Originally Posted by constlady
But after the specifics have been given, to be told their interpretation of the words is the problem is expecting them to adapt and that was the point that I was trying to make.
The post I quoted was one where a couple of other posts had been presented as specific examples of the topic after the request was made for them; the response wasn't to engage in a discussion about the examples but to state that the words had been mis-interpreted.
It feels a bit like running in a circle to have these kinds of discussions.
"I feel X when someone says Y"
"Show me examples when someone said Y"
"Here are some examples when I felt X when someone said Y"
"Y was not said, that was just your interpretation of the words"
By that reasoning, anyone not only has the right to be offended by something that was said, but has the right to expect everything to be worded only the way they want it to be worded.
The fact is, everyone has the right to be offended, but that does not give a person the right to expect everyone else to edit themselves around them.
A more productive discussion might change the last response to something like, "Oh, I don't interpret Y in that way, I interpret it in this way. How do you interpret Y? OP, how did you intend to use Y?" which allows for everyone involved to feel heard and tends to encourage further discussion on the original topic, rather than discourage it.
Funny but I felt that that's what I did. But funnily enough, I wasn't really being heard, but interpreted as being hostile. Anyway, I now get the sense that there wasn't much good faith to start that kind of a discussion with this thread, but rather to be validated in your feelings of offense. Either way, I certainly see that we'll get nowhere with it with such expectations in place. And I'm sure you'll put that as being all my fault.