* Jim Henderson <hendersj@gmail.com> [12-05-20 14:57]:
On Fri, 04 Dec 2020 09:50:53 +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote:
Summed up, you did not actually mean what you wrote.
I meant what I wrote, but our discussion has clarified it.
While that's a relief for me (that statement was really scary), you now say essentially the same as me and others you argued with: when someone tells you he is offended by what you said or did, you have right to assess if his response makes sense to you and, based on that, decide if and how you act upon it.
Well, of course. But if, for example, a trans person says they prefer that you not call them "he" or "she" and you refuse, you are actively *knowingly* being offensive - because you are denying them their right to self-identify who they are and insisting that you know better than they do who they are.
That doesn't mean you have to stop. But it does mean that you're being an asshole if you don't stop. And on a public mailing list, you're being an asshole in public.
Just one important note: being offended has little to do with facts or reason, it's an emotional reaction. Which is why even if I'm not denying the "right to be offended", I will always fight for it to be balanced by right to say "well, that's your problem".
Sure, offense is an emotional reaction. Usually based on a lifetime of experience and how people who actively go out of their way to cause offense because they get kicks out of it.
*****************
Causing someone pain for kicks and then laughing about it is simply not acceptable behavior.
that *would* qualify as directed and intended, ie: abusive forcing someone to identify a man as ??not-a-man?? or xx, is exactly, "forcing" and I might take offense at that. which is correct? not a request for comment! -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode