| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Just using TL as an example here, but I can't help but chuckle at all this "I'm offended" talk. The gist that I am getting from a lot of people is that everyone should be allowed to say whatever is on their mind regardless of how it effects those around them. If what is said offends you, then you need to get over it. I'm sure that doesn't describe everyone, but its the overall theme I am personally picking up on. This is exactly what I feel whenever I read these discussions as well. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:You consider an appeal to human dignity to be fallacious? Err... hmm... interesting. An angle I hadn't considered to be honest. When human dignity is used as a rhetorical means of saying "shut up", then yes, it is fallacious. It's a red herring that shifts the topic from a logical discussion to an emotional one based on what most people believe to be offensive or not. On March 27 2012 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:Usually human dignity is up there in consideration of human rights. It's part of it, along with liberty and property. I don't quite know how I'd come up with a good example though. Do you not consider human dignity to be fundamental in any way? No. Human dignity is an amorphous term that doesn't have any agreed-upon meaning, and serves only as an appeal to emotion. It's been used for bullshit such as the UN declaring that treating people to remove genetic defects is an affront to human dignity. In other words, an affront to dignity is whatever people don't like, instead of being an objective right. On March 27 2012 11:05 DoubleReed wrote:Oh I get it. I can still use appeal to human dignity as the conclusion to the argument as long as I can back it up? I suppose that's fine then. I certainly don't have an issue with that. It's fine to call something offensive and insulting. It just doesn't have any weight in a logical discussion. It's like saying "I don't like bugs"; you have a right to do so and it's fine for you to feel that way, as long as you understand that it's subjective and doesn't replace a logical argument. | ||
|
justsayinbro
307 Posts
On March 27 2012 11:05 DeepElemBlues wrote: This is exactly what I feel whenever I read these discussions as well. just as they can be offended and express about it, you have the choice to ignore their inner+ Show Spoiler + introvert edited | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:50 DoubleReed wrote: Sorry, I guess I missed that. So I guess you do find the distinctions compelling. Maybe I'm not understanding you. I don't quite see how affronting someone's dignity is not an objective thing. Use the examples I gave (gay sex = bestiality and female contraception = sex). Those are not objective in their offensiveness? I don't know how I can explain it clearer. As I said before: "Using the term affront to human dignity means an objective offense to someone's humanity(torture, slavery, genocide, etc). Insult to your dignity means a subjective offense to your feelings." This whole thing started when you tried to make the semantic argument replacing offense with dignity, and then dignity with human dignity. If I treat you with less respect than your station deserves, I am insulting your dignity, an offense to your feelings. If I hold you captive and torture you, it is an affront to human dignity(everyone's, not yours), an offense to your humanity. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
just as they can be offended and express about it, you have the choice to ignore their introvert feelings and go on about your way. I don't see how it is a big deal at all for both sides concerned. them being offended does not bound you with duties to be considerate about them at all. Well at least you've given us a good example of the attitude joedaddy was making an observation about. I have to disagree that you can just dismiss someone else by demeaning them as an "introvert" and basically saying you don't have to care about what anyone else thinks, I think that's an arrogant and untenable position to take anywhere outside of the internet. | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
On March 27 2012 11:13 justsayinbro wrote: just as they can be offended and express about it, you have the choice to ignore their introvert feelings and go on about your way. I don't see how it is a big deal at all for both sides concerned. them being offended does not bound you with duties to be considerate about them at all. + Show Spoiler + social experiment I strongly feel that your intelligence is below average by 1st world standards. P.S. I wasn't offended by what you said. I was just thinking that what you were saying was idiotic and felt a need to share it. | ||
|
FaZe
Canada472 Posts
It will not break apart stone If there are no cracks. | ||
|
MerdaPura
Brazil148 Posts
also do not forget to be polite you easily offendable piece of shit. | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
