Policing Language, PC censoring, and the "right" to not be offended?

A recent thread exchange on the topic of transsexuals in the military deviated into a political-social dispute over “being offended”. The points raised touched on language policing, and the recent PC admonitions against "offending" others. I think it worth discussing APART from the original subject.

The posters made a number of points suggestive of “a right to not be offended”. One poster’s points were:

- "It's intentionally disrespectful and painfully obvious when you refer toany person with a pronoun that that person has asked you not to usewhen you refer to her or him”

- "Peterson thinks that his right to call a person what he wants is moreimportant than a person's right to be called what she wants.”

- “I'm not offended on Manning's behalf specifically. I'm offended for myself and by extension, for the entire trans community.Minorities get abused this way by people who devalue their minority identity all the time”

Another poster made this point:

- "Yes, I and others have the freedom of speech to call them fake Christians but it still doesn't make it any less assholish to do so don't yathink? Same thing with transgendered people. Yes, you (general you not you personally) can call them by their biological gender instead of what they want you to call them, but all you're doing is being an asshole to them"

I have little interest in making this a narrow discussion about transexuals and Manning ; rather, I am soliciting others thoughts on the broader “principles” expoused above. Among the questions:

1)Is there a right to not be offended? Where does that right come from?

2)Is it logical to be offended on behalf of an individual you don't know?

3)Does a person have a right to be called what they want?

4)Is it wrong to “devalue” a minority identity but okay to devalue“majority” identities?

5) Should people be "corrected" in polite conversation (e.g. when someone uses the word "girls" rather than women?)

I await some thoughtful contributions...

maxparrish said:

A recent thread exchange on the topic of transsexuals in the military deviated into a political-social dispute over “being offended”. The points raised touched on language policing, and the recent PC admonitions against "offending" others. I think it worth discussing APART from the original subject.

The posters made a number of points suggestive of “a right to not be offended”. One poster’s points were:

- "It's intentionally disrespectful and painfully obvious when you refer toany person with a pronoun that that person has asked you not to usewhen you refer to her or him”

- "Peterson thinks that his right to call a person what he wants is moreimportant than a person's right to be called what she wants.”

- “I'm not offended on Manning's behalf specifically. I'm offended for myself and by extension, for the entire trans community.Minorities get abused this way by people who devalue their minority identity all the time”

Another poster made this point:

- "Yes, I and others have the freedom of speech to call them fake Christians but it still doesn't make it any less assholish to do so don't yathink? Same thing with transgendered people. Yes, you (general you not you personally) can call them by their biological gender instead of what they want you to call them, but all you're doing is being an asshole to them"

I have little interest in making this a narrow discussion about transexuals and Manning ; rather, I am soliciting others thoughts on the broader “principles” expoused above. Among the questions:

1)Is there a right to not be offended? Where does that right come from?

2)Is it logical to be offended on behalf of an individual you don't know?

3)Does a person have a right to be called what they want?

4)Is it wrong to “devalue” a minority identity but okay to devalue“majority” identities?

5) Should people be "corrected" in polite conversation (e.g. when someone uses the word "girls" rather than women?)

I await some thoughtful contributions...

Click to expand...

There is no such right to "not be offended". Period.

Reason 1: If there were such a "right" then there would be no such thing as a Right to Free Speech. Having Free Speech necessitates that there will be those that will be offended.

Reason 2: You will always offend SOMEONE somewhere. Doesn't matter what you say or how nice you say something. There will ALWAYS be someone that gets offended. Attempting to enforce such a concept as "right to not be offended" would create chaos.

Reason 3: Whether or not something is offensive is highly subjective. Subjectiveness should ALWAYS be avoided when at all possible when making laws. Which is why our courts often rule against laws that are too broad in scope.

maxparrish said:

A recent thread exchange on the topic of transsexuals in the military deviated into a political-social dispute over “being offended”. The points raised touched on language policing, and the recent PC admonitions against "offending" others. I think it worth discussing APART from the original subject.

The posters made a number of points suggestive of “a right to not be offended”. One poster’s points were:

- "It's intentionally disrespectful and painfully obvious when you refer toany person with a pronoun that that person has asked you not to usewhen you refer to her or him”

- "Peterson thinks that his right to call a person what he wants is moreimportant than a person's right to be called what she wants.”

- “I'm not offended on Manning's behalf specifically. I'm offended for myself and by extension, for the entire trans community.Minorities get abused this way by people who devalue their minority identity all the time”

Another poster made this point:

- "Yes, I and others have the freedom of speech to call them fake Christians but it still doesn't make it any less assholish to do so don't yathink? Same thing with transgendered people. Yes, you (general you not you personally) can call them by their biological gender instead of what they want you to call them, but all you're doing is being an asshole to them"

I have little interest in making this a narrow discussion about transexuals and Manning ; rather, I am soliciting others thoughts on the broader “principles” expoused above. Among the questions:

1)Is there a right to not be offended? Where does that right come from?

2)Is it logical to be offended on behalf of an individual you don't know?

3)Does a person have a right to be called what they want?

4)Is it wrong to “devalue” a minority identity but okay to devalue“majority” identities?

5) Should people be "corrected" in polite conversation (e.g. when someone uses the word "girls" rather than women?)

I await some thoughtful contributions...

Click to expand...

I dont know if you are stating things correctly or in the exact context, it seems you are embellishing quite a bit but i will answer in a general sense.

1.) no
2.) of course
3.) that depends on the situation and I wouldnt call it a right but if your boss/or medical personnel etc refers to you as stupid ****, n-word, fatty, bitch etc that IS an issue
4.) youll have to be more specific.
My answer is its wrong to devalue people for sake of devaluing them and ignorance but something tells me that what you think you are asking is completely different than what you wrote so ill need an example of what you think you mean.
5.) In general to each their own and see no need for that in your specific example but would see a need for it in others

I think the right not to be offended might be a moral right rather than a protected political speech right.

"Do unto others as you would had done unto you."

It's a simple matter of showing respect for others if you want respect in return...but there is no law that can guarantee that you will if you do.

3) Do I have the right to compel your speech?

Moot said:

I think the right not to be offended might be a moral right rather than a protected political speech right.

"Do unto others as you would had done unto you."

It's a simple matter of showing respect for others if you want respect in return...but there is no law that can guarantee that you will if you do.

Click to expand...

Do you think showing respect for one's opinion should count as
"Do unto others as you would had done unto you" ? I respectfully reserve the right to call a male a male, regardless of outward appearance, if I know the person to be male. I can be respectful to him as a person, regardless.
Respectfully, my God's opinion is what I treasure.

maxparrish said:

A recent thread exchange on the topic of transsexuals in the military deviated into a political-social dispute over “being offended”. The points raised touched on language policing, and the recent PC admonitions against "offending" others. I think it worth discussing APART from the original subject.

Click to expand...

I'm not even going to bother with the thread, not out of disrespect but only because I don't think I can offer anything better than this:

"Political correctness is the elevation of sensitivity over truth."
Some of you might know who said this originally.
Regardless of your opinion of the guy, it's a brilliant statement.

The only place I draw the line is speech which advocates genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the like...that is, speech which comes from groups which are known for a historical body count of dead innocents and who promote the activities which led to said body count.
To me, that's not speech, it's marching orders for a genocidal army.
Being offended isn't the appropriate reaction to that, taking action is.

To those who speak offensively, yes...it is your right, but with that right often times comes consequences.
Screw being offended, you may very well get your ass kicked, you might lose your job, you may be asked to leave a premises, you might anger large groups of people, your conduct may be judged harshly, thus speech often times is not free, you may be forced to pay for every word.

But being offended? Tough beans, don't listen, or figure out a means to speak in opposition that you might destroy the value of the offending speaker's points.

