Giving and Taking Offense

[_wenglund]

I like what you are saying here Mr. Englund. I wonder if it is worth looking at this situation in terms of specifics. The thing I like about your example is that it touches upon a cultural difference. The Japanese students reacted as they did because certain cultural beliefs they hold. The Professor, wanting to help these students, rightly saw that putting his feet on his desk would interfere in his desire to help them. The offense in this case was based on a cultural difference rather than something within an individual.

I suppose where I may most be interested in discoursing on this issue is in how it pertains to offense within the world of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. For example, I have found that some people are put off with the "squeaky clean" image of LDS, and that there are serious trust issues associated with this. I have always wondered: is this a case of me being offensive, and not doing something about it? Or are the other parties being over sensitive?

I am a little confused by your question. I would think that those who are "put off" by the "squeaky clean image" are the one's who are offended and perhaps overly sensitive, rather than the other way around. But, I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "put off".

I can certainly understand having trust issues due to perceived artificiality or phoneyness in others (like people who post anonymously), and perhaps even be disinclined to proactively associate with them in lieu of seeking out more "down-to-earth" or "real" type people--and in that sense be "put-off". But, I am not sure why anyone would be offended by even artificial attempts to appear "clean cut"--assuming that is what is happening (I have my doubts about that). Is there something about "clean cut" that is inherently offensive to you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

You know, Wade, your story of the intercultural professor reminds me of an anecdote of pedagogical offense. I think it illustrates my take on all of this, which is, if someone is offended by something I have said or done that I didn't mean to be offensive, I am happy to listen to their remarks. If indeed, I have unintentionally conveyed something I don't want to, then I am glad to have the opportunity to correct this. But, sometimes I may not agree with their take, in which case I will simply explain my interpretation to them and let them decide how they want to proceed from there.

Here's my story.

I don't go out of my way to use "swears" when I teach, but I know I occasionally say "damn," "hell," "s***," "bloody hell," or maybe even "balls" when I drop chalk or the projector won't work or the room we've been assigned is over 90 degrees, the windows won't open and a student has just fainted. I don't think any of these are any big deal when muttered more or less under my breath.

One day a girl came to my office to tell me that she was offended at my swearing in class and would I please stop as it was very offensive and she was offended by the offensiveness of it. She struck me as speaking very awdwardly, and even sounded like she was reciting a memorized speech.

I told her I was sorry, but I didn't think I was gratuitously swearing or using bad language, other than maybe "damn." Was that what she was worried about? No. Well, then, what was it? Taking the lord's name in vain all the time.

Now this puzzled me. I didn't think I had done this at all, let alone done it repeatedly. I told her that I certainly didn't want to cause her to feel offended and that I was glad she came to talk to me if she felt there was a problem, but for the life of me I could not remember doing what she claimed I was doing. Could she think of the most recent time? Was she really saying I did this every class or what?

Well, no, maybe it was just recently. She didn't seem to be able to come up with an example of how I might have said the offending phrase or in what context.

Then it dawned on me.

We had been reading The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass . In it, Douglass describes witnessing his first whipping: the sadistic beating of a young girl whose offense was showing favor to another slave and not the master. As the master whips her, he yells "You damned bitch! God damn you, you damn bitch!"

Yep. This was what had brought the girl to my office. Not something I had said, but something said by someone in a passage in a book I read aloud to the class.

I asked her if she could see the difference between my reading aloud words from a book we were studying, and my saying those words as myself. I pointed out that to me these were two very different things, and while I might apologize for one, I could not apologize for the other. Why? Because I felt they were crucial to Douglass's text: not only the violence of the phrases, but their "blasphemy" are part of his points about the especial cruelty of religious masters and their use of christianity to legitimize slavery.

What did she think of my argument, I asked. Did it make her see the incident differently, or not?

Well, yes, maybe it did, but she'd been told in church to complain about anytime she heard a professor swear.

So you weren't motivated by any kind of "personal" offendedness? No. You were just doing what you had been told to do? Yes.

