Many are well aware of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous line from his concurring opinion in a pivotal case on pornography: "I know it when I see it." Copy editors are often called the readers' last line of defense, but I've always assigned an additional task to myself when editing: Think dirty before the readers do ... because, believe me, they will.
For copy editors at family publications such as this one, much of the time those directives apply to the offensive in general. Sometimes you just can't easily categorize it, but you instinctively know that, for the bulk of readers, it will offend.
We obviously can't keep everything out that might be offensive to someone, because everything has the potential to offend someone, so we have to aim for the middle ground.
Then there are the people who are offended by everything that doesn't fit with their worldview. Nothing that contradicts that, even proven facts, will suit them. But we at the paper don't write and edit for them.
In the news sections, you should find stories that tell the good and the bad, written as completely as possible with the information we have. On the opinion pages, you'll find, of course, opinion, and ideally across the spectrum. If you want to read only what fits with your view of the world, you can do that, but you're missing a chance to expand your views.
Or you can just be offended that people you don't agree with are having their voices heard.
So what offends me? Honestly, as the little sister of three older brothers, not much shocks me; I've pretty much heard and seen it all (gosh, thanks, guys). I am offended, though, by partisan imaginings of the other side's reaction to whatever the big news event of the day is ... which is seldom the actual reaction. A lot of those imaginings include the phrase "politically correct" ... that phrase is actually a bit offensive to me as a proponent of plain-speaking ... which much of what's complained about actually is, so ...
Why are we so ready to take offense at any and every little thing that might not fit what we want the world to be?
Some people are stuck in their partisan camps, unable to see or hear anything that hasn't been thoroughly vetted by the party/church/whatever. This confirmation bias thus cuts them off from reality. Sure, a lot of the time reality's not so fun, but avoiding it only serves to feed delusions that things are much worse or better than they actually are. And that just feeds a lot of incivility, and far too many erroneous assumptions about those with whom they disagree.
And that just annoys those of us who choose to live in the real world.
Sadly, partisans on the fringes, especially, see only their tiny world as real, as is evidenced by Facebook and Google+ feeds, newspaper comment boards, and assorted sites generally populated only by the true believers and a few trolls.
So how 'bout some of the worst of the simplistic broad assumptions about the two major parties, a big source of a lot of incivility? You can't judge millions of people based on a handful, yet that's what so many do.
Democrats aren't all militaristic about being politically correct (none I know are) or abortion on demand as birth control (who are the people who do this? I mean, really ...), nor do they believe government should do everything (especially limit speech or freedom of religion) or spend money out the wazoo. Democrats aren't all godless communists (I know of a lot of Christians and a few atheists and socialists, but perhaps I'm not looking in the right places ...). Left-leaners are not all humorless hippies (have you met Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert?), and I've yet to meet one who believes all guns should be melted down and fashioned into a lovely statue of Barack Obama.
Republicans aren't all Bible-thumpers (some thump other books and follow faiths other than Christianity) and don't all believe women are inferior. They aren't all anti-government, and indeed recognize that some rules are needed for a civil society. And Republicans really aren't all that politically incorrect, nor do they all much care about the First or Second Amendment. They most definitely are not all humorless (some of the funniest people I know are Republicans).
Quite simply, broad caricatures of the major parties are great for editorial cartoonists, but there's much more to most people than can be easily categorized; it's just that those who fit the stereotypes tend to be the loudest. The bulk of the people in the center and to the left and right of center understand this, and, yeah, we tend to be the ones rolling our eyes or trying to keep from laughing.
On the Voices page, we won't always have a 50-50 split (actually, we rarely do), nor should we, but what you see here is representative of the letters we get and those that are processed at any given time. Occasionally you'll see intraparty disagreement as well as some Democrats who agree with Republicans and vice versa, because that's what's in the real world.
If that offends you, you can always cover your eyes.
------------v------------
Assistant Editor Brenda Looper is editor of the Voices page. Read her blog at blooper0223.wordpress.com.
Editorial on 03/25/2015