Matt and I have been friends for many years, and I very much appreciate his friendship. We had a discussion this past week on the meaning of the words offense, offensive, and offend. This discussion was sparked by my post Judgemental or good judgement? Once we concluded our discussion, we agreed to publish the results.
I have decided to publish the conversation raw, without any editing whatsoever, in part because I want to be timely with it, and in part because I’m not motivated to try to summarize it at this time. My apologies for the very long content. I believe I can speak for Matt when I say that neither of us will be offended if you don’t want to read it all.
Log of a Facebook discussion with Matthew Wilson
-
Dan Hentschel
I want to be sure that we agree on terms of the discussion, and I still don’t think we are there. It is my assertion that there are two different and separable concepts covered by the noun”offense”. One concept is similar to a misdemeanor, as in “He committed an offense.” And the second is synonymous with the noun “insult” as in “Your words are an offense to me.” I believe that you do not agree with this assertion, correct?
-
Matthew D. WilsonI believe those two connotations of the word are merely shades of the same concept. One is an offense against the law; the other is an offense against personal principles or sensibilities… but both are offenses, in the same sense.
- Tuesday
-
Dan HentschelHmm… I see where you are coming from. I believe they must be treated differently, though, because their nature is different. Offense against law, while open to legal interpretation, is an act that breaches a definable, and relatively universal line. An offense against an individual’s sensibilities cannot be measured, judged, or I’d argue, even meaningfully discussed by any other than the offended. A quick Google search for <“commit an offense” “cause offense”> shows two legal documents on the first page of results:
http://nhbpi.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Title-VIII-06-Law-and-Order-Code.pdf
The first is slightly more authoritative, in my view, but the second is more useful in that it uses the two phrases together in the same sentence: “A PERSON COMMITS THE OFFENSE OF INDECENT EXPOSURE WHO … UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES LIKELY TO CAUSE OFFENSE”
This is defining a breach of law as something that may or may not cause emotional duress. The two uses of the word “offense” in this sentence are completely separable concerns, and this law exists to form a binding between the two because there is no natural binding. Otherwise, this law, and many others, could simply be written in the form of “if you offend a person…”
From another viewpoint, what is considered offensive changes over time. For example:
http://www.stupidlaws.com/it-is-illegal-for-women-to-wear-trousers/
Presumably at one time it was offensive for women to wear trousers, and so it was felt that a law was needed to translate that offense into an offense.
-
Matthew D. Wilson
Indeed, since laws and etiquette and morality change over time, different things can be offensive or not at different points in time. That’s a feature, not a bug.
I take your point regarding the binding you mention, but I don’t think it negates my point. The wording is there to make clear that this particular offense against someone’s personal sensibilities is /also/ a criminal offense. Quite reasonably so, too — just about every legal offense was made so because it offends society or individuals.
I absolutely agree that different responses are warranted to offenses against different things. That’s the whole point of having laws and etiquette and rules: we see some transgressions as more serious than others. But at their root, it’s all the same concept. There is still a transgressor causing offense and a victim (society, individual) taking it.
In any of these cases, sometimes there’s a valid argument to be made that the transgression is justified. Either the law/rule/precept is bad, or the circumstances were such that the rule shouldn’t apply, or there’s a conflict between a law and a more general societal understanding of morality. But just as that fact isn’t a general license to break the law, or to break rules of etiquette, it shouldn’t be a general license to offend individuals either.
-
Dan Hentschel
I think you’re somewhat missing my point, though. The binding between a legal offense and a personal offense is there because there isn’t a clear mapping. In fact, the legal verbiage makes it quite clear that it is a legal offense, even if it is not received by any individual as a personal offense.
I never mentioned anything about different responses based on some perception of how serious an offense is. On the contrary, I’m trying to show that there is no way to objectively gauge a personal offense.
Put another way, can you tell me how offensive is the word “nigger”? On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is the most offensive?
-
Matthew D. Wilson
Well you said they must be treated differently; I was agreeing with that. Pursuant to the goal of treating them differently, we write laws to prohibit the most egregious violations, so that those offenses against persons or society are also offenses against the law, and thus able to be punished using legal remedies. Less egregious violations we leave to society to punish via ostracism, censure, or other means.
