Posted by Siamang on: 09.17.2007 /
By Siamang.
I’m offended,
I’m offended,
I’m pretty sure the insult was intended,
If I tried that tack with you, you would be offended too
There’s just no way that this fence can be mended
I’m offended!
Hemant recently wrote about a column in the Denver Post which carried a headline referring to the old canard “There are no atheists in foxholes.” He took offense.
The author of the piece, Al Lewis (not Grandpa Munster) wrote:
If atheists are really offended by such an innocuous line, how are they any different than Jerry Farwell, who was offended by Tinky Winky, the allegedly gay Teletubbie? Or Muslims who didn’t like cartoons?
So goes the refrain, heard often.
Kathy Griffin insults Jesus, Bill Donohue insults Jews, Debbie Schlussel insults atheists… And we go around again.
Now, sometimes I have some harsh words to say about someone who has different beliefs or opinions. And sometimes to speak my mind, I might say something that offends.
If I say something that offends, but I really mean it, and I really want to say it anyway, does that keep me from being able to say I’m offended when someone else offends me?
As this picture illustrates… offense has no natural end-point.
Sometimes folks get offended by what atheists say, and yet at the same time, atheists need to be able to speak up when someone points a slur at their direction.
As I think about it, what’s going on is this: For the last couple of decades, our society has become more and more pluralistic, and in the process of all of us trying better to get along, we’ve got a new norm that we police. It’s called “I’m offended.” Be you Ann Coulter, Don Imus or Michael “Kramer” Richards, when you cross that line, you’d better be prepared for some howls.
I’m offended,
I’m offended,
The things you said just cannot be defended,
Speaking freely is just fine, but your speech just crossed the line,
It’s time your speaker’s soapbox was upended…
I’m offended!
Now some folks will howl at milder things than others, and society has gotten used to some of these “Cry Wolfers” and their never-ending boycotts based on imagined sexual references in childrens’ cartoons or puppet shows.
But as I see it, atheists are late to the game, somewhat, and would like to be let into the club of people who can use the magic words “I’m offended” and get some positive response. At the same time, they also want to be the people who are free to say critical things about religion and sometimes religious people…
But atheists as a group do not have the political power or organization or will to back up the complaints of offense. All we can do is howl, not bite.
So are we just whining? If we can’t back up our complaints of offense, how do we proceed? How can we in good conscience BOTH complain about our treatment AND speak our minds freely? Especially in a dialogue where it seems that our mere existence and assertion of our beliefs seems to be offensive to some.
Also, since nobody I know can muzzle P.Z. Myers or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or whoever is (rightly or wrongly) causing *offense* this week, how can we continue the conversation without inviting “you guys do it too” rebuttals from those who offend us?
I tentatively recommend a different response instead of “I’m Offended.” How about instead saying this:
“I’m requesting a tone of civility from you. Just me as a human being, not a member of a group, asking you, a human being, to see this for a second from my eyes. Will you do this?”
Any other thoughts, suggestions or ideas?
-Siamang
Comment by: Keith
1Siamang,
I like the way you think. Your suggested sentence is a real improvement on, “I’m offended.” Thanks, bro.
Comment by: Stephan
2Siamang,
I just finished reading the first section of “The God Delusion” and I was offended. Of course, that was Dawkins’ intent.
The temptation for me is to lay that on all atheists. “They all seem to look up to this guy, and he’s an egotistical jerk. They must all be egotistical jerks!”
And then atheists can look at any number of TV preachers and make the same blanket statement about Christians. And on and on it goes.
I think any time a label is put on a person you run the risk of lumping them in with the worst of the lot.
A recent turning point in my life was getting to know a gay coworker. I had known other gay people before, but never as a close friend. For some reason they don’t seem to hang out in church very much. Getting to know Allan was an eye opener for me. I could not longer use a label or stereotype on him. He was a person, and I really liked him. I think I did the same for him, putting a different face on evangelical Christians that made him question his use of labels.
