06-04-2024, 06:59 PM
Offense, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
It is significant that comedians can literally make a living being rude. They often deliberately flaunt the boundaries that "regular folks" place around themselves to "avoid being offended." Maybe that could be partly why it's funny.
But as litigious human beings, we want to model and codify our reality... making "rules" about how you may "hurt" people and avoid a punch in the face, or a seriously damaged relationship.
I think the problems arise when anyone feels 'entitled' to not be offended. It has led to many problems, and occasional serious damage, when a 'victim' of offense becomes determined to exact 'equal and opposite' offense. Usually "equal" is as vague and undefinable as "justice" when the "offended" is the sole arbiter.
What I am most interested in is the type of "offense" cited which requires 'effort' to contrive.
I am of the opinion that "free speech" is not a right... I would rather consider it a "responsibility." And what of those who 'resent' responsibilities?
I may offend anyone in the course of my utterances (spoken or written.) And equally important, I am ready to risk being offended by listening (or reading) the what anyone might communicate. Otherwise, what am I?
(Darn it! I slipped off-track there a bit... sorry about that.)
It is significant that comedians can literally make a living being rude. They often deliberately flaunt the boundaries that "regular folks" place around themselves to "avoid being offended." Maybe that could be partly why it's funny.
But as litigious human beings, we want to model and codify our reality... making "rules" about how you may "hurt" people and avoid a punch in the face, or a seriously damaged relationship.
I think the problems arise when anyone feels 'entitled' to not be offended. It has led to many problems, and occasional serious damage, when a 'victim' of offense becomes determined to exact 'equal and opposite' offense. Usually "equal" is as vague and undefinable as "justice" when the "offended" is the sole arbiter.
What I am most interested in is the type of "offense" cited which requires 'effort' to contrive.
I am of the opinion that "free speech" is not a right... I would rather consider it a "responsibility." And what of those who 'resent' responsibilities?
I may offend anyone in the course of my utterances (spoken or written.) And equally important, I am ready to risk being offended by listening (or reading) the what anyone might communicate. Otherwise, what am I?
(Darn it! I slipped off-track there a bit... sorry about that.)