Objectivity doesn’t require quantification, nor does it require unanimity, or universality. I think I can still say that the word “nigger” is objectively offensive while still understanding that some people may find it more offensive than others, and that it may not be offensive at all in certain limited situations.
But, even if I were to concede that the possibility of mitigating factors means that it’s not objectively offensive, I cannot concede that you would be justified in using it to describe a person… nor that if you did so, it’s that person’s fault if they feel offended.
-
Dan Hentschel
Okay. I’m fine with where we are, though. We can agree that there is a concept that can be classified as an “offense against personal or social sensibilities” and that the magnitude of the offense varies based on situation and involved parties, and can range from “very offended” to “not at all offended.” Correct?
For sake of clarity, I would like to refer to the noun describing such an offense as an insult, the verb to cause such an offense as “to insult”, and the adjective describing the emotional response to having received such an offense as “insulted”. I propose this change in terminology because I consider “insult” as being completely synonymous and interchangeable with the phrase “offense against personal or social sensibilities.” Agreed?
-
Matthew D. Wilson
I wish I could, but I can be offended by you calling someone else a nasty name without personally feeling insulted.
-
Dan Hentschel
Interesting. That’s actually a direction I had intended to explore. I’m not sure I agree with that assertion, but let’s go with it. In your mind, then, is there a difference between the phrases “to be offended” and “to feel offended”?
-
Matthew D. Wilson
Not materially. Obviously, inanimate objects can be offended against (though it would be non-idiomatic to drop “against” in that phrasing), but they cannot feel offended. I suppose it would be possible for a human to be offended against and not realize it, and thus not feel anything regarding it, but I recognize that “being offended” doesn’t usually include that connotation.
Sometimes the English language is very confusing.
It occurs to me that perhaps “offended” can be seen as a simple adjective describing an emotional state, rather than as a verb describing an action that was taken against someone or something. That doesn’t change my answer to the immediate question at hand — as both “be” and “feel” can be used in both cases — but perhaps it’s the emotional state (e.g., annoyance at a transgression of propriety) that you’ve referred to in your blog post?
- Wednesday
-
Dan Hentschel
The meaning behind “offended” that I had intended to address is more simple than the concepts that we have been discussing recently. My own perception of the issues involved has somewhat morphed as a result of our discussions, so let me try to state my current thinking as a logical progression of bullets, and then give you the opportunity to underscore, refute, or suggest modification to individual points as you see fit.
1. The verb “to offend” is a complicated word, with various differing meanings that are all subtly related.
2. In hindsight, the phrases “be offended,” “being offended,” “becoming offended,” and other similar constructions were probably a poor choice of words in my original essay because they can be imbued with meaning that I had not originally intended to convey.
3. The concept that I had intended to convey is probably more accurately communicated with the verb “to insult” and its noun and adjective forms, “insult” and “insulted”.
4. Even the adjective “insulted”, while more specific in meaning to the concept I intended to address, describes a complex combination and / or progression of other, more basic emotional states.
5. Basic emotional states can be categorized as:
5a) Involuntary, reactionary emotions 5b) Involuntary, learned emotional responses 5c) Voluntary emotional responses brought about by conscious decision
There may be more related categories. I admit that I have not fully researched, nor fully fleshed out in my own mind, this concept.
6. The emotion “insulted” can be broken down into a list of more basic emotional states including, but not limited to, the emotions of surprise, hurt, embarrassment, horror, anger, sadness, bitterness, disgust, resentment, pride, acceptance, and motivation.
7. Some of these more basic emotional states are reactionary, some learned, and some the result of conscious decision. Some of the emotions can fall into more than one of these three categories. Note that this is an intentional restating of point #5, as applied to point #6. Apologies for the duplication.
8. While I recognize that reactionary emotions are unlikely to change through any conscious effort, I believe that learned emotions can be unlearned through diligent effort, and that emotions based on, and maintained through, conscious decision can be changed, if desired, through a similar process of conscious decision.
9. I maintain that some emotional states that fall under the blanket term “insulted” or “the emotional state of feeling offended” have very dubious benefit to the offender, to the offended, or to the relationship between the two.
10. I continue to insist that such emotional states, which I will describe as “nonconstructive emotions” should be consciously avoided by the offended, to the best of their ability, regardless of the intentions of the offender.
