The right to upset others

[Nancy Allen``]

In discussions with some people on the Internet they believe, and have even said, that they have the right and duty to upset people. I really don't know about this one, I think it's just an excuse, but your thoughts.

[Prime]

That doesn't make much sense to me. I think they call that flaming and trolling.

[Rogue15]

I believe in the freedom of speech.

 

though i'd have to completely disagree with DUTY TO UPSET, that's harassment.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I think she's talking about how Spider says he feels he has a moral duty to 'convert' people to atheism:).

 

My view is that politeness is going out the window these days. Everyone from comedians to idiots are acting like they're being persecuted Nazi-style if anyone dares be offended by what they say. Sure, you should have the Constitutional right to say whatever you want, but please - not every single one of your thoughts needs expressing.

 

If people today are told they've offended someone, rather than having to apologize they can just scream 'OMG I HATE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS STOP CENSORING ME!1111' at a thousand decibels. Whatever happened to this old phenomena called... respect?

[Totenkopf]

Actually, public politeness went out the window the better part of a generation ago. The problem becomes who decides what's sufficiently polite for public consumption and in what venue. The degree of coarseness in communication has become highlighted over here in the US by things like Don Imus and Opie and Anthony (among others). But, to what degree should the "offended" be allowed to proscribe the speech of others. Outside of outright slander, where does one person's right to express their pov get trumped by some group's decision that such speech should be outlawed or regulated?

[Spider AL]

Eagle's correct, Nancy's presumably referring to me again. (however, I have never been interested in "converting" anyone to anything, so he's incorrect on that score)

 

However, the sentiment I actually expressed in the past was that I have a moral duty to speak factual truths in debates, even if those truths upset people. And that rule applies to everyone, and it's a very moral rule.

 

As for how far free speech should be allowed... there's a very simple, pragmatic rule that most enlightened lawmakers have already delineated in the past. Specifically, the ONLY moral restrictions on free speech are restrictions that prevent active, specific and direct incitement to violence. End of story. Everything else should be protected under the law, and not censored.

[Mace MacLeod]

In discussions with some people on the Internet they believe, and have even said, that they have the right and duty to upset people. I really don't know about this one, I think it's just an excuse, but your thoughts.

Thank you for reminding me why I no longer actively participate in discussions here or Kavar's Corner, Nancy. Same old, same old.

 

It isn't the people who go around offending or upsetting others that's the problem, generally. It's the ones who decide that something or another shouldn't ever be said because it offends their ever-so-delicate personal beliefs who are in fact forcing their beliefs on others, not the other way around.

 

ie: "God isn't real." "You're forcing me to believe God isn't real! Moderators, make him stop! Help! Help! I'm being offended!"

 

Does that ring a bell?

[ET Warrior]

Help! Help! I'm being offended!"

Did you see him? Did you see him repressing me there? That's what I'm goin on about!

 

 

This thread is going nowhere fast, F-

[SkinWalker]

I think if people make public claims about their beliefs with the expectation that they be accepted as matters of fact, particularly when these same beliefs are pressured into government and society as codifications, then one has a duty to criticize and even ridicule them. And by "ridicule," I'm referring to the time-honored and democratic practice of satire and parody, examples of which find their way in our political cartoons and the Daily Show.

 

As for upsetting, if the believer finds this to be upsetting, then I hold to the quote of Lord Reith of the BBC, which says, "there are those for whom it is one's duty to offend." Let's face it, some peoples' beliefs on the internet are screwed up. Why should their rants on politics, pseudoscience and wild economic policies go un-answered with a voice of reason or unchallenged by criticism and inquiry? Why shouldn't this same reason, criticism and inquiry apply to <gasp> religious beliefs?

[ET Warrior]

Re-opening the thread at the behest of the thread starter, as the original intentions were apparently unclear. I shall allow an attempt at re-clarification.

[Nancy Allen``]

That doesn't make much sense to me. I think they call that flaming and trolling.

 

That's how I see it but some people believe otherwise and they make a good case. See below.

 

I believe in the freedom of speech.

 

though i'd have to completely disagree with DUTY TO UPSET, that's harassment.

 

The duty to upset is harassment in my opinion, but there's a good case to challenge beliefs as I'll explain.

