Rude/offensive blog?

[noexitwounds]

He posted to his personal space and you have the choice whether or not to read him. He wasn't, apparently, rude to your face about it when he attended your Catholic wedding so, in that sense, he's being honest. He's only judging in his personal space. I don't think he was rude. Maybe a little inconsiderate but Facebook being what it is, he issued a public invite for a group of people to come look at something he wrote. It'd be no different than posting it on Facebook itself. If he'd directed it at you, or only people who were religious, that would be different, but I don't think he owed you a warning. You, presumably knowing at least something about his beliefs as he knows something about yours, could have chosen not to click.

[BettyDraper]

Yep, I think that's it- he was inviting me to come read how stupid he thinks I am. I wasn't sure whether the fact that I don't really like this guy anyway was clouding my judgement.

Was it a personal invitation to you? Do you feel he was baiting you in some way? Otherwise I don't see the etiquette infraction here.

I disagree.  He posted a general link, yes, but it was to his "friends" on Facebook; it wasn't a flier stuck on all the cars in the parking lot.  If a friend of mine posted a link to his own blog and knew that the content would be very insulting to a large number of readers, it would be rude of him not to give at least some hint to the content therein.  If a friend issued a general invitation to his home via Facebook, we would presume he was offering hospitality.  If we arrived to find it was a marketing pitch, we would call that rude.

I don't agree that posting a broadcast message on a social media site is the equivalent of personal correspondence; it's more like a bulletin board.  View at your own risk.

I barely even use Facebook but have over 100 connections with widely divergent political, religious, social etc. beliefs, practices and opinions.  I can't censor my every word or link to avoid a possible affront to a small percentage.  For example, I'm starting a personal finance blog.  If I say "Buying new cars is a ridiculous waste of money," -- should I avoid posting a link to the blog because it might offend my new-car friends, relatives who work for the auto industry, etc.?  Should my former co-worker who hunts not post a pix of himself with a freshly killed deer because it might offend me?  Should I refrain from posting a rave review of the new steakhouse because my vegetarian neighbors will be grossed out?

They have widely divergent political, religious and social beliefs, exactly; it would be rude for you to post a link to a rant by you discussing how idiotic anyone who believes in God (any god) is.  That's very different from posting reasoned criticism of a financial practice many people engage in.  In MrsO's case, the guy isn't risking offending a small percentage of his friends list simply by disagreeing with them (if they're that sensitive to political and religious discourse, that's their problem); he's risking offending many--if not most--of them (while many people shun organized religion, vast numbers still believe in a god of some sort) by calling them stupid.  

It's not a conversation in a room full of people.  It's a speech made to a room full of people in which half of them are going to be derided.  The people who went to his link thinking they were getting one thing (a regular blog) now know exactly what he thinks of them.  That's the sort of thing, IMO, one ought to be a little more forthright about.

Even on general message boards, people will post warnings like, "NSFW," or, "Warning: political/scary/sad/depressing/religious in nature."

What is a "regular blog" ?

[blarg314]

I don't think posting a link to a blog, even a controversial one, is inherently rude.

But you now know what he thinks about your beliefs.  And this is a much better way than a rant *at* the wedding, or at a party or something.

Now, you can decide what you want to do about it - I'd be inclined to quietly defriend him.

[iDuckie]

Tbh, I don't think it's rude at all. No one is obligated to give a disclaimer to others who may find their thoughts offensive because, they may not think their thoughts are offensive, and may not realize others will find them offensive. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions, even if they don't match yours, and you find them offensive. You've been to the blog, you know the content, now you know not to go back. It's that simple. I know I've used this comparison before in the "rude to post pictures" thread, but it's like watching a nww TV show. It looked interesting, you watched it for a few minutes, and found it offensive. Now you know to not watch that channel at that time on that day.

Also... him coming to your wedding in a catholic church and later on saying something about the church in his own private blog doesn't mean anything. I've gone to several weddings in catholic churches, and I am an admittant atheist. If he come out and say "oh man, MrsO's wedding at that catholic church was just plain bullpuckey!" then you have a right to be upset. If he didn't, then you're letting it get to you.

If you absolutely HAVE to say something I'd comment back and say "hey, I think that might need a warning label!" but leave it at that and move on. Just ignore the "blog update" posts.

[Bob Ducca]

It's very possible that his intent was to offend, so I wouldn't give him the satisfaction of an open response.  I can't believe someone would write a blog using such offensive terms and then invite his entire friend list to read it, without at least being aware that it was potentially offensive.

If it offended you greatly, delete and block him.  If it's something you can forgive, I'd block him from your news feed and give yourself some cooling-off time.

I don't believe something has to directly have your name on in order for you to be offended.  I recently wrote a blog about a religious topic and was very, very careful to express my feelings in such a way that no one would be needlessly offended (though, of course, people may find offense where none was intended).  However, saying "People who believe in X are stupid" is not unintentional offense.  It is a direct insult to everyone who believes in X.  It doesn't matter that the blogger didn't reference the OP by name, in my opinion.

This isn't a case of reading an otherwise innocuous blog post and *finding* offense.  This person wrote what he wrote in deliberately offensive terms.  I don't think the OP is being oversensitive at all.

[bopper]

I would defriend him...and honestly, who would notice?  Do you go looking who your friend's friends are very often (besides when you intially friend them)?  Would you notice the lack of one?  Is he that close to you that he would say "I haven't seen updates from OP lately, oh no she has defriended me?"

And if someone did say something, I would just say "Ever since dude started posted links to his blog I decided to remove him from my friends list because I don't agree with his views...He is welcome to his own, but I don't want them associated with me."

[Miss Unleaded]

If it bothers you, defriend him. 

I don't think it is inherently rude to have an opinion on a subject in a blog  and post a link to it on Facebook. 

[TootsNYC]

He is a relatives other half. It's be obvious if I deleted him now, and  I really couldn't be bothered getting into it with my family. I think I'm gonna block him from my newseed now, though.

I bet it would not. It's not like Facebook sends him an e-mail. You  just stop showing up on HIS newsfeed. Oh, sure, if he went to look at his friend list, he *might* notice you are missing, but who does that? And, how big is his friend list?

I vote, defriend him.

I would defriend him...and honestly, who would notice?  Do you go looking who your friend's friends are very often (besides when you intially friend them)?  Would you notice the lack of one?  Is he that close to you that he would say "I haven't seen updates from OP lately, oh no she has defriended me?"

And if someone did say something, I would just say "Ever since dude started posted links to his blog I decided to remove him from my friends list because I don't agree with his views...He is welcome to his own, but I don't want them associated with me."

Nice!

[Aeris]

Posting something in your status is NOT the same as sending personal correspondance to all your friends. You are posting something in *your own personal space*, you page. That others come and look at your page, or have a newsfeed that pulls data from your page, does not transform your action of posting *in your own space* the same as pushing it directly onto others.

Having an offensive blog isn't rude. Annoying? Possibly. Childish? This one sounds like it. But it's not rude.

Putting a link to a project, piece of art, blog, op ed piece, or youtube video that you like on your own page, that people have the choice whether to come look at or not, is not rude.

If the substance of his opinions made you want to defriend him (in FB or RL), then by all means, go ahead - you are not required to stay friends with anyone. But having a silly childish blog, and linking it to his own personal facebook page is his right, and is not rude.

[flo]

Having an offensive blog isn't rude. Annoying? Possibly. Childish? This one sounds like it. But it's not rude.

I totally disagree with the statement I bolded.  I'm not saying the guy doesn't have a right to hold the opinions, or blog about them, but that doesn't make his opinions and especially the way he words them polite and if they aren't polite, they are rude.

