If the expected social improvement exceeds my personal cost (taking into account my opportunity cost), why shouldn’t I act?
You have just defined the set of cases in which you should. Deciding when you are looking at such a case and what to do about it is the non-trivial part.
I was just saying that seeing something objectionable, and deciding whether and how to object to it, are two separate things. I do find “jokes” like the one in the original article objectionable, but if I was present at Rowdy telling this joke about the dog, I don’t know how best to tackle it, even having the leisure of taking as long as I want to consider the hypothetical, let alone face-to-face with about one second in real time to get my brain in gear. But that’s just me.
Or to put it another way, my short answer to your question:
So you endorse calling them on it, ceteris paribus?
You have just defined the set of cases in which you should. Deciding when you are looking at such a case and what to do about it is the non-trivial part.
I’ve all but explicitly been asserting that this is a time to act.
You seem to agree there is a problem (Jokes are statements of true belief / in vino veritas), yet you seem to disagree that taking action is a good idea.
I obviously misunderstand your position in some way.
I was just saying that seeing something objectionable, and deciding whether and how to object to it, are two separate things. I do find “jokes” like the one in the original article objectionable, but if I was present at Rowdy telling this joke about the dog, I don’t know how best to tackle it, even having the leisure of taking as long as I want to consider the hypothetical, let alone face-to-face with about one second in real time to get my brain in gear. But that’s just me.
Or to put it another way, my short answer to your question:
is “yes”.