Time for a Moratorium on Whining ‘I’m Offended!’
All through the 1980s, feminists called men pigs, leftists called conservatives racists, and columnists openly compared right-wing politicians to Hitler. Then Rush Limbaugh came along and started fighting back, and all of a sudden we started to hear about the lack of civility in public discourse! Civility only became an issue when the left started taking it on the chin.
Likewise, getting offended and demanding apologies has for a long time been the default mode of the left. If you said “Obama’s policies hang over America like a black cloud,” there was a collective gasp. You used the words “black” and “Obama” in the same sentence! You must be racist. Talking while conservative was like being locked in a room with one of those Woody Allen characters who hear the word “Jew!” embedded in the most innocent remarks. The idea was to silence and hobble right wingers by making them worry about everything they said.
Well, sorry, now we have the internet, where we conservatives can point out that the hatefulness and violent anger spewed by the left against anyone who disagrees with them, especially women and blacks, are megatons worse than anything coming from the right. And what do you know? Suddenly, being offended is out of style!
Here’s Bill Maher, writing not long ago in the New York Times: “Let’s have an amnesty — from the left and the right — on every made-up, fake, totally insincere, playacted hurt, insult, slight and affront. Let’s make this Sunday the National Day of No Outrage. One day a year when you will not find some tiny thing someone did or said and pretend you can barely continue functioning until they apologize.”
And here’s Chris Rock, complaining that criticism could have a chilling effect on comedy after he took some Twitter heat for a joke about July 4th: “Happy white peoples independence day the slaves weren’t free but I’m sure they enjoyed fireworks.”
Now here’s the thing. In principle, sure, I agree with these leftist whines. I like civility, and I’m bored and annoyed with people who pretend to be offended over the littlest thing. Chris Rock’s joke, for instance, was legitimate and funny. I love this country but no country is without sin and I don’t think we need to become humorless and pious to celebrate our independence.
But if you dish it out, guys, you better be ready to take it — and the left has dished this I-am-offended garbage out for years. And is still dishing it out! Observe the reaction to comedian Jon Lovitz going off on Obama recently: accusations of racism and even a death threat! Well, sure. An American comedian making jokes about the president? Whoever heard of such a thing?
So okay, lefties, let’s all stop being offended. You first.
***
Cross-Posted from Klavan on the Culture
Invariably, I find that those who offend such as this also offend others with impunity. It’s more/less “do as I say, but not as I do.”
Example: I know people of color for whom a wide range of topics and words are verboten for me to mention. Which doesn’t stop them from excoriating me for being “Racist” (I’m not), a “Fascist” (they don’t even understand what the word means), a “NeoCon” (Sorry, not), etc., fostering beliefs and policies that “crush the black man” (hardly, what sort of influence do they think I have, anyways?!) I am supposed to just sit and meekly take their verbal assault on me, but G-d help me if I respond.
I’m fairly certain that there is no Amendment that says they are exempt from being offended.
Sorry, insufficient caffeine. What I meant was not, “those who offend,” but “those who are offended.” Apologies.
“Chris Rock’s joke, for instance, was legitimate and funny.”…..
Funny is subjective but I’m not a Chris Rock fan. Other than that you’re right. People need to get over themselves and take their little hurt feelings for a long walk in the woods and come back without them.
I thought Chris Rock’s joke about the slaves enjoying the fireworks was pretty funny. The guys a comedian for heavens sake. Here’s a piece poking fun at fellow black people from a few years back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haiHGlo7O4o
We have a mock for this already. It”s called ‘butthurt’…….
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ButtHurt
Eeeeee! Homophobia! Homophobia! Somebody call a lawyer!
That’s exactly what I was looking for. We’re going to need a stock response to the “offended” who are forever “demanding an apology.”
I’m afraid “butthurt” won’t do for prime time or for presidential candidates who happen to be Mormon, but let’s keep thinking.
Some G-rated form of “It must suck to be you” (suggested below) might do.
Or how about that old classic, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”?
Bill Maher calling for more civility is like a pyromaniac calling for fire prevention measures.
