Avoid
It doesn’t tell us anything we don’t know, but it’s good to see it in an actual news outlet, with a mug shot.
Smug git; steer clear.
Tip Jar
It doesn’t tell us anything we don’t know, but it’s good to see it in an actual news outlet, with a mug shot.
Smug git; steer clear.
John McWhorter recently published “Woke Racism”, a bestselling book which PX Mxers refuses to read but will condemn nonetheless based on reading a critical review that aligns with his priors. I hope we will soon see the publication of another bestselling book that Mxers will refuse to read, “Woke Misogyny”.
I am offended by the use of the word “offensive” throughout these proceedings. Harrop’s language was willfully abusive, and he participated in — and even or instigated — campaigns of intimidation against the targets of his wrath. Likewise, Louie Gohmert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert aren’t engaging in “offensive” rhetoric, they are constantly spouting abusive, denigrating, and threatening rhetoric. Calling things what they actually are is vitally important, and the mild approbation “offensive” is used as cover by slimy apologists for inexcusable behavior. The reasoning usually goes something like this: People get “offended” by all manner of things, and taking offense at someone else’s remarks can be the responsibility of the offended as much as (or more than) the offender. And that reasoning isn’t entirely wrong: Some people — many of them conservatively religious — seem to spend an inordinate proportion of their time looking for excuses to take offense. But abusive, denigrating, and/or threatening rhetoric is not merely offensive, and it’s not actually hard to discern the difference if you’re a decent, fair-minded person rather than an ideologue determined to advance an agenda by any means necessary.
And people who readily resort to abusing, denigrating, and threatening their opponents are never advancing reasonable, humane agendas.
(I’m not blaming The Times for the inaccurate language, since they’re just using the language that the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service used throughout the hearing process, which is in turn probably based on the poor wording of certain policies.)
I find the word “offensive” infuriating almost every time I see or hear it, although not quite. Sometimes it is the right word, as in “You’re being deliberately offensive by saying that.” But mostly it’s either claiming too much (that we have a right and duty to consider it “offensive” to dispute religious claims) or as in this case too little. It’s spread everywhere and I hate it.
@2 that is a really good point, thank you for sharing. ‘Offensive’ can be considered to be in the eye of the beholder, while ‘abusive’ is something the abuser is actively, deliberately doing.