4 ms·
No, it just means that you can't control how something will be received and that sometimes people are going to have an negative emotional response to something
by GVIrish 10y ago
No, it just means that you can't control how something will be received and that sometimes people are going to have an negative emotional response to something benign or well-intended.
Now, whether someone should change their behavior to suit the sensibilities of the offended is the question. The answer to that question is basically what social norms are. It's a moving target that evolves over time and across segments of society, so there's no foolproof way to always know where the line is.
But as long as someone cares to understand, learn from, and empathize with other people more often than not they'll have an idea of what is appropriate and inappropriate. The asshole is the person who either doesn't care, or chooses not to understand or take stock of the reactions of others, and as such is waaayyy over the line for decency.
> This argument seems to me to lead nowhere, unless you say being offended is okay, offending is not. Which I would find quite disturbing, not just because Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey) would vehemently agree but because it seems wrong to me.
In the case of Turkey and some other parts of the world, we're getting into the territory of the government punishing people with dissenting opinions or criticisms. My take would be that someone has the right to feel offended, but the government should not be in the business of punishing the offender when it comes to speech, political views, etc.
So someone can express utter disgust with the AKP and call Erdoğan a dictator in waiting, which would offend many of his supporters, but that shouldn't result in punishment/imprisonment.
- Noseshine 10y agoSince you feel you had to reply with > Um, it is someone's right to feel offended,... it certainly shows that you dispute the right of the person to say what he had to say - so my point stands. If you accepted his right as well you would not have felt it necessary to make that statement. As I said, > Which means we don't need to have this discussion and just accept both the > offended and the assholes. > This argument seems to me to lead nowhere... I see you arguing for one side's right to speak their mind only. Either you see their right as more important, or your post is completely unnecessary and you could just have let everybody say whatever they felt like.
- GVIrish 10y ago> it certainly shows that you dispute the right of the person to say what he had to say - so my point stands. You're reading stuff that simply is not there. Nowhere did I say that someone did not have the right to free speech, and I spoke to exactly that point RE: Erdogan/Turkey. Not arguing against free speech, just saying that whatever someone says, one cannot dictate how that speech will be received. The parent post seemed to be arguing that the problem is that too many people are thin-skinned and they don't have the right to be offended by the statements/actions of others. I disagreed with that point.
- Noseshine 10y ago> You're reading stuff that simply is not there. Well, so are you? Please read what I wrote. You are missing my point. > The parent post.... I disagreed with that point. Exactly. How about the right of OP to say whatever he feels like? Your support for "free speech" (the one in quotes) is selective. > Nowhere did I say that someone did not have the right to free speech Except you don't want OP to say what he did.