This discussion is becoming more and more bizarre. We started with the topic of giving or causing offense and apparently came to the consensus that in our quest for the truth, we really shouldn’t worry to much about whether we give offense—the truth is just too important.
Now we are asked not to express the fact that we have been offended, because this truth is just too painful—it causes emotional harm. Does anyone else think that this is positively insane?
Now we are asked not to express the fact that we have been offended, because this truth is just too painful—it causes emotional harm. Does anyone else think that this is positively insane?
I have no fundamental objection to people expressing the fact that they have been offended. What I object to is the use of offense as a means to silence dissenting opinions or discussion. Religions use this tactic all the time and it disgusts me. I disagree with the ‘emotional harm’ argument except to the extent that it is the mechanism by which dissent is suppressed.
What I object to is the use of offense as a means to silence dissenting opinions or discussion.
Fine. I join you in your objection. As a comment on the current sorry state of American political discourse, it is right on.
But, do you really think it is a problem here on LW? Seriously? What I see here being used to silence people are objections to style or tone of argument. Which is certainly not completely inappropriate in a forum dedicated to rationality.
But consider. Person A offers an arational and emotional argument. Person A is roundly criticized and downvoted for this. Has person A’s dissenting opinion been “silenced”? Of course not. Person A is free to make his/her point in a more rational style.
Now let’s look at Person B who offers a speculation which person C finds offensive.
Person C expresses offense. Has person B been silenced? Of course not. Person B is free to go on to back up the speculation with data, argument, and even evolutionary psychology. I just cannot see person C’s complaints as “the mechanism by which dissent is suppressed.”
But, do you really think it is a problem here on LW? Seriously?
LW is about as good as it gets in this regard and I’d very much like to keep it that way, hence my concern when I see anything that looks to me like movement in the wrong direction.
Does anyone else think that this is positively insane?
Who specifically is it that you think holds an insane conjunction of beliefs? You seem to be treating several different commenters as if they were one person. (Cf. my other comment.)
This discussion is becoming more and more bizarre. We started with the topic of giving or causing offense and apparently came to the consensus that in our quest for the truth, we really shouldn’t worry to much about whether we give offense—the truth is just too important.
Now we are asked not to express the fact that we have been offended, because this truth is just too painful—it causes emotional harm. Does anyone else think that this is positively insane?
I have no fundamental objection to people expressing the fact that they have been offended. What I object to is the use of offense as a means to silence dissenting opinions or discussion. Religions use this tactic all the time and it disgusts me. I disagree with the ‘emotional harm’ argument except to the extent that it is the mechanism by which dissent is suppressed.
Fine. I join you in your objection. As a comment on the current sorry state of American political discourse, it is right on.
But, do you really think it is a problem here on LW? Seriously? What I see here being used to silence people are objections to style or tone of argument. Which is certainly not completely inappropriate in a forum dedicated to rationality.
But consider. Person A offers an arational and emotional argument. Person A is roundly criticized and downvoted for this. Has person A’s dissenting opinion been “silenced”? Of course not. Person A is free to make his/her point in a more rational style.
Now let’s look at Person B who offers a speculation which person C finds offensive. Person C expresses offense. Has person B been silenced? Of course not. Person B is free to go on to back up the speculation with data, argument, and even evolutionary psychology. I just cannot see person C’s complaints as “the mechanism by which dissent is suppressed.”
LW is about as good as it gets in this regard and I’d very much like to keep it that way, hence my concern when I see anything that looks to me like movement in the wrong direction.
Fair enough.
Downvoted for expressing your offense.
Upvoted for being witty. Downvoted again for missing the point.
Who specifically is it that you think holds an insane conjunction of beliefs? You seem to be treating several different commenters as if they were one person. (Cf. my other comment.)
I was responding to Gabriel.
Why do you suggest that?