I give you Karl Popper, father of "the paradox of tolerance".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

But you'll note that Popper has nothing to say about "being offended", he merely points out that it is foolhardy to tolerate too much intolerance, or to tolerate those who are too intolerant. Popper argues from a self-preservation point of view, not from a view of policing that which is offensive.

Lovebug said:

Do you think showing respect for one's opinion should count as "Do unto others as you would had done unto you" ?

Click to expand...

Sure, why not?

I respectfully reserve the right to call a male a male, regardless of outward appearance, if I know the person to be male. I can be respectful to him as a person, regardless.
Respectfully, my God's opinion is what I treasure.

Click to expand...

If Bobby respectfully asks to be referred to as [fill in blank]...and Joe refuses to respect Bobby's request...then Joe is showing his disrespect for Bobby. So if Joe wants Bobby's respect, then he should respect Bobby's request.

maxparrish said:

A recent thread exchange on the topic of transsexuals in the military deviated into a political-social dispute over “being offended”. The points raised touched on language policing, and the recent PC admonitions against "offending" others. I think it worth discussing APART from the original subject.

The posters made a number of points suggestive of “a right to not be offended”. One poster’s points were:

- "It's intentionally disrespectful and painfully obvious when you refer toany person with a pronoun that that person has asked you not to usewhen you refer to her or him”

- "Peterson thinks that his right to call a person what he wants is moreimportant than a person's right to be called what she wants.”

- “I'm not offended on Manning's behalf specifically. I'm offended for myself and by extension, for the entire trans community.Minorities get abused this way by people who devalue their minority identity all the time”

Another poster made this point:

- "Yes, I and others have the freedom of speech to call them fake Christians but it still doesn't make it any less assholish to do so don't yathink? Same thing with transgendered people. Yes, you (general you not you personally) can call them by their biological gender instead of what they want you to call them, but all you're doing is being an asshole to them"

I have little interest in making this a narrow discussion about transexuals and Manning ; rather, I am soliciting others thoughts on the broader “principles” expoused above. Among the questions:

1)Is there a right to not be offended? Where does that right come from?

2)Is it logical to be offended on behalf of an individual you don't know?

3)Does a person have a right to be called what they want?

4)Is it wrong to “devalue” a minority identity but okay to devalue“majority” identities?

5) Should people be "corrected" in polite conversation (e.g. when someone uses the word "girls" rather than women?)

I await some thoughtful contributions...

Click to expand...

1. No
2. No, but human nature and empathy is what it is.
3. a 'right'? No
4. No
5. 'should', no. Could, yes.

It all boils down to common courtesy. If someone asks you to refer to them as ABC, then unless you're being a douchebag or dislike the person, you should probably do it. It's respecting someone else, the way you would want to be respected. If you are having a problem respecting someone's wishes for something like that, you probably shouldn't be associating with that person in the first place.

holbritter said:

1. No
2. No, but human nature and empathy is what it is.
3. a 'right'? No
4. No
5. 'should', no. Could, yes.

It all boils down to common courtesy. If someone asks you to refer to them as ABC, then unless you're being a douchebag or dislike the person, you should probably do it. It's respecting someone else, the way you would want to be respected. If you are having a problem respecting someone's wishes for something like that, you probably shouldn't be associating with that person in the first place.

Click to expand...

Pretty much the above.

I don't go out of my way to offend anyone, but I wont censor my speech or beliefs either.....that being said, I acknowledge and accept the fact that others may say things I don't personally care for...part of being an adult and accepting responsibility for your words and actions.

Such is life.....I cant please everyone, and I surely will not make the attempt.

maxparrish said:

1)Is there a right to not be offended? Where does that right come from?

Click to expand...

Not a right as such but that doesn’t mean it should be generally acceptable (and certainly not celebrated!) when people go out of their way to offend others.

maxparrish said:

2)Is it logical to be offended on behalf of an individual you don't know?

Click to expand...

It can be, especially if they’re being targeted on the basis of a characteristic you share with them or in a similar way to how you have been in the past. It’s also perfectly normal to feel compassion for someone who feels this way, even if you don’t agree their reasoning. I think a failure of compassion is a major element of this issue.

maxparrish said:

3)Does a person have a right to be called what they want?

Click to expand...

Again, not a right as such but it’s not an unreasonable request in general and there’s certainly no justification for people to go out of their way to contradict it. If Johnathon doesn’t like being called Jonny, what would you think of someone who constantly referred to him as Jonny anyway?

maxparrish said:

4)Is it wrong to “devalue” a minority identity but okay to devalue“majority” identities?

Click to expand...

I’m not sure what you mean by “devalue identities” or how it is happening here. In general, whether something is (or is perceived as) “minority” or “majority” shouldn’t make any different to that kind of question though.

maxparrish said:

5) Should people be "corrected" in polite conversation (e.g. when someone uses the word "girls" rather than women?)

Click to expand...

It shouldn’t matter either way. If someone doesn’t like a term and politely points it out, that’s fine. If they don’t say anything and let it go, that’s fine too.

maxparrish said:

A recent thread exchange on the topic of transsexuals in the military deviated into a political-social dispute over “being offended”. The points raised touched on language policing, and the recent PC admonitions against "offending" others. I think it worth discussing APART from the original subject.

The posters made a number of points suggestive of “a right to not be offended”. One poster’s points were:

- "It's intentionally disrespectful and painfully obvious when you refer toany person with a pronoun that that person has asked you not to usewhen you refer to her or him”

- "Peterson thinks that his right to call a person what he wants is moreimportant than a person's right to be called what she wants.”

- “I'm not offended on Manning's behalf specifically. I'm offended for myself and by extension, for the entire trans community.Minorities get abused this way by people who devalue their minority identity all the time”

Another poster made this point:

- "Yes, I and others have the freedom of speech to call them fake Christians but it still doesn't make it any less assholish to do so don't yathink? Same thing with transgendered people. Yes, you (general you not you personally) can call them by their biological gender instead of what they want you to call them, but all you're doing is being an asshole to them"

I have little interest in making this a narrow discussion about transexuals and Manning ; rather, I am soliciting others thoughts on the broader “principles” expoused above. Among the questions:

1)Is there a right to not be offended? Where does that right come from?

2)Is it logical to be offended on behalf of an individual you don't know?

3)Does a person have a right to be called what they want?

4)Is it wrong to “devalue” a minority identity but okay to devalue“majority” identities?

5) Should people be "corrected" in polite conversation (e.g. when someone uses the word "girls" rather than women?)

I await some thoughtful contributions...

Click to expand...

If you dish it out, you should be able to take it. No whining!

https://variety.com/2016/biz/news/chrissy-teigen-donald-trump-mike-pence-hamilton-1201922983/
NOVEMBER 19, 2016 1:36PM PT
Chrissy Teigen Blasts Trump for ‘Hamilton’-Mike Pence Tweets: ‘Look Who Wants a F—ing Safe Space Now’

Click to expand...

Trump attacks McCain: 'I like people who weren't captured' - POLITICO
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317

Jul 18, 2015 - Appearing on Saturday at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, the real estate mogul took his running feud with Arizona Sen. John McCain to a new level. “He’s not a war hero,” said Trump. ... He also continued his attacks on the Arizona senator, saying, “I think John ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...feb51d1d124_story.html?utm_term=.f8190e64e36e
50 years later, disagreements over young Trump’s military academy record
By Michael E. Miller Politics
January 9, 2016
.....
In Trump’s telling, he was elevated as a reward for stellar performance. “I had total control over the cadets,” he said in a recent interview. “That’s why I got a promotion — because I did so good.”

......while spending a lot of time in his room, away from his team, allowed problems to fester.
“They felt he wasn’t paying attention to his other officers as closely as he should have,” said Ains, who lives in Connecticut and works in the aerospace industry.
......

