No, you probably don’t.

I think a better example might be:

“That woman is holding a sign with a racist caricature that’s specifically targeting my ethnicity/nationality as an object of political anger.”

I think we already know what you’re response to that one is.

Those patio tiles ain’t gonna lay themselves, you know.

“That other guy’s picking on me. All I did was punch him in the face and he called me a bully. I’m offended! Go get him!”

I wasn’t targeted and he’s failed to convince me that I should go after the other guy. If that makes me a “really crappy fucking human being” in your eyes, I can live with that.

I don’t subscribe to the view that I have to see something as wrong just because someone else does. (Nor that they have to agree with me.)

I reserve the right to use my own experiences and opinions to decide for myself what I determine to be an injustice and which actions if any I take.

If any of this is off the mark, please let me know.

Been there. Tried that. Losing interest in making the attempt.

…you’ll defend someone against racism ONLY IF YOU DEEM THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE OFFENDED.

Is any different than this:

This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t understand their being bothered by it and, if I agreed that they had reason to be offended (they had reason to be offended), I would object to it and work to have it removed/changed/whatever.

Love to hear it.

This:

Absolutely agreed that racism is a bad thing and to be opposed wherever it actually exists.

is not the same as this:

I can see a caricature as offense to group X but, if I’m not a member of group X, I’m not personally offended by it.

Sean, if racism is a bad thing, why does it only offend you when it’s directed at you?

Sean, racism offends me personally no matter who it’s directed at. I do not feel it’s necessary to check with someone else before I call someone on it. Nor do I feel it has to be directed at me personally before I say something.

You, apparently, do.

You said specifically that: “I can see a caricature as offense to group X but, if I’m not a member of group X, I’m not personally offended by it.”

Your follow up statement — “To be offended by it I’d have to be doing so on behalf of someone else, and I find THAT offensive.”– is simply a rationalization for a morally pathetic position.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say, based on what you’ve written, as a result that you do not find racism offensive unless it is directed at you personally.

Of course, if someone turns to you for support against a racist attack, you’ve said that you will first have to be convinced by this person that they have a justifiable reason for being offended.

Nothing really wrong with that but, of course, if they fail to convince you, you will not render whatever aid/comfort might be requested, since you you yourself were not targeted and their justification does not rise to yours.

In fact, you might actually defend the offending person, as you have done through out this thread and others.

The implication is that you have superior skills to judge when someone else has reason to be offended, despite lacking entirely the personal life experiences of the offended person, and in many cases, not even knowing the historical context of certain words, phrases or representations. It’s the old excuse: “Oh come on, are you telling me that watermelons on the White House lawn is offensive? But everyone loves water melon!”

At the same time, you are not offended by racism, in itself, only racism that is directed at you.

And, of course, if you’re offended by something said to you, can we assume that your reasons for taking offense are always justified? If not, how is it that you came to be offended in the first place?

If any of this is off the mark, please let me know.

You can also let me know if I’m at all off mark when I say that you don’t have any problem with directing political anger at a specific ethnic group.

As noted above:

1. The woman holding the sign is angry about illegal immigrants getting “free healthcare”
2. She wants to convince others that they should be angry about this, too, hence the sign.
3. She choose as the specific representative target for this anger, Mexican immigrants, or, given the vagueness of the sign, Mexicans in general.
4. You think that this is the “best” way for her to get her point across given that Mexicans represent a significant portion of illegal immigrants in this country.

So you really don’t have any problem with someone directing political anger at a specific ethnic group.

Or do you? If you do, perhaps you can clarify this statement:

In any event, certainly illegals coming into the US from Mexico is the most publicized case and when making a point it is usually best to use a situation most folks would have heard of.

In your argument for presumably shorthand communication, you are endorsing EXACTLY what you claim you aren’t: targeting political anger at a particular group.

You clearly do not see that you are valuing shorthand communication over sensitive, indeed, even accurate, communication, with, again, the consequence being that political anger is directed at one ethnic group above all others.

I think the above is a reasonable and accurate assessment of everything you’ve said in this thread.

WTF?

Dr Doom is brilliant, motivated, and a strong defender of his country. He’s also petty, tolerates no dissent and kills those who oppose him. A mix of admirable and repulsive traits.

Yes, it’s a fictional character but it’s clear real people are always a mix of admirable and objectionable traits.

jrfunkenstein: Well considering that your statement is not accurate or true, you clearly haven’t thought any more about it than they have.

Did you stop there and not the rest of the paragraph where I noted they were mistaken in that belief? Perhaps you “clearly” didn’t put any more thought into understand what you read than they.

Deal with it.

J.

Absolutely agreed that racism is a bad thing and to be opposed wherever it actually exists. Beyond that, we’re arguing over definitions of words.

And, by the way, comparing racism to getting dumped? Yeah, that’s pretty offensive.

Just trying to talk in simple examples fafaroo might understand.

Do you really want to get into parsing the definition of “offended by” vs “bothered by”, “opposed to” etc.? I was trying not to have to get into that. You asked for me to “flesh out” what I meant further (an admirable near-first for you since you general tactic has been to insistently misrepresent what I have said and then insult me for that which I didn’t say) and I endevour to do so.

But because, despite my saying I would work to remove/fix/whatever something that folks were offended by, because I don’t feel about it the way you deem I should (or, more accurately, because I don’t use the word you would use to describe those feelings) I’m a crappy fucking human being.

Let me respond like you would: So, fafaroo. You’re saying it doesn’t matter what one does, only how they feel about it. So you wouldn’t have an objection to someone beating the crap out of gays, as long as they properly express how they feel bad about it. And that makes you a pathetic excuse for a human.

I’m being condescending and patrician by being offended at racism in general

No, you’re condescending for deciding what others should feel offended by and being offended on their behalf.

you’ll defend someone against racism ONLY IF YOU DEEM THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE OFFENDED.

You’re like someone who has decided the other guy is going to say “Grass is purple” and when he actually says “Grass is green, sometimes bluish” you hear “It’s purple I tell you!”. There is clearly no point in trying to discuss anything in this area with you since you won’t hear anything other than what you want, regardless of how far off it may be from what is actually said.

The contrasting of “senior” and “senor” is well done, and applies in this context. But the decision to apply it was poor.’

So you’re admiring and denouncing it at the same time.

WTF?