It’s ironic that now that the Left is getting the merest taste of what they’ve been serving up for decades, they want to call a halt to the rhetoric? Of course, the Left has relied on fallacies, innuendo, and slurs. The response from the Right has been experience, proofs, and truths – and that is deemed “hateful”????
He’s not calling for more civility. He’s saying give everybody some slack. I doubt if he’s sincere though. For one thing, progressives believe their p.o.v. on everything is empirical, so when they’re offended it’s because the other guy is wrong; when the other guy is offended, it’s because he’s wrong. Not only do they have no sense of shame; they’re also oblivious to irony.
Bah. the Right negotiating a “cease fire” with the Left is the same as Israel “negotiating” with palestinians: some proxy group will claim to not be covered by the cease fire and violate it, and the whole Left will turn a blind eye. They’ll accuse the Right of a general violation when they respond to the specific offender.
Game theory tells us “tit for tat” is the optimal social strategy, while one-sided pacificism is the least viable one.
NO SALE, Bill. If YOU were sooo smart, you should have thought through the consequences and forseen this BEFORE you and your comrades p*ssed into the well.
Exactly, precisely, and on the nose, especially your last line, PA. Thank you.
G-d, I miss Andrew Breitbart. “Apologize for what?!”
But you are misstating the tit-for-tat strategy.
Yes, you’re supposed to retaliate. But immediately afterward, you’re supposed to FORGIVE. That makes it possible to cooperate rather than retaliate in the next round.
That’s the part that’s not happening in the current political sphere. The retaliation happens–but then there’s lingering bitterness that makes it more likely that retaliation will happen again and again, never cooperation.
‘Cooperating’ to a Demunist is doing exactly what he wants, nothing less will do. Look at these sample issues: voter photo ID, extend Bush tax cuts, arbitrary income barrier of $200K/$250K, Romney must show more tax returns/Reid need show none/Obama need not show college records, government programs that don’t work or are unnecessary should be ended in order to pay off debt vs. all government programs must be continued or even expanded by increasing taxes by any means necessary (for example shutting down the government).
Not tit for tat. A head for an eye. Every time they open their mouths, attack hard. When they bitch and demand an apology, attack again with ridicule and contempt; give them real fiery rhetoric, the kind we Arequipa always accused of. All this should be done unapologetically of course.
Not Arequipa – are
Ever been to Arequipa? I have. It’s where they process fish powder on the Peruvian coast. When the wind shifts, the smell is something not soon forgotten. In other words, it’s time to disable your AutoComplete.
A simple way to end this is when a group is offend to take the attitude of …frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.” Once it becomes clear that the offenced party is met by total indifference, I think that the amout of outrage will quickly decline. After all, the Progressives are blindingly indifferent to the moral outrage of the conservatives. If Mr. Sharpton were met with this attitude he might be known in the Afro-American community but not elsewhere.
As far as atrocities inspired by the speech of the talk show hosts, the Afro-American leadership can be blamed for every White assalted, raped, robbed, or mistreated by an Afro-American. Both view points are equally stupid. The best way to handle things is for both sides to be subject to the same rules. I believe the the Progressives would not like living under their own rules in the least.
Sharp(y)ton and Jackson(Jr) are both corrupt, contemptible @$$holes. Full stop. End of Sentence. there is no more to be said about them that matters a tinker’s damn.
In a Utopian (God forbid!) world what you propose would be the correct attitude. But in our bizarro real world black can freely intimidate whites (New Black Panthers) while states wanting voter ID laws are racist.
Whites are routinely assualted or murdered by blacks purely because of the victims skin color. Reverse that and you have Zimmerman, a mixed race man, suddenly becoming very white and the whole country explodes.
And while, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn,” sounds great in Gone with the Wind, in our bizarro real world silence is acquiescence! In some cases if a slander is made often enough it simply becomes fact in the publics perception regardless whether or not the slander was vigorously denied.
That is our world and the only think we can pray for is for these old race baitors to leave us in peace when they die.
How about when they start yelling they’re offended just reply with the question what’s the matter, truth hurts?
We have the right to speak. No one has any right to not be offended.
You have absolutely no right not to be offended by me. It’s all B$ after that.
And if you appear to me to be a j@#K@$$ at that point, I *WILL* be offending you. Sucks to be you. And you are cordially invited to kiss my fourth point of contact. If you have no clue as to what I just wrote, you have my full and complete contempt.
Just thinking about this smarmy steaming pile makes me grit my teeth and dream of having just 5 minutes alone in a room with him. I’d squeeze his head until his eyes popped out.
PA – excellent analysis. Didn’t think anyone aware of tit-for-tat anymore. We are playing the wrong game since tit for tat does not work against scorpions. For those of you who don’t know, classic analysis is that Ghandi could only have been passive and won against Brits, not against Nazis.
More precisely, Ghandi could only be passive and win against the Brits at that certain time frame – i.e. when the Brits were tired of the place and were already in the process of leaving. Ghandi conquered NOTHING and NOBODY. He just took advantage of events as they were already unfolding and indulging in shameless self-promotion.
He’s not the first and won’t be the last to do so.
After more than a generation of this vile nonsense, the left is finally noticing that calling people names isn’t winning them friends. Gosh! Whodathunkit?
So now Bill Maher wants “civility?” I have doubts he understands what he’s talking about. So perhaps he should lead by example. If we have any common ground on this issue, I’ll be happy to follow.
Maher physiogomy is that of a pale penis. Let’s just leave it at that.
Punctuation is important.
Maher’s physiogomy is that of a pale penis. Let’s just leave it at that.
Short little creep in desperate need of attention.
Goes over the top all the time in order to get it.
Has expressed wistful opinion (apparently like Tom Friedman in the NYTimes) that Obama should have the power to rule unilaterally, like the Chinese.
Obama would dearly love to rule by decree, is giving it his best shot with executive orders.
Related:
http://www.docmercury.com/rainy/the-outraged-tally
The left calling for a moratorium is like a rapist asking his victim to stop all the fighting and name calling.
Its no surprise that the natural pose of our media culture is passive-agressive. Males in the media are generally gay or flamboyantly metrosexual and most of efforts of the media are aimed at getting female viewership.
This was a bit uncalled-for, sayeth the non-passive-aggressive female conservative. Please think before you post – and if you did, I’m sorry about your attitude.
So where is he wrong?
So okay, lefties, let’s all stop being offended. You first.
It’s gonna be hard, since taking offense is part of the conditioned and well honed victimization mindset, integral to the personality structure.
Faking offense is also an attempt to shut down (through intimidation) speech and opinion that don’t bear the leftist stamp of approval.
They hate that the radio airwaves are dominated by views they don’t like. (leftists have tried to compete in that venue, but the audience, and thus the sponsorship, isn’t there, e.g., Air America)
I’m offended every time a member of the serially offended whines about being offended.
Members of the church of perpetual outrage.
And then there are people who have literally made a living (in some cases a handsome living) off the grievance industry.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the poster children. It was Ted Kennedy’s lifelong shtick, a pretense of caring about and speaking for “the poor”.
(Their own mis-behaviors and stained reputations (Jesse is in the news again on that score) are supposed to be ignored. Recall Jesse saying on a hot mike in ’08 that he wanted to cut Obama’s nuts off. Now that’s offensive, baby, not to mention painful.)
This president is counting on the grievance industry (race, class, sex, you name it) for re-election.
Only a pathetic people would buy in, which may well be us by now.
Frankly, I’m offended by the title of this article and a call for civility!
Sure “BM” will strike a truce after November. I suspect that he can’t take the heat, so he wants a truce so he can continue to say stupid things with out anybody striking back. Sorry “BM” we will not fall for your trick.
Liberals agree not to yell “racism” every time someone criticizes Obama’s policies, and in exchange conservatives won’t criticize Maher for calling Palin a c***.
Why that makes sense.
Offense is in the eyes of the offended. The truth of whether a real offense was perpetrated, in other words, whether the victim has real cause to be offended, is in the eyes of the TV viewer, the judge in such cases. The syllogism concludes with the question of what basis the viewer makes his judgement.
