4 ms·

Intent is always difficult and often impossible to judge. There is no happy medium here, particularly since those seeking to offend and to wolfwhistle to signa

by pydry 5y ago

Intent is always difficult and often impossible to judge. There is no happy medium here, particularly since those seeking to offend and to wolfwhistle to signal their allegiance to other people who hate your race (for example) will try to couch their terms to hide within the shadows of plausible deniability unless they feel completely safe. It's more a question of how many false positives and false negatives your culture is prepared to tolerate.

mcherm 5y ago
Of course, offense is just as difficult and impossible to judge as intent. In both cases, one can simply ask the individual, "Were you offended?" or "What was your intent?" But biased or motivated itself reporting makes each unreliable. I certainly agree with your final conclusion: it depends on what society is willing to tolerate in terms of false positives and in terms of false negatives. And particularly, the balance between those two kinds of errors.
- yeetaccount4 5y ago
  Anyone can say they’re offended without any cost to themselves. It’s ‘cheap’, and the outcome is often very ‘expensive’ for the offender. You could even make the case that virtue is derived from being offended. This disproportionality invites bad faith. I’ve stopped caring about people’s offense.
  - zehaeva 5y ago
    Anyone can say they didn't mean it that way/they were joking without any cost to themselves as well. Not to say that there isn't anything wrong with how people have been increasingly incensed in the last few decades, but that's basically what it was like in the 90s and before. Someone was like, "whoa dude what you said wasn't cool" was met with "it was just a joke". Your reasoning cuts both ways I think.
    - yeetaccount4 5y ago
      It doesn’t cost the other party anything to say you were joking. Saying you’re offended can lead to lost economic opportunity for somebody.
teakettle42 5y ago
The happy medium, such as it is, is to not try to police “toxicity” in the first place. If you want to be a global publisher of your opinions, you’re going to receive a global response, from people across the political and social gamut — the larger your audience, and the more political/ideological your speech, the more substantial a response. My dictionary’s definition of “Faustian” has this usage example: > Modern celebrities enter into a Faustian pact with the general public. What people seem to want is the ability to enforce a one-sided bargain with the public, under which their own toxicity, opinions, and any public affirmations should never be censored, as long as their opinions are the politically correct ones.
- mavhc 5y ago
  What happens when the trolls create millions of accounts to overwhelm the 90% people with good intentions?
- pydry 5y ago
  >The happy medium, such as it is, is to not try to police “toxicity” in the first place. So, give hard core racists the benefit of the doubt when they wolf whistle each other? Can't see any historical precedent for that going disastrously wrong. >What people seem to want is ... their own toxicity, opinions, and any public affirmations should never be censored Some people are hypocrites. News at 11. Some people also want anti-han Chinese racism to be treated equivalently to anti-Uyghur racism because they choose to be blind to the inherent power differential. I remember reading a story of the Hutus and the Tutsis. The genocide began with the radio - shows that very deliberate but cautious (& deniable) dehumanization of the other that ramped up over time. Nobody policed these deliberately aggravated ethnic tensions. By the time they were consistently obvious it was a little on the late side. On the other hand, I've been falsely accused of being a racist before and it undeniably hurt my feelings a little bit.
YEwSdObPQT 5y ago

by pydry 5y ago

mcherm 5y ago

Of course, offense is just as difficult and impossible to judge as intent. In both cases, one can simply ask the individual, "Were you offended?" or "What was your intent?" But biased or motivated itself reporting makes each unreliable. I certainly agree with your final conclusion: it depends on what society is willing to tolerate in terms of false positives and in terms of false negatives. And particularly, the balance between those two kinds of errors.

yeetaccount4 5y ago
Anyone can say they’re offended without any cost to themselves. It’s ‘cheap’, and the outcome is often very ‘expensive’ for the offender. You could even make the case that virtue is derived from being offended. This disproportionality invites bad faith. I’ve stopped caring about people’s offense.
- zehaeva 5y ago
  Anyone can say they didn't mean it that way/they were joking without any cost to themselves as well. Not to say that there isn't anything wrong with how people have been increasingly incensed in the last few decades, but that's basically what it was like in the 90s and before. Someone was like, "whoa dude what you said wasn't cool" was met with "it was just a joke". Your reasoning cuts both ways I think.
  - yeetaccount4 5y ago
    It doesn’t cost the other party anything to say you were joking. Saying you’re offended can lead to lost economic opportunity for somebody.

teakettle42 5y ago

The happy medium, such as it is, is to not try to police “toxicity” in the first place. If you want to be a global publisher of your opinions, you’re going to receive a global response, from people across the political and social gamut — the larger your audience, and the more political/ideological your speech, the more substantial a response. My dictionary’s definition of “Faustian” has this usage example: > Modern celebrities enter into a Faustian pact with the general public. What people seem to want is the ability to enforce a one-sided bargain with the public, under which their own toxicity, opinions, and any public affirmations should never be censored, as long as their opinions are the politically correct ones.

mavhc 5y ago
What happens when the trolls create millions of accounts to overwhelm the 90% people with good intentions?
pydry 5y ago
>The happy medium, such as it is, is to not try to police “toxicity” in the first place. So, give hard core racists the benefit of the doubt when they wolf whistle each other? Can't see any historical precedent for that going disastrously wrong. >What people seem to want is ... their own toxicity, opinions, and any public affirmations should never be censored Some people are hypocrites. News at 11. Some people also want anti-han Chinese racism to be treated equivalently to anti-Uyghur racism because they choose to be blind to the inherent power differential. I remember reading a story of the Hutus and the Tutsis. The genocide began with the radio - shows that very deliberate but cautious (& deniable) dehumanization of the other that ramped up over time. Nobody policed these deliberately aggravated ethnic tensions. By the time they were consistently obvious it was a little on the late side. On the other hand, I've been falsely accused of being a racist before and it undeniably hurt my feelings a little bit.

YEwSdObPQT 5y ago