> Rather than explain exactly why the display was sexist
It should be obvious. I'm not sure, but I think that pretending not to know why people could be offended by this display in this day and age is just willful ignorance. Note: I'm not claiming that everyone has to agree that the display is offensive, but you must at least know why some people think it is.
At any rate, it is not true that every article on gender politics should have to re-explain the basics to people who haven't been paying attention for the last few decades.
> You have no right not to be offended.
I think you mean, "You have no right to be offended," and you're wrong. Of course, it's awful hard to force people to stop offending you, but you absolutely have a right to be offended.
I mean you have no right to an offense-free existence. Otherwise, claiming offense amounts to a heckler's veto, and is chilling and oppressive. You can be offended, and proclaim your offense to your offender, but offense isn't enough to require a change of behavior without an ancillary moral imperative, such as "offending some women is wrong".
On further thought, this post was probably written for an particular community, of which I am not a part, and on whose internal discourse I cannot make demands.
It should be obvious. I'm not sure, but I think that pretending not to know why people could be offended by this display in this day and age is just willful ignorance. Note: I'm not claiming that everyone has to agree that the display is offensive, but you must at least know why some people think it is.
At any rate, it is not true that every article on gender politics should have to re-explain the basics to people who haven't been paying attention for the last few decades.
> You have no right not to be offended.
I think you mean, "You have no right to be offended," and you're wrong. Of course, it's awful hard to force people to stop offending you, but you absolutely have a right to be offended.