|
On March 28 2012 06:45 Falling wrote:However, racial slurs are not offensive because people happen to be disagreeing with each other and one side decided to get offended by the other's syllogisms. It's the overt or else implied derision, scorn, or loathing towards a person or peoples. And the words tend to carry their meaning for awhile.
Derision, scorn, or loathing, implied or otherwise, isn't a harm. While I heavily disagree with Neo-Nazi's, the fact remains that they are entitled to their views, and as long as they don't act on them they're free to do as they wish.
On March 28 2012 06:45 Falling wrote:Other offenses come from being rude, disrespectful, or demeaning. Sure, people need to be more thick-skinned, not let the barbs sink in, whatever. However, it's too much to say the ball is entirely in the court of the person being offended. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that being an inconsiderate, loud-mouthed jerk is laudable while it's every one else's job to make to be considerate of the inconsiderate jerk. Being inconsiderate isn't an intellectual position unless you're into Rand.
That's a straw man, as nobody has argued that you should be considerate of inconsiderate jerks. The only argument being made is that calling them inconsiderate jerks is pointless.
On March 28 2012 06:45 Falling wrote:And even in the cases of arguments, we highly value Opinion and Facts, but throw civility out the window. We would prefer to scream at each other like gibbons. And above all, one mustn't get offended about all that screaming and poo flinging. That would be whining and we just can't have that.
Again, a straw man, as nobody has argued that uncivilized speech is a good thing, merely that it must be permitted. Ad hominems like most hate speech are also frequently used as logical fallacies, but two wrongs don't make a right. Calling out hate speech for the reasons why it's wrong is far better than simply insisting it's offensive.
|
On March 28 2012 06:18 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 22:28 khaydarin9 wrote:Whether you receive a broken arm from 10N of force or some other injury (or no injury) depends on a number of characteristics - your genetics, your medical history, the way in which the surface area over which the force was received, etc. It's just as dependent on context as an insult. The key is that being offended is a choice, while having a broken arm is not. It is fundamentally false to claim that being offended is a condition imposed by another; in truth, you choose how you react to offense. Your offense might be partly conditoned or subconscious, but its ultimately your decision to feel offended and not ignore it. Being offended is a choice.Simply put, we don't assign legal rights based on what others choose to feel. Otherwise, it would be legal to murder someone because they made you angry. If you believe in free will, then you have to acknowledge that people can choose how they feel and how it affects them (and if you don't, then you can throw this entire discussion out the window). The same cannot be said of a broken arm; no matter your state of mind, a broken arm is a broken arm. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 23:25 lorkac wrote:No one would normally go around being insulting without also wanting to be physically and doctrinally insulting/assaulting. It is only because society as a whole is expected to hold back and be as respectful as possible that those people are held back from physical attacks. More times than not, the feeling of being offended comes with the feeling of being physically threatened when it comes to racial slurs. Yet another false dichotomy from you. Plenty of people are deliberately offensive without physically assaulting anyone. The WBC might be despicable, but they're also not physically intimidating anyone. Regardless, if someone is both offensive and physically assaulting people, then you can punish them for the latter. The offense that they cause is irrelevant. Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 05:48 Whitewing wrote:It does inform the person that the actions are harming his feelings, and if the person cares about that, and doesn't want to, it might stop him from doing it again. It doesn't force him to stop, but he might realize that his actions have consequences he doesn't want. And that's what makes it a logical fallacy. It's an implied threat no different from claiming that someone is pissing you off.
Again, contemporary psychology and psychiatry would disagree with you - feelings are for more complex than a choice. Most people do not "choose" to feel grief when someone they love dies. It's akin to saying that people "choose" to feel depression. Emotions are connected to physiological changes in the brain.
Again, I think you're switching between the idea of legal rights/punishment and social rights/punishment whenever it suits your argument, when they're entirely different discourses. There are, I'm assuming in your country, different legal rights for people have a mental disability - the insanity defence, or whatever. There is also the case of manslaughter. A murder is a murder - it's not legally "right" to murder someone for breaking your arm, it's not legally "right" for someone to murder someone for disrespecting them. The nuances social justifiability are more nuanced than that.
