No need to defend Barbs. I know nothing about her, but I’m quite sure she’s not a rabid anti-Semite. That was an abstract example I gave. This is a public forum, open to all, which could be reviewed by anyone in the world, theoretically, with the exception of those who reside in North Korea. And so I could not possibly anticipate or be aware of the medical, psychological or trauma histories of anyone who might come to this site and read my words. Who could possibly know that? My obligation to any potential reader is to contribute my own honest point of view, to refrain from malice, to get my facts straight and to not distort or misrepresent the words of anyone else. Basic civility, in other words. Beyond that, I have no obligation to water down my thoughts so that no one could possibly find a reason to take offense. Unlike some, I won’t disclose my own personal history, but I will say that I found the comments by Snarly – who I also don’t know – to be informative, enlightening, funny, useful, insightful and the product of an educated mind. I was delighted to read them. I found nothing malicious in her comments. When she was challenged she tried to give a better explanation, which anyone can judge for its merits. This is how social progress comes about, and always has. If we were to express only those ideas which are so anodyne that no one could possibly see any reason to question them, no matter hard they tried, very few new ideas would see the light of day. Snarly passed every test of being a civil, educated commenter. The idea that she should apologize because someone didn’t fully understand what she was saying or, if that person did understand, yet thought there was something suspect about her ideas, is a notion which, rather than serving to further progress, actually impedes it. The idea of “Never mind whether you’re right or wrong; if I am offended, you must recant and apologize” is one which, in the real world, inhibits progress. The civil rights workers who “invaded” the South offended the Mississippi establishment with everything they did and said. They offended those who believed that the social order required mistreatment of Americans. If the civil rights people had bowed before the notion that, having offended so many, they ought to have apologized and retreated, then what progress would have been made? (And no, I’m not accusing Barbs of being a Southern apologist either.) I watch Donald Trump in the various media, and I am offended by pretty much everything he says and does. But I go right on watching – every nasty, vicious, offensive, racist, misogynistic thing he says – not because it makes me comfortable and secure – it doesn’t – but because it makes me informed. I want to understand his ideas so that I can discuss them with others – it makes me better prepared to dispute those who support him. I don’t want him to shut up and if he apologized I wouldn’t believe it anyway. The more I hear, the better I understand just how awful he is. And let me be absolutely clear: I’m not against him simply because I find him to be offensive in his manner; I’m against him because his ideas are so terrible. And that’s really the point I’m trying to make: you have to look beyond your own sense of being offended and look at the actual ideas. In some cases you might learn something new and enlightening, or gain a new perspective. (Not in the case of Trump, of course, and sorry, Barbs, if you’re a Trump supporter…but I assume you’re not that either.) Even better, if you can find fault in the ideas, then you can stand up and confront whoever it was that offended you. Of course you have to be sensitive and respectful of others; that’s why you shouldn’t be malicious or distort the facts in forums like this. To do either would be not just insensitive, but disrespectful to your audience. But being truthful and straightforward and attempting to present a different way of looking at things is just the opposite: it’s being respectful of the intelligence of your audience and your presumption that they want to see and understand other perspectives, not just their own. It’s the only way real social progress takes place. Insisting on muzzling perspectives which may make you uncomfortable but which are legitimate and not malicious in the way they are presented is not only a deterrent to real progress, but it’s anti-intellectual in its effect (I used the term totalitarian in a previous post); moreover, it goes against what the First Amendment stands for. There is a constitutional right to free speech, but there is no corresponding right not to be offended. I’ll close with this quote from the late, great Christopher Hitchens, who was paraphrasing works by John Milton, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill: “It’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something.”

I still disagree, for a couple of reasons:
1) Barbs is far from an rabid anti-Semite, she is actually a person earnestly concerned about sensitivity issues. Her discomfort should not be dismissed or merely explained away.
2) I, too, felt discomfort from Snarly’s remark, but, perhaps, for slightly different reasons. When I read what Rosemary Ludtke had written about she also being marginalized, and then witnessed her very public meltdown, at first I wondered as well why Rosemary felt marginalized. Was she, like me, someone who had bipolar disorder or a similar mental illness? Perhaps a survivor of some sort of abuse? Then I realized that the exact nature of her marginalization was irrelevant. Despite her clearly inexcusable actions, she, too, was a person in pain deserving of empathy. And if we are trying to teach people to be more sensitive, we must start by being more sensitive ourselves. A person in pain should never be an opportunity to make wisecracks.

I think that Snarly is correct here. She said something which offended Barbs and, when called on it, explained herself – in my opinion, quite satisfactorily. The idea that she should not explain herself but should only apologize strikes me as a bit totalitarian. People make innocent statements all the time which other people don’t understand, and at which offense is taken. This gives people opportunities to explain themselves and increase understanding. If the only standard is “don’t say anything which anyone could possibly misunderstand and take offense at”, then people would miss out on a huge number of opportunities to connect, inform, and learn. And even when people do make mistakes, they certainly have every right to defend themselves. The standard of “I’m offended, therefore my feelings must be soothed. I don’t want to hear any explanations; just an apology” can in many instances work against the offended party by precluding opportunities to learn and understand other viewpoints. If I were to confront a rabid anti-Semite and call him out, should I apologize if he tells me he is experiencing “discomfort”? I don’t think so. I certainly wouldn’t apologize or retract but, by the arguments presented here, some might think that’s the correct course of action.

Like VOYA, you’re missing the point: it’s not about YOU and whether you necessarily meant to offend. Barbs made it clear your remark caused discomfort. End of story.

I’m aware I did not apologize. It’s not ironic. It was deliberate, because I strongly disagree that I said anything anti-Semitic. Jokes like these are ABSOLUTELY part of the Jewish tradition. I recommend Rabbi Joseph Telushkin’s brilliant book Jewish Humor: What the Best Jewish Jokes Say About the Jews (cited in my own new book!) which talks quite a bit about self-deprecating, dark, ironic Jewish humor. Which is what this was. As is the joke about “great news, the murdered girl was Jewish,” which is pretty much as dark as humor gets…and that is very, very Jewish.

Your reply to Barbs is not an apology, which, considering the nature of this entire post, is pretty darn ironic. And, no, being Jewish does not give your carte blanche to make cracks as the expense of Jews, no matter how many how many humorous anecdotes you pepper your reply with. I suggest you follow your own advice.