4 ms·

The practical power of "that's offensive" is so much stronger than "we should allow free speech". I'd love for a better and more succint method of conveying the

The practical power of "that's offensive" is so much stronger than "we should allow free speech". I'd love for a better and more succint method of conveying the threat that putting "offensiveness" on a pedestal puts to science and democracy. Do you have one? It needs to be made clear that the path of progress is littered with hurt feelings, and that the importance of our feelings is significantly dwarfed by the collective good of science and democracy.

majormajor 6y ago
Your whole post here could be applied to the folks storming the capitol with equal ease as it could be applied to the stereotypical "triggered" university student. So it doesn't seem to have much explanatory power as to how we got to the point where the President is inciting those rioters... the President is literally telling them to be offended, and to be angry. Speech promoting violence. How is that speech not itself a threat to democracy?
- dschuler 6y ago
  The supreme court has ruled that speech presenting "imminent public danger" is not protected (i.e. free) speech.
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  Aren't you inadvertently proving their point here? The fact that it applies to both perhaps suggests validity, no?
  - majormajor 6y ago
    But we don't see an anti-Trump politician encouraging a set of counter-insurrectionists... so we're looking for what's DIFFERENT about the Trump side here, not something that applies everywhere.
JohnBooty 6y ago
It needs to be made clear that the path of progress is littered with hurt feelings, and that the importance of our feelings is significantly dwarfed by the collective good of science and democracy. This is a false dichotomy. The human race is not a zero-sum game with "feelings" on one side and "progress" on the other! Don't lose sight of why we're making all of this progress in the first place. We are not building more highways and inventing more computers just for the heck of it. We are -- or should be -- doing it to improve the happiness of ourselves and those who come after us. Y'know, happiness? One of those pesky feelings you mentioned?
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  He did not present a dichotomy. He said one is more important than the other, and that is correct. We used to teach our children to "have a thick skin." "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me." When someone took offense we told them to "grow up." Being offended, especially on behalf of someone else, is useless. Teach people not to take offense. They'll be happier.
  - watwut 6y ago
    Buy that saying is lie. It is simply not true. It is just something said to kids when adults don't want to deal with situation. It is good for adults to say that, because then they can continue to watch tv unbothered. Words to affect people and if you don't respond to insult, you will be bullied and insulted more and more. You will not have respect and you will lose ability to influence what is going on with and around you. In addition, men used to hold duels over words, so it was not even historical standards. > When someone took offense we told them to "grow up." Yes, some adults were enabling bullies like that. Especially if they themselves did not like the target. But it still was exactly that - enabling. Just letting it go or being submissive is not functional strategy to deal with these issues.
  - grahamburger 6y ago
    We also teach children (still, I hope?) to not say anything if you don't have anything nice to say, and to walk a mile in someone's shoes before judging them, and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So yes, teach people not to take offense, and also teach people not to be offensive. Being offended on someone else behalf helped us get rid of slavery, helped end the holocaust, gave us many of our social programs that support the poor - it's not wrong to see injustice and call it out, even if it's not happening to you.

majormajor 6y ago

Your whole post here could be applied to the folks storming the capitol with equal ease as it could be applied to the stereotypical "triggered" university student. So it doesn't seem to have much explanatory power as to how we got to the point where the President is inciting those rioters... the President is literally telling them to be offended, and to be angry. Speech promoting violence. How is that speech not itself a threat to democracy?

dschuler 6y ago
The supreme court has ruled that speech presenting "imminent public danger" is not protected (i.e. free) speech.
Enginerrrd 6y ago
Aren't you inadvertently proving their point here? The fact that it applies to both perhaps suggests validity, no?
- majormajor 6y ago
  But we don't see an anti-Trump politician encouraging a set of counter-insurrectionists... so we're looking for what's DIFFERENT about the Trump side here, not something that applies everywhere.

JohnBooty 6y ago

It needs to be made clear that the path of progress is littered with hurt feelings, and that the importance of our feelings is significantly dwarfed by the collective good of science and democracy. This is a false dichotomy. The human race is not a zero-sum game with "feelings" on one side and "progress" on the other! Don't lose sight of why we're making all of this progress in the first place. We are not building more highways and inventing more computers just for the heck of it. We are -- or should be -- doing it to improve the happiness of ourselves and those who come after us. Y'know, happiness? One of those pesky feelings you mentioned?

slowmovintarget 6y ago
He did not present a dichotomy. He said one is more important than the other, and that is correct. We used to teach our children to "have a thick skin." "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me." When someone took offense we told them to "grow up." Being offended, especially on behalf of someone else, is useless. Teach people not to take offense. They'll be happier.
- watwut 6y ago
  Buy that saying is lie. It is simply not true. It is just something said to kids when adults don't want to deal with situation. It is good for adults to say that, because then they can continue to watch tv unbothered. Words to affect people and if you don't respond to insult, you will be bullied and insulted more and more. You will not have respect and you will lose ability to influence what is going on with and around you. In addition, men used to hold duels over words, so it was not even historical standards. > When someone took offense we told them to "grow up." Yes, some adults were enabling bullies like that. Especially if they themselves did not like the target. But it still was exactly that - enabling. Just letting it go or being submissive is not functional strategy to deal with these issues.
- grahamburger 6y ago
  We also teach children (still, I hope?) to not say anything if you don't have anything nice to say, and to walk a mile in someone's shoes before judging them, and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So yes, teach people not to take offense, and also teach people not to be offensive. Being offended on someone else behalf helped us get rid of slavery, helped end the holocaust, gave us many of our social programs that support the poor - it's not wrong to see injustice and call it out, even if it's not happening to you.