notice it.

Well I assume so as most 'offended' stories reported in the press always seem to include phrase like twitter storm and social media outrage...

You can guarantee that if the Mail on Sunday has a headline which contains the word 'outrage' you will find on reading the story that the 'outrage' on question belongs to the Mail on Sunday rather than any third party.

EG ..... Queensferry crossing closed for repairs after first week in operation 'outrage' ..... the story then goes on to reveal that some Holyrood Tory who the MOS asked if they were 'outraged' about it said ... yes of course :greengrin

[NAE NOOKIE]

A lot of the most offended people I encounter are people who are offended about being challenged about their own offensiveness. 'It's freedom of speech' or 'stop being a snowflake' doesn't cut it. Freedom of speech is a right that comes with a level of responsibility and part of that is being willing to defend your stance when challenged. Freedom of speech doesn't equate to the inalienable right to say what you like without challenge or question.

The idea that we can simply choose not to be offended is an interesting angle but it's fundamentally flawed. It would rely on people being able to switch off their emotions, forget their life experiences and ignore their own feelings. Essentially it's asking people to ignore a huge part of what makes them human.

This is my take on it as well ........... its very hard to be a Mr Spock and allow pure logic to control your emotions. I don't know about it being fashionable to look for things to be offended about, but I do get a sense in recent years that folk, especially young folk, feel they are missing out on something if they cant find an oppressed minority to belong to.

What does really annoy me are the 'buzz words' used to dismiss an argument or point of view which in some magical way in the mind of the user absolves them of using any form of logical or intelligent argument to either defend their position or refute yours. Examples:

'Snowflake' ... though sometimes even I think the use of it is appropriate :greengrin and my favourite and detested phrase ... 'haters gonna hate' ... a nonsensical throw away phrase which means absolutely nothing and presents no logical or reasoned argument for or against any stance on anything.

[Pretty Boy]

Here's a topical story from todays news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42912299?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_match_of_the_day&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport

Surely anyone who can't see why that may be offensive is being deliberately obtuse? Does the right to freedom of speech and expression extend to allowing such behaviour to go unchallenged?

[Hibrandenburg]

Virtue signalling's certainly more fashionable than it was a decade ago. Then, you could wear or not wear a poppy with no consequences. Now there's a world of people offended by your not wearing a poppy. "Look at me, I'm wearing a poppy. You're not and therefore I care more than you about the WW dead and therefore I'm more virtuous than you."

Analagously, "Look at me, I'm outraged at people throwing fake eyeballs on to a football pitch and you're not, therefore I care more about disabled people than you and therefore I'm more virtuous than you."

And slightly off topic, Dean Shiels is missing an eye but he's hardly disabled. He's a professional athlete FFS.

Ignorant view point. Just because he's a professional athlete doesn't mean he's not disabled. He's had to work that little bit harder to achieve what he has which is pretty amazing if you take a moment to think about what having only one eye actually means for a footballer.

I hate it when people brush off disabilities because the individual with them has worked hard to overcome them and thus by doing so those disabilities are not immediatly obvious to others.

[Hibbyradge]

This is my take on it as well ........... its very hard to be a Mr Spock and allow pure logic to control your emotions. I don't know about it being fashionable to look for things to be offended about, but I do get a sense in recent years that folk, especially young folk, feel they are missing out on something if they cant find an oppressed minority to belong to.

What does really annoy me are the 'buzz words' used to dismiss an argument or point of view which in some magical way in the mind of the user absolves them of using any form of logical or intelligent argument to either defend their position or refute yours. Examples:

'Snowflake' ... though sometimes even I think the use of it is appropriate :greengrin and my favourite and detested phrase ... 'haters gonna hate' ... a nonsensical throw away phrase which means absolutely nothing and presents no logical or reasoned argument for or against any stance on anything.

You can add PC gone mad" and "They're looking for something to be offended about" to that list.

2 simple, but erroneous, mantras designed to defend/justify inappropriate behaviour and comments.

[Scouse Hibee]

To me choosing not to be offended is a mechanism to belittle the ones who are trying to cause offence. I have been in plenty of situations especially in a job I was in for 10 years where some vile abuse and threats against family etc were directed at me. Some colleagues were astounded and nearly at snapping point themselves desperate to react to this extreme provocation that offended them. Not me, I never once felt offended because I chose not to be. This reaction or none reaction from me if you like, was met with extreme frustration from the offenders and was a great way to eventually silence them.

[Hibbyradge]

To me choosing not to be offended is a mechanism to belittle the ones who are trying to cause offence. I have been in plenty of situations especially in a job I was in for 10 years where some vile abuse and threats against family etc were directed at me. Some colleagues were astounded and nearly at snapping point themselves desperate to react to this extreme provocation that offended them. Not me, I never once felt offended because I chose not to be. This reaction or none reaction from me if you like, was met with extreme frustration from the offenders and was a great way to eventually silence them.

You may have chosen to mask your feelings or refuse to react, which is a mature, professional way to deal with situations like that, but the individuals saying those things had no power over you and were not in positions of authority.

When someone with standing or authority says something publicly, you have no control over them, no ability to make them feel anything never mind extreme frustration.

I don't believe it's possible to choose not to be offended. One may not understand the implied insult, or one may choose not to react to it, but the offence, in the latter situation, will still have been perceived.

How can anyone choose not to be offended, for example, by a hurtful personal insult?

[lapsedhibee]

Ignorant view point. Just because he's a professional athlete doesn't mean he's not disabled. He's had to work that little bit harder to achieve what he has which is pretty amazing if you take a moment to think about what having only one eye actually means for a footballer.

I hate it when people brush off disabilities because the individual with them has worked hard to overcome them and thus by doing so those disabilities are not immediatly obvious to others.

