Political Correctness, Stunting Growth?

[Jingo Jaden]

And to me, that seems arrogant and self-centered...which are not qualities that are particularly positive or lauded in Christianity. You don't care about hurting others, you only care that you get to do what you want. This seems extremely against what Christianity teaches, which is to deny the self and look to others and love them.

While offending others can be a positive thing (as noted with the example of Paul), it's not a matter of "Well if I'm offending something I'm doing something right," which is false logic, nor is it okay to say that offending people is fine no matter what.

As far as I'm concerned, unless someone is offended because you're doing what God says, you're doing something wrong.

Nice little cut out from my conversation there. Again, I see no moral impediment by using the word targeting. It's about as offensive as the word intentions in my book, and thus of no alterable qualities whatsoever and I would debate anyone who saw offensive qualities with it. If defense of position by merit is suddenly unchristian, then we have fallen very far. On that same note, Jesus said a great deal of politically incorrect things by modern standards. I don't consider Jesus to be especially unchristian, and it goes to far more a provocative standard than any of the words I've posted so far. I am sure he offended a great deal of people and as you said, that is not necessarily a bad thing. For there is a line between the politically correct and censorship that seems fragile on occasions, and while censorship is not inherently evil it DOES move towards the unsustainable and redundant as soon as it reaches the point of anti-swear laws. As swearing is deemed offensive by many and continuously attempted removed, and sometimes even passed by courts of law. Thus catering for the comfort of a few by the price of limiting many. If I saw a happy Hanukkah sign and somehow felt offensive, I do not think it would be a christian thing for me to do to lobby to have it removed for secular or religious purposes. I'd wish the people a happy Hanukkah, yet, around campus if you put up a cross it would likely be taken down by people with the very same mentality as posted above. While this is more act than word-based. It goes into my point that there are some things that should not appear offensive to anyone. Such as the word targeting.

I am not insensitive just because I set standards nor am I arrogant because I do not automatically presume the intentions of anyone to be well-weighted. Same argument I would use if someone asked me to take down a cross because it offended them somehow. I embrace multiculturalism way before I embrace imposed unification, sadly, a lot of PC decisions cater to the latter or selectively caters to specific groups.

So no, I don't always budge when there is no reason to do so. Sometimes, what people take offense from is on error from their part. Seeing how PC decisions are hugely objective, I would say it depends on a case to case basis, but I hold no decisions by a social elite to be cannon just because group X, Y and Z said it would be a good idea.

[Xeno]

Honest question. How is it their problem? You are the one who said the word or phrase. They find it hurtful. How is finding something insulting or hurtful their problem? How is it not your problem for saying it in the first place?

Why is it more important for you to be able to use a word, than for them to not be hurt and upset? Why is your convenience more important than their feelings? I just don't understand how they are at fault for being hurt by your actions, and why it's so important for you to be able to say something hurtful rather than respecting another person's emotions.

Maybe I should delve a bit further into how I see this. I never say something to someone to be intentionally hurtful. In fact, I only say things to people if I intend to help them or know they can handle it. What I meant by the statement of it being their problem is that if it's something I've said in an attempt to help them, and they want to get upset about it, it's not something I need to worry about. My intention was good, they just took it wrong and/or didn't want to hear what I had to say to them (and I don't just go around dishing out advice to people who don't ask for it, so this means they would have solicited me for the advice in the first place). I'm not trying to defend someone going around calling people stuff like a "c*** faced f****t" or a "n*****." What I am getting at is that the people I deal with seem to be incredibly thin-skinned to the point that anything I say that might even be a little bit off-color, intentional or not, floors them. I don't like it. If I've taken the time to tell you to "suck it up" or "get over it" then I said it for a very good reason. And the person's discomfort with what I've said is no longer an issue I have to deal with, it's their own for not being able to deal with whatever situation they've gotten themselves into.

[Nate]

Again, I see no moral impediment by using the word targeting.

But some people do. While I personally don't find the word offensive in and of itself, I can understand why some people would be offended by it, and would feel extremely uncomfortable with the word being used in certain contexts. Why is your feeling that it isn't a problem superior or "better" than their feeling that it is a problem? "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Romans 12:18. If someone is hurt or upset by what you say, and you continue to use it without regard for their feelings, how is this verse being fulfilled? Should you not respond kindly to their wishes?

To flip it around, say you feel something is morally wrong, and you ask someone to stop, and they keep doing it just to spite you. Wouldn't you be hurt or upset? Wouldn't you wonder why the other person is acting this way? You are this person in your scenario. If you would be upset by it, why would you act the same way in a similar situation?

I would debate anyone who saw offensive qualities with it.

Wouldn't it be easier and take less time to use a synonymous word that no one is upset or offended by? Why would you take the time to debate with someone about a word when 1) it clearly hurts them or they find it offensive and 2) it's easier and faster to just use a similar word? All I can see is arrogance and self-centeredness.

On that same note, Jesus said a great deal of politically incorrect things by modern standards.

Phil covered this in his last post, which I won't repeat, because he said it better than I could. I will re-emphasize however that His statements had context to them, and were not insulting "just because," nor was Jesus saying them simply out of stubbornness.

EDIT:

What I meant by the statement of it being their problem is that if it's something I've said in an attempt to help them, and they want to get upset about it, it's not something I need to worry about. My intention was good, they just took it wrong and/or didn't want to hear what I had to say to them

Ah okay then, yeah, that makes sense. I agree with you in that case, then (though I'd probably still apologize, and at that point if they did not accept my apology, I would have the same attitude you do).

[That Dude]

But that's not what PC means, or at least it's not what it originally meant. Back in the late '80s/early '90s, it was a philosophy, espoused principally on campuses, which tried to regulate speech. Specifically, it targeted speech (and those speakers) who insisted on the existence of any sort of absolute or superior system of opinion or belief -- in some cases, Christian faculty or students who held to certain doctrines that others considered 'discriminatory' or 'bigoted'. It seemed strange that an environment which supposedly encouraged diversity would single out those who disagreed with the 'norm' established through the standard of politically correct speech.

So, here we are twenty years later, and it has morphed into a seemingly innocuous phrase to ward off offensive words.

Well, maybe. And if it has really become that harmless, the more power to it. But I think you are just seeing the remnants of a somewhat successful purge that academia has undertaken to shout down and silence Christian speech and thought. Many of those Christian faculty who want to retain tenure at secular institutions have gone underground and, I think it fair to say, would not dare take a stand on certain issues in a public forum. The mini-conservative revolution seen after 9/11 has perhaps relieved some of the pressure. And, too, the hyperbolic reaction of the Right to PC has helped some see the dangers of limiting expression.

Amen!

When I think PC I think of what Otaku posted above.

I think we should as a rule, try to be curtious to others, but when an oppression of voiced opinions and statements occurs underneath the guise of "not wanting to hurt feelings" it does much worse than hurt feelings, it stunts personal and societal growth. We would not many things we take for granted like rulers being under the law if people were afraid of political correctness. They purposefully spoke out against an evil and fought it with tenacity, and that's why we have modern law (though it's failings are an entirely different thread worth of material.)

As far as my stand against PC, well I quote Nate, intolerance of intolerance is not a contradiction, but a necessity.

[Midori]

I try not to use the term "political correctness" because everybody means something slightly different by it.

[Cognitive Gear]

I think we should as a rule, try to be curtious to others, but when an oppression of voiced opinions and statements occurs underneath the guise of "not wanting to hurt feelings" it does much worse than hurt feelings, it stunts personal and societal growth. We would not many things we take for granted like rulers being under the law if people were afraid of political correctness. They purposefully spoke out against an evil and fought it with tenacity, and that's why we have modern law (though it's failings are an entirely different thread worth of material.)

Ah, see I think that this is the crux of where we differ: I don't think that political correctness causes this, I think that it does just the opposite. I think that most of us can agree that we want others to be able to say what they want, but that it is best if we all agree to not be insulting to each other when attempting to come to an understanding.

[MomentOfInertia]

It's easy to say "get over it," but some people are genuinely damaged emotionally and psychologically by things that others say. To expect someone to just "get over it" is neither loving nor reasonable, since you aren't in that person's head and you have no idea what sort of psychological and emotional scars they have.

You can get over a scraped knee. You can't "get over" an amputated leg. And that is what a lot of people are suffering from emotionally due to childhood abuse, among other things.

To use an innocuous phrase as an example, you might say to two different people, "Come on, I know you can do better than that." One might be slightly offended, and the other might have intense feelings triggered because that's what his father always said to him right before the beatings.

So expecting someone to "get over it" is a very calloused and unreasonable attitude.

Actually this goes back to my first post where I described political correctness as paranoid fear of offending.

"Come on, I know you can do better than that."

How am I supposed to know?
I mean if I know and I keep doing it that's one thing but if I met this person on the street.
I think in you're example the person simply must accept that for 99.9999999999% of the population, the phrase "Come on, I know you can do better than that." is completely innocuous.

Sort of like how blind people accept that so many common idioms are based around references to sight.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

In a world where people have sued over not being warned that there coffee is hot, and won, there are a lot of people who need to be told to chill out.

EDIT:

Ah, see I think that this is the crux of where we differ: I don't think that political correctness causes this, I think that it does just the opposite. I think that most of us can agree that we want others to be able to say what they want, but that it is best if we all agree to not be insulting to each other when attempting to come to an understanding.

As I said before]political[/I] in both intent and application.

[Radical Dreamer]

Actually this goes back to my first post where I described political correctness as paranoid fear of offending.

"Come on, I know you can do better than that."

How am I supposed to know?
I mean if I know and I keep doing it that's one thing but if I met this person on the street.
I think in you're example the person simply must accept that for 99.9999999999% of the population, the phrase "Come on, I know you can do better than that." is completely innocuous.

Sort of like how blind people accept that so many common idioms are based around references to sight.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

In a world where people have sued over not being warned that there coffee is hot, and won, there are a lot of people who need to be told to chill out.

I think that the particular post you quoted was actually more referring to the attitude that people should "get over it," not necessarily saying you should never tell anyone "I think you can do better than that." XD Yuki can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was just an example she was using to explain why "get over it" isn't an appropriate thing to say to someone who's hurting. The point isn't being afraid of offending someone by using a completely innocuous phrase. It's more about respecting that person if something you say does offend them.

[Nate]

In a world where people have sued over not being warned that there coffee is hot, and won, there are a lot of people who need to be told to chill out.

Am I going to have to go on the rant about this? I believe I am.

McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee]http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm[/url]

While the McDonald's coffee case is often cited as a "frivolous" lawsuit or just stupidity, the reality is it is neither.

[That Dude]

Ah, see I think that this is the crux of where we differ: I don't think that political correctness causes this, I think that it does just the opposite. I think that most of us can agree that we want others to be able to say what they want, but that it is best if we all agree to not be insulting to each other when attempting to come to an understanding.

I understand why you take a different understanding of PC, but when I use it I am personally referring to it in the historical context that ClosetOtaku was so kind to lay out for us. I grew up aware of it's origins as a political movement in defense of secular humanism and attack of deism and in particular, christianity.

Also Cog, I totally agree with you about your exposition of the verses that I quoted, but I think that you missed the point in that though there was a specific context to which all of these things were said, they were intentionally meant to be very cutting remarks. Not cruel mind you, but cutting. They were used in a way that even in their context were supposed to be offensive in order to get the other party and those listening and later reading to think through the ludicrousy of the other parties beliefs.

