|
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:So when people say "harmless" offensive statements, what they mean is "harmless" according to their own arbitrary concept of harmless.
No. When someone says that offensive statements are "harmless" what we mean is that they don't cause objective harm.
For example, some people find a depiction of Muhammad harmless, while others find it harmful. Forbidding such a depiction based on the latter would be stupid, because it's obviously a subjective harm.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote: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.
False. You can care about many things without carrying about people saying bad things about you. I don't care if someone insults me, but I care if someone physically attacks me.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote: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.
No one is saying that you can't be offended or state that you are offended. The point being made here is that you can't subsitute your emotional arguments for logic. Feel free to be offended all you want, but don't use that as a basis to demand anything.
|
sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me
thats what my mother always told me. it seams mothers stopped doing that over the last few decades.
|
On March 27 2012 16:46 sunprince wrote:
No one is saying that you can't be offended or state that you are offended. The point being made here is that you can't subsitute your emotional arguments for logic. Feel free to be offended all you want, but don't use that as a basis to demand anything.
Ok I'll take back my previous ranty post if this is what people are arguing for. Most of the time, the general feeling I get is that people are all "sticks and stones" to defend their own insulting comments and nothing more. However, if the whole point is that people should have a good reason to be offended before throwing that term out there then I can get behind that.
|
On March 27 2012 16:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:So when people say "harmless" offensive statements, what they mean is "harmless" according to their own arbitrary concept of harmless. No. When someone says that offensive statements are "harmless" what we mean is that they don't cause objective harm. For example, some people find a depiction of Muhammad harmless, while others find it harmful. Forbidding such a depiction based on the latter would be stupid, because it's obviously a subjective harm. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote: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. False. You can care about many things without carrying about people saying bad things about you. I don't care if someone insults me, but I care if someone physically attacks me. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote: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. No one is saying that you can't be offended or state that you are offended. The point being made here is that you can't subsitute your emotional arguments for logic. Feel free to be offended all you want, but don't use that as a basis to demand anything.
No need to be so defensive. I have not contradicted the argument made supporting being offensive. Read what I said again.
A.) Something being a harmless offensive statement is purely objective. This goes both ways. It's subjective that the statement is harmless much like it is subjective that the statement is offensive.
B.) When you tell someone that what they're feeling (insulted) is irrelevant, you're telling them that their opinion on said subject is irrelevant.
C.) If you can't talk about things that offend you--then you aren't allowed to talk about things that actually matter to you. If you're not allowed to talk about the fact that that offensive topic offends you--then that's the same as not being allowed to talk about things that offend you. ie--it's a silencing tactic.
|
On March 27 2012 17:13 lorkac wrote:A.) Something being a harmless offensive statement is purely objective. This goes both ways. It's subjective that the statement is harmless much like it is subjective that the statement is offensive.
Yes. However, you cannot base any sort of argument based on subjective harms. Frequently, however, claims of being offended are used to call for some sort of action, such as censoring that speech. That's completely flawed, since it's based on a subjective harm rather than an objective harm.
On March 27 2012 17:13 lorkac wrote:B.) When you tell someone that what they're feeling (insulted) is irrelevant, you're telling them that their opinion on said subject is irrelevant.
Yes, we are indeed telling them their opinion is irrelevant, and there's nothing wrong with that. Logical fallacies, such as claiming offense to silence others, are irrelevant to a real discussion. Not everyone subscribes to the touchy-feely bullshit that everyone's opinion is special like a snowflake and needs to be respected.
On March 27 2012 17:13 lorkac wrote:C.) If you can't talk about things that offend you--then you aren't allowed to talk about things that actually matter to you. If you're not allowed to talk about the fact that that offensive topic offends you--then that's the same as not being allowed to talk about things that offend you. ie--it's a silencing tactic.
False. You can talk about things that offend you without substituting your outrage for logical arguments. No one's saying you're not allowed to whine; we're just saying we don't give a shit about your whining unless you can back it up with logic.
|
Of course people are offended. People get offended, the problem is people get openly offended and complain about it to a point they try to force people to do things. We've got entire generations of people who have been told "You are always correct and never will you know failure" People never learn that other people have other opinions and thoughts and they don't always agree but that's okay because people can work things out generally without resorting to violence.
