I stopped just to consider the other day how many apologies are ongoing between groups, between celebrities, between talk show hosts etc.
Just to name a few: Mel Gilbon's debacle, Rosie's situation, Don Imus' big mouth. In Don's case for instance. IMO his comments were definitely offensive, but so is most of the inane blather he spits into the microphone each day! Rosie was a loose cannon on THE VIEW. ABC had to know that about her before hiring Rosie. She appears to have a habit of speaking without first thinking, and when she releaizes she has said something outrageous, instead of graciously dropping it and moving on, she compulsively tries to explain herself, digging another bigger hole. Don't we expect these types of comments from these people? It seems as though it has become a habit for us to be outraged by the ill considered words of the high and mighty! It appears to me that as a nation we are all too ready to jump into full-tilt indignation at even the slightest slur.

I wonder about the following:

Have we become a nation that loves nothing more than to be offended?

Does it seem like this has become a national pasttime?

I think I see your point; that it might be better to ignore the various foolish things that celebrities and politicians say all the time. On the other hand, when I hear a statement with which I am in total disagreement, should I not respond in some way? The question is how.

In general, I don't demand the firing or the resignation of these people. However, I am free to express my disagreement, in the form of letters, e-mails, or telephone calls to the employers of the celebrities or the offices of the politicians. (Of course, one should maintian a basic level of civility, while expressing one's disagreement.) I can also freely choose to avoid purchasing the works of the celebrities, and to avoid voting for the politicians.

I tend to think that "being offended" is actually a healthy sign of a free society, as long as it is done peacefully. In a society with a great deal of free speech, many outrageous statements will be made. It is only natural that others will react to these statements.

The question is not "Should we be offended?" The question is "How should we respond?"

Have we become a nation that loves nothing more than to be offended?


I do not think that people with high self-esteem are easily offended. In reality, myself and most of the people that I associate with do not take things so offensively. I guess we have high self-esteem. I think the more productive a person is in his life, the less time he spends on emotionally charged issues, like we have seen in the media. I do not respect people who make derogatory and belittling comments about others, however, people who do that don't deserve the time and attention that they are given. It is my firm belief that by obsessing on such things we actually perpetuate them.

Does it seem like this has become a national pasttime?

Ummmmm, yes, to some degree. It's a distraction, really, that the media feeds us.

I don't believe that we have a problem with sensitivity. To me, it's about accountability and that is definitely the way it ought to be. If a given public personality is unable to articulate why they said what they did, then they deserve to lose their air time or slot on a show. Most people are sensible beings, but simple apologies or rationalizing away irresponsible behavior does not make the offending parties correct when their words come back to hit them in a vicious case of karma. Any bemoaning the fate of Imus or others ignores the simple issue that when a public figure speaks out, they will incur a public reaction. If they can't handle it, or explain it-they shouldn't do it.

It would seem so. But then, it appears that national personalities no longer watch their mouths the way they used to in the "good old days" (admittedly, that's what they were in my jaundiced judgment) when the networks strove to earn the "Seal of Good Practice." My apologies--it seemed time again to drag out that old dead horse and whip it again.



It makes headlines, and that's all the networks seem to care about. Slow news days are not days when people like to tune in, but give them something salacious to perk up their ears and give them something to ruminate on by the water cooler at work, and they will tune to that channel to hear the next outrage.

I'm just glad that every now and then someone gets nailed for crossing the line. When we just stop caring about what we say and who it affects, our society suffers.

Maybe some folks go out of their way to be offended, but more likely if you just open the newspaper, turn on the TV or radio, or go online you won't have to wait too long before you find something that either raises your blood pressure or engages your gag reflex.

There's nothing wrong with being offended by Mel Gibson, Don Imus, Michael Richards and Rosie O' Donnell. Nothing they say or do is particularly important, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored as insignificant either. What's more important to me is how offensive the Bush Administration is and the war in Iraq and global warming or that Paris Hilton's 15 minutes aren't up yet.

What I find twisted is the idea that if you find yourself offended or disgusted by something, people will get in your face like, "What's YOUR problem? Why are you so intolerant?"

