It appears that the Big Brother is not the only one dishing Gag Orders recently. I was suprised of late that Gag Orders are also issued by Blogs.

Granted, blog hosts have a right to censor comments that are in their opinion undesirable, such as racists, or slanderous remarks. Given the state of our nation now where comments in blogs (not written by the host) are taken as seditious and the host made unfairly liable for these remarks, I can appreciate such move may need to be taken.

However, what comes as a shock to me and (come to think of it) the whole idea of blogging is that gags are now in place for statements that others would ‘take offence’ and that such blogs are not even political blogs but simple daily journals.

Tell me which blog leh?

Wait lah, patient a bit can or not.

I would like to share that there is a difference between bullying , commenting and jesting. And there is a difference between an offensive statement and someone taking an offence to a statement.

Let me indulge you with my first point.

My Collins dictionary says: A bully is someone who uses their strength or power to hurt or frighten others. And it also means you bully someone into doing something in an unpleasant forceful way.

[I hope that that clarifies that I have neither the strength or power to hurt or frighten others, if I am just a person who drops a comment. Such power/strength usually lies with the host who can easily delete/edit comments.]

Josh, who are you refering to lah?

Does it matter, just general observation lah. But the person will get the indirect hint lah, as usual. No one wants to be a ‘bully’, right?

Commenting is simply giving an opinion or an observation or an explaination. It may be an approval, criticism or dissent.

[We have to accept that in any blog if one were to open a column up for comments (blogs usually wants comments), one will not just receive niceties but also dissent or criticisms or the following.]

Jesting is something you say which is intended to be amusing in a rather clever way.

[Most of the time, we just want to amuse (sometimes clever, sometimes not so clever) for fun. Our world is too serious already, a bit of humour jest or prank does help de-stress a bit. It would be ridiculous to claim that all comments in jest or harmless joshing (yes there is such a word) will cause serious psychological, or emotional wounds that will take much effort in counselling to heal.]

In the event that such harmless or silly jesting (even among friends) can cause hurt or emotional wounds, then all I can say (sadly) of that person who is ‘apparently wounded’ is to read what CS Lewis have to say. (read further below)]

As rightly pointed by a friend, bullying is to be shunned. However, if someone is commenting and giving a dissent and it so happens to be taken as an offense, it is not a bullying statement. It is merely a dissent.

Sometimes a dissent can be done as a jest and it is merely to amuse or just a prank for fun. Granted that sometimes a prank or joke can be distasteful or racist, not all pranks are. If the prankster (jester) and the target are friends, shouldn’t it be given the benefit of doubt that it is merely a jest and not targeted as an insult.

Secondly, an offensive statement is meant to offend a target person whether he/she be fat, ugly, or bigot or dumb etc. (Opps.. is that offensive?) And usually this is clear to any objective reader. I assume (hope) my readers are with a dash of humour-bility (ability to appreciate humour).

However any comment – serious, or jest that was not directed to any one can we viewed “offensive” by an observer who adopts the comment as a personal affront. That is why we have such term as “taking offence to the statement”. The person is not offended directly or personally but such person is adopting (taking) the offence as his/her own.

Example: When I said in a comment that ‘that so-and-so in a pic looks like my maid’. The so-and-so did not get offended but someone else took offence at that statement. That third party is what I called adopting (taking) the comment as a personal affront. If I said ‘that so-and-so in the pic looks like a maid’ – that is entirely different because your opinion of a maid may be demeaning, and so one can be offended. But I said ‘my’ maid, i was only referring to the looks not any negative thing that a class-conscious person may imagine/assume.

Unfortunately, not all jess or pranks or clever remarks are viewed that way per se. And I believe C.S. Lewis is most apt in his observation in relation to this.

Josh, you are too chim lah! Whats all this psycho babble about!?

Thats why I rather end with CS Lewis quote lah.

“Did we pretend to be ‘hurt’ in our sensitive and tender feelings (fine natures like ours are so vulverable) when envy, ungratified vanity, or thwarted self-will was our real problem? Such tactics often succeed. The other parties give in. They give in not because they dont know what is really wrong with us, but because they have long known it only too well, and that sleeping dog can be roused, that skeleton brought out of its cupboard, only at the cost of imperilling their whole relationship with us. It needs surgery which they know we will never face. And so we win; by cheating. But the unfairness is very deeply felt. Indeed what is commonly called ’sensitiveness’ is the most powerful engine of domestic tyranny, sometimes a lifelong tyranny. How we should deal with it in others I am not sure; but we should be merciless to its first appearances in ourselves.” [Quote from In 'The Tyranny of "Sensitivity" in the Business of Heaven by CS Lewis.]

Popularity: 11% [?]