Giving and Taking Offense

[_Some Schmo]

What do you do to avoid being offensive (assuming that you do).

I don't. I don't really think about it at all, either way (in other words, I'm not trying to offend, but not trying to avoid it either). When I write my posts, I'm simply articulating whatever thing happens to be on my mind at that time. I treat others with a respect that entails being open about what I'm thinking with the hope and trust that they'll take responsibility for themselves in how they react to what I say. It's better to make the default assumption that your audience is mature enough to handle... whatever. I think it's more instructive to be open rather than to dilute what you're thinking with political correctness (or whatever offense avoidance tools people have at their disposal).

[_Arnold Friend]

What do you use to avoid being offended and/or being hyper-sensative?

It's simple. I remember that essentially, we're all strangers to each other. Why would I take offense from anyone who doesn't even know me?

Also, it's not ever really worth getting upset over a difference of opinion or belief. That's the domain of holy wars. I can always agree to disagree. Thinking for myself is more important to me than agreeing.

I also remember that I'm responsible for how I react to the things I read, which gives me the power to dispassionately observe what people write.

That's about it.

I like this. However, it only appears to cover the hyper-sentive side of the equation. What do you do to avoid being offensive (assuming that you do).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dear Mr. Englund,

I think there is a problem with this equation, that problem being that this is not really an equation at all. In dealing with hypersensitivity you are dealing with yourself and only yourself. But if you are trying to figure out and control whether you offend someone else, you are getting into the realm of trying to control somebody else. Don't you feel that we should just concentrate on ourselves, bettering ourselves, and not letting our actions be dictated by the whims of others?

[_barrelomonkeys]

Dear Mr. Englund,

I think there is a problem with this equation, that problem being that this is not really an equation at all. In dealing with hypersensitivity you are dealing with yourself and only yourself. But if you are trying to figure out and control whether you offend someone else, you are getting into the realm of trying to control somebody else. Don't you feel that we should just concentrate on ourselves, bettering ourselves, and not letting our actions be dictated by the whims of others?

I consider a part of bettering myself is to acknowledge that other people are different than I am. Looking for other perspectives and understanding others is something that I consider a critical component of bettering myself. I try to do this and if the side effect is that I realize that others may be hurt by my words so be it. I wish not to harm others and consider the treatment of others, and how I choose to respond to them, a very real part of my betterment.


I know you didn't address that to me. :)

Bettering is such an odd word!

[_wenglund]

What do you do to avoid being offensive (assuming that you do).

I don't. I don't really think about it at all, either way (in other words, I'm not trying to offend, but not trying to avoid it either). When I write my posts, I'm simply articulating whatever thing happens to be on my mind at that time. I treat others with a respect that entails being open about what I'm thinking with the hope and trust that they'll take responsibility for themselves in how they react to what I say. It's better to make the default assumption that your audience is mature enough to handle... whatever. I think it's more instructive to be open rather than to dilute what you're thinking with political correctness (or whatever offense avoidance tools people have at their disposal).

That is certainly a convenient approach. It absolves you of any responsibility at all when others may be offended by you. It's their problem, not yours. They are either immature or PC. Or, so you may think.

I don't know, though, if it is all that workable or socially developed an approach. It mistakenly assumes that you have a mature grasp of what is respectful and non-offensive. And, it prevents you from healthy self-reflection and self-criticism and also useful feedback, thus severly limiting your potential for growth in this area. Whether intending to be offensive or not, you may very well be socially clueless (as evidenced by your patently offensive special ed. "joke", which rightly offended LDS and non-LDS alike), and yet your approach will prevent you from getting a clue. That, to me, is the essence of dysfunction.

But, to each their own I suppose.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

That is certainly a convenient approach. It absolves you of any responsibility at all when others may be offended by you. It's their problem, not yours. They are either immature or PC. Or, so you may think.

I don't know, though, if it is all that workable or socially developed an approach. It mistakenly assumes that you have a mature grasp of what is respectful and non-offensive. And, it prevents you from healthy self-reflection and self-criticism and also useful feedback, thus severly limiting your potential for growth in this area. Whether intending to be offensive or not, you may very well be socially clueless (as evidenced by your patently offensive special ed. "joke", which rightly offended LDS and non-LDS alike), and yet your approach will prevent you from getting a clue. That, to me, is the essence of dysfunction.

Well, I would expect no less from you. You mistakenly assume, however, that you know what you're talking about here.

Here's a news flash for ya: I am NOT responsible for how other people react. To think that I am responsible for others' emotions is neurotic. I cannot control how other people feel.

But to realize this does not prevent me from observing how other people do react, and if I'm motivated to reach people in a certain way, I can apply whatever skills I may have in order to reach that goal. However, it is not always my goal. Usually, my goal is to articulate exactly what I'm thinking rather than tempering what I say for mass consumption.

Perhaps your attitude here is why it appears to me that you're full of BS, Wade. You say all this crap in a certain way thinking it's going to reach your audience, with this pretense that you're trying to "help," when in reality, it looks like you're just being a snide jackass.

That wasn't meant to offend. I was just articulating an observation.

To each their own, I guess.

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

[_wenglund]

What do you use to avoid being offended and/or being hyper-sensative?

It's simple. I remember that essentially, we're all strangers to each other. Why would I take offense from anyone who doesn't even know me?

Also, it's not ever really worth getting upset over a difference of opinion or belief. That's the domain of holy wars. I can always agree to disagree. Thinking for myself is more important to me than agreeing.