So you've got a bunch of people who when someone says anything they disagree with or do something they don't like they get offended and what do they do? They try to make a law to stop it. Don't like gay people? Outlaw it. Don't like guns? Outlaw it. Don't like someone calling people mean things? Outlaw it. If you don't like something just make it illegal seems to be the easier way to handle things for a large majority of the populace. That's of course a pretty damn good reason to be worried when someone says "I'am offended"
You have a right to be offended. You do not, SHOULD not be able to stop people who you disagree with. Even if they are a bunch of hateful biggots -they- have that RIGHT to say these things. More then likely someone in your family or theirs or both died for the idea that they could march down the street in a neo-natzi outfit and proclaim Hitler to be the 2nd coming of Jesus.(proper permits for safety permitting of course)
Now conversely you have every right to watch and counter protest those people and they should not be able to hurt or stop you from doing so(Those permits come in handy for that let me tell you..)
That's what is something so very awesome about the concept of Freedom of Speech. You get to say what you want, with very few stipulations(I won't go into them I am not an expert on the US constitution but I am sure you could find out if you want)
It's worrisome I see people saying "We should have freedom of Speech except when X" You have to be -very- -very- careful when and what X is. Just because you don't like what they say isn't a good reason to have that exception.
Get offended, get angry get mad! I don't care go tell them why you disagree YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT but don't tell people they can't have a public thought on something.
|
On March 27 2012 17:30 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 17:13 lorkac wrote:A.) Something being a harmless offensive statement is purely objective. This goes both ways. It's subjective that the statement is harmless much like it is subjective that the statement is offensive. Yes. However, you cannot base any sort of argument based on subjective harms. Frequently, however, claims of being offended are used to call for some sort of action, such as censoring that speech. That's completely flawed, since it's based on a subjective harm rather than an objective harm. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 17:13 lorkac wrote:B.) When you tell someone that what they're feeling (insulted) is irrelevant, you're telling them that their opinion on said subject is irrelevant. Yes, we are indeed telling them their opinion is irrelevant, and there's nothing wrong with that. Logical fallacies, such as claiming offense to silence others, are irrelevant to a real discussion. Not everyone subscribes to the touchy-feely bullshit that everyone's opinion is special like a snowflake and needs to be respected. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 17:13 lorkac wrote:C.) If you can't talk about things that offend you--then you aren't allowed to talk about things that actually matter to you. If you're not allowed to talk about the fact that that offensive topic offends you--then that's the same as not being allowed to talk about things that offend you. ie--it's a silencing tactic. False. You can talk about things that offend you without substituting your outrage for logical arguments. No one's saying you're not allowed to whine; we're just saying we don't give a shit about your whining unless you can back it up with logic.
Sigh...
I have never said that being offended is a valid form of argumentation. I've simply said that telling people to stop being so sensitive is a silencing tactic of the privileged. You agree with me on this when you said that "we are indeed telling them their opinion is irrelevant"--so let it go. There's no need for you to be so offended when we agree that what you're doing is a silencing tactic.
As for this statement.
No one's saying you're not allowed to whine; we're just saying we don't give a shit about your whining
If no one care's about people whining and being offended--then why does this thread exists? This thread was started because a bunch of people hate it that others whine and are offended. If no one cares that people are whining--then this thread is irrelevant.
|
Contrary to the belief that sticks and stones do not equal words, which supposedly do not hurt, there is a considerable body of linguistical evidence that words do hurt.
With human beings using language rather a lot, their perception is to a large extent language-driven: Though books, grass and sunshine, amongst other physical things, could be argued to be language-independent, many 'virtual' concepts exist for a large part only in the domain of thought -and therefore language.
An example of the way in which language shapes our life, and vice versa, can be easily demontrated in the 'language' of the Third Reich, where nazi ideology shaped the way the germans thought. The word 'Halbjude', or 'half-jew', a person with 2 jewish grand parents, did not exist before the national socialistic regime came to power, and to be classified as one could, aside from deportational possibilities, severely limit one's social and career opportunities. The new word helped the nazis shape the debate, as there wasn't any word (or concept) of 'Halbjude', even opponents of the regime were forced to use it and so 'implicate' themselves in the linguistical malpractice.
There are non-violent examples of language being used as in instrument. Certain government officials may marry people when some forms have been signed and they say something like 'you are now married!', police may verbally arrest one, judges and/or juries may declare one 'guilty/innocent'. While these are legally accepted situations in which language is used to operate in the 'real' world, there is some concensus that the relation between language and reality is permanent and does only differ in the degree in which one influences the other.
