On The Idea Of Offence

Mutually Assured Destruction

The term "Mutually Assured Destruction' is ubiquitous among most descriptions of the Cold War, and aptly so; it's one of those few phrases that summarises so well and conveys an idea so appropriately, almost to the point where I seem to want to reproduce it with a clever little twist so that I can seem clever. However, few opportunities have arisen where a spinoff of the phrase can be declared with an equivalent degree of appropriateness, yet I find that this specific topic has finally provided me with one. But more on that later.

The idea of offence offends me. While the different dimensions and perspectives from which it's employed lay it on unstable ethical ground in terms of deciding genuine action to safeguard or ban it, it feels so ambiguous an idea that just saying that 'offence offends me' offers just as much meaning about my real feelings about offence as an apologist's justifications offer to a non-believer.

On one hand, offence feels like a societal veto; an impediment that bars open discussions or actions on sensitive topics, regardless of the basis of such discussions. Offence can be at times a get out of jail free card to those who are threatened by someone or something that challenges their ideas.

Yet from a different perspective, offence can also have merit as the conversational equivalent of a rape whistle; when one genuinely feels so uncomfortable to the extent that further discussions can genuinely hurt their feelings, then offence acts as a boundary-setter and a call to respect one's personal space. The respect given to offence is only appropriate in this scenario.

However, more than its negative applications, what offend me most about it are
a) Its arbitrary declaration
b) Mutually Assured Proliferation of Adamance (told you I'd get there!)

My first problem is more or less an extension of its use to halt progressive action and/or discussion. For one to respect the fact that someone is offended, they must know the true motive behind the person's declaration of his being offended; which is, you know, impossible. And if I cannot know whether the excuse provided by the offended to prevent/impede the accusedly offensive discussion/action is genuine, then then why should I respect it?

Yet at the same time, on the off chance it is, why shouldn't I everytime someone is offended?

And it's that ambiguity that irritates me to no end.

I'm going to use a simple example to illustrate my second issue. A heated discussion has ensued on a sensitive issue between two people. Upon one's declaration of an assertion that the other strongly disagrees with, he declare himself to be offended (bet you didn't expect that!) and ends the discussion then and there.

Regardless of who is right, regardless of the right of the offended to prevent further discussion on account of his offence, and regardless of whether he is justified in whatever condition in doing so, they both exit the discussion more affirmed of their side of their story.

Mutually Assured Proliferation of Adamance

In the end, both of them are all the more confident that the other one is wrong. Never has offence led to agreement; in the end, both discussors have further validated themselves of
thier own viewpoints. Little is done to alter the other's perspective, and it's this what irritates me about offence in this regard.

And that's no good, is it?

Picture Credits