....Trump often points to his five years at the academy.... as a formative period in his life that helps qualify him to be commander in chief.Although he received educational and medical deferments from the Vietnam War draft, he has said that the school provided him “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.”

......A half-century later, discussing that time triggers discomfort and some bitterness among Trump’s former classmates.

Ains, for instance, spoke of the episode reluctantly, after months of not returning phone calls, and only through a cracked door when a reporter appeared at his Connecticut home.

Trump, 69, vigorously rejected the accounts of his former classmates’ recollections, lashing out at The Washington Post over the course of three phone interviews for “doing a lousy story.” He attacked his former fellow cadets, calling Ains’s account “fiction” and accusing him of speaking only “to get himself a little bit of publicity.” Regarding Specht, the cadet who replaced him in A Company, Trump said the transfer “was a promotion for me, and it was a demotion for him.”

After an initial interview, Trump called The Post twice to argue his point.

“I was promoted. The word is ‘promoted’ — Mark it down,” Trump said.......

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It is the epitome of hyposcrisy when white, conservative christians whine about people being politically correct and others being offended yet they constantly whine how their poor religion is being attacked, that white people are under attack. The most ridiculous thing is, they are just mad that they can no longer get away with ****ting all over everybody that isn't a white christian (man) like they have done for the history of this country.

These types of people are just mad they are losing power and their ability to push minorities around, and they are the biggest snowflakes, fearful of everything

But to PC, there certain things that go a bit over board

maxparrish said:

I await some thoughtful contributions...

Click to expand...

1)Is there a right to not be offended? Where does that right come from?

No, there is no right to not be offended. Some countries have set the bar a little higher to limit free speech to exclude hate speech, which I agree with, as no one's free speech should endanger or measurably worsen anyone else's life for something as subjective as hatred, but that's not the same as "offending", and I think that if countries are going to adopt this approach they need to be very specific about what constitutes hate speech.

2)Is it logical to be offended on behalf of an individual you don't know?

Yes. Despite being offensive generally not being illegal, being an empathetic human being would enable you to recognize when someone is being offensive to someone else, and would also become annoyed. For example, to go the path of least resistance, in an effort to make this understandable to even the most anti-PC folks, I don't think it would be a stretch to become offended by a Nazi going off on an anti-Semitic rant on an orthodox Jew, regardless of whether you are that Jew, or even Jewish.

3)Does a person have a right to be called what they want?

No. Certain names are not allowed on birth certificates, so technically no. I realize that's not what you're asking, but it's the easiest way to answer this loaded question.

4)Is it wrong to “devalue” a minority identity but okay to devalue“majority” identities?

No, it's not ok. Though I would be interested to understand why you're asking this question, since the status or "majority", or "privileged" implies a greater value by default...

5) Should people be "corrected" in polite conversation (e.g. when someone uses the word "girls" rather than women?)

Depends on the crowd. Depends on the context. Depends on whether or not anyone is offended by being a grown woman but called a girl. Maybe it's ok to call her a girl, but not a bitch? Maybe it's ok to call her a bitch, but not a hoe? Who decides?

Here's the thing. There is nothing legally binding about using language which aims not to offend others, just as there is nothing legally binding about the Golden Rule...for the most part, anyway. And to be clear, I don't think of avoiding using language that would constitute sexual harassment as being PC, as that's legally defined.

Rather, it's the personal decision whether or not to be an asshole. If you are told that saying something hurts someone else, and you do it anyway, you're an asshole. And if you get called out, you're not getting called out for breaking the law, you're being called out for being an asshole. The level of asshole that you are perceived to be will depend on who you are with...if you're with a bunch of racists, than throwing around the N word will probably not result in the same perception of you being an asshole as if you were doing the same in a group of BLM activists.

Personally, I hate the term "Politically Correct"...if folks had just termed it "Don't be an Asshole", things would be a lot clearer. One thing is for sure, though...given the number of people who fight political correctness as hard as they do, there are a lot of people very committed to being assholes.

maxparrish said:

A recent thread exchange on the topic of transsexuals in the military deviated into a political-social dispute over “being offended”.