And again, I think there's a disparity between what you mean when you say "being offended" and what some other people are saying here. I understand "being offended" as the cognitive response of hurt and frustration, and it is my stance that people have a "right", or are justified in having the whole range of emotional responses to external stimuli. Others are identifying "being offended" as a sort of pseudo-political position, attached to the extremes of both the left and right wings, and in this context, I am inclined to agree that it is perhaps not the most productive of ideologies. Stephen Fry, in the OP, was probably somewhere in the middle.
|
By this reasoning people's feelings are irelevant... No wonder why the world is like it is.
|
On March 27 2012 21:03 Exoteric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 20:37 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 20:32 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 20:27 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 20:17 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 20:13 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 19:55 Exoteric wrote:On March 27 2012 19:22 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 19:05 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:
[quote]
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense. You make two assertations: 1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me. Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry? To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing? I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on 'my definition of common courtesy'. There is no 'my definition'. On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote:On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense. Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive. What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord? why would someone worship the devil? This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this. if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd? Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least. how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it? good =/= universally good Conflict is necessary because resolving conflict in a manner that actually accomplishes something is a good thing . By your rules conflicts are not being resolved, but ignored. I don't see how it is ignoring, Conflict= A gets offended by B, B says sorry, A accepts apology, both A and B are satisfied, therefore conflict cease to exist. It is not being ignored as far as i can see, but resolved. Or if apology doesnt suffice, B offers some sort of compensation (not money, can be something else) that A is willing to accept, A accepts compensation, both A and B are satisfied. Your reasoning confuses me greatly. Are we speaking strictly within the bounds of idle conversation so that it doesn't have any effect on actual decisions made in a governing body? Because I can somewhat understand that. Even so, it encourages the idea that a person who is easily offended over something always gets their way, regardless of how they justify their offense. That kind of attitude is a detriment to the progression of a society. What happens when the compensation is somebody's life, or their freedom? All it takes is a rejection of a certain set of ideals to be put to death, in some cases.
Nobody is gonna pay their life just because they offended someone. Be reasonable.
it what way is it detrimental to society? And look at it from this this perspective. If we did the opposite, instead of encouraging the idea that an offended person always gets their way, we would be encouraging inconsideration for others.
|
On March 28 2012 09:08 khaydarin9 wrote:Again, contemporary psychology and psychiatry would disagree with you - feelings are for more complex than a choice. Most people do not "choose" to feel grief when someone they love dies. It's akin to saying that people "choose" to feel depression. Emotions are connected to physiological changes in the brain.
I'll concede that I don't have an advanced knowledge of psychology and psychiatry, but I will offer the observation that people do sometimes choose not to take offense at something, and it's not because it was merely less offensive to them. Likewise, I think it can also be readily observed that people sometimes choose to be easily offended by many things. Clearly, choice appears to play a role.
On March 28 2012 09:08 khaydarin9 wrote:Again, I think you're switching between the idea of legal rights/punishment and social rights/punishment whenever it suits your argument, when they're entirely different discourses. There are, I'm assuming in your country, different legal rights for people have a mental disability - the insanity defence, or whatever. There is also the case of manslaughter. A murder is a murder - it's not legally "right" to murder someone for breaking your arm, it's not legally "right" for someone to murder someone for disrespecting them. The nuances social justifiability are more nuanced than that.
The question you've posed is why we privilege physical harms over verbal insults. The answer I've given is that the former is objective and the latter is not, and you haven't successfully addressed this.
On March 28 2012 09:08 khaydarin9 wrote:And again, I think there's a disparity between what you mean when you say "being offended" and what some other people are saying here. I understand "being offended" as the cognitive response of hurt and frustration, and it is my stance that people have a "right", or are justified in having the whole range of emotional responses to external stimuli.
I think people have a right to be offended; I haven't suggested otherwise. But at the same time, I don't think being offended entitles you to anything, whether that's legal/social restitution, or a free pass to use it as a logical fallacy.
|
Stephen Fry is pretty much a boss. He is also quite right in this situation too.
|
Canada11314 Posts
Again, a straw man, as nobody has argued that uncivilized speech is a good thing, merely that it must be permitted. Ad hominems like most hate speech are also frequently used as logical fallacies, but two wrongs don't make a right. Calling out hate speech for the reasons why it's wrong is far better than simply insisting it's offensive.
So are you arguing that "I am offended" is completely useless as Stephen Fry seems to be saying. Or that it is inadquate on it's own? Because I would say essential to that phrase is the because... (insert reasons listed.)
