7 ms·

It's not a result of coddling (or only a bit). Certain groups realized they could gain power by being offended. Once you create that incentive, unchecked, it's

It's not a result of coddling (or only a bit). Certain groups realized they could gain power by being offended. Once you create that incentive, unchecked, it's game over.

golemotron 11y ago
Unless people feel start to feel comfortable calling it out as manipulation: "you want to be treated like and adult? Act like an adult." I hope the inevitable backlash takes this form.
- doubles 11y ago
  The backlash will likely take this form. Then there will be two polar ends of the spectrum and it will turn into another "A vs B" with both ideologies slowly pushing to the extremes. Meanwhile the majority of us will be somewhere in the middle begging for nuance in the discussions and some level of compromise as the loudest voices dominate the conversation.
  - LoSboccacc 11y ago
    it's already happening in some form already in the memenet: https://i.imgur.com/Lo40E5D.png https://i.imgur.com/Lo40E5D.png the problem is mixed in there there are reactionaries which took the opposite extreme stance and are poisoning the ground for constructive criticism
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
RodericDay 11y ago
This is actually exactly it. It's a power-play. The amount of think-pieces that have been dumped over the internet psychoanalyzing "the medal generation", talking about the ways in which kids have had their self-esteem massaged by lack of bullying, or beating, or suffering, or how "America has been pussyified" or whatever, all part from the premise that when a student says "take this down, it offends me", they are actually being honest in this weak way. On some level I suppose it makes it easier for the person making the critique, they get to brag a bit about how they have a "thicker skin". But that's not what's going on at all.
- hueving 11y ago
  People aren't belittling students for being offended, they are belittling them for feeling so entitled that they would suggest to "take it down" as a response. It's incredibly selfish to feel that anything that hurts your feelings should be censored out of your environment. The equivalent would be if we all just flagged every post we disagreed with and it was removed by mods as long as you we include text saying that it triggered us.
  - RodericDay 11y ago
    If that was all there was to the discussion, it wouldn't be so explosive in places like HN. GP tries to phrase it as a "why now?" phenomenon, with a heavy dose of conservatism about the old days, when the idea of people feigning outrage for power has been going on forever (see: right-wing panics about race mixing, women voting, etc.). I guess I'm in a relatively rare position around these parts of usually agreeing with the radical students' aims (demolishing certain kinds of speech, like "race realism" and "sex realism", taking down statues honoring unworthy figures from the past) and not their methods (legalizing em out of sight and squashing dissent vs taking them down via argument). >>> I think that safe spaces / micro-aggressions may come from the perfect storm of a) a generation that was conceived after a period of widespread crime and social uncertainty, leading parents to coddle them and try to protect them from the world [see 'helicopter' parenting'], b) the self-esteem movement [everyone wins prize], and c) increasingly feminized primary and secondary education. The number of male teachers has dwindled rapidly over the decades. > People aren't belittling students for being offended As you can see, there is a strong identity component here.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  > all part from the premise that when a student says "take this down, it offends me", they are actually being honest As in all things in life there are nuances. This problem isn't even tied to this generation in particular, the only issue to contend today is that in this generation sensationalism breed views and views breed consensus, all in all this situation isn't that much different from people fighting against the N* racial slur in the last century, only the communication channels and consensus rules differ, especially regarding diffusion speed. This is a part of a bigger problem: modern society ethics diffuse and segregate groups at a pace that has no precedent while not sporting the same mediation and dialectics needed by living in close physical social groups.
dalke 11y ago
"Happy Holidays!" instead of "Merry Christmas!" certainly seems to offend a lot of people. So does saying "I'm an atheist" in many part of the US. Or, outrage for saying "we need the same types of gun ownership restrictions that then-Governor Reagan pushed for California." The most recent outrage seems to concern transsexuals using something other than the cisnormative bathroom. You did mean to include those forms of outrage, right? Because to me those still look like "game on".
- eru 11y ago
  I know you are trolling. But to still give an honest reply: think more along the lines of the outrage about lambdaconf and Mencius Moldbug's alter ego speaking there.
  - lucozade 11y ago
    I agree with maehwasu. These are all manifestations of a similar phenomenon i.e. what appears to be an increasing tendency for some groups to aggressively defend their "right" to not have to listen to people who disagree with them. As a tactic it seems to have been quite successful so it's not surprising that disparate groups are using it.
    - dalke 11y ago
      There's no "increasing tendency". Pick a random decade and you'll hear exactly the same things. Christopher Hitchens in 1994, for example, defended David Irving when St. Martin’s Press "de-platformed" (to use the modern term, that is, canceled its contract to print) Irving's edition of the Goebbels diaries. Look at the generations of people who insisted on the "right" to not hear certain racially charged slurs in casual conversation. Just watch 'Archie Bunker' episodes if you want a reminder of what that was like in the 1970s. I propose that it's only "increasing" because things that are recent, and which affect us and challenge us most directly, appear more important than things in the past. Even more so where we implicitly accept the views of the winning side - eg, woman's suffrage - as being correct, and don't think that those on the losing side also thought themselves as being correct.
seivan 11y ago
In Sweden being offended is big business getting a lot of government grants. Some really shady fuckers (ISIS) supports have gotten a lot of money that way.

