« Unsustainable capitalism | Main | Folk music and property rights »

February 04, 2006



I think it's fair to say that you are probably both privileged and radically disembodied.

For example, I am offended by people who say "First thing we do let's kill all lawyers", not realising that the joke is on them - it offends against all of my beliefs about how society should operate, and about how people should think about what they say, and the implications of taking it seriously.

Similarly, I once knew a chap - a musician - who was offended by another acquaintance who when drunk would like to pick up guitars and play the F chord repeatedly, tunelessly singing "This is F/This is my F-chord song (etc.)", because it is baseless parody of music and musicianship.

Robert Schwartz

my intial hypothesis is that they are all barking mad.


"Second, much offensive language is a justification for oppression or injustice; for example, the claim that “black men are stupider than whites” gains some of its offensiveness from providing a justification for racist employment policies. But again, the offence is against standards of justice (and truth), not individuals."

You can't possibly mean this. It doesn't make sense, unless you think that the standards of justice have no relationship to individuals.

The Pedant-General

In a civilised society, I think it is actually offensive "to take offence". In order to do this, you have to project bad motive onto the "offendee". Which is not a nice assumption to make.

I wrote about this when all the brouhaha about the Piglet ban and George Cross stuff blew up.


Toodle Pip!

Northerner In Southwark

OK magazine offends me. Still I exercise my economic rights and boycott its purchase.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad