7 ms·

Well, did you downvote me once you saw it? With regards to your offense that is fine when it is used in this way. However, what is your evidence that anyone in

Well, did you downvote me once you saw it? With regards to your offense that is fine when it is used in this way. However, what is your evidence that anyone in that group was there as collateral damage? The target was alt-rights in a livestream with 3000 views in total, and the context of his words clearly doesn’t match your characterization. I think no one is fooled at this point by activists working hard to find something to be offended by, so that they can use it to attack a viewpoint opponent. Maybe Patreon will becomes the first example of a company that gets serious damage by pandering to activists.

StavrosK 8y ago
> Well, did you downvote me once you saw it? No. > what is your evidence that anyone in that group was there as collateral damage It doesn't matter if there was damage, it's the principle.
- asabjorn 8y ago
  I agree that we should avoid any negative characterization or reduction of another individual to an unchosen group based upon immutable traits. I know a party and an associated group in the US that need to clean up their act on this before they throw any stones in their glasshouse. Identity politics is divisive and a road to hell paved with good intentions. If you say something to a sufficiently large group you’ll risk offending someone, so the principle you propose is too simplistic and unworkable. Who defines what is offensive and when context doesn’t matter? How many people is it ok to offend when you speak to a large group or post something online? If the audience is expanded by others, through leaks or other actions, is it still not ok? With regards to your comments I apologize for assuming you downvoted. Somehow the downvote happens as a clockwork so there seemed to be a likely causality.
reitanqild 8y ago
> Well, did you downvote me once you saw it? StavrosK couldn't possibly downvote you I think. No account can downvote a direct reply as far as I'm aware.

StavrosK 8y ago

> Well, did you downvote me once you saw it? No. > what is your evidence that anyone in that group was there as collateral damage It doesn't matter if there was damage, it's the principle.

asabjorn 8y ago
I agree that we should avoid any negative characterization or reduction of another individual to an unchosen group based upon immutable traits. I know a party and an associated group in the US that need to clean up their act on this before they throw any stones in their glasshouse. Identity politics is divisive and a road to hell paved with good intentions. If you say something to a sufficiently large group you’ll risk offending someone, so the principle you propose is too simplistic and unworkable. Who defines what is offensive and when context doesn’t matter? How many people is it ok to offend when you speak to a large group or post something online? If the audience is expanded by others, through leaks or other actions, is it still not ok? With regards to your comments I apologize for assuming you downvoted. Somehow the downvote happens as a clockwork so there seemed to be a likely causality.

reitanqild 8y ago

> Well, did you downvote me once you saw it? StavrosK couldn't possibly downvote you I think. No account can downvote a direct reply as far as I'm aware.