What has how hard someone has worked got to do with whether they're disabled or not? My point is that using the word 'disabled' to describe Dean Shiels is drawing a line in the wrong place. Steven Hawkings is disabled imo. A joiner who works very hard and is missing a finger is not. When it comes to drawing some sort of line (as you must do, for the word to have any meaning whatsoever) Dean Shiels is on the same side of it as the joiner, not Steven Hawkings. Playing professional football with an eye missing is a very impressive achievement. Nana Mouskouri was a professional singer with one of her two vocal cords missing, but did she apply for a blue badge? (No.)

[Geo_1875]

To me choosing not to be offended is a mechanism to belittle the ones who are trying to cause offence. I have been in plenty of situations especially in a job I was in for 10 years where some vile abuse and threats against family etc were directed at me. Some colleagues were astounded and nearly at snapping point themselves desperate to react to this extreme provocation that offended them. Not me, I never once felt offended because I chose not to be. This reaction or none reaction from me if you like, was met with extreme frustration from the offenders and was a great way to eventually silence them.

Genuine question. Do you have a mental list of things that don't offend you? Unless you are a practising Buddhist I can't believe that there is nothing that could be said to offend you. Or do you consciously choose not to react to things that do offend you?

[lapsedhibee]

How can anyone choose not to be offended, for example, by a hurtful personal insult?

Perhaps if you've already chosen to live your life not being offended by stuff, you don't register people mouthing off as hurtful or insulting either?

[Geo_1875]

What has how hard someone has worked got to do with whether they're disabled or not? My point is that using the word 'disabled' to describe Dean Shiels is drawing a line in the wrong place. Steven Hawkings is disabled imo. A joiner who works very hard and is missing a finger is not. When it comes to drawing some sort of line (as you must do, for the word to have any meaning whatsoever) Dean Shiels is on the same side of it as the joiner, not Steven Hawkings. Playing professional football with an eye missing is a very impressive achievement. Nana Mouskouri was a professional singer with one of her two vocal cords missing, but did she apply for a blue badge? (No.)

So losing an eye is not a disability? Try applying for a pilots licence with one eye. Yes Dean Shiels is living our dream but maybe his dream was something different.

[Pretty Boy]

Genuine question. Do you have a mental list of things that don't offend you? Unless you are a practising Buddhist I can't believe that there is nothing that could be said to offend you. Or do you consciously choose not to react to things that do offend you?

Your last sentence is the key point. Choosing not to react is different from choosing not to be offended.

I'd argue that one is a voluntary action, the other is not.

[Scouse Hibee]

Genuine question. Do you have a mental list of things that don't offend you? Unless you are a practising Buddhist I can't believe that there is nothing that could be said to offend you. Or do you consciously choose not to react to things that do offend you?

Of course not, to have a list would be somewhat bizarre surely? I have given you a genuine explanation as to why I feel you can choose to not be offended as I have done on many occasions. I absolutely get that folk can put what I have described into a different context and disagree with my opinion, tbat's fair enough and perfectly acceptable.

Of course I can still be offended if I choose to be and react accordingly.

[Scouse Hibee]

You may have chosen to mask your feelings or refuse to react, which is a mature, professional way to deal with situations like that, but the individuals saying those things had no power over you and were not in positions of authority.

When someone with standing or authority says something publicly, you have no control over them, no ability to make them feel anything never mind extreme frustration.

I don't believe it's possible to choose not to be offended. One may not understand the implied insult, or one may choose not to react to it, but the offence, in the latter situation, will still have been perceived.

How can anyone choose not to be offended, for example, by a hurtful personal insult?

That's my point, many folk have thrown at me what they hope would be a hurtful personal insult. I haven't registered it as such and dismissed it as a oathetic example of their own character, not mine.

[Hibrandenburg]

What has how hard someone has worked got to do with whether they're disabled or not? My point is that using the word 'disabled' to describe Dean Shiels is drawing a line in the wrong place. Steven Hawkings is disabled imo. A joiner who works very hard and is missing a finger is not. When it comes to drawing some sort of line (as you must do, for the word to have any meaning whatsoever) Dean Shiels is on the same side of it as the joiner, not Steven Hawkings. Playing professional football with an eye missing is a very impressive achievement. Nana Mouskouri was a professional singer with one of her two vocal cords missing, but did she apply for a blue badge? (No.)

Sorry but that's absolute mince. Comparing a lost finger with an eye only highlights your ignorance of what people with visual, hearing and other sensory disabilities have to live with. I can only assume you're on the wind-up with that little ditty about Nana Mouskouri!

[Scouse Hibee]

Your last sentence is the key point. Choosing not to react is different from choosing not to be offended.

I'd argue that one is a voluntary action, the other is not.

In my experience reaction is instantaneous with many people.

[Geo_1875]

Of course not, to have a list would be somewhat bizarre surely? I have given you a genuine explanation as to why I feel you can choose to not be offended as I have done on many occasions. I absolutely get that folk can put what I have described into a different context and disagree with my opinion, tbat's fair enough and perfectly acceptable.

Of course I can still be offended if I choose to be and react accordingly.

This is what is confusing me. You recognise an offensive statement but choose to not be offended. So as you don't react as if you've been offended the statement loses it's offense and is perfectly acceptable comment?

[Hibrandenburg]

Perhaps if you've already chosen to live your life not being offended by stuff, you don't register people mouthing off as hurtful or insulting either?


Or perhaps you're constantly flabbergasted by the ignorance of some people treating you like **** because they are unable to understand the consequecies of your impairment or adapt to it because they have never stopped for a minute to think how that impairment effects your abilities.

[Scouse Hibee]

This is what is confusing me. You recognise an offensive statement but choose to not be offended. So as you don't react as if you've been offended the statement loses it's offense and is perfectly acceptable comment?

I recognise a statement that is intended to be offensive is the difference, I take no offence therefore to me it is not an offensive statement but the ramblings of a ******g idiot who I pity.

[RyeSloan]

I recognise a statement that is intended to be offensive is the difference, I take no offence therefore to me it is not an offensive statement but the ramblings of a ******g idiot who I pity.

I think we are staying into Schrödinger’s cat territory here...