But I don't think that makes the first part useless. 'I am offended' is the effect of a few reasons that would hwave presumably followed. And in a reasonable conversation, where one person says they are offended for x reason and x reason is reasonable, then the first person if they are being considerate would at the very least acknowledge that they didn't know it would be seen as offensive.
Now this obviously doesn't always happen and may in fact not even be the norm. But it doesn't for that reason make the phrase meangingless or purposeless. I agree that I don't necessarily think it requires government action.
|
On March 28 2012 09:33 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 09:08 khaydarin9 wrote:Again, contemporary psychology and psychiatry would disagree with you - feelings are for more complex than a choice. Most people do not "choose" to feel grief when someone they love dies. It's akin to saying that people "choose" to feel depression. Emotions are connected to physiological changes in the brain. I'll concede that I don't have an advanced knowledge of psychology and psychiatry, but I will offer the observation that people do sometimes choose not to take offense at something, and it's not because it was merely less offensive to them. Likewise, I think it can also be readily observed that people sometimes choose to be easily offended by many things. Clearly, choice appears to play a role. Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 09:08 khaydarin9 wrote:Again, I think you're switching between the idea of legal rights/punishment and social rights/punishment whenever it suits your argument, when they're entirely different discourses. There are, I'm assuming in your country, different legal rights for people have a mental disability - the insanity defence, or whatever. There is also the case of manslaughter. A murder is a murder - it's not legally "right" to murder someone for breaking your arm, it's not legally "right" for someone to murder someone for disrespecting them. The nuances social justifiability are more nuanced than that. The question you've posed is why we privilege physical harms over verbal insults. The answer I've given is that the former is objective and the latter is not, and you haven't successfully addressed this. Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 09:08 khaydarin9 wrote:And again, I think there's a disparity between what you mean when you say "being offended" and what some other people are saying here. I understand "being offended" as the cognitive response of hurt and frustration, and it is my stance that people have a "right", or are justified in having the whole range of emotional responses to external stimuli. I think people have a right to be offended; I haven't suggested otherwise. But at the same time, I don't think being offended entitles you to anything, whether that's legal/social restitution, or a free pass to use it as a logical fallacy.
You argue that the physical insults are objective and verbal insults are subjective; I've argued that both are subjective.
I'll reiterate, in anticipation of you waving the word "successfully" around:
Both physical harm and mental harm manifest themselves physiologically.
The degree to which physical harm and mental harm manifest themselves depends on the genetic, environmental and cultural context of the individual subject.
In response to your first point: there are people who "choose" to make a bigger deal out of being physically injured than others. These people are perhaps not looked kindly upon by general society - they are seen as "whiners" or even hypochondriacs - the fact that they are louder about expressing their pain does not illegitimate the fact that they are experiencing a certain degree of pain. They may simply lack the vocabulary or discourse (medical, political, philosophical) to properly articulate their thinking and feeling processes. Access to this vocabulary and these discourses, I would suggest, falls into the category of "privilege". If we deride people for not being able to articulate on this level, we fall into the danger of trivialising "legitimate" forms of protest.
|
A word is a word.
A phrase is a phrase.
Nothing more, If you are offended, It's true.
|
On March 28 2012 09:50 Falling wrote:So are you arguing that "I am offended" is completely useless as Stephen Fry seems to be saying. Or that it is inadquate on it's own? Because I would say essential to that phrase is the because... (insert reasons listed.)
I take the position that it's useless to rational discourse. Of course, it can be useful for other reasons, such as using that information to avoid further offense, if avoiding further offense is something the other person wants to do. Claiming offence in order to demand that someone not offend you, on the other hand, is not legitimate.
On March 28 2012 09:50 Falling wrote:But I don't think that makes the first part useless. 'I am offended' is the effect of a few reasons that would hwave presumably followed. And in a reasonable conversation, where one person says they are offended for x reason and x reason is reasonable, then the first person if they are being considerate would at the very least acknowledge that they didn't know it would be seen as offensive.
The key here is that the first person is not required to be considerate. It's okay if they choose to do so, but the problem that Stephen Fry is alluding to is that people use offense as a logical fallacy to demand people to respect their views.
I don't owe anyone's views verbal respect; I choose to give it should I find it worthy. If I consider your views batshit crazy, then I'm not going to verbally respect it, no matter how offensive/inconsiderate you think I am.
If the topic of gay marriage comes up, the WBC is going to claim that they are offended. Are we supposed to acknowledge that we didn't know it would be seen as offensive, or shut up and stop advocating it?
|
Canada11314 Posts
That's why I put the caveat- if the reason is itself reasonable. However, you've again switched to a battle of ideas. If we're simply talking about ideas, then I have no problem with people vigoursly shutting down their opponents ideas. Mind you, I think it's generally helpful to remain civil.
But being offended covers so many things including personal hurt, vindictative needling, public mockery- particularly when betraying confidence. None of these are a matter of respecting people's views, but rather respecting their person. Perhaps I'm mixing up being 'hurt' and being 'offended' but I'm not sure if there is a dividing line.
|
On March 28 2012 10:46 Falling wrote:That's why I put the caveat- if the reason is itself reasonable. However, you've again switched to a battle of ideas. If we're simply talking about ideas, then I have no problem with people vigoursly shutting down their opponents ideas. Mind you, I think it's generally helpful to remain civil.
If the reason is reasonable though, then it's not the offense that matters. It's the aforementioned reason.
It's like how everytime we get a topic about an outrageous news article, tons of posters chime in to say that they're outraged. While they're welcome to feel that way or to share that they feel that way, it doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion. If, on the other hand, they instead talk about the substantive issues, instead of the emotions that the article provokes, then there's a real discussion.
The emotional response simply isn't relevant.
On March 28 2012 10:46 Falling wrote:But being offended covers so many things including personal hurt, vindictative needling, public mockery- particularly when betraying confidence. None of these are a matter of respecting people's views, but rather respecting their person. Perhaps I'm mixing up being 'hurt' and being 'offended' but I'm not sure if there is a dividing line.
I think you are conflating being offended with other things such as violating someone's trust, harassment, and defamation. It's key to note that you can words can be used as part of an action, and therefore, you can offend someone verbally as well as causing real harm.
For example, spreading malicious lies in newspapers about Mountain Dew shrinking male genitals is obviously defamation. In this case, it's a use of words to cause real, objective harm (in terms of sales). And while Mountain Dew might be offended by the lies, what really matters is that their business is harmed.
|
On March 28 2012 02:37 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 23:46 Poffel wrote:On March 27 2012 21:49 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 19:47 Poffel wrote:
I'm offended by x because ...
There, problem solved. Actually no. The fact that you were offended is completely irrelevant to the argument that follows, it doesn't strengthen it, it doesn't add to it, it has no purpose or meaning. You can say, I'm offended(it hurts my feelings) by China's occupation of Tibet because the people are oppressed and denied their own heritage and learning their native language. But the fact that it offends you added absolutely nothing. The argument should be that it shouldn't happen because they are being denied their heritage. The fact that you felt offended by it is irrelevant. Actually yes. When the problem with "I am offended." is that it needs a rationale to be meaningful, stating that rationale should solve the problem. Of course feelings aren't a good basis for a factual argument... but how somebody feels about something shouldn't be completely irrelevant either. If somebody can give sound reasons for being offended by something, I don't see why that shouldn't motivate others to symphatize with him and to follow a rationale that puts an end to whatever it is that he finds offensive to help him out. You just proved my point. If you are using a feeling to motivate others to sympathize with you to follow a rationale that puts an end to whatever it is that he finds offensive, you are trying to silence the opposition because of your feelings, not the rationale. That's why it has absolutely no place in the argument.
Wait... what? I'm "trying to silence opposition"? Where the hell does that come from? You seem to think that every argument based on sympathy is a fallacy ad misericordiam. But then reciprocal ethics wouldn't work at all... if you're set to view it from a strictly logical perspective, just work with "I am offended by x, therefore x should stop." as an enthymeme, with the (mute) premise that not to offend someone is preferable to offending someone. And yes, of course there can be situations where other conditions outweigh someone's feelings, but that still doesn't mean that someone's feelings are irrelevant to me just because they're feelings.
Oh, and please stop telling me what I'm "really" saying... you can leave that to me. Instead, just try to make your own point, ok? 