Click to expand...

I'm so glad I found this thread. The other thread didn't "deviate" except to the extent that you refuse to use pronouns properly. And as you probably know, I wasn't bothered by other people being offended by you so much as I was bothered by you offending other people on purpose.

The points raised touched on language policing, and the recent PC admonitions against "offending" others. I think it worth discussing APART from the original subject.

The posters made a number of points suggestive of “a right to not be offended”. One poster’s points were:

Click to expand...

For inquiring minds, I said the following things.

- "It's intentionally disrespectful and painfully obvious when you refer to any person with a pronoun that that person has asked you not to use when you refer to her or him”

- "Peterson thinks that his right to call a person what he wants is more important than a person's right to be called what she wants.”

- “I'm not offended on Manning's behalf specifically. I'm offended for myself and by extension, for the entire trans community. Minorities get abused this way by people who devalue their minority identity all the time”

Click to expand...

And then someone else.

Another poster made this point:

- "Yes, I and others have the freedom of speech to call them fake Christians but it still doesn't make it any less assholish to do so don't yathink? Same thing with transgendered people. Yes, you (general you not you personally) can call them by their biological gender instead of what they want you to call them, but all you're doing is being an asshole to them"

I have little interest in making this a narrow discussion about transexuals and Manning ; rather, I am soliciting others thoughts on the broader “principles” expoused above. Among the questions:

1)Is there a right to not be offended? Where does that right come from?

Click to expand...

No, of course there isn't a right to not be offended. That's an absurd question. There's not even a right for me to insist that you call me by a name or a pronoun that I chose for myself or that my family assigned to me. A decent person, however, has a moral obligation to refer to a person in the manner that she or he chooses. For example, I sometimes use the word "bitch" in a casual context that I think is inoffensive. Some women have warned me in very uncertain terms that they don't like that word to be applied to them. Even though I didn't mean to be rude by saying, "This bitch makes the best sangria I've ever tasted," I offended someone. She had a right to be offended. I had a right to offend. Because I'm not a willful asshole, I have never said "bitch" to or around her since then. It pleases her. It doesn't harm me. Can you see the comparison to you insisting on calling a self-identified female "he" just because you're trying to make a stubborn political point?

2)Is it logical to be offended on behalf of an individual you don't know?

Click to expand...

Logical? Maybe, maybe not. The rights of people who get mistreated by people who wield more power than they do, though, tend to be upheld by other members of the majority who criticize those people who mistreat. You apparently have a problem with the concept that a person should be good and kind even when goodness and kindness are not required.

3)Does a person have a right to be called what they want?

Click to expand...

That depends on the context, doesn't it?

4)Is it wrong to “devalue” a minority identity but okay to devalue“majority” identities?

Click to expand...

I don't have enough room here to describe to you how discrimination against majority groups, although real, doesn't compare in any intellectual sense to discrimination against minority groups.

5) Should people be "corrected" in polite conversation (e.g. when someone uses the word "girls" rather than women?)

Click to expand...

Should? That's another moral judgment. To each her own, but I answer affirmatively.

I await some thoughtful contributions...

Click to expand...

Moot said:

I think the right not to be offended might be a moral right rather than a protected political speech right.

"Do unto others as you would had done unto you."

It's a simple matter of showing respect for others if you want respect in return...but there is no law that can guarantee that you will if you do.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. I don't have a right to be treated politely. I do treat people politely who treat me politely. To that extent, polite people make the world better while impolite people make it worse.

Moot said:

Sure, why not?



If Bobby respectfully asks to be referred to as [fill in blank]...and Joe refuses to respect Bobby's request...then Joe is showing his disrespect for Bobby. So if Joe wants Bobby's respect, then he should respect Bobby's request.

Click to expand...

That's as straightforward as it can be said.

