3 ms·

> we've largely coalesced around the idea that insult should be defined by the insulted. I know that is not an opinion I share. I suspect it is not one many pe

> we've largely coalesced around the idea that insult should be defined by the insulted. I know that is not an opinion I share. I suspect it is not one many people share at all. I think it's just the one of a vocal minority on the far left. Ideas have a place in the open. If they're going to die somewhere, it needs to be in public discourse.

sbarre 7y ago
> I think it's just the one of a vocal minority on the far left. I think you might be allowing your bias to zero in on one particular group here. Outrage politics is everyone's tool these days, not just one "side" (if you insist on picking sides). I don't consider myself to be on either side, but a counterpoint for you to consider: "if you're not with us, you're against us", or "pry my guns from my cold dead hands".. These are examples of using ideological offence to an idea or concept as a way to shut down discourse.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > I don't consider myself to be on either side, but a counterpoint for you to consider: "if you're not with us, you're against us", or "pry my guns from my cold dead hands" You’re mixing up two different things. There’s a difference between shutting down discourse, and expressing an unwillingness to compromise. The two examples you give are the latter. There is nothing wrong with being unwilling to compromise, and expressing that in an emotional way (e.g. the Resist movement).
- aesh2Xa1 7y ago
  Is it a bias? I definitely intended to zero in. My bubble is a bunch of podcasts and NYMag articles in which I'm told that the people wanting to shut down speech are doing so to protect ourselves from hateful speech at the expense of expression, discussion, and dissent. If that is everyone's tool then can we agree that my calling out of one group was bad, but that the sentiment against the idea is correct? I think you mean "side" as political party or ideology in a way that I don't hold, unless you actually mean siding with "insults should be defined by the insulted" versus "not necessarily." Can you elaborate on your examples and how they counter something that I claimed? I read both as examples of rhetoric that are best countered by continued discourse and not the false dichotomy presented: 1) you are either permanently an opponent or will accept my idea 2) you are required to engage in violence with me to resolve our difference I can't find the original comment so some of the context is missing (I can find my comment, though).

sbarre 7y ago

> I think it's just the one of a vocal minority on the far left. I think you might be allowing your bias to zero in on one particular group here. Outrage politics is everyone's tool these days, not just one "side" (if you insist on picking sides). I don't consider myself to be on either side, but a counterpoint for you to consider: "if you're not with us, you're against us", or "pry my guns from my cold dead hands".. These are examples of using ideological offence to an idea or concept as a way to shut down discourse.

rayiner 7y ago
> I don't consider myself to be on either side, but a counterpoint for you to consider: "if you're not with us, you're against us", or "pry my guns from my cold dead hands" You’re mixing up two different things. There’s a difference between shutting down discourse, and expressing an unwillingness to compromise. The two examples you give are the latter. There is nothing wrong with being unwilling to compromise, and expressing that in an emotional way (e.g. the Resist movement).
aesh2Xa1 7y ago
Is it a bias? I definitely intended to zero in. My bubble is a bunch of podcasts and NYMag articles in which I'm told that the people wanting to shut down speech are doing so to protect ourselves from hateful speech at the expense of expression, discussion, and dissent. If that is everyone's tool then can we agree that my calling out of one group was bad, but that the sentiment against the idea is correct? I think you mean "side" as political party or ideology in a way that I don't hold, unless you actually mean siding with "insults should be defined by the insulted" versus "not necessarily." Can you elaborate on your examples and how they counter something that I claimed? I read both as examples of rhetoric that are best countered by continued discourse and not the false dichotomy presented: 1) you are either permanently an opponent or will accept my idea 2) you are required to engage in violence with me to resolve our difference I can't find the original comment so some of the context is missing (I can find my comment, though).