11. I agree with your assertion that the offender cannot decry all responsibility for their words, nor for the response(s) that they may induce. At a minimum, all people should be aware that their words will always have the potential to cause negative, and perhaps even damaging, reactionary emotions in their audience, regardless of the diligence applied on the part of their audience to suppress nonconstructive emotions.
12. Assuming that the speaker (or writer in this case) takes every reasonable precaution to protect against causing a negative or damaging response, the complexity of human minds, human emotions, and human interactions, coupled with the incredible inefficiency of the English language to convey meaning, can still conspire against such reasonable precautions, and insult can and likely will occur.
13. I alluded to (but did not explicitly state) my intention to take such reasonable precautions in my own essay with the clause, “assuming that I am meeting my stated goals of demonstrating good judgement, and of avoiding a judgemental attitude.”
14. In the, unfortunately likely, event that insult occurs, it is also likely that the offender may not realize the effect that their words have had on the offended.
15. The offended party has the responsibility to:
15a) School their emotional response to guide their emotional state away from nonconstructive emotions and towards constructive emotions. 15b) Evaluate whether or not informing the offender of the perceived insult would be beneficial to their own emotional state, and to their relationship with the offender. 15c) Tactfully inform the offender of the perceived insult if they deem that it is good to do so.
16. In the event that an offended party informs their offender of a perceived insult, the offender has the responsibility to apologize and make every reasonable attempt to make amends.
-
Matthew D. Wilson
I appreciate your detailed analyses.
I still feel like we have a disconnect, but I’m not sure where it is. I don’t know if changing from “offended” to “insulted” helps, because it seems to me like an insult is something that remains an insult regardless of how the recipient feels about it — even moreso than an offense does.
But in saying that, I’m thinking more along the lines of racial slurs and put-downs. It occurs to me that there are other things that may be perceived as insults, like passing someone on the street and not acknowledging them, or passing someone over for a promotion, or declining to provide a service for someone. This latter sort is the type to which one might respond “Well, I never [have been so insulted in my life]!” or “Your behavior is insulting.”
The latter types of cases are those which can be perceived as insults even if not intended as such, while the former type, in my view, are objectively insulting except in very specific scenarios.
Do you perceive a similar dichotomy, or are you classifying all insults as something that depends on the perception of the recipient?
-
Dan Hentschel
I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think that I can quite concede that. Given the precepts that I believe to be true:
1) What is considered “an insult” is based on personalities and ever-changing social norms.
2) The magnitude of “an insult” is based completely on an individual’s perception, and can even range from “no insult” to “very insulting” for a given instance of “an insult” depending on the individual perceiving the incident.
I’d propose, instead, that something can objectively be deemed “likely to insult” or “likely to be perceived as an insult,” given a known cultural environment. I don’t believe that same incident can be objectively deemed “an insult”.
To build on this position, I think that there are two sides to the problem. There is intent and reception, as portrayed in the common apology, “no offense intended,” and the common response, “none taken.” I see the following possibilities:
1) An intended insult that is perceived as an insult by the recipient(s). I don’t think it’s materially important what other observing parties might think about this situation.
2) An intended insult that is not perceived as an insult by the recipient(s), but is perceived as an insult by some observing parties.
3) An intended insult that is not perceived as an insult by any recipient or observer.
4) An incident that is not intended as an insult, but is perceived as an insult by the recipient(s) and some or all observing parties (and perhaps event the originator of the incident with hindsight-bias.)
5) An incident that is not intended as an insult, but is perceived as such by one or more recipient(s), but not by any observing parties. This is likely based on some unanticipated secret or hidden knowledge possessed by the recipient(s).
6) An incident that is not intended as an insult and is not perceived as such by the recipient(s), and yet is perceived as insulting by one or more observing parties.
7) An incident that is neither intended as an insult nor perceived by any recipient or observing party to be insulting.
I guess you could make the argument that an incident that adheres to #1 could potentially be objectively classified as “an insult,” and an incident that adheres to #7 could potentially be classified as “not an insult.” However, I’d argue that without input from the instigator and the recipient it would be difficult to judge whether or not #1 had occurred, and such input would render the analysis no longer objective.
-
Matthew D. Wilson
Are you familiar with the “reasonable observer” standard in law? Do you feel that’s an objective standard or a subjective one?
-
Dan Hentschel
I am familiar with it, though I took the liberty of doing some research before responding in order to verify that my understanding of the concept is consistent with general use. I believe that it is.
