Have you ever noticed how the meanings of words can get twisted beyond all recognition?
Consider the word ‘offensive’ for a moment. It gets bandied about a lot these days. How often have you heard someone get up and decry, “That comment is offensive to me and my beleifs!” and get the sympathy of the politically correct audience on sensitivity grounds, because we shouldn’t be offensive.
Notice how they’re using the word ‘offensive’ as if it meant the same thing as ‘abusive’?
I’ve had this conversation with a few people, and they initially meet the above question with blinking incomprehension. It’s gotten to the point where these two words are considered to be synonymous. Offensive and abusive do not mean the same thing.
Offensive means to proactively assert yourself against something that you disagree with or wish to change. It’s the contrasting term to ‘defensive’. It’s a term used positively in sports, such as ‘maintaining offensive control of the ball’. And it’s inherent in any attempt to combat abuse. A woman standing up to an abusive husband is an offensive act against that husband. This doesn’t mean violence or abuse directed towards the husband; it just means a change in stance by refusing to be the victim by asserting herself against abuse. It’s a noble, empowering act.
How offensive was women’s sufferage movement to the patriarchal power structure?
How offensive was the abolition of slavery to the slavers?
How offensive was the American Revolution to the British Empire?
The only way to make a stand against abusers and oppressors is to make a stand offensively. There is no other way. Offensiveness is built into criticisim, which is in turn the foundation of free speech, free will, and free thought. Offensiveness of this sort is the most enobling action a human can engage in. To act out against that which is harmful and abusive is to affirm the best aspects of ourselves.
So remember this. The next time you hear someone say something like “You do not have the right to offend me,” look a little closer at the subtext. It sounds so politically correct that it slides in under the radar; you barely notice it. But usually what that person really means is something very much like “You do not have the right to assertively and critically object to my abusive actions.”
Abuse and oppression must be fought back wherever they’re found. We have to be offensive in order to do this. It’s not just our right to be offensive to abuse – it’s our duty as free thinking individuals.
ur logic offends me! fatwa!
Comment by aniche — May 15, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
Why should we refrain from being abusive or opressive? If we say that we shouldn’t to protect the freedom of others thoughts and opinions then we’re opressing those who wish to be abusive aren’t we? It’s kind of a contradictory idea unless we introduce an external constraint isn’t it? Let me know what you think if you don’t mind.
Comment by ericburns — May 19, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
Eric – I’m going to be really obnoxious and rephrase your question. You’ve highlighted a contradiction – a contradiction that does exist, I might add – in such a way as to make it a dealbreaker for the whole concept of the freedom of the individual. Which I don’t feel that it is.
The basic idea is this; that people should be free to do whatever they choose, except when they would choose to infringe upon the freedoms of others.
There’s more to it than that, but it’s the core of the issue.
You’ve pointed out – quite fairly – that this basically works out to oppression in the case of people who do want to infringe on the people of others. In other words, in oppressing those who wish to be oppressors, aren’t we becoming oppressors ourselves? And if we are, then why are we any different to the oppressors?
If I’ve represented you unfairly, please correct me on this.
In response, I’d like to lapse into the metaphor of the physics of spring mechanics.
Yes, I know. Bear with me.
Mechanical springs have their own subset of physics that is specifically designed to deal with springs. I won’t go into the details here, but the idea is that for every spring there is a ’spring constant’ specific to that spring that represents how hard it is to stretch or compress it from it’s ‘rest’ state. The idea is that for all the energy that gets put in, you’ll have an equal amount of energy pushing back the other way when you release the spring. It’s an important set of equations for the use within mechanical systems.
However, there’s a problem with spring mechanics. If you stretch a spring too far so as to warp the metal, the spring no longer behaves as the spring equations predict. This is called stretching the spring beyond its tare point. Once you do that, the model breaks down.
However, so long as we make sure that we don’t stretch our springs beyond their tare points the model remains very useful for addressing the problem for which it was designed – namely, that of predicting how simple springs will behave in mechanical systems.
To move back into the question at hand – that the oppression of oppressors is integral to the freedom of the individual – I would say that in pointing this out we’re stretching the original spring beyond its tare point.
The whole point of the freedom of the individual is that, without any restraints, the biggest violent bully wins. Without any restraints, criminal gangs would run everything. In historical days, the equivalent of a crimelord was a warlord. If the warlords rule the roost violence, abuse and oppression become the norm, and that’s bad for everyone except the few warlords at the top.
It’s in everyone else’s best interests if there aren’t any oppressors, such that everyone is free to go about their lifes as they see fit. In order to do this, anyone with a view to oppression needs to be stopped. And although this is in and of itself an act of oppression, it’s a neccesary one in order to maintain the viability of the original vision of a free society.
This doesn’t mean that the oppressors of the oppressors shouldn’t be kept under very close watch – because they should, very much so. This is the whole point in living in a free, democratic society – that although the system is imperfect, but it’s the best way we have of trying to limit the oppressors without overstepping into true oppression.
So in other words, so long as we keep a very close eye on where the tare point is when we oppress the opressors – so long as we’re very careful that we don’t become genuine oppressors ourselves – the original concept works in just the same way that springs still work so long as we don’t stretch them too far.
There’s a powerful responsibility in the vigilance required for this task, and yes, it introduces a potential flaw into the system… But that doesn’t stop the system system from performing its function very well despite this flaw.
Hope I’m making sense. Looking forward to your response.
Comment by Ubiquitous Che — May 19, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
Same thing happened with the word tolerance. It technically means “to put up with” aka to tolerate the stench.
When we talk of tolerance we really mean acceptance.
Comment by Samuel Skinner — May 29, 2008 @ 5:51 am
this brings back memories- well, probably not old enough to say that (only 20 yrs. old), but I remember realizing this about a year and a half ago, and believe it or not that feels soooo long ago. I definitely see your point, and to some extent agree with it. Of course, to some degree I agree with the consensus of the above comments, but when it comes down to it, this isn’t about freedom-of-speech vs. [insert fanatics] movement, this is about the ignorance of so many people that take words, and (even worse) concepts for granted, waving them around like they know what they’re talking about.
Of course, anyone that wants to assert themselves is guilty of such at one time or another. Let’s face it- politicians are full of shit for a reason. They have to act like they know what they’re talking about *all the time*, to ensure that the people feel secure, willing to put their trust in him/her.
Although I didn’t realize it till recently, many religious texts (not calling them out for fear of trolling(!) are written with half-lies. the authors were inspired by God to stretch the truth a little bit to make up for the fact there’s some things humans can’t comprehend no matter how you word it. Ok, that’s a nicer way of putting it
– I won’t mention the atheist/etc. way ’cause you probably already know anyway.
So that people can have confidence in their religion, every question that can possibly be answered must be answered, even if it means (and inevitably does) inconsistencies, contradictions, and plot-holes. especially with that last one, this forcibly-faked-perfection also applies to much of the media, as this is required many times to hook the viewer/reader/etc, and keep them hooked.
well, I’ve rambled enough- so to the point:
Radicals must stretch the truth, and intellectuals must call them on it- the key is finding a balance/common ground between the two….Like that will ever happen!
Comment by th3g1vr — July 4, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Samuel Skinner@
“When we talk of tolerance we really mean acceptance.”
in this anime I am a fan of (Death Note), the protagonist, known as “Kira”, kills criminals with the goal of becoming “god of the [resulting] new world”. all this time, Kira was being tolerated, because although there was no way (at the time) to catch him, they could have taken measures to frustrate him, or (to be extreme) even orchestrate a nation/worldwide lockdown- in such circumstances such an extreme wouldn’t be that unreasonable. but the United States, did essentially nothing, thus “tolerating him”. eventually, the president (in the anime) recognized the world was now safer thanks to Kira, and “acknowledged” him. so, to accept means to not only “put up with”, but to recognize as “just as good a lifestyle as any”. Religious acceptance therefore is usually impossible (unless the religion is philosophy-centric of course; Hinduism also seems open-minded), because “my god is better/realer/truer than your god”
my roommates can be very obnoxious, but I tolerate them. But, since they are not even close to being role models, I can’t accept much beyond the facts they exist, are human, are male, have certain traits- no much beyond that.
Comment by th3g1vr — July 4, 2008 @ 10:30 am
Samuel Skinner: Yay! Someone else gets it!
th3q1vr: Yay! Someone else gets it! Again!
…
Hmm…
Maybe my idea wasn’t so revolutionary after all.
And I know what you mean about 18 feeling so long ago when you’re 20. I’m only 23 myself – for me there was about as big a jump between 20 and 23 as there is between 18 and 20.
Comment by Ubiquitous Che — July 14, 2008 @ 8:45 am
so I guess that I’d better get prepared for some more changes…
Comment by th3g1vr — July 20, 2008 @ 7:58 am