EPTEDIT: Oh, btw why i mention insulting is because a lot of people in this thread have, imo, derailed the topic into discussing insulting, which is not the subject.
Getting offended - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
EDIT: Oh, btw why i mention insulting is because a lot of people in this thread have, imo, derailed the topic into discussing insulting, which is not the subject. | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On March 28 2012 18:25 NukeD wrote: Offending and insulting are two different things. One is wrong objectively, the other is wrong subjectively. Some people believe morals are subjective. I do. If you believe in universal moralism, I can see your point. I disagree however. I think it's all subjective. But the facts it's based on, can be objectively right or wrong. | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
he's attacking "I'm offended!" because it has been used in place of a honest argument. "you should not be racist because i'm offended" is not really a valid point "you should not be racist because all men are equal" now that is more of convincing argument. | ||
|
Aterons_toss
Romania1275 Posts
On March 28 2012 18:01 aebriol wrote: He is a great comedian with a great point, however - if you substitute what he ridicules with racism, bigotry, etc, whatever you deeply believe is wrong, then it might not be so funny any more. This kind of mindset is the exact problem, i can be a fucking racist, you can be offended... thats it Being "offensive" to someone should end up with the certain faction/person/group "returning the favor" ( in a legal way, hopefully )or ignoring it/you and all the friends/afflicted factions/afflicted groups or simply persons/groups/factions who fell what you did was wrong doing the same. Its a fucking democracy, i have the right what the fuck i want in my private space as long as it doesn't physically harm other and express whatever option i fucking want in public/private space owned by me. If i want to carry a big banner with the message " I hate n*** " on it in a public space I would like to think that only a totalitarian country would take actions against it, if anyone is offended than i take the risk of there reaction against me. But bigotry, racism... etc should damn well not be against the law as long as i only express them via non physically harming way and do not enforce my opinion onto anyone/do not speak about certain opinion in the private space of another who does not want me to do it. Cuz, sadly, there is not "legal" difference between being offended by a bigot and being offended by a boy band, as long as the state does not take matters into its own hand to decide which is "good" and which is "bad", thus casting in a totalitarian way. Do note: I am nether a racist, a bigot ( im not even religious ) nor do i go around on a daily basis offending people for fun, i believe that doing so its certainly something that should be actively discouraged, but i do believe that people have the right to do so if they fell like it and should only be punished by society not by the justice system. or to sum it up " If he offended you than ignore him, he is a dick" On March 28 2012 18:49 Railxp wrote: i think you've slightly misinterpreted what Stephen Fry meant. he's attacking "I'm offended!" because it has been used in place of a honest argument. "you should not be racist because i'm offended" is not really a valid point "you should not be racist because all men are equal" now that is more of convincing argument. Fell like adding this, kinda explains my thoughts in a fewer words | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On March 28 2012 18:49 Railxp wrote: i think you've slightly misinterpreted what Stephen Fry meant. he's attacking "I'm offended!" because it has been used in place of a honest argument. "you should not be racist because i'm offended" is not really a valid point "you should not be racist because all men are equal" now that is more of convincing argument. What I am attacking is the idea that there's no point in being offended. People are arguing that being offended, at all, is dumb. People say and do stupid offensive shit, they deserve to be ridiculed and disliked because of it. But certainly he has a point as I said, I just think the argument goes too far in the other direction. But - please note one thing here - I am not attacking him, he is a comedian, for comedic effect, he has to do that. And he is damn funny, and has a great point. It's just the last bit, the one about people 'should not be offended' that I think is wrong. I certainly think he and others are correct in saying that, just saying 'that offends me' or similar, is absolutely worthless in itself, if not backed up by an argument. | ||
|
aTnClouD
Italy2428 Posts
| ||
|
Spieltor
327 Posts
On March 28 2012 17:55 aebriol wrote: Of course he (and those that feel the same) have the right to ridicule and dislike me based on my opinion. Since when is it a right not to be condemned and ridiculed for your opinions? Tolerance have gone too far when we say 'no matter what you say or believe, it's fine, nothing to be upset about - you are in fact wrong to be upset about something people just say' ? It's like people who believe in faith healing, mediums, mystics etc, they certainly have a right to feel offended when I tell them they are complete and utter morons being scammed by swindlers. Doesn't mean I don't have a right to tell them that - since it's in fact what is happening. Wrong for them to be offended by it? Certainly not. That's their right. But if we start to discuss it, perhaps we'll get some facts in there and maybe some will be convinced that that whole business is just bullshit. Since when is it wrong to be emotional about what you believe in? Should we condemn preachers for trying to convert people to their faith, because they are telling people they are wrong? Should we not care one bit if nazi's hold a rally where the message is to kill jews, blacks and handicapped people? I think the idea that being offended by anything is stupid, is wrong. If you aren't upset about it, why would you bother spending time trying to correct their mistaken beliefs? nazis preaching to convert to their faith and being emotional about what they believe in. And apparently, the common view is that it is a right to not be condemned or ridiculed for different life choices and beliefs... unless those beliefs are condemned and ridiculed because they might include pagan sacrifice rituals or racism. if someone makes fun of a fat person people say "be tolerant, they have a different life choice!" if someone makes fun of nazis or other races, people say "nice good for you" This is irrespective of what side is good or bad to believe in, the point is that people do feel that you have the right not to be offended, put down, and called names if you're a certain type of person, while you don't have the right not to be offended, put down and called names if you're a certain other type of person. lets at least accept this fact first off. | ||
