> that doesn't necessarily imply that all speakers should accept the burden to be so inoffensive that _no_ listener would react negatively.
No, it doesn't imply that. But let's unpack the presumption behind your statement.
We all know that there are people in the world with whom we have deep and fundamental disagreement. Religious people are aware that there are atheists; classical liberals are aware that there are autocrats and theocrats, etc. Does that, in and of itself, upset us so deeply that we take offense at it? I daresay no.
What causes one to take offense is the uttering of "heresy" by someone nearby, where such utterance affects them personally. Which means that it is incumbent upon us to know who is listening to us. There is a wide emotional gulf between a preacher who preaches to his congregation and a preacher who proselytizes and seeks converts. Same message, different audience. In the first case, the preacher is among fellows. In the second, the preacher is among those who may not be so open to what he has to say. The preacher who decides to proselytize fundamentally accepts an additional burden, if the preacher has any hope at succeeding. And a preacher who does not accept that burden, does not even recognize that such a burden exists, who tries to communicate the same message in the same way regardless of who is in the audience, well, that preacher should only see his failure as foreseeable and expected.
"Preacher", above, if it wasn't clear, is not a religious term. It refers to anybody who has any kind of message that actually tries to persuade others, rather than merely seeking the empathy of like-minded friends and family.
ok. yes. we should certainly be cognisant that unless we are careful, our message might be not be received in the spirit that it was intended. and I am certainly running the risk of being dismissed out of hand by saying something that is unnecessarily offensive.
but these are pragmatic matters for people who are actually trying to proselytize. I fundamentally disagree that the speaker is somehow morally responsible to not violate the listeners preconceptions - that undermines the greatest tool we have as a society.
If you are not trying to persuade the other person, if you are only trying to describe, as non-judgementally and as objectively as possible, some context or situation, then you can't offend anybody. This is an axiom of Nonviolent Communication.
If you do end up offending somebody, it's because you veered away from the objective and started to put your subjective viewpoint into it. If you're describing your subjective viewpoint to another person, you're either looking to persuade them or to feel better about yourself (i.e. seeking empathy).
No, it doesn't imply that. But let's unpack the presumption behind your statement.
We all know that there are people in the world with whom we have deep and fundamental disagreement. Religious people are aware that there are atheists; classical liberals are aware that there are autocrats and theocrats, etc. Does that, in and of itself, upset us so deeply that we take offense at it? I daresay no.
What causes one to take offense is the uttering of "heresy" by someone nearby, where such utterance affects them personally. Which means that it is incumbent upon us to know who is listening to us. There is a wide emotional gulf between a preacher who preaches to his congregation and a preacher who proselytizes and seeks converts. Same message, different audience. In the first case, the preacher is among fellows. In the second, the preacher is among those who may not be so open to what he has to say. The preacher who decides to proselytize fundamentally accepts an additional burden, if the preacher has any hope at succeeding. And a preacher who does not accept that burden, does not even recognize that such a burden exists, who tries to communicate the same message in the same way regardless of who is in the audience, well, that preacher should only see his failure as foreseeable and expected.
"Preacher", above, if it wasn't clear, is not a religious term. It refers to anybody who has any kind of message that actually tries to persuade others, rather than merely seeking the empathy of like-minded friends and family.