The “reasonable observer” is an attempt to inject objectivity into a situation where it is generally agreed that objectivity is difficult to achieve. I don’t think that any lawyer or judge would accept or assert that any “reasonable observer” argument can ever be completely objective.
In fact, Wikipedia has this to say about it: “the ‘reasonable person’ is a composite of a relevant community’s judgment as to how a typical member of said community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm (through action or inaction) to the public.” This definition of “reasonable person” underscores my assertion that, without a cultural context, no incident can be classified as “insulting” or “not insulting.”
I’d also argue that “reasonable observer” can never dictate any person’s intentions or emotional response to any situation. It does add an interesting additional situation to those I’ve already outlined, though:
8) An incident that is not intended as an insult, is not perceived as an insult by any recipient or observing party, and yet would be perceived as insulting by any reasonable observer.
I’m not sure this situation is practical, though, because I’d argue that the “reasonable observer” in this context breaks the definition of “reasonable observer” in that it ignores the relevant community.
-
Matthew D. Wilson
Okay, then given that you see the reasonable observer as not completely objective, then I would accept that there is no such thing as a completely objective insult. I would have to concede that It is apparently always possible to contrive a situation in which what appears to be an insult isn’t, even if it’s just to contrive that the insult is delivered during the course of a fictional dramatization.
But I don’t think I can say that the lack of complete objectivity negates the responsibility for one to avoid insult or offense. Presumably the speaker is aware of the circumstances, and thus can be and should be aware of the cultural context in question. If I walk up to a guy and call him a jerk, apropos of nothing, I know that’s going to be insulting. It’s rude, and I can hardly blame the guy for taking offense or feeling insulted, because that’s exactly what I did — insulted him.
A third party might not know if maybe he and I are old friends and calling him a “jerk” is an inside joke. Or maybe we’re rehearsing for a play. But /I/ know that’s not the case, and /he/ knows that isn’t the case, so I know I shouldn’t say such a thing, because it’s rude, because it’s insulting.
-
Dan Hentschel
I agree with everything you just said, and I believe that it is covered by my proposal that something can objectively be deemed “likely to insult” or “likely to be perceived as an insult,” given a known cultural environment. I’d even be willing to amend that to read something along the lines of “very likely to offend” or “highly likely to offend.” Now we’re just splitting hairs, though.
Do you agree that we are basically in agreement, or is there some further point that you would like to explore?
- Wednesday
-
Matthew D. Wilson
I think that, given a known cultural environment, it’s possible to identify certain things as undeniably insulting or offensive. “Highly likely” doesn’t really cover it unless there’s a possibility of some weird edge case that one or more parties aren’t aware of. I’m not sure if you agree with that or not.
(In fact, I’ve kind of avoided giving examples of such undeniably offensive things, because they are in fact offensive, even in the context of discussing them dispassionately as we are.)
Moreover, I wonder if you have adjusted your view that if your reader is offended by something you write, that you have no responsibility for that offense. Or was that disclaimer intended to apply only because that you are careful not to be judgmental in your writings? (That is, does your avoidance of bad judgment negate the possibility of you saying something certain (or almost certain) to be offensive?)
- Thursday
-
Dan Hentschel
I think that once again you are misunderstanding me, and again it is through no fault of your own, but because you and I read different things into the words that I have chosen to use. Your restating of my point does not hit at the intended meaning, so let me try to restate to be more specific about the concepts I am attempting to convey.
Given a known cultural environment and a given incident, I believe that it is possible to classify that incident as “highly likely to cause the emotional response of feeling insulted in one or more of the observers present at the time of the incident.” I don’t think that you can ever say with certainty that any given individual will respond to any given incident with the emotional response of feeling insulted.
I believe that, still assuming a known and understood cultural environment, you can classify any body of incidents on a spectrum from “highly unlikely to cause the emotional response of feeling insulted in a random individual” to “highly likely to cause the emotional response of feeling insulted in a random individual.” Some incidents will fall higher on this spectrum, others lower. I don’t think that it’s ever possible to classify any incident as “guaranteed not to cause the emotional response of feeling insulted in a random individual.” Similarly, I don’t think it’s possible to classify any incident as “guaranteed to cause the emotional response of feeling insulted in a random individual.”
