Rude/offensive blog?

[Bob Ducca]

If something is deliberately offensive, I would consider it rude.  That doesn't mean they don't have a right to say whatever they want about whomever they want in whatever forum they want, it just means I think it's rude to do so in a deliberately offensive manner.

To imply that sensitivity to one's audience, or consideration for one's friends, is "frightening and discouraging," is sad, to me.  Why does intellectual discourse have to take place in insulting terms?

The difference between the statement, "Anyone who believes in God is an idiot," and "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," is that the former is a close-ended pronouncement, while the latter contains at least some fodder for debate (or "discourse," if you prefer).  While I might still find the attitude insulting and close-minded, I would at least be able to engage that person in some sort of dialogue that would, hopefully foster an intellectual exchange.  It has nothing to do with the level of language, it has to do with the way the idea is expressed.

I actually do not know if I would define the behavior referenced by the OP "rude" by etiquette standards.  There are too many grey areas, as this thread has shown.  However, to say the OP has no right to be offended is at least as restrictive as saying the blogger had no right to express his views in the terms he chose.

[Audrey Quest]

Posting a link to your own blog on Facebook is definitely not "rude."
 
Expecting others to always have the same opinions as you do or to have opinions that you will not find offensive is naive.
 
If he were posting that babies should be used for food, I would consider that offensive, but his posting about religion or politics is certainly within his right.
 
If you don't like what he has to say, don't read his blog.  If you want to debate him, then comment on it.
 
But, to say that he is rude for having and expressing an opinion that you disagree with is really kind of useless.
 
I post things of a political nature on my Facebook all the time.  I have a very close friend who commented on it to me once face to face--not about any particular issue, but that I was posting political stuff.  He is the type of guy who is used to being in charge and telling others what to do.
 
I told him that it was my FB and that I would post how I liked--if he didn't like it, he could hide my status updates.
 
It really comes down to an issue of freedom of expression.  Someone deliberately sending you a link to something that could be offensive is one thing--posting it in a status is certainly something else altogether.
 
Etiquette should not to be used for censorship.
 
While I may disagree with you but defend to the death your right to say it, I am also firmly of the belief that idiots, bigots and other retched people are best identified by their words and thus provide their own warning to others of who they are.  That is an advantage to others.  Why take it away?

[MrsO]

Expecting others to always have the same opinions as you do or to have opinions that you will not find offensive is naive.
 

I don't expect him to have the same opinion as me, would you mind quoting where I'd said that, please? And I don't appreciate being called naive, either. He can have whatever opinion he want's, I don't care. I just think there are plenty of polite ways to express opinions without name calling and saying 'My opinion is more important than everyone else's' (yes, that was a quote from his blog, by the way).

[Judah]

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. 

Very well said!  

OP, in your shoes I would defiend him, but I can't find him rude.

[Hushabye]

Expecting others to always have the same opinions as you do or to have opinions that you will not find offensive is naive.
 

I don't expect him to have the same opinion as me, would you mind quoting where I'd said that, please? And I don't appreciate being called naive, either. He can have whatever opinion he want's, I don't care. I just think there are plenty of polite ways to express opinions without name calling and saying 'My opinion is more important than everyone else's' (yes, that was a quote from his blog, by the way).

Well, with the bolded, I either find him to be a pretentious idiot or someone attempting sarcasm and failing miserably.  The first would lead me to defriend him; the second would lead me to ask, "Did you mean to come across as a total donkey's behind?"

[MrsO]

Expecting others to always have the same opinions as you do or to have opinions that you will not find offensive is naive.
 

I don't expect him to have the same opinion as me, would you mind quoting where I'd said that, please? And I don't appreciate being called naive, either. He can have whatever opinion he want's, I don't care. I just think there are plenty of polite ways to express opinions without name calling and saying 'My opinion is more important than everyone else's' (yes, that was a quote from his blog, by the way).

Well, with the bolded, I either find him to be a pretentious idiot or someone attempting sarcasm and failing miserably.  The first would lead me to defriend him; the second would lead me to ask, "Did you mean to come across as a total donkey's behind?"

Unfortunately, you were right with the first one. He's probably the most obnoxious person I know, and really believes he's superior to, well, just about everyone. My sister, and a few other people, feel the same as I do about him.

[Judah]

I actually do not know if I would define the behavior referenced by the OP "rude" by etiquette standards.  There are too many grey areas, as this thread has shown.  However, to say the OP has no right to be offended is at least as restrictive as saying the blogger had no right to express his views in the terms he chose.

Of course the OP has a right to be offended.  Offense is an emotion like any other and we always have a right to our emotions. But because I take offense at something someone says doesn't mean that what the person said is rude.  

[Aeris]

Mainstay, I think it's useful at this point to point out that I think there is a huge difference between someone being offended (or having the right to be offended) and someone being rude. While their is significant overlap, they are not the same thing.

I am offended by racist people. I am, frankly, offended by their very existence, by the way they move through the world. And I think I have a right to be. But I don't think that racist people, as a matter of course, are 'rude'. I think they are immoral, unethical, and a disgrace to human existence....but not necessarily 'rude'. (Although, of course, many of them are *also* rude...)

So I absolutely think the OP has every right to be offended, both by the substance of the views of this person, and also by the relatively inarticulate and childish way he expressed them.

I just think, as BettyDraper so appropriately put it, that his personal blog is very much his 'living room'. He's free to be offensive, and/or a moron, within it. I only think it's definitely rude if he, even in his living room, said "Hey MrsO, I think you're an idiot."

Also, BettyDraper's point about neutering and sterilizing language is one that I completely agree with, and it's not a support specifically for 'insulting terms'. It's a recognition that any time you start to place significant limitations on how intellectual discourse occurs, you stifle thought, creativity, reaction, counterreaction, and all the things that drive us forward. While this is not a 'freedom of speech' issue, the idealogical underpinnings for freedom of speech are absolutely applicable.

There is a time and place for 'polite conversation', that avoids religion, politics, and is generally designed to avoid offense, to smooth necessary social interactions and get on with the business of the day. But if all of life were to be relegated to this polite, neutered, ladylike tea sipping sphere, our intellectual evolution would screetch to a blinding halt. While there is a time and place for 'polite conversation', which is generally by definition somewhat sterilized, there is also a desperate need for the salon, for the raucous and impassioned arguments where ideas may be shredded, reformed, choked down, and vomited up again. There is much room for offense and insult in the salon.

While one should never strive to offend, even in 'the salon', and generally speaking the most insulting comments are the basest, loosest, least reasoned additions to the conversation, trying to weed out all posibility for offense castrates the conversation. But don't fight that immature conclusory statement with "how rude! you have offended me!". It proves little. Fight back with "your argument is conclusory, poorly constructed, and relies only on stirring up the emotions."

[Aeris]

If he were posting that babies should be used for food, I would consider that offensive, but his posting about religion or politics is certainly within his right.

If he were actually posting this, my opinion of him might rise considerably...

[iDuckie]

I think there are two points being argued here, and people are mistaking one for the other.
1) the OP being offended by her relative's SO's blog. Does she have the right to be offended? absolutely. No one should tell her what she can and cannot be offended by.

2) whether or not the posting of the blog on facebook without a disclaimer is rude. The OP specifically asked if it was rude. No, it isn't rude. People use their blogs to post their thoughts, rants, raves and whatever. People shouldn't worry about if they say/do something, is it going to offend someone? If we spend our time doing that, then we wouldn't have politicians or public speakers or any sort of public figure head. Is it rude for people to protest? No, it isnt.

This guy the OP knows is posting his opinion. And however rude, ignorant or stupid it may be, he has a right to post it, and it isn't rude to post an opinion, even if it is ridiculously stupid and outrageous.

[Bob Ducca]

While one should never strive to offend, even in 'the salon', and generally speaking the most insulting comments are the basest, loosest, least reasoned additions to the conversation, trying to weed out all possibility for offense castrates the conversation. But don't fight that immature conclusory statement with "how rude! you have offended me!". It proves little. Fight back with "your argument is conclusory, poorly constructed, and relies only on stirring up the emotions."

I would love to see where I said that one should respond that way.  There is a huge difference between being offended and saying, "How rude!  I'm offended!"  

Regarding how you believe I should respond: someone who would argue at such an immature level would never be swayed by any argument, no matter how well crafted, because they have demonstrated their minds are closed.  My experience has been to engage them at all is to, ultimately, sink to their level or concede by default, because I will grow tired of it long before they do.

Just because I personally think something is rude, it doesn't make it so.  It also doesn't mean I put, in giant neon letters, "HOW RUDE!" in their comment box.  I don't lobby Blogspot to remove their blog.  I don't post, on my Facebook, "No one read this blog!"  But I'm allowed to think it is rude, and dismiss the argument as uninformed, closed-minded, and offensive, and go on about my day, right?

Also, BettyDraper's point about neutering and sterilizing language is one that I completely agree with, and it's not a support specifically for 'insulting terms'. It's a recognition that any time you start to place significant limitations on how intellectual discourse occurs, you stifle thought, creativity, reaction, counterreaction, and all the things that drive us forward.

Here is the quote in question:

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.

The bolding refers to the part of the quote I actually disagreed with, because I think she makes two different points here.  I happen to think that disclaimers, when there is reasonable expectation of offense, or deliberate inclusion of offensive material, help protect discourse.  One of the reasons people still have the right to produce material reasonably considered offensive is that these disclaimers (or ratings, or stickers, or whatever) exist.  

In the OP, the person in question did not just post a link to his blog.  He posted with a message asking his friends to read and leave comments.  A small description("about religion") would not have harmed his intellectual freedom in any way, but it would have prepared the OP and, perhaps, allowed her to make a more informed choice about what she was reading.

Perhaps what it comes down to for me is this: I think everyone, everywhere, at any time, has the right to say, or think, or write, or sing, or do anything they want to do at all, within the bounds of the law and societal custom.  But I don't think I have to see it, read it, hear it, or witness it in any way, and I find it rude when I am forced, or tricked into, doing so.

(I understand the OP wasn't tricked into clicking the link, but I believe we have moved beyond the OP a bit into more abstract territory.)

Edited to add: I agree with Duckie that we have a few points going on, and I'm sorry if I muddied those waters.  I don't think posting a link without a disclaimer on FB is rude, per se, but I think if you can take the time to write, "Hey, everybody, please check out my new blog and leave a comment," you could also take the time to post, "It's about religion, though, be warned!"  But apparently I'm in the minority there, so I'll just call it my preference, and I don't think it is stifling for me when I do it.

[Hushabye]

Expecting others to always have the same opinions as you do or to have opinions that you will not find offensive is naive.
 

I don't expect him to have the same opinion as me, would you mind quoting where I'd said that, please? And I don't appreciate being called naive, either. He can have whatever opinion he want's, I don't care. I just think there are plenty of polite ways to express opinions without name calling and saying 'My opinion is more important than everyone else's' (yes, that was a quote from his blog, by the way).

Well, with the bolded, I either find him to be a pretentious idiot or someone attempting sarcasm and failing miserably.  The first would lead me to defriend him; the second would lead me to ask, "Did you mean to come across as a total donkey's behind?"

Unfortunately, you were right with the first one. He's probably the most obnoxious person I know, and really believes he's superior to, well, just about everyone. My sister, and a few other people, feel the same as I do about him.

Then I definitely think it's for the best that you blocked him from your news feed.  I don't think it's rude to post a link to something in your status, but I do think it's a kindness to add a "NSFW" or other warning if you're directing someone to something that is potentially offensive or particularly charged.

[Aeris]

While one should never strive to offend, even in 'the salon', and generally speaking the most insulting comments are the basest, loosest, least reasoned additions to the conversation, trying to weed out all possibility for offense castrates the conversation. But don't fight that immature conclusory statement with "how rude! you have offended me!". It proves little. Fight back with "your argument is conclusory, poorly constructed, and relies only on stirring up the emotions."

I would love to see where I said that one should respond that way.  There is a huge difference between being offended and saying, "How rude!  I'm offended!"  

Mainstay, I never said you said that. I was just making a general point.

Regarding how you believe I should respond: someone who would argue at such an immature level would never be swayed by any argument, no matter how well crafted, because they have demonstrated their minds are closed.  My experience has been to engage them at all is to, ultimately, sink to their level or concede by default, because I will grow tired of it long before they do.

Well, this is a valid point, and sometimes arguments are so meritless that the only appropriate/effective response is a gentle smile, an effective pat on the head, and going on one's way.

Just because I personally think something is rude, it doesn't make it so.  It also doesn't mean I put, in giant neon letters, "HOW RUDE!" in their comment box.  I don't lobby Blogspot to remove their blog.  I don't post, on my Facebook, "No one read this blog!"  But I'm allowed to think it is rude, and dismiss the argument as uninformed, closed-minded, and offensive, and go on about my day, right?

Well, you're allowed to think green eggs and ham are rude too. We're discussing here whether we can agree things are rude in a more general sense, by some sort of at least somewhat objective standard for 'rudeness'.

Also, BettyDraper's point about neutering and sterilizing language is one that I completely agree with, and it's not a support specifically for 'insulting terms'. It's a recognition that any time you start to place significant limitations on how intellectual discourse occurs, you stifle thought, creativity, reaction, counterreaction, and all the things that drive us forward.

Here is the quote in question:

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.

The bolding refers to the part of the quote I actually disagreed with, because I think she makes two different points here.  I happen to think that disclaimers, when there is reasonable expectation of offense, or deliberate inclusion of offensive material, help protect discourse.  One of the reasons people still have the right to produce material reasonably considered offensive is that these disclaimers (or ratings, or stickers, or whatever) exist.  

I can imagine certain circumstances where I think certain disclaimers would be the most wise choice, in order to have one's argument, theory, etc taken seriously and responded to in a productive manner. I just don't think it's a requirement. And I think being *overly caught up* in the disclaimers and apologies has a very real danger of hamstringing the flow of ideas. That's not to say there's never an appropriate moment for them.

In the OP, the person in question did not just post a link to his blog.  He posted with a message asking his friends to read and leave comments.  A small description("about religion") would not have harmed his intellectual freedom in any way, but it would have prepared the OP and, perhaps, allowed her to make a more informed choice about what she was reading.

Would it have been helpful? Sure. It's always helpful to let people know what type of thing they are clicking on. But you are, in any case, generally clicking, and reading, at your own risk.

And the argument that in this case, with this particular person, the action would not have harmed his intellectual freedom misses a major point. You cannot prove that a systemic approach wouldn't harm intellectual discourse just because in this one specific instance the application of it doesn't appear that it would have harmed one particular person's intellectual freedom.

Perhaps what it comes down to for me is this: I think everyone, everywhere, at any time, has the right to say, or think, or write, or sing, or do anything they want to do at all, within the bounds of the law and societal custom.  But I don't think I have to see it, read it, hear it, or witness it in any way, and I find it rude when I am forced, or tricked into, doing so.

(I understand the OP wasn't tricked into clicking the link, but I believe we have moved beyond the OP a bit into more abstract territory.)

I agree with this. If the person had posted a link to a blog and advertised it as being about children's book, and when you arrived it was hardcore political diatribes, I'd think that completely rude. But none of the situations we've talked about have anything to do with forcing or tricking anyone.

Edited to add: I agree with Duckie that we have a few points going on, and I'm sorry if I muddied those waters.  I don't think posting a link without a disclaimer on FB is rude, per se, but I think if you can take the time to write, "Hey, everybody, please check out my new blog and leave a comment," you could also take the time to post, "It's about religion, though, be warned!"  But apparently I'm in the minority there, so I'll just call it my preference, and I don't think it is stifling for me when I do it.

I think he would me *more considerate* to include a notice that it's a hotbutton blog. I just don't think he's *rude* not to have...

[Audrey Quest]

He may not think his opinions are offensive or unwelcome...
 
It's all a matter of perspective.

[Bob Ducca]

He may not think his opinions are offensive or unwelcome...
 
It's all a matter of perspective.

I'll grant that.  However, reasonableness would seem to dictate that one would know that the statement, "Only an idiot believes in X" would be offensive to those who believe in X.  He may not be reasonable, though.

While one should never strive to offend, even in 'the salon', and generally speaking the most insulting comments are the basest, loosest, least reasoned additions to the conversation, trying to weed out all possibility for offense castrates the conversation. But don't fight that immature conclusory statement with "how rude! you have offended me!". It proves little. Fight back with "your argument is conclusory, poorly constructed, and relies only on stirring up the emotions."

I would love to see where I said that one should respond that way.  There is a huge difference between being offended and saying, "How rude!  I'm offended!"  

Mainstay, I never said you said that. I was just making a general point.

My apologies, I missed that you weren't being literal.

I apologize to all for my contrariness here.  I come from a background in arts & entertainment, and my training has always been that the audience deserves paramount consideration.  The idea that deliberately offending one's audience isn't rude is one that I will have to work in order to become accustomed.  I'll work on it, I promise!