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
The concept has its uses. Not in any serious argument, though.
|
thomas jefferson wasnt locked for his "fighting words" under the "constitution". And he advocates people getting together TO OUST people from power, violemntly if necessary, just like what happened last year in Greece. I dont understand why people in the U.S. are so afraid to march and trample down the gates of their govt and remove them with hands on tactics. dont people in the U.S. own their government? if you have ownership you should be able to treat it how you like.
As far as general offensiveness, even racist or just vulgar words could be against the law, and a lawyer might successfully get you on it, provided enough money and time.
If it can be demonstrated that someone has "unpopular opinion X" and this opinion directly leads to "person Y getting physically violent over it", like calling black people niggers to their face, then it could be stated that saying the word is meant to incite violence or at least promote fear and hate, which will cause more violence later.
Of course then, if we're saying that "X" is too powerful of a psyche attack that people Y cannot control themselves and keep from becoming violent, then we are saying people have no "free will", becase they can be triggered to do what you want them to do.
So laws against offensiveness are laws that promote the idea of no self control or free will, and thus the entitlement state grows.
We have a lot of rules and laws set in the state that come from the idea that "mob mentality" will override individuals and that people can be "manipulated into bad actions". These laws state that people have no Free Will to make good rational decisions, by their very existence.
|
this "debate" is still going strong?
some people get offended, other laugh about it, yes, getting offended means nothing except for that particular individual, unless it has the power to get back at the offenders, but can't people take it for what it is?
"i am offended by this" is nothing more than a rephrased "i do not like this, in my opinion this is not right" if followed up by a reasoning it is ok imo, as a stand alone it is nothing more than a sign that the person is not comfortable with the situation, should you care? depends on the person you might have offended.
of course many people like to hide behind this word, get offended by even the little things, but when dealing with important matters, a persons opinion should not be invalidated simply because of the chosen words.
|
Speaking of getting offended, the Miss Canada transgender thread just got closed because people were saying un-PC things, like that they didn't think transgender women were the same as born-as women (the horror!).
Now I'm well aware that TL isn't a free-speech zone, it's a private forum and mods can do whatever they damn well please. I just think it's pretty damn laughable that Kwark closed the thread with a post basically calling everyone in the thread dumb and ignorant (also that he wished he could ban everyone who disagreed with him in it).
Hey, if we're dumb and ignorant, why not use your superior logic to destroy the dumb and ignorant peoples' arguments? Or, you know, you could just call everyone dumb and close the thread. Neener neener, I got the last word!
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I think Kwark might be transgender which is why it hits home for him/her.
The issue there was that there were a lot of people (probably) saying "ugh transgender = gross no matter what". I cant be bothered to look, but that to me, would be a valid reason to close it off. Most people there were, however, talking about strict reality.
What that thread has told us is kind of precisely what Fry is saying, someone was offended, so used some power to destroy other people's ability to communicate and have an honest conversation about it.
People should live however they want, re: TG thread, but being honest about yourself and others is also important.
That thread wouldn't have been closed if it were an open hall walk-in forum in euro countries. people say some pretty harsh and critical things that can be considered anti-[specific religion] or anti-[whateverelse] and people get upset but they all talk it out and then go home. they don't pass laws or bar people from speaking about it in order to shut other people up.
|
In my opinion, being offended or not should come down to two considerations, often taken in sequence.
1. Is what the person is saying true? If you know in your heart what they are saying is true, then you should be thinking about what this says about yourself, and if there is anything you can do about it. If what they are saying is not true, then you proceed to step 2.
2. Do you respect this person's opinion? If you are insulted by a complete stranger... then so what? He/she doesn't know you or anything about you, so what does it matter if they insult you or not.. they are obviously ignorant to the situation, and you should not be offended and move on with your life. If this person is someone you know or is someone whose opinion you should respect, then it might be worth your time having a discussion with said person, and let them know why those comments were offensive, and why you believe them not to be true.
|
If you know in your heart what they are saying is true, then you should be thinking about what this says about yourself, and if there is anything you can do about it.
if people spent time trying to cancel out any thought they felt was right, we'd end up as a society of people who don't believe they can make correct choices and gibbering wrecks who don't know what to think or believe.
You have to pick your battles. Any lauded spiritualist or other people who seem like they "know the score" is really just a one sided appearance, and they don't express their own personal feelings on subjective subjects that are inflammatory, so they cant ever be accused of supporting something that some group will call negative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