It's not a result of coddling (or only a bit). Certain groups realized they could gain power by being offended. Once you create that incentive, unchecked, it's game over.

golemotron 11y ago

Unless people feel start to feel comfortable calling it out as manipulation: "you want to be treated like and adult? Act like an adult." I hope the inevitable backlash takes this form.

doubles 11y ago
The backlash will likely take this form. Then there will be two polar ends of the spectrum and it will turn into another "A vs B" with both ideologies slowly pushing to the extremes. Meanwhile the majority of us will be somewhere in the middle begging for nuance in the discussions and some level of compromise as the loudest voices dominate the conversation.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  it's already happening in some form already in the memenet: https://i.imgur.com/Lo40E5D.png https://i.imgur.com/Lo40E5D.png the problem is mixed in there there are reactionaries which took the opposite extreme stance and are poisoning the ground for constructive criticism

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

RodericDay 11y ago

This is actually exactly it. It's a power-play. The amount of think-pieces that have been dumped over the internet psychoanalyzing "the medal generation", talking about the ways in which kids have had their self-esteem massaged by lack of bullying, or beating, or suffering, or how "America has been pussyified" or whatever, all part from the premise that when a student says "take this down, it offends me", they are actually being honest in this weak way. On some level I suppose it makes it easier for the person making the critique, they get to brag a bit about how they have a "thicker skin". But that's not what's going on at all.

hueving 11y ago
People aren't belittling students for being offended, they are belittling them for feeling so entitled that they would suggest to "take it down" as a response. It's incredibly selfish to feel that anything that hurts your feelings should be censored out of your environment. The equivalent would be if we all just flagged every post we disagreed with and it was removed by mods as long as you we include text saying that it triggered us.
- RodericDay 11y ago
  If that was all there was to the discussion, it wouldn't be so explosive in places like HN. GP tries to phrase it as a "why now?" phenomenon, with a heavy dose of conservatism about the old days, when the idea of people feigning outrage for power has been going on forever (see: right-wing panics about race mixing, women voting, etc.). I guess I'm in a relatively rare position around these parts of usually agreeing with the radical students' aims (demolishing certain kinds of speech, like "race realism" and "sex realism", taking down statues honoring unworthy figures from the past) and not their methods (legalizing em out of sight and squashing dissent vs taking them down via argument). >>> I think that safe spaces / micro-aggressions may come from the perfect storm of a) a generation that was conceived after a period of widespread crime and social uncertainty, leading parents to coddle them and try to protect them from the world [see 'helicopter' parenting'], b) the self-esteem movement [everyone wins prize], and c) increasingly feminized primary and secondary education. The number of male teachers has dwindled rapidly over the decades. > People aren't belittling students for being offended As you can see, there is a strong identity component here.
LoSboccacc 11y ago
> all part from the premise that when a student says "take this down, it offends me", they are actually being honest As in all things in life there are nuances. This problem isn't even tied to this generation in particular, the only issue to contend today is that in this generation sensationalism breed views and views breed consensus, all in all this situation isn't that much different from people fighting against the N* racial slur in the last century, only the communication channels and consensus rules differ, especially regarding diffusion speed. This is a part of a bigger problem: modern society ethics diffuse and segregate groups at a pace that has no precedent while not sporting the same mediation and dialectics needed by living in close physical social groups.

dalke 11y ago

"Happy Holidays!" instead of "Merry Christmas!" certainly seems to offend a lot of people. So does saying "I'm an atheist" in many part of the US. Or, outrage for saying "we need the same types of gun ownership restrictions that then-Governor Reagan pushed for California." The most recent outrage seems to concern transsexuals using something other than the cisnormative bathroom. You did mean to include those forms of outrage, right? Because to me those still look like "game on".

eru 11y ago
I know you are trolling. But to still give an honest reply: think more along the lines of the outrage about lambdaconf and Mencius Moldbug's alter ego speaking there.
- lucozade 11y ago
  I agree with maehwasu. These are all manifestations of a similar phenomenon i.e. what appears to be an increasing tendency for some groups to aggressively defend their "right" to not have to listen to people who disagree with them. As a tactic it seems to have been quite successful so it's not surprising that disparate groups are using it.
  - dalke 11y ago
    There's no "increasing tendency". Pick a random decade and you'll hear exactly the same things. Christopher Hitchens in 1994, for example, defended David Irving when St. Martin’s Press "de-platformed" (to use the modern term, that is, canceled its contract to print) Irving's edition of the Goebbels diaries. Look at the generations of people who insisted on the "right" to not hear certain racially charged slurs in casual conversation. Just watch 'Archie Bunker' episodes if you want a reminder of what that was like in the 1970s. I propose that it's only "increasing" because things that are recent, and which affect us and challenge us most directly, appear more important than things in the past. Even more so where we implicitly accept the views of the winning side - eg, woman's suffrage - as being correct, and don't think that those on the losing side also thought themselves as being correct.

seivan 11y ago

In Sweden being offended is big business getting a lot of government grants. Some really shady fuckers (ISIS) supports have gotten a lot of money that way.