Are you sure you don't disagree?

Are you sure you don't disagree?

Hee. Apologies for the unanticipated post splooge.

on what lurkers may or may not be thinking

I am not talking about lurkers, actually.

And, you know what? I don't *have* to be a Republican to be offended. But, face it, you don't know if I'm a Republican or not. Not that you care, but you don't know. I've never said.

So you want me to stand up and say it? You can't see the statement for what it is? You need me to be offended for it to be offensive? Well, there you go. I'm offended. Put it on the record.

There is also the fact that what is offensive to one is not to another. There is a lot of religion that drives me nuts and I find somewhat offensive, but what am I to do about it? For example, people saying I'm in their prayers when I'm sick. Intellectually I know that the comment is coming from a good place and they aren't meaning harm by it, but as someone who is pretty open about my atheism it can be tough to watch people so blatantly ignore my beliefs (or rather lack of belief). To me it's similar to a devout evangelical being told that someone is using the power of their new age crystals to help heal them. Is it worth me picking a fight about? No, not any longer. There was a point in my life where I couldn't let it go, but at this point in my life I do try to just let it be and focus on the intent.

Um, so yeah, a round about way of saying that I'm not sure how we go about not saying things that have the potential to offend someone in some way.

I am not talking about lurkers, actually.

No, I know. I was comparing it to a previous situation that arose here, that seems to me to have some analogies.

So you want me to stand up and say it? You can't see the statement for what it is? You need me to be offended for it to be offensive? Well, there you go. I'm offended. Put it on the record.

I do think a statement that would offend no one doesn't count as an offensive statement, so I guess it'd be necessary that it would offend someone. (This is, of course, a stricter standard than to say that it did offend someone, for just the distinction you've made here. I've mentioned previously that I've found the misogynist conversation of some of my work colleagues to be offensive, even though there were no women present at the time.

I personally wince a bit at the "Republican intellectual" comment. My political views are, I think, more right-wing than the centre of gravity on this board, because I'm essentially pro-free markets. Beyond that, I personally don't have much to say about that particular example, beyond that it's not one I would use myself.

I'm not sure the issue is that clear cut.

It may be the sort of thing that has to find its balance.

One of the problems with offense being the clear bright line that ita sees, is that people can take offense at anything. It's not reasonable. It's an emotional response.

People can take offense that I say "Jesus Fucking Christ," or "Sweet Zombie Jesus" or "God Damn It!" or at my opinion on abortion or the death penalty or the Catholic Church or the Reagan administration.

There's a reason why the boundary for Free Speech isn't set at: Other People Might Be Offended.

In our very particular culture here we value civility very highly. It's one of the things which has allowed our board to survive over a long period. However, prizing civility so highly has had (I think) an unintended effect. Which is that it has made the discourse here blander, because there's an emphasis on being inoffensive. And I (like some others) do feel like people are quick to take offense.

I think some posters who were more tart or saucy or abrasive have drifted off (not flounced) because of our Buffista emphasis on civility. On balance the board is still here but some of that liveliness is gone.

Snark is cutting. You don't want your compeers to bleed, but...I don't know. When I did construction work people bled every day and you didn't make a stink about it. I do try to emphasize to Matilda that every boo boo isn't a National emergency. If I made a stink about every time a broad, generalizing condemnation of "MEN!" got made on the board it would grind to a halt.

I grew up as a Military Brat and as Amy notes, the jokes about "Military Intelligence" started by people who were in the military.

For ita my use of the word "gypped" was a very clear offense worth calling out. For my part, I don't want to give potential, theoretical offense that much power. Because I think it hems things in too much.

The balance on that, however, is simply that I'm going to offend her sometimes. But I'm also conscious that it bugs her and that factors into my usage.

In our very particular culture here we value civility very highly

Fuck civility. I'm talking about respect.

the jokes about "Military Intelligence" started by people who were in the military

Call me a nigga and I will remove your testicles. Don't say I didn't give you a heads up.

I get that Hec doesn't care if he offends me. I get that erika doesn't care. I get that Connie doesn't care. Trust me, it's duly noted. But that doesn't mean I'm going to shut up, and that doesn't mean I'm not going to stand up for people who aren't as mouthy as I am.

I get that Hec doesn't care if he offends me. I get that erika doesn't care. I get that Connie doesn't care.

as a response to:

But I'm also conscious that it bugs her and that factors into my usage.

ita, as your friend, I am imploring you: Think about this. Take some time to cool off. Because I am 99.99% sure that what you heard is not what they said.

I'm not heated, but thanks. Hec and I have discussed gyp at length. My offense at the term isn't enough for him to stop using it entirely. He's prioritised as he wishes to, and that's entirely his call. I'm calm about that. erika says I shouldn't be offended, and so does Connie. They've made their positions clear.

Did you see erika or Connie agree that other people weren't overreacting or misinterpreting the comments that set off this conversation? Did you see Hec say (a while back) that the idea that I'm offended is too theoretical for him to censor or limit the expressiveness of his lexicon? What am I misreading?