Gee, I don't know. Maybe because I still believe there are some standards left and having a moral center is a good thing. Maybe because I don't think you have to wait for the big, huge and indisputably repulsively offensive before you say, "Okay, that's not enough---that's MORE than enough." For example, the case of Kenneth Pinyan and the resultant documentary movie made about his particular kind of sick and crazy goes far, far beyond my finite ability to tolerate.

An egregious and excessive example to be certain, but there is an assault on decency and good taste and if everything is permitted in the name of entertainment then what can be criticized? If we say it's okay to be racist as long as it's meant as a joke and it's okay to be sexist and it's okay to slam Jews, old folks, the mentally challenged, the handicapped, Democrats, Republicans, Muslims, White men, Black women, blondes, Swedes, Russians, Hispanics, left-handers, short people and anybody else that suits our fancy and without reluctance, restraint or responsibility. Is that the general idea?

Because if it is, I should feel bad for saying Mr. Pinyan was one sick, sick, twisted nutcase who should have been under the involuntary care of a mental health facility along with everyone else who is part of his little special group of super freaks.

I think it's guys like Pinyan that have the problem. Not me. I think the outrageous acts of people who coarsen and degrade and demean the rest of society are the ones out of step with the mainstream. Not that they ARE the mainstream.

If that makes me intolerant and easily offended, then I'm guilty as charged. Some things should remain offensive because they aren't funny and they aren't entertaining. They're just bad things and you can't finesse it into anything less.

Have we become a nation that loves nothing more than to be offended?

Is it just a question of your nation? It seems to me like the whole world requires a multitude of apologies and what your identifying in the USA exists here in Europe also. It seems to me to be a global trend brought about by the rise of instant communications like the internet, CNN and other news media and the political implications this has had.

In Denmark we've seen politicians using harsher tones than ever before and these have created a lot of offended people to react. The Swedish political elite in particular have begun to make constant remarks about the 'tone' in Danish politics, more often than not with scant regard as to the nuances involved.

I believe that often the call for an apology is nothing but a ploy to further an agenda and we see this happening a lot, with people being offended on the behalf of a third part which later interjects that is has not been offended at all. This is particularly true in Europe with regrads to socialists and how they use Muslims as a means to attack conservatives. The down side of this tactic is a backlash against Muslims that only serves to further encourage socialist fervour.

The fact that the Muslims (or which ever third party group has been chosen) have largely become a tool for a socialist agenda is not considered by those who get so easily offended. Instead the perception that these people can be regarded as a single homogenous group on whose behalf one can be 'offended' at all promotes an accepted wisdom that does fit easily with reality.

In truth, there will always be people who get offended about something or other. Last year for example a Pakistani immigrant to Denmark was so offended about seeing a Danish man on the beach changing from his wet swim wear before the Pakistani's daughter, that he attacked him with a machete. Now I may be a pessimist, but I do not see that any offence given to a person who takes a machete to the beach is worth defending (clearly such a person expects to be offended in some way or other) and yet such people are not only defended, but they are encouraged to be offended for their hurt is a useful political tool for people with agenda's that run counter to a society that allows men to change from wet swim wear into dry clothes on a public beach.


Does it seem like this has become a national pasttime?

Oh indeed. It seems like the global media coverage needs to have sensational stories about famous people behaving badly in order to justify its existance. The conditions of starving, under trodden millions and all the conflict happening in the real world don't matter at all so long as there is a Famous Person behaving badly!

Quick get the camera's out! A Famous Person made an offensive comment!

On the other hand...


nighttimer. Thats disgusting!

nighttimer, That's horrible. Well, that dude reaped what he sowed. I would have been happier not reading about it, though.

I've got to agree with you and moif that there are far worse things happening to people in the world than the salacious exploits of celebrities and the pronouncements of talking heads, pundits and so-called comedians. War, torture, and other atrocities should horrify us more than Mel Gibson, Don Imus, Michael Roberts, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Rosie O'Donnell, ad nauseum.

I also agree, however, that we should be offended by these people who are supposedly on the airwaves because someone has deemed them entertaining, despite their frequent lapses in judgment and venting of prejudices, latent and otherwise.

While we don't have to necessarily follow what Thumper's father always said, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything" (Pardon the obscure reference to a Bambi character), we can govern our own speech better and work to have the networks do the same. It is becoming a low and mean society out there, and I hope it doesn't take something like another "9/11" to get us to be more courteous to each other again.

