Offence

Over the last few days I have been told a number of times that I shouldn't say things because I'll offend the person. Once was on being asked about someone who has been coming to the gym with me when I said that she was a poor runner. Another occasion was describing someone as fat. On neither occasion was the person present.
It was explained to me that these people might find out about my opinion and be offended, that my listeners would hear my 'harsh' judgements and worry what I thought of them, and that I might speak of them similarly. In essence, I am expected not to tell the truth, even when asked of me, and even when the person who might not like the truth is not present. I must defer to others' arbitrary decisions of what is offensive, defer to their sensibilities and constantly attempt to guess the insecurities of everyone in the room in order to avoid speaking of the subject at all.

This is lunacy, and I said so, and am saying so here. I do not care if 'every girl is sensitive about her weight'. A fat person is fat and if others are concerned about this or themselves then perhaps their worry about the subject would be better expressed in exercise to lose the weight, rather than offence when someone talks about being overweight.
I could just as easily claim to be offended by the use of the word 'the'. But if I started explaining to people that they were being rude in everyday speech they would rightly ignore me, and possibly suggest that I see a doctor for my illness. I can't expect to change the language based on my personal problems, and nor can I expect others to live around me as if I were the centre of the universe. One's sensibilities and insecurities are one's own business, and I'm quite glad. I would rather that others did not even try to guess my insecurities, rather than feeling actively obliged to do so.
I was told that when it comes to offence I should accept other people's judgements. But I don't see why offence is special when compared to religion, philosophy, morality, tastes or desires. We allow other people to hold their own opinions on all these things but we do not, generally, expect others to agree with our own opinions in these matters. It would be a strange person who truly thought it outrageous that not everyone else also enjoyed apples more than oranges, and expected others always to express a preference for apples in his presence.
Yet when it comes to offence I am told that I must obey other people's opinions. This is the offensive ideal, if anything that I have mentioned is. The thoughtless belief that your feelings trump mine, and trump objective communication, is implying that I am objectively less important, not equal, and that I should subsume my desires to yours. Since the whole justification of why I should be careful of what I say is to avoid offending others, there appears to be some considerable hypocrisy.

One might respond by claiming that my desire to say what I think is simply a desire that another person must obey and that I, in turn, am expecting others to conform to my opinions. But even a cursory examination of the two situations will reveal the difference. Whereas in the first (the one people have tried to impose) my actions are being limited and controlled by arbitrary, irrational desires of other people, in the second I am not controlling anyone's actions by expressing myself. If a person has an emotional response to normal conversation, the emotional response is entirely internal and is not under my control.

At school, when I was much younger, I experienced insults, bullying, theft, vandalism, tactlessness, bluntness and foolishness, as many people do to varying extents. It is very easy to tell when someone is being intentionally insulting; those who want to insult me have always made this clear, because otherwise the point of the insult is lost. If someone means offence, I am happy to read offence into their statement. However, the taking of unintentional offence is something I cannot understand in most situations. If in my culture a man always stands to greet a new arrival and a male host does not do so for me then I might be offended. But as soon as it is explained that he has never encountered such a custom, and certainly not been trained in it, I will no longer be offended.
With such an obvious example, scenes from television and films make it seem as though the population will agree with me. Yet when it comes to conversation about being a bad runner it is apparently offensive, even though it is an objective assessment (as far as I can make one on this) with the person not even in the room (or city), and certainly not intended to be offensive.
When it comes to offence, I believe that intent is everything. As children know, and parents have forgotten, even the most harmless of statements can be meant maliciously, and as many people know, insulting names can be used affectionately. When one of my old school friends calls me by the nickname I had there I don't fly off the handle, and no-one else takes offence on my behalf.

Similarly, the person in question who is a bad runner is the first to admit it. It is possible to be a bad runner and have improved, just as it is possible to be fat and have beautiful hair. I see no need to focus only on positive traits. Bad things exist and it's a sign of maturity and intelligence to have realised this and accept that other people might also have noticed it.