Re: The Need for Debate

Chris Bates scripsit:

> No, but its not the offender's fault or responsibility either. If what
> was said was not intended to be offensive, then for the most the there
> is no blame on the part of the offender is someone takes it that way.
> It's not up to him or her to somehow "fix" the situation or apologize.
> There are some exceptions, but generally if you are offended by a
> message that wasn't intended to offend you, then it's your problem and
> not that of the person who wrote the message. That's freedom of speech
> after all: the freedom to express your views even when they might
> (coincidentally) upset other people.
You're applying rules for fully public forums to this semi-private one.
Here there is no "freedom of speech" as such; there is a revocable
permission to speak.  (I can do that because I'm not a government agency.)
If you drop too many social bricks in private space such as someone's
house, you may very well be excluded even if you are simply socially inept
rather than malevolent.  (Been there, done that, had it happen to me.)

> My solution would have been: simply avoid talking to them as much as
> possible outside of work.
"Work" for a minister of the Gospel is not quite like work for other
people.  It is one of their functions to talk to people who don't -- at
least initially -- want to hear it.

(.sig chosen by hand this time)

John Cowan, Lord of the Instrumentality of Conlang

--
Unless it was by accident that I had            John Cowan
offended someone, I never apologized.           jcowan@reutershealth.com
        --Quentin Crisp                         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan