|
On March 27 2012 06:34 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 06:25 DoubleReed wrote:On March 27 2012 05:58 msl wrote: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. 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. 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. 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.
This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them.
|
On March 27 2012 06:38 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 06:34 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 06:25 DoubleReed wrote:On March 27 2012 05:58 msl wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them.
Thanks for compressing my painstainkingly composed paragraph down like that. I sure feel like a wordy bastard now :-).
|
On March 27 2012 06:38 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 06:34 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 06:25 DoubleReed wrote:On March 27 2012 05:58 msl wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them.
They have every right to do that, and you have every right to ignore them and continue talking.
Exchange:
"Fuck you."
"Shut up."
"No I don't want to."
"Well shit."
|
Stephen Fry's point isn't that no one should get offended. It's that a person being offended is not cause to action. If what they are being offended by is actually affecting peoples lives then there can be a discussion about whether or not these things should continue but as long as the sole effect of an action is "random person is offended" that action is as harmless as can be.
His main point is that someone thinking that them being offended somehow is very serious and important is ridiculous and narcissistic. Being offended is an emotional state. It's not more important to other people than being happy or slightly tired. Being offended does not in itself give you the right to act out against people you don't like.
|
On March 27 2012 06:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 06:38 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 06:34 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 06:25 DoubleReed wrote:On March 27 2012 05:58 msl wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them. They have every right to do that, and you have every right to ignore them and continue talking. Exchange: "Fuck you." "Shut up." "No I don't want to." "Well shit."
And that's exactly why Fry says "it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase".
|
On March 27 2012 06:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 06:38 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 06:34 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 06:25 DoubleReed wrote:On March 27 2012 05:58 msl wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them. They have every right to do that, and you have every right to ignore them and continue talking. Exchange: "Fuck you." "Shut up." "No I don't want to." "Well shit."
We are in agreement then. To demonstrate: The following sentences are not mutially exclusive:
People have every right to express whatever stupid thing they want.
Being offended =/= valid critisism
Also: Me expressing this view does nor mean I (or indeed Stephan Fry) want to take away peoples right to free speech. We're simply pointing out they are being idiots when they expect that them being offended is treated as valid criticism.
|
On March 27 2012 06:51 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 06:45 DoubleReed wrote:On March 27 2012 06:38 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 06:34 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 06:25 DoubleReed wrote:On March 27 2012 05:58 msl wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them. They have every right to do that, and you have every right to ignore them and continue talking. Exchange: "Fuck you." "Shut up." "No I don't want to." "Well shit." And that's exactly why Fry says "it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase".
Oh nice switch of topic there. Now suddenly it's okay for me to say that 'being offended' is a right. Lovely. 
And I would argue it does have meaning. It's about the degradation of human dignity. I mean when someone is talking about gay sex is basically bestiality or how it's okay to beat/rape your wife I think it's okay to use words like "This is an affront to human dignity. It offends me as a human being that you wish to institutionalize hatred against people or that you want to trivialize the suffering of human beings." That should offend you.
Just because it may be overused or misused or does not mean it is useless.
|
On March 27 2012 06:49 StarBrift wrote:
Stephen Fry's point isn't that no one should get offended. It's that a person being offended is not cause to action. If what they are being offended by is actually affecting peoples lives then there can be a discussion about whether or not these things should continue but as long as the sole effect of an action is "random person is offended" that action is as harmless as can be.
His main point is that someone thinking that them being offended somehow is very serious and important is ridiculous and narcissistic. Being offended is an emotional state. It's not more important to other people than being happy or slightly tired. Being offended does not in itself give you the right to act out against people you don't like.
I thought his main point is that it's a worthless phrase. Saying "I am offended" doesn't actually do anything. It's a complete waste of breath and time to even express it. You can criticize someone and say, I don't like what you are saying and here is why. But just saying you are offended is absolutely meaningless, it doesn't contribute anything. Hence why he doesn't respect it.
|
On March 27 2012 06:58 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 06:51 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 06:45 DoubleReed wrote:On March 27 2012 06:38 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 06:34 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 06:25 DoubleReed wrote:On March 27 2012 05:58 msl wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them. They have every right to do that, and you have every right to ignore them and continue talking. Exchange: "Fuck you." "Shut up." "No I don't want to." "Well shit." And that's exactly why Fry says "it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase". Oh nice switch of topic there. Now suddenly it's okay for me to say that 'being offended' is a right. Lovely. And I would argue it does have meaning. It's about the degradation of human dignity. I mean when someone is talking about gay sex is basically bestiality or how it's okay to beat/rape your wife I think it's okay to use words like "This is an affront to human dignity. It offends me as a human being that you wish to institutionalize hatred against people or that you want to trivialize the suffering of human beings." That should offend you. Just because it may be overused or misused or does not mean it is useless.
The point is that the fact that it offends you is completely irrelevant.
You can say, "You shouldn't institutionalize hatred against people or that you want to trivialize the suffering of human beings because it is an affront to human dignity", that actually contributes something.
The fact that you were offended by it does not.
|
On March 27 2012 06:58 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 06:51 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 06:45 DoubleReed wrote:On March 27 2012 06:38 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 06:34 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 06:25 DoubleReed wrote:On March 27 2012 05:58 msl wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them. They have every right to do that, and you have every right to ignore them and continue talking. Exchange: "Fuck you." "Shut up." "No I don't want to." "Well shit." And that's exactly why Fry says "it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase". Oh nice switch of topic there. Now suddenly it's okay for me to say that 'being offended' is a right. Lovely. And I would argue it does have meaning. It's about the degradation of human dignity. I mean when someone is talking about gay sex is basically bestiality or how it's okay to beat/rape your wife I think it's okay to use words like "This is an affront to human dignity. It offends me as a human being that you wish to institutionalize hatred against people or that you want to trivialize the suffering of human beings." That should offend you. Just because it may be overused or misused or does not mean it is useless.
Being offended is a feeling.
Your right is to express this feeling (and sure, if you want to get very technical to have it in the first place).
If you express this feeling without further qualifiers or thought you shouldn't have any expectation of altering the discourse. People do however, which seem to offend Mr Fry.
If you manage to actually voice not only your feeling of being offended but why you are offended (as marvelously demonstraed by your example and/or Mr Frys quote) I think we all agree that not only you're exercising your rights, but doing it in a constructive way that people can engage with.
Why is it that you assume that criticising the way people use their righs means one wants to take them away? Seems quite a leap.
|
ITT: people venting their secret frustration at not being able to be tactless dicks in public.
|
But that's exactly what people are saying when they say they are offended.
"I am offended" and "You are insulting my dignity" is the same statement. Why are you saying that one is good and one is bad?
|
i am offended that more people arent talking about how awesome stephen fry is....
|
Regardless of whether people have the right to be offended or the right to offend or whatever, I'll give my personal opinion on being offended.
I work hard at not being offended by others opinions, choice of lifestyle, worldview etc. There in no point in being offended because someone believes something that runs contrary to what you believe. Fact is they won't/can't change their opinions because they offend you. So to offend me you need to be especially and deliberately offensive.
There is a difference between having a belief that others find offensive and expressing it in a deliberately offensive way.
Eg a Christian who says "I believe abortion is wrong" is different from saying "If you get an abortion then you are a baby murderer and deserve to rot in jail forever, you heathen". Also "I believe homosexuality is wrong" is different to saying "God hates fags".
Same as an atheist who says "Belief in god is illogical" is different from saying "Belief in god is strictly for idiots and half wits". Again saying "the church has in the recent past protected clergy who they believed were guilty of child molestation and rape and as a member of the church you need to deal with it" is different from saying "All clergy are a bunch of paedophiles, and all Christians are complicit"
I use these examples because I've had people say similar things to me, or people I know.
What I believe is this. We live in a world where people will hold vastly different beliefs than us, beliefs which challenge what we believe, and are, at their core completely incompatible to our beliefs. If we want the right to express our beliefs and opinions then we need to grant the right for others to do so as well.
