I also don't think it needs to be deliberate. People can say very hurtful things by accident, and that will offend me. However, I will be far less offended than if they say it deliberately. If I confront them on it and try to explain to them that what they say is indeed hurtful and they argue that what they said wasn't hurtful or try to deny my feelings so they don't have to admit they made a mistake, than that's what pretty much top tier angrys up my blood.
I haven't read all the comments but the reason I added deliberate is because if we're at the point of an author being unable to be even accidentally 'offensive' we're in creative trouble. Not that you can't be offended but should you?
Well, words have meanings. I think if we want to talk about "what do you consider deliberately offensive" that's a different conversation than the one posited in this thread, and, of course, introduces elements of uncertainty around ever knowing what someone else's intent was and whether they were being deliberately offensive or not. But for a really clear example? Say I somehow stumbled across someone's diary in which he had written really ugly, hurtful, cruel things about me. There was no intent for me to be offended or hurt, because there was no intention for me to ever see the writing. But I think I'd still find it offensive, yeah.
I kind of thought being offended was a reactionary thing, as in you don't really have much say in it happening. I'm sure you could be offended by choice, but I don't honestly think that actively deciding to be put out by something is quite the same. Should we be offended? Why shouldn't we be? People should be allowed to have feelings, it's how we act in response to those feelings that are the problem and that is something we do have a say in.
Courtesy, and diplomacy, and empathy, and awareness of the perceptions of others, is part of being human, and it should be part of being a writer. A writer should care if he's offensive. That doesn't mean he has to, or should, remove the offense. He should care if he's offensive in the same way that he should care if he breaks a rule of formal grammar, or makes a specific style decision, or chooses a specific idiom. He should have some insight into his own decisions, and into what he's communicating. If he doesn't care what he's communicating, or if he doesn't care what his writing will communicate to a mind that isn't identical to his own, then why is he writing anything but a diary? Maybe he was offensive on purpose and for a purpose. Maybe he wants to offend Population X and doesn't realize that an offense to Population Y will be a distraction. Maybe he didn't offend by plan but eliminating the offense will hamper some other purpose(*). Maybe he didn't recognize the offense and he wants to remove it. Maybe he didn't recognize it and now that he does he's delighted and wants to intensify it. A writer should make considered decisions. He should know what he's doing. (* For example, my use of "he" all the way through here kind of offends me. But "he or she" or alternating "he" and "she" is likely to clutter up this brief thing I'm writing so...I'm leaving it as he. A choice to risk offense, a choice that I made so fast that if I weren't writing about offense, I wouldn't have noticed it.) (* And I may have offended people who write things other than diaries, but write them purely for themselves.)
But what does that even mean? If I plan to write a bank heist story you can be sure I'm going to make all sorts of "considered decisions" during my process. I'll likely research bank security, police procedures, the layout of whatever city I plan to set the heist in, etc. What I likely won't consider is all the possible ways a person could take offense to my story. I'll simply navigate that by my own judgement, and maybe the judgement of a few close people that I value, and that will be the end of it.
It sounds like you're focusing on the what aspects of storytelling - what happens, etc. But you're not spending much energy on the how aspects - how will I make my readers feel what I want them to feel, etc. That's your choice, but from my perspective you're skipping over a pretty significant aspect of writing.
@ChickenFreak I'm sorry..."My use of HE so much offends me"? Fucking oh!? Anywho, I genuinely believe that almost nothing is "offensive". Or rather, I sincerely doubt it's possible to be "inoffensive", in that literally EVERYTHING is "offensive" to someone. It's just now some...factions let's say? Yes, some "factions" have more political prestige and power than others so what "offends" them is considered more important than what "offends" me. For example, I could make a genuine argument, complete with MOUNTAINS of empirical evidence, that Trey Parker and Matt Stone have created one of the most openly bigoted, myopically narrow-minded shows imaginable, WRT how they portray Christianity. I honestly can say I have trouble recalling a single episode of South Park that didn't either directly insult Christians, portray Christians in the most stereotypical way possible, outright call Christians idiots or all of the above. And again, I could in mere minutes collect MOUNTAINS of evidence--empirical, factual, objective evidence including quotes directly from the creators of the show--to support this argument. And yet, if I did say this, present this argument complete with evidence and direct quotes from Thing One and Thing Two about "dem dirty kristans" and how they wish we would all be executed on sight for daring to question the beauty of their Atheist utopia, I would be laughed out of the room. Not because I lacked proof, not because Hodor and Forest even ATTEMPTED to mask their open disdain for all Christians. not because I could point to one of the primary characters being literally a mockery of Jesus Christ, but because it is considered at this point almost the norm to show open disdain for and mistrust in Christians, especially White male Christians. However if I even breathed a word of criticism at, say, LITERALLY ANY OTHER RELIGION ON EARTH then I would be burned alive quicker than you can say "Shireen Baratheon". All of this also gets around to the most important question: who decides what is "offensive", and why should anyone care? Another example: I hear tell that, apparently, The Boondocks "stereotypes" Black people and like Madea movies are supposed to be "insulting" to Blacks...but I'm Black, and my entire family is, and we watch Tyler Perry movies like a religion and I adored The Boondocks...so who decided all this is "insulting", and why should it matter to me? Where is this "offensive" edict coming from? Is it from examination of the actual content? Well obviously not, because if so the people posting videos about how they want all White men castrated (and yes I have evidence for this too) would at best count as "offensive" and at worst count as a genuine hate crime. And if it ISN'T based on examination of content but some kind of pseudo-intellectual posturing about "hatred" and "oppression" then again, why isn't South Park (which would be charitably described as openly bigoted towards and promoting hatred for Christians, complete with evidence) seen as an animated Mein Kampf? Now the answer is as I said there is no actual definition for "offensive", or more so, it varies so wildly between any two people as to be meaningless. There is no definitive, concrete meaning for "offensive" because there can't be. At best you could declare some...idk council or something and have them determine it but even then it would basically just be these people's opinions and not objective fact. And that sidesteps questions like "who decides on this council?" and "why should I give a damn what they think?" and "who enforces this edict?" and "HOW exactly do we purge the unclean?"
Especially since taking offense when it should be obvious none was intended has become our national sport, I'd say just write your stuff and don't worry about it.
@NigeTheHat Lol I'm not "offended" by South Park, I actually watch the show. But pointing out that someone hates me when they OPENLY SAY in interviews, making unsolicited statements that they made ad hoc, that they hate me isn't being "offended" it's taking empirical evidence and applying it. I'm not "offended" by the Klan, but to pretend David Duke doesn't want me hanging from a tree is absurd--if someone openly states and with no reservations or hint of irony they hate someone then I take their statement at face value unless they retract it at some point. That's my point, is that "offensive" isn't a thing, it's not an actual force or concept it's a catchphrase, so it varies wildly between any two people. Obviously you got "offended" by the fact I pointed out this, which is fine, but it goes to show that what "offends" me and what "offends" you varies so wildly it's impossible to create any concrete or logical definition. There are people who genuinely agree with John Oliver's worldviews despite the fact that his "worldviews" amount to screaming CRURRENT YEER and some variation of Donald Trump's surname ("Gromptle Jrmprp! C'mon! Current Year! REEEEEEE!) while shrieking nonsensically. Mind you, it's funny, rather or not I agree with it he's at least witty--so I'm not "offended" by it. I just roll my eyes and keep going which is kinda my take on South Park.
It's just an observation, dude. Maybe you're genuinely not offended by all the stuff you rant about. Doesn't come off that way. As it is, I agree that 'offensive' is subjective and I imagine so does everyone on this thread. The OP's question was 'what do you consider offensive', so the fact it's subjective is baked in to the whole premise. I'm not entirely sure why you think we'd find the concept controversial.
@NigeTheHat Well, I apologize if I came off as crass, though in my defense twice in the last week I was accused of "cryptofascism" (Christ only knows what THAT is) because I mentioned that I strongly disagree with globalism, so yes I'm kinda on edge when subjects like "hate speech" and "offensive content" come up. That and frankly I'm a douche, or so I've been told. Apparently brazen sarcasm and smug sneers mixed with near-constant shade throwing is considered "douche-y" now lol As to the OP, I stand by my previous assessment that I've never truly been "offended", or rather I have felt like people were openly insulting me in various ways but I never felt "offended" or butthurt because of it. I usually retaliated in kind, or turned the channel. It's one of the reasons I only ever watched like five minutes of the recent Roswell tv show relaunch because the entire first five minutes was comprised of the writers foregoing any attempt at reuniting the continuity of the current and previous series it spun off from, instead choosing to explaining to me how illegal aliens (not like Martians but MS-13 human traffickers) were immaculate God-Kings born from a virgin's womb to raise the sons of Earth and allow us to reconcile us with our one true Lord, El Chapo. So I shook my head, posted a smug rebuke on twitter telling some friends of mine to never watch it again, then turned the channel. That's about as close to "offended" as I can personally, actually get: I roll my eyes and change the channel while muttering a spiteful insult about the writer's mother under my breath then never think of it again.
When writers use convoluted (but understood) scientific principals in order to handwave sci-fi by obfuscation. I know what a tachyon field is, Star Trek, that’s not how any of this works!