The only use of offense in the Constitution is offenses against the law. But laws are taken from the votes of citizens (at least until recently they were). Thus, the playing field on which the offense game is played is cultural, not legal. This reality moves questions from law and political leaders to the province of screen writers, entertainers, reviewers, college professors, news entertainers and other such dubious ilk.
It is a troubling thing when rational leadership is buried in the shifting sands of to the presenters of what’s permissible. In any discourse, then, one is best off by watching what’s not said, or, if it is said, in was fashion.
Democracy is a matter of fashion. That’s why the Founders insisted on having a democratic republic, in order to hold mob psychology check with some rational process.
Honest to Pete Andrew. I usually find you’re opinion of great worth and wisdom… but!
Anything that Bill Maher and Chris Rock think cannot possibly be good ideas. The only reason either of them exist publicly is that they are protected from their stupidity by the networks they operate on. (A mystery to me and many others I’m sure.) Bill Maher in particular is a sexist bigot that manages to offend everyone, (but me, I avoid stupidity) but gets a pass every time from the leftys in the media.
The only scrap of sense from either was Rock’s opinion that books were kryptonite to a popular segment of the human community. Works like a champ on my sister and two cousins. Much better than a safety deposit box.
A common tactic for a bully is to do or say the most hateful evil things then when called on it say, “I was just kidding, can’t you take a joke?” And the only valid response is, “No, you are a small hateful person, and your actions were intended to harm not to amuse. You do not deserve and will not get a pass for your actions and insults.”
Bill Maher stopped being funny quite a while ago. I’m wondering just how many complaints HBO has received about the content of his weekly show on their network and how much heat Maher is getting from them. After all a pay cable channel must be responsive to its viewers or suffer the consequences, and Maher’s snarky brand of commentary appeals to a small audience of leftist intelligentsia, not the greater viewing public.
A Freudian slip of the eye. Initially I read this,
“So okay, lefties, let’s all stop being offended. You first.”
As, “you fist”. Hmmm…
We had the experience of being booted from PJM for our racism. Or something scary like that. So many people do not grok the difference between descriptive (“what if”) language and normative (“we should”) speech. That was a learning curve…one of those blessings in disguise.
Now we’re an offically left-designated hatesite. Living beyond the pale has its own excitements…
…but you’ll never get them to be civil. There’s no pay-off.
Please allow me to translate for Maher:
“I want to be able to be as offensive to you as possible, without you being able to call me on it. Now by having called for civility, I can now call you thin-skinned and uncivil when you get offended by me. I get to remove the righteousness from your righteous indignation.”
Typical bullying tactic.
Not too long after I moved to the DFW region, there was a kerfuffle in either the Dallas City Council, or the Dallas County Board of Supervisors—I don’t remember which—where a white member of the council made a comment to the effect that the police department budget was a “black hole” which sucked up much money without much accountability. The local race-baiter in chief got all upset. He was SO stupid, and SO poorly educated that he didn’t know that it was a term of astronomy for a star which is black because it does not reflect light, and which sucks up everything around it like a cosmological vacuum cleaner. He insisted that it was a racial epithet. And the more people ridiculed his claims, the more he stuck to his guns. His guiding principle was clear: only black people get to use the word black…..at least, that was the conclusion I drew. I know….sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? But that’s what an over-used race card is—ridiculous.
