= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fubarobfusco comments on [Link] Offense 101 - 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 (86)
How about Offending People 101?
No, not what you think; rather ...
It seems to me that some folks highly value a self-image of not offending others — to the extent that when they are informed that they have offended someone, they respond as if a scandalous accusation has been made against their honor, for which they are entitled to demand satisfaction. And so they react by complaining about being censored, and political correctness, and "you're wrong, that word isn't offensive because so-and-so says it isn't!" as if offense were a one-place function — when all the offended party wanted was to explain that they feel unsafe and unhappy when someone tells rape jokes at a party, and would you please stop?
Just as it might be worthwhile to teach people to respond usefully to things that offend them, it might also be worthwhile to teach people to respond usefully to being informed that they have offended others.
Being labelled offensive is to experience a reputation attack. Being offended at said attack is not different in nature to being offended at anything else. Whether the attacks in question are legitimate depends on the details and depends on the preferences of the people in the social group and allegiances among them.
Further, conveying that something is offensive (for example, by signalling that they feel comfortable declaring "I feel offended") also amounts to either claiming status or rights for a group or asserting control over the local social rules. It can be expected that this will sometimes be countered. And it should be (sometimes). Otherwise people are encouraged to be offended at all the time as a means of control. See also: children throwing tantrums. Adults too, for that matter.
So what you're saying is that people should give, anyone who claims to be offended veto power over what they say. With these kinds of incentives the winning strategy is to be offended at everything.
Sure, being offended (like being harmed) is somewhat under the offended person's control. And PC speech codes (like all speech codes) exist to persecute undesired messages.
Nonetheless, the right to freedom of speech is not the right not to be criticized. Treating all complaints like they are without merit does reduce the frequency of criticism, but it doesn't make any particular criticism wrong. That's a discussion on the merits, which your suggested strategy never allows to occur.
I wasn't talking about criticism, I was talking about offense in the sense fubarobfusco seems to be using the word:
i.e., offense is a two place function, thus the person offended is by definition correct, so you by definition should not say the thing that offended them.
No, Tim is correct and you are not about what I was trying to say. I'm not sure how to explain this differently ...
It isn't that "you by definition should not say the thing that offended them" — rather, that it is bootless to get in arguments about whether they should be offended. Communication is a two-way street; it's up to the speaker to find out whether the words they are using actually have the intended effect on the listener. If I am consistently misunderstood, I could conclude that I'm surrounded by morons — or that I need to communicate differently.
Excellent points. However, many people when saying "That is offensive" don't just mean they are offended; they are implying that all decent people would be similarly offended, that what the other party said was beyond the pale. So it is used, in these cases, as a sort of one-place function and an attack (sometimes personal) against the speaker.
It is still true that escalating with complaints of censorship, PC thought police, etc, is not a good strategy for making the situation better and more conducive to a reasoned discussion (though it might be a good one for the purpose of rallying one's side against the Enemy).
Or for the purposes of not giving one's opponents veto power over what one can say.
The question is whether there is a rational basis for this feeling.
Absolutely. The expansion of "offense" to include things that are not harmful is bad, and should stop.
Do you think the frequency of the behaviors documented here is sufficient be a rational basis for feeling unsafe?
Do you think the phenomena described here is a rational basis for feeling unhappy?
I don't have time to look at your examples, and in any case your question isn't very relevant.
What I'm objecting to is fubarobfusco's claim that it makes no sense to debate whether something is offensive and that the word of the offended is final.
Indeed. I'm offended at fubarobfusco's claim that one cannot be offended by declarations of offense. It actually does literally "make me feel unsafe and unhappy" because that kind of social dynamic is, in my experience, rather toxic.
Yes, talk about offense is cheap. False claims suck. Speech codes are terrible.
You said that the key issue was whether there was a rational basis for the feelings. I agree with you that we can't force people to have different feelings than the ones they have. But our reaction to those feelings can vary based on the reasonableness of the feelings.
I don't think fubarobfusco's claim is that claimed offense ends the discussion in favor of the claimant. Although you correctly note that false claims are cheap, the proper use is intended to begin a discussion about the proper reaction - and the proper reaction might be to do nothing.
Put slightly differently, Bob claiming to be offended by some statement is slight evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the statement caused him harm, of a kind that should not be allowed. Talk is cheap, so the evidence can easily be overcome by contrary evidence. But your position appears to be that Bob's statement is no evidence at all.
I'd like to put in another good word for my second link. It's a five minute video, made by someone far more moderate than you or I. I think it is a reasonable description of the outside view of the archetypal dispute of which this exchange is but one of many examples. If you are really pressed for time, skip to about two minutes in.
In that case I recommend you reread fubarobfusco's post. His whole point is that if someone objects to the offense claim that means the person doing the objecting has psychological issues.
Your repeated strawmanning of my position is not conducive to reasonable debate.
Um. No, it's not.
It's that offense is not a one-place function any more than sexiness is — but that it is possible to learn what a particular person finds offensive (or, for that matter, sexy) and apply that knowledge to improve your social relations with that person. Moreover, that doing so is probably more useful than whining about someone calling your actions offensive (or, for that matter, unsexy).
Belief is also a two place function; however, if someone says that they believe that there is an invisible dragon in their garage, it is perfect reasonable to challenge them since their belief isn't rational. Similarly, the feeling of being offended can also be irrational and should similarly be challenged in such circumstances.
Have you noticed yet that you were in error about the meaning of my earlier comment, and that it was irrational for you to respond in the way that you did (claiming that it was about "psychological issues")?
Or ... maybe I didn't manage to get across what I intended to say, given that you interpreted it that way. I wouldn't want to assume that you were deliberately misconstruing it in order to make a status play or something.
(But if I use your approach, I get the result that blames you here. If I use my approach, it's my job to communicate my point in a way that succeeds with my audience, e.g. by not misleading you into thinking that I'm mocking anyone for having psychological problems. Which result do you prefer?)
Yes, people can misconstrue what someone meant by a communication. But if you notice that your ways of saying things are systematically misconstrued by a certain sort of people, that's equivalent to saying that you are not communicating effectively to that part of your audience.
Would you mind explaining how something like:
isn't talking about psychological issues.
That's because in today's world having a reputation as being "offensive"/"insensitive" can have a very negative effect on one's life and livelihood.
Having a reputation as smelly and unwashed can have a very negative effect on one's life and livelihood, too — but if someone points out that you smell bad, you are better served to update on that (and take a shower) rather than responding as if it is a slur. I don't think we want a social world in which people respond to negative feedback with overwhelming retaliatory defensiveness.
Depends, if people frequently used accusations of smelliness as universal counter-arguments, they way they use accusations of offensiveness, it would make sense to question accusations of smelliness.
Hmm ... from what I can tell, people frequently use accusations of "political correctness" as universal counter-arguments against requests that they moderate their offensive behavior towards others. Would you agree that those should be treated with the same disdain?
So, they are offended at people being offended at them? That's going to end well.
Yes, but keep in mind that one function of the behavior is to decrease the frequency of the original complaints by making complaints costly because DRAMA.
http://xkcd.com/1124/