 

I think she's talking about how Spider says he feels he has a moral duty to 'convert' people to atheism:).

 

Completely forgot about all that, this is what's called Cause and Effect, or Converse Accident. I'm not blaming anyone here of doing this but since Atheism was brought up the example I was thinking of was something like going to religious forums and saying 'ZOMG WTF THERE IZ NO GODZ LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11' or posting Holocaust images in Jewish forums, that sort of thing. Especially when people cry freedom of speech when action is taken against them. People who do things and think if it gets a reaction great, if it really hurts someone that's good.

 

My view is that politeness is going out the window these days. Everyone from comedians to idiots are acting like they're being persecuted Nazi-style if anyone dares be offended by what they say. Sure, you should have the Constitutional right to say whatever you want, but please - not every single one of your thoughts needs expressing.

 

As you said it boils down to respecting the right for other people not hearing those things if they don't want to.

 

If people today are told they've offended someone, rather than having to apologize they can just scream 'OMG I HATE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS STOP CENSORING ME!1111' at a thousand decibels. Whatever happened to this old phenomena called... respect?

 

I think this is part of the answer.

 

Actually, public politeness went out the window the better part of a generation ago.

 

I don't like it but it seems that some people don't care about respecting others, or even themselves. How so? They subject themselves to a life of conflict telling others what's right is what they say is right and what's wrong is what they say is wrong. Of course people are going to react badly to such claims, even to the point they would take action. They might go to the trouble of hunting these people down online or it could become physical if done face to face.

 

Just on that, how much consideration, because of how someone might react face to face, is given to online discussion? I mean, some of the things that are discussed would have to be put delicately, even if only to avoid getting a smack in the mouth. So how diffirent, if at all, is it online?

 

The problem becomes who decides what's sufficiently polite for public consumption and in what venue. The degree of coarseness in communication has become highlighted over here in the US by things like Don Imus and Opie and Anthony (among others). But, to what degree should the "offended" be allowed to proscribe the speech of others.

 

It seems that what was taboo years ago is becoming more and more accepted. Language, sexist remarks, ect yet it's the other way, and rightfully so, for something such as race. To what degree should we be offended? I think when something goes beyond the boundries of what is generally acceptable is when complaint is warrented.

 

Thank you for reminding me why I no longer actively participate in discussions here or Kavar's Corner, Nancy. Same old, same old.

 

Yes, same old same old and I know you're just dieing for me to react.

 

...

 

...

 

Sorry, not gonna happen.

 

I think if people make public claims about their beliefs with the expectation that they be accepted as matters of fact, particularly when these same beliefs are pressured into government and society as codifications, then one has a duty to criticize and even ridicule them.

 

I would certainly agree that someine's beliefs should be examined and questioned if they are out there. However short of beliefs that are harmful (my religion demands I bomb abortion clinics, Grand Theft Auto made me go on a shooting rampage), people should not be made to feel that they are on trial or that they have to give up their beliefs. On the other hand people in debate forums should probably expect their beliefs to be attacked.

 

And by "ridicule," I'm referring to the time-honored and democratic practice of satire and parody, examples of which find their way in our political cartoons and the Daily Show.

 

Like the Mohammed cartoons. The reaction to them was certainly over the line, but by the same token the people who drew them could have expected a reaction. Though, say, charactitures of Bush are something I don't even bat an eye at, or even if someone were to do a charactiture of myself I'd probably say "yep that's pretty accurate". A somewhat self depreciating point of view helps.

 

As for upsetting, if the believer finds this to be upsetting, then I hold to the quote of Lord Reith of the BBC, which says, "there are those for whom it is one's duty to offend." Let's face it, some peoples' beliefs on the internet are screwed up. Why should their rants on politics, pseudoscience and wild economic policies go un-answered with a voice of reason or unchallenged by criticism and inquiry? Why shouldn't this same reason, criticism and inquiry apply to <gasp> religious beliefs?

 

As a mod surely there's a line between a duty to offend (I myself did this on a post about Iraq last week) and something that, while it may not breach the rules demands action be taken. I imagine that it's a fairly fine line at that. So, if I may ask, as a mod how do you balence out what is offensive but acceptable and what has to be deleted? If someone says that believing in religion is deluded for example is that acceptable? Of course language wouldn't be. And there are things that all but demand criticism, redicule, ect, in debate forums pretty much anything's fair game but in particular I'm thinking conspiracy theories, outlandish claims, ect. But when would something demand, without going too far, demand more than a voice of reason and inquiry?

