I find it interesting that the whole discussion focuses on the rights of individuals to choose how to behave. There seems to be no corresponding right for individuals (including children) to be protected from behaviour they may find offensive or threatening.
Protected from being offended? Never. We choose to be offended.
Is the use of the words we’re discussing threatening them? No. Unless the intent of the speaker is to threaten, in which case, they could use any words they wanted, “foul” or not, and still threaten, so the point is again moot.
I believe that where I have rights, I also have responsibilities, and as far as possible, I should ensure that the exercise of my rights doesn’t adversely affect those around me. I don’t consider that to be any form of censorship or imposed restriction; it’s my choice, because I see it as the only way to build the kind of civilised society I want to live in.
So in the case where a stranger sat across the aisle from me on a busy bus and addressed a non-stop stream of expletive-laden and sexually explicit drivel at me for several miles, you would say he was in the right, and I was in the wrong because I chose to find it offensive? And therefore presumably the bus driver was also wrong, when he eventually stopped the bus and offered the guy the choice between shutting up or getting off, to applause from most, if not all, of the other passengers? (A mixed group in terms of both age and sex.) I had not responded in any way to the guy, nor had I asked anybody else to intervene, so I can only assume I was not the only person on that bus who considered his behaviour offensive.
I think @jeffreylees means that someone can be offended by anything. So you can’t base a rule on the idea of not offending someone. These days some people seem to be looking for things to be offended by when the other person intends no offence. To me it seems to be easy to tell the difference between someone intending to cause offence or trying to be intimidating and someone who is just expressing them-self or their point in a passive manor.
Isn’t that the truth.
I was brought up believing that it was the polite thing to do to hold a door open for someone behind you.
Twice I had people offended by me doing this. (though usually I get a “thanks”)
One, a women who thought I was being sexist.
Another, a women in a wheelchair that though I was doing it out of pity.
After I told them I’d do the same for anybody, they were OK with it.
I, too, am sorry that you had to experience something like that.
Unfortunately, though, we’re still talking about different points. The thing that is the problem there is the person and their attitude and intent, not the actual words. I bet you could’ve found yourself quite offended if he had never spoken an actual “foul” word - people can be quite foul quite on their own. I feel like I keep repeating this same logic, though, and it’s not being heard.
Are people correct to do things like they did to you? Of course not - I hope you don’t imagine I think otherwise. But it’s what they did that matters (and is wrong) to me, not the words they did it with.
And, incidentally, no one ever said one is wrong to choose to be offended - it’s just my personal philosophy that that is our choice, our reaction - no one can force emotion on me - I let it happen.
It just so happens that I lack some control in this area and get offended quite easily at times
I don’t agree that you always have the choice to be offended or not. Other than perhaps in very mild cases, I think it is a automatic emotional response to a social situation. However you can only really blame the person who offended you if it is clear they are trying to offend you.
I think if you find yourself offended and the person who offended you clearly didn’t intend to be offensive (this includes by following an intellectual argument/debate) then you should think about whether you should feel offended and try to overcome those feelings, or to tell the person that you find it offensive and explain why. For instance, breast feeding in public sometimes makes me feel uncomfortable but I know it shouldn’t, so I try to overcome those feelings so it doesn’t effect me any more. I don’t really mind it now.
I’ve had the same problem! And yes I open doors for men, women, children, all ages, all abilities, all races, all sexualities. Sometimes even getting a bad look if you say “good morning”, or “hi” in passing a woman, where I think they have made the same assumption as opening a door. Old men seem to be most cheerful about saying “good morning”. Never had an old man tell me I’m being ageist or sexist for just trying to be nice!
For some reason I also get ‘sexism’ abuse when a female guest comes to my house and I show them where the cleaning products are too. (joking )
[quote=“jeffreylees, post:87, topic:196259”]
Unfortunately, though, we’re still talking about different points. The thing that is the problem there is the person and their attitude and intent, not the actual words. I bet you could’ve found yourself quite offended if he had never spoken an actual “foul” word - people can be quite foul quite on their own. I feel like I keep repeating this same logic, though, and it’s not being heard.
[/quote]I do hear you, and I agree that there are more ways to be offensive than simply employing offensive language.
But my point here is that an entire bus full of people were offended by this guy - and the only objectionable thing about his conduct was his language. He wasn’t violent or threatening (although I do know women who would have found him intimidating). I have no problem with strangers talking to me on a bus - or indeed anywhere else. But I found his language thoroughly offensive - and doubly so as he was addressing it to a woman. He didn’t appear to be going out of his way to be rude; as far as I could tell, he saw no problem with what he was saying.
[quote=“RT_, post:1, topic:196259”]
I am not saying it is ok to be rude to people, I am saying that these censored words are simply tools like any other word, and can be abused like any other word, so why do we discriminate against those particular words?
[/quote]So that’s my problem. If you are saying that there should be no “taboo” words, then this guy’s behaviour is completely acceptable. And yet it was not acceptable to anybody present, nor do people here seem to find it acceptable.
OK. I guess I can’t continue on this line of discussion unless I know what he was saying, which doubtless you wouldn’t want to repeat. If he was just using “foul language” in conversation, then this is no different than any example of someone being offended by words as this entire conversation goes. If it was him personally, verbally (or otherwise) assaulting you or harassing you, then my previous comment applies, and I myself would be offended on your behalf! Not sure where else to go with this.
I presume we don’t want to turn this into a feminism discussion, too, but I suspect that there are a lot of women who would find the idea that there’s an acceptable way to speak to women, in specific, offensive (and choose to be annoyed? )
This is the very thing we’re discussing. Well, really, the second.
Should language be censored by default simply because of the word used and not its context or intent.
Why are certain words “offensive” “foul” or other such descriptors.