I think this is the only way to break down the wall of being offended - personal relationships. I will probably always be offended by Dawkins, but you’re not Dawkins. You will probably always be offended by Falwell, but I’m not Falwell. As we get to know each other we can start to dismiss those on the extremes and see them for what they are - loud examples of ideology gone too far.
Comment by: Mike O
3I don’t want to offend anyone here. And if I do, I want to make it right - not because “I offended someone” in the generic “you shouldn’t offend people” sense, but rather because I offended someone I like and respect, and I don’t want to do that.
I think it would be helpful to your own sanity if, when you are offended, you require nothing of the offending party. Let it go, man - offense is poisonous.
I mean, if you’re offended you should say something for sure. But the offending party either gives a rat’s rear or they don’t. If they care about you and respect you, they will want to resolve the offense. If they don’t, the only one impacted by the offense is yourself.
If you’re offended, say something and try to make it right, but then let it go. It’s not worth the hassle.
Comment by: Stephan
4Mike, I would take that one step further. As I said above, I was offended by Dawkins. Since saying something is beyond possibility, I should let it go before giving it a thought. This is where so many people get wrapped around the axle. They get offended by people they don’t even know. They waste time and energy fretting over something said by someone who doesn’t even know they exist, let alone care.
The only offenses worth mentioning are offenses with people who care about me and about whom I care. Let the rest go.
Comment by: Mike O
5I was thinking that, too, but I remember a post that came out a few months ago about the Blasphemy Challenge. THAT offended me. But in an impersonal way, I just thought it was ridiculous and mean. So when something like that offends you, what do you do?
I’ve been a little vacant for a couple of weeks here, and the last thing we were talking about before I left was people being offended by public prayer before sporting events. And I was making kind of a big deal out of the word “offense” then. But the more I’ve thought about it over the last couple of weeks (and I HAVE been thinking about it), there’s a place for protest. But are “protest” and “offense” maybe incorrectly linked together? You should protest things you think are wrong or need to be changed, but I don’t think “offense” is necessarily the right angle.
Maybe you’re right, stephen - offenses worth mentioning are personal. If it’s not personal, maybe it’s not really “offense” at all. Maybe you just think it’s wrong.
Comment by: Mike O
6Rereading that, I didn’t mean “you think it’s wrong” in any personal way. I meant the general public can’t really be “offended.” I don’t know. Then again, I can think of a few examples that are publicly “offensive.”
Comment by: Siamang
7I’m still chewing over this idea. I think you’re right. I’m still working on what a better response might look like.
I think the word “offense” has kind of made us a nation of whiners… I don’t think it gets anyone the results they would like. It’s too easy to dismiss others when they talk about being offended… you can just say “well, don’t be so thin-skinned then!”
I think you’re on to something, Mike.
Comment by: Mike O
8Amen to that, brother!
Comment by: Mike C
9When I think about this issue it seems to me that there’s a difference between personal standards, societal standards, and legal standards.
Legally, a person should be able to say whatever they want. A person should not have to fear prosecution for being offensive.
Socially, we ought to encourage a culture of respect, sometimes by denying offensive people significant platforms (e.g. Don Imus being fired) - but this shouldn’t be enforced externally or artificially. If we cultivate a culture that encourages respect for differences, then people will naturally react negatively when people step over the line.
On the personal level, I think each individual needs to decide for themselves whether they wish to be known as an offensive individual or not - whether they will work for respect, reconciliation, and harmony or not. You can’t force people to be respectful, but personally I think things would be a lot better if we were. (Not that I always succeed of course.)
Comment by: Jason
10Maybe this is just me here, but isn’t there a difference between something that is offensive and something you vociferously disagree with?
As an atheist, I’m not “offended” by the atheists in foxholes line. I need some real personal insult for that. I will always take issue with the line because it makes a sweeping assumption that everyone really believes in god when it counts. Since I know this to be very much false, it’s a line I would argue against if put in a debate.
But am I offended? No. I think maybe some need to grow a bit thicker skin before taking insult with general criticisms of one’s belief system.