I have to say that at this point I was furious. And not with the student. I simply asked her if she felt satisfied by my explanation and told her I would be happy to talk about anything that transpired in class that she felt was important, but that I hoped that the next time she came by she wanted to talk about issues that concerned her, not thing someone who had never been in our class was telling her to complain about. I hope I conveyed that I was not angry with her, or put out by the discussion because I thought that being able to make a distinction between a teacher's own statements and those found in the text under discussion was pretty fundamental.

I have no idea what church or religion she belonged to. This took place in the NYC area so the chances that she was LDS are slim and never even crossed my mind. What made me angry was the idiotic demand that had been placed on her and above that the twisted understanding of education, knowledge and communication that supported it: just listen for bad words, pay no attention to any context in which they take place be it personal, pedagogical, historical, or anything else that actually gives the words their meaning in the first place. What an completely empty understanding of things.

I very much like the message of your story and the approach you took in resolving it. I don't know, though, that were I the teacher in that situation if I would have been the least bit upset by the counsel the student had supposedly received from her Church (thinking it possible that she confused what they said just as she had confused your quoting a sware word with your having sworn), but even still, I believe that you handled the student's concern with tremendous class, and thus set a great example for us all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

Are you seriously that ignorant of the multilateral dynamics of social interactions?

Of course, those on the receiving end of comments and behaviors ultimately have the choice in deciding how to reeact or act in response. They are responsible for their own actions and reactions. (Coincedentally, I have been advocating this notion for some time here--some may even have considered it neurotic "BS" from a snide jackass.}

But having said this, it in no way negates the responsibility on the part of those on the giving and sending end of the comments and behaviors, elsewise it eliminates the very possibility of one ever being inherently offensive.

Sure, a child or a spouse is responsible for how they may react to extreme verbal abuse. But it is inane in the extreme for you to think that the abuser is not at all responsible for the verbal abuse, nor responsible for the hurt and offense taken by those being verbally abused.

Apparently, though, that is how you see it, and it doesn't appear that your mind will be changed. It is then left to those on the receiving end of your comments to decide what value, if any, there may be in interacting with you further. For my part, if you are so clueless as to not see the inherent offensiveness of things like your special ed. "joke", and are disinclined to take responsibility for them, then I don't see much value going forward in reading what you may have to say, let alone respond to it. Perhaps that is what you had hoped for (particularly given your view of me as a "snide jackass"). In which case, it works to both our limited advantage. Bye!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

First of all, I thought we were talking about adults here. Obviously, children can't be held responsible for how they react to verbal abuse, until they need to reconcile it as adults. As for the spouse, however, he/she has recourse for how to react to said "abuse." They can leave (or whatever).

And the person who does the "abusing" has to take responsibility for what happens to him as a result of whatever the receiver feels, but cannot/should not take responsibility for that associated feeling. Do you get the difference?

For example, if you decide you want to stop talking to me because I offended you, I'm responsible for dealing with that (oh how will I ever survive?) I'm not responsible, however, for the feelings that led to that decision, because I can't control them.

[_beastie]

I am sorry, but I disagree with this slightly. I think it is largely futile to try to bridge the gap between some exMormons and Mormons. But, two of my best friends are technically exMormons (although they never “resigned” officially because they really didn’t see any reason to). There are a few exMormons on the various boards that I have a high respect for, and there are a few that at least tolerate me.

Maybe the gap isn’t even there to be bridged. It all comes down to motives. If we can stop trying to re-convert or de-convert each other, we might find that we aren’t all that different.

-Stu

You are remarkably laid back, I'm sure you would be more successful than some of the rest of us who are more, ahem, "high strung".

But I'm curious - are you actually discussing Mormonism with your exmormon friends? Of course I think it's possible to be friends, I'm just unconvinced the two sides can really discuss Mormonism without emotions getting heated.