You’re providing an example of you, and others, being offended. But that doesn’t defend either argument for or against, it merely re-asserts that there are words that bother some / most people.
You said this stranger was ranting at you with ‘sexually explicit drivel’? Are you saying that if he ranted at you in the same context but used words that are not swear words, then everyone would feel perfectly comfortable? I wasn’t there and his behaviour certainly doesn’t sound ok, but I imagine the meaning and context of what he was saying was what was threatening and offensive, rather than just the terminology.
When I was young - before movies had ratings (yes, I’m that old) our family sometimes went to drive-ins.
The program started with cartoons (for the young ones)
then there was a family film
last was a mature film (for the adults)
The premise was that as the films got more “adult” the younger ones would have fallen asleep and wouldn’t be subjected to anything not proper for their age. (up to the parents to enforce, mine did)
Before my time there were Gentlemen Clubs and Saloons. No Women or Children (well, for the most part)
Sexist? No, men there might do all kinds of poor behavior - drinking, smoking, gambling, cursing, etc. that it was felt wrong for a “proper” women to be exposed to.
I think a hold-over of this is the idea of a “man cave”. eg. If a bunch of guys are drinking and watching a game they want to talk freely without censoring their speech.
In other words, if one is in a situation where some might be offended self-restraint is in order.
eg. late night television has content that is a bit more bawdy than prime time, but they still bleep certain words - and yes I agree it is rather silly to censor some of them - because network executives never really know who might be watching.
Of course innuendo / double entendre is OK because supposedly only those already “in the know” will “get it”
Unless discussing something important where the other person/people may be offended but the issue needs to be discussed. Like discussing if humans evolved, for instance, would offend many creationists, but if you can’t challenge ideas then you cant make any intellectual progress.
By definition, that’s sexist. But that’s a product of the times, too.
In other words, if one is in a situation where some might be offended self-restraint is in order.
I personally practice self restraint about a lot of things - I don’t use certain words or discuss certain topics around a variety of people and situations - because I choose to honor people’s interests and beliefs and sensitivities on some subjects. But attempting to restrain your attitude, conversation, and word choice every time you’re in a situation where someone might be offended is definitely folly, as someone out there can and will be offended at anything that you might say or do.
It was a couple of years ago, so at this stage, I couldn’t if I wanted to.
[quote=“jeffreylees, post:91, topic:196259”]
If it was him personally, verbally (or otherwise) assaulting you or harassing you, then my previous comment applies, and I myself would be offended on your behalf!
[/quote]Suffice to say it was along the lines of his views on women generally and me in particular, and what he would like to do given half a chance. Harassing? Yes, I’d certainly agree with that. Threatening? No.
[quote=“jeffreylees, post:91, topic:196259”]
I suspect that there are a lot of women who would find the idea that there’s an acceptable way to speak to women, in specific, offensive (and choose to be annoyed?
[/quote]I don’t think it’s sexist; I think there are things which are quite acceptable to discuss with friends of the same sex (be that male or female), but you would hesitate to discuss with a stranger of the same sex, never mind a stranger of the opposite sex.
But I found his language thoroughly offensive - and doubly so as he was addressing it to a woman.
Yeah, the thing I was pointing out was the first comment, which is or can be different entirely than your clarified version
I think there are things which are quite acceptable to discuss with friends of the same sex (be that male or female), but you would hesitate to discuss with a stranger of the same sex, never mind a stranger of the opposite sex.
Personally, I’d agree.
Suffice to say it was along the lines of his views on women generally and me in particular, and what he would like to do given half a chance. Harassing? Yes, I’d certainly agree with that. Threatening? No.
So yeah, I’d call that harassment, regardless of the words that were used (as previously stated, you can usually say the same offensive, harassing, or sexual thing by using substitute words) and I’d condemn it regardless of the verbiage he was using; thus I have trouble seeing it in light of this debate.
Side note: Did anyone around you speak up? I find it odd that people are willing to sit for such behavior. Maybe it’s good that I don’t use public transit. I’d end up in verbal altercations (or getting attacked ) when exposed to stupid people that often.
[quote=“jeffreylees, post:97, topic:196259”]
I find it odd that people are willing to sit for such behavior.
[/quote]So do I, but it’s what I’ve come to expect. The fact that the driver eventually intervened is what leads me to believe that on this occasion, it was the language which was the deciding factor, because usually people just pretend there’s nothing happening.
This whole debate is useless because it will never go anywhere.
We already agreed that you can be offensive and hurt someone even if you don’t use cursewords.
We also agreed that sometimes, even if you use bad language, you can send a positive message.
Do you want to swear in front of your kids, families and friends? Your call. On the street? Your call.
At work? Your call.
In the first case (in front of your kids), in my humble opinion, you’re setting a bad example but hey, those are your family and friends. And it is your responsability to teach your kids how to behave. When they older, they’ll have to educate themselves and try to overcome whatever faults that we, as parents, have taught them.
In the second? Well, maybe someone can be annoyed or offended… and even if that person is having a bad day, you may get into a fight. But who cares?
At work? Well, maybe your colleagues take it well and even they’re like you… or maybe you’ll have to look for another job.
The thing is, the rules of society are hyprocresy but they’re there because if we behave like we wanted to, probably humanity wouldn’t exist today
I think that we all understand each other’s point of view. But we will never share them.
I don’t think it is useless. To this point it has been an interesting discussion. It’s also interesting that more people have voted that we should stop censoring swear words.
It has challenged the status quo of people just censoring words without thinking if it is right to do so.
It’s typical for people to take both sides of a debate, and a lot of people will never change their mind once it has been made up. There is a subsection of people who will, I imagine those have made their minds up after considering the previous arguments for both sides and their own opinion.
)
) 