Is an offensive statement only offensive if someone takes offence at it or can it be offensive even if the recipient is not offended [emoji854]

[Scouse Hibee]

I think we are staying into Schrödinger’s cat territory here...

Is an offensive statement only offensive if someone takes offence at it or can it be offensive even if the recipient is not offended [emoji854]

Who cares 😁 I'm happy with how I feel about it.

[lapsedhibee]

Sorry but that's absolute mince. Comparing a lost finger with an eye only highlights your ignorance of what people with visual, hearing and other sensory disabilities have to live with. I can only assume you're on the wind-up with that little ditty about Nana Mouskouri!

But I didn't compare the two, did I? I said that they were on the same side of a line.

Dean Shiels overcame a relevant physical impairment to become a footballer. I don't think he's disabled.
Nana Mouskouri overcame a relevant physical impairment to become a singer. I don't think she's disabled either.

Why do you believe I don't know anything about hearing impairment? :confused:

And by the way I'm not in the least bit offended that you choose to keep calling me ignorant because you disagree with me.

[lapsedhibee]

So losing an eye is not a disability? Try applying for a pilots licence with one eye. Yes Dean Shiels is living our dream but maybe his dream was something different.

My position is that Dean Shiels is not properly classed as disabled. Sorry, I'm not prepared to go to the lengths you suggest to see whether I could become a pilot.

I think the definition of disability can't just be about qualification for a small number of specialised jobs. If it was, being too fat to be a catwalk model would make you disabled.

David Blunkett is disabled (needs assistance to get around) imo. Gordon Brown has one eye - not disabled imo. And I don't think Theresa May's disabled either because she has diabetes. Not every permanent medical condition makes you disabled.

Plenty more of the country's resources could be used towards improving the lot of disabled people, before paying polis to chase after unfunny pranksters at the fitba. If you're going to chase fitba fans, chase the ones who throw pound coins, made of metal, at other people's heads, risking their sight.

[Scouse Hibee]

So losing an eye is not a disability? Try applying for a pilots licence with one eye. Yes Dean Shiels is living our dream but maybe his dream was something different.

I believe there are several commercial airline pilots currently blind in one eye.

[Gatecrasher]

I think a lot to do with it is the internet, before the internet you weren't as exposed to as many different types of people and you could talk believable rubbish and people would take it at face value. Now people have access to endless amounts of information on just about any subject and when people from opposing sides of the spectrum collide there are obviously going to be people who take offence to what other people say. Because of social media the reaction is way larger than in any previous time period.

One that sticks to my mind as I was watching Transfer deadline day on SSN and Jim White was going to get an update on someone signing for QPR, I was also checking twitter for updates at the time just to see what was going on else where. Jim accidently said Coons Park Rangers. It wasn't long before his name was trending on twitter people calling for his head. This to me what people choosing to be offended is as he was clearly not meaning to say that.

[Slavers]

A lot of the hype about this comes from people being offended on behalf of someone else.

The person with a disability may laugh at a joke made about them ala Ricky Chervais style but then you will have some virtue signalling snow flake who is up in arms about it when really it's none of their business.

[CropleyWasGod]

A lot of the hype about this comes from people being offended on behalf of someone else.

The person with a disability may laugh at a joke made about them ala Ricky Chervais style but then you will have some virtue signalling snow flake who is up in arms about it when really it's none of their business.

Does that offend you?

[Pretty Boy]

A lot of the hype about this comes from people being offended on behalf of someone else.

The person with a disability may laugh at a joke made about them ala Ricky Chervais style but then you will have some virtue signalling snow flake who is up in arms about it when really it's none of their business.

Does one person with a disability speak for all disabled people? It's just a nonsensical argument that because one individual doesn't find something offensive then it's not. The comedian in the clip above touched on that very point; offensiveness is subjective.

Choosong Gervais as an example is a wonderful irony as well given he poked fun at exactly the type of argument you have just used in The Office. David Brent tells a joke about a black mans cock, black guy walks over so he tries to weasel out of it, someone reports the joke and his excuse is 'well he didm't find it offensive'.

[Slavers]

Does that offend you?

No it does not.

Or what about the wee black kid who wore the coolest monkey in the jungle hoody for H&M advert.

The mother of the kid was fine with but people were smashing up stores because of it saying It was racist which clearly it was not.

Or the leftys smashing up the Winston Churchill Café in London because he said he was racist and find the idea of the café offensive.

Is that violence ok with you?

Where does it stop?

[CropleyWasGod]

No it does not.

Or what about the wee black kid who wore the coolest monkey in the jungle hoody for H&M advert.

The mother of the kid was fine with but people were smashing up stores because of it saying It was racist which clearly it was not.

Or the leftys smashing up the Winston Churchill Café in London because he said he was racist and find the idea of the café offensive.

Is that violence ok with you?

Where does it stop?I'm not sure why you're asking if that violence is okay with me.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Slavers]

I'm not sure why you're asking if that violence is okay with me.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I just wanted to know your opinion. These people are obviously very offended.

I think alot of this is simply trying to wrap the world in cotton wool. The world is not an ideal.

Rangers fans get called Huns and they find it offensive but I still call them Huns.

It should be my right to call Caitlyn Jenner a man but some trans activists would be offended by that. I don't see why they should be able to control my thoughts and words just because they are offensive.

[CropleyWasGod]

I just wanted to know your opinion. These people are obviously very offended.

I think alot of this is simply trying to wrap the world in cotton wool. The world is not an ideal.

Rangers fans get called Huns and they find it offensive but I still call them Huns.

It should be my right to call Caitlyn Jenner a man but some trans activists would be offended by that. I don't see why they should be able to control my thoughts and words just because they are offensive.

I have little truck with violence except in defence of myself or anyone close to me.

On the CJ thing, surely if she identifies as a woman, that's what matters. You might not acknowledge her right to transition, but surely you have to respect her choice of pronoun?



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Slavers]

I have little truck with violence except in defence of myself or anyone close to me.

On the CJ thing, surely if she identifies as a woman, that's what matters. You might not acknowledge her right to transition, but surely you have to respect her choice of pronoun?



