= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier 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.
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.