Who decides on what is and isn't offensive?
Bingo!
This is exactly what my view relies on. It is not simple. Whatever criteria you come up with, it wll have holes as there is no practical and objetive benchmark we can use. The sole fact that someone claims to be offended is not, nor should be enough. Intention, context, history, etc play a role.
Intention in particular, is key. At least it's one of the main criterias when i consider whether to be offended or not. Simplest example i can use to explain intention (and intention only) is the use of argie. If someone uses it because he is under the impression it is the equivalent to scot, aussie, brit, etc, i wont be offended. If i believe he knows what it entails, i might. I still believe he should be able to say that to me, but that is another matter.
So two [insert nationality here] call me the same word, in the same context with the same background and i feel offended by one and not the other. And the difference is the perceived intention i get from them (which begs the question, what if my reading of the intention is wrong?).
Again, this is not easy. And why limit it to to war bonnets? How about to every garnment? How about music? Why not food? Why limit it to the impact it has on one sense, why not use all senses?
Do italians feel offended when others eat pizza? No, for various reasons, but the main one is there not an iota of intention to offend italians. Some will scream: garments and food are not the same. I disagree, but then use a chullo hat instead. I've never, ever, seen a south american cry foul when seeing a white, cis, male european wearing a chullo.
Is there an intention to insult or negatively portray the one claiming to be offended by the ones issuing the message? I don't think so. I sincerely dont.
If you tell me "listen, there is a history between Exeter and native americans that, despite the lack of bad intentions wakes up old memories, problematic ones", kinda like what happens with zwarte piet in the netherlands, i could understand. But the portrayal by exeter aims at all positive things. The name is not insulting on itself either (i.e. redskins).
Its not rocket science (although apparently it might be a bit too hard for some people to grasp) anything is offensive if someone find its offensive.
Very well then. I find your posts, every single one of them, offensive.
Following your very own logic displayed in this thread, you should stop posting. Not a sinlge alphanumeric character from you anymore. You cornered yourself into this one.
If you do, you lose.
If you dont, you expose the hypocrisy of your argument, and lose, too.
It's not rocket sciency, indeed.
The argument you propose, that solely claiming being offended by someone, anyone according to you, is enough to command the other party not to express his/her views, resist no analysis whatsoever.
It's nothing short of ludicrous.
You feel offended? Then for crying out loud, be ******* offended. You are, for the lack of a better word, entitled to offend me. That is the entire bloody point.
Just like i feel when i read your nonsense, but you don't see me asking for you to be censored.