 

Perhaps the best way to explain it all is like this. We should think of how we want to be treated, and how we want to be percieved, before putting pen to paper. However there are those who seemingly don't care or, even worse, want to be thought of in a very negative light.

 

Pointing out people's flaws in reasoning is all well and good. Being condescending and belittling when you do it isn't. I'm sure that you would like to be made aware of the flaws in your reasoning without being called delusional or deluded.

 

BINGO!

[Rogue Nine]

Nancy may be referring to the content of such posts and that's well and good. However, I think she touches upon another related issue, which is how one says things. I don't really care if you tell me my beliefs are wrong and show me boatloads of proof. But at least be nice about it.

 

Shamelessly copypasta'ed from elsewhere:

 

Pointing out people's flaws in reasoning is all well and good. Being condescending and belittling when you do it isn't. I'm sure that you would like to be made aware of the flaws in your reasoning without being called delusional or deluded.

[Spider AL]

Nancy Allen``:

 

With all due respect Nancy, after reading your post a few times, I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

Are you saying that people SHOULD speak factual truths, even if it offends people...

 

Or are you saying that people SHOULDN'T speak the truth... when that truth will offend others.

 

You seem to be saying both at various points in your post, so please clarify for me.

 

-

 

Rogue Nine:

 

I'm sure that you would like to be made aware of the flaws in your reasoning without being called delusional or deluded.

Couldn't disagree more. If I were deluding myself in some respect, I would want to be made aware of it.

 

You've touched on a perennially re-emerging issue here, Rogue. The issue of whether calling someone's beliefs delusional is in some way "insulting". Certainly people often claim to be insulted by the word, but that doesn't mean the word is inherently offensive.

 

A delusional belief is- and this is the literal, technical meaning- an unfounded belief, which is nevertheless regarded as true by the holder. A belief that contradicts the available evidence, or is based on no evidence. It's also defined in the dictionary as simplistically as "a false belief".

 

In short, it's a pretty dry, technical term. Those who decide to be offended by it do so- in my opinion- only out of insecurity. And the same goes for all similar language. The world over, people are always up in arms about having their beliefs (political, religious, or any other type) exposed to critical analysis. They campaign for free speech to be restricted so that they never have to be reminded that they are deluding themselves. And that's immoral.

[Jae Onasi]

A delusional belief is...In short, it's a pretty dry, technical term.

 

I'm glad you can delude yourself into thinking that it's nothing more than that.

[Spider AL]

The fact that I can go to http://www.dictionary.com and have it PROVEN to me, would seem to indicate that I am not deluding myself as to the definition and connotations of the word "delusion".

 

I would be interested to hear why you think I'm deluding myself on that score, however. I do not foresee any logical reasoning to back up such a claim.

[Prime]

That's how I see it but some people believe otherwise and they make a good case. See below.

I was refering to the act of specifically posting with the purpose and self perceived duty to intentionally upset people. That was the flaming and trolling I was aluding to. In that case, they have no interest in having a debate, but only to "push the buttons" of others. This is unacceptable.

 

That is completely different to debating a topic. In a case where someone has differing views, if they wish to participate in the discussion it is indeed their duty to express their points, even if it will upset other parties. It is also their duty, As Al put it, to speak with factual truths, and to back up their claims. It is then the duty of the opposing party to respond to any points in kind.

 

I would certainly agree that someine's beliefs should be examined and questioned if they are out there. However short of beliefs that are harmful (my religion demands I bomb abortion clinics, Grand Theft Auto made me go on a shooting rampage), people should not be made to feel that they are on trial or that they have to give up their beliefs.

The problem with that last statement is that the point at which people feel that way varies greatly. To some, that point is reached as soon as someone merely mentions that they disagree with their beliefs. Others are perfectly willing to debate the merits of their beliefs with those who think differently.

 

On the other hand people in debate forums should probably expect their beliefs to be attacked.

Exactly. But "attacked" in a way that is to the point and backed up. Then the person can either respond to those points or leave the discussion.

