Guest Post - Arthur Payton

(the following article references this blog post.)

Mr. Walsh seems to be offended by the idea of people being offended, and in the writing of his post has broken his own rules (or "Absolute Truths"). He has taken offense, which in his own words is his own decision, and has decided the intent of others. I sincerely doubt that the statement "I'm offended by that" is one that is intended to offend, so he really shouldn't be taking offense from it if he truly believes in his own rules. By writing his lengthy blog post, he has dwelled upon the offense rather than behaving as a "functioning adult," and has only sidestepped the fifth rule because his "trendy internet thing" where he frowned upon something was done without a picture of himself holding up a piece of paper.

He is taking a rather extremist position on the topic, when really this is something that is often a matter of context. The video tries to juxtapose "microaggression" with physical and sexual aggression, but the two are not the same and should not be held on the same level. We're talking about different levels of aggression, centered in different levels of society. This doesn't invalidate the potential for harm found in "microaggressions," since they are simply a continuation or "left-over" from other types of aggression which are no longer socially acceptable.

The primary difficulty I have with Mr. Walsh's stance is that I am a proponent for a compassionate society. In my opinion, in a compassionate society a person who has been truly offended by something should not be made to feel invalidated because the "offender's" intent is more important than the effect achieved. After all, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, yes? Why is it more important to insist that those affected by systemic discrimination "toughen up" and ignore that discrimination (which can then carry on unchecked, and grow in severity), than it is to offer a sincere apology for a mistaken intent? If the listener cannot decide the intent of the speaker, why does the speaker get to decide whether the listener is offended? If someone is offended, why does the speaker get to decide that their words were inoffensive?

That's really what this seems to boil down to: an argument against apologizing for jokes, statements, or actions which are at the expense of another (individual or group), or even apologizing for an unintended effect. It is an insistence that others are weak and must improve themselves at the speaker's direction (which is privileged behavior), rather than a call for personal growth and betterment as an individual or as a society.

Do I think holding open a door for a woman is wrong? No, though I tend to hold it open for anybody, regardless of sex, ethnicity, or ability. But I can understand the mindset which might take offense, and so if someone was offended I would apologize. After all, I would probably take offense if someone offered to help me learn the alphabet.

That said, the other side of that compassionate society also requires that the person who is offended take time to consider the intent of the person who offended them. It requires open, non-hostile communication between the two, so that both intent and effect may be understood and the interaction can be learned from on both sides. Essentially, it requires learning and understanding -individuals- (micro-level) instead of groups (macro-level). Like I said at the beginning this is often a matter of context, being situational and dependent upon both the people involved and the environment the interaction takes place within.

This is nothing new. People have said for years that you can't say anything without offending somebody. With the Internet as the setting for many interactions, it's simply a matter of "somebody" being much closer. The question is, are we called to dismiss these others, to ignore them, or are we called to understand them?