Not to some people! Intent is irrelevant compared to what they want to hear.
Because obviously you have no responsibility at all to check that what you're saying isn't offensive or giving off completely the wrong message. It's entirely the listeners' fault if they hear what you actually said instead of magically knowing what you intended them to hear.
1) You're very quick to forget the debate we had on this sort of thing... a week ago or less? I realize miscommunication exists and it is the responsibility of the speaker to prevent that.
2) You conveniently didn't quote the part of my post where I aimed the vitriol of my post
solely on those who
realized the speaker's intent but still chose to be offended rather than rational. If someone doesn't realize there was a miscommunication, I've no qualms with people being offended over it. I've only a problem with those who know the speaker's intent, chose to ignore it, and then put their own meaning in other people's mouths.
As a side note dude, you really need to stop quoting small parts of people's posts and launch condescending quips at people. You're often taking stuff out of context, not to mention sarcastic insults in general are pretty lame. If you want to join a debate here and elsewhere, do more than point out how dumb you think other people are.
EDIT: Oooh, I've a fun idea.
If you ever quote a single line from one of my posts again, take out the context, and proceed to attack it, I'm going to
add the context back in. Watch in awe.
Not to some people! Intent is irrelevant compared to what they want to hear.
Not pointing at anyone in this thread, but it happens all too often. People love getting offended and will take any opportunity even if they know the insult was unintentional or misheard.
Because obviously you have no responsibility at all to check that what you're saying isn't offensive or giving off completely the wrong message. It's entirely the listeners' fault if they hear what you actually said instead of magically knowing what you intended them to hear.
Breaking this down...
Full original statement: "People who take offense at things they know weren't intended to be offensive are silly."
Your answer:
1) The speaker has responsibility to prevent miscommunication.
2) I'm claiming the listener always knows what the speaker intended and miscommunication doesn't exist
1 is fine but irrelevant because I never claimed otherwise. Strawman.
2 is a non-sequitur as I specifically pointed at those who already knew speaker intent, not those who didn't. Another strawman.
Sorry, but that smacks of "That's not Die, Bart Die....it's German for 'The Bart, The'". If your slogan is one letter difference from something with negative connotations (and not a letter that drastically changes the message), then I think it's a fair cop to raise the question.
It'd be like posting a sign saying "No dogs or Jews aloud", and then protesting that you're not anti-Semitic, you just like a nice quiet neighborhood.
Fair to raise the question, but it's also pretty easy to answer that's not what he meant at all. As has been said, the KKK is anti-mormon. He's got all the reason in the world to dislike them.
Should he avoid that slogan in the future? Probably. Does this situation give any weight to the idea that he's secretly supportive of the KKK? Hell no.