Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Does this offend?

I disagree with your assessment. It doesn't require storm troopers knocking down the door to suppress speech; public opinion will often do the trick well enough, and the weight of opprobrium depends on the status of the public opinion holders. My take: she was contacted by someone who holds a lot of sway here, and so became a bit upset upon receiving the PM, though obviously she felt that she was not in the wrong. She got much validation here that she was not in the wrong. Mid-thread, she responded to my comment in a way that indicated that she still didn't feel in the wrong. After the discussion here wound down, she however remained worried-- not because deep down she feels that her signature was offensive, but worried about how it was perceived here by some. In the end, her speech was suppressed by the opinion of a vocal minority. She was the one who clicked "submit" on her profile page, but the causation is clear to me.

I'm not patronizing the OP; I'm continuing to support her, even if she may be feeling a bit leaned on. She has no need to feel like she did anything wrong, and there was no need to change her signature either. I feel bad for her.

I didn't lay great stress; I mentioned it several times. The proposition that no one was actually insulted is so obviously and highly likely to be true that I don't see value in debating it. In the short time it was up, nobody noticed the OP's particular signature, recognized all the implications of what it might mean, took the worst possible one (in the reader's special circumstances) as the intended meaning, and recoiled in horror.

The main idea on lack of evidence, though, is that it's foolish to scour the possibilities to determine whether someone might be offended, in the lack of any evidence of actual offense (especially when most people agree that a statement is not offensive), and change our behavior on that basis. We shouldn't insist that people stifle their opinions that way, or anyone can veto anyone else's speech. You say that's not what you want, but that's what you're helping to do in this case.

Fair enough. I'm left wondering if all of the people voicing support for suppression of the signature are in the same boat. In any event, I think that your objection to the signature is unreasonable. Can someone not express a viewpoint that hothousing doesn't work, or that it's wrong for some other reason? Why should another poster conform to your views on this topic? (Another possible objection to the signature is that it's elitist, but you've previously expressed your wish that this forum remain for the elite.)

In this case, the OP meant what she said. I don't think she really changed her mind, but rather chose to be polite and bow to the wishes of certain users, apparently worried that she might be offending Davidson in some way. I don't see how she could change her mind on whether the signature was really offensive or not, after receiving such support here.

But hey, I might be in the wrong. Ametrine, do you think your challenged signature line was insultingly offensive to other discussion-board users?

(That's a yes-or-no question. I'm not asking whether it might in someone's opinion offend someone else, etc., or whether it was offensive by virtue of possibly directly offending someone else. Was it directly offensive to reasonable people? Did you really change your mind on that?)

I disagree. In my view it's polite to avoid saying things that would be offensive to members of some group, especially if is possible that a member of that group might be overhearing, even if those being directly addressed are not in that group. [ETA the point is, only members of this board were able to comment, and they are the least likely to be offended. We'd only know that someone who dropped in had been offended if they'd been *so* offended as to register here specifically in order to say so; so absence of evidence of offence is not strong evidence of absence of offence.]

Of course: in fact I would have had no objection to a signature that said "Hothousing doesn't work" or "Hothousing is wrong" (although I'd have thought it pretty pointless). I would rather, however, that people who drop in here don't feel that their children are being compared to elephants or their attempts at supporting their children's learning to putting tapshoes on an elephant. I realise that that isn't what the OP intended to convey, but in a context where the reader of a sig expects it to convey something and has no information other than the actual words, I actually think that might well be what was conveyed, hence the potential for offence.

Iucounu, isn't it possible that Ametrine changed her signature during a discussion about her previous signature for reasons unrelated to anyone's assessment of its offensive nature? Perhaps she just likes the new one better. I like the old (grammar corrected) one better, and I'm an electrical engineer.

Have we considered that the mere discussion or notion that our children are gifted, some even more than others, is offensive to some. The entire Identification and Testing subforum could be offensive.

Sometimes people get offended because of reasons beyond the poster's control. I'm leaning towards Lucounu's thoughts but I would like to add that the reader must also bring honest interpretation and intentions to the conversation. If you go looking for a fight, you're going to find one. If someone came here to argue that giftedness is poppycock and a way for upper middle class rich white folk to claim their kids are superior, we certainly wouldn't change our posts to make room for that person to feel welcome. At least... I wouldn't.

I found the signature funny. Just like when we ask questions like "How can a child so smart, still run into a sliding glass door?" It made me chuckle, since my son is desperate to be a tap dancer, not an idea but a real tap dancer. But he is very clearly an elephant and sounds like such in our garage!

That's very true. I should modify what I said, but I'll do so here rather than by editing: I don't think there is a right not to be offended, and I don't think politeness is a very high virtue (there are many good reasons to be impolite, even offensive, in my view). You've pointed at one set of examples that's relevant here. My views on religion are offensive to many, and theirs to me; I don't think any of us should have to shut up. Maybe it would be better to say: it's good to try to avoid being misinterpreted as saying something offensive, when that isn't what you meant. Give offence only deliberately ;-)

In addition, I doubt that more than one person in this case originally viewed the OP's signature line as potentially, theoretically offensive.