A person is free to have an opinion I disagree with and that isn't rude.  He can state his reasons for his opinion and for disagreeing with my opinion and that isn't rude.  When that person starts being insulting and calling me names for holding the opinion I hold, that is rude.  He may have the right to do it, but that doesn't make it polite.

[Aeris]

Having an offensive blog isn't rude. Annoying? Possibly. Childish? This one sounds like it. But it's not rude.

I totally disagree with the statement I bolded.  I'm not saying the guy doesn't have a right to hold the opinions, or blog about them, but that doesn't make his opinions and especially the way he words them polite and if they aren't polite, they are rude.

A person is free to have an opinion I disagree with and that isn't rude.  He can state his reasons for his opinion and for disagreeing with my opinion and that isn't rude.  When that person starts being insulting and calling me names for holding the opinion I hold, that is rude.  He may have the right to do it, but that doesn't make it polite.

If he's personally insulting you, then that's rude. But as long as there is no direct and personal attack, I refuse to put these in the 'rude' category. I actually think it would be phenomenally stifling of useful thought and discussion in this world to categorically decrees boundary of rude expressions that aren't specifically directed at a particular person. I think that people should be able to say, in the right forum (and a personal blog is one) "I think XXX idea is totally asinine."

Otherwise, where precisely do you draw the line? If the phrase "People who believe in God are idiots" is rude, then what about "A belief in the supernatural requires an abandonment of rational thought, the very thing that makes us human, that makes us distinct from mere beasts". It is functionally the same sentiment (and if it isn't, then I'm sure we could come up with one that was more identical). What's the difference? That the first is more course? Less intellectual? The point is the same in both.

These are 'time and place' items - if you're in a zone where discussing the validity of religion, or a political ideology, or anything else is on the table, then it is on.the.table. Now, I think the first statement is immature and poorly reasoned and supported, and overall not a very useful addition to an idealogical discussion, but that's a different matter.

And I also disagree that we live in a binary world where things are either 'polite' or they are 'rude'. I think there is a whole universe of material in the world that is neither.

Most of the political spectrum, discussion, and analysis isn't particularly 'polite'. But I also think it's only rude when it stoops to personal attacks and direct mudslinging. "Polite conversation" usually can't even abide much discussion of politics, because it gets inherently outside the bounds of 'polite', but it doesn't always have to get 'rude'.

[BettyDraper]

Having an offensive blog isn't rude. Annoying? Possibly. Childish? This one sounds like it. But it's not rude.

I totally disagree with the statement I bolded.  I'm not saying the guy doesn't have a right to hold the opinions, or blog about them, but that doesn't make his opinions and especially the way he words them polite and if they aren't polite, they are rude.

A person is free to have an opinion I disagree with and that isn't rude.  He can state his reasons for his opinion and for disagreeing with my opinion and that isn't rude.  When that person starts being insulting and calling me names for holding the opinion I hold, that is rude.  He may have the right to do it, but that doesn't make it polite.

If he's personally insulting you, then that's rude. But as long as there is no direct and personal attack, I refuse to put these in the 'rude' category. I actually think it would be phenomenally stifling of useful thought and discussion in this world to categorically decrees boundary of rude expressions that aren't specifically directed at a particular person. I think that people should be able to say, in the right forum (and a personal blog is one) "I think XXX idea is totally asinine."

Otherwise, where precisely do you draw the line? If the phrase "People who believe in God are idiots" is rude, then what about "A belief in the supernatural requires an abandonment of rational thought, the very thing that makes us human, that makes us distinct from mere beasts". It is functionally the same sentiment (and if it isn't, then I'm sure we could come up with one that was more identical). What's the difference? That the first is more course? Less intellectual? The point is the same in both.

These are 'time and place' items - if you're in a zone where discussing the validity of religion, or a political ideology, or anything else is on the table, then it is on.the.table. Now, I think the first statement is immature and poorly reasoned and supported, and overall not a very useful addition to an idealogical discussion, but that's a different matter.

And I also disagree that we live in a binary world where things are either 'polite' or they are 'rude'. I think there is a whole universe of material in the world that is neither.

