4 ms·

You can definitely choose to go down a route of "these people get offended and it's completely irrational and unjustified, and they are wrong to do so, so to te

You can definitely choose to go down a route of "these people get offended and it's completely irrational and unjustified, and they are wrong to do so, so to teach them a lesson i'm going to shut my mouth and complain to everyone about how they are bad people that are forcing me to self-restrict my freedom of speech and as a result they are actively helping the slave trade". Or you might also consider the route of "these people get offended and i don't understand why so i'm going to work to listen to them and talk with them one by one until i do understand on a core level how they feel and where those feelings are derived from, and based on that i will do my best to share my thoughts in a way that is considerate of my deep connection and understanding of all the people around me, and because everyone has built a personal connection to me, they too will be able to accept my feelings and assume charity." Just depends on which route you derive more self-satisfaction from. You can assume an air of superiority and righteousness in either direction, and that's something that all humans love to feel.

raxxorrax 6y ago
I don't think this is feasible since you would need constant appeasement and the source of offense often cannot be deconstructed by argument. For an idealistic approach it is well intentioned, but that would gradually shift the level of accepted speech towards a form of orthodoxy. The stigmatization of feeling superior for more eccentric speech is an example of that actually. Look at history where the "moral" authority suppressed speech, it will end up just like that. There are also people that lie about being offended. Reaching out is falling into a trap in that case. The dichotomy of these "routes" is wrong. A discussion must not be an argument, even if internet exposure lets you believe otherwise, but it can be.
Diggsey 6y ago
> I'm going to work to listen to them and talk with them one by one until i do understand on a core level how they feel and where those feelings are derived from, Many of the people who are actually condemned for being offensive are condemned by the media or by some third party who's being offended on behalf of someone else, who we never get to actually hear from, and who might not even exist.
- jmchuster 6y ago
  It would definitely be interesting to hear more from AHappyCamper on what offending that they're doing that they're trying to solve. Are they trying to get support from the government, but government officials are offended that they use the term "Black Market" in their communications and refuse to engage with them? Are they trying to raise public awareness, but their posts are being flood with replies demonizing them for using the term "Black", and so they feel they're not able to effectively spread the message? Are their efforts proceeding exactly as hoped, but the media is demonizing them for using the term "Black"? Or maybe a grandma facebook group? And they feel slighted when they are trying to bring about this great benefit for the world? Are they not actually seeing any offense at all and just want people to beat down a strawman for them?
shrubble 6y ago
Is there ever a case where, after the first round of understanding and concession is done, that then, another discussion requires more concessions? Or, is there some objective way to determine a boundary line?
cglace 6y ago
I think the point is that it’s very expensive to do the former. There are 195 counties, 4,300 religions, n different cultures, languages, m different races, to figure out the right permutation of words that offends the least seems like a daunting challenge. It’s easier to just not speak.

raxxorrax 6y ago

I don't think this is feasible since you would need constant appeasement and the source of offense often cannot be deconstructed by argument. For an idealistic approach it is well intentioned, but that would gradually shift the level of accepted speech towards a form of orthodoxy. The stigmatization of feeling superior for more eccentric speech is an example of that actually. Look at history where the "moral" authority suppressed speech, it will end up just like that. There are also people that lie about being offended. Reaching out is falling into a trap in that case. The dichotomy of these "routes" is wrong. A discussion must not be an argument, even if internet exposure lets you believe otherwise, but it can be.

Diggsey 6y ago

> I'm going to work to listen to them and talk with them one by one until i do understand on a core level how they feel and where those feelings are derived from, Many of the people who are actually condemned for being offensive are condemned by the media or by some third party who's being offended on behalf of someone else, who we never get to actually hear from, and who might not even exist.

jmchuster 6y ago
It would definitely be interesting to hear more from AHappyCamper on what offending that they're doing that they're trying to solve. Are they trying to get support from the government, but government officials are offended that they use the term "Black Market" in their communications and refuse to engage with them? Are they trying to raise public awareness, but their posts are being flood with replies demonizing them for using the term "Black", and so they feel they're not able to effectively spread the message? Are their efforts proceeding exactly as hoped, but the media is demonizing them for using the term "Black"? Or maybe a grandma facebook group? And they feel slighted when they are trying to bring about this great benefit for the world? Are they not actually seeing any offense at all and just want people to beat down a strawman for them?

shrubble 6y ago

Is there ever a case where, after the first round of understanding and concession is done, that then, another discussion requires more concessions? Or, is there some objective way to determine a boundary line?

cglace 6y ago

I think the point is that it’s very expensive to do the former. There are 195 counties, 4,300 religions, n different cultures, languages, m different races, to figure out the right permutation of words that offends the least seems like a daunting challenge. It’s easier to just not speak.