I am not the person who complained originally, and I haven't contributed to this thread so far (although I've been reading it) but I have to say, I am surprised that you seem so bothered by the OP changing her signature line. My take was NOT that she felt coerced, but that she had the opportunity to hear how others viewed or might view her tagline and reevaluated it. I will admit that I'm sensitive, but I did think the signature line was in bad taste from the first time I saw it. It was actually very interesting to me to read the OP's explanation, because I had taken it in an entirely different way. I think it was DeeDee who said that she viewed it as more "don't bother hothousing your kid, you really can't make him/her gifted." That was how I viewed it. It seemed to me the kind of remark I associate with parents who like to pretend that their child was born knowing the periodic table and who staunchly deny that they ever do anything to help their child learn (which I always thought was kind of silly - we're all born with different aptitudes, but I'm sure that just by talking to my children, taking them to museums, reading with them, discussing, etc... I am certainly helping them develop that natural, inborn aptitude).

Anyway, it definitely didn't bother me enough to say anything, but it made me cringe when I read it (although now that I understand it, it doesn't). So, isn't it just possible that in the same way that I came to understand the siggy line in a new light, the OP also had an "aha" moment, and thought, "well, even though I meant this in a totally benign way and never in a million years thought it could be offensive, hmmmmm... maybe it could be read the wrong way, and since I want to come across as open and supportive to other-especially new-parents of gifted, i think I'll change it?"

Theresa

Sure, it's possible. I'm not really that bothered by this thread in itself, and don't think Grinity or anyone else has done anything improper under the current rules-- but we seem to be heading towards more and more policing of users by other users, which is worrisome to me. There needs to be a change in atmosphere; people need to know that they can post freely, within reason. I consider this to be an extension of the "Forum Guidelines" thread. I think I've probably said all I can usefully say on the subject.

Here is my view on it (assumptions and all):

Ametrine has experienced parents judging her as a hothouser and it annoyed her. Some of us truly do have children that teach themselves amazing things with little to no teaching on our part. It can be annoying to be have your reality rejected by others. So she expressed this in her signature, feeling safe on a forum such as this where others share her sentiment (I certainly do).

Her signature was vague enough to be misread from her original intent. Someone else on this forum realized that it might be considered offensive and in an act of kindness--since she herself would want someone to tell her if she accidentally offended--she chose to write Ametrine in private. I highly doubt the person writing meant to censor Ametrine, only to alert her to something she may not have realized. I would appreciate someone doing the same for me and wouldn't find it critical, but some might. We all vary in how defensive we are, and we all have different sensitivities. If you had a grandmother that was always correcting your speech, a PM like this might anger you.

Ametrine was curious how her signature came across to others. I'm often curious about the same thing, and it's very difficult to see outside of your own perspective. Clearly, Ametrine is open-minded and considerate of others around her or she wouldn't have asked. This alone tells me that her signature was not meant to offend.

All of us in this thread found it an interesting question and chose to think about it, post about it, and enter into debates about wonderful things like freedom of speech and politeness and hothousing. Everyone was writing from their own perspective, experiences and even insecurities and they were all so very different.

Ultimately, it's a natural human desire to "be the best" and especially, to want the best for your children. So those with non-gifted children don't want to be reminded that their children are "less" in some way. Other parents don't want to be reminded that their hothoused (gifted or not) children are somehow "less" than those children that teach themselves. Sometimes confronting an uncomfortable truth, we will minimize the gifted kids (like the bumper sticker mentioned above) or we will minimize the non-hothoused kids (those parents are lying).

Personally, I have always found the "My child is an honor student" stickers annoying, and not because of insecurities, as I was an honor student, but solely because I can imagine all the parents sitting in cars behind that one who have non-honors students who are feeling despair, jealousy, anger, insecurities and in general, a feeling that their child is less. I had friends like that with parents like that, and I remember well how they compared us.

Now, for all those with feathers ruffled because you have a sticker just like this. I'm sure most parents place this sticker to show their children how proud they are of them. For some parents, that sticker is something they have been wanting for a long time. I get it.

I guess my point is this--so much of reality is filtered through our unique perspectives, and how lovely to have a thread like this to open our eyes to how different the world looks to others.

I don't think we should censor what people say, anymore than I think that we should censor someone's right to complain about what someone says. Aren't both valuable?

I think that the real issue here is about uncensored speech and the fact that one member has decided to be the morality police for all of us. I don't like that, and I'm concerned that the board is experiencing a crisis that it might not recover from. Sure, the board may continue if this isn't resolved, but in a bowdlerized way that will have destroyed the qualities that have made it so special in the past.

Censorship is insidious. It can creep up on you, and before you know it, the damage is done. In this case, it's being presented with a smiling, loving face. Don't offend anyone is presented so reasonably...but it isn't reasonable. It isn't reasonable to give one person --- who has no official position with the DI --- the rights to tell everyone else what to say and how to say it. The loving face is really just a mask hiding ugly efforts by a bully to control us. Worse, whoever this person is, s/he's hiding behind PMs so that none of us can see the full extent of what s/he's trying to do. Coward!

This person's effort is the real problem here (not someone's tagline). IMO, a good way to end censorship and bullying is to expose the ugliness of both in public. So I'll say it loud to the mystery morality cop: I THINK YOU'RE A BULLY.

LoL You're right. Who's to say an elephant can't have tap shoes if they want? But will he have an audience?