Thick skins needed?

[nobspeople]

A post here was closed because (it seems) it violated rule 15, even though groups fit the official definition of the word as supplied by Merriam Webster.
Rules are in effect to allow free flowing ideas and for protection and order, among other reasons. But how much protection is too much?
If something fits the actual definition of a word, why do people insist on getting hurt by it?
Granted, in today's world, everyone needs thicker skin (you can't say fat, or skinny, or feminine or straight or [insert most any word here]) because it 'offends' someone...somewhere at some point.

Matthew and Luke, both speak of 'turning the other cheek'.

In this instance, is this a case where christians should 'turn the other cheek'? Aren't there more important things for believers to concern themselves with other than 'fitting the definition' of a word that, depending on how it's used, isn't all that bad?
For discussion:
In light of all 'easily offended' way of the world, should christians grow thicker skins and 'turn the other cheek' more?
Or should they relent and fall back on to the norm for everyone else and only be spoken about in the most positive of terms?

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm rather a fan of adopting terms of abuse and using them with a laugh,and robbing them of the capacity to hurt, whether or not that was the intent.

On the other hand, playing the 'That's offensive!' card to close down the opposition is a very effective trick, and Some clans or tribes have got away with playing it too often. The Authorities (big or small) have got to wise up to this play and should remember the old Feminist slogan 'If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen'.

It would be a tough day for effective (or even possible) debate if pointing out fallacious arguments was denounced as unacceptable language while at the same time 'servant of Satan' was claimed to be 'just telling it like it is'.

[Difflugia]

My personal view is that it's not up to me to tell anyone else what things should offend them or not. The problem I have is with hypocrisy. Since I have no idea what anyone else's experiences have been or how they've been hurt, telling someone that their skin is "too thin" smacks of blaming the victim. On the other hand, I expect that anyone wanting their own feelings respected should have a history of respecting the feelings of others.

A post here was closed because (it seems) it violated rule 15, even though groups fit the official definition of the word as supplied by Merriam Webster.

Dictionary definitions notwithstanding, "cult" is a pejorative in most contexts. When it's not, it's nearly synonymous with "religion." If that's what you mean, then say "religion." If it's not, what you're trying to say probably violates the spirit of rule 15, if not the letter.

Rules are in effect to allow free flowing ideas and for protection and order, among other reasons. But how much protection is too much?

It depends on what one is trying to preserve. Here, civility is a defining characteristic of the forum. When we as participants have reached the platonic ideal of civility, yet still somehow feel constrained from debating our ideas, then perhaps it will be time to address that question. While these forums have been moderated well enough that the experiment can be called a success, I also don't think we as participants are in danger of reaching the ideal anytime soon.

If something fits the actual definition of a word, why do people insist on getting hurt by it?

Because lots of words from the dictionary have been used to hurt people, particularly those that are already marginalized.

On a debate site, "you're wrong" is expected and par for the course. "You're different than everyone else" cuts differently.

Granted, in today's world, everyone needs thicker skin (you can't say fat, or skinny, or feminine or straight or [insert most any word here]) because it 'offends' someone...somewhere at some point.

Because there are a lot of awful people in the world doesn't mean we need to make excuses to be awful ourselves. There are certainly a lot of words that have been used to hurt people, but there are enough words left that your attempted slippery slope isn't really a concern. I'm confident that if something you're trying to say isn't intended to be offensive, you're articulate enough to find an inoffensive way to say it. If you can't, perhaps what you're saying is more offensive than you'd like to admit to yourself.

Matthew and Luke, both speak of 'turning the other cheek'.

I don't see the context as excusing the one doing the slapping, though.

In this instance, is this a case where christians should 'turn the other cheek'? Aren't there more important things for believers to concern themselves with other than 'fitting the definition' of a word that, depending on how it's used, isn't all that bad?

There are always "more important things." Perhaps there are "more important" ways to flex one's privilege than insisting that another not find particular labels to be offensive, regardless of what dictionary they're in.

In light of all 'easily offended' way of the world, should christians grow thicker skins and 'turn the other cheek' more?

Whether they should or not, they shouldn't have to. Given how awful the world is, working to not feel marginalized will certainly offer personal benefit. Feeling left out because people in other spaces are allowed to be more awful than one is here, however, isn't a very good excuse for victim-blaming.

Or should they relent and fall back on to the norm for everyone else and only be spoken about in the most positive of terms?

The norm of expecting to be treated with respect?

[TRANSPONDER]

On the former board we had one poster who was really rather over - sensitive. On one occasion took exception to someone posting about 'a beef someone had' with some apologetic or other and said poster objected to the term because of being vegetarian.

Now, while one has to be respectful of other people's convictions (while reserving the right to disagree with them) that ploy struck me as taking the tiddle.