Again, on the theme of Paul Graham’s article about things you can’t say, I have an odd one: there are a lot of environments where it’s becoming indefensible to admit that anything offends you. I’m reminded of this most powerfully by the various and sundry arguments about Ubuntu showing a bit of skin.
Of course, this tiptoeing around offence isn’t everywhere, far from it. Witness the weekly media circus in Australia where someone says something that isn’t in line with a secular liberal viewpoint. Relevant interest groups immediately issue press releases demanding a full apology. If the Prime Minister and his advisers think that the silent conservatives would agree with the stated viewpoint, they tough it out, but if it was too far out of line (as a rough guide, implying to the press that homosexuals are paedophiles is on the wrong side of that line) the unfortunate speaker gets fed to the media wolves to deliver a scripted ‘apology’.
I’m on-board the liberal secular peace train with a first class ticket and I still find the regular demands for, and occasionally delivery of, these stupid meaningless apologies unbelievably teeth-grindingly infuriating, because you don’t get a liberal secular world by making everyone pretend that you already have one.
However, when liberal secular sorts argue amongst themselves about morality, it’s often possible to get a real rhetorical advantage just by refusing to be offended. By anything. You want the age of consent lowered to 18 months. You want people to have sex with strangers in boring queues. You want to be able to urinate artistically on trains. OK, perhaps I’m exaggerating. Maybe you just don’t have a nudity taboo, or you’re OK with people getting a little bit horny in your workplace. Fine. But how is it that that means that you represent the vanguard of the human race?
Whoever is offended in these arguments, especially if they’re offended by anything that can be potentially tied to the full and free expression of human creativity or sexuality, is standing on very slippery ground. If you’re offended, you’ve delivered the following advantages to your opponent: you’re a conservative; you’re repressed; and you’re holding humanity back. You can see some particularly prime examples in the Ubuntu debate, because challenging conventional notions of how you develop popular software can sometimes get people a little high on the “we’re changing humanity one user at a time, as if by magic” pipe.
Offence is a part of the weaponry of the social conservatives. It’s also part of the weaponry of real progressives, except they invert it and are offended by conservatism or reminders that it exists (in its pathological form you get the apology packhounds with their ready made outraged press releases).
And I think it’s time that the voice of offence got a little ground back in some other arguments too, because calls to be freer and less repressed are all too often just a rhetorical weapon used to make people feel like they’re not toeing the humanist party line. In other words, they’re a way of shutting you up by making you feel bad about yourself and inferior to the super beings around you who have cast off their taboos. Sound very liberated? Sound like you’re all part of the one great push to make the world a better place? Thought not. So have a bit more respect for other people’s funny little lines they don’t like to cross.
Comments
Comments
From my US vantage point, “big of a deal” is very common.
And I too have those moments of looking at a word for a while and it not looking like a word anymore. I know what you mean.
Posted by katie on February 25, 2004 01:17 PM
I just came across “How large of a litter does a rat have at one time?” in the TREC QA 2003 questions too.
I can’t do that with “of”.
Posted by Mary on February 25, 2004 03:51 PM
From a Norwegian: is this supposed to be the same as “it’s not a big deal”, or is THAT just some Norwenglish and gramatically incorrect phrase?
Posted by Magni on February 25, 2004 09:06 PM
Magni:
“It’s not a big deal” is perfectly fine, and you wouldn’t blink hearing it in Australia. The “that” simply lets you add emphasis, it’s always said “it’s not /that/ big a deal”. Having it there at all is a little colloquial.
Posted by Mary on February 26, 2004 02:24 PM
I hate the word “of” in a lot of contexts that seem to be loved by Americans.
“Get off of my lawn”.
It just grates me, I know not why.
In fact, I hate most Americanisms: “one hundred two dollars”, “write me”, “most all”… Hmmm, there’s one more, but I can’t remember it for now.
Posted by TimC on March 4, 2004 10:03 PM
Katie: In the photo of tornado kitty, simon and you napping, is Simon sucking his leg and sewing? Because that’s exactly the thing that one of our ginger kitties, imaginitively called “Ginger” did when happy. Always sucked his left rear leg. It would be really cool if there was another identical ginger kitty (they look exactly the same) was just as stupid as our one 🙂
Posted by TimC on March 4, 2004 10:11 PM
One I love though, is “Way!” in response to “No way!”
In fact, I tend to like most back-formations.
Posted by Mary on March 10, 2004 11:33 AM