Maybe they didn't explain it very well to you. let me rephrase it for you.
I say something to a person. This person gets upset at what I said. In this instance let us assume that what I said wasn't actually offensive in the objective world of things. However this doesn't change the fact that the person is upset/offended, irrespective of whether they have a right to be or not. So yes, if it is perceived as an offense, it is an offense to the recipient. However this does not equate to the perceived offense as actually objectively (and legally) offensive. There are many objectivity tests included in most policies for this. This puts no one at a disadvantage. It helps the offended person by acknowledging that they are upset. And it helps all parties (or both parties) involved by setting objectivity standards to resolve issues. Ok so the person in my example won't like being told they objectively had no reason to be offended - and it won't change the fact that they probably will still be upset. The bottom line is everybody is different, even in terms of sensitivity. What matters is ensuring that equitability and fairness are part of all processes involved in resolving people's issues. Such instances are particularly prevalent between people of different cultures.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-12-19 11:02 am (UTC)Maybe they didn't explain it very well to you. let me rephrase it for you.
I say something to a person. This person gets upset at what I said. In this instance let us assume that what I said wasn't actually offensive in the objective world of things. However this doesn't change the fact that the person is upset/offended, irrespective of whether they have a right to be or not. So yes, if it is perceived as an offense, it is an offense to the recipient. However this does not equate to the perceived offense as actually objectively (and legally) offensive. There are many objectivity tests included in most policies for this. This puts no one at a disadvantage. It helps the offended person by acknowledging that they are upset. And it helps all parties (or both parties) involved by setting objectivity standards to resolve issues. Ok so the person in my example won't like being told they objectively had no reason to be offended - and it won't change the fact that they probably will still be upset. The bottom line is everybody is different, even in terms of sensitivity. What matters is ensuring that equitability and fairness are part of all processes involved in resolving people's issues. Such instances are particularly prevalent between people of different cultures.