Have we become a nation that loves nothing more than to be offended?

Does it seem like this has become a national pasttime?

Yes and yes.

However, the one thing you can be sure of is that any society in which nobody ever says anything that offends anyone, or in which anybody who takes offence at something they see or hear, is one that is significantly less free and a less desirable one in which to live.

What's different these days, I think, is the sense that simply being offended and then choosing to ignore the source of the offence (the old school, "sticks and stones" approach?) is no longer enough for many people.

Many people, for whatever reason, seem to think that their ideas, ideals, beliefs and behaviours must be pretected from offence at all costs, and that reparations (or retribution) must be sought for any perceived slight.

This ranges from the blindingly obvious (such as moif's machete example), to the (perhaps) more subtle and insidious litigative impulse which, here in the UK at least, is slowly choking public services in po-faced political correctness.

Not for any "loonie left" motive to avoid offending any sensitive minorities (in most cases), but for a purely defensive motive of avoiding the legal costs of defending against no-win-no-fee legal cases brought by anyone who thinks they've been offended or discriminated against, whether that's real or imaginary, and the costs of suspending staff on full pay while a spurious investigation comes to the obvious conclusion, and the knock-ons costs of the inevitable ligitation brought by the hard-done-by staff for the damage to their reputation, etc.

I wonder if the seeming increase in the number of politicians who are or were practising lawyers over about the same time scale (the last 2 or 3 decades) has anything to do with this trend?

I wonder about the following:

Have we become a nation that loves nothing more than to be offended?
IMO it is all about politics. If you like the person and he/she says things you agree with you tend to think the speech is reasonable while at the same time being offended by the same type of speech from someone you do not agree with.

Bush haters have called him every name in the book and even wished he were killed, dead etc. Rap songs use racial slurs all the time but Imus is a bad guy? It goes on and on and it gets a little tiring.

Does it seem like this has become a national pasttime?

More like a national political sport. And lets remember it’s about ratings and $$$$ and advertisers for the TV and radio shows. Imus was ok until the (black) head of American Express threatened to pull their millions in ads unless he was fired – never mind that his contract said specifically he could NOT be fired for outrageous speech because this is exactly what was wanted!

The disgusting, horrible case of Kenneth Pinyan is horrible and disgusting---which is exactly why I chose it. Even Pinyan has his defenders who say he should be understood, not condemned. I have a reply for that which won't fly on this board, but I wonder if his family understands why Kenneth would do something so depraved and become a source for endless humiliation, loathing and repulsion. What a terribly warped and selfish man.




A bit early for the revisionist history, don't you think, Ted? In your desire to blame the (Black) head of American Express, you conveniently give a pass to the (White) heads of Staples, General Motors, GlaxoSmithKline and Proctor & Gamble who also pulled their advertisements from the Imus show.

Why you are trying to spin this as some kind of "Black" conspiracy to get Don Imus, I won't hazard a guess. It is obvious though you want to try and pin this on Kenneth Chenault and "blame a brother" when the truth of the matter is if you want to blame anyone for the fall of Don Imus, you start first with Don Imus.

Have we become a nation that loves nothing more than to be offended?

Undoubtedly - political correctness/hypersensitivity are running rampant in the US. Just look at all the ridiculous complaints/lawsuits that come up around Christmas time. As to the celebrities and the ridiculous things they say, yes, they are relevant unfortunately because they have a forum. It's certainly not wrong to be offended by what Imus said, but it is just ridiculous to be offended by a Christmas tree or the word Christmas.

I am not – my error. I used him as a good example of a corporate exec who would be sure to have an issue once it became headline news. See below on how that happened.

They did have the director of the show on Hannity and he basically said the words used were common for Imus and part of his standard irreverent speech – encouraged by his bosses.

Imus was being monitored by a liberal group looking for “conservative bias” ! They started the firestiom.

“Watchdog Group Monitored Imus for Show Content

"Weekend Edition Saturday, April 14, 2007 • Media Matters for America is the organization that first publicized radio host Don Imus's comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. The organization is a liberal watchdog group that monitors print and broadcast media for conservative bias. Scott Simon talks to Eric Burns of Media Matters.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9585218

So people who spout off racist and nonsense should never be called to account? I thought it was the realm of P.C. to not say anything about whatyou don't like.

