On Being Offended
Published December 29, 2003
You cannot enter an argument without opening yourself up to comments that will oppose your views and possibly be hurtful. So, we need to be able to tolerate what others say, no matter how they say it. Greg C. Lukianoff, director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, in the above mentioned article “The Great Tattling Scare on Campuses,” says it well:
- The First Amendment requires a certain minimal toughness of citizens. It is understandable that speech would be 'chilled' if people felt they risked arrest every time they opened their mouths. However, when people claim they have been 'chilled' by the speech of others, simply because it conflicts with their views or casts them in a bad light, they are only saying they are cowards and would like to live in a world where everyone agrees with them.
Yes, maybe it is weak and cowardly to cast yourself in the role of victim at the slightest offensive remark. After all, there are people who have to deal with gunshots, bombs, and blood on a daily basis. Mere words should not overcome us.
But what about the emotionally unstable? I know that there are people out there who can’t easily set aside their emotional responses. That is their weakness, not ours. If they respond with violence, then the culpability should rest on them—not on the speaker of the offensive language.
I still need to address the issue of race because, as I noted earlier, it seems to have a class of its own when it comes to the law and offensive language. There is that idea of the need to prevent something like Nazism from spreading. Martin Niemoeller said the following:
- First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
You might say that Germans should have banned the racist language of the Nazis before they rose to power. This might have worked to prevent The Holocaust and WWII—there is no way of knowing for sure. But I don’t think we need to fight fascism with fascism. If it had been a truly open society, then I think the best prevention would have been for people to speak up and air their views and confront the views of the Nazis. They should have spoken up—a hell of a lot more (and of course backed up their words with conviction and action).
- On Being Offended
- Published: December 29, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Dirtgrain
- Dirtgrain's BC Writer page
- Dirtgrain's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Well-written and thoughtful, but way too long. This needs to broken up into more than one entry.
I don't think there is really any question that continual abuse harms people. The rates of hypertension, depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are extremely high in minority communities. The constant battling against a hostile society definitely takes it toll. I doubt any person of color ever goes a full week without at least one clear episode of discrimination. We pay for it many ways, including shortened lives.
However, I don't see freedom of speech, which attaches only to government action, as much of a bulwark against the daily abuse fest that is living in America much of the time.
Uhh, the separation of church and state is a myth that doesn't work. Then the only people who could hold government office would be atheists because any theist might have their religion influence their decisions. Then you would totally screw up society and exclude all Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus from the entire government in the name of separating church and state. As long as our government is run by the people, and some people go to church, you can't separate church and government. Anyway, doesn't everyone ascribe to some view in the same way religious people ascribe to church? Doesn't everyone have their own "church," their place where they go to meet with others who share their beliefs? Separate church and state? You might as well kill us all.
The point is that people in government can't have beliefs, it is that they not misuse them. Largely, people comply with that or we would be living in a theocracy by now.
Man, the way I'm going on these message boards I feel like the "anti-Mac Diva." I know the point is that the people in the government shouldn't misuse their beliefs. My question to you is, what would misusing a belief entail? I can't really understand your comment until you clarify this. Please, I am all for intelligent discussion even though I am aware we have conflicting views.
Mis-using a belief would be George W. Bush saying that he is making it his mission to protect the sanctity of marriage. Sanctity is a religious word and by Bush writing it into his job description to protect the "sanctity" of anything is wrong. That is a violation of the separation of church and state in my eyes.
Here's a comment for you:
AARRR RRRRRRRRRRGGGG GGGHHHHHH H!!!!!!!!!!
I AM YOUR FATHER!!!!!!
Fred Phelps reads the Bible very selectively. I don't claim to be a theology expert, but "Love thy neighbour" is a verse I don't think he's read.
Fred's been out lately protesting the funerals of US soldiers killed in Iraq, on grounds that they were defending a "fag country."
He reminds me more and more of Col Fitts, the violently closeted gay dad in American Beauty.
Don't ask me how, but somehow I ran across these blogs/posts. I couldn't believe there was a site called Godhatesfags. I went there and to my surprise they are going to be in Ann Arbor to picket the Laramie project on Sat. Nov 19. I just recently got involved with supporting the Glbt community when I heard the the executive director of Triangle Foundation speak of his formation of the Triangle Foundation at a small benefit party in a home. I guess it isn't really a surprise, more like a nightmare. I actually felt like I was in a real nightmare when I got to the WBC chronicles pages on the Laramie project and phelps addressing Judy Shepard as the "mother from hell", especially since I just went last month to see Judy in person when she spoke at Oakland University on her journey with and without Matt.
I am determined to go to the Laramie Project in support of the Laramie Project. Hopefully it's not sold out,
because I sure don't want to be standing outside with that crazy freak.
I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.
As I've been trying to get this message across to my friends and family for the past year or so and starting to feel like a Jehovah witness without being one, I've found aomething in Dirtgrain's posts that really brings out this point.
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
You're post are informative and awesome, Dirtgrain and so is this site!
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/11290)
Excellent post DG - when people don't comment on a post of mine - as is often the case - I choose to believe it was because there was nothing to complain about.
I too am for free expression - let the ideas contend in the intellectual marketplace. I am a staunch believer in the separation of church and state however: if we are going to say it, then we need to actually do it.