[_Blixa]

I am sorry, but I disagree with this slightly. I think it is largely futile to try to bridge the gap between some exMormons and Mormons. But, two of my best friends are technically exMormons (although they never “resigned” officially because they really didn’t see any reason to). There are a few exMormons on the various boards that I have a high respect for, and there are a few that at least tolerate me.

Maybe the gap isn’t even there to be bridged. It all comes down to motives. If we can stop trying to re-convert or de-convert each other, we might find that we aren’t all that different.

-Stu

You are remarkably laid back, I'm sure you would be more successful than some of the rest of us who are more, ahem, "high strung".

But I'm curious - are you actually discussing Mormonism with your exmormon friends? Of course I think it's possible to be friends, I'm just unconvinced the two sides can really discuss Mormonism without emotions getting heated.

I suspect the good doctor is remarkably laid back and heaven knows I'm not! But on the other hand there are different shades (pun intended!) of both Mormons and exmormons. Of course I'm pretty much going with my experiences online for that one since its been a long time I've dealt with examples from either camp face-to-face. Who knows, maybe in real life I'd hate you all!

[_beastie]

I suspect the good doctor is remarkably laid back and heaven knows I'm not! But on the other hand there are different shades (pun intended!) of both Mormons and exmormons. Of course I'm pretty much going with my experiences online for that one since its been a long time I've dealt with examples from either camp face-to-face. Who knows, maybe in real life I'd hate you all!

I may be allowing my experience on MAD color my opinion of the utility of conversations between exmormons and Mormons. In addition, it is a verboten topic with my family, because it emotions tend to be raw over the division in our family. (we're almost evenly divided between devout believers, atheist apostates, and one odd liberal in the middle) Like Barb and her mother on Big Love, there's too much baggage given the dashed hopes of an eternal forever family.

[_Doctor Steuss]

You are remarkably laid back, I'm sure you would be more successful than some of the rest of us who are more, ahem, "high strung".

LOL. And here I thought I was rather upity.

But I'm curious - are you actually discussing Mormonism with your exmormon friends? Of course I think it's possible to be friends, I'm just unconvinced the two sides can really discuss Mormonism without emotions getting heated.

We do discuss it on occasion. One of them is pretty much an atheist, and we will discuss peripheral issues once in a while. His wife and I usually talk about it more than he and I do, but he’s always there when we’re chatting away. The other friend is a pretty spiritual fellow (hopefully “spiritual” makes sense, as opposed to “religious” -- he mostly likes Eastern religions). We discuss Mormonism once in a while also. Probably a bit more-so with him than I do with the other friend, but it’s never anything heated. We all know where we stand, and we respect each others beliefs, so it’s never really an “argument.” Just one person stating their views, the other person stating their views, and back and forth until we know where we agree and where we disagree, and then the subject usually moves quite naturally to music or literature. Our conversations about literature or music (or politics) tend to become much more heated than those about religion. It just comes down to knowing that we aren’t going to change each other, and that we already respect and love each other and that isn’t going to change; so we ultimately have nothing to lose nor gain.

I do have another friend who is an atheist and a never-Mo that likes to get into the real nitty-gritty of Mormonism. He’s really into the Book of Abraham, which is unfortunate (for me) because I’ve never really been into that topic. But we did have a fruitful conversation about Blacks and the Priesthood a couple of weeks ago when his band came in from L.A. to perform with mine.

[_wenglund]

Are you seriously that ignorant of the multilateral dynamics of social interactions?

Of course, those on the receiving end of comments and behaviors ultimately have the choice in deciding how to reeact or act in response. They are responsible for their own actions and reactions. (Coincedentally, I have been advocating this notion for some time here--some may even have considered it neurotic "BS" from a snide jackass.}

But having said this, it in no way negates the responsibility on the part of those on the giving and sending end of the comments and behaviors, elsewise it eliminates the very possibility of one ever being inherently offensive.

Sure, a child or a spouse is responsible for how they may react to extreme verbal abuse. But it is inane in the extreme for you to think that the abuser is not at all responsible for the verbal abuse, nor responsible for the hurt and offense taken by those being verbally abused.

Apparently, though, that is how you see it, and it doesn't appear that your mind will be changed. It is then left to those on the receiving end of your comments to decide what value, if any, there may be in interacting with you further. For my part, if you are so clueless as to not see the inherent offensiveness of things like your special ed. "joke", and are disinclined to take responsibility for them, then I don't see much value going forward in reading what you may have to say, let alone respond to it. Perhaps that is what you had hoped for (particularly given your view of me as a "snide jackass"). In which case, it works to both our limited advantage. Bye!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

First of all, I thought we were talking about adults here. Obviously, children can't be held responsible for how they react to verbal abuse, until they need to reconcile it as adults. As for the spouse, however, he/she has recourse for how to react to said "abuse." They can leave (or whatever).

And the person who does the "abusing" has to take responsibility for what happens to him as a result of whatever the receiver feels, but cannot/should not take responsibility for that associated feeling. Do you get the difference?

For example, if you decide you want to stop talking to me because I offended you, I'm responsible for dealing with that (oh how will I ever survive?) I'm not responsible, however, for the feelings that led to that decision, because I can't control them.

Well, at least you finally admit that a person bears at least some responsibility in connection with their comments and actions. That is progress.

Now, if you could just understand that responsibility is not restricted to things directly under one's control, but also includes causal influences and impact. There are action that produce a reasonably expected response from those on the receiving end. For example, if you tell a funny joke, people will tend to laugh. Whereas, had you not told the joke, they may not have laughed. By telling the joke, you influenced them to laugh, or in other words you are somewhat responsible for them laughing, even though ultimately it is their choice to laugh. That's what comedians do--i.e. "make" people laugh.

The same is true for offensive comments and behavior. If you fart in someone's face, it is reasonably expected that they would recoil from the nausiating stench. And, it is unlikely that they would recoil had you not farted in their face. As such, it is reasonable to hold you somewhat responsible for causing them to recoil even given that it was ultimately their choice to recoil. This principle applies to offensive words as well. (If you want a perfect example of a verbal fart, just read about anything Mercury or PP writes/lets on this board)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Well, at least you finally admit that a person bears at least some responsibility in connection with their comments and actions. That is progress.

Now, if you could just understand that responsibility is not restricted to things directly under one's control, but also includes causal influences and impact. There are action that produce a reasonably expected response from those on the receiving end. For example, if you tell a funny joke, people will tend to laugh. Whereas, had you not told the joke, they may not have laughed. By telling the joke, you influenced them to laugh, or in other words you are somewhat responsible for them laughing, even though ultimately it is their choice to laugh. That's what comedians do--I.e. "make" people laugh.

The same is true for offensive comments and behavior. If you fart in someone's face, it is reasonably expected that they would recoil from the nausiating stench. And, it is unlikely that they would recoil had you not farted in their face. As such, it is reasonable to hold you somewhat responsible for causing them to recoil even given that it was ultimately their choice to recoil. This principle applies to offensive words as well. (If you want a perfect example of a verbal fart, just read about anything Mercury or PP writes/lets on this board)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is the problem in holding other people responsible for your feelings, Wade. It's totally subjective. You remind me of the preacher I heard say on TV, "I hate it when a fly lands on me. It makes me feel bad about myself." He chose to give power over his self-esteem to a fly. I suppose his next move was to create an anti-bigotry iniative directed at the flies who had ever chosen to land on him, or maybe offer to teach a little CBT to the flies, I don't know, but do you see what a waste of effort that is?

As long as you are looking for offense, you will find it everywhere. Criticism of your faith will continue whether you learn to live with it or not, Wade.

Taking offense promotes as much grimness in the word as giving offense.

[_beastie]

Thank god for the internet - how else could wade indulge in his addiction of self-aggrandizement embedded within psycho-babble preaching?

I mean, really, in real life, people would probably just leave the room.