Check this story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22#David_Howard_incident , and not Julian Bond’s correct response:
“David Howard incident
On January 15, 1999, David Howard, a white aide to Anthony A. Williams, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., used “niggardly” in reference to a budget. This apparently upset one of his black colleagues (identified by Howard as Marshall Brown), who interpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. As a result, on January 25 Howard tendered his resignation, and Williams accepted it.[1] However, after pressure from the gay community (of which Howard was a member) an internal review into the matter was brought about, and the mayor offered Howard the chance to return to his position as Office of the Public Advocate on February 4. Howard refused but accepted another position with the mayor instead, insisting that he did not feel victimized by the incident. On the contrary, Howard felt that he had learned from the situation. “I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind. That’s naïve, especially for a white person, because a white person can afford to be colorblind. They don’t have to think about race every day. An African American does.”[1]
It has been speculated that this incident inspired Philip Roth’s novel The Human Stain.[2]
[edit]Public response
The Howard incident led to a national debate in the U.S., in the context of racial sensitivity and political correctness, on whether use of niggardly should be avoided. Some observers noted, however, that the “national debate” was made up almost entirely of commentators defending use of the word. As James Poniewozik wrote in Salon, the controversy was “an issue that opinion-makers right, left and center could universally agree on.” He wrote that “the defenders of the dictionary” were “legion, and still queued up six abreast.”[3] Julian Bond, then chairman of the NAACP, deplored the offense that had been taken at Howard’s use of the word. “You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people’s lack of understanding”, he said. “David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back — and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them.”[4]
Bond also said, “Seems to me the mayor has been niggardly in his judgment on the issue” and that as a nation the US has a “hair-trigger sensibility” on race that can be tripped by both real and false grievances.[5]”
What is really telling is David Howard’s response that white people can afford to be color blind, but black people have to think about color every single day. What a freaking cop out! There is NOTHING on this planet that forces a person of color to obsess over his or her color. That’s on them. Furthermore, I have no obligation to obsess alongside such a person. They are holding themselves back. And I will add that all of the successful people of color I’ve ever known who got to where they are without special accommodations by the rest of society are themselves colorblind. They are too busy being successful at what they do to give a cup of spit about what someone else might think about their color.
I’ve gotten to where I enjoy the other person’s offense. It tells me whom to take seriously, and whom to dismiss as pathetic.
What a joke! After using the word “niggardly” that idiot, Howard, should have told the ignorant jackass, Marshall Brown, that he needed to go back to high school and study vocabulary. And, by the way, he should also have told him that his (Brown’s) last name is offensive.
Oh heavens. My comment must have been offensive as its not here. I didn’t even use bad language, I don’t think.
Anyway, turn the handle down another twist. Goad the lefties till they come off their rails.
Moratorium, schzmoratorium — with America’s Otherparty slouchin’ along behind Mittius Coriolanus Pompo, Demander of Apologies, Master of Seamus, Stepmaster to Rafalca, Baincapper Extraordinaire (&c. &c. &c.), what we’ve got, ready or not, is the Apotheosis of Self-Sorrowin’ (Pat. Pend.)
Everybooby and her brother-in-law seems to be sufferin’ nowadays from the disease Dr. Milton memorably diagnosed as sense of injur’d merit, P. L. II:99.
Would have been kinda nifty, ¿no?, if Freelord Beelzebub, say, or Kiddiemaster Mammon, had stood up at that press opportuinity and demanded to see HIMSELF’s tax returns for the last few eons. Tax evasion may have been what reallygot H. R. H. the Prince of Darkness kicked out of Heaven and started the ball rolling.
And ’Alláh knows best.
Happy days.
Are you kidding? Maher’s the biggest liberal whiner ever. He purports to be a man of the people but he uses that as his schtick to make money. He’s a phony.
Those folks who wake up every morning looking to be offended are rarely ever disappointed. As far as I’m concerned they may all go to hell, and if that offends them, too damn bad.
[W3]
If I recall the long-ago words of the late and sorely missed Opus the Penguin: “Offensensibility”
My suggested response to claims of being offended: “Well isn’t that special (or speeeh-shul, as Church Lady Carvey says it).
Is it still legal to defend your honor if you are offended by someone?
I would like to see some politician call out a reporter for some sort of smear. “You sir, have offended my family and myself! Prepare to defend yourself, sir” And then walk right up to the reporter and lay him flat on the ground with a good old fashioned right hook.
I think I might have been born in the wrong century.
Now that the tactics and rhetoric of liberals and their subgroups (e.g., heterophobic homosexuals) are coming back to bite them, they want to call a truce. Don’t play their game. Expose them for the corrupt hypocrites they are.