EPTIf your comments cause offense and some other tangible issue then it's the tangible issue that is once again the problem, and not any kind of right to not be offended.
Getting offended - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
If your comments cause offense and some other tangible issue then it's the tangible issue that is once again the problem, and not any kind of right to not be offended. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!". The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?". Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive. Although, I might start doing that. The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass. The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech. | ||
|
theBALLS
Singapore2935 Posts
On March 27 2012 05:37 Myles wrote: Ok...simple question fyrewolf to maybe help me understand what you're trying to say. What is the difference between saying "Twilight sucks" and "I don't like that you said Twilight sucks"? One is expressing an opinion and one is expressing an opinion on an opinion. Is having an opinion on other people's opinions a privilege? Your terminology is wrong in the first place. The former is a fact while the latter is an opinion. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On March 27 2012 05:26 The Pale King wrote: Popular Western thought has steadily discarded the skills of critical thinking, or various ways of thinking, in favor of ease in technological access to what is considered knowledge. In short, why would an individual be concerned with analysis when simple answers to simple questions are made so accessible? A possible side effect that could account for the rapid loss of emotional control when confronted with a difference of opinion or challenging thought experiment is that the ease of technological access to what could be called 'simple information' has led to the users of that technology to apply that format onto their actual reality. Life is not a series of simple questions that require simple information to answer. Because there has been a reduced capability of critical thought in the general Western population, this could account for individual's turning more readily to emotional responses. When a loss of emotional control is combined with the traditional patterns of adversarial conflict solving, in the United States particularily, the result is a swell of Stephen fry's described rhetoric. TL;DR: Take out a loan and go to school... A reduced capability of critical thought, huh? Since when? And based on what facts, or are you just another person making unfounded assumptions about this supposed "decline of western society" for no particular reason? On March 27 2012 05:29 Fyrewolf wrote: I said that expressing being offended, is excercising the right to free speech expressing your privilege of being offended by the topic. Signature material right here. | ||
|
Space Invader
Australia291 Posts
| ||
|
DerNebel
Denmark648 Posts
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass. Well, just shrug. You don't believe what they are saying to be true so you have no reason to be offended or even care about what they are saying. If they are happy about telling you that you are going to hell, they are probably not going to stick around in your life for long. Wouldn't want the tarnish on their soul or anything. What Stephen Fry is referring to is the pointlessness (this word is great, i looks like it was made to be hissed out by Alan Rickman) of the statement "I'm offended by that.". There is no beginning or end to this statement, it just is. It exists without implications or impact on anything and should be avoided. If you are offended by something, you should be pointing out tangible reasons and discuss it. If you can't do that, people should realise that there is no reason to be offended at all. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 27 2012 05:37 Myles wrote: Ok...simple question fyrewolf to maybe help me understand what you're trying to say. What is the difference between saying "Twilight sucks" and "I don't like that you said Twilight sucks"? One is expressing an opinion and one is expressing an opinion on an opinion. Is having an opinion on other people's opinions a privilege? The right is to speech. The privilege is to the idea or feeling being expressed. That's my understanding of what the article was expressing. Saying you are offended is the right of speech, being offended is the privilege. | ||
|
msl
Germany477 Posts
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong. The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass. The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech. Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed. To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 27 2012 05:55 Fyrewolf wrote: The right is to speech. The privilege is to the idea or feeling being expressed. That's my understanding of what the article was expressing. Saying you are offended is the right of speech, being offended is the privilege. That's even worse. You're saying we don't have the right even to the freedom of thought. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On March 27 2012 05:55 Fyrewolf wrote: The right is to speech. The privilege is to the idea or feeling being expressed. That's my understanding of what the article was expressing. Saying you are offended is the right of speech, being offended is the privilege. Wait, so this is even more asinine then I previously thought. You are saying that how I personally feel about something can be regulated and taken away? You're just explaining the article right, you don't actually believe that pseudo-thoughtcrime nonsense? | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 27 2012 06:00 Myles wrote: Wait, so this is even more asinine then I previously thought. You are saying that how I personally feel about something can be regulated and taken away? You're just explaining the article right, you don't actually believe that pseudo-thoughtcrime nonsense? No no, not that kind of privilege that can be taken away. Perhaps perrogative is a better word for it. And of course I don't believe in thoughtcrime (though I don't think that's what the article was arguing, it was arguing you have a right to speech, but not to infringe upon others speech by claiming offense was taken), I just really like arguing devil's advocate. EDIT: msl is more eloquent at this than I am, his post is much better at explaining it. | ||
|
Jepsyn
Canada364 Posts
DAMN lol people really need to chill the fuck out.. that Steve Hughes link describes everything perfectly | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On March 27 2012 06:07 Fyrewolf wrote: No no, not that kind of privilege that can be taken away. Perhaps perrogative is a better word for it. And of course I don't believe in thoughtcrime (though I don't think that's what the article was arguing, it was arguing you have a right to speech, but not to infringe upon others speech by claiming offense was taken), I just like arguing devil's advocate. I'm still not understanding what privilege it is if it's not free speech or thought. Now, if the argument is that taking offense isn't enough to force other people to change their ways, then I completely agree. edit; lol, I thought there was some other article or something based on what he said. His quote seems pretty clear cut to me so I don't even know how this got here, and I apologize for contributing to the misunderstanding. | ||
|
The Pale King
33 Posts
Of course I can't empirically show than there has been a reduction of the capacity to critically think in Western societies, although the responses I'm recieving are indicative that those responding did not actually read critically what I wrote. I was not making an unfounded assumption, unless you consider that the increased technological use in the Western world is an assumption and not fact... | ||
|
Mr. Black
United States470 Posts
On March 27 2012 05:26 The Pale King wrote: Popular Western thought has steadily discarded the skills of critical thinking, or various ways of thinking, in favor of ease in technological access to what is considered knowledge. In short, why would an individual be concerned with analysis when simple answers to simple questions are made so accessible? A possible side effect that could account for the rapid loss of emotional control when confronted with a difference of opinion or challenging thought experiment is that the ease of technological access to what could be called 'simple information' has led to the users of that technology to apply that format onto their actual reality. Life is not a series of simple questions that require simple information to answer. Because there has been a reduced capability of critical thought in the general Western population, this could account for individual's turning more readily to emotional responses. When a loss of emotional control is combined with the traditional patterns of adversarial conflict solving, in the United States particularily, the result is a swell of Stephen fry's described rhetoric. TL;DR: Take out a loan and go to school... Your post employs the rhetorical trick of "bolstering." Basically, you say, anyone who thinks critically or is educated will recognize that Fry's "rhetoric" is a mere "emotional response." Either that, or you are agreeing with Fry, and your grammar and writing is just horribly unclear. For example--does "Stephen Fry's described rhetoric" refer to Mr. Fry's statements as described in the OP, or does "Stephen Fry's described rhetoric" refer to the "I'm offended" statements Fry is describing--your post is so vague that it could actually apply to either. In a paragraph that only had a single flawed statement, context might help determine the meaning--but the rest of your post does nothing to clear up the confusion. Rather than trying to impress us with your (apparently expensive) education, why not engage in some of the critical thinking you love and tell us why Fry is wrong (or right--again, I can't tell)? I fully agree with your point that people often fail to think critically--your post is a prime example of a failure to think critically and to just coast on rhetoric. Ironically, Fry is actually using a few short words of effective rhetoric to make the point you bumbled wordily through. Fry's point is, "Fuck being offended, tell me why I'm wrong." If Fry says to a Christian, "God is dead, and no one cares. If there is a hell, I'll see you there," and the Christian responds, "I am offended, you sinner," no one has learned anything--the statement literally has no value. But if the Christian says, "I am disappointed that you have chosen to express such a lie. God is alive and well in the hearts of all believers, etc." and goes on to honestly advocate for his belief, there might be a valuable conversation. "I am offended" is a conversation ender and an escape from critical thinking. TL;DR -- Critical thinking is great, but that is not what you are doing. Before you insult a hemisphere and a nation's ability to reason, please ensure that you can do so yourself. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 27 2012 05:58 msl wrote: Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed. To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion. Who cares if the criticism is valid, reasoned, or constructive? I have the right to stupid speech as well. You don't get to silence me just because I happen to be an idiot. And expressing my stupidity doesn't infringe on anybody's rights, so I don't understand that part. I don't care if being offended is not a reasonable objection. It's still an objection and I can raise it whenever the hell I want. | ||
|
The Pale King
33 Posts
On March 27 2012 06:16 Mr. Black wrote: Your post employs the rhetorical trick of "bolstering." Basically, you say, anyone who thinks critically or is educated will recognize that Fry's "rhetoric" is a mere "emotional response." Either that, or you are agreeing with Fry, and your grammar and writing is just horribly unclear. For example--does "Stephen Fry's described rhetoric" refer to Mr. Fry's statements as described in the OP, or does "Stephen Fry's described rhetoric" refer to the "I'm offended" statements Fry is describing--your post is so vague that it could actually apply to either. In a paragraph that only had a single flawed statement, context might help determine the meaning--but the rest of your post does nothing to clear up the confusion. Rather than trying to impress us with your (apparently expensive) education, why not engage in some of the critical thinking you love and tell us why Fry is wrong (or right--again, I can't tell)? I fully agree with your point that people often fail to think critically--your post is a prime example of a failure to think critically and to just coast on rhetoric. Ironically, Fry is actually using a few short words of effective rhetoric to make the point you bumbled wordily through. Fry's point is, "Fuck being offended, tell me why I'm wrong." If Fry says to a Christian, "God is dead, and no one cares. If there is a hell, I'll see you there," and the Christian responds, "I am offended, you sinner," no one has learned anything--the statement literally has no value. But if the Christian says, "I am disappointed that you have chosen to express such a lie. God is alive and well in the hearts of all believers, etc." and goes on to honestly advocate for his belief, there might be a valuable conversation. "I am offended" is a conversation ender and an escape from critical thinking. TL;DR -- Critical thinking is great, but that is not what you are doing. Before you insult a hemisphere and a nation's ability to reason, please ensure that you can do so yourself. If I hadn't written the last sentence urging people to go to school, you may have payed attention to what was being said. An explanation for the possibility which Fry is indicating, that opinion is cited more frequently than a response appealing to reasoning in day to day arguement, was offered. Rather than consider what was written, you became offended that there was a possibility I was working under a pretentious impetus. The actual content of what I wrote was passed over. Because online communication is selfish in nature and does not directly sanction a discussional dialogue, you chose to ignore the relationship between technological use and increased emotional response I was only trying to think about and instead established the opinion that my words were rhetoric. I was just exploring the topic, I didn't mean to imply I was some great source of knowledge. It's okay, I made the mistake of assuming no one would read what I wrote, because I am just a selfish as you when I am online =D Why would you bring up that my education is expensive however, is an interesting asumption that may indicate my previous thoughts about the increasing emotional aspect of the opinions people hold today. Just relax =P | ||
|
msl
Germany477 Posts
On March 27 2012 06:25 DoubleReed wrote: Who cares if the criticism is valid, reasoned, or constructive? I have the right to stupid speech as well. You don't get to silence me just because I happen to be an idiot. I'm not forcing anyone to listen to my criticism. I don't care if being offended is not a reasonable objection. It's still an objection and I can raise it whenever the hell I want. Obvioulsy you can and have every right. The point simply is that no one will (or should) take your objection serioulsy. No one is trying to silence you, the silence is a result of people simply ignoring you because you do not contribute to the discourse. Simply put: You may excercise your right to, as you so eloquently put it, stupid speech. It is the implied expectation that the public discourse should be halted or altered because of your unreasoned feelings that is the problem. EDIT: To further clarify. I am not saying expressing being offended is not covered by the freedom of speech or that freedom of speech only covers reasonable diskussion. I am simply point out that expressing being offended =/= expressing critisism. That the whole point of freedom of speech is to freely express criticism is something you said and I simply agree with ;-) | ||
| ||
