Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Kizmet, Mar 12, 2012.
at: No, I thought you were really trolling. You are awfully good at that.
Thanks Kizmet. I'm not sure at which point in history people in the United States felt that they were free from being offended but it has certainly become an "industry" unto itself. The ironic thing is the only person who can really control whether they are offended or not is the "offendee" not the "offender". It's this victimhood = righteousness mindset that is eroding the social constructs of our society, not just in how different races and sexes view each other but politically and economically as well. But that's just my $.02.
The excellent point you make reaches much further than just the U.S. It certainly also applies in Canada.
Won't the person who is not permitted to wear their religious symbol while representing XYZ Corporation place him or herself in the role of victim?
Perhaps and I am not discounting the fact that people are in fact victimized but instead those people who view themselves as being offended at the beliefs or culture of another as being themselves "victims" and using this newfound "victimhood" to then impose their will upon another. Censure of another... If I am offended by a Jewish man wearing a Yamaka, am I truly a "victim" and should he remove it because of my delicate sensibilities no matter how irrational?
On another note, if the company has a clearly stated written policy against the wearing of religious items for whatever reason, that company maintains the right to do so however the policy must be universally applied and the spirit of the mandate adhered to. For example forbidding religious jewelry but allow for a prayer room may send mixed signals. There should be consistent policy and it should be applied for everyone of all faiths and cultures.
Lastly being a victim of any sort does not justify the victim's actions prior or after victimization in every case. Let's take for example two men leaving a bar, the victim picks a fight and the other man who in turn hits him so hard he suffers brain damage (an actual case in Dallas). Was the man suffering brain damage a "victim"? Yes. Does it justify his actions of picking the fight prior to the assault? No it does not.
In another case there was a retail store worker who was the victim of an attempted armed robbery. The armed robber tried to shoot the victim and a gun battle ensued. At the end of it the victim had downed the robber who was mortally wounded and unconscious. The victim was totally justified in defending himself, however then after a few seconds the victim walks over and puts a final coup de' grace in the armed robber’s head at almost point blank, while the armed robber lay helpless and unconscious. Was the victim justified in his action? Absolutely not.
Wrapping oneself in the cloak of victimhood creates a sense of entitlement and maybe that is the root of the issue but it as often as not is either partially self-imposed or is followed by unjustified behavior or unreasonable expectations. Perhaps the entitlement portion of victimization is the heart of the problem....anyhow talk about digressing.
My thoughts are much more basic. 1) If I wear a cross, how is anyone offended? 2) If someone is offended how does this become the business of the government?
There is no such thing as a constitutional right not to be offended.
Thank you for making my point. (although I don't know much about those crazy British laws).
Separate names with a comma.