Most of the political spectrum, discussion, and analysis isn't particularly 'polite'. But I also think it's only rude when it stoops to personal attacks and direct mudslinging. "Polite conversation" usually can't even abide much discussion of politics, because it gets inherently outside the bounds of 'polite', but it doesn't always have to get 'rude'.

I agree, especially with the penultimate paragraph.

Neutering opinions and sterilizing the language we use so that no one has to suffer that ultimate tragedy, "being offended," is such a misguided and anti-intellectual aim.  Adding layers of disclaimers to personal essays and blogs lest the unwary visitor feel the sting of having his or her belief system questioned in coarse terms?  Frightening and discouraging. 

[MrsO]

It was far from intellectual, I can assure you. The whole blog was misinformed drivel which completely, IMO, defied common sense (of course, I wouldn't write that on the blog- I feel that would be rude  ). I've blocked him from my news feed, anyway, and certainly won't be reading anything he writes again. It's been interesting to see everyones opinions here. Thanks for all of your replies. 

[TychaBrahe]

If he's personally insulting you, then that's rude. But as long as there is no direct and personal attack, I refuse to put these in the 'rude' category.

I don't know about that.  There's a radio show host that I listen to who is insulting.  Thing is, he insults everyone equally, and, also, he actually really respects everyone.  He gets a lot of complaints, and he always asks the same question.

Caller: "You said some very insulting things about developmentally delayed people yesterday.  My daughter is developmentally delayed, and I was offended."
Handel: "I said some very insulting things about blind people last week.  Why didn't you call in then?"

His point is that if you are offended by racism, then you are offended by all racism.  If you are Black, and he makes a disparaging comment about Asians, why is that less wrong, just because it's less personal? 

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I am going to bring up The Holocaust.  As I am a Jew, it is no surprise that I am offended by people who deny the existence or severity of the Holocaust.  But I am equally as offended by the way that the Roma, the g*ys, the mentally retarded, and the disabled were targeted in the Holocaust as I am by the destruction of Jews.  And I am further offended at the Turkish government's denial of the Armenian holocaust.  Genocide is offensive to me, no matter my genetic relationship to the sufferers.

[BettyDraper]

If he's personally insulting you, then that's rude. But as long as there is no direct and personal attack, I refuse to put these in the 'rude' category.

I don't know about that.  There's a radio show host that I listen to who is insulting.  Thing is, he insults everyone equally, and, also, he actually really respects everyone.  He gets a lot of complaints, and he always asks the same question.

Caller: "You said some very insulting things about developmentally delayed people yesterday.  My daughter is developmentally delayed, and I was offended."
Handel: "I said some very insulting things about blind people last week.  Why didn't you call in then?"

His point is that if you are offended by racism, then you are offended by all racism.  If you are Black, and he makes a disparaging comment about Asians, why is that less wrong, just because it's less personal? 

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I am going to bring up The Holocaust.  As I am a Jew, it is no surprise that I am offended by people who deny the existence or severity of the Holocaust.  But I am equally as offended by the way that the Roma, the g*ys, the mentally retarded, and the disabled were targeted in the Holocaust as I am by the destruction of Jews.  And I am further offended at the Turkish government's denial of the Armenian holocaust.  Genocide is offensive to me, no matter my genetic rel@tionship to the sufferers.

I think the point of this thread had less to do with whomever the acquaintance's opinions target and was more focused on the forum in which he was expressing them, and whether or not it is rude to do so there.

What the post you quoted was saying essentially is that he did not attack MrsO in private correspondence or stand up and disrupt a church wedding with anti-religious heckling, he posted a link to his personal blog.  Some people think the very link was a direct slap in the face to people he knows believe in God; others feel, as I do, that one clicks at one's own risk on the Internet and that his blog is akin to his living room (or even a broadcast talk-radio show) where he is free to disseminate whatever drivel he wishes and people who disagree or who find it distressing are free to stay away.