A Nation? No. Some people? Yes. Being a victim is moderately empowering. That is until people get sick of your whine and then your victim hood becomes a reason to attack you.

When you're a Don Imus and you are beholden to advertisers who are beholden to everyone you tend to need to make mea culpas rather often so as to keep the money flowing towards you.

The truth is very few people are offended by what Bradgelina, George Clooney, Michael Moore, Madonna or Paris Hilton do. However, there are small but vocal groups tend to make mountains out of mole hills...

I think there is a lot of feigned or posturing involved in being offended.

Sometimes just a person’s presence offends people.

Go Here, for example.

CAN A BROTHER GET AN AMEN????

Someone might be offended that I put "brother" on here. Dangit. Sorry.

I believe that every word has to be considered "subject" if it applies to anyone that doesn't hit the "absolute mainstream". It's funny, and strangely dependant upon who it comes from. For instance, the word Jew can be used in some circles and from some people, but often times it's considered derogatory to some Jewish people. Is it a derogatory term? I never thought so until I had 4 or 5 beers w/ a friend in our Manhattan office who happens to be Jewish (and I consequently used the word Jew, but talking about demographics, mostly in a matter of fact statement). In the South, we surely don't run into this.

That being said, there ARE some offensive terms that somehow are more acceptable than others. For instance, some people get offended if you call them black. However, you might get away with calling someone overweight or chunky. Sometimes even the same person. Why? Is the word "black" offensive? Guess it all depends. Chunky sure as heck would be if I were overweight.

What about calling someone short? That's sometimes acceptable. What about the fact that Asians are often called "Chinese"? I can't say that I've ever seen a Korean man get mad about that. I have however seen a Puerto Rican go nuts when called Mexican. Is being Puerto Rican so much better than being Mexican? Is being "African-American" so much better than being "black" (or whatever...)?

I have a college education and often have been called "redneck" by my peers. I work in an international organization, and funny enough I'm the only person that has ridden a horse or has ever owned a 4-wheeler. Is being from the South and knowing something about the "country" a pre-cursor for "redneck-dom"?? Should I be offended? For some, the term is definitely derogatory. I don't personally care. We have national meetings at our office in Dallas, and once I wore boots to a happy hour (it was a Friday and after work). One guy made the "dueling banjos" noises (of course, then we called him super-guido for wearing a gold chain and sounding like he just fell out of an episode of the sopranos... but whatever). Should I get upset? I almost pride myself in the fact that I've done well but still come from the "real south". We have a multi-million dollar client in Houston that wears boots every day... is it a big deal? Does it indicate ignorance? I'm sure it does to some... one comic said that people in the north think that people in the south are constantly sitting on the front porch bare foot, eating grits, playing the harmonica, watching hee-haw, and breeding with immediate family. There's some truth to that! HA! (I'm kidding)

Here's the thing. Political correctness often times, and nearly exclusively belongs to a handful of groups. We need to take a step back and stop taking ourselves so seriously.

No aevans176, this can be a personal thing. It offends me, annoys may be a better word, when people say grace over a meal in a public restaurant or choose a to hold a Bible study in a coffee shop, especially when they think everyone else has to stop whatever they are doing for their benefit or it seems they are just flaunting their piety for public consumption. Of course, the folks having the Bible study or offering up the prayer are probably offended by what other people are doing - kids running around without parental supervision, people laughing or talking loudly, wait people trying to do their jobs, etc.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. The coffee shop I used to frequent employed a boogie piano player who banged out tunes every day during lunch hour about "loose women," booze and other unseemly going-ons - you know things like "Kansas City, "What Made Milwaukee Famous," and practically the whole Ray Charles catalogue, etc. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The piano man had been there for a couple of months when a Bible study group started meeting there. One day the Bible thumpers complained to the owner about the music being too loud and bawdy - interfering with the tranquility of studying holy writ. Mr. Milquetoast Owner, afraid of his own shadow, fired the piano player. Well Elton, at least they didn't shoot him.

You see where I'm going. The piano player offended the Bible study group with his loudness and choice of songs and the Bible study group offended me by complaining about the piano player. It's a vicious circle ain't it?