Many interesting and thought provoking responses, too many to individually reply to at length. Some additional thoughts, and questions...

Many of the posters viewed the questions as an issue limited to individual relationships, perhaps due to the phrasing of my questions. So to clarify and expand the thoughts:

- When I ask about "offense" and being "offended" I don't mean "resentful or annoyed or displeased", I mean "offense" as a perceived insult. I mean something that invokes aggrieved, indignant, and stung feelings.

- It should be noted one might be offended in regards to the first person...meaning someone might be personally offended by what someone says to you, about you. (Alternatively you might be offended by what someone says about you (personally) to others.)

- On the other hand, one might be offended by something said about others you don't know, to you or to other others.

- And one might be offended over a collective and/or non-person...a cause, association, group.

Can or should you feel personally offended, "insulted", on behalf of a third party?

The point here is that I have noticed that people are now personally heated and offended over strangers, groups, and causes as if they, themselves, were insulted. The distinction between someone being insulting to you, about you, has been equated by some with saying something negative about some person or group they support, such as the 'NRA' or 'Planned Parenthood'. So much so, many (such as Kathy Newman) believe there is 'a right to not be offended'.

Psychologically this is explainable, but not very rational. People lose their identity in a group or cause, and "they" becomes "I". Insult Trump and the True Believer thinks you have insulted THEM (I once called Trump, "Trumpolini" on another forum and a poster had me banned because it was something offensive and insulting 'to them').

My point is one is NOT being a jackass or insulting to a third party stranger who is NOT part of the conversation - a perspective lost when that stranger or group or ideology becomes merged with the "offended" listeners identity.

"Being a jackass" to someone requires that someone to hear it; if they don't, it's not an insult, right?

maxparrish said:

Many interesting and thought provoking responses, too many to individually reply to at length. Some additional thoughts, and questions...

Many of the posters viewed the questions as an issue limited to individual relationships, perhaps due to the phrasing of my questions. So to clarify and expand the thoughts:

- When I ask about "offense" and being "offended" I don't mean "resentful or annoyed or displeased", I mean "offense" as a perceived insult. I mean something that invokes aggrieved, indignant, and stung feelings.

- It should be noted one might be offended in regards to the first person...meaning someone might be personally offended by what someone says to you, about you. (Alternatively you might be offended by what someone says about you (personally) to others.)

- On the other hand, one might be offended by something said about others you don't know, to you or to other others.

- And one might be offended over a collective and/or non-person...a cause, association, group.

Can or should you feel personally offended, "insulted", on behalf of a third party?

The point here is that I have noticed that people are now personally heated and offended over strangers, groups, and causes as if they, themselves, were insulted. The distinction between someone being insulting to you, about you, has been equated by some with saying something negative about some person or group they support, such as the 'NRA' or 'Planned Parenthood'. So much so, many (such as Kathy Newman) believe there is 'a right to not be offended'.

Psychologically this is explainable, but not very rational. People lose their identity in a group or cause, and "they" becomes "I". Insult Trump and the True Believer thinks you have insulted THEM (I once called Trump, "Trumpolini" on another forum and a poster had me banned because it was something offensive and insulting 'to them').

My point is one is NOT being a jackass or insulting to a third party stranger who is NOT part of the conversation - a perspective lost when that stranger or group or ideology becomes merged with the "offended" listeners identity.

"Being a jackass" to someone requires that someone to hear it; if they don't, it's not an insult, right?

Click to expand...

Just by way of an example, I don't like when people use the word "retarded" around me. I myself do not have any intellectual limitations in terms of ability, but I have other, what I think are good reasons for asking people not to use that word around me if and after they do so.

I wouldn't say that I am offending on behalf of people with intellectual disabilities so much as I am offended for myself by the discriminatory connotations of the term. To that extent, I suppose I am personally "offended" but not because someone intended to offend or insult me. I just know that it takes policing to reinforce good habits and tolerance of other people's preferences, opinions, and perspectives.