Musings of a Timid observer

In the movie the Matrix revolutions, there's a particular scene in which the rogue programme within the Matrix, Agent Smith is fighting the chosen one, Neo and proceeds to lecture him on why resistance is futile. The quote and Neo's response is below Agent Smith:Why, Mr. Anderson? Why, why, why? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do yo

A few weeks ago I was having a lunch time chat with some friends of mine when the topic of offense came up. In the ensuing back and forth, I remember one of them saying"It's always the responsibility of the speaker when someone understands something as offensive". I found this odd given that the idiom "taking offense" implies at least passive participation on the part of the listener. Also , in the case that several listeners interpret something said differently, which interpretation should be given more weight? Suffice to say, we were broaching a subject that required more than the 1 hour break our employers grant us to feed. But the conversation stayed with me. I certainly understood their point about the responsibility of the speaker in communicating ideas judiciously.  But certainly, so do too the people listening. Surely there is an obligation not to betray the intentions or ideas , not the context and devices used by the active speaker. I do fear th