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

The title of the thread is slightly misleading as really what is meant is the right not to be offended.

In regards to CJ yes and no. Caitlyn Jenner has a full manhood between her legs. If she wants to be a woman why not go the full way and get the sex change op?

Surely if you have fully functional balls and tally whacker then you are a man?

There are many cases where people go for the full sex change because they think they are a woman then realise that they have made a mistake becsuse thry still feel the same troubles in their mind even after the sex change.

There are people doing it for attention seeking purposes and if course there are genuinely troubled people.

I think Canada now has laws in place where you must refer to someone by their chosen pronouns or you can face charges. That imo is too far and is on the route to goverment tyranny.

Takes me back to the old satanic conspiracy with the Satanist trying to destroy God's creations (tongue in cheek).

[jonty]

I think we are staying into Schrödinger’s cat territory here...

Is an offensive statement only offensive if someone takes offence at it or can it be offensive even if the recipient is not offended [emoji854]

how about if the potential offendee (?) just thinks the potential offender is a dick and talking *****, thereby not giving the gob***** the gravitas it deserves. or not.:dizzy:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What seems pretty clear from this discussion is that itnis highly subjective, and therefore doesnt lend itself well to rules or laws. People have to exercise judgement.

[CropleyWasGod]

What seems pretty clear from this discussion is that itnis highly subjective, and therefore doesnt lend itself well to rules or laws. People have to exercise judgement.****

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

My position is that Dean Shiels is not properly classed as disabled. Sorry, I'm not prepared to go to the lengths you suggest to see whether I could become a pilot.

I think the definition of disability can't just be about qualification for a small number of specialised jobs. If it was, being too fat to be a catwalk model would make you disabled.

David Blunkett is disabled (needs assistance to get around) imo. Gordon Brown has one eye - not disabled imo. And I don't think Theresa May's disabled either because she has diabetes. Not every permanent medical condition makes you disabled.

Plenty more of the country's resources could be used towards improving the lot of disabled people, before paying polis to chase after unfunny pranksters at the fitba. If you're going to chase fitba fans, chase the ones who throw pound coins, made of metal, at other people's heads, risking their sight.

I think you need to revisit the definition of disabled, while you're at it flip forward a few pages to empathy.

[Hibbyradge]

The title of the thread is slightly misleading as really what is meant is the right not to be offended.

No, the thread title is exactly correct.

[lapsedhibee]

I think you need to revisit the definition of disabled,

Here's a dictionary definition:

disabled

adjective

adjective: disabled

(of a person) having a physical or mental condition that limits their movements, senses, or activities.

Which exactly of Dean Shiels's movements, senses or activities is limited by his having an eye missing? (As far as I know his vision is not limiting him at all.)


while you're at it flip forward a few pages to empathy.
Yes, yes, I know, you care more than other people. Well done. :clapper:

[RyeSloan]

Here's a dictionary definition:

disabled

adjective

adjective: disabled

(of a person) having a physical or mental condition that limits their movements, senses, or activities.

Which exactly of Dean Shiels's movements, senses or activities is limited by his having an eye missing? (As far as I know his vision is not limiting him at all.)


Yes, yes, I know, you care more than other people. Well done. :clapper:

I would suggest having one eye is a limitation of the senses.

It might be a limited limitation [emoji16] but their field of vision is physically reduced surely.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

Here's a dictionary definition:

disabled

adjective

adjective: disabled

(of a person) having a physical or mental condition that limits their movements, senses, or activities.

Which exactly of Dean Shiels's movements, senses or activities is limited by his having an eye missing? (As far as I know his vision is not limiting him at all.)


Yes, yes, I know, you care more than other people. Well done. :clapper:Eh?


Your quote has just shot down your own argument

Close one eye and tell me you can see exactly the same to the left and right without moving your head then maybe I've got it wrong...?


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

I would suggest having one eye is a limitation of the senses.

It might be a limited limitation [emoji16] but their field of vision is physically reduced surely.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not just their field of vision but their perception of distances, speed and depth are also impaired. Dean Shiels is a remarkable individual to have somehow overcome that disability. The fact that his brain can somehow compensate enough for him to become a professional footballer is nothing short of amazing.

[Hibrandenburg]

Here's a dictionary definition:

disabled

adjective

adjective: disabled

(of a person) having a physical or mental condition that limits their movements, senses, or activities.

Which exactly of Dean Shiels's movements, senses or activities is limited by his having an eye missing? (As far as I know his vision is not limiting him at all.)


Yes, yes, I know, you care more than other people. Well done. :clapper:

I obviously understand and care more than you seem to, that doesn't mean much though.

[Hibrandenburg]

Eh?


Your quote has just shot down your own argument

Close one eye and tell me you can see exactly the same to the left and right without moving your head then maybe I've got it wrong...?


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


I'd like to say he's on the wind-up but unfortunately I've met too many who really think this way.

[Slavers]

No, the thread title is exactly correct.

Then it doesn't make any sense. How can someone have the right to offend and who is asking for that right? Do you have examples?

As said before not everyone is offended by the same things or use of words. There is no such thing as the right to offend and no one is asking for the right to offend.

What we do have is minority groups wanting to close down freedom of speech and freedom of thought so that they don't get offended.

They want to have the right not to be offended.

[Just Alf]

I'd like to say he's on the wind-up but unfortunately I've met too many who really think this way.I'll wait to see the reply.. But I am'nt holding out out much hope as I can't see how that can be positioned into a 'normal' response???

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

Then it doesn't make any sense. How can someone have the right to offend and who is asking for that right? Do you have examples?

As said before not everyone is offended by the same things or use of words. There is no such thing as the right to offend and no one is asking for the right to offend.



I'm sorry that there are no 666 references, but I'll drip feed you the information anyway.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7104960

https://medium.com/berkman-klein-center/the-right-to-offend-shock-or-disturb-or-the-importance-of-protecting-unpleasant-speech-c57bc0672a30

[McD]

I just wanted to know your opinion. These people are obviously very offended.

