= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MoreOn comments on The Nature of Offense - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (173)
Wow, it’s a really cool insight!
I guess the natural question to ask would be: Do people ever get (genuinely) offended by anything that does not threaten their status?
Going further, I don’t know of people directing offense at animals or inanimate objects. Does the offender need to be perceived as intelligent? In that case, are people less frequently offended at those they consider stupid?
Well, I have encountered people being (or claiming to be) offended by what in all rights would be an assault on someone else's status. This could be a form of empathy, or in many cases an attempt to gain status themselves through a show of sympathy. This does seem like a potential occurrence of legitimate offense not caused by a perceived direct or indirect threat to the status of the person being offended, iff the offense is genuine- something which I cannot personally attest to, never having experienced this myself.
Yes. They get offended by things that they think threatens their status but in actual fact doesn't. ;)
We call them 'insecure'. (The number one thing I avoid when considering business partners or employers.)
Whoops, didn't make myself clear.
Is it the case that normal-functioning humans are (almost) never offended by something they themselves don't perceive as a threat to status?
Since the article makes a statement, I'm trying to take it to its logical conclusion; in particular to see what outcomes it prohibits, as per <that other article I forgot>. And non-status-based offenses do seem like an obvious thing it prohibits.
Not at all, I was just playing with the 'status - offence' concept, teasing out another naunce that technically answers your question while also informing on a topic that fascinates me. ;)
I of course agree with your analysis, below:
Good point. Offence does seem to be a social thing and I cannot offhand think of any instances that are exceptions but such instances would definitely make a lie of the statement. Well, at least make a lie of any claim it could make to being a fully general description.