 

As a mod surely there's a line between a duty to offend (I myself did this on a post about Iraq last week) and something that, while it may not breach the rules demands action be taken. I imagine that it's a fairly fine line at that.

Well, to me it is pretty cut and dry in almost all cases (although sometimes the modding group will discussion for a consensis). For me the "line" is how an argument is presented. As long as they are not attacking the person directly, then everything else is fair game, again as long as the argument is backed up with specific points. For example, I would probably accept:

 

"I think you are mistaken for believing X because of A, B, and C"

 

but not...

 

"You are an idiot because you believe in A."

 

So, if I may ask, as a mod how do you balence out what is offensive but acceptable and what has to be deleted?

I would say it varies slightly based on the forum it is in. I'm likely to let a bit more go in this forum than say Alto. But again, what has to be deleted are specific attacks directly at an individual. Attacking viewpoints is fair game, especially if those viewpoints are expressed as a reponse to something else.

 

If someone says that believing in religion is deluded for example is that acceptable?

Personally, in this forum I think that is OK, as it would be OK for someone to say the other person is deluded for not believing in it. Hopefully specific points are brought up. I would say that if someone just said "You are deluded", I would moderated more on the point that such a comment doesn't contribute to the debate, and is potentially trolling. But if they say, "You are deluded about X because of Y" I think that is OK.

 

Of course language wouldn't be. And there are things that all but demand criticism, redicule, ect, in debate forums pretty much anything's fair game but in particular I'm thinking conspiracy theories, outlandish claims, ect.

To me those are all fair game. Anyone has the right to express such theories, and anyone has the right to attack those theories with reasons in return.

 

But when would something demand, without going too far, demand more than a voice of reason and inquiry?

When the tone of the attacks switches from the points and topic itself to the individual themselves in my opinion. Or if the views being attacked are off-topic for the thread.

 

Perhaps the best way to explain it all is like this. We should think of how we want to be treated, and how we want to be percieved, before putting pen to paper.

True. But even that is a grey area. For example, Al expressed the opinion that he would want to be made aware if he had a delusional belief. Others will only accept being told they are right to believe in something. It is not possible for the latter to expect that they will be treated in that manner.

 

But what can be universal in the manner in which we address others. And that should be in a respectful manner (meaning no personal attacks).

[Totenkopf]

As for how far free speech should be allowed... there's a very simple, pragmatic rule that most enlightened lawmakers have already delineated in the past. Specifically, the ONLY moral restrictions on free speech are restrictions that prevent active, specific and direct incitement to violence. End of story. Everything else should be protected under the law, and not censored.

 

To paraphrase Vader (this is a SW forum, afterall): Don't be too proud of the moral loophole you've constructed/cited, al. Any or all speech could ultimately end up as an incitement to violence (mother jokes, general name calling, etc..) if someone punches you in the mouth (stabs you, shoots you, etc..) after saying it. Should such speech then be proscribed as dangerous? And given the direction society seems to be moving in (ie the "offended" party gets to make the call on what is/isn't acceptable) currently, thats not a "delusional" observation.

 

You've touched on a perennially re-emerging issue here, Rogue. The issue of whether calling someone's beliefs delusional is in some way "insulting". Certainly people often claim to be insulted by the word, but that doesn't mean the word is inherently offensive.

 

A delusional belief is- and this is the literal, technical meaning- an unfounded belief, which is nevertheless regarded as true by the holder. A belief that contradicts the available evidence, or is based on no evidence. It's also defined in the dictionary as simplistically as "a false belief".

 

 

The same could be said of the word "whore". Technically, it's a pretty dry term. Still, most women would see it a perjorative if questioned.

 

Still, using the atheism example, an atheist's claim of moral imperative to lead people away from the wrong conclusions about the (non)existence of God/gods leads me to think of the expression "the blind leading the blind" or to paraphrase it for the purposes of this discussion... the delusional leading the deluded. The only rational position is to admit ignorance in the face of a paucity of conclusive information. Anything else (belief/disbelief) is just guessing. The End.

[Spider AL]

Don't be too proud of the moral loophole you've constructed/cited, al. Any or all speech could ultimately end up as an incitement to violence (mother jokes, general name calling, etc..) if someone punches you in the mouth (stabs you, shoots you, etc..) after saying it.