Now, in those previous statements, replace “a random individual” with “Fred”, where Fred is a person that you know well. I think that, with your knowledge of Fred’s personality, you will be able to classify incidents on the proposed spectrum with more accuracy, but you will still never be able to say with authority that any incident is either “guaranteed not to cause” or “guaranteed to cause” a specific emotional response from your friend Fred.
The better you know the individual referenced in the above statements, the more accurate your judgments about that individual’s emotional responses will be. However, you will never reach the point where you can, with 100% certainty, be able to predict the exact emotional reactions of any individual to any given stimulus.
Now, if you take an incident that has been classified as “highly likely to cause the emotional response of feeling insulted in a random individual” and expose 2 individuals to that incident, how likely is it that one of those two will respond with the emotional response of feeling insulted? More likely than if only one individual is exposed. As more and more individuals are exposed to the situation, the likelihood that at least one of them will respond to a given incident with the emotional response of feeling insulted increases.
I suppose that you could make the argument that the likelihood asymptotically approaches 100% certain, that if an infinite number of people are exposed to a given incident, then you are guaranteed that at least one of them will respond to the incident by feeling insulted. If we go this hypothetical route, though, we must also concede that, since no incident is 100% guaranteed to NOT induce the emotional response of feeling insulted in a random individual, that all incidents asymptotically approach 100% guaranteed to induce the emotional response of feeling insulted in at least one person as your population count approaches infinity. The only difference between two separate incidents is how rapidly they approach that asmyptote.
You can say with certainty, after the fact, “this incident caused me to feel insulted.” You can also interview others about their emotional response to an incident and thus classify an incident as “insulting” because it has already produced the emotional response of “I felt insulted” in at least one person. However, such a postmortem is, by definition, subjective. In order to “objectively” classify an incident as “insulting,” you must be able to predict the impact of that incident independent of your own emotional response to that incident. Can you classify Coke as “better than Pepsi” because you like it better? How many individuals would you need to interview before you could authoritatively state that “Coke is better than Pepsi?”
This is all very obtuse, and while I find the discussion fun and interesting, I am somewhat disgusted by the impracticality of it all. The analyst in me can’t help but ponder with fascination the concepts we’ve been examining, but it’s all completely worthless if it doesn’t have some practical application. This gets to the second part of your question.
I have not adjusted my viewpoint from when I wrote the article. What has adjusted is my understanding of the language that I used in my article, and more specifically, how that language may be interpreted to mean something that I did not intend to say. Even still, your summary of my own words is not the message I had intended. Let me try to restate and see if I can convey the proper concept this time. Then, if I am successful, maybe we can discuss whether or not you agree with me.
I believe that all parties involved in any given incident, even one as mundane as, say, a sneeze, have responsibilities. I will return to my 16 points laid out above, and try to reword them again to remove as much ambiguity as I can:
10. Emotional states which I have dubbed “nonconstructive emotions” should be consciously avoided by all individuals always, to the best of their ability, regardless of the intentions of others.
11. With any given act, the actor cannot decry all responsibility for the result of their actions, nor for the involuntary and immediate emotional response(s) that they may induce. **At a minimum**, all people should be aware that their actions will always have the potential to cause negative, and perhaps even damaging, reactionary emotions in others, regardless of the diligence applied on the part of others to suppress nonconstructive emotions, as recommended in point #10.
12. Assuming that the actor takes every reasonable precaution to protect against causing a negative or damaging response, the complexity of human minds, human emotions, and human interactions, can still conspire against such reasonable precautions, and the emotional response of feeling insulted can still occur.
12 cont. (Additional clarification) Precautions to protect against causing the emotional response of feeling insulted include, but are not limited to:
12a) Avoid actions that fall towards the “likely to cause the emotional response of feeling offended” side of the spectrum. 12b) If you feel you have very good reason to act in a way that is likely to cause the emotional response of feeling offended, then pad the blow with warnings, explanations as to why you feel the breach of social etiquette is warranted, and apologies for consciously putting others’ feelings at risk.
