= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MattG comments on Subjective vs. normative offensiveness - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
No, the point was to simply argue that people often leave out the important step of going from them being subjectively offended to them having a right to act as though the comment was objectively offensive.
Here's another example. Suppose I'm a grammar Nazi, and someone uses where instead of we're. I might be personally (or subjectively offended), but that wasn't objectively offensive. If I wrote a long angry rant at that person, most people would think that I was in the wrong.
Unless of course you're an English teacher at a grammar convention.
Correct me if I'm wrong but to rephrase your point (which I now think I get) - You have the right to be offended at anything, but you can't complain about it if that offense is within the norms of the groups where you feel offended. So your point about "normative" offensive wasn't "absolute normative offensiveness" but "normative in the context of where you were offended".
My argument was agnostic to the relativism debate. Regardless of whether you are considering an "absolute normative offensiveness" or a contextual normative offensiveness, this will typically differ in certain cases from one's own personal, subjective standard of offensiveness.