About That Hate Crime I Committed at University of Chicago

Comments

101
@85: Very well put response.

The German language (or the German anything) is an absurd solution to sexism/gender bias. And Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) are of course suffused with gender-crazy rules. English is actually not all that bad in this regard, when it comes down to it. Mandarin Chinese might be best of all in terms of gender-neutral pronouns, but it seems...doubtful that westerners are going to start speaking it anytime soon (then again, who knows?).

@100:

Dan is the furthest thing from a bully. He's the youngest brother in a large family from a large city. Trust me, his seemingly hair-trigger ability to go into attack dog mode is just a part of who he is. Why would we be reading/listening to him if he were someone else?

102
The problem with letting manufactured outrage get under your skin is that you end up feeding trolls.

They so badly want attention that it just encourages the further manufacturing of outrage, and the spinning wheel of finger-pointing and stamping of feet takes on the appearance of a perpetual motion outrage machine.

Dan, you pledged not so long ago to stop giving Fox News attention when they're being intentionally provocative--when they're being total trollish tools, which is their favorite pose, because it stirs things up and garners them more attention than they merit.

I respectfully suggest, Dan, that you apply that same principle to trans trolls. They just want the attention that comes from leveraging your fame and name, Dan--stop feeding them.
103
@100 you've seen Dan BULLY people, your use of caps, please elaborate!

In the last 15 years I've read all his books, read almost all of his columns, maybe a third of his blog posts, and listened to about 10% of the podcasts, almost none of his TV appearances, one episode of that MTV show -- too many ads, I hate TV, also seen him live once. Amazing biceps. Perhaps a have a bias for biceps. Entertaining persistence yes, attacking evil people yes, but I have never seen what I'd remotely call bullying.

So please elaborate because either he's been bullying people someplace I've missed, or you and I have very different definitions of what a bully is. My definition is someone powerful attacking someone less powerful, deliberately and repeatedly, with no empathy or sensitivity, going after someone who didn't do anything bad, for the purpose of the bully's personal gain, sadistic pleasure, or to intimidate the vulnerable into silence.
104
@100: Disagreeing with someone is not bullying. Pointing out stupid comments or behavior is not bullying. Calling out bullshit is not bullying.

Demanding that people not do any of those things, OTOH, is bullying.

This kind of privileged, entitled, controlling behavior is the leftist counterpart of the rightwing bigotry that cries censorship when people boycott its proponents. You have the right to express yourself - you do not have the right to force people to listen to you, Rush Limbaugh, nor do you have the right to force people to agree with you, QUIP. A key part of freedom of speech is that it's not just for you - you have to extend it to the people around you and the people who disagree with you. But these narcissistic jackasses don't understand that, and as a result they're not only derailing their own causes, they're giving ammunition to the other side.

When libertarians and fascists on the right criticize the left for "political correctness" and "word policing", they're mostly just complaining that their own privilege isn't as enormous as it used to be. But then something like this comes along and proves them right for a change.

So there's an example of the damage this shit causes, as eloquently detailed by Matt from Denver @65.
105
I bet "it" basks in "its" 15 minutes glory. What an asshole.

"Time does nothing to that subject,
when one's an asshole, one's an asshole,
be one 20 or be one a grandpa,
when one's an asshole, one's an asshole,
between you no more controversies,
obsolete assholes or asshole beginners
small assholes from the last rain,
old assholes from the snows of yesteryear !"

(badly translated from Georges Brassens, songwriter and poet.
106
As a generally proud U of C alum (see my username), this whole thing pisses me off to no end. Part of the reason you go the U of C is to be challenged and engaged by ideas that you don't necessarily share and people that you don't necessarily agree with. If what you want is to live in a bubble that only people who speak how you want them to speak and think how you want them to think can penetrate, go to Brown and major in underwater basket weaving. You clearly aren't mature enough to handle "Vita Excolatur."

Oh, and on a side note, I will never, ever, under any circumstances, refer to a human being as "it" in polite company. If a person were to ask me to refer to him or her as "that nigger" instead of using gendered pronouns, I wouldn't oblige either.

107
When you're in someone else's space, and they ask you not to use a specific word - no matter the reason - acting patronizing or condescending is not the correct response. Writing an article like this is not the correct response. I see a lot of "I'm not at fault; look at how ridiculous this student was" when in fact, as the adult who has to moderate a discussion that is inclusive of all participants, the burden - unfairly or not, as perceived by you, because I do not think it is an unfair burden in the least - falls upon you, and the moderator, to listen to the request, and then either say "I don't feel like following your request" and ending the conversation, thus excluding the student and stop acting like you were trying to be inclusive, or say "I don't understand your request, but I'll follow it for this discussion because I'd rather have everyone on board and not get sidetracked from our main goal." You can't play both sides and pretend to come out the hero, because you, a cis male who has never had that particular slur leveled at you with the same emotional connotations as someone who is not cis would have had, are not the hero here. You are in the wrong. And the fact you can't suck it up and say 'hey, I don't know why you're this upset, but I'm sorry for making you upset' - genuinely, of course, as your sarcasm up above is nothing short of insincere - says a lot about you, as a person.

Stop trying to be a person who works for all rights, when you obviously can't include those who need those rights in the first place. You can't teach African Americans anything about reclaiming the n-word as you are white; similarly, you can't teach and preach to trans people anything about reclaiming the t-slur, as you are not trans, and have no supporting background to build off of for that kind of a discussion.
108
When you're in someone else's space, and they ask you not to use a specific word - no matter the reason - acting patronizing or condescending is not the correct response. Writing an article like this is not the correct response. I see a lot of "I'm not at fault; look at how ridiculous this student was" when in fact, as the adult who has to moderate a discussion that is inclusive of all participants, the burden - unfairly or not, as perceived by you, because I do not think it is an unfair burden in the least - falls upon you, and the moderator, to listen to the request, and then either say "I don't feel like following your request" and ending the conversation, thus excluding the student and stop acting like you were trying to be inclusive, or say "I don't understand your request, but I'll follow it for this discussion because I'd rather have everyone on board and not get sidetracked from our main goal." You can't play both sides and pretend to come out the hero, because you, a cis male who has never had that particular slur leveled at you with the same emotional connotations as someone who is not cis would have had, are not the hero here. You are in the wrong. And the fact you can't suck it up and say 'hey, I don't know why you're this upset, but I'm sorry for making you upset' - genuinely, of course, as your sarcasm up above is nothing short of insincere - says a lot about you, as a person.

Stop trying to be a person who works for all rights, when you obviously can't include those who need those rights in the first place. You can't teach African Americans anything about reclaiming the n-word as you are white; similarly, you can't teach and preach to trans people anything about reclaiming the t-slur, as you are not trans, and have no supporting background to build off of for that kind of a discussion.
109
Ages 17ish to 24ish are all about identity development and it's a messy time. I teach in a college, and 90% of my students are trying to figure existential lifeshit out—all while passing classes and figuring out what to do as a career. Some of them are more rational and polite about their ennui than others. The highly sensitive student who gave Dan shit is going through a major transitional stage, compounded by discovery of gender identification (or lack of). These students don't have a lot to go on and are just figuring out their way. Unfortunately, they are doing it in a very rude and antisocial way. But that's sometimes what we get with college students. They don't have enough life experience yet to understand that being aggressive and demanding doesn't equate with maturity and leadership.
110
These so-called "differences of opinion" really would have helped Alan Turin with his tests.

While a machine can never qualify as a consciously thinking living being, the ignorant human can definitely qualify itself to be a machine and disqualify it's mind of being human.

it only takes a little bit of unrecognized ignorance when that ignorance is mislabled as being knowledgeable of truthful subjects.

For instance, when parsing right from wrong, in a world with varying core beliefs about what defines "right" from "wrong" it matters less what the actual action is, and has everything to do with whether or not the action is desired and consented to by a fully knowledgeable adults.

So I think it's the mark of a machine when a person claims to understand why what makes a BDSM scenes right or wrong, in sense of absoluteness, has everything to do with that consent,

yet to then remain ignorant of the definition of public and private spaces, as that difference will tell you whether or not you can rightfully claim your behavior as being able to be consented to,

so the whole "danger" that Matt describes in #65 is complete and utter bullshit, as that logic only does not fly unless the space is private as opposed to public

There is a reason that Our Constitution has so much to do with ownership, property, and defining the difference between public and private spaces.

As those definitions are necessary to be always be able to parse any situation as whose actions are in the right, or that they have the right to do so, and distinguish the persons whom have the right, from those who do not

It is really is fairly simple

unless of course, you are ignorant, or a machine
111
@108. If the student had gotten up and said "I am offended by your viewpoint, stop expressing it," and Dan had refused to comply, would that mean he's not "trying to be inclusive"? The purpose of this forum was to get people's unvarnished thoughts. By unilaterally claiming the right to censor those unvarnished thoughts, it was the student who was being not only uninclusive, but utterly inconsiderate to the feelings of everyone else in that room. To borrow a term I have nothing but contempt for, that student was claiming a "trans-privilege" to impose limits on that conversation that no-one else in the room possessed.

And by the same token, declaring that someone's gender and skin color are the sole determinants of what topics they may or may opine on, as you do in your final paragraph, are many times more "exclusionary" than using any word, no matter how offensive.

@110 Your "private" versus "public" distinction makes no sense in this context. Dan was the invited guest to a program run by a private university for the benefit of its students who could freely choose whether or not to attend. That's about as close to a "private" setting as you can get, short of Dan talking to the mirror in his bathroom.
112
to which Dan has yet to enter the ignorance of Paul's territory, but Dan does have a problem in that he believes another person's sexuality is something he gets any say in whether or not a person discloses their sexuality or shares it in any way with the public

He does not have the right to say that "a person has a moral responsibility to come out of the closet"

it is perfectly within his rights to tell those people to bite him, whom wish to keep their sexuality as private and not share it with him or the public,

however proclaiming it a moral obligation is violating a person's most basic, core rights, the ones declared in Our Declaration, the same ones LGBT people have had violated since that day in 1776, as the private matters of spirituality and sexuality, are not area's that you will ever have any right to invade , not ever, at least not without them rightful owner of that private space desiring to be violated.

These are very important aspects when it comes to right and wrong behaviors, especially if you are interested in Real freedom, real liberty, and real justice and it care about actually deserving those most basic core rights in your life

because there are certain levels of respect that it is Your duty to voluntarily be responsible for, if you expect to be granted certain freedoms and specific liberties

not respecting another person's rights, and believing that such violations can occur without it meaning your forfeiture of certain freedoms and specific liberties is the mentality of a rapist

which is to not be worthy of the rights guaranteed by Our Constitution

which is why it is a very, very, very stupid thing to do; it is very, very, very stupid to exercise freedoms or liberties which you willingly choose to violate or unconstitutionally withhold said rights from other worthy people
113
@109,

That's a good explanation for what's going on with that particular student. It doesn't explain why that student's own particular issues are being taken seriously by anyone else or why this has turned into a firestorm in the "transcommunity". Anyone with any sense should be telling "it" to grow the fuck up.

@112,

You seriously can't tell the difference between Dan expressing an opinion about coming out being a moral imperative and a fucking Constitutional violation? Grow up.
114
I thank M? Corner for reminding me that I wondered about Ms Cox. She was moderating, she raised the subject, and her remark about her former jokes was apparently the one instance of The Word being uttered in a context consistent with the inference that it was being used as a slur rather than quoted as part of an academic discussion. And yet the headline reads:

"Comments made by Savage elicited student criticism and an online student petition."
115
"That's not how we do journalism out here in the real world, Maroon"

Ha ha! Dan Savage scolds student journalists to not engage in one source journalism! Because the Stranger NEVER has or will engage in one source journalism.
116
@ 110, that danger is already being realized. What do you think holding a seminar in private is, with a nondisclosure agreement in place, if not a manifestation of those dangers?

Think about it, if you can. Dan and the other participants had to go behind closed doors because they are already not free to speak about this topic in an open forum. If they do, the howling monkeys of outrage disrupt everything, and intellectual discussions are destroyed by mob rule. And as we now see, even going into hiding is no protection if someone behind that door will break the agreement because "it" didn't get "its" way.

Calling it "bullshit" in the face of such manifestation is in par with climate change denial. It's already happening, and it's delaying social justice for as long as we let it.
117
Marooner and drunk Kevin,

I am saying that if you are going to waste everyone's time arguing shit that has no understanding of how to discern having the right from not having the right, which this whole post is about, it's people like you whom are the reason people have to sign wavers

as nothing would ever get done without people agreeing to take a referee's judgement as the final say, that's how to get around situations where both extreme sides of the idiot fence are represented.

if the fault doesn't lie with Dan or the student, then the moderator is the one who didn't preform their job

as that's the situation we have, drunk Kevin, you are correct, people have to grow up, sign wavers to agree to the mods, or shut the fuck up
118
Two wrongs don't make a right Matt, if Dan wanted to remain in the right, he could have said that he'd love to discuss what happened, however that would break the agreement as others chose to do

which means it's no longer a matter of "private" space, since both sides of the idiot fence decided to drag it into public arenas
119
Here you go:

http://www.queerty.com/exclusive-transge…

And I would think she has a bit of cred.
120
Except Dan wasn't wrong. If one participant breaks the agreement, nobody is still bound by it. Especially when one of the other participants is under public attack for what occured at that meeting.

Only one person made this public - "it." Dan loses nothing by engaging the matter now.

You should think these things through more. You're basically arguing that Dan shouldn't be able to defend himself in public. It's like Kafka's Trial except that it's we who are being kept ignorant, while only one side gets to make vague but damaging charges. There is no logical or fair system of ethics that regards that as right.
121
This is why I want to throw a brick every time someone invokes 'privilege' to try to silence someone else. There may have been a time when the word had meaning. Now it is just a goalpost-moving version of 'shut up, that's why.'
122
nobodies moving goal posts Poly, it's just the difference between things like instantaneous velocity and average velocity.

It's pointless to argue who is in the right and who is in the wrong accept for every point along the timeline of events.

without addressing the parts where Dan was in the right and after which point he was in the wrong, this is just all that ivy league bullshit of enjoying arguing.

there is no point in discussing a point wherein the student is right with a person who is talking about the point when Dan was still in the right

unless you want a play by play where we are talking about the points where the right and wrong lines are crossed, we might as well invite Paul, and Rick Santorum to solve this problem
123
Just out of curiosity, does U of C get complaints about cultural appropriation over the name 'Maroon'?
124
Using "tranny" to describe a trans person is hate speech. Using "tranny" to identify it as a problematic word about which you're about to have an academic discussion is NOT hate speech. This is not rocket science.

Spelling out what makes "tranny" problematic, as Dan was attempting to do, would progress trans rights causes by communicating exactly what it is that, well, makes the word "tranny" problematic. (Some of) those who entered that discussion would leave with a better idea of exactly why this word matters so much to trans people. Similarly, the discussion of whether or not it will be reclaimed by trans people is a perfectly appropriate academic discussion, regardless of whether or not the trans community ultimately decides to follow the example that their colleagues laid out with the word "queer."

And I'm sorry, but a huge portion of what makes "tranny" problematic is context. It was not considered a hateful term until it was co-opted by bigots and used to communicate hatred. It's that usage- being used to communicate hatred- that makes it a hate term. Using it hatefully, or casually, would be inappropriate. Using it academically is not, since the context is vastly different.

And before anyone argues against that point, consider that even this "it" person actually agrees with it- for every single other anti-queer slur. This alone should raise red flags about his sincerity. Principles are only principles if you apply them consistently.

When this person insisted that the use of the term is universally inappropriate, they are essentially arguing that context should be ignored and the appropriateness of words should be dictated by knee-jerk whims rather than by the context in which they are being used. This reduces the politics of equality down to a "potty mouth" accusation mentality in which ideas do not matter, but rather a strict set of rules is set forth to either be followed or broken. Ironically, this is arguably a less sensitive approach to slurs, since it reduces them to mere "naughty words" and ignores the fact that what makes so many slurs offensive is their ugly historical context, not merely their inclusion on somebody's no-no list.

I'm not the type of person who bellows screeds against "PC police" every time someone is taken to task for saying something stupid. Slurs are not to be used casually, even if hatred is not intended; however, academic discussions do not qualify as casual use. Often, with an academic discussion, there's a point being made and that point should be what determines whether or not something is offensive. I think that, when it comes to slurs, there's no shortage of compelling arguments making a convincing case that those who use them are idiots and assholes. However, each one of these arguments relies on describing why their use in a given context reflects hatred and/or unreasonable levels of consideration for others. When you argue that a word is a black-and-white "no-no," you are denying the existence of a logical argument against the use of a word (in most contexts) in favor of an oversimplified schoolyard mentality. This may be a nice, quick route to appearing to be a "better" radical on a shallow level, but otherwise it's insulting to the cause that these people claim to support with such emotional conviction.
125
Meant to say "its" sincerity earlier; not "his" sincerity. Sorry.
126
Dan, spelling error. It's Carmen, not Carman. Carrera.
127
No Matt, two wrongs never make a right, if you had an agreement about not disclosing private details, and the other person breaks that agreement, then they are wrong

You are not wrong until you break the agreement. Otherwise any other person other than you can have their words by worth jack shit, your words have value until to you decide to not be good on them.

The student being wrong may have influenced Dan's decision to also stand in the wrong, but the student didn't force Dan to walk the way he did, he chose

At this point they are both wrong, so it doesn't really mean shit, no article written by anybody, even a transgendered veteran of discrimination on Queerty magazine can make either the student or Dan to begin walking back on the right path.

They are both wrong, it's what they choose to do after the fact the matters.

It's certainly not against the law to walk the wrong path your entire life, just be careful of the wrong paths that are actually illegal, because once you decide walking the wrong path is right, then your world becomes the wrong that isn't illegal and the wrong path that is illegal

That is the moving of goal posts that Poly is referring to

Frankly, I don't give a shit if neither Dan nor the student does the right thing, or if both Dan and the student redefine their wrongs as the new rights.

As that is pretty much a pass time around here, idiot sloggers deciding their wrongs are the new rights

Being LGBT was never a wrong, that was the lie society tried to force you to believe.

128
@ 127, Dan wasn't wrong. Period.
129
For what it's worth, I knew a genderqueer person who preferred the pronoun 'it'. Took me a damn long time to get used to that, but not my job to tell someone else how to refer to themselves. It was not a wacko activist, who got super upset at everything, either.
130
oh boy,

I don't follow links because I am not currently knowledgeable enough to properly secure my network

Anyway, I didn't realize you were talking about the Starbucks on seventh, in your "hypothetical game"

I suppose you are looking for some sort of confession. The only thing I can say is I don't feel guilty --- at all --- for noticing attractive people, I didn't give anybody creepy, staring, leering looks

I didn't utter any hateful words, nor did I even think them. When a person looks good and I notice and I think WOW her presence is striking, I am not worried about whether or not the person is a female, pre-op female, male blah blah blah or any gender or mix of anything. Because the only thing I thought was simply noticing how attractive the person was in a fairly short dress, with her legs propped up on a coffee table.

I don't care what gender the attractive person is, I may have joked long ago, parodying a conservative homophobe who is genuinely concerned that if the attractive person had a penis, that it might mean I am homosexual. I was mocking the type of conservative whose problem isn't that he hates you, he hates himself. That person is not me, nor was I intending it to be taken seriously

I have classes that I am in the process of failing, and you bother me with this shit?

spit it out for Christ's sake, you are the only one besides all the other sloggers who are being Ridiculous by default of trying to be too Suttle

I don't hang around in between those two locations, and if I ever do, I assure you it is only in passing, the times that it does appear like I am lingering there, I am either Lost or else attempting to amuse a friend, because I hate that fucking place, and I don't if it's the Suttle and Ridiculous in Heaven or Hell, I will tell both inhabitants to spit it out or else go fuck themselves,

when I say I didn't realize something, I mean I had not occurred to me, I despise all the strategy in the ivy league political debate strategerie book. I am not concerned with winning an argument, I am just trying to do the right thing
131
@ 108: Yes, it was someone else's space - it was the space of the Institute of Politics, not QUIP's space. The person who did not respect someone else's private space was the narcissistic Maroon, not Dan (the invited guest) and not Ana Marie Cox (the host).

When you're in someone else's space, and they ask you not to violate the confidentiality of that space, and you do so anyway simply because you didn't like something you heard, you are an ASSHOLE.
132
Dirtclustit is far more entertaining than either Roku or Ragu.
133
@ 127: Once the confidentiality was broken, it was broken. Expecting Dan to maintain silence while being pilloried is unreasonable and ridiculous.

But then, all I ever hear from you is noise and nonsense.
134
Some disrespectful asshole said :

"When you're in someone else's space, and they ask you not to violate the confidentiality of that space, and you do so anyway simply because you didn't like something you heard, you are an ASSHOLE."

as if commenting here could by an example of exactly what you are trying to say,

That's fine, just realize for all the shit the authors and commenters say here at slog, if you can't take that which you dish out, don't dish it out.

I am very aware that slog is for the most part, hypocritical and ignorant, and expects a double standard or only believes in rules and guidelines when they have a gross advantage to manipulate

So you can throw all the subtle shit you want, If I ask for clarification, and there are no objections, bitching about it through subtle and indirect ways only makes you a coward with no right to do so. It's a cowardly spineless route to take, that is doubly spineless because you take the subtle way through coward town.
135
Is this direct enough for you? Go check your meds, I think you missed some.
136
Dirtclustit, you're projecting your own flaws upon Slog.
137
When you offer public access to the space, you can remain the administrator of that space, but it isn't exactly the private space you think it is.

Nobody can force you to do the right thing, nobody can force people in glass houses to not chuck rocks at the houses in the valley below

but it is a very chickenshit and cowardly act chuck those rocks, pretend not to hear when the people below clearly state, "STOP" in every sense of the word that exists as opposed to understanding that your words will be misunderstood, yet not correcting the misunderstanding because you are a manipulative fuck, then having the gall to call up the cavalry because of the injustice done to your ego --- even though your glass house wasn't even scratched ---- by the peon you abused for years and actually did violate real personal private space, as opposed to a virtual private space with public access that you were to spineless to moderate because of some dumb unspoken unwritten law of the assholes of yesteryear fucked you over with

great, you should have spoken up then, as it doesn't give you or any slogger the right to keep flawed understanding of laws used to govern.

fuck that, if it happens to me or I see happen to others, I will say something, because I mean it when I say I'd like to see a solution to the world's problems

Have a little faith in yourself, have courage to stand for the right things, there is honor in a life lived like that, there is no honor in double standards and manipulation, but you don't have to take my word for it
138
@108 That is a false dichotomy, this is not a world where the only two options are "if you don't do exactly what I say, you're abusing your privilege to exclude me" or "be inclusive and do exactly what I say".
139
at 133

Yeah Chase, I have to depend on confidentiality I would only choose not to do any business with the student, I wouldn't automatically condemn any other party whose confidence had been broken, but as soon as one of the other parties involved went around spewing their shit and breaking the confidence I placed in them, that's the point wherein the each and every party that show it is not wise for me to confide in them, I will no longer do, as that is a double standard, to me that's in many ways worse than the asshole who leaked the info first.

When you justify the exact same shitty actions you were raising hell over, it removes your right to complain about it. As far as I am concerned, both assholes should lose their rights when they cannot exercise them responsibly

is this direct enough?

Go fuck yourself Chase
140
I haven't logged into this account in a million years, but now seems like an appropriate enough time. I <3 how asswipes like Savage are so quick to agree with right wingers about "PC Police" and overreaction and blah blah. Does it burn you that not every progressive thinks your shit smells lovely? That particularly the young are leaving people like you behind?

Enjoy your fan club. Incidentally, my main critique of the "It Gets Yadda" project is that it should come with a big damn asterisk. What happens when it doesn't? Because for a lot of people, it can and will get worse. Like being referred to with the pronoun of an inanimate object by one of the loudest voices in contemporary LGBnm politics.

Fuck all y'all. Goodbye.
141
@135, Chase writes
"Is this direct enough for you? Go check your meds, I think you missed some."

Yup. That is in the true Slog spirit: "bullying".
If you don't like someone's comment, attack them by saying they are loonie, or a troll or off their meds.
Don't like the substance? then attack their person.
Very nice indeed.
142
And if in fact someone is truly "off their meds", to tell them so is just stupid.

No, Chase I am not saying that YOU are stupid, (though you may be.)

Do you think it makes sense to tell someone in a genuinely fragile position (like any one of a number of people who are in fact truly mad - Ybara, Rodger etc -- and they may well be Slog commenters) attack them as loonie?

I am sure you can do better, such as just ignoring them.

143
People who present a perpetually moving target in terms of what is acceptable speech -- not to mention one that is often self-contradictory and 100% personally customized, and therefore variable depending on which specific person is shouting from the soapbox at the moment -- find themselves isolated, with nobody willing to talk either to them or about them.

This is not the first activist group that I do not consider myself even an ally of, for precisely that reason.
144
@119,

Seems like most babytrans don't give a shit about the people who literally bled for their rights. For fuck's sake, check #140.
145
So many interesting issues here. One is whether was OK for Savage to even blog about the issue. He writes, somewhat equivocally:

"I've hesitated to write about the controversy over my remarks... I wanted to abide by the confidentiality agreement. But with Reason, National Review, U of C's student newspaper, the Drudge Report, and Glenn Beck all over it..... I suppose I'm no longer bound by it."

Based on this link at the UC student paper,
http://chicagomaroon.com/2014/05/30/comm…
it seems clear to me that it is perfectly OK for him to discuss what happened.

He is being savagely (no pun) attacked in public and it would unfair for him to be forced to stay silent.

Whether Cox/Savage/Hex etc used inappropriate tone/body language impossible for anyone not there to say. That would be a separate matter.

But it is obvious to me that Savage is free to speak about what happened.
146
@28: Great new verb! "Voldemorted." Thanks

In fact, we should fully fill out the neologism, defining the word "Voldemort" as "any Word Which Must Not Be Said" and using it as the fill-in-word every time someone is talking about a word that political correctness demands be censored. Thus people will be talking not about the "n-word", "t-word", "c-word" et cetera, but will say "the N-Voldemort", "the T-Voldemort", "the C-Voldemort" et cetera.

I am also amused that supposedly liberal voices are openly demanding active censorship on the part of the authority structure.
147
@ 140 - Did you miss the part where the word "it" is the CHOSEN PRONOUN of the kid in question? Dan was using the pronoun the kid wanted people to use.
148
Contrary to Savage, it can get worse.

Read more:
http://chicagomaroon.com/2014/05/30/perm…
He is accused of being "misogynistic, biphobic, transphobic, and racist comments."

I think Savage can be harsh but I don't think it is directed at any one group.

And I take back my earlier remark that he wrote "too many words." (Though still think that the narrative is a bit unclear.)

This issue of free speech is _important_ and some students at U of C, some of the brightest students in the nation, don't seem to get it. So Savage in fact should be writing more.

One commenter (a student but who knows?) wrote:
"Bringing in Dan Savage was as negative as bringing in a member of a Hate Group. He is Transphobic, Biphobic, and says very questionable things about Sexual Assault. Bringing him to our school is harmful to trans* people's, bisexuals's, and survivors's feelings of acceptance at this campus."

Not good preparation to face the real world outside the UofC and of course Savage is free -- should -- write about what happened and the implications.
149
@144 It's almost as if times change and what words are considered (un)acceptable change with it! Besides deference to authority is intellectually lazy.
150
When in the end, both parties are just a bunch of self-absorbed assholes who believe it's more important to be right, then to do the right thing and admit when you're wrong, who the fuck cares

And when someone tries to make you suffer and bleed you, just because they did, that's fucked up @144

I wouldn't give a shit either, I don't give a shit about people who afflict others, esp when it comes from someone who knows what it's like to be afflicted.

Fuck those people who make it out of the hell humans create for other humans, and then set booby traps along the path. The people who genuinely care about others, the ones who care more about that then looking like they're right are the only people worth giving a shit about.

Unless this whole story is complete bullshit (which I am sure it is after the Santa Barbara shootings, Bob Ergdahl, and every other bullshit story spewed out by people who don't give a fuck about the truth, people who do genuinely care, don't need to have these types of debates, because people who care don't continue to attack others when they are already on the ground.

The don't make up bullshit scenarios and equate verbally and emotionally and psychologically beating the shit out of an ally, to attempting to crash a same sex orgy party and violating their space.

You don't need to know all the bullshit colorful details when you are just trying to figure out who the asshole is

They are people who want to make sure everyone has suffered like they have instead of doing everything in their power so that nobody has to suffer like they did.

And that is the main difference between an asshole and a caring person.

Every person who ever helped civil rights progress, isn't stupid enough to kick it two floors down just for the fuck of it or to make sure the next person doesn't get anything handed to them

151
I swear to god, this boils down to trans women being bitter after lives of being socially shunned by gay dudes. Most trans women grew up being expected to fit in with cis gay male culture, and were treated like shit because they weren't cute enough or were otherwise weird-seeming (gay dudes can be some shallow douchebags, we all know this), and now they're in college and it is RAGE TIME. Oof. I even sort of understand where they're coming from, but they have to know that they're losing allies by acting so petulant.
152
@151 I don't even know where to begin...

Assuming for example what you said was true, do you really think that trans women consider the people who shun them to be allies? Are the just supposed to accept being treated like shit?

Going back to reality for a second, just because one person did a bad thing to Dan (reminder that several outspoken trans women had Dan's back on this), suddenly trans women are losing allies? Dude, I don't think you even know what that word means.
153
@149,

This has nothing to do with "times changing". I can think, for example, that old-guard feminists are kind of backwards in their thinking and I can still, meanwhile, regard them with respect. #140 is a disrespectful, narcissistic asshole. Maybe try reading that comment again.
154
@153 My reading comprehension is just fine. "Seems like most babytrans don't give a shit about the people who literally bled for their rights," in reference to an article about Jayne County. That's entirely like the old-guard feminists. Which isn't to say that I don't respect Jayne County. I deeply admire what she has done, but I think that she is right about the word "tranny" (it's abhorrent that she received death threats for it though).
155
Love you Dirtclustit ( Great Defender), sometimes though, it does my head in a little bit- trying to work out what you're actually saying.
Sorry to hear your failing your studies/ hope you can turn that around.
156
" you take the subtle way thru coward town"/ poetry.
Songs in your poetry Dirtclustit/
157
I read and re-read this article, and I come to the same conclusion: undergraduate angst. "It" is a bore. QUIP is a collection of bores. Hopefully they'll grow out of it, but I don't have much hope for them. They'll most likely end up perpetual misery cases.
158
Wow. This has to the world's largest pile of naval lint.
159
I'm not going to become anti-trans because of the idiot students at UC. But it sure as hell crossed my mind as I read this article. Those kids are ***indistinguishable*** from the nut cases on the far right. They want to DICTATE the law no matter how fucked up the law is and if you don't like it, you just better thank your lucky stars that these people aren't in power over your life.

Dan 1, It 0

160
This is just typical SJW bullshit. They can't stand being wrong it's like sunlight to a vampire to them, so they'll do anything to avoid it, even attempting to alter reality to suit their needs.

I'm at the point where I think people need to be sat and told that being a member of a minority group is not a Get Out of Being a Decent Human Being Free card.

Amazingly enough the rules still apply to you even if you are black/gay/trans whatever. Yes you do get to change the rules if they are unfair or oppressive, but not getting your way all the time is neither of those things.
161
Ok - I think you're fabulous, Dan, for many reasons, - but here's a synopsis of all of that: "I am not transphobic, but this UofC student event rattled and flustered me. I had a disagreement with a student over the level of offense and use in any context of the word "tranny." The student stormed out and the school newspaper honed in. I then point out some irony that demonstrates the students improper use of an identity pronoun, then I conclude it with an overemphasis on trans connections." My take - these are young people - they're dynamic and creative; they're unlearning the years of shit they have been listening to in their parent's home; they're emotional and unsure of themselves; and they're interested in helping to shape their identity.

And beyond those circumstances. the student, to a lesser degree, perhaps, but nonetheless has a case here: if someone has beaten me with a baseball bat while calling me a "tranny," I would likely make that word a flashback into a private hell. That will not be the circumstance for everyone, but if I had to rate who has had a harder time on the scale of suffering, it's certainly not me. And along those lines, I have to do the best to understand that, for as much of an advocate I consider myself to be, I am not them. The same can be said of heterosexuals who feel a certain degree of license based on what they think they know or how supportive they are. All through your diatribe, I couldn't help but think of the, "some of my best friends are black" approach some white people take as an out to just admitting to themselves that they will never have any real concept for what it means to be black. I know it's not meant to be anywhere in that neighborhood of thought, but you're a big boy - you can take the critique - and that's how it sounds. Beyond that, the quick and dirty is this: you've let an undergraduate who is on their own path of identity, not nearly as well grounded in their own understanding of who they are as you, someone near the age of your son, get under your skin. An accomplished pundit, author, dad, husband, gay as hell, gay man who knows, and not only likes, but is proud of who he is, etc. - you've allowed yourself to take excessive concern to the opinions of the aspiring journalists of a college newspaper. How long have you been doing the college circuit? Surely this is not your first time at the Rodeo. These are not your peers, and attempting to school them is not only unnecessary, it's unseemly. Look, I completely get how much you feel this conversation felt like this "got your goat" moment...back several years ago, when I worked at the University of Maryland, I felt compelled to provide the benefit of experience to a kid who wrote for the school newspaper, who, I felt tried to stretch into fantasy how much indifference his Log Cabin Republicans group met in its encounters with other GOP groups. I could feel myself getting worked up, so I fired off an email to this guy to knock him off of his pedestal. But looking back in hindsight, I should have known better. His experience will allow for the moment where he works these things out, and there was no need for me to go at him. And that will likely happen with your young, misinformed friend. You are on a different place in your identity development and stage of life. There's just really no need for you or me or any of us to spend our time like that. Did it convince you that anyone would entertain these notions? If not - then move on. As someone celebrated, appreciated, loved, and inspired, understand those moments where the best thing to do is walk away. None of us wants to show our age, especially as gay men, but that should be one area for which we should show it.
162
Minus this "...less" piece - not sure why that copied from my Word doc..
163
You reap what you sow. The PC crowd for years has tried to seize control of the language to impose speech codes and create thought crimes. This isn't about sensitivity so much as it is about coercion and power. If you could define bigotry down, if you could make language more and more restrictive and the definition of bigotry more and more amorphous, then the language police could sit in a position of power over others, accusing them of bigotry, lack of sensitivity, lack of education for even the most inadvertent use of words. Use the wrong word, even without any ill-intent, and you are now a "bigot." Use a now disfavored word that was once deemed acceptable at a time when it was commonly used, and you are still a "bigot." What words are now permitted? The thought police will let you know.

Is it in the slightest surprising that under these circumstances where power is defined as accusing others of bigotry down a constant slippery slope that groups within the PC thought police would start eating their own? Kids are "educated" to believe that words are power and their own hypersensitivity should define the language, that bigotry can be found in supposed "microaggressions." They are taught that prestige is based on moral superiority defined as accusing others of bigotry or insensitivity without any decency. The irony here is that Savage operates within the same system, so he cannot simply condemn the entire process as a farce. He cannot call these brats the idiots that they are or tell them to grow up. "Cisgender." "T-slur." "Privilege." Etc. Brings to mind the saying that only someone who attended a university could be that stupid.
164
You reap what you sow. The PC crowd for years has tried to seize control of the language to impose speech codes and create thought crimes. This isn't about sensitivity so much as it is about coercion and power. If you could define bigotry down, if you could make language more and more restrictive and the definition of bigotry more and more amorphous, then the language police could sit in a position of power over others, accusing them of bigotry, lack of sensitivity, lack of education for even the most inadvertent use of words. Use the wrong word, even without any ill-intent, and you are now a "bigot." Use a now disfavored word that was once deemed acceptable at a time when it was commonly used, and you are still a "bigot." What words are now permitted? The thought police will let you know.

Is it in the slightest surprising that under these circumstances where power is defined as accusing others of bigotry down a constant slippery slope that groups within the PC thought police would start eating their own? Kids are "educated" to believe that words are power and their own hypersensitivity should define the language, that bigotry can be found in supposed "microaggressions." They are taught that prestige is based on moral superiority defined as accusing others of bigotry or insensitivity without any decency. The irony here is that Savage operates within the same system, so he cannot simply condemn the entire process as a farce. He cannot call these brats the idiots that they are or tell them to grow up. "Cisgender." "T-slur." "Privilege." Etc. Brings to mind the saying that only someone who attended a university could be that stupid.
165
All I have to say is that you spend an awful lot of time on trivial matters. Who gives a damn about cis/trans/het/he/she/it/they but people with nothing better to think about?
166
@161, much of what you say is wise. One does need to show wisdom and hold ones tongue when younger people are mouthing off .. Or trying to unseat one. In this instance, doubt if Dan really expected such an outcome from him standing his ground.
And it sounds to me, reAding the references, that this was a bit of a set up for Dan. Some of these students came into the room, already having decided Dan was a problematic choice for the uni to make.
. Hence, first opportunity to confront his style
( and really, just have to read a few of his posts here- and Dans style is obvious), and bam- " an issue" arose.
The university , after the forum, took these students concerns seriously- meetings were had etc. As a result of this enquiry, the authorities decided no apology was warranted. And a pretty clear reason given.
Then the students , rather than accepting this outcome- went public. This to me, was a set up.. Why, would be the question...
Young people maybe wanting to take a powerful man down
( slay the father), whatever the reason- the take away is just sludge, for all. I mean really, a hate crime? What bullshit..
167
Turkey Vultures coming home to roost.
Allah, I love it when Progresso-Fascists eat their own!
168
The worst part about being an atheist is discovering that the bell curve of human intelligence applies to atheists as well as believers.

What Dan is facing is rooted in the same truth, just because you share a birth trait with someone does not make them good people, just because you support an oppressed group it does not make that group all good people and in the end, idiots are born that way.

As long as we have fervent recyclers driving SUV's I feel that logic is a technical not specific term.
169
While in my personal life I often travel the path of least resistance, when someone cannot distinguish between the use of a word to refer to that word and the use of a word in a conversational role I tend to discount anything that person says after that point. Like how, even in serious discussion on racism you have otherwise mature, thoughtful people forced to say "the N-word," as if the sonic power of two syllables was, itself, sufficient to rend flesh from the bone.

My chief objection with such speech control is that it hampers the individual's ability to interpret events on their own. I don't know how many times I've read an article or headline about some "hate speech" only to find when I research the actual quote and content a situation similar to yours. I am coming from an assumed more politically conservative perspective than you, so in case you haven't noticed it before this is a common tactic (just say "hate speech" and let the readers' imagination fill in the slur) for most reporting on social conservatives.
170
Hey LavaG, I am pretty sure they only accused dipshit of "hate speech"

Danno was the escalator who rounded it up to a hate crime

which I think was done for two reasons

1) He is a punkass journalist who no doubt engages in such fiascos like this staged event because "all publicity is good publicity, or so some think

2) It's a standard tactic among the idiots of the interwebs, whose main concern is that they look superior, dominant, never wrong in the public's eyes

to the point that they don't give a shit whether they are right or wrong, they only care about what the majority of readers perceive in regards to who is right and who is wrong

If you don't have a strong rebuttle, the inferior ivy league route is to exaggerate the claims made as it is easier to weasel out of the picture they painted him in.

Sort of piss poor logic, but you know if it's in Yale's big bigoted debate book, then Dan is all over that like flies on a trudo turd.

It win win for Dan, he not a bigot, he just an asshole, and an asshole that borrows strategery from a bigots book magnifies his assholism tenfold

You know somethings up when a journalist fakes his bad publicity stories. I don't know, but there are few things worse than an asshole who gets bored easy

That's my best guess seeing as how I wasn't at the fictional hate speech symposium. I was at Starbucks looking at transgendered women who I never would have thought were born in the opposite body

That's not what I went there for, but I can't divulge the real reason and I didn't drink their shitty Seattle Cattle coffee, I hate everything Seattle
171
Well, I would endeavour to refer to someone who has decided that it wishes to be referred to as it on the grounds of common courtesy, but that does not preclude my using the word 'it' in all the usual ways.

As far as I can tell the person who wished to be referred to as it was objecting to 'It Gets Better' because it personally does not feel that it has got better, it meaning the specific individual who wishes to appropriate it solely to itself. This isn't going to work, since our language can't do without it.

On the other hand, drama monarch is pure genius...

172
I don't like the term queer, never have. I request all people stop using it and that QUIP change its name in acknowledgement of my discomfort. I was too young in the 90s to know that Queer was being reclaimed.

If you don't listen to my demands, then you are committing a hate crime. That is all.
173
I really am sick to death of having to be so PC that one cannot even discuss issues surrounding the PC-ness of a word. I use the word retard. I know that those who are mentally handicapped don't like it. I don't use it in context to them but some people seem unable or unwilling to accept that it is a perfectly descriptive word and that it is applicable to other cases, mentally handicapped nothwithstanding, but insist that it is un-PC to use it at all. Fuck them.
174
Dan, thanks for the detailed explanation of what went down at the U of C event. For what it's worth, I doubt many people ever believed for a moment that you had said anything genuinely prejudiced.

That being said, I'm not surprised that any of this happened. Society has been incentivizing "being offended" to such a degree that the offended party immediately gains an enormous amount of power; Power that is frequently wielded in bad faith to destroy rather than educate.

Neither world is perfect but personally I'd prefer to have a world where there's genuine intellectual discourse rather than one run by the thought police. Yes, the former results in some hurtful assholes being allowed to say dumb or hateful things but it's preferable to a society where someone can be destroyed at any time because they inadvertently offended someone.
175
As conservatives have demonstrated time and again, it's often impossible to distinguish ideological zealotry from a full-blown personality disorder.
176
Dan,

I am a Transman, activist, Seattle City Commissioner and love your work. It is about intent with any word for me and I feel you have been an advocate for the trans community. The it gets better campaign has been wonderful as well, & brought a great deal of awareness. See you Thu at the Bawdy Storytelling event.

Mac S. McGregor
177
My only problem with this whole thing is that in listing Ana Marie Cox's credentials you didn't mention her work at Suck.com.
178
God DAMN IT. I am a breeder gal, married to a breeder guy. We are both firm supporters that all LGBTQ-LMNOP people deserve the same rights and protections as we enjoy. I am annoyed that now I can't even keep track of what words I am and am not allowed to use in polite company (read: my lovely and wonderful LGBTQ-LMNOP pals).

I've never used "tranny" to describe anyone who is ID'ing themselves as trans gendered, although my two best guy pals love throwing around "hot tranny mess".

I would never feel comfortable calling any person, no matter how they identify themselves "IT" I read "A Child Called It." I'm not calling you IT, I just can't. I'm sorry if that gets your gender-non specific panties in a bunch, but I can't go there. One of my friends from high school is in the process of transitioning now, how on earth can I start calling him It? Jesus Christ, calling him it makes it sounds like he is as unimportant as a lamp post or a mailbox. Fucking IT?

Listen, you darling, wonderful, cray-cray, freshman of the college world, I support you. I love you. I want the freedoms that I take for granted to be yours, so you can take them for granted. I want you to live in a world where you feel safe to let your flag of whatever color/kind/etc... fly. But when you start busting the balls of a guy who created the It Gets Better Project, who has saved the life of at least on of my friends and I am sure COUNTLESS others, but claiming he is transphobic I don't even know what to do with you anymore. You are NOT HELPING.

I think I am just going to refer to everyone the way my (very small, toddler) son refers to everyone as of late. From now on you will not be she/he/him/her/cis/IT, you shall be "bob." Everyone is "bob" to him. If its good enough for a 4 year old, its good enough for me.

Jesus Christ. It. I don't even have the words.
179
Indignation rapidly becomes its own reward sometimes, just as some people who go through an actual illness later begin to 'seek out' the role of the patient for psychological comfort, sympathy, and as a way for avoiding life's existential agonies. I've noticed that in [various other marginalized groups], an activist earns their credibility by various conspicuous demonstrations of indignation against an acceptable target. And usually, the target is mostly expedient, typically someone who is sympathetic enough to be close by.

It seems like trans activists have fallen into the old trap of caring about the *concept* of people more than *actual people.* And so, they treat themselves and others as abstractions, without irony or the idea that someone can fall short of your personal ideals in many ways, and yet still be a good friend.

No one will ever approach you if they feel that you are just looking to make a lesson out of them for your cronies, and that you are too weak to tolerate the transgressions that are the very soul of friendship.
180
@ 161: Sometimes you have to smack down idiotic behavior in order to teach a lesson. Waiting around for circumstance (meaning: someone other than you) to do it is just an abdication of responsibility dressed up in a lot of moral equestrianship.

The students didn't just annoy Dan. They also compromised the integrity of a closed-door event thrown by the IOP which relies on its confidentiality to get guest speakers to speak transparently. That doesn't work if the guests are concerned that students with an imaginary axe to grind are going to cause a ruckus that will put their remarks in the national media.

By ignoring that fact you are not "rising above" their bad behavior, you are actually rewarding it.
181
Lots of complicated issues, for sure, but if someone asks you not to use a word which they find hurtful then it seems just common courtesy to not use it. That's pretty simple, isn't it?

If you feel that evading use of the word hampers the discussion, then make that case by continuing the conversation without using the word and demonstrate how the discussion is hampered. Or, if you think the request is silly, then replace the word with something random, like "Chuck Norris", to show how silly it is.

There were more gracious and skilled ways to roll around this nuisance than confronting it directly, intentionally grinding someone's face in it, and provoking them to act out.
182
When whiners challenge their leadership.
183
@ 141, 142: Go cry me a river. When Dirtclustit demonstrates the ability to pass the Turing test (ironic comment @110) I'll start to give a shit about what they say, until then I'll be over here with Team Coherence. What I said was not only far more polite than what I was responding to, it may actually have been good advice.

And since you appear to have only come here in search of evidence to support your idiotic presumption that Dan is a "bully", you can go fuck yourself with a rusty shovel.
184
@Charlie Mas: if someone asks you not to use a word which they find hurtful then it seems just common courtesy to not use it.

When someone seeks out and accuses someone of offense where none was intended and none exists, that is a form of aggression, and no less so for being disguised as "social justice". As such, it should be directly confronted.
185
Very sad that the students' "demand" for censorship and banning words comes from my alma mater, the University of Chicago. I remember UChicago as a place where controversy, tough counterfactuals, and even offensiveness were PRIZED because they helped you question things. Questioning your priors was the highest virtue.

I can only take the word of some friends still on campus -- but I hope and believe it is true -- that the vast majority of those currently connected with the university would never dream of supporting such a ludicrous petition or of encouraging censorship of outside speakers. I am also informed that the vast majority of folks "signing" the online petition have no connection whatsoever with the university.

I hope that the university's refusal to bow to these few students' "demands" speaks for itself as the position of the university as a whole, and that it doesn't change. These students are young and foolish, and ignorant of the real consequences of the world that they claim to want to live in.
186
@ 181

Point taken, but any courtesy can be abused and become a manipulative indulgence. I think common courtesy has to go the other way as well: if you ask a guest speaker to not use a word in a historical context, and they politely decline to oblige, you can either stick around and hear what they have to say for themselves or you can choose to leave. Losing your shit impresses no one and achieves nothing.
187
@ 181: The i-slur is harmful but appeared in your comment multiple times. Please demonstrate some of this common courtesy but refrain from using harmful language this time.
188
Dirtclustit thank you for the amazing demonstration of Poe's Law there. I read your comment three times and honestly couldn't figure out if you were taking the piss or were just an idiot with a shaky command of the English language, so I'm gonna assume the former and applaud.
189
@181,

You're right. Dan and Ana Marie Cox should have asked "it" to leave.
190
@181
The problem in acceding to that one individual's demands in a large group of people is that it abrogates the rights of others in the group who wanted to discuss the way in which gender has been, and is, constructed by society.

I have no problem in endeavouring to address a particular individual as they wish; I do have a problem with someone demanding that their personal wishes over-ride everybody else's. There comes a point where personal goodwill runs out; it seems to be more and more the case that people like Santorum get a free ride whilst activists get dumped on. If this continues then I suspect that in the end activists like Dan will walk away and leave Hex to the less than tender mercies of people like Santorum; I don't think that it would enjoy the consequences...
191
@181- If you can't hear a word used in the context of talking about the word then you don't belong in an adult conversation.
192
How does Cousin Itt feel about all this? I'd trust that amazing being to have something wise and kind to 'say.'
193
@162 T Pitchford

"More..." and "...Less" are links for viewing either more of or less of comments above a certain length.
194
As I said to a friend whose sister was offended that we didn't invite her to our wedding, "We gave her something even greater than a wedding invitation: the opportunity to get upset about something." It apparently wanted such an opportunity, and it got it.

If you can't be happy until everyone on your campus, classroom, family, or bicycle uses the language you deem acceptable, you will never be happy.
195
As I said to a friend whose sister was offended that we didn't invite her to our wedding, "We gave her something even greater than a wedding invitation: the opportunity to get upset about something." It apparently wanted such an opportunity, and it got it.

If you can't be happy until everyone on your campus, classroom, family, or bicycle uses the language you deem acceptable, you will never be happy.
196
@181 The word "complicated" triggers me. Please refrain from using that word in any other threads on this website. It'd be appreciated.
197
@188: No Poe there. Dirtclustit has......issues, one of which is that they see conspiracy every where. I stopped really engine them when they declared that the moon landing never happened.
Just so you know the kind of person we're dealing with here.
198
"Engaging"
199
It is not sin to show who are the sinners.
200
Sensitivity only leads to even greater sensitivity which leads to everything you ever say, no matter how innocuous, being capable of offending someone.

Never mind that being offended or feeling shame is always a choice.