I don’t have time to look at your examples, and in any case your question isn’t very relevant.
What I’m objecting to is fubarobfusco’s claim that it makes no sense to debate whether something is offensive and that the word of the offended is final.
What I’m objecting to is fubarobfusco’s claim that it makes no sense to debate whether something is offensive and that the word of the offended is final.
Indeed. I’m offended at fubarobfusco’s claim that one cannot be offended by declarations of offense. It actually does literally “make me feel unsafe and unhappy” because that kind of social dynamic is, in my experience, rather toxic.
You said that the key issue was whether there was a rational basis for the feelings. I agree with you that we can’t force people to have different feelings than the ones they have. But our reaction to those feelings can vary based on the reasonableness of the feelings.
I don’t think fubarobfusco’s claim is that claimed offense ends the discussion in favor of the claimant. Although you correctly note that false claims are cheap, the proper use is intended to begin a discussion about the proper reaction—and the proper reaction might be to do nothing.
Put slightly differently, Bob claiming to be offended by some statement is slight evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the statement caused him harm, of a kind that should not be allowed. Talk is cheap, so the evidence can easily be overcome by contrary evidence. But your position appears to be that Bob’s statement is no evidence at all.
I’d like to put in another good word for my second link. It’s a five minute video, made by someone far more moderate than you or I. I think it is a reasonable description of the outside view of the archetypal dispute of which this exchange is but one of many examples. If you are really pressed for time, skip to about two minutes in.
I don’t think fubarobfusco’s claim is that claimed offense ends the discussion in favor of the claimant.
In that case I recommend you reread fubarobfusco’s post. His whole point is that if someone objects to the offense claim that means the person doing the objecting has psychological issues.
But your position appears to be that Bob’s statement is no evidence at all.
Your repeated strawmanning of my position is not conducive to reasonable debate.
His whole point is that if someone objects to the offense claim that means the person doing the objecting has psychological issues.
Um. No, it’s not.
It’s that offense is not a one-place function any more than sexiness is — but that it is possible to learn what a particular person finds offensive (or, for that matter, sexy) and apply that knowledge to improve your social relations with that person. Moreover, that doing so is probably more useful than whining about someone calling your actions offensive (or, for that matter, unsexy).
Belief is also a two place function; however, if someone says that they believe that there is an invisible dragon in their garage, it is perfect reasonable to challenge them since their belief isn’t rational. Similarly, the feeling of being offended can also be irrational and should similarly be challenged in such circumstances.
Have you noticed yet that you were in error about the meaning of my earlier comment, and that it was irrational for you to respond in the way that you did (claiming that it was about “psychological issues”)?
Or … maybe I didn’t manage to get across what I intended to say, given that you interpreted it that way. I wouldn’t want to assume that you were deliberately misconstruing it in order to make a status play or something.
(But if I use your approach, I get the result that blames you here. If I use my approach, it’s my job to communicate my point in a way that succeeds with my audience, e.g. by not misleading you into thinking that I’m mocking anyone for having psychological problems. Which result do you prefer?)
Yes, people can misconstrue what someone meant by a communication. But if you notice that your ways of saying things are systematically misconstrued by a certain sort of people, that’s equivalent to saying that you are not communicating effectively to that part of your audience.
Hmm … it’s possible that I misunderstood you, too. I took “psychological issues” as a possibly-mocking euphemism for “mental illness” — as in “You know, he has psychological issues.”
Self-image is surely a fact about personality — is that what you meant?
The question is whether there is a rational basis for this feeling.
Do you think the frequency of the behaviors documented here is sufficient be a rational basis for feeling unsafe?
Do you think the phenomena described here is a rational basis for feeling unhappy?
I don’t have time to look at your examples, and in any case your question isn’t very relevant.
What I’m objecting to is fubarobfusco’s claim that it makes no sense to debate whether something is offensive and that the word of the offended is final.
Indeed. I’m offended at fubarobfusco’s claim that one cannot be offended by declarations of offense. It actually does literally “make me feel unsafe and unhappy” because that kind of social dynamic is, in my experience, rather toxic.
Yes, talk about offense is cheap. False claims suck. Speech codes are terrible.
You said that the key issue was whether there was a rational basis for the feelings. I agree with you that we can’t force people to have different feelings than the ones they have. But our reaction to those feelings can vary based on the reasonableness of the feelings.
I don’t think fubarobfusco’s claim is that claimed offense ends the discussion in favor of the claimant. Although you correctly note that false claims are cheap, the proper use is intended to begin a discussion about the proper reaction—and the proper reaction might be to do nothing.
Put slightly differently, Bob claiming to be offended by some statement is slight evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the statement caused him harm, of a kind that should not be allowed. Talk is cheap, so the evidence can easily be overcome by contrary evidence. But your position appears to be that Bob’s statement is no evidence at all.
I’d like to put in another good word for my second link. It’s a five minute video, made by someone far more moderate than you or I. I think it is a reasonable description of the outside view of the archetypal dispute of which this exchange is but one of many examples. If you are really pressed for time, skip to about two minutes in.
In that case I recommend you reread fubarobfusco’s post. His whole point is that if someone objects to the offense claim that means the person doing the objecting has psychological issues.
Your repeated strawmanning of my position is not conducive to reasonable debate.
Um. No, it’s not.
It’s that offense is not a one-place function any more than sexiness is — but that it is possible to learn what a particular person finds offensive (or, for that matter, sexy) and apply that knowledge to improve your social relations with that person. Moreover, that doing so is probably more useful than whining about someone calling your actions offensive (or, for that matter, unsexy).
Belief is also a two place function; however, if someone says that they believe that there is an invisible dragon in their garage, it is perfect reasonable to challenge them since their belief isn’t rational. Similarly, the feeling of being offended can also be irrational and should similarly be challenged in such circumstances.
Have you noticed yet that you were in error about the meaning of my earlier comment, and that it was irrational for you to respond in the way that you did (claiming that it was about “psychological issues”)?
Or … maybe I didn’t manage to get across what I intended to say, given that you interpreted it that way. I wouldn’t want to assume that you were deliberately misconstruing it in order to make a status play or something.
(But if I use your approach, I get the result that blames you here. If I use my approach, it’s my job to communicate my point in a way that succeeds with my audience, e.g. by not misleading you into thinking that I’m mocking anyone for having psychological problems. Which result do you prefer?)
Yes, people can misconstrue what someone meant by a communication. But if you notice that your ways of saying things are systematically misconstrued by a certain sort of people, that’s equivalent to saying that you are not communicating effectively to that part of your audience.
Would you mind explaining how something like:
isn’t talking about psychological issues.
Hmm … it’s possible that I misunderstood you, too. I took “psychological issues” as a possibly-mocking euphemism for “mental illness” — as in “You know, he has psychological issues.”
Self-image is surely a fact about personality — is that what you meant?
Absolutely. The expansion of “offense” to include things that are not harmful is bad, and should stop.