[Closed] ditch_jockey / reader response / authorial intent

TJ wants a discussion on interpretation and detail and nuances.

This can only end up well, eh, readers?

This is likely to be a ten biscuit thread;

[img] [/img]

Oh well - it was serious request to be edumacted

Hi TJ

On the 'godbotherers' one I suspect it is like many 'funny' ways of referring to people. It is amusing in a I haven't heard that before sort of way the first few times (I found it funny at least) but once it becomes part of the general STW lexicon that changes. I suspect that may also have been true of some of the other comments recently discussed.

You are right in there was no intent to offend but it happened. Once you were aware of it you stopped (or at least intend to stop unless you actually want to cause offense) which is as much as anyone can ask really. I suspect that if everyone took that approach then the massive discussion last night wouldn't have happened.

I've had enough of serious for a bit.

Have a listen to this instead:

I'm a Catholic, and (personally) dont find the term 'godbotherer' offensive - I've used it myself several times on here in the past. Let's not allow this thread to go the way of the sexism one, please. For me, the bottom line is, if someone says they find something offensive, step back, think about what you may or may not have said to cause offence, and if it's not a big deal, apologise and move on. Sometimes, there's more to life than simply winning an argument or proving your moral or intellectual superiority over someone. Life's too short ...

just because someone's offended, doesn't mean they're [i]right[/i]

sorry - this was not about the offensive posting - its about the linguistics behind it.

I stated that

its not what you intend that matters - its how its perceived by others

And was told this is not so so I said

so its acceptable to say offensive things if there is no intent to offend?

And was told that that was not so either

Now there is a nuance here I don't understand so I was hoping ditchjockey or others would explain it.

Oh great, more....

[img] http://dimbulb.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454a03269e20120a4c71f59970b-800wi [/img]

Rusty Spanner - I'll see your half man, half biscuit and raise you.....

Hierarchy?
Eye/ear of the beholder, first.
Context, second.
Past history, track record, third.

so I had no intent to offend but did offend so the offence was not in the intent but in how it was perceived.So - help me out here chaps

TJ - having been on various legal, courses to educate/protect managers, my understanding is that the legal position rests on how your comments/actions are perceived. Intentions are irrelevant. This is why the working environment is so difficult - its almost impossible to protect yourself from not offending someone at some time.

I'll chip in...

What I don't understand (edited highlights) is where the line is drawn on what's offensive if it's only judged on how it's received by any individual whether they were the intended recipient or not.

So when TJ got pulled up for being religionist in the example above - could I not say that I find the remarks reprimanding him offensive? Afterall, there was no intent to offend, nor would it normally be expected to be offensive but if I was actually offended would I be being over-sensitive or could I expect an apology and some modding in my favour? Would I need to provide a reason for my offence?

If you don't need a reason for saying something is offensive despite the vast majority not having previously said it is offensive (passive acceptance if you like) what's to stop people clogging the forum up with bollocks* "that's offensive" claims?

So presumably to be judged "offensive" intent must be considered alongside reasonable interpretation, situation, participants in the conversation and potential audience?

*Apologies to anyone offended by my use of a slang term for male genitalia in a pejorative sense.

A good article on...

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/17/comment.charliebrooker ]offended people[/url]

TJ got pulled up for being religionist in the example above

What? Seriously?

*headbutts keyboard*

The above article is now twice as valid

I'll see your Macc Lads and raise you:

Now, THAT'S a class tune for a night out.

[i]Intentions are irrelevant.[/i]

legally, this.

morally, maybe.

IvanDobski - Member
I'll chip in...What I don't understand (edited highlights) is where the line is drawn on what's offensive if it's only judged on how it's received by any individual whether they were the intended recipient or not.

You are not alone!!

So when TJ got pulled up for being religionist in the example above - could I not say that I find the remarks reprimanding him offensive?

Yes - absurd isn't it!

If you don't need a reason for saying something is offensive despite the vast majority not having previously said it is offensive (passive acceptance if you like) what's to stop people clogging the forum up with bollocks* "that's offensive" claims?

Nothing in theory.

I guess (?) the legal stance was to try and stop people hiding behind the defence that I didn't mean it. Lets take the JT case - he could argue (unjustifiably IMHO) that he had no intention of being racist by adding the word "black" to his abuse. He was merely stating an observation. So the law is trying to stop that sort of defence and place the onus on all of us not to offend others.

But frankly its almost unworkable and defeats the objectives at times.