I think alot of this is simply trying to wrap the world in cotton wool. The world is not an ideal.

Rangers fans get called Huns and they find it offensive but I still call them Huns.

It should be my right to call Caitlyn Jenner a man but some trans activists would be offended by that. I don't see why they should be able to control my thoughts and words just because they are offensive.


The title of the thread is slightly misleading as really what is meant is the right not to be offended.

In regards to CJ yes and no. Caitlyn Jenner has a full manhood between her legs. If she wants to be a woman why not go the full way and get the sex change op?

Surely if you have fully functional balls and tally whacker then you are a man?

There are many cases where people go for the full sex change because they think they are a woman then realise that they have made a mistake becsuse thry still feel the same troubles in their mind even after the sex change.

There are people doing it for attention seeking purposes and if course there are genuinely troubled people.

I think Canada now has laws in place where you must refer to someone by their chosen pronouns or you can face charges. That imo is too far and is on the route to goverment tyranny.

Takes me back to the old satanic conspiracy with the Satanist trying to destroy God's creations (tongue in cheek).


Then it doesn't make any sense. How can someone have the right to offend and who is asking for that right? Do you have examples?

As said before not everyone is offended by the same things or use of words. There is no such thing as the right to offend and no one is asking for the right to offend.

What we do have is minority groups wanting to close down freedom of speech and freedom of thought so that they don't get offended.

They want to have the right not to be offended.


you yourself have provided an example of someone asking for the right to offend. You have clearly stated “it should be your right” to call Caitlin Jenner a man, which is highly likely to offend her. What difference does it make to you what she wants to be referred to as, or which gender she identifies with?


also, as to your comment re. genitalia, Jenner completed her reconstructive surgery over a year ago, so based on what you have said, you’ll be happy referring to her as a woman?

[lapsedhibee]

I would suggest having one eye is a limitation of the senses.

It might be a limited limitation [emoji16] but their field of vision is physically reduced surely.


Of course it's best to have two eyes, each with 20/20 vision. In the same way it's best to have perfect hearing in both ears. Would you want to say that someone with perfect hearing in one ear and a hearing aid in the other is disabled? Is someone with partial anosmia disabled?


Your quote has just shot down your own argument
I was only quoting a dictionary to show Hibrandenburg I'm not too ignorant to use a computer. The actual definition is pretty rubbish imo as it doesn't include non-sensational limitations like agoraphobia, which I personally would want to include in any definition of disabled.



Close one eye and tell me you can see exactly the same to the left and right without moving your head then maybe I've got it wrong...?


Of course I can't. (Dean Shiels can move his head though, and so can I, and I don't know why either of us would want to go about the world without moving our heads. Everyone who wears spectacles with varifocal lenses has to move their head all the time to accommodate the varying focal lengths. Are they all disabled?)

Obviously Dean Shiels doesn't have stereoscopic vision. I don't know him to ask the question, but if he has 20/20 vision in his remaining eye then his overall vision will be more acute than that of many people who even the most empathetic on the board would not consider disabled.

In the same way, a person with only one perfect ear cannot have perfect stereophonic hearing. Is everyone who doesn't have perfect stereophonic hearing disabled?

The point imo is about where to draw a line between people who are disabled to the point of needing assistance, protection by law, police intervention if they're shouted at, etc. My argument is only that Dean Shiels doesn't really need any of these things any more than someone with two eyes.

Dean Shiels has imo done spectacularly well to continue as a pro sportsman after his eye was removed. Neither Gordon Banks nor Colin Milburn managed that.

Primary school teachers should encourage their pupils not to call wearers of spectacles "four eyes". That should be done as part of their general education not to be rude. But as for adults ending up in court for dissing Dean Shiels, na, not for me. That would be like getting the law to intervene on Steve Fulton's behalf. But this is apparently trolling/wumming, so I'll leave it there.

No offence intended.

[Mibbes Aye]

Disability isn’t a consequence of an impairment, it’s the consequence of how the society around you responds to that impairment.

[Slavers]

you yourself have provided an example of someone asking for the right to offend. You have clearly stated “it should be your right” to call Caitlin Jenner a man, which is highly likely to offend her. What difference does it make to you what she wants to be referred to as, or which gender she identifies with?


also, as to your comment re. genitalia, Jenner completed her reconstructive surgery over a year ago, so based on what you have said, you’ll be happy referring to her as a woman?

No my example is asking for the right to tell the truth and it's often the truth that offends.

If Caitlyn Jenner still had full male genitalia between her legs and only wanted to be called a woman because she felt lile it then surely I should have the right to tell the truth and call her a man?

But as you have said she has had the baws chopped off for the want of a better phrase. Maybe CJ is not the best example for my point.

Like for example a man who just wants to be called a woman cos he like it and loves the feeling of lady's tights on his legs and likes wearing make up etc but his human biology is all male, should people be forced by law to call him a woman? So that he does not get offended?

[Slavers]

I'm sorry that there are no 666 references, but I'll drip feed you the information anyway.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7104960

https://medium.com/berkman-klein-center/the-right-to-offend-shock-or-disturb-or-the-importance-of-protecting-unpleasant-speech-c57bc0672a30

The huff post is very biased and not worth reading it is funded by George Soros.

Speaking of Satanists oh there is 666 connection to the trans movement, you do know that the Baphomet is half male and half female? Just a coincidence?

[Hibbyradge]

The huff post is very biased and not worth reading it is funded by George Soros.

Speaking of Satanists oh there is 666 connection to the trans movement, you do know that the Baphomet is half male and half female? Just a coincidence?

Troll.

[Slavers]

Troll.

I'm offended by that.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm offended by that.

The truth can often hurt.

[Slavers]

The truth can often hurt.

So you get my point Then? It's not a right to be offensive that is saught but it's a right to tell the truth no matter if it causes offence.

What is being asked for especially by the left is a right not to be offended

[Hibbyradge]

So you get my point Then? It's not a right to be offensive but it's a right to tell the truth no matter if it causes offence.

