= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
byrnema comments on Offense versus harm minimization - 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 (417)
I feel like I read the answer already in this page. These offenses aren't just negligent (oops, I didn't realize you didn't like that) or insensitive (this is what I want to do, too bad if it offends you) -- they are pointedly hostile. The person receiving these offenses can rationally experience these offenses as an expression of hate and thus an intent to do harm. Depending on the status of the offender, the victim can feel threatened about their continued place in the clan.
Now I'm imagining a consensus that rationalists are just too picky, so there should be an Everyone Argue Like a Normal Person Day.
Well, the same goes for "everybody draw Mohamed day", no? It's hostility, not negligence.
meh.. In this specific case it seems the organized, intended signal is 'defiance'. For some of the artists it is probably simple irreverence that motivates them. But I wouldn't doubt that a lot of people feel hostile too.
Everybody would feel enraged by snide remarks regarding attempted genocide of one's ethnic group -- not least because it's very difficult not to perceive it as a veiled threat.
Not everybody would feel enraged by snide remarks of one's cultural/religious/philosophical inspiration -- not least because it's an obvious strategy for a utility monster.
And? That doesn't change the fact that "everybody draw Mohammed day" falls in the category of hostility, not negligence or insensitivity.
Maybe from the POV of the Muslims but not of the perpetrators.
Their (my) intent is not to do harm but to do good. For the Muslims by hopefully desensitizing them, enabling them to live in a modern, globalized, enlightened world. For the world by reducing the amount of political violence.
It's very difficult to see that for people mocking the Holocaust. How can they think they're improving the world?
I feel we're talking past each other. What I'm saying (and Yvain is saying) is that if you categorize actions thatpeople find offensive in:
A) Accidental offense (you didn't know someone would be offended)
B) Indifferent offense (you know, but don't care, and do the action anyway)
C) Deliberate offense (you do the action because you know someone will be offended)
.. then "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" falls under C), for the prepretator.
That is a seperate issue from whether it's sometimes acceptable to deliberately offend people, or of how offensive various actions are.
Okay, I see your point.
I still believe there's a problem in using the word "hostility" since it's negatively connotated. Further, I think there's a big difference between doing something because of the offence it causes per se and doing it because you think the offence is harmful and want to reduce it. But it is a minor issue which probably won't bring us further by discussing much further.