Afterall, there was no intent to offend

That fact couldn't be seen by those who were offended. That's the point

nor would it normally be expected to be offensive

By whom? That is also the point here. Lets not limit ourselves to this particular example

but if I was actually offended would I be being over-sensitive or could I expect an apology and some modding in my favour?

No apology was asked for or expected and certainly no modding was asked for. TJ freely offered both

Please don't let this turn into another faith dominated thread. TJ's question is much wider than that

To me the use of offensive language has always focussed not on the intent of the person using it but on how its perceived by the person hearing it.

this is such horseshit. i was telling you yesterday that things you had written were offensive towards the english and rather than just accept that you'd offended, you were happy to argue all day that you hadn't because [b]you[/b] didn't perceive it to be offensive.

🙄

I'd like nothing better than to fill the rest of this page with an unnecessarily florid description of something utterly disgusting happening to a well-known public figure - an 850-word fantasy in which, say, David Miliband unexpectedly develops extreme and explosive diarrhoea while entertaining a group of foreign dignitaries in a pod on the London Eye on the hottest day of the year, to take just one example. But I can't, because a tiny handful of you would complain.

In my view, the delight such an unnecessary and puerile description would give to myself and others far outweighs the pain it would cause these oversensitive life-spoiling idiots. The offended people.

I hate offended people. They come in two flavours - huffy and whiny - and it's hard to know which is worst. The huffy ones are self-important, narcissistic authoritarians in love with the sound of their own booming disapproval, while the whiny, sparrowlike ones are so annoying and sickly and ill-equipped for life on Earth you just want to smack them round the head until they stop crying and grow up. Combined, they're the very worst people on the planet - 20 times worse than child molesters, and I say that not because it's true (it isn't), but because it'll upset them unnecessarily, and these readers deserve to be upset unnecessarily, morning, noon and night, every sodding day, for the rest of their wheedling lives.

That was from Binner's link above....

Within reason, this is my take on it. You are never going to please ALL the people ALL of the time. And why should the people who aren't offended miss out on funny stuff, just because a few people are offended?
It's like the people who complain to the BBC about a slightly exposed buttock or something on a programme broadcast at 10pm. You can just imagine them scanning channels with a notepad looking for an opportunity to 'be disgusted, horrified & deeply offended'.

And, within reason.....what is the harm of 'being offended'?
I honestly can't remember the last time something 'offended' me. Perhaps I am too unbothered (possibly not a word) about things??

Wrongly or rightly, I sometimes think we will end up watering down everything so much in case it offends someone, that we will end up with a bland mulch of nothingness, because otherwise someone of somewhere will be offended, and we can't have that.

No trailmonkey - I argued that it wasn't prejudice because I was not as you claimed generalising from sterotypes. I was making a specific comment on a specific group of people

it might well have been offensive - not the same thing.

However this is not what I hoped this thread would be about - I am interested in the linguistics behind the post ditch jockey made

No trailmonkey - I argued that it wasn't prejudice because I was not as you claimed generalising from sterotypes. I was making a specific comment on a specific group of people

it might well have been offensive - not the same thing.

oh right,

you're happy to be offensive when it suits you then.

glad we cleared that up.

leffeboy - Member

Afterall, there was no intent to offend

That fact [b]couldn't be seen[/b] by those who were offended. That's the point

nor would it normally be expected to be offensive

By whom? That is also the point here. Lets not limit ourselves to this particular example

but if I was actually offended would I be being over-sensitive or could I expect an apology and some modding in my favour?

No apology was asked for or expected and certainly no modding was asked for. TJ freely offered both

Please don't let this turn into another faith dominated thread. TJ's question is much wider than that
Posted 24 minutes ago # Report-Post

I find the bolded text above offensive because I perceive it to be a slight on partially sighted people. (Not that you need to know why I find it offensive.)

I don't really, but I could - and despite it being a phrase in common use with no overt intent to offend nor reasonable expectation of offense being taken, would my perception of it being offensive warrant:

a. Ignoring as I'm over-sensitive
b. An apology and a promise not to do it again from you
c. Sanctions from the mods
d. An acknowledgement that whilst I am offended there is no further action to be taken as it's not judged to be as serious as overtly racist/sexist language. However this judgement would have to apply some sort of hierarchy to levels of offense based on some criteria other than the perception of the offended.

My point about TJ's post wasn't that his post was offensive and I wanted an apology, it was that the response to it could be found offensive and who decides between competing and contradictory claims of offense?