Stop being deliberately obtuse. Please.

[Pretty Boy]

:faf: The Baphomet.

[hibsbollah]

:faf: The Baphomet.

I think it's something to do with slippers.

[Speedy]

No my example is asking for the right to tell the truth and it's often the truth that offends.

If Caitlyn Jenner still had full male genitalia between her legs and only wanted to be called a woman because she felt lile it then surely I should have the right to tell the truth and call her a man?

But as you have said she has had the baws chopped off for the want of a better phrase. Maybe CJ is not the best example for my point.

Like for example a man who just wants to be called a woman cos he like it and loves the feeling of lady's tights on his legs and likes wearing make up etc but his human biology is all male, should people be forced by law to call him a woman? So that he does not get offended?

Who's version of the truth are we to believe?

One persons truth may not match another.

[jonty]

Danny Murphy - clearly a joke - offensive?

http://www.givemesport.com/1232848-football-fans-want-bbc-to-sack-danny-murphy-for-what-he-said-after-merseyside-derby

The guy on crutches didn't appear to think so - so should others?

[RyeSloan]

Danny Murphy - clearly a joke - offensive?

http://www.givemesport.com/1232848-football-fans-want-bbc-to-sack-danny-murphy-for-what-he-said-after-merseyside-derby

The guy on crutches didn't appear to think so - so should others?

Not sure if I’m missing the point but was his comment not actually accurate?

[danhibees1875]

Not sure if I’m missing the point but was his comment not actually accurate?

How could he possibly know if the person was on benefits?

Edit: only just got to the bottom. So he's not on benefits then.

[Just Alf]

That is the exact thing that drives folk nuts about this stuff... And weakens their arguments... It even says in the report that many would have missed the "joke" so those now moaning are doing it (mostly) second hand??



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

That is the exact thing that drives folk nuts about this stuff... And weakens their arguments... It even says in the report that many would have missed the "joke" so those now moaning are doing it (mostly) second hand??



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

It was clearly a joke.

Folk regularly get caught claiming disability benefits because they get spotted in the paper, on TV etc.

It was a joke about that happening, not about the individual or his "disability".

Would there have been any complaints if Murphy had joked that the guy was going to lose his work's sick pay rather than his benefits? Probably not.

[beensaidbefore]

Discussing this thread today and colleague asked where do people who are religious fall I to this as religious beliefs are often fair game. Don't think it has bee mentioned on this thread, but are strict followers of religion fair game?

[RyeSloan]

Discussing this thread today and colleague asked where do people who are religious fall I to this as religious beliefs are often fair game. Don't think it has bee mentioned on this thread, but are strict followers of religion fair game?

Oh sheesh...this thread was inconclusive enough without brining religion and religious beliefs into it [emoji23]

[beensaidbefore]

Oh sheesh...this thread was inconclusive enough without brining religion and religious beliefs into it [emoji23]

I couldn't find the wooden spoon emoji😂

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Discussing this thread today and colleague asked where do people who are religious fall I to this as religious beliefs are often fair game. Don't think it has bee mentioned on this thread, but are strict followers of religion fair game?

Depends on the religion, and who is doing the slagging. Christianity is fair game, others not to much.

[Hibrandenburg]

Depends on the religion, and who is doing the slagging. Christianity is fair game, others not to much.

Utter rubbish. Christianity will be ridiculed by some in those countries where it's predominant, other religions likewise unless the punishment for doing so is extreme. And before you get on your high horse about Christianity being tolerant, it's only recently so in this country that that's the case and in other countries less so.

[Hibbyradge]

If you're threatened with death for not believing in a religion, can it really be called a faith?

This is for another thread, isn't it.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Utter rubbish. Christianity will be ridiculed by some in those countries where it's predominant, other religions likewise unless the punishment for doing so is extreme. And before you get on your high horse about Christianity being tolerant, it's only recently so in this country that that's the case and in other countries less so.

Im talking about this country- surely that is understood in the context of this thread? Nobody has been talking about the right to offend in the culture of sub-saharan Africa habe they? Maybe a huge whoosh moment from me...

And by recently, i would say on an increasing level sinve the Enlightenment in the 18th/19th century. Which, im sure you will agree is far better than other major religions?

And actually, watching Rome Unpacked the other week, and the art historian guy was showing a picture in a church that Caravaggio had painted in renaissance times that was mocking of christianity, allbeit subversively so - and granted, he could probably have still been tried for blasphemy or heresy. Unfortunately that is still the case in some religions...

I give you the jesus sausage roll example drom this christmas. Compare that to the reaction of the islamic world when Danish cartoons were published, or of course Charlie Hebdo. Or going further back, salman rushdie. Or local authorities in Yorkshire.

I dont know if there is a culture in the middle east that sstirises their religion as the predominant one. Maybe there is an avant garde comedy group making The Life of Mohammed? I genuinely dont know, ive never been to that part of the world?

[Hibrandenburg]

Im talking about this country- surely that is understood in the context of this thread? Nobody has been talking about the right to offend in the culture of sub-saharan Africa habe they? Maybe a huge whoosh moment from me...

And by recently, i would say on an increasing level sinve the Enlightenment in the 18th/19th century. Which, im sure you will agree is far better than other major religions?

And actually, watching Rome Unpacked the other week, and the art historian guy was showing a picture in a church that Caravaggio had painted in renaissance times that was mocking of christianity, allbeit subversively so - and granted, he could probably have still been tried for blasphemy or heresy. Unfortunately that is still the case in some religions...

I give you the jesus sausage roll example drom this christmas. Compare that to the reaction of the islamic world when Danish cartoons were published, or of course Charlie Hebdo. Or going further back, salman rushdie. Or local authorities in Yorkshire.

I dont know if there is a culture in the middle east that sstirises their religion as the predominant one. Maybe there is an avant garde comedy group making The Life of Mohammed? I genuinely dont know, ive never been to that part of the world?

