A day does not go by where we do not read a newspaper article about someone being offended, see a news piece on TV about someone being offended or even have someone tell us that we have offended them by saying what we just said.
In the cases where we have done the offending, we frantically try and figure out what the offended was offended about. Many times we never do figure out what caused the offense. All too often we find ourselves apologizing for whatever we said that was offensive when we really want to say what our parents would have said in this situation, “Get over it! You sure are sensitive! Want a beer?”
We are often told that the most offended class in the Good Ole USofA is the American Indian (now known as the Native American). The interesting thing about the Native Americans being offended is they are often unaware they have been offended, until someone who knows more about being offended than they do, informs them that they need to get upset.
There are a whole bunch of advocates that are ready, willing and certainly able to carry the Native Americans’ Cause forward for them.
Here’s a good example. When the Washington Post polled Native Americans in 2016, it found 9 of 10 were not offended by the name of Washington D.C.’s NFL franchise—the Redskins. The results did not vary much by age, income, education, politics or proximity to a reservation. And the results hadn’t changed much since a similar 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Maybe because the Native Americans do not seem to care much about getting upset the Advocates for the Offended are now looking elsewhere for “victims” and, believe it or not, they are now getting upset on behalf of Leprechauns.
Since Leprechauns are not real, you would think that Advocates would quickly lose interest. Don’t count on it because, once these things get started, they seem to develop a life of their own.
A hot under the collar Advocate for Leprechauns recently said, “Many Irish-Americans are not offended, but many are. Should that also change? The answer is yes! Unequivocally yes. Pernicious, negative stereotypes of marginalized people that offend, even some among them, should be changed.”
The Fella is very confused...
Ø We are being told that Irish-Americans are offended.
Ø We know that Irish-Americans are not Leprechauns.
Ø Irish-Americans know that they are not Leprechauns.
Ø We also know that Leprechauns do not exist.
Ø How can Irish-Americans be offended about something that they are not that does not exist?
Also take notice of the use of big words by the Advocates for the Offended...”unequivocally”, “pernicious”, “stereotypes” and “marginalized”. People with weak arguments often use big words to hide the weakness of their argument.
Finally, I would like to zero in on the words “even some among them” in the above quote. How many hoops are we to jump through for “some”? How many is “some”? Could “some” be one? Are we destined to tie ourselves in knots for “some” when “some” is only a few and the few do not seem to be paying much attention anyway?
How far away are we from hearing an impassioned lawyer say to a disbelieving judge...
“Your honor, this is unconscionable! Quoverts have suffered long enough under the yoke of this pernicious stereotyping. Their whole existence is being unequivocally marginalized. The prosecuting attorney has attempted to make a point of the fact that Quoverts do not exist. I ask you what difference does that make at this point. If they did exist, they would exist and, having made the point that they do not exist, it certainly follows that they would be offended if they did exist by all of what did or did not happen to them. Quoverts are people too!”
Would I kid u?
Smartfella
