I don't understand this.
Essentially, your comment comes down to "I don't care how other people feel. I want to say what makes me happy, and to hell with anyone who doesn't like it."
And that's fine, I guess, if that's how you want to live your life. But offense is both taken and given — it's a two-way street. If you say something and someone says "Hey, that upset me", then you now have a choice of whether to say similar things in the future. If you choose to say those things that you have been told are offensive to this person, then you get to deal with the repercussions of that choice. After all: "If you cannot handle the heat, leave the kitchen."
What people want is for the grievance hunters to go away and/or toughen up.
I don't want to say that I don't believe these people exist (because I'm sure they do), but rather I don't think their presence is something you need to be overly concerned with because I think there are so shockingly few of them that it really isn't overly consequential. I think their existence is overhyped by people on the internet, because I've never met anyone in my life who has brought this up in the real world.
Just handle things like that on a case-by-case basis. If all the people you interact with don't care... then you probably don't need to worry about it. But if there's someone who says "Hey, I don't like it when you say that", then perhaps take their opinion under consideration and determine what you want to do about it.
The notion that you need to constantly be on guard about everything you say is completely absurd, unless you're a raging asshole whose comments regularly spark resentment in your conversational counterparts.
A couple of years ago, I worked with a large team and there was a gay man on the team who was constantly yapping on about gay this and gay that, almost like he was looking for disapproval among the ranks. He then decided to do a legal union with his boyfriend and invited everyone. Those who did not attend were berated, verbally accused of this and that. I counseled everyone to simply ignore him and not take the bait, which ended up being sound judgement, because he took his leave shortly thereafter. I never engaged in ad-hominem attacks or retaliated against this man. I just refused to play his childish game of attacking people for some imagined reasons.
Linus, Theo, and other large project leaders deal with actual idiots all the time. Serial idiots. Sometimes in the real world you have to step on toes to get someone's attention. It can often be done in "nicer" ways, but sometimes you have to "nuke them from orbit" just to be sure.
Recently, my British uncle told me of a story about a woman in England who went apoplectic about a new tissue range having the marketing slogan "man-sized" tissues. Who cares? It's marketing. The company actually caved to please this woman. I would not have done so. My tissues, my slogan. Don't buy them if you're offended.
Why not just say, “this must be a big issue to them”? Why do you feel the need to prove that these things don’t offend you, and that thus they shouldn’t offend others?
It's come to a place now in society where even silence can be taken the wrong way. I've been accused of being politically incorrect over the years because I refuse to cotton to certain things the mainstream embraces, but I refuse to budge. My convictions are mine and mine alone. I don't try and change other people's convictions. But... if you stand for nothing, you fall for anything.
This is like a gay person saying "I'm not 'offended'. I'm sick and tired of anti-gay sentiment invading every aspect of life."
Your lack of introspection is showing through. You want to be able to say and act however you feel is appropriate — which is fine —, but you don't want other people to be able to call you out for what you say and do. This makes no sense, because those people are just saying and acting however they feel is appropriate — by calling you out.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
People will judge you for what you say, the same way that you judge others for what they say.
What it seems here is that, while you judge others, you demand for the right to not be judged by others.
EG, offending somebody -- because it is so subjective -- should simply be that, they are offended. END OF STORY.
But right now being offended is as if you walked up to somebody and spit in their face, or worse punched them. And the actions being taken by those who "offend" are on par with actions you would take had somebody physically attacked another person.
Isn't it a near perfect sleight-of-hand to subvert societies into celebrating weakness as the ultimate virtue, turning it into straight up a currency for power used to nuke a narrowly defined "anyone" from orbit?
Edit: Added 'narrowly defined' to the last sentence.
If you cannot handle the heat, leave the kitchen.
It turns out that people who have only been on the receiving end of bullying do not, in fact, like being bullied.
You're not doing an especially good job of defending Linus on this thread. I don't think he'd find your arguments especially useful as a tool for persuading people that his previous behavior was acceptable. Your comparison between him and Theo de Raadt, by the way, was especially cringe-y.
Compared to the military, where you are "kept" using a state's monopoly of deadly force, hence any bullyig situation is way much harder to resolve because you're unable to leave.
Is everyone entitled to partake in communities like the kernel org if they so choose, even against it's founder's wishes?
(Edited spelling)
- Linus Torvalds
If you think offence is only taken, you would reject the idea that your words are polite or offensive. Instead you accept that some choice of words is offensive, argue that it’s right to be offensive in some situations, then try to disclaim that by saying “you shouldn’t be offended, I wouldn’t be because i have a tough skin”.
If offence is only taken, not given, you wouldn’t need a tough skin because there wouldn’t be anything to bounce off it.