Nonsense, Tot. Insulting someone's mother does not constitute "active, specific and direct incitement to violence".

 

Priest of religion "X" telling his followers: "all those who do not follow our religion are evil heretics and should be killed! Those who kill the evil ones will surely find their way to heaven!!11" does qualify. The boundaries are quite clear and easy to see. If you tell someone that they should go out and do violence, that's direct incitement to violence. Everything else... from mother jokes to politically dissident speeches... should be protected under the law.

 

Should such speech then be proscribed as dangerous? And given the direction society seems to be moving in (ie the "offended" party gets to make the call on what is/isn't acceptable) currently, thats not a "delusional" observation.

That's exactly the problem that we're currently discussing, Tot. It's a problem exemplified by religious people who wish to stop others from speaking factual truths, because they've decided to arbitrarily "feel offended".

 

The same could be said of the word "whore". Technically, it's a pretty dry term. Still, most women would see it a perjorative if questioned.

An absolutely ridiculous comparison, Tot. Utterly mind-boggling.

 

First of all, the word "whore" has a long history as an obscene slur. Someone with some sort of grievance concerning a woman may choose to insult her by calling her a "whore". The word "deluded" however, is not often flung around during emotionally charged altercations, say... road-rage incidents. The word "deluded" would be more comparable to "prostitute" in terms of its clinical character and lack of obscenity. (And in point of fact, the word "prostitute" isn't usually flung around in such incidents either, again a neat parallel.)

 

And to echo Prime's sentiments above, if you say to a person: "you are a prostitute, because you charge money for sexual favours, here's some evidence." it really cannot be construed as anything but a solid argument. Precisely comparable to: "your beliefs are delusional because of reasons x, y and z." Not insulting, merely true. How exactly could a prostitute justify taking offence at being called a prostitute?

 

If you were to go around calling random people prostitutes without any evidence at all, however, that might indeed be regarded as insulting behaviour, and yes, the same might apply for screaming "YOU'RE DELUSIONAL" without providing any evidence. I for one have always provided evidence. End of.

 

Still, using the atheism example, an atheist's claim of moral imperative to lead people away from the wrong conclusions about the (non)existence of God/gods

I shall interject here and point out that while there no doubt are atheists who wish to "convert" religious people, I am not one of them and never have been. I have no interest in "leading people away" from any conclusions. I debate using factual truths, because I wish to find the truth and to prove the truth. For myself. Nothing to do with theists or their reactions, either positive or negative.

 

leads me to think of the expression "the blind leading the blind" or to paraphrase it for the purposes of this discussion... the delusional leading the deluded. The only rational position is to admit ignorance in the face of a paucity of conclusive information. Anything else (belief/disbelief) is just guessing. The End.

Again Tot, you demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding the word "atheism". Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). That is all it is.

 

There is a total lack of evidence to suggest the existence of god(s). Therefore the rational man lacks belief in god(s) totally. It is not a "guess", and is nothing to do with conjecture. It is a default position pending evidence. It is the same position we adopt regarding giant invisible cucumbers hovering over our houses. They MIGHT be there... but until a scrap of evidence suggests their existence we are all a-giantcucumberists.

[Nancy Allen``]

Just because you can use any and all means to defeat your opponent doesn't mean you should. Is it really worth the hatred you will surely recieve for acting this way? Not only do you upset those you target, others not involved might react the same way and anyone reading such inflammatary posts will think 'well this guy's a jerk'. It could make you appear, Prime's words, that you 'have no interest in having a debate, but only to "push the buttons" of others' even if that may not be the case. And acting like this can get you into trouble, fast. Especially face to face when, as Tot pointed out, someone could pull a knife or a gun if you catch them on a bad day. The police take provocation into account, someone who has their head kicked in for calling a woman a 'black bitch' can't expect much recourse. I know that if someone called me a whore they'd end up in the hospital, if they're lucky.

 

Should people be allowed to have diffirent tolerance levels? Of course having a thick skin is pretty much a must but, for example, would if be offensive to call an Atheist a bigot? Just because it is an accurate way of describing them doesn't mean they won't get upset being labelled as such. The dictionary describes bigot as 'a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion' or 'One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ'.