In the example of the Third Reich, the fact that the state media and a large portion of the non-state media as well as all the people all were in on the (linguistical) oppression, made the exclusion more tangible than if it were a case of one person calling another an idiot. And that is the last of the arguments, that humans are a social species: exclusion from the group causes stress. Even if the exclusion could be argued to be non-verbal, references to it have been shown to significantly increase stress and cause unhapiness for the excluded.
Therefore I argue that one should be careful with words, as they may very well harm a great deal. Calling people idiots for doing stupid things isn't much of a problem, but calling certain black people 'niggers' can't help but make them feel very bad, as their identities are being summarily put down. Same goes for religion: people are religious, which means that their identities include a very large part of their beliefs; they cannot help being offended, even if their rational thought more or less succesfully attempts to disregard any insult to their religion == themselves. In this case the religion-atheism debate elevates the insult above the 'idiot' level, as it is an expression of a larger existing conflict.
The extent to which this view impinges upon one's freedom to participate in social debates is of course left to the individual, however I do question the effectiveness of a confrontational approach to say, religious debate. A calmer and more argument-rich discussion could leave people less angry and more capable of processing arguments rationally.
Further reading:
On language and reality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Austin#How_to_Do_Things_With_Words
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vygotsky#Thought_and_Language
On the language of the Third Reich:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI_–_Lingua_Tertii_Imperii
|
Sorry for the wall of text, but I think this discussion has a surprising amount of rational thought in it so I put aside my oath never to participate in a general thread ever again and I hope things will improve from here on ^^
|
I hope nobody subscribes to this thread's philosophy, or everybody will be banned.
|
On March 27 2012 17:44 lorkac wrote:I have never said that being offended is a valid form of argumentation. I've simply said that telling people to stop being so sensitive is a silencing tactic of the privileged. You agree with me on this when you said that "we are indeed telling them their opinion is irrelevant"--so let it go. There's no need for you to be so offended when we agree that what you're doing is a silencing tactic.
We don't agree that it's a silencing tactic.
Telling someone that their opinion is irrelevant ≠ a form of silencing, no more than telling than someone they are objectively wrong is a form of silencing.
On March 27 2012 17:44 lorkac wrote:If no one care's about people whining and being offended--then why does this thread exists? This thread was started because a bunch of people hate it that others whine and are offended. If no one cares that people are whining--then this thread is irrelevant.
This thread was started because we think it's stupid that people whine about being offended. That doesn't mean we're trying to silence them. We're just pointing it out.
|
I think while it is important for us as a society to not only recognize when we're offending each other (and that is important), it's more important to understand why and how.
This is not an issue that we can brush aside so easily that a "Stop whining" will suffice.
|
On March 27 2012 16:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:So when people say "harmless" offensive statements, what they mean is "harmless" according to their own arbitrary concept of harmless. No. When someone says that offensive statements are "harmless" what we mean is that they don't cause objective harm. For example, some people find a depiction of Muhammad harmless, while others find it harmful. Forbidding such a depiction based on the latter would be stupid, because it's obviously a subjective harm. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote: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. False. You can care about many things without carrying about people saying bad things about you. I don't care if someone insults me, but I care if someone physically attacks me. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote: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. No one is saying that you can't be offended or state that you are offended. The point being made here is that you can't subsitute your emotional arguments for logic. Feel free to be offended all you want, but don't use that as a basis to demand anything.
I would be careful of your use of the concept of objectivity when it comes to language. The only thing that is objective about any word is the physical formation of the sound it makes when you say it - that is, the frequency of its pitch, its volume etc., and even that is only objective under certain ontology. Everything about a word's meaning is entirely subjective - if someone is harmed by something you said, whether you or not you intended to harm them has no validity of their pain.