[Jingo Jaden]

But some people do. While I personally don't find the word offensive in and of itself, I can understand why some people would be offended by it, and would feel extremely uncomfortable with the word being used in certain contexts. Why is your feeling that it isn't a problem superior or "better" than their feeling that it is a problem? "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Romans 12:18. If someone is hurt or upset by what you say, and you continue to use it without regard for their feelings, how is this verse being fulfilled? Should you not respond kindly to their wishes?

It really depends on the context on the first, but I am arguing from it's neutral and even business oriented usage. As far as their feelings go, I would inquire what could possibly offend them with that word on a neutral ground. Seeing how I cannot think of why, I doubt I'd be persuaded to cater to their emotions as if they have a problem with something on that level, I cannot honestly guess the vocabulary they would feel comfortable with. If they are uncomfortable speaking to me, then guess what, that's fine, but I hardly feel the need to apologize where there was no ill intentions. Sometimes, being offended is not an error on another persons part. If people are not taught by life how to realize this, then the community as a whole has done them a great disservice. I doubt Jesus would apologize for calling hypocrites hypocrites, or for Jesus for using a lot of neutral words that could in the future be deemed offensive by someone for whatever reason.

To flip it around, say you feel something is morally wrong, and you ask someone to stop, and they keep doing it just to spite you. Wouldn't you be hurt or upset? Wouldn't you wonder why the other person is acting this way? You are this person in your scenario. If you would be upset by it, why would you act the same way in a similar situation?

Wouldn't it be easier and take less time to use a synonymous word that no one is upset or offended by? Why would you take the time to debate with someone about a word when 1) it clearly hurts them or they find it offensive and 2) it's easier and faster to just use a similar word? All I can see is arrogance and self-centeredness.

Phil covered this in his last post, which I won't repeat, because he said it better than I could. I will re-emphasize however that His statements had context to them, and were not insulting "just because," nor was Jesus saying them simply out of stubbornness.

EDIT:

Ah okay then, yeah, that makes sense. I agree with you in that case, then (though I'd probably still apologize, and at that point if they did not accept my apology, I would have the same attitude you do).

Fair enough. 'funny, must have pressed quote before the edit came into play' As far as apology goes. It depends. I find they are better earned than given freely. Don't get me wrong, as an individual I got lots of stuff to apologize for, probably a lot which I don't even register. I do often say I am sorry in a trinket form when I create a misunderstanding, but again, some people are simply offended on part of their own flaws. It is better to point this out in an argument than submit flat, albeit I don't like to tie people up in random arguments all the time. I am not a particular offensive person, but I do have my moments. Apologies are much better sincere when it fits, rather than handed out without anything behind it. Fate just has it that I only feel the need to apologize when it is apparent to me I've done something wrong, and some negative feelings are justified for everyone.

[Cognitive Gear]

I am so glad that Nate covered the hot coffee lawsuit. It's actually a fascinating case of our justice system working the way that it should, read up on it if you never have.

As I said before; in the abstract a nice idea, in execution not so much.
It's the political in political correctness that is the problem, it is political in both intent and application.

I'm not really sure what the execution you are referring to is, though. Would you mind explaining what you mean? Feel free to PM me the details if you think it is not board appropriate.

[Darth_Kirby]

I think I have a very different understanding of political correctness then some of the people here. I was always under the impression that political correctness was the mentality that you can't offend anyone. Especially particular groups. For example, you have a manger scene in your yard and it offends an atheist, thus you take it down, or you say something of an opposing political view in your work place and you get fired for it. Basically, political correctness is a bad thing. It is a vice of "over tolerence" where you can't express your beliefs or speak your mind on any issue that the political culture considers taboo without getting ostrisized. The political culture being determined by the news media and major parties of course.

[Cognitive Gear]

I grew up aware of it's origins as a political movement in defense of secular humanism and attack of deism and in particular, christianity.

Upon reading the wikipedia article on political correctness to understand it's history, I discovered that I will hereby be abandoning the term. Perhaps I am over-reacting, but the meme, "It's a trap." does not begin to describe the absolute ridiculousness of the origin of the term. It's the result of nothing short of political name-calling, fear-mongering, and finger pointing. And no, it's history is not what you think it is.

