I think you're totally right that the distinction lies in someone's purposefully inflicting something on you because they know it bothers or offends you. That's what the shock comics and talk radio guys who pride themselves on being politically correct are doing, mocking people's taking offense. And for that matter, that's what the Penny Arcade guys started doing after the whole nonsense blew up and they started getting juvenile about it, losing most of any sympathy from me.

But I really believe that the distinction has been lost in an environment where you have thousands of people outlining what is and isn't offensive, and tens of thousands of people at the ready to start an internet mob when they feel someone's been wronged. For a very minor example: a couple months ago I read a lengthy, earnest blog post encouraging more inclusiveness in the "nerd community." Some jack-ass responded in a comment by quoting the one part where the author had used "guys" to refer to both men and women, followed by "Um, seriously?" or something equally asinine. The author responded to her quickly by apologizing and editing the article to change "guys" to something more generic.

Another commenter and I said that the apology and the edits weren't necessary; it was perfectly clear that "guys" was being used as gender-neutral, and the rest of the article made it overwhelmingly clear that the author was being inclusive. In response, the commenter went on a tirade against me saying that she was constantly being reminded that she was being excluded and being a man I couldn't possibly understand, and then the author added to the pile-on by saying that those of us in a position of power don't get to decide when someone else can and can't be offended.

It's the predictable white male guilt bullshit, amplified by a million people on the internet with a sophomoric understanding of sociology, trying to apply broad-stroke theories about class and gender dynamics to every single interaction including comments on a website. Of course the author was free to apologize if he chose to; what I was objecting to was the idea that he was somehow obligated to, because if a woman says something that a man writes is sexist, it automatically is.

And again with the Penny Arcade thing: the part that continues to bug me, years later, after most of the people actually involved have already moved on, is that initial attack. One blogger misinterpreted a comic strip and said that it offended her, and it instantly became a situation in which the PA guys were obligated to apologize for making light of rape and contributing to rape culture. Even though that was in no way the intent of the strip, the strip was actually saying the opposite, and most importantly: even though they had never, in over a decade of making their webcomic, shown any indication of being anything other than inclusive of women.

What I'm saying is that they were perfectly entitled to flat out respond: No, you're wrong, this is not offensive, and you have completely misinterpreted it. And in fact, to respond that it's offensive even to accuse them of making light of sexual assault. But instead, no, they were obligated to apologize for something they never did. To do otherwise is dismissed as a non-apology ("they just don't care about rape!!!") and an intention to offend. Some people, predictably, said that it all boiled down to some power differential, as if their success automatically makes their intention meaningless. Others attributed it to white male privilege -- their intention doesn't matter, because they were being offensive without even realizing it. It was all bullshit, a FOX News caricature of politically correct speech made horrifyingly real.

(And of course, since those guys make their living trying to be funny, they tried to take the unfair position they'd been placed in, and make a joke out of it. Which just incensed people even more).

Of course the example you give — forcing an offensive curriculum on a student — is an abuse of power. But I think that the understanding of genuine class and power differences has been corrupted to apply to whatever people want it to, in much the same way that ignorant people try to claim their First Amendment rights on private forums. It has nothing to do with teacher/student, boss/employee, or similar relationships, and is used for anyone who's in a politically-incorrect demographic: basically, if you're a straight Christian white male, or any combination of those, then you'd better be ready to do a lot of apologizing and get used to being told to Check Your Privilege.

And then if you complain about that, you're immediately lumped in with the idiotic "Men's Rights" groups. It's kind of an untenable position for anyone who wants to be progressive but doesn't want to have to be constantly apologizing for stuff he hasn't done. It puts people in a position in which their race, gender, or economic background matters more than what they believe and what they do.

As for your account of Ramadan greetings at Christmas time, I think you've got it right, for what it's worth. The whole War On Christmas BS is nonsense generated to manipulate the simple-minded — people with any sense and common decency will just accept a greeting in the spirit in which it's given. There's a Jewish blogger who used to write (maybe he still does, for all I know) an annual diatribe about how horrible Christmas season is for him, as he's surrounded by Christmas decorations and is constantly being wished a Merry Christmas. It always struck me as hopelessly bitter false martyrdom — you're taking offense at someone's greeting and wishing you to join in their happiness.