"I always expect some people to be offended. I know I ruffle feathers but some people’s feathers need a little ruffling. And remember: just because someone is offended doesn’t mean they’re in the right. Some people are offended by multiculturalism, homosexuality, abortion, atheism – what should we do? Ban all those things? You have the right to be offended, and I have the right to offend you. But no one has the right to never be offended.

I never actively try to offend though. That’s churlish, pointless and frankly too easy. But I believe you should say what you mean. Be honest. No one should ever be offended by truth. That way you’ll never have to apologise. I hate it when a comedian says, “Sorry for what I said.” You shouldn’t have said it. You shouldn’t say it if you didn’t mean it and you should never regret anything you meant to do. As a comedian I think my job isn’t just to make people laugh but also make them think. As a famous comedian I also want a strict door policy on my club. Not everyone will like what I say or find it funny. And I wouldn’t have it any other way. There are enough comedians who try to please everyone as it is. Good luck to them, but that’s not my game, I’m afraid."


http://newhumanist.org.uk/2640/repeat-offender-new-humanist-interviews-ricky-gervais

What, exactly, should be the follow up to that statement? That I censor myself to please a second party?

If the world offends you, then lock yourself away and hide. If offense is so egregious, how else is one to avoid it?

There is no right to pass through this life without ever having been offended. Matter of fact, if you actually did manage such a thing, you're doing it wrong.

Offense should be provocative. It should make you think. And I am decidedly not talking about name calling or racial epithets here. Those ARE too easy. Pathetically so.

In an interview I read with Frank Zappa shortly before he died he was asked about offending people. He said that after he released Jewish Princess, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League threatened to sue, or some sort of formal complaint. He said, I have that letter framed on my wall.

...the concept that being free to speak your mind also means others are free to speak in disagreement of you. But too many people imagine that when they speak their mind, everyone else is required to remain silent or, better yet, agree.

Totaly agree there. to often when someone says or does some thing perfitulerly offensive they expect to get away with it saying everyone else should just not be offended.

OK an example. A woman goes sleeping around and gets finaly called up on it because her friends have had enough of cleaing up the mess. She kicks up a fuss and says she's just playing the game of life and if we dont like the way she plays well we should just put up with it. We lash out it gets nasty and yelling all over the place.

So the moral of this story is you go out to do something that hurts someone dont be supprised if they get hurt and lash out straight back at you.

Only immoral people expect to be able to say and do what they want and not be held accountable for it.

A person with conscience would never expect others never to be offended. A person with conscience would apologize.

A church on the other hand who mocks those who have been offended...well guess where they are coming from?

I think not.

Many people are offended simply because I am gay. Being gay is who I am, if that offends someone TOUGH SHIT, I am not going to apologize for it. To demand such an apology would be controlling and manipulative and would give credence to a point of view I find invalid.

Yes, but Mr Gervais has a reputation in the UK for being a professional toss-pot. ;o))

http://vimeo.com/23696642

;-)

What offends people is so often subjective. Being gay offends some people, that does not make those that are offended right (as in right or wrong) or even right (as in right or wrong) to be offended.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2011 05:42PM by MJ.

I just taught my family a lesson on never being offended. If the offender means to offend and you are offended then he wins. If the offender meant no offense then you should not bother to be offended. Either way you win!

I've worked in journalism for a long time, on and off, freelance etc. You want to get torn apart, there's a field for you. Your story ideas, your writing, your heart and soul...are all there to get picked apart by editors, other writers, readers, columnists, reviewers. You name it. You have to develop a thick skin and confidence in your work and yourself. I've found that people are either right, and you should listen to them and take their advice under consideration or they are wrong and you should ignore them and do what you know is right. Being offended is a waste of time. If they are wrong, that is their problem.

That's not to say things don't make me mad. But it isn't personal and I don't get my feelings hurt and sulk about it. I work to fix it. But I also don't demand that people not offend me. They have a right to their opinions and beliefs. Mormons think everyone else has to change themselves to not offend the Mormons. Ricky's correct. No one has the right to demand that.

I've worked in journalism a long time too, and I always welcomed negative feedback. I loved it when I offended people because it meant A) I got their attention (or drew it to whatever issue I was writing about) and B) I made them think.

If, and only if, the only intent was to be offensive, then yes, you would have a point.

However, what about a situation where one group of people are spreading lies in order to get another group of people to take hostel actions against a third group of people? Would not the third group of people have every right to take offense to those lies? Indeed, I would think they would be foolish not to be offended into action.

As a Gay man, I am highly offended by the lies TSCC has spread about gays in an attempt to get laws passed to restrict my rights, and no, it does not mean TSCC has won. It means they have provoked me into actions that have helped defeat the lies and defeat TSCC's attempts to restrict my rights.

I can't imagine telling a victim of a class of people that have been targeted for genocide that if they take offense to claims they should be wiped off the face of the earth, that means the people preaching genocide have won.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2011 02:43PM by MJ.

Chad Farlan should read this thread.

They of course have the right to tell hard-working, kind and loving parents of Mormon convert children that they "are not worthy" to attend and observe their child's wedding in the "sacred" Mormon temple. They are unclean things. God says that "no unclean thing" can enter his temple. That's not offensive to the "unworthy" non-Mormon parent. It's just letting them know how much God disapproves of them.

But if you question the sacredness of their secret handshakes and underwear, you're crossing a line and doing something that should never be done. You're viciously offending people by mocking their faith (which faith includes the notion that nearly all of humanity is not worthy or clean enough to enter their sacred temples).

This is one of those standards that Mormons would like to force the rest of the world to meekly and submissively accept--if only they had enough power and influence. Maybe Romney will help them if he gets elected. But he'll probably be to busy managing his investment portfolio to stay focused on the concerns of the useful TBM ideeyots who vote for him. ;o)

walking on eggshells to avoid offending or being all sensitive and taking offense when none was warranted.

Maybe it's a throwback to Mormonism that I hate the expression "taking (or giving) offense". Because I walked those eggshells, and simultaneously allowed people to walk on me. I was never going to offend anyone, but on the other hand, I WOULD allow people to mistreat or take advantage of me.

Instead of being so concerned about other people's reactions, people should be evaluating behavior (both their own and that of others): Is it decent? Is it honest? Is it appropriate to the situation? Appropriateness involves manners, sensitivity, kindness, and yes- that sometimes means bluntness or directness. Is it acceptable?

Then they should act or respond accordingly. And let the chips fall where they may.

His movie "The invention of Lying" is excellent satire that devastates religion in general, and mormonism as well. I won't say exactly how because it would spoil the moment for those who have not seen it yet, but there is one scene that any exmo will recognize as being a "joseph smith" moment.