How many times can one group of people take offence?

[Bernie Gunther]

My point is that if you're going to judge people on the basis of how often they take offense, it's only reasonable to wonder whether you do so evenhandedly.

 

[ska invita]

Its a simple matter of feeling threatened - in the case of Muslims its physically and politically threatened - also true of Daily Mail readers!

 

[Pete the Greek]

My point is that if you're going to judge people on the basis of how often they take offense, it's only reasonable to wonder whether you do so evenhandedly.

True, however, in the instance I've provided, I'm going pretty much by the collossal media coverage such 'offence taking' generates. I mean, imagine if it got to front page everytime the Mail was outraged?? Yeah....exactly.

I'm just sick of reading about it. So much air time for essentially what amounts to a collection of rampant, religious, superstitious airheads. With laughable and conflicting standpoints on their own religion.

At least with the Christians, the ones who didn't like the orthodoxy at the time fucked off to the States allowing the Protestant/Catholic frosty division in its wake. This latest outbreak in medievalness comes at the bizarre price of westerners being kicked the shit out of, because since 9/11, people want to wear forms of head dress and instill Sharia law which is binned in their 'home countries'.

At the end of the day, Britain is a secular state with vague Christian institutions hanging on by a thread. Most people like it that way. So, it should stay that way and if people want to piss and moan, then get in line.

There are millions of miles of queues of people in Britain just gagging to get hold of politicians to piss and moan about their gripes. This one group comes along and grabs 80% of the fucking limelight! what a joke.

 

[DexterTCN]

My problem is with you and others taking parts of teh lecture completely out of context and then commenting on it as if it stand on its own, adding your very own interpretations to its intentions at that.

Sorry Aldebaran I went through the whole text, talked about many parts and left a pdf link to it, I didn't take one part out of any context. Saying that just makes you look like you didn't read my post.

Religious people who think otherwise are delusional.

And the difference between you insulting someone's beliefs and someone else doing it is.....? Nothing. You're all the same.

 

[portman]

How many years has the Daily Mail been taking offence on behalf of little englanders everywhere for?

It's not an isolated or recent phenomenon.

Yes but....

The Mail claims to speak up for the interests of the middle class (whatever that may be) - quite often that will be defending material interests such as a desire for low taxes, seeing the price of your home continue to rise inexorably and the like. What Pete is talking about is a group of people who have a wide divergence of material interests but are bound by what they see as one common religious and cultural identity. There is IMHO a distinct difference between the two. It is possible to have a reasonably rational, if somewhat heated debate with someone defending low taxes (and similar). Try criticising the beliefs of someone whose identity is inextrcably bound up with their religion and it's quite possible the sparks will start to fly...

 

[Aldebaran]

Sorry Aldebaran I went through the whole text, talked about many parts and left a pdf link to it, I didn't take one part out of any context. Saying that just makes you look like you didn't read my post.

I meant that you comment on parts of the text, taking them out of context and creating your own ideas about the intentions behind it.
I aruged that your interpretations are incorrect.

And the difference between you insulting someone's beliefs and someone else doing it is.....? Nothing. You're all the same.

? Where do I insult your beliefs (or anyone else's)?
In my reading of your posts, you misrepresent the intentions of teh leader of the Church of Rome. In my book *that* is an insult, intended or not.

salaam.

 

[DexterTCN]

Where do I insult your beliefs (or anyone else's)?

here.

Religious people who think otherwise are delusional.

That's called insulting people. To claim that someone is delusional for not believing what you believe is not only insulting, it is...well it's religious.

I meant that you comment on parts of the text, taking them out of context and creating your own ideas about the intentions behind it.
I aruged that your interpretations are incorrect.

I didn't take anything out of context, I linked to the entire effing speech and linked many parts of it to reach my conclusions. You respond with 'he took it out of context'.

And I can assure you...that 'creating my own ideas' comes from my upbringing and experience. Unlike sheep...I test things to see if they can stand the scrutiny. If they hold up I can accept them, if they don't then I can dismiss them. Fairy stories lie distinctly in the second part of that equation, seeing as how we're not going to discuss as adults, have some adult discussion.

 

[Aldebaran]

To claim that someone is delusional for not believing what you believe is not only insulting, it is...well it's religious.

I *was* talking about religious people who are supposed to have an idea what "God" is about.

You posted excerpts of the lecture and gave your comments, on which I said your evaluation is wrong, because your comments demonstrate that you do not take into account context, focus and goal (or misunderstand them, for one reason or an other). Nothing of what you claim the Pope intended is even remotely there.

I never believed in fairy tales. I made my nanny completely crazy with my questions because what she told me could not reflect reality. (You should not under-estimate sheep and their ability to develop an amazing unique personality.)

salaam.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yes but....

The Mail claims to speak up for the interests of the middle class (whatever that may be) - quite often that will be defending material interests such as a desire for low taxes, seeing the price of your home continue to rise inexorably and the like. What Pete is talking about is a group of people who have a wide divergence of material interests but are bound by what they see as one common religious and cultural identity. There is IMHO a distinct difference between the two. It is possible to have a reasonably rational, if somewhat heated debate with someone defending low taxes (and similar). Try criticising the beliefs of someone whose identity is inextrcably bound up with their religion and it's quite possible the sparks will start to fly...

Sure but if they're both persistently taking offence, and you want to judge them differently, one might be forgiven for thinking that the differences were more important to that judgement than the taking offence part.

As to your last point. I agree that someone's identity being bound up with their beliefs is significant, but I think that this tends to be true of anyone who persistently takes offence on the basis of their beliefs. Daily Mail readers included.

 

[DexterTCN]

I read the whole lecture, I quoted directly what the pope said. So no offence but don't talk shite by saying

Nothing of what you claim the Pope intended is even remotely there.

because everything I quoted was said by him. And I wasn't trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes because I posted the link to the full text.

What you mean is that you understand him and I don't. Just as any religious person who does not agree with you is delusional. There's no reasoned argument here...just insults.

You don't address my points, you just (still) say I misread, didn't understand, have an agenda or am stupid. You need to go and check your humbleness meter mate, because you sound like you think you're god.

I didn't post the entire 'lecture' because that's against forum rules.

And btw a fairy tale is 'an interesting but highly implausable story' so I beg to differ...your beliefs are precisely interesting but highly implausible.

Did I take that out of context?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> There are millions of miles of queues of people in Britain just gagging to get hold of politicians to piss and moan about their gripes. This one group comes along and grabs 80% of the fucking limelight! what a joke.

Yes, but there are two variables. How offended you are and how readily the media reports the story. I would argue the key difference here is that the media is all exicted about muslim stories and not very interested in whatever things deeply offend catholics or wiccans.

 

[Aldebaran]

What you mean is that you understand him and I don't.

If that is a better description for you, then yes.

Just as any religious person who does not agree with you is delusional.

Again: No. You misunderstand what I wrote.
I didn't say you are stupid etc... at all.
I suppose if I was God I would be aware of it. Up to now I am not aware of such a miraculous transformation. Hence I take it for most likely that you have it wrong.

And btw a fairy tale is 'an interesting but highly implausable story' so I beg to differ...your beliefs are precisely interesting but highly implausible.

Fairy tales usually have a sociological and/or moral aspect, which in any case can be said from my religion (my beliefs are something entirely different).

salaam.

 

[portman]

Sure but if they're both persistently taking offence, and you want to judge them differently, one might be forgiven for thinking that the differences were more important to that judgement than the taking offence part.

As to your last point. I agree that someone's identity being bound up with their beliefs is significant, but I think that this tends to be true of anyone who persistently takes offence on the basis of their beliefs. Daily Mail readers included.

I think the differences between a Mail reader taking offence at something (let's say for example - single mothers being given council flats) and a Muslim taking offence at a criticism of their faith are significant. Simply because the latter does view their faith as an integral part of their identity wheras a Mail reader is not responding to an attack on their personal integrity but is concerned about the way they see society going.

Given the growing importance of identity politics to people who have turned their backs on more rational political projects aimed at achieving social change, there has been an important qualitative shift. Because identity politics tacitly accepts that significant material and social change are increasingly remote possibilities, the whole focus is on the unchanging nature of what the individual and/or their community is. Therefore, any criticism is going to be taken more to heart.

Having said this, in response to the focus on Muslim identity, there is a worrying rise of Little Englandism in response - something which increasingly seems to feed off the same pernicious strand of identity politics.

 

[laptop]

Well...

I'd guess that the minimum time to take one distinct offence is around the same as average reaction time, about 150 milliseconds. That's roughly 6.66 offences per second.

If someone makes a full-time job of being offended, every waking hour: the number of distinct offences one person can take = 16hrs * 3600 seconds * 6.66 per second = 384,000 per person per day.

If a group efficiently divides the offences up between its members, the answer to the OP question is... er... lots.