I also remember that I'm responsible for how I react to the things I read, which gives me the power to dispassionately observe what people write.

That's about it.

I like this. However, it only appears to cover the hyper-sentive side of the equation. What do you do to avoid being offensive (assuming that you do).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dear Mr. Englund,

I think there is a problem with this equation, that problem being that this is not really an equation at all. In dealing with hypersensitivity you are dealing with yourself and only yourself. But if you are trying to figure out and control whether you offend someone else, you are getting into the realm of trying to control somebody else. Don't you feel that we should just concentrate on ourselves, bettering ourselves, and not letting our actions be dictated by the whims of others?

I suppose one could look at this as an issue of being "controlled by others". However, I don't happen to see it that way. Rather, I view it from the standpoint of me and others willfully doing what works best for all parties concerned.

I suppose it also depends upon one's end objective. If one's end objective is, as you suggest, to simple be who you are (as determined self-insullarily), then what you suggest may have merit.

However, if your objective is to satisfy the basic human need to love and be loved and to respect and be respected, then being reasonably and edifyingly open to social feedback in our typically complex and diverse cultural interactions, may be preferred.

For example, I had a communications professor tell me of an experience where some students of his from Japan visited him in his office. As was his practice, he had his feet propped comfortably up on his desk. When the students entered the room, they were immediately aggast and obviously offended, and quickly vacated the premisise. The professor ran after them to inquire what had caused the offense. The students explained that in Japan, showing the bottoms of one's shoes to another is a deep insult.

Now, the professor could have determined that putting his feet up on his desk is just a part of who and what he is, and that he was not going to be controlled by his Japanese student. Or, he could apologize for not knowing their custom, and promise to not put his feet up on the desk when the Japanese students were present in his office, think that good relations with them would be a good thing.

I see the later approach as lending itself better to effectual social interactions and to the benefit of all parties concerned. My professor felt likewise, and was subsequently blessed with a wonderful relationship with the Japanese students which lasted well beyond their collegiate years.

But, as previously mentioned, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Arnold Friend]

Dear Mr. Englund,

I think there is a problem with this equation, that problem being that this is not really an equation at all. In dealing with hypersensitivity you are dealing with yourself and only yourself. But if you are trying to figure out and control whether you offend someone else, you are getting into the realm of trying to control somebody else. Don't you feel that we should just concentrate on ourselves, bettering ourselves, and not letting our actions be dictated by the whims of others?

I suppose one could look at this as an issue of being "controlled by others". However, I don't happen to see it that way. Rather, I view it from the standpoint of me and others willfully doing what works best for all parties concerned.

I suppose it also depends upon one's end objective. If one's end objective is, as you suggest, to simple be who you are (as determined self-insullarily), then what you suggest may have merit.

However, if your objective is to satisfy the basic human need to love and be loved and to respect and be respected, then being reasonably and edifyingly open to social feedback in our typically complex and diverse cultural interactions, may be preferred.

For example, I had a communications professor tell me of an experience where some students of his from Japan visited him in his office. As was his practice, he had his feet propped comfortably up on his desk. When the students entered the room, they were immediately aggast and obviously offended, and quickly vacated the premisise. The professor ran after them to inquire what had caused the offense. The students explained that in Japan, showing the bottoms of one's shoes to another is a deep insult.

Now, the professor could have determined that putting his feet up on his desk is just a part of who and what he is, and that he was not going to be controlled by his Japanese student. Or, he could apologize for not knowing their custom, and promise to not put his feet up on the desk when the Japanese students were present in his office, think that good relations with them would be a good thing.

I see the later approach as lending itself better to effectual social interactions and to the benefit of all parties concerned. My professor felt likewise, and was subsequently blessed with a wonderful relationship with the Japanese students which lasted well beyond their collegiate years.

But, as previously mentioned, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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?

[_asbestosman]

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?

If you're worried about it, you could change your "squaky clean" avatar to something less likely to offend those people.

[_wenglund]

That is certainly a convenient approach. It absolves you of any responsibility at all when others may be offended by you. It's their problem, not yours. They are either immature or PC. Or, so you may think.

I don't know, though, if it is all that workable or socially developed an approach. It mistakenly assumes that you have a mature grasp of what is respectful and non-offensive. And, it prevents you from healthy self-reflection and self-criticism and also useful feedback, thus severly limiting your potential for growth in this area. Whether intending to be offensive or not, you may very well be socially clueless (as evidenced by your patently offensive special ed. "joke", which rightly offended LDS and non-LDS alike), and yet your approach will prevent you from getting a clue. That, to me, is the essence of dysfunction.

Well, I would expect no less from you. You mistakenly assume, however, that you know what you're talking about here.

Here's a news flash for ya: I am NOT responsible for how other people react. To think that I am responsible for others' emotions is neurotic. I cannot control how other people feel.

But to realize this does not prevent me from observing how other people do react, and if I'm motivated to reach people in a certain way, I can apply whatever skills I may have in order to reach that goal. However, it is not always my goal. Usually, my goal is to articulate exactly what I'm thinking rather than tempering what I say for mass consumption.

Perhaps your attitude here is why it appears to me that you're full of BS, Wade. You say all this crap in a certain way thinking it's going to reach your audience, with this pretense that you're trying to "help," when in reality, it looks like you're just being a snide jackass.

That wasn't meant to offend. I was just articulating an observation.

To each their own, I guess.

Thanks, -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-

[_Blixa]

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.