13. The entire article which we are discussing is, in a way, my homage to 12b above. I recognized that one or more of the articles that I have written may cause the unintended response of feeling insulted in some individuals. Furthermore, in looking at my list of topics that I am considering addressing in the future, there is the potential that some may feel insulted by something I may write at a later date. The article I wrote most recently is an attempt to:
13a) Warn of the potential that the feeling of being insulted may result. 13b) Explain that I recognize that such emotional response may be the result, and that I feel that the benefit of exploring such topics is worth the perceived risk of causing the emotional response of feeling insulted. 13c) Promise to “think, to live, and to write with conscientious integrity.” In my mind, the term “conscientious integrity” includes the promise to avoid, or at least be delicate when addressing, topics that would be considered “highly likely to cause the emotional response of feeling insulted.” 13d) Apologize for any reactionary and involuntary “insulted” emotions that I may have caused.
13 cont. Now I admit that my warning, explanation, and apology are somewhat buried amongst the larger discussion on the responsibility to avoid, what I so naively termed “being offended.” It was my intention to encourage people to avoid the nonconstructive emotions that can come after the reactionary and involuntary emotion of feeling insulted.
14 + 15. In the, event that the emotional response of feeling insulted occurs, it is quite possible that the actor may not realize the effect that their actions have had on the other party, and so any person who experiences the emotional response of feeling insulted has the responsibility to:
15a) School their emotional response so as to guide their emotional state away from nonconstructive emotions and towards constructive emotions. 15b) Evaluate whether or not informing the offender of the perceived insult would be beneficial to their own emotional state, and to their relationship with the offender. 15c) Tactfully inform the offender of the perceived insult if they deem that it is good to do so.
16. In the event that any person informs another of a perceived insult, the informed offender has the responsibility to apologize for causing the emotional response of feeling insulted and to make every reasonable attempt to make amends.
My apologies for being so wordy. I fear that once again my meaning will be lost amidst a sea of words. Please bear with me as I futilely attempt to express in language the concepts that are swimming in my head.
-
Matthew D. Wilson
Don’t be so hard you on yourself.
I think I understand what you’re saying, and I don’t really disagree. I just think it’s incomplete, and the incompleteness could lead some readers to take the wrong lesson.
What I feel is missing is an acknowledgement that some things simply are offensive, or insulting, regardless of what the recipient feels about them. I mean, there are the legitimate topics of conversation, even potentially offensive ones, that you’re talking about… and then there are just outright blatant violations of community standards.
Offenses and insults are not just emotional reactions to transgressions — they are the transgressions themselves. Whether one has offended societal norms or not is not dependent on anyone knowing about it or caring or feeling personally affronted.
I do think there’s a dichotomy between the situations you’re addressing — someone reading your blog and feeling personally insulted by a legitimate opinion you express — and the more basic, fundamental situation of you writing something blatantly insulting (which I know you would never do).
Let’s take an example from your blog. You said some people might take offense to your essay on alcohol abstinence. Your essay violated no social norms, and certainly no laws. The only possible violation is against a reader’s personal sense of self-worth, and that’s largely unforeseeable and arguably irrational. I agree with you that the reader has a responsibility to avoid reacting negatively to that sort of offense.
The problem is, when you say that readers have a responsibility to avoid feeling put-out or insulted by something you say, some people take that same opinion as a license to say whatever they want to anyone they want. Even things that violate broadly accepted societal norms, things that no reasonable person would find inoffensive.
Of course, you cover such cases with several of your points, where you explain you do have a responsibility to avoid offense where possible. But too many people feel strongly about the offensive things they want to say or do, that sharing them with the world is beneficial even if offensive. They’re basically taking your same points to extremes, justifying that their blatantly offensive words are just their opinion, or protected free speech, or just stating the facts…. and its everyone else’s fault if they feel offended by their words.
I think that’s an abdication of social responsibility, and I’m sure you agree — but it’s not a large leap from your points to theirs.
I appreciate your emphasis on taking reasonable measures to avoid causing offense; I just believe that it’s not clear enough about what constitutes those reasonable measures, as I fear it leaves open a window for truly offensive things to be said while hiding behind the “don’t be offended” excuse.
-
Dan Hentschel
Okay. I see where you are coming from. I feel that we’re at a pretty good point of mutual understanding. Do you get the same impression?
-
Matthew D. Wilson
I think so.
Yes, I read the entire thing. The part that made the most impact on me is your discussion about offending someone as the audience approaches infinity.Read more …
At the risk of being even more long-winded let me say I agree with your original point. I think it would be hard to find many things that are truly involuntarily offensive. We always have a choice how we respond.Read more …