|
phanto
Sweden708 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:46 nttea wrote: you know racism is still a pretty big issue, innocent black people get accused on a much higher rate than white people, i don't think you actually should be saying it's stupid to get offended by such things; imo it's far more common for people to go "OOH BLACK PEOPLE SO SENSITIVE" even though there's a real issue than it's the other way around. I think being offended is a good phrase, like has been said you have the right to get offended  it doesn't automatically mean you should get to impose restrictions on whatever is offending you though.black people get accused on a much higher rate because blacks have higher crime ratio. I don't think anyone should have to be accused or second-guessed because of race but I do find some logic in it. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
| ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On March 28 2012 19:12 Spieltor wrote: nazis preaching to convert to their faith and being emotional about what they believe in. And apparently, the common view is that it is a right to not be condemned or ridiculed for different life choices and beliefs... unless those beliefs are condemned and ridiculed because they might include pagan sacrifice rituals or racism. if someone makes fun of a fat person people say "be tolerant, they have a different life choice!" if someone makes fun of nazis or other races, people say "nice good for you" This is irrespective of what side is good or bad to believe in, the point is that people do feel that you have the right not to be offended, put down, and called names if you're a certain type of person, while you don't have the right not to be offended, put down and called names if you're a certain other type of person. lets at least accept this fact first off. Where have anyone disagreed with those facts? You are however too one-sided here with your examples here with "nice good for you" and "be tolerant". Not everyone believes that, not everyone will say that. But it's very clear that being offensive and ridicule some people, or some groups, the majority believes is okay, while doing the same to other groups, and other people, the same majority believes is not okay. However, people don't agree on what is okay, and what is not okay. It changes based on your subjective beliefs. When you claim "people say" ... I would say ... sure some say, but not everyone, and sure some are offended, but not everyone ... but those that are offended, well, they certainly have a right to dislike you back for your opinion, and be emotional about it. I can try to be as offensive as I can think of, and that's my right pretty much, but that people then don't want to be with me, employ me, be friends with me, like me, let me shop in their privately owned stores ... that's their right. Because, what I am doing is pretty much offending and pushing everyone around me away, by being a complete and utter moron. Still, someone, somewhere, will nod and believe what I am saying is right ... regardless of how stupid and offensive it is. I mean, I can combine the following beliefs: - Women should not work, and should be the property of a male. They have no voice. The bible says so. - Black people should still be slaves to white people, they are naturally inferior. - Muslims are a danger to society, and should be killed on sight, or expelled from my nation. - Atheists should be hanged and sent on their way to hell. - Jews as a whole should be hunted down and shot for their collective guilt when they killed Jesus Christ. ... and a ton of other beliefs that are offensive to people. I would have the right to have those beliefs. No one is disputing that. But I do not have the right not to have those beliefs challenged. Or people get offended by them. I do not have the right not be disliked and ridiculed because of them. And if I combine them with suggestions that people 'should do something to fix it' ... it should perhaps land me in a jail cell, because I am advocating violence based on my beliefs. (you can change them around based on any stereotype, I am not implying that those beliefs are common beliefs based on any type, but I am certain you will find someone, somewhere, that sadly agrees with them all - and I could do it with most any race / religion / sexual combination). I simply think that tolerance is going too far when people expect all beliefs no matter how stupid to be treated equally. They should not. Beliefs that are wrong, should be treated differently from beliefs that are unprovable, and differently from those that are provably right. Believing in evolution or gravity, believing in Jesus, and believing in race X being 'evil' or 'good' or 'inferior' or 'superior' by default ... those three beliefs should be treated differently. | ||
|
Kater
72 Posts
| ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 28 2012 05:46 lvlashimaro wrote: Are you saying it is absolutely uncalled for to be offended because it defies logic? When my dad passed away, would it be out of the line to be offended if someone made fun of him at the funeral or kicked his coffin? I think it's fine to get offended, just not at minor things. If someone called a black man a "n****r" with the intent of alluding towards slavery up until the civil rights movement, I think it's fine for the guy to be a bit offended. "Well it doesn't affect him", you might say. It could have easily affected his grandparents, and potentially his parents. Or let's say that "n****r" was used in its purest meaning: being an ignoramus. If someone knocks on your intelligence, doesn't that mean that regardless of any level-headed argument you make, your opposition can discard it as poorly-formulated due to your ignorance? Also, what exactly do you mean by "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."? Just because I am offended by something does not disable me from taking a step back and thinking the argument out rationally. If anything, my ____ emotion will help me dig deeper for evidence/facts/rationale to use in my favor. There's nothing wrong with being offended. It's not uncalled for to be offended. However, being offended is something that applies to you and you alone. You determine when you are offended, and others determine when they are offended. When you are offended, it starts, and should stop, with you, it is not a reason to force anything onto anyone. That quote was similarly in the post I was responding to, the point was he is saying you can use the emotional appeal of the offense to strengthen the argument, which is not right to do because being offended is subjective. It actually detracts from the argument, because you add in the validation that it's also wrong because you feel it's wrong and not just because of the rationale. On March 28 2012 15:39 Poffel wrote: 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?  You said you can use the word to "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" That means silencing the opposition doing the offensive thing. And in the end, no one gives a crap about your feelings on an issue. Actually good arguments are what people give a crap about. When many people are involved, feelings do not make good arguments, 7 billion people on the planet all feel differently. "It feels wrong because" isn't a good argument and "It is wrong because" is. It actually detracts from the argument because you add in the validation that it's also wrong because you feel it's wrong and not just because of the rationale. It's no longer an objective argument, by including the subjectivity of your feelings, the argument actually is less good because of it. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 28 2012 10:16 sunprince wrote: 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. 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? That line I bolded really struck me as the heart of Fry's point. People think that the other person should stop offending them and respect their views, when in reality that is censoring the other person. The gay marriage analogy is a great example of why respecting people's feelings is secondary to the right of expression. Fry says it has no reason to be respected as a phrase, and I agree, it is less than useless, it actually has a negative impact. It can make you look like an idiot that doesn't know how to argue a point correctly or jackass who can't function in society well because they hold their views to be more important than anyone else's, as in the example of a group claiming gay marriage offends them. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/03/26/bc-albinism-menu-complaint.html The gist of the article is that the lady finds the restaurant Earl's house beer called 'Albino Rhino' offensive because of the use of the word albino because of how albinos are treated in her home country. The argument against it is basically that the context Earl's uses albino is not offensive and completely unrelated to her issue. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On March 28 2012 18:00 MethodSC wrote: So you'd rather threaten someone with force and hope they don't just be 'offensive' when you can't hear them rather than educate them as to why that line of thinking is wrong. And here I thought fascism was going to die off. If you don't think the way I want you to, then go to jail. you can not educate people in matters of morality, you have to let them educate themselfs while providing the adequate environment that allows/encourages/forces those people to interact with other people from different/various backgrounds, different races/social classes and what not. i chose community service as an example but it doesn't have to be limited to it. | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On March 29 2012 04:17 Ben... wrote: I looked through the last 10 pages or so and didn't see it posted. Here's an article I read yesterday I think is relevant to the topic. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/03/26/bc-albinism-menu-complaint.html The gist of the article is that the lady finds the restaurant Earl's house beer called 'Albino Rhino' offensive because of the use of the word albino because of how albinos are treated in her home country. The argument against it is basically that the context Earl's uses albino is not offensive and completely unrelated to her issue. ... I would say the argument is, if it was in her home country, it sure could be offensive, but not everything transcends culture and nations | ||
|
achristes
Norway653 Posts
Just a piece of advice if you get offended easily. | ||
|
Spieltor
327 Posts
On March 29 2012 07:06 achristes wrote: You don't get easily offended if you've spent the last year in 4chan.org/b/ Just a piece of advice if you get offended easily. when you dance with the devil, he doesn't change, you change. I wouldn't suggest 4chan as "desensitization training", since you will have to deal with pictures, ideologies, and racism the likes of which people don't ever see and stay sane from. | ||
|
AimlessAmoeba
Canada704 Posts
| ||
|
Celestia
Mexico376 Posts
On March 28 2012 18:49 Railxp wrote: i think you've slightly misinterpreted what Stephen Fry meant. he's attacking "I'm offended!" because it has been used in place of a honest argument. "you should not be racist because i'm offended" is not really a valid point "you should not be racist because all men are equal" now that is more of convincing argument. If this is the case, this man has point, it's like quoting someone and putting ↑This or +1, it adds nothing to the discussion. | ||
| ||