My next question is: what if there was someone didn't care if they were physically attacked, but they cared greatly if someone insulted them? Does that mean we should tell people who are assaulted (and like yourself, don't care if they are insulted) to not let it get to them and learn to deal with it better? Both physical and verbal assault can be damaging. I am unsure as to why one is considered to be more legitimate than the other.
|
On March 27 2012 18:02 nepeta wrote:Contrary to the belief that sticks and stones do not equal words, which supposedly do not hurt, there is a considerable body of linguistical evidence that words do hurt. With human beings using language rather a lot, their perception is to a large extent language-driven: Though books, grass and sunshine, amongst other physical things, could be argued to be language-independent, many 'virtual' concepts exist for a large part only in the domain of thought -and therefore language. An example of the way in which language shapes our life, and vice versa, can be easily demontrated in the 'language' of the Third Reich, where nazi ideology shaped the way the germans thought. The word 'Halbjude', or 'half-jew', a person with 2 jewish grand parents, did not exist before the national socialistic regime came to power, and to be classified as one could, aside from deportational possibilities, severely limit one's social and career opportunities. The new word helped the nazis shape the debate, as there wasn't any word (or concept) of 'Halbjude', even opponents of the regime were forced to use it and so 'implicate' themselves in the linguistical malpractice. There are non-violent examples of language being used as in instrument. Certain government officials may marry people when some forms have been signed and they say something like 'you are now married!', police may verbally arrest one, judges and/or juries may declare one 'guilty/innocent'. While these are legally accepted situations in which language is used to operate in the 'real' world, there is some concensus that the relation between language and reality is permanent and does only differ in the degree in which one influences the other. In the example of the Third Reich, the fact that the state media and a large portion of the non-state media as well as all the people all were in on the (linguistical) oppression, made the exclusion more tangible than if it were a case of one person calling another an idiot. And that is the last of the arguments, that humans are a social species: exclusion from the group causes stress. Even if the exclusion could be argued to be non-verbal, references to it have been shown to significantly increase stress and cause unhapiness for the excluded. Therefore I argue that one should be careful with words, as they may very well harm a great deal. Calling people idiots for doing stupid things isn't much of a problem, but calling certain black people 'niggers' can't help but make them feel very bad, as their identities are being summarily put down. Same goes for religion: people are religious, which means that their identities include a very large part of their beliefs; they cannot help being offended, even if their rational thought more or less succesfully attempts to disregard any insult to their religion == themselves. In this case the religion-atheism debate elevates the insult above the 'idiot' level, as it is an expression of a larger existing conflict. The extent to which this view impinges upon one's freedom to participate in social debates is of course left to the individual, however I do question the effectiveness of a confrontational approach to say, religious debate. A calmer and more argument-rich discussion could leave people less angry and more capable of processing arguments rationally. Further reading: On language and reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussurehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Austin#How_to_Do_Things_With_Wordshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vygotsky#Thought_and_LanguageOn the language of the Third Reich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI_–_Lingua_Tertii_Imperii
Semiotics nerds unite *fistbump*
Really, the concept of censorship itself is proof that language shapes reality.
|
Actually I can get offended and don't give a shit when you say "so what?" bc I probably think I'm better than you - that's why I also get offended.
Right?
Well, I usually don't give a shit so I don't really get offended easily.
In the other hand, I may get offended by people that actually care if I get offended - people that are close.
Yes?
Who cares about other people and so why should I get offended by non caring persons?
Please get offended.
|
On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:I would be careful of your use of the concept of objectivity when it comes to language. The only thing that is objective about any word is the physical formation of the sound it makes when you say it - that is, the frequency of its pitch, its volume etc., and even that is only objective under certain ontology. Everything about a word's meaning is entirely subjective - if someone is harmed by something you said, whether you or not you intended to harm them has no validity of their pain.
Nothing I have said in this thread suggests that I consider language objective. In fact, the subjectivity of taking offense is the whole point, and the reason why you cannot use offense as a basis for logical argumentation.
On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:My next question is: what if there was someone didn't care if they were physically attacked, but they cared greatly if someone insulted them? Does that mean we should tell people who are assaulted (and like yourself, don't care if they are insulted) to not let it get to them and learn to deal with it better? Both physical and verbal assault can be damaging. I am unsure as to why one is considered to be more legitimate than the other.
A physical attack causes an objective harm. No matter how someone feels about it, there is harm that can be perceived in the real, physical world. You can empirically identify that harm, you can empirically measure it, and you can empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do not change physical harm, nor does that extent of that physical harm vary from person to person. By contrast, being insulted is not an objective harm. You cannot percieve it in the real, physical world. You cannot empirically identify it, you cannot empirically measure it, and you cannot empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do affect psychic harm, and the extent of that psychic harm varies from person to person. In other words, physical harm is more legitimate than psychic harm because the former is objective, while the latter is subjective.