You know, I think my own glowing irreverence offends some people. That's fine, super piety offends me.

Are we too easily offended as a society, country whatever....well, no. We're as offended (singularly and jointly) as we are. What has changed, to my mind for the worse, is that:

1) Folks are less good at differentiating between large, important wrongs and small annoyances

2) We now don't expect to have to live with the feeling of offense, we expect someone to do something to protect us

I also think the point made here (by many) that for some, offense is a rhetorical or political device is well taken, I just think that it would cease to be as effective if the above statements were less accurate.

I don't really have anything particular in mind here, just a general sense of a trend that is far from new. In the end, I would probably like it if folks generally were better at differentiating between that which bothers us and that which does us harm.

The whole thing reminds me of an old Bloom County cartoon where folks at a bus stop begin telling each other how offensive each finds the other. Suddenly one person realizes that life is offensive. They all run screaming. Opus then pops up and says "Offensensitivity". Sort of sums it up for me.

Well, it's one thing to rib a colleague during social time over their sartorial choices, and quite another to treat a client as anything other than the most important person in the room no matter how they are dressed.

That doesn't mean you or your colleagues have to like them, or never say anything bad about them when they aren't around, but unless you have a very special and informal working relationship (code for "unless they have an unusually good sense of humour"*) I would hope that any client, multi-million dollar or otherwise, could wear boots without getting any Deliverance soundtracks, or could wear gold chains without any Mafia cracks.



*Here's another thing - you're quite right that people need to stop taking themselves so seriously. The ability to laugh at oneself, and to join in when other people are making fun of you (within reason) rather than take umbrage when they do is crucial to the smooth running of any society. (Interestingly, this is the default response of most Europeans I've met, particularly those from the British Isles i.e. the Brits and the Irish, but has been comparatively rare in most Americans I've met.)

It's also true that, for many minorities, making fun of them in certain ways is the thin end of a very real wedge of persecution (be that current or just painfully recent).

So while it is important not to take ourselves seriously, it is important to take other people very seriously indeed. If they say they are uncomfortable with us doing X, Y and Z, our first thought should be to stop doing it, not to try to think of reasons why their discomfort is not important, is motivated by such-and-such, etc. If it causes us serious disadvantage, then we can speak up about how not being able to do X, Y and Z is a problem for us and come to some reasonable settlement.

Of course, this cuts all ways - we should be able to say to our minority groups that aspects of their behaviour that derive from their identity cause us problems, without just saying their identity is a crock and they should just give it up and become just like us.

The problem is there is a very real struggle going on as to who controls this nation and determines its future; the PC movement and the "legal" extortion practiced by groups like PUSH/Rainbow Coalition is a means to wrest power and control; it has very little to do with being "offended", and everything to do with using the mass media, the courts, and the polling booth to reorganize the power structure in the US.

Have we become a nation that loves nothing more than to be offended?
I think there is a market that like to consume sensational ideas. Some equate this with social decay, others a pervasive cynacism which is reflective of the times. Being offended is becoming harder and harder for a shock and awe media so the ante is upped and some of us may lose perspective.

Does it seem like this has become a national pasttime?
How does Barack the Magic Negro strike you?

Does this movement have a guiding manifesto? No NSC #48 document or anything like that? How is it that the large number of people in mass media, the courts, and the polling organizations even decide which way to steer the power structure? I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is even remotely possible. On top of that, you would have a point if for merely voicing an opinion about politics, that the vitriole and outrage were still expressed. However, the outrage is being aimed at not if people speak out, but rather, how they speak out. Unleashing an anti-semitic tirade like Mel Gibson or Imus's borderline racist comment is not justifiable. They weren't debating anything, they were just being insulting. What would it say about society if those things were not criticized? Had Gibson merely outlined why he disagreed with Israeli foreign policy or if Imus actually had something intelligent to say about race relations or affirmitive action, there would not be much ado about anything. You have a right to free speech, but not an absolute one in regards to not having to face criticism. If you aim ugly comments towards others, you shouldn't be a protected class of citizen who doesn't have to bear the wrath of what those words bring back to you. Those individuals do have a rigth of free speech, though don't have a right to have a receptive and silent audience that in it's silence, condones a hateful message in a de facto way.