People have all the right in the world to BE offended, but to me it's like a logical fallacy or something (probably not the right word, but I don't know how else to describe it?) to use being offended to support any sort of argument, defend themselves, get their way, or anything else of a similar nature. Address the FACTS, and reply in a civilized, productive manner. Someone saying that they're offended doesn't get anyone anywhere. Heck, when it comes to trolling or bullying (well some people might think bullying, but I'd actually say that's maybe one case that could help), one saying that they take offense to it might be exactly the goal, and by doing so the other side gets what they want. If the assertion seems true (or at least irrefutable and the opposite not proven), then there's especially no reason to even be offended about it — it's important to live with the truth and deal with it, not mosey around in a fake reality. Saying "suck it up" (anti-"I'm offended") isn't any sort of justification for biased views like racism, and I'd say that people could use it all they want. It doesn't mean it's effective or anything. Their argument can be torn up when facts are brought up. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On March 27 2012 11:13 justsayinbro wrote: just as they can be offended and express about it, you have the choice to ignore their introvert feelings and go on about your way. I don't see how it is a big deal at all for both sides concerned. them being offended does not bound you with duties to be considerate about them at all. I don't think you know what the word 'introvert' means. | ||
|
justsayinbro
307 Posts
On March 27 2012 11:49 Whitewing wrote: I don't think you know what the word 'introvert' means. yes I did use that word wrong, what I meant to say was inner feelings. Well at least you've given us a good example of the attitude joedaddy was making an observation about. I have to disagree that you can just dismiss someone else by demeaning them as an "introvert" and basically saying you don't have to care about what anyone else thinks, I think that's an arrogant and untenable position to take anywhere outside of the internet. I can't see how it is arrogant to be able to chose which offence you chose to care or dismiss. with OP's context, the quote is talking about trivial things that people take offense to which you should be able to dismiss without feeling like a dick. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
Society is based on a mutual understanding and commonality between individuals. When that trust, that commonality becomes subverted--that is when people get offended. So while it is true that someone being offended does not constitute a valid argumentative case--the overwhelming presence of being offended suggests that no one on either side is actually communicating with each other. Which means there really isn't an argument, which means nothing valid is really being discussed. | ||
|
logikly
United States329 Posts
[QUOTE]On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: That's a very nice article. Any chance the original conversation is available as well? It would be interesting to listen to.[/QUOTE] Oh man its from 2004 I dont think they have the audio files for that still. but here is the link for audio files if you want to check. [url=http://robarnieanddawn.com/index.php?q=node/339]http://robarnieanddawn.com/index.php?q=node/339[/url] | ||
|
cari-kira
Germany655 Posts
Sometimes powerless people have a community-driven power behind them, too, but thats rare. In common cases you see people with power being "offended", because noone, including you and me, listens to the others. We dont listen to them, the media dont listen to them, their opinions dont get broadcasted and multiplied. People with power, be it money, political power, or the power of weapons or violence, are used to get heard and have possibilities to back up their positions, so for them saying "i am offended by this and that" is used more like a threat followed by possible prevention of such offensive behaviour/appearance/[insert whatever needed] | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On March 27 2012 11:45 Xapti wrote: I'm sick of people talking about offended for any reason (at least that I can think of), or using it as any sort of defense. People have all the right in the world to BE offended, but to me it's like a logical fallacy or something (probably not the right word, but I don't know how else to describe it?) to use being offended to support any sort of argument, defend themselves, get their way, or anything else of a similar nature. Address the FACTS, and reply in a civilized, productive manner. Someone saying that they're offended doesn't get anyone anywhere. Heck, when it comes to trolling or bullying (well some people might think bullying, but I'd actually say that's maybe one case that could help), one saying that they take offense to it might be exactly the goal, and by doing so the other side gets what they want. If the assertion seems true (or at least irrefutable and the opposite not proven), then there's especially no reason to even be offended about it — it's important to live with the truth and deal with it, not mosey around in a fake reality. Saying "suck it up" (anti-"I'm offended") isn't any sort of justification for biased views like racism, and I'd say that people could use it all they want. It doesn't mean it's effective or anything. Their argument can be torn up when facts are brought up. As sunprince pointed out, it is often used as a logical fallacy to either distract (red herring) or to just ignore the argument entirely (dismissal), if you accept that offending someone is bad/wrong, it can be used to support an argument. By itself or if being offensive is okay, it is then meaningless. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
The other sort of taking offense at something hurts the nature of race discourse and political discourse in the country I live in, America. Every man's passing phrase can be taken as an excuse for a righteous crusade, more than what is necessary to bring about correction of gross wrongs in society. Now the law books contain provisions for 'hate crime,' as if the motivations of criminals that are racist or homophobic necessitate making a public example of their punishment. Modern abridgements of free speech occur from these offenses. You take offense and tell others in a specific sector of society, then leverage your group power to shut down advertisers or force apologies from the position of power and not freedom. | ||
|
Apples8u
Canada46 Posts
Find people who go out of their way to make you feel good, not terrible. It's pretty simple to be honest, most people who purposefully offend people/someone have issues themselves, so why let them affect you with their negativity? No doubt everyone has heard; "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one" so with opinions comes ethics and ideals for one person. Who gives a shit if some jackass thinks black people are bad or "gingers" are soulless, it is probably their problem anyway, so don't let it be yours! | ||
|
khaydarin9
Australia423 Posts
There are a lot of nuances in this argument, and I think a lot of them are being missed between posts - probably doesn't help that there seems to be a tendency for Americans to jump on the censorship/free speech bandwagon as soon as possible, even when it's not necessarily relevant, and an often incomplete understanding of what the concept and its application actually entails. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On March 27 2012 12:54 khaydarin9 wrote: Do people really still use the "words are just words" argument? Try living without words - written, aural, spoken and visual. Words are a lot more than a particular arrangement of graphite marks on a piece of paper, or vibrating air molecules. Words function on a cognitive level (if you can say they "function" at all), which means they're deeply involved with many aspects of human behaviour, including the emotions. If you want to hurt a person, you could go out and break their arm, or you could make them believe that their personal experiences and aspirations are trivial and worthless. It's not about "you let them hurt you with their words because you are a weak person" - both acts are damaging (and one might argue that it's easier to heal a bone than to restore a person's self esteem). There are a lot of nuances in this argument, and I think a lot of them are being missed between posts - probably doesn't help that there seems to be a tendency for Americans to jump on the censorship/free speech bandwagon as soon as possible, even when it's not necessarily relevant, and an often incomplete understanding of what the concept and its application actually entails. Here's the truth in a nutshell. People who don't get offended are the privileged upper class of society. They are the people who are well enough and stable enough that they have no fear of their livelihood becoming upturned. Their culture is the status quo, they're mind set is the status quo. To them, to think otherwise is silly because they are the privileged class and hence they don't need to have to think in other people's shoes. People who get offended often become offended because someone challenges their cultural and social norms. For example. If a white person decided to light some sticks on fire for warmth, it should be considered normal. It's only really offensive if he burns two sticks shaped as a cross in front of a black person's home like they used to do in the US. The context of the situation is what makes the moment offensive. So when people say "harmless" offensive statements, what they mean is "harmless" according to their own arbitrary concept of harmless. If you simply state that one should never be offended--that is akin to saying that one should never feel great passion and intense emotion. Which is akin to saying that one should not care about much of anything. It is a silencing argument wherein you are asked to simply only talk about things you don't care about so as to prevent you from actually trying to change things that matter to you. | ||
|
Supamang
United States2298 Posts
On March 27 2012 11:05 DeepElemBlues wrote: This is exactly what I feel whenever I read these discussions as well. I agree. People like to pretend to take the high road when saying stupid shit. They act as if they're the ones being mature by telling others to "grow a pair" and not be so sensitive, when in fact they just want to rationalize their own immature comments and general ignorance. Unless you believe that no one ever has any right to get angry at anything anyone says to them, then you need to shut the fuck up about this whole "don't be offended" shit. Whether its someone talking shit about black people, or if its someone calling your mother a useless whore, or even just your boss telling you how pathetically useless your work is on a daily basis, people are going to be "offended" by words. Stephen Fry needs to look at his own idiotic comment and realize how close he is to describing himself there. He doesn't say the words "I'm offended by...", but its pretty clear he's offended by the fact that people get offended. His whole point is that people need to let things slide, but here he is not letting this issue slide. He's just as whiny as the people he describes. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Rogue vs TriGGeR
Maru vs MaxPax
Rogue vs herO
Clem vs herO
Rogue vs Maru
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games gofns23767 summit1g14317 tarik_tv8248 Grubby2751 FrodaN1519 C9.Mang0254 mouzStarbuck230 Liquid`Hasu154 ViBE82 ZombieGrub40 ROOTCatZ2 |
|
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
IPSL
Hawk vs TBD
StRyKeR vs TBD
BSL
n0maD vs perroflaco
TerrOr vs ZZZero
MadiNho vs WolFix
DragOn vs LancerX
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Team League
OSC
BSL
Sterling vs Azhi_Dahaki
Napoleon vs Mazur
Jimin vs Nesh
spx vs Strudel
IPSL
Artosis vs TBD
Napoleon vs TBD
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