But there is no value in expressing your beliefs in a fashion which deliberately belittles others. In the same way there is no value in becoming offended when others express their beliefs in a completely reasonable fashion.
I agree with Stephen fry in that "I find that offensive" is not an argument, but if you are acting like an arsehole, don't be surprised when people are offended by it.
Also, I'm a Christian, in the interests of disclosure or whatever.
|
On March 27 2012 07:21 DoubleReed wrote:
But that's exactly what people are saying when they say they are offended.
"I am offended" and "You are insulting my dignity" is the same statement. Why are you saying that one is good and one is bad?
Your mistake is to assume to know what peope mean by phrases like "I am offended" and "You are insulting my dignity". By themselves these statements mean nothing except that someones feelings were hurt (and except "I DONT LIKE IT; SHUT UP!" as a translation maybe). It is only when we're told WHY someones feelings were hurt that a dialog is possible.
Thats why I said yours was a good example, not because you phrased "I am offfended" differently, but because you also told us why you are offended. Basicly the assumption that the discourse must be halted or altered just because of your emotional state wasn't there.
|
On March 27 2012 07:21 DoubleReed wrote:
But that's exactly what people are saying when they say they are offended.
"I am offended" and "You are insulting my dignity" is the same statement. Why are you saying that one is good and one is bad?
"You are insulting my dignity" and "it is an affront to human dignity" are not the same. Affront to human dignity is something any humans dignity would be affronted by, like torture, war crimes, etc. An "insult to my dignity" is something that is insulting to the individual, like demeaning them with name-calling(if the individual finds it offensive).
The fact that it offends you specifically does not contribute anything to an argument, since being offended is subjective. The fact that it is an affront to human dignity does contribute something to an argument.
|
Offense is utterly and completely subjective, you have every right to be offended by anything really; however this does not give you the right to censor others, just as they do not get to forbid you to say something they might find offensive.
Surely free speech is more highly valued than any given indivduals hurt feelings.
|
While I agree wholeheartedly with Stephens sentiment, I believe he could have been more articulate.
What he's talking about is the recognition of a concept that one, based on upbringing, background and personal experience will find to be distasteful, in opposition behaviourally or morally, or precluding a physical threat.
The content of instances one deems to be offensive pose no actual threat and are therefore in my opinion, a non-issue.
My attempt at a quote would be:
"The entire concept of being offended is a falsehood spread by the incessant herd-minded populace that has somehow convinced us words shape reality and that difference is automatically associated with negativity."
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 27 2012 06:38 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 06:34 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 06:25 DoubleReed wrote:On March 27 2012 05:58 msl wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them.
There's a difference in being offended, and having the right to be offended, and expressing it with the purpose of stopping another person's behavior. Even so, you have the right to do both, as long as you don't break the law while doing it.
Saying "I'm offended" is pretty silly, it really has no purpose unless you give more details, but there's a difference between doing that and actually being offended. Either way, it's silly to suggest that you don't have a right to be offended or a right to express the offense you feel.
|
On March 27 2012 07:45 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 07:21 DoubleReed wrote:
But that's exactly what people are saying when they say they are offended.
"I am offended" and "You are insulting my dignity" is the same statement. Why are you saying that one is good and one is bad? "You are insulting my dignity" and "it is an affront to human dignity" are not the same. Affront to human dignity is something any humans dignity would be affronted by, like torture, war crimes, etc. An "insult to my dignity" is something that is insulting to the individual, like demeaning them with name-calling(if the individual finds it offensive). The fact that it offends you specifically does not contribute anything to an argument, since being offended is subjective. The fact that it is an affront to human dignity does contribute something to an argument.
Well it doesn't have to be that extreme. This isn't uncommon rhetoric in today's world.
Comparing gay sex to bestiality. Would you not agree that is degrading to the dignity of any gay person? Do you differentiate whether or not that's offensive to gay people individually, gay people as a whole, or humanity as a whole?
Suggesting that female contraception is only about sex rather than all the health benefits trivializes women's health issues. Are you simply differentiating whether a woman is offended as a woman or as a human?
I don't really find these distinctions very compelling. Do you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
