Offensive
I was reading a heated thread in a sociopolitical blog's comments, and I came across this expression:
"I've read your arguments, and I find them very offensive."
It really struck me. It's a common turn of phrase, but it's very much a creature of the modern world. Contrast it with this sentence:
"I've read your arguments, and I'm offended by them."
You see the difference, don't you? To "find something offensive" is to intellectually recognise its contradiction to one's own ideas or feelings, without any particular effect on one's equanimity. It says, "I'm not actually offended, but this contains all the technical criteria for causing offence." In and of itself it is not offending, in this instance, but it has been deemed offensive. Indeed, it may never give any actual offence to anyone, but it has the power to do so... theoretically.
"Finding (x) offensive" seems to be a grammatical way of claiming a disassociated high ground in a debate, without losing the moral trump card of a deep emotional connection with one's own position. After all, if you were actually offended by something, there's always the possibility that your subsequent arguments could be devalued by the presence of your high emotions. "Finding (x) offensive" registers the potential for high emotions and puts them aside, allowing one to be both a bruised flower and a dispassionate trooper simultaneously.
At best, it's rather disingenuous.
Perhaps this is why we so many people struggle with the concept of "causing offence" these days. Too many people are tagging things as offensive, and too few are actually being offended.
"I've read your arguments, and I find them very offensive."
It really struck me. It's a common turn of phrase, but it's very much a creature of the modern world. Contrast it with this sentence:
"I've read your arguments, and I'm offended by them."
You see the difference, don't you? To "find something offensive" is to intellectually recognise its contradiction to one's own ideas or feelings, without any particular effect on one's equanimity. It says, "I'm not actually offended, but this contains all the technical criteria for causing offence." In and of itself it is not offending, in this instance, but it has been deemed offensive. Indeed, it may never give any actual offence to anyone, but it has the power to do so... theoretically.
"Finding (x) offensive" seems to be a grammatical way of claiming a disassociated high ground in a debate, without losing the moral trump card of a deep emotional connection with one's own position. After all, if you were actually offended by something, there's always the possibility that your subsequent arguments could be devalued by the presence of your high emotions. "Finding (x) offensive" registers the potential for high emotions and puts them aside, allowing one to be both a bruised flower and a dispassionate trooper simultaneously.
At best, it's rather disingenuous.
Perhaps this is why we so many people struggle with the concept of "causing offence" these days. Too many people are tagging things as offensive, and too few are actually being offended.
posted by Blandwagon at 6:14 PM
1 Comments:
Well put!
I'm going implement the change immediately. From now on, I am offended by the fact that restaurants today use copious amounts of cilantro in everything. But everythng that george W. Bush says and does is still offensive.
Post a Comment
<< Home