 

Also some handy hints from Andrew Heenan. Now this is for flaming but I think we can apply it equally to debate as well.

 

Refuse to be Silenced: Accuse your opponent of attempting censorship, even though its probably a tad of an exaggeration. It is your right to post whatever you want to the net, even tasteless, obscene or boring notes. On the other hand, you might stop for a moment to consider your audience's right not to be upset, insulted or bored.

 

To think otherwise is heartless and thoughtless. And...

 

One way to look at a flame war is that it is a duel; the one who loses their temper loses all. Being reasonable increases the likelihood that your opponent will crack first; being reasonable increases your self confidence, being reasonable gives all the opportunity for peace with honour. But this means be very reasonable - polite, well written postings. Concede that your opponent has a valid point or two.

 

May as well post what is valid and helpful.

 

A word of caution: Flaming really can be painful. It is wise to watch from the sidelines until you are familiar with the rules - and even when confident, it is safer to experiment and develop your own strategies before leaving yourself wide open. Every group has one or two members who can be relied on to squash the idiots and the innocents - be sure you know who they are (remember the gunslingers of the 'ole west. Once you make a splash, everyone wants to try their luck).

Once you commit yourself, unless you have disguised your own identity, you have labelled yourself for good or ill

 

 

And most importantly...

 

Outside of 'Flame' groups, where wars are routine, if there is one sure thing about flaming, it is this: There are No Winners.

 

Flaming is the chess of the net; a long game of skill, planning a campaign and being prepared for all that your opponent can throw at you. By the end of the War, all involved can have little doubt of the outcome.

 

If you were defeated, or merely a Firefighter on the periphery, then you know your place - you may be so humiliated that you may have to leave that group. But if you defeated a Damp Squib who dared to oppose you, you may be the Flame Master - but you have been seen to be a bully, and who wants to risk a few rounds with you? You can stay in the group - but how welcome are you?

 

There are No Winners.

[ET Warrior]

would if be offensive to call an Atheist a bigot?

It would be offensive if you were to call someone a bigot without providing any real rationale for the label. Simply being an atheist is not synonymous with bigotry.

 

someone who has their head kicked in for calling a woman a 'black bitch' can't expect much recourse.

Indeed, although I cannot think of any rational or justifiable reason for calling somebody that. In this case you are clearly simply trying to offend without any rational basis.

 

And the rest of your post just doesn't make any sense so I shalln't be responding to it.

[Nancy Allen``]

How doesn't it make sense? That because you can doesn't mean you should? How people would percieve what is posted? The advice I copypastaed? Please explain.

[Mace MacLeod]

Yes, same old same old and I know you're just dieing for me to react.

No, I'm not dying for you to react. I'm dying for you to finally figure out that your personal subjective experience of being upset or offended is NOT the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes acceptable free speech either on LFnet or the greater world at large. You've only been told about 50 times.

[Nancy Allen``]

Of course I'm the ultimate arbiter of what I consider right and wrong. As are you for your values. Do I apply these to the forums? Of course. Do my views override what the mods may think? Prove that I've in any way demonstrated this.

[Windu Chi]

 

Still, using the atheism example, an atheist's claim of moral imperative to lead people away from the wrong conclusions about the (non)existence of God/gods leads me to think of the expression "the blind leading the blind" or to paraphrase it for the purposes of this discussion... the delusional leading the deluded. The only rational position is to admit ignorance in the face of a paucity of conclusive information. Anything else (belief/disbelief) is just guessing. The End.

You got it Totenkopf, until we go out there in the universe, all our beliefs is suspected.

We will all remain blind, until that venture is undertaken.

But I don't think we will find a God or Gods, since those supreme beings may be infinite in extent and quantity.

 

As for flame wars, if someone start one with me I will respond in kind.

I don't mind arguing, if someone desire it.

[Mace MacLeod]

Of course I'm the ultimate arbiter of what I consider right and wrong. As are you for your values. Do I apply these to the forums? Of course. Do my views override what the mods may think? Prove that I've in any way demonstrated this.

We've been over this one before. Everyone else here but you has seen it, got sick of it, and moved on. I mean, what's the topic of this thread...? I lost count of the number of times you've whined about being upset and offended in here a long time ago. See earlier post, Help! Help! I'm being offended!"