Being right and being offensive do not walk hand in hand, you can be right without being offensive, and failing to find that way is definitely not admirable.
Being right and being offensive do not necessarily walk hand in hand. On the occasions when they do, taking the right road/offensive road is admirable. On all other occasions, being right is more important than being inoffensive. The focus on the offensiveness becomes a distraction from the rightness of the position. The distraction should be more offensive.
Being right and being offensive do walk hand in hand for the intolerant Leftists. The demonizing of Conservatives is spreading in numbers and intensifying in its vitriolic rants.
Hillary Clinton stated: “You could put half of Donald Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables … the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – you name it.
Hillary has proven my point in her words. Being right and being offensive is all the Left knows and they want to be seen as tolerant and caring far from that they are.
"If you have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable, then you have discovered the secret of getting along - whether it be business, family relations, or life itself." - Bernard Meltzer
"If I have my opinion about something, you have your opinion about something, we don't have to fight over it. And we can have a conversation. We can also disagree without being disagreeable, and we can just disagree, which is fine. It doesn't mean that I don't like you, or you don't like me. We just disagree." - Don Lemon
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy" - Edward Newton
Repeating your original claim doesn't answer my question: why should it be my concern?
I don't acknowledge that any one has a valid entitlement, let alone a right, to not be offended. As someone whose mere existence is offensive to others, I'm not the slightest bit sympathetic to your position. So just hammering me over the head with your faith in civility isn't going to cut it. Unless you're just here to make non-compelling assertions, you'll need to actually advance an argument.
You are perceiving ''being offended'' as the same as ''being offensive''
If I am offended, that is my problem. If I am being offensive, that is mine too.
Offending and being offensive is not the same, not in my opinion at least. "offending" is about the other person, "offensive" is pointed the subject in discussion.
"offending" has a broad definition because it relies on what the receiver defines it to be.
As someone whose mere existence is offensive to others
Yes, because they are the same thing. Who identifies the person as "offensive"? The person who feels offended, obviously. You can't be offensive without an offended party. "Offensive" is retroactively projected as a character trait onto the people or things other people find to be offending; it's entirely centered on the sensibilities of the offended party.
You don't understand it conceptually or personally? Because conceptually, it's pretty straightforward. I have a number of identities people find offensive (e.g. queer), which makes me an offensive person merely for existing. I refuse to take responsibility for their bullshit, which is precisely what your position suggests I should do.
They are not offended, maybe they don't understand what offensive means.
You don't understand it conceptually or personally?
Conceptually.
And those who are offended by queers are merely that... offended. That's about them, and not about the queer.
You have to ask who causes it? Because the definition of offensive is; causing resentful displeasure. I don't see how a person simply existing can cause that. If you feel offended by their existence then you yourself are causing resentful displeasure.
Yes, exactly. It is about them, not the person they find offensive. That is my point. The difference between you and I on this issue being that I extend this observation uniformly to all cases. Being offended is inherently about the person who is offended. It is never about the offender, because they are not an offender until an offended person regards them as such. I am regarded as offensive, and that is sufficient to regard me as being offensive. Just as your regarding them as being offended by my existence is sufficient to regard them as being offensive. The only way for someone to be offensive is for someone else to view them as such. Which is why I don't think your original position is defensible, because it makes the offensive person responsible for what is fundamentally about another person.
What difference is that, exactly? I've already explained at length why I do not think an offensive person can exist without someone being offended by them, which makes all cases of offendedness fundamentally about the offended party and not the person regarded as being offensive by them.
You haven't explained why that wouldn't apply to cases of active offense due to unreasonable generalization, and you certainly haven't offered any counter explanation for how a person can be offensive without an offended party ascribing that to them. Not that that would answer my original question anyways, which pertains to why someone should take it on themselves to not be offensive.
(Incidentally, when I talk about people being offended that I'm queer I am necessarily also talking about my actions. They only know I'm queer if I act to signal that to them. So they are responding to action they find offensive. That action is an expression of who I am, but that's equally true of all actions by anyone.)
No, I understand that there is a difference between deliberately being offensive and being so accidentally. What I don't understand is why you think this translates into a difference in outcome, since the offended party is still ultimately the one who identifies that person as offensive or not (i.e. someone can try to be offensive and fail, and then I'd contend they're not offensive).
Nor have you ever explained why being deliberately offensive is actually bad. That was my original question.
A person cannot actively offend another person. A person can only TRY to offend another person. A person can only succeed at being offensive if the other person allows himself to be offended.
Being offended is a choice. People chose to be offended.
Being offensive can be a choice too. If you actively say discriminatory things, and other things like that then you are actively trying to be offensive.
There. You said it yourself. The person is "trying" to be offensive. As long as no one gives him the satisfaction by feeling offended, he can TRY all he wants.
Oh yeah? I think you suck at being offensive. Go ahead. Chose to offend me. I'll prove to you that you can chose all you want. you'll never succeed at being offensive (at least not with me) ;)
Assigning a purpose to a person can be futile. You have no access to their mind nor their way of thinking. You can only speculate as to what their purpose is.
For example, if a mentally challenged person says something you consider offensive, are they actively and purposely generalizing beyond reason or are they just merely incapable of reason?
Now take a "normal" person doing the same thing. Are they actively and purposely generalizing beyond reason or is there a small part of their brain that isn't fully developed yet? Can you prove it one way or the other beyond reasonable doubt?
Now, let us say that you are infalible at detecting when a person is actively and purposely generalizing beyond reason (I mean I generalize beyond reason all day, every day, here on CD ;) do you allow that person to succeed and exclaim, "You, my dear sir, have offended me beyond reason and now I am going to pout like a small child." Or, do you just roll your eyes and move on?
If you move on, then you understand that a person can only TRY to be offensive. A person can only be offensive when someone becomes offended.
If, on the other hand, you pout...., then there's no hope for you ;)
Here's something every Trumpian or Conservative should keep in mind........
"Just cuz you only care about the wealthy and don't care if your new POTUS is a sexual predator and will probably get in into a foreign war as well as a Civil War does not mean there are not other, more intelligent and thoughtful and caring people who loathe Trump, and think that the old saying, 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a Scoundrel' very true."
This topic is about Liberals, not Conservatives. Dismissing the OP's point by saying "well, the other side does bad things too!" is both fallacious and childish.
If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause - but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it's a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they're preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can't be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism."
Since you cannot spell the word I cannot help but doubt you really know the meaning.
Was JFK emasculated?
Was Gahndi?
Was FDR?
Was Jefferson?
Funny you, a guy who has a female avatar, using the word. If you are a dude, that is. I often wonder. I think you might be lady minkfart's lesbo lover.
Liberalism today is the exact opposite of what you cite. Emancipation from one's fears? All the left does is race bait, fear monger, name call and marginalize you if you disagree with them. Look at how they treat conservative Blacks; they are called Uncle Toms, sell-outs and a whole host of ad hominems not to mention how the treat Whites and others who don't toe the liberal line. And speaking of prejudice and discrimination, the left embraces it and makes it front stage and center. BLM, NAACP, Urban League, La Raza, Lulac, Black Panthers, Black Caucus, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson.... All prejudiced, racist groups and individuals and all are embraced by the Democrats. Furthermore, poverty is a hallmark of liberalism. Think Detroit, Baltimore, Ferguson et. al. All are liberally dominated and are sub par thanks to liberal doctrine.
Here is something what ever you say people get someway offended . let's say you say Christianity is right. i get offended because its against my faith you can keep it to yourself. or if you say god is great irrespective of religion . atheist get offended and ask you to stop spreading unscientific propaganda
Here is something every conservative should keep in mind:
Conservatives keep pushing the same "supply side/voodoo economics" that have totally been discredited. Critics say THESE policies have greatly increased disparity between RICH and POOR. Conservatives think: "Mission Accomplished"!
TEA Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
At some point, the rich are going to start feeling a little scared of the poor. Especially if there isn't a large middle class standing in the way. Especially if the poor consists of formally middle class members who are pissed off, not stupid and have assault weapons. ;)