'Being Offended' Thread.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The english prince dude that is trying to hide in lala land admitted the brits have no concept of actual free speech in practice as they have none.

First of all, the English Prince dude is an absolute arsehole who has no concept of what life is like outside of his protected and highly privileged bubble.
He has precious little understanding of UK culture and society and the laws that govern the ordinary, everyday people.

In short his opinion is not based on reality, has no credibility whatsoever and is utterly irrelevant.

We have more or less as much freedom as everyone else in this world....except we can't go around wanking over how big a gun we have.

If the brits don't get it, the rest of the world don't have a chance.

Indeed.

Why was the burglar so easily offended?

He took things personally.

originally posted by: carewemust
Not just here.

No, but this is a great place to see the winners make thread after political thread about how deeply offended they are by what the other team is doing.

originally posted by: BobbyJoeSmiths
Perhaps you should seek out someone that can teach you how to respect others. It's not that hard.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: BobbyJoeSmiths
We are evolving and learning how to treat others better. We can't continue to disrespect each other just so comedians can have funnier material. a reply to: karl 12

Except I have no way of knowing what all might offend a person at the outset.

See my long-winded post above.

There is no evolution at all that can prevent accidental offenses. None, short of evolving a hive mind where no one has a separate conscience anymore because we're all linked into a many-mind where we see all, know all about one another.

And perhaps you should try to understand what I am saying.

Do you know what offends me? And I mean every single thing that offends me or might upset me? No, and you have no way at all of understanding that. You might make a perfectly innocent remark about something, and I might be terribly upset by it because of certain circumstances that are either taking place in my personal life or took place in my personal life. You have no way of knowing what those personal associations of mine are going to be when you make that remark.

You, of course, did not set out to upset me or hurt my feelings at all because you had no way of knowing that you would because for most people, that remark you made was perfectly innocent and wouldn't mean anything out of the ordinary. Why do you think my example was using tomato paste in spaghetti sauce?!

Your very obtuseness to my point offends me and I am actually upset that you persist in not getting what I am trying to say, and I'm actually not joking at this point. I can't understand how *anyone* could be so thick. So you're being an idiot on purpose.

A hallmark of true mental maturity is the ability to not be offended by the words of other people. Only one person in a conversation has the power to be offended, and that is a choice - not a mandate. I *choose* to be offended by words, they do not have some arcane power over me.

I keep hearing about deserving respect for others, but that isn't how respect works. Respect is earned, not given. And the best way to earn respect to by impressing others with your actions and ideas. And that requires tolerance on your part, which is another hallmark of mental maturity; the ability to understand that two people will not agree on everything, and that's okay. So long as no one is being hurt or losing their inalienable rights, we should publicly be agree to publicly disagree and go our own ways.

But what I'm hearing from one corner is that we are all expected to follow some unwritten rules that seem to change almost daily in order to appease an immature minority of society. All I can say to that is: Grow Up.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Just a reminder . . . .

Free speech, especially the 1st Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech.

Nice speech, PC speech, never needs protection.

Eh yo....

The english prince dude that is trying to hide in lala land admitted the brits have no concept of actual free speech in practice as they have none.
If the brits don't get it, the rest of the world don't have a chance.

Remember Monty Python...if that wasn't free speech, what was it?

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Just a reminder . . . .

Free speech, especially the 1st Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech.

Nice speech, PC speech, never needs protection.

Eh yo....

The english prince dude that is trying to hide in lala land admitted the brits have no concept of actual free speech in practice as they have none.
If the brits don't get it, the rest of the world don't have a chance.

Remember Monty Python...if that wasn't free speech, what was it?

Yes, and it's interesting that John Cleese hates cancel culture and bowing to the offended as much as anyone.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Just a reminder . . . .

Free speech, especially the 1st Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech.

Nice speech, PC speech, never needs protection.

Eh yo....

The english prince dude that is trying to hide in lala land admitted the brits have no concept of actual free speech in practice as they have none.
If the brits don't get it, the rest of the world don't have a chance.

Remember Monty Python...if that wasn't free speech, what was it?

Said English prince CLEARLY doesn't think so.
Best education the brits can provide, still no understanding.
It is a real life comedy sketch, to bad the brit government wouldn't let it be broadcast to the magic picture boxes.

originally posted by: andy06shake

Why was the burglar so easily offended?

He took things personally.

Very well done!

a reply to: Freeborn

except we can't go around wanking over how big a gun we have.

If only you weren't so busy wanking over dancing around the may poles, freaking cultists.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Just a reminder . . . .

Free speech, especially the 1st Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech.

Nice speech, PC speech, never needs protection.

Eh yo....

The english prince dude that is trying to hide in lala land admitted the brits have no concept of actual free speech in practice as they have none.
If the brits don't get it, the rest of the world don't have a chance.

Remember Monty Python...if that wasn't free speech, what was it?

A fake german inquiring about a boomer english tv show is quite ironic.
I'd like to have an argument please?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Salander
Good thread! Hitchens is right.

Peter Hitchens is a right wing hack for the Daily Fail.

He's your poster boy?

Really?

So funny.

No he's not my poster boy.

Do you often put words into other posters' mouths?

It's sad that you weren't raised to be a better person.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: BobbyJoeSmiths
Perhaps you should seek out someone that can teach you how to respect others. It's not that hard.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: BobbyJoeSmiths
We are evolving and learning how to treat others better. We can't continue to disrespect each other just so comedians can have funnier material. a reply to: karl 12

Except I have no way of knowing what all might offend a person at the outset.

See my long-winded post above.

There is no evolution at all that can prevent accidental offenses. None, short of evolving a hive mind where no one has a separate conscience anymore because we're all linked into a many-mind where we see all, know all about one another.

And perhaps you should try to understand what I am saying.

Do you know what offends me? And I mean every single thing that offends me or might upset me? No, and you have no way at all of understanding that. You might make a perfectly innocent remark about something, and I might be terribly upset by it because of certain circumstances that are either taking place in my personal life or took place in my personal life. You have no way of knowing what those personal associations of mine are going to be when you make that remark.

You, of course, did not set out to upset me or hurt my feelings at all because you had no way of knowing that you would because for most people, that remark you made was perfectly innocent and wouldn't mean anything out of the ordinary. Why do you think my example was using tomato paste in spaghetti sauce?!

Your very obtuseness to my point offends me and I am actually upset that you persist in not getting what I am trying to say, and I'm actually not joking at this point. I can't understand how *anyone* could be so thick. So you're being an idiot on purpose.

originally posted by: andy06shake

Why was the burglar so easily offended?

He took things personally.

I once took offence.


Doubled the size of my garden.

originally posted by: Freeborn


We have more or less as much freedom as everyone else in this world....except we can't go around wanking over how big a gun we have.

True so far. But if you look at some of the proposed legislation in this Parliament, some of the ideas proposed in books and articles by members of the Government, and some of the ideas proposed by various people behind the scenes at Number Ten, we're about to lose quite a few freedoms....

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Freeborn

except we can't go around wanking over how big a gun we have.

If only you weren't so busy wanking over dancing around the may poles, freaking cultists.

No. Oscar Wilde once said " you should try anything once. Except incest and Morris Dancing."

Your view of us Brits is a little bit shady. To say the least.

Bit like us picturing all you rednecks as wearing white hoods and burning crosses.

Oh, wait, you are. How do you like it?

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Possibly.

They've been gradually eating away at our 'freedoms' since the Thatcher years.
I personally believe they want to take us back to some sort of Victorianesque society - both Thatcher and Cameron were very open and honest about their admiration for that era and all the social and economic inequalities and injustices that went along with it.
Other PM's have just been a bit more subtle or discreet, but no less committed.

The thing is, the alternative is no better at all.
They would impose a whole different type of censorship and restrictions upon us.
And those impositions could very well change the very fabric of our nation.

Both need to be opposed.

a reply to: Freeborn

Well said.

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: Freeborn

Well said.

More than 2 years later...

LOL