Yvain comments on The Nature of Offense - Less Wrong

86 Post author: Wei_Dai 23 July 2009 11:15AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (173)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 24 July 2009 06:56:22AM *  9 points [-]

Your instances do not include politically incorrect statements (racist, sexist, or various other -ists, depending on who exactly is listening), whether factually incorrect or otherwise, which seem to be one of if not the major sources of serious offense.

A racist statement is usually one that, if accepted by the listener, will tend to lower the status of the targeted race. Same for other -ists. I'm not seeing how it doesn't fit with the status theory.

If I ran into a church picnic and started yelling obscenities, people would get offended, even though I'm not threatening their "high" status so much as advertising my "low" status.

Of course you're threatening their high status. You're implying that vulgar language is appropriate in their social circle, and the only way it could be appropriate is if they have low status.

you can make incredibly offensive comments towards a close friend with no ill effect, yet a person hearing the exchange might themselves be offended

Edit: On second thought, I think what's going on here is that once you're a close enough friend with someone, there is no longer a significant chance that you'd want to intentionally lower their status, so an otherwise offensive comment (especially in private) becomes a signal for close friendship. You're signaling that you believe your friendship is so close that your friend won't think you're intending harm, and by not taking offense, your friend then signals the same thing. This probably takes a mathematical model to make completely clear, but maybe you get the gist.

Comment author: Yvain 25 July 2009 07:03:23AM 8 points [-]

Racist statements don't seem to automatically imply lower status for the offended group. For example, many people found this "joke" offensive, even though the only claim seems to be that black people eat lots of watermelon. Similarly, a statement like "Jews control the financial system" could easily offend Jews, even though if anything it assigns them high status.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 25 July 2009 01:03:50PM *  5 points [-]

If a statement concurrently attacks and asserts status of people in different ways, it can still be offensive. "Jews control the financial system" places Jews in out-group, which lowers their status, even though at the same time the statement seems to assert their status.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 25 July 2009 07:31:10AM 8 points [-]

One way to look at this is that racist stereotypes promote viewing members of the target race as an undifferentiated mass with little or no individuality. This lowers the status of that group since individuality is important for status. The watermelon joke invokes such a stereotype of blacks.

BTW, I'm afraid that having espoused the idea that offense can be explained in terms of status, and having probably increased my own status in this community as a result, I'm likely quite biased on this issue now. I bet it's much easier now for me to find arguments for this idea than counterarguments. So, reader beware. :)

Comment author: hirvinen 25 July 2009 10:50:50AM 2 points [-]

Stereotypes imply lack of individuality, which is usually low-status. As does grouping them as a single entity, especially if that grouping is made with a hint of sinisterity as would often be the case when talking about financial system -controlling jews.

Comment author: Emily 25 July 2009 11:14:00AM 1 point [-]

There may be some "treating as a non-person" involved here: people are individuals with different tastes, goals, etc., and stereotypes like the ones you mention ignore this.