But you can't just restrict views on Christianity to this country or one particular Christian sect. If you're going to talk about Christianity then you have to look at the whole picture and that includes the whole of the religion and the picture isn't pretty. You might believe that Christianity is above any kind of criticism or bearing the brunt of jokes and that's where the crux of the problem lies, the religion and it's followers are very quick at crying about being offended by people not showing understanding and respect towards their religion whilst their religion and leaders are constantly criticising and wanting to interfere in the life's of other groups and personal choice or equality. How outraged would the church be if people who believe abortion or contraception would band together and call for the outlawing of their faith or their right to practise their faith? How outraged would they be if the gay community decided not to provide services to Christians because of their beliefs? How long would it take for the church to organise protests screaming discrimination if non believers got together and formed political parties promoting atheist values and preaching anti christian values and demanding the removal of the special privileges the church enjoys in our society and demanding their own? The hypocrisy of the church is galling at times and mostly deserving of the mockery it occasionally receives.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

But you can't just restrict views on Christianity to this country or one particular Christian sect. If you're going to talk about Christianity then you have to look at the whole picture and that includes the whole of the religion and the picture isn't pretty. You might believe that Christianity is above any kind of criticism or bearing the brunt of jokes and that's where the crux of the problem lies, the religion and it's followers are very quick at crying about being offended by people not showing understanding and respect towards their religion whilst their religion and leaders are constantly criticising and wanting to interfere in the life's of other groups and personal choice or equality. How outraged would the church be if people who believe abortion or contraception would band together and call for the outlawing of their faith or their right to practise their faith? How outraged would they be if the gay community decided not to provide services to Christians because of their beliefs? How long would it take for the church to organise protests screaming discrimination if non believers got together and formed political parties promoting atheist values and preaching anti christian values and demanding the removal of the special privileges the church enjoys in our society and demanding their own? The hypocrisy of the church is galling at times and mostly deserving of the mockery it occasionally receives.

Im not really sure what point you are making? I absolutely agree that the church is not above criticism, thats really my point.

But make the same satirical or critical comments of other religions, and you will find them a lot more easily offended, imo. And the reactions tend to be a lot worse too.

Thats the whole point, its ok to offend christianity (rightly so) but its deemed less ok to offend islam (not ok imo). Judaism is slightly different as jews are also a race, which xomplicates things on the offence chart!

[beensaidbefore]

But you can't just restrict views on Christianity to this country or one particular Christian sect. If you're going to talk about Christianity then you have to look at the whole picture and that includes the whole of the religion and the picture isn't pretty. You might believe that Christianity is above any kind of criticism or bearing the brunt of jokes and that's where the crux of the problem lies, the religion and it's followers are very quick at crying about being offended by people not showing understanding and respect towards their religion whilst their religion and leaders are constantly criticising and wanting to interfere in the life's of other groups and personal choice or equality. How outraged would the church be if people who believe abortion or contraception would band together and call for the outlawing of their faith or their right to practise their faith? How outraged would they be if the gay community decided not to provide services to Christians because of their beliefs? How long would it take for the church to organise protests screaming discrimination if non believers got together and formed political parties promoting atheist values and preaching anti christian values and demanding the removal of the special privileges the church enjoys in our society and demanding their own? The hypocrisy of the church is galling at times and mostly deserving of the mockery it occasionally receives.

Forgive me but this is the reason the above question was asked. There are already huge swathes of society doing just this, which led me to ask, does that make them fair game. Reading your post I will take that as a yes. :greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Forgive me but this is the reason the above question was asked. There are already huge swathes of society doing just this, which led me to ask, does that make them fair game. Reading your post I will take that as a yes. :greengrin

One might call them 'political parties'... I believe there is some discussion about them on these boards from time to time... 😀

[Hibrandenburg]

Forgive me but this is the reason the above question was asked. There are already huge swathes of society doing just this, which led me to ask, does that make them fair game. Reading your post I will take that as a yes. :greengrin

Can't agree with that, what mainstream UK political party promotes atheist values and openly attacks the Christian church with the aim of restricting Christian's rights? You might find elements of the first in all mainstream parties but I'd be surprised if you can show me the latter.

[Hibrandenburg]

One might call them 'political parties'... I believe there is some discussion about them on these boards from time to time... 😀

Name a major party that is anti Christian? We still have press stories about politicians "COMING OUT" as atheists. I think that tells us everything we need to know about religion in politics. :greengrin

[beensaidbefore]

Can't agree with that, what mainstream UK political party promotes atheist values and openly attacks the Christian church with the aim of restricting Christian's rights? You might find elements of the first in all mainstream parties but I'd be surprised if you can show me the latter.

I didn't mean single party, but in the media and by certain vocal party members. If I could refer to the recent tim farron debate as an example of where political parties are really quite vocal about individual members private and personal views, including religion. I have mentioned this before, but I have not heard Muslim or Jewish mps expected to resign because if the teachings of their chosen holy book. I may be wrong.

[nairn hibee]

The secular society ,although not a political party ,their main aim is to stick the boot into Christianity,haven't heard of them doing it to another religion.

[Hibbyradge]

The secular society ,although not a political party ,their main aim is to stick the boot into Christianity,haven't heard of them doing it to another religion.

Eh?

The UK is a "Christian country".

Who else would secularists compete with?

[nairn hibee]

Not any more it isn't

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Name a major party that is anti Christian? We still have press stories about politicians "COMING OUT" as atheists. I think that tells us everything we need to know about religion in politics. :greengrin

I dont know about anti- religion - we tend not to habe parties that are anti anything. They tend to be more pro-something.

But id say labour and the lib dems hold many values that would be counter to traditional church values, as would the toriss on some things.

I dont remember any stories about politicians in this country coming out as atheist?

In fact the opposite is true of Blair, Tim Farron arguably lost his leadership due to the lampooning of his christian values, and new labour, probably the political party most in tune with the majority of Britain of any in my lifetime, famously 'didnt do god'.

