3 ms·

I agree. Nothing wrong with insulting people, I just take issue with deifying and amplifying people who like offending people. Yes, you should be allowed to of

I agree. Nothing wrong with insulting people, I just take issue with deifying and amplifying people who like offending people. Yes, you should be allowed to offend whoever you want in a free society. But admiring people because of their intent to offend large groups of people is just weird.

jatins 4y ago
> I just take issue with deifying and amplifying people who like offending people. But "like offending people" is not objective. The burden has to lie with offendee as well. Flat earthers might be offended by someone saying Earth is round, but that doesn't mean that person saying that likes offending flat earthers.
- fjeroifjg 4y ago
  You can get banned from HN for mentioning far more obvious facts relevant to many peoples lives, ex. race and crime rates. Arguably more well supported than round earth. So it's just pure hypocrisy and pretending otherwise is silly.
Beltalowda 4y ago
That's not my point; my point is that any argument which criticizes anything is likely to antagonize people. It's also not my impression that Rushdie "likes offending people"; he wrote a fictional novel and some people took issue with what seem fairly minor points to me and had a massive hissy fit over that (partly motivated for political reasons), but I don't know the man.
mannykannot 4y ago
> I just take issue with deifying and amplifying people who like offending people...admiring people because of their intent to offend large groups of people is just weird. This is a false framing. The person who wrote the post you originally replied to does not appear to be doing that; the comment praises Rushdie for saying uncomfortable things and challenging entrenched views, not for insulting people. It may be (as as been suggested in these comments) that Rushdie was indeed trying to offend people, but even if that were the case, it does not mean that his supporters are celebrating him for that. In fact, I feel it is fairly safe to say that, for most of his supporters in this matter, he is something of a MacGuffin: they support the position you concur with in your second paragraph, and he just happens to present a case where it is under significant threat. Opposition to terrorism (state-sponsored terrorism, no less) does not necessarily imply or depend on supporting the victim's position or all of their actions, any more than opposition of the death penalty is an endorsement of murder and its perpetrators. Even people who have reservations about your second paragraph can see that Rushdie was not threatening anyone, directly or indirectly.

jatins 4y ago

> I just take issue with deifying and amplifying people who like offending people. But "like offending people" is not objective. The burden has to lie with offendee as well. Flat earthers might be offended by someone saying Earth is round, but that doesn't mean that person saying that likes offending flat earthers.

fjeroifjg 4y ago
You can get banned from HN for mentioning far more obvious facts relevant to many peoples lives, ex. race and crime rates. Arguably more well supported than round earth. So it's just pure hypocrisy and pretending otherwise is silly.

Beltalowda 4y ago

That's not my point; my point is that any argument which criticizes anything is likely to antagonize people. It's also not my impression that Rushdie "likes offending people"; he wrote a fictional novel and some people took issue with what seem fairly minor points to me and had a massive hissy fit over that (partly motivated for political reasons), but I don't know the man.

mannykannot 4y ago

> I just take issue with deifying and amplifying people who like offending people...admiring people because of their intent to offend large groups of people is just weird. This is a false framing. The person who wrote the post you originally replied to does not appear to be doing that; the comment praises Rushdie for saying uncomfortable things and challenging entrenched views, not for insulting people. It may be (as as been suggested in these comments) that Rushdie was indeed trying to offend people, but even if that were the case, it does not mean that his supporters are celebrating him for that. In fact, I feel it is fairly safe to say that, for most of his supporters in this matter, he is something of a MacGuffin: they support the position you concur with in your second paragraph, and he just happens to present a case where it is under significant threat. Opposition to terrorism (state-sponsored terrorism, no less) does not necessarily imply or depend on supporting the victim's position or all of their actions, any more than opposition of the death penalty is an endorsement of murder and its perpetrators. Even people who have reservations about your second paragraph can see that Rushdie was not threatening anyone, directly or indirectly.