I still support the ideas of "not offending others", however.

[Garland]

As I understand the "get over it" mentality, it refers to things like atheists wanting to remove crosses from view. I don't think that this is similar to what Yuki said about the child abuse example, (which I agree with) but the idea of not offending groups seems common with "political correctness." Most people don't try to offend others and they don't know what will. The problem is that everyone is different and if you try to find a way not to offend anyone, you basically can't say anything controversial. This discussion seems to hinge on whether political correctness is about offending individuals or offending groups.

Basically, I understand political correctness as Darth_Kirby said.

[armeck]

this is my opinion of political correctness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSds4pDoHLU

[Yuki-Anne]

I think that the particular post you quoted was actually more referring to the attitude that people should "get over it," not necessarily saying you should never tell anyone "I think you can do better than that." XD Yuki can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was just an example she was using to explain why "get over it" isn't an appropriate thing to say to someone who's hurting. The point isn't being afraid of offending someone by using a completely innocuous phrase. It's more about respecting that person if something you say does offend them.

Precisely. I even said, "To use an innocuous phrase as an example..." I was talking about the attitude, not the words themselves.

[Xeno]

While the McDonald's coffee case is often cited as a "frivolous" lawsuit or just stupidity, the reality is it is neither.

This reminded me of a wonderful article I read on <mod snip> a while back: <mod snip: While it does pertain to the topic, the site in question still contains more profane language than a warning can cover.>

It's a pretty good read and I think it's goes well with this topic.

Quick caution though. <mod snip>, while amazingly hilarious, does often contain profane language in their articles. If you have an issue with that sort of thing I suggest you steer clear of this article.

[ShiroiHikari]

I don't get why offending people is always a bad thing. We really can't control who gets offended over what. Obviously, a good place to start is by not being a bigoted racist jerk. But some people are just looking to be offended, and there's nothing you can do about those people.

[That Dude]

I don't get why offending people is always a bad thing. We really can't control who gets offended over what. Obviously, a good place to start is by not being a bigoted racist jerk. But some people are just looking to be offended, and there's nothing you can do about those people.

Once again, something that we can agree on.

In many cases people take offense at things that are either weaknesses or sins on their part. Now I'm not saying that it's always the case, but many times it is. Kinda like the addage "the further you are from the truth the harder you try to fight it."

Also on the subject of avoidance of offending, some people say that it's loving to never offend somebody, but think about what love truly is. It's doing what's best for the other person regardless of the cost to oneself. Sometimes doing what's best means that with a person who takes undue offense at any given subject needs to be shown the ridiculousness and stupidity and not to mention the hurtfulness of their attitude.

So while I agree you shouldn't be a jerk, I think that avoidance of offense at all costs is much more hurtful than helpful.

[Scarecrow]

Eww no. I can't stand political correctness. Although it really depends on what you mean specifically by that. If you mean like... intentionally hurting or offending someone, then yeah, all for that (really don't call that political correctness though)... other than that, it can kiss my bottom. And I say that more out of irritation because Political correctness is a two way street and most people treat it like it's one way, and it's the double standards people create because of it that ticks me off.

And then they just get absolutely stupid with it... most of what I consider PC stuff is all in the media and stuff... IRL it doesn't have much weight cause you don't really run into those kind of fruit loops unless you live in LA or something.

[Nate]

a person who takes undue offense at any given subject

I don't know how you can determine if someone's offense at a subject is undue or not unless you ask them, and I have a feeling for some, if it was an answer they didn't personally like, they would call it undue reason simply because they disagreed with it.

the hurtfulness of their attitude.

How is being upset at something someone said that offends you being hurtful? Their reaction could be hurtful, yes, but how are their feelings of discomfort or pain hurtful to others in any form?

I think that avoidance of offense at all costs is much more hurtful than helpful.

I agree, but the problem is from what I have seen, the admittance that "Sometimes people need to offend others" inevitably transforms into "If I offend others, I'm blameless, so I won't care how the other person feels." The feeling that offense is necessary at times turns into justification for offending others, whether the offense is justified or not.

it's the double standards people create because of it that ticks me off.

I'm really curious what these supposed double-standards that are created could be, but I have a feeling they probably can't be discussed publicly for political reasons.

[Cognitive Gear]

And then they just get absolutely stupid with it... most of what I consider PC stuff is all in the media and stuff... IRL it doesn't have much weight cause you don't really run into those kind of fruit loops unless you live in LA or something.

Fruit loops?

[Nate]

Maybe he meant Froot Loops?

I hope so at least, because otherwise the only interpretation I can make would be a very personal insult against me (and I don't even live in California).

[Darth_Kirby]

I don't know how you can determine if someone's offense at a subject is undue or not unless you ask them, and I have a feeling for some, if it was an answer they didn't personally like, they would call it undue reason simply because they disagreed with it.

I don't really follow what you mean by saying that if it was an answer they didn't like they'd call it undue. What's undue is if the person reacts in a way that is out of line for the question asked. For example, if I ask someone if they think we should put the army on our southern borders to cut undocumented imigration and the person responds by calling me a racist, that is undue and out of line. They are not addressing the issue, they are being needlessly offended.

How is being upset at something someone said that offends you being hurtful? Their reaction could be hurtful, yes, but how are their feelings of discomfort or pain hurtful to others in any form?

If you try to find offense at every opportunity, which some do, then that will hurt the people who care about you and are trying to help you at times. Family is the most common example in this instance. If you are constantly "offended" when your family tries to give you advice you are not only going to hurt yourself, but your family as well. Your suffering becomes their suffering and that goes well beyond the initial reaction.

I agree, but the problem is from what I have seen, the admittance that "Sometimes people need to offend others" inevitably transforms into "If I offend others, I'm blameless, so I won't care how the other person feels." The feeling that offense is necessary at times turns into justification for offending others, whether the offense is justified or not.

Not percisely, though some people will take it to that extreme. Most of the time people who understand that there are those who try to be offended don't take the "more holy than thou" approach. Though we should strive not to offend others, we shouldn't be afraid to offend others if it is for what is right or just.

I'm really curious what these supposed double-standards that are created could be, but I have a feeling they probably can't be discussed publicly for political reasons.

The reason it leads to double standards is because one side will be able to say whatever they want and they'll be in the "right" because it doesn't offend their peers, but the instant another person says something that "offends" the clique, they call them intolerant, bigoted, racist, or whatever name that will devolve the debate into a senseless arguement.

[Rusty Claymore]

This thread offends me.

[Syreth]

I try not to use the term "political correctness" because everybody means something slightly different by it.

YES. Failing to agree on a definition seems like it would make it kind of hard to have a meaningful discussion about the topic.

If people mean "politeness" when they say "political correctness," then I'm all for political correctness. I mean, after all, who would dare say that they don't like politeness?

If people mean "crippling paranoia that means you can't say anything with conviction for fear of offending someone," then I would have to say that I could do with less political correctness. People who like crippling paranoia are no fun at all.

In all seriousness, I think it comes down to picking your battles, and being careful to phrase things well in order to maximize agreement.

[ShiroiHikari]

Or how about we just never voice our opinions! Then nobody can get offended, amirite?

Say you've struck up a conversation at the coffee shop with someone you don't really know. Let's call this person "X". X asks you about your religion. You say that you are a Christian. X gets offended and starts calling you things like bigot, zealot, etc. Who's at fault here? You weren't trying to offend X. He's the one that asked you about religion. Would it have been better to just politely leave instead of telling him the truth?

[Nate]

I don't really follow what you mean by saying that if it was an answer they didn't like they'd call it undue.