Here's a question to you: if someone considers insulting them to be as harmful as murder, should we punish people who insult them as we would punish murderers? There's plenty of religious people who believe that blasphemy is a sin on the order of murder or rape. Should we punish people who depict Muhammed because millions of people consider that offensive? What do we do about the fact that racists find eqality offensive? How about if I take grievous offense to you taking offense? Where do we draw the line?
|
On March 27 2012 18:14 khaydarin9 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:02 nepeta wrote:Contrary to the belief that sticks and stones do not equal words, which supposedly do not hurt, there is a considerable body of linguistical evidence that words do hurt. With human beings using language rather a lot, their perception is to a large extent language-driven: Though books, grass and sunshine, amongst other physical things, could be argued to be language-independent, many 'virtual' concepts exist for a large part only in the domain of thought -and therefore language. An example of the way in which language shapes our life, and vice versa, can be easily demontrated in the 'language' of the Third Reich, where nazi ideology shaped the way the germans thought. The word 'Halbjude', or 'half-jew', a person with 2 jewish grand parents, did not exist before the national socialistic regime came to power, and to be classified as one could, aside from deportational possibilities, severely limit one's social and career opportunities. The new word helped the nazis shape the debate, as there wasn't any word (or concept) of 'Halbjude', even opponents of the regime were forced to use it and so 'implicate' themselves in the linguistical malpractice. There are non-violent examples of language being used as in instrument. Certain government officials may marry people when some forms have been signed and they say something like 'you are now married!', police may verbally arrest one, judges and/or juries may declare one 'guilty/innocent'. While these are legally accepted situations in which language is used to operate in the 'real' world, there is some concensus that the relation between language and reality is permanent and does only differ in the degree in which one influences the other. In the example of the Third Reich, the fact that the state media and a large portion of the non-state media as well as all the people all were in on the (linguistical) oppression, made the exclusion more tangible than if it were a case of one person calling another an idiot. And that is the last of the arguments, that humans are a social species: exclusion from the group causes stress. Even if the exclusion could be argued to be non-verbal, references to it have been shown to significantly increase stress and cause unhapiness for the excluded. Therefore I argue that one should be careful with words, as they may very well harm a great deal. Calling people idiots for doing stupid things isn't much of a problem, but calling certain black people 'niggers' can't help but make them feel very bad, as their identities are being summarily put down. Same goes for religion: people are religious, which means that their identities include a very large part of their beliefs; they cannot help being offended, even if their rational thought more or less succesfully attempts to disregard any insult to their religion == themselves. In this case the religion-atheism debate elevates the insult above the 'idiot' level, as it is an expression of a larger existing conflict. The extent to which this view impinges upon one's freedom to participate in social debates is of course left to the individual, however I do question the effectiveness of a confrontational approach to say, religious debate. A calmer and more argument-rich discussion could leave people less angry and more capable of processing arguments rationally. Further reading: On language and reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussurehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Austin#How_to_Do_Things_With_Wordshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vygotsky#Thought_and_LanguageOn the language of the Third Reich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI_–_Lingua_Tertii_Imperii Semiotics nerds unite *fistbump* Really, the concept of censorship itself is proof that language shapes reality.
Please stop trying to use 'nerd' as a token of covert coolness please, your language use is clearly distorting the fact that everyone, not just 'nerdy' (cool) people, should know a bit about it -^
On March 27 2012 18:26 sunprince wrote:
A physical attack causes an objective harm. No matter how someone feels about it, there is harm that can be perceived in the real, physical world. You can empirically identify that harm, you can empirically measure it, and you can empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do not change physical harm, nor does that extent of that physical harm vary from person to person. By contrast, being insulted is not an objective harm. You cannot percieve it in the real, physical world. You cannot empirically identify it, you cannot empirically measure it, and you cannot empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do affect psychic harm, and the extent of that psychic harm varies from person to person. In other words, physical harm is more legitimate than psychic harm because the former is objective, while the latter is subjective.
Psychological damage can be measured as well, although the relations between words and stress/depression/neurosis is less clearly identifiable than that between a fist and an eye. Same goes for certain toxins, or STDs, whose effects may manifest years after exposure. Your argument for relative damage sustained may be said to apply to bruising as well; or else a blow to the stomach of a boxer and a waitress should do equal damage, which it will be easily demonstrated not to do. You're thinking a bit black-and-white on both harmful domains I think 
|
If people wouldn't point out when you are being offensive I would still go around doing a lot of things blatantly offensive since my childhood. That obviously doesn't mean I always do this because it's basically impossible to avoid offending every single person in the world no matter what you do, but I question the level of empathy of people that don't give a crap if people are offended by what they say. Grow up.
|
On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:46 sunprince wrote:On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:So when people say "harmless" offensive statements, what they mean is "harmless" according to their own arbitrary concept of harmless. No. When someone says that offensive statements are "harmless" what we mean is that they don't cause objective harm. For example, some people find a depiction of Muhammad harmless, while others find it harmful. Forbidding such a depiction based on the latter would be stupid, because it's obviously a subjective harm. On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote: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. False. You can care about many things without carrying about people saying bad things about you. I don't care if someone insults me, but I care if someone physically attacks me. On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote: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. No one is saying that you can't be offended or state that you are offended. The point being made here is that you can't subsitute your emotional arguments for logic. Feel free to be offended all you want, but don't use that as a basis to demand anything. I would be careful of your use of the concept of objectivity when it comes to language. The only thing that is objective about any word is the physical formation of the sound it makes when you say it - that is, the frequency of its pitch, its volume etc., and even that is only objective under certain ontology. Everything about a word's meaning is entirely subjective - if someone is harmed by something you said, whether you or not you intended to harm them has no validity of their pain. My next question is: what if there was someone didn't care if they were physically attacked, but they cared greatly if someone insulted them? Does that mean we should tell people who are assaulted (and like yourself, don't care if they are insulted) to not let it get to them and learn to deal with it better? Both physical and verbal assault can be damaging. I am unsure as to why one is considered to be more legitimate than the other.
The legitimacy of punishing verbal assault could exist in the domain of responsibility: as a social mode of attack, many people carry a small amount of guilt, and it would be impractical to punish all the people responsible for the widely varying result of calling someone a nigger/jew/nerd/whatever. 5 cts fine for using the word 'nigger', 10 cts if shouted? And then a legacy-punishment of 0,01 ct every time someone calls someone a nigger after you have said it?
|
On March 27 2012 18:26 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:I would be careful of your use of the concept of objectivity when it comes to language. The only thing that is objective about any word is the physical formation of the sound it makes when you say it - that is, the frequency of its pitch, its volume etc., and even that is only objective under certain ontology. Everything about a word's meaning is entirely subjective - if someone is harmed by something you said, whether you or not you intended to harm them has no validity of their pain. Nothing I have said in this thread suggests that I consider language objective. In fact, the subjectivity of taking offense is the whole point, and the reason why you cannot use offense as a basis for logical argumentation. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:My next question is: what if there was someone didn't care if they were physically attacked, but they cared greatly if someone insulted them? Does that mean we should tell people who are assaulted (and like yourself, don't care if they are insulted) to not let it get to them and learn to deal with it better? Both physical and verbal assault can be damaging. I am unsure as to why one is considered to be more legitimate than the other. A physical attack causes an objective harm. No matter how someone feels about it, there is harm that can be perceived in the real, physical world. You can empirically identify that harm, you can empirically measure it, and you can empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do not change physical harm, nor does that extent of that physical harm vary from person to person. By contrast, being insulted is not an objective harm. You cannot percieve it in the real, physical world. You cannot empirically identify it, you cannot empirically measure it, and you cannot empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do affect psychic harm, and the extent of that psychic harm varies from person to person. In other words, physical harm is more legitimate than psychic harm because the former is objective, while the latter is subjective. Here's a question to you: if someone considers insulting them to be as harmful as murder, should we punish people who insult them as we would punish murderers? There's plenty of religious people who believe that blasphemy is a sin on the order of murder or rape. Should we punish people who depict Muhammed because millions of people consider that offensive? What do we do about the fact that racists find eqality offensive? How about if I take grievous offense to you taking offense? Where do we draw the line?
Sidenote:
While I largely agree with you I find your implication that one cannot cause objective harm through insults false.
If for example bullying is carried out purely verbally would the Bullies be within their rights to bully their victims?
The point must be that simply being offended is no basis to demand changes in other persons behaviour. Obviousl at some point language can go from subjectivly offensive to objectively hurtful.
(In this case objectively hurtful would be definded by me as "any reasonable person being would be hurt by the kind of language we're talking about, not just a subset or an individual".)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