And i doubt corbyn and his fellow socialists have much time for the opium of the masses.

Gay marriage, easing divorce laws, ending discrimination against gays, and many other things have all happened recently, against church wishes and lobbying.

[Just Alf]

I think the discussion has been narrowed down too much... I felt the discussion was wider and more about "society"

I can't help but think I get the impression over recent years that in the UK at least, I've seen more "jokes" etc pointed towards Christianity than I've ever seen towards Muslims. It's gone all a bit "politically correct"

A quick example that comes to mind, was the bakers that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding because they were Christian and its against their beliefs... Taken to court and lost, same with the B&B folks. We just don't see the same across all religions... At least as reported in the press.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I dont know about anti- religion - we tend not to habe parties that are anti anything. They tend to be more pro-something.

But id say labour and the lib dems hold many values that would be counter to traditional church values, as would the toriss on some things.

I dont remember any stories about politicians in this country coming out as atheist?

In fact the opposite is true of Blair, Tim Farron arguably lost his leadership due to the lampooning of his christian values, and new labour, probably the political party most in tune with the majority of Britain of any in my lifetime, famously 'didnt do god'.

And i doubt corbyn and his fellow socialists have much time for the opium of the masses.

Gay marriage, easing divorce laws, ending discrimination against gays, and many other things have all happened recently, against church wishes and lobbying.

I think that was a Campbell quote which ignored the fact that Gordon Brown, a son of the manse, had control over domestic policy throughout Blair's premiership. Brown's philosophies, whether one agrees with them or not, were firmly rooted in a concept of social justice that was informed by his upbringing and the New Testament.

Religion is a funny thing and Christianity especially so. When it's been at its worst it has been employed by men as a means of exercising power, either to maintain and gain further power or to advance their own prejudices. At its best it can offer a philosophy for how one engages with the world in a compassionate and humane manner.

The tradition of Christian Socialism is a rich one, in Britain particularly around in the decades around when the Labour Party was founded. That shouldn't be a surprise because the New Testament writings, especially the Sermon on the Mount fit very comfortably with the ideas and thinking that informed the Labour movement's development.

For me, the real symmetry lies in liberation theology, a movement/philosophy that developed in the Catholic Church in South America, in the second half of the twentieth century. It aligned Christian teachings and values with a focus on the liberation of the poor and oppressed - that made a powerful cocktail. Unfortunately it also posed a challenge in terms of hierarchies and power relations and I think there were definitely elements within the Church who were resistant to the concept - Benedict XVI, who previously to becoming pope had been in charge of doctrinal matters was a staunch opponent.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I think that was a Campbell quote which ignored the fact that Gordon Brown, a son of the manse, had control over domestic policy throughout Blair's premiership. Brown's philosophies, whether one agrees with them or not, were firmly rooted in a concept of social justice that was informed by his upbringing and the New Testament.

Religion is a funny thing and Christianity especially so. When it's been at its worst it has been employed by men as a means of exercising power, either to maintain and gain further power or to advance their own prejudices. At its best it can offer a philosophy for how one engages with the world in a compassionate and humane manner.

The tradition of Christian Socialism is a rich one, in Britain particularly around in the decades around when the Labour Party was founded. That shouldn't be a surprise because the New Testament writings, especially the Sermon on the Mount fit very comfortably with the ideas and thinking that informed the Labour movement's development.

For me, the real symmetry lies in liberation theology, a movement/philosophy that developed in the Catholic Church in South America, in the second half of the twentieth century. It aligned Christian teachings and values with a focus on the liberation of the poor and oppressed - that made a powerful cocktail. Unfortunately it also posed a challenge in terms of hierarchies and power relations and I think there were definitely elements within the Church who were resistant to the concept - Benedict XVI, who previously to becoming pope had been in charge of doctrinal matters was a staunch opponent.

Fair points about Brown.

But the Campbell quite is inportant because it illustrates that religion is seen as an electoral liability in the UK, and that it should be kept away from politics.

I do take your point about the influence of Christian 'values' though. Its one of the enduring strengths of religion, is that its 'values' are essentially pretty hard to argue with - basically we are for good things and against bad things. Exceptwhen it comes to sex, when they seem to take an unholy interest in what other people choose to get up to.

But apologies, this is getting way off topic.

In summary, offending christians is acceptable in the UK, offendig muslims less so. Rightly, or wrongly.

[portyhibernian]

Say you're talking to a room of 1000 people. You don't have the right to say anything that hurts the feelings of just one of those people. The problem is that no matter what you say, at least one person will take offence to something, even if that is a consequence of them misinterpreting you. To that end, is the absence of the 'right to offend' the absence of the right to speak at all?

[Hibbyradge]

Say you're talking to a room of 1000 people. You don't have the right to say anything that hurts the feelings of just one of those people. The problem is that no matter what you say, at least one person will take offence to something, even if that is a consequence of them misinterpreting you. To that end, is the absence of the 'right to offend' the absence of the right to speak at all?

Lots of people speak to large groups without offending anybody.

In any case, the issue is about the right to deliberately offend, not inadvertently.

[portyhibernian]

Lots of people speak to large groups without offending anybody.

In any case, the issue is about the right to deliberately offend, not inadvertently.

Ok, then who decides whether it's deliberate or not, the offender or the offendee?

[Pretty Boy]

Ok, then who decides whether it's deliberate or not, the offender or the offendee?

I think if someone is asking for the ‘right to offend’ the answer is obvious.

Inadvertently causing offence is something most of us will encounter in our life. There’s a difference between that and people demanding the right to be intentionally provocative without challenge.

[Hibbyradge]

Ok, then who decides whether it's deliberate or not, the offender or the offendee?

Do you think Katie Hopkins accidentally caused offence?

Going back to your point about speaking to a large group of people, what makes you think that someone will always be offended by something said?

Personally, I can't ever imagine saying anything offensive, even accidentally, whether it was to 1 person or a thousand.

Sure, I can say things that people might not agree with, and my views may infuriate or anger, but I wouldn't be offensive.