Okay, let's say I'm hanging out with some friends, and one of them makes a sexist joke about women belonging in the kitchen. I say to that person "Hey, that really offends me, I find it sexist and belittling to women." He might say "How does that offend you? It was a joke." I would respond "Even if it is a joke, there are people that actually think that way these days, and it's still insulting and could hurt a woman's feelings if she didn't know you were joking."

In this scenario, let's say the guy disagrees with my assessment of why I am offended by my joke. He might respond by saying I'm "too PC," he might respond by saying "Lighten up and get over it." In these situations, he disagrees with me, even though I believe my reasoning is sound. Thus, merely because he disagrees with me, he might say I am unduly offended. In other words, he does not think my offense is undue because it is without merit or poorly thought out, but merely because he disagrees with it.

Also now "undue" is starting to not even seem like a word. And it's making me think of fondue.

if I ask someone if they think we should put the army on our southern borders to cut undocumented imigration and the person responds by calling me a racist, that is undue and out of line.

I don't think it's undue or out of line, although it depends on how they state it. If you asked them that and they simply went "You racist!" then that's out of line, though I don't think it's undue offense if they are truly offended by that remark. If they said "I believe that would be an extremely racist action, and here is why," I don't think you could call that out of line or undue, for it is neither.

On another note, maybe you shouldn't use such an overtly political real-life situation as an example? It could cause argument and the thread to be locked...at least I try to phrase my examples as dumb stuff like fires and sandwiches and stuff.

They are not addressing the issue, they are being needlessly offended.

And here's exactly the problem I was talking about. If they think it's racist, they're not being "needlessly" offended. Even if you didn't find it racist, they did, and to say that it's "needless" simply because you disagree with them is pretty rude and self-centered. There are plenty of people who didn't view things as racist at the time that were extremely and profoundly racist...the camps the United States set up during World War II to imprison Japanese-Americans comes to mind, it was defended as a "necessity" to protect our country, but it was merely racist.

If you are constantly "offended" when your family tries to give you advice you are not only going to hurt yourself, but your family as well. Your suffering becomes their suffering and that goes well beyond the initial reaction.

Hmm, okay, that's a good example. I was thinking more about language and usage of certain phrases/terms, rather than stuff like advice. But you're absolutely right about that one.

Though we should strive not to offend others, we shouldn't be afraid to offend others if it is for what is right or just.

I agree to an extent, obviously we should always do what is right, and if doing what is right offends others, then that is fine...but we should take care not to think that doing what is right will always offend others, or that offending others is the first step in doing what is right. We also should not interpret this situation as "Offending another person means I am doing something right," because that is not a true statement. "Doing something right will always offend people" is also not a true statement.

The only true statement is "Sometimes, when I am doing the right thing, some people may be offended." But again, it almost always turns into offending others = righteousness, or doing right = offending people, neither of which is the case.

The reason it leads to double standards is because one side will be able to say whatever they want and they'll be in the "right" because it doesn't offend their peers, but the instant another person says something that "offends" the clique, they call them intolerant, bigoted, racist, or whatever name that will devolve the debate into a senseless arguement.

So what I'm seeing is "If someone is inoffensive everyone is fine with it, but if someone is offensive people get upset!" Which...that's not a double standard. I don't see how anyone could even possibly interpret that as a double standard.

[Cognitive Gear]

Also on the subject of avoidance of offending, some people say that it's loving to never offend somebody, but think about what love truly is. It's doing what's best for the other person regardless of the cost to oneself.

This bothers me because it can lead to self-righteousness or arrogance, as it requires that I assume that I know what is best for someone's life better than they do. We are all flawed human beings that make mistakes and have wrong opinions and ideas. It also seems to make the offender the victim, which is at best a strange way to look at it.

In addition, I really can't think of a situation where knowingly and aggressively offending someone will be the best course of action. If you are talking to a minority, calling them a racial slur isn't going to ever help you communicate with them. (I suppose that if you are part of the same minority group you could get away with it.)