4 ms·

You seem to believe that offense is subjective to the individual. Should we then be responsible for everything we do that offends others? What level of recourse

You seem to believe that offense is subjective to the individual. Should we then be responsible for everything we do that offends others? What level of recourse should they have for being offended? If we think that punitive action is appropriate given an offense, how do we determine what a legitimate offense is, versus a non-legitimate offense?

Cushman 14y ago
> Should we then be responsible for everything we do that offends others? Yes. > What level of recourse should they have for being offended? If we think that punitive action is appropriate given an offense, how do we determine what a legitimate offense is, versus a non-legitimate offense? If people finding out publicly that you did it would cause you to lose your job, that might be a good indicator.
- gtz57 14y ago
  but people can take offense to anything, so that means you would be responsible for all of the stupid things people get offended about. People don't have the right to not be offended. I think you are half right, but offense probably has to be both given and taken, not just taken.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    Yeah, I mean, if we're in a public place I'm gonna do my best not to upset you. If we're at your place, I'll leave; if we're at my place, you've gotta leave. If it's a bad enough disagreement we can take it to court and let someone objective sort it out. That's how we all get along.
- X-Istence 14y ago
  I'm sure it would offend (maybe sadden too) my grandparents very much that I don't believe in God, but I don't see that as a reason to never speak my mind about the fact that I don't believe in religion. Nor should my believe in God have anything to do with my job, however I've worked at a place where that would certainly lead to me being let go if I were to mention or discuss that at work with my boss, but what I discuss between friends is my business and not his. I don't see how I need to be responsible for making sure you, or anyone that might be overhearing or reading my words, is not offended by what I am saying.
- drharris 14y ago
  Well, let's say I'm offended by your username. I'm so offended that I feel the proper punishment should be paying reparations of no less than $1M to the charity of my choice. Is it my offense taken by your username a fair offense? What standard is used to determine what offenses are legitimate, and what determines a proper punishment for that offense. Furthermore, how are you to know in advance that your username is offensive to me?
  - Cushman 14y ago
    Sure, and let's say that I'm offended by your face, and I want a million dollars for that. How do we resolve this? It seems to me that we exist in a community that has a pretty well-evolved process for determining what is reasonable.
    - drharris 14y ago
      We take it to court, and if it doesn't fit within the boundaries of law, a judge has two options: toss out the case, or attempt to expand the boundaries of law by interpreting existing law in a new way. If the former, we are at an impasse, so how can we determine if our offenses are legitimate or not? If the latter, then now it is up to a judge and/or jury to use their subjective reasoning to pass judgment on whether the offense is legitimate. The point I'm getting around to is that everyone tosses about objective judgments for people who cause subjective offenses. To me, this is pretty illogical. Most times, what we perceive as legitimate offenses are those by people who are the loudest, most influential, or greatest in number. It has very little to do with what the truth is, rather an opinion of the masses that has been manipulated that way.
      - danielweber 14y ago
        For a functioning society, there must be some kind of barrier between "legally acceptable" and "socially acceptable." "If it's not illegal, then it's okay" will not lead you anywhere you like.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  I take offense that somebody as stupid as you could post on this forum. Please cut of your hands. See how that doesn't make any sense? Heck I get offended by overly politically correct people and people who get easily offended.
- Torgo 14y ago
  The Hollywood Blacklist was completely justified then, because employing (suspected) commies subjected your company to negative publicity. Alternately, firings can represent the witch hunt of the age (except when it is actual witch hunts and they are actually setting them on fire.)
RougeFemme 14y ago
I don't see how offense could be anything but subjective to the individual, really. (Yes, I know there are things that are considered objective to the sub-group, but even within those sub-groups, there will be disagreement. That's clear from the various threads on this topic on HN.) The question many of us struggle with is where to draw that line between that "individual objection" and "free speech" - and how flexible that line should be.
- drharris 14y ago
  1600 Penn (great show, btw) had an episode where people picketed the White House for the environmental policies. Through a series of hijinks, these people got an audience with the President to express their concerns. Once in there, it becomes a cacophony as some argue for public transit, others argue to corporate responsibility, etc. They had some "thing" in common, but each had much different ideas about what really brought them there. So, I find true your statement that even within subgroups, there is disagreement over an offense's legitimacy. Yet, we as flawed humans still seek objective punishment for others's offenses, even when we don't personally ascribe to claiming those offenses for ourselves. This to me is the most interesting part of all of this, that everybody has a ready-made opinion about what thing should happen to these people involved even though the original offense was 100% subjective. This brings up some interesting questions: 1) Can one really be offended by hearing a story about a subjective offense from someone else, and thus pass legitimate judgment? If so, what is the real offense - the original act, or merely what the act represents. 2) If the true offense is about what the act represents, then does passing judgment on the offensive party appropriately handle the situation? 3) If an offense is a subjective thing, then does it need to be personal, and directed toward the offendee in order to be legitimate?

Cushman 14y ago

> Should we then be responsible for everything we do that offends others? Yes. > What level of recourse should they have for being offended? If we think that punitive action is appropriate given an offense, how do we determine what a legitimate offense is, versus a non-legitimate offense? If people finding out publicly that you did it would cause you to lose your job, that might be a good indicator.

gtz57 14y ago
but people can take offense to anything, so that means you would be responsible for all of the stupid things people get offended about. People don't have the right to not be offended. I think you are half right, but offense probably has to be both given and taken, not just taken.
- Cushman 14y ago
  Yeah, I mean, if we're in a public place I'm gonna do my best not to upset you. If we're at your place, I'll leave; if we're at my place, you've gotta leave. If it's a bad enough disagreement we can take it to court and let someone objective sort it out. That's how we all get along.
X-Istence 14y ago
I'm sure it would offend (maybe sadden too) my grandparents very much that I don't believe in God, but I don't see that as a reason to never speak my mind about the fact that I don't believe in religion. Nor should my believe in God have anything to do with my job, however I've worked at a place where that would certainly lead to me being let go if I were to mention or discuss that at work with my boss, but what I discuss between friends is my business and not his. I don't see how I need to be responsible for making sure you, or anyone that might be overhearing or reading my words, is not offended by what I am saying.
drharris 14y ago
Well, let's say I'm offended by your username. I'm so offended that I feel the proper punishment should be paying reparations of no less than $1M to the charity of my choice. Is it my offense taken by your username a fair offense? What standard is used to determine what offenses are legitimate, and what determines a proper punishment for that offense. Furthermore, how are you to know in advance that your username is offensive to me?
- Cushman 14y ago
  Sure, and let's say that I'm offended by your face, and I want a million dollars for that. How do we resolve this? It seems to me that we exist in a community that has a pretty well-evolved process for determining what is reasonable.
  - drharris 14y ago
    We take it to court, and if it doesn't fit within the boundaries of law, a judge has two options: toss out the case, or attempt to expand the boundaries of law by interpreting existing law in a new way. If the former, we are at an impasse, so how can we determine if our offenses are legitimate or not? If the latter, then now it is up to a judge and/or jury to use their subjective reasoning to pass judgment on whether the offense is legitimate. The point I'm getting around to is that everyone tosses about objective judgments for people who cause subjective offenses. To me, this is pretty illogical. Most times, what we perceive as legitimate offenses are those by people who are the loudest, most influential, or greatest in number. It has very little to do with what the truth is, rather an opinion of the masses that has been manipulated that way.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      For a functioning society, there must be some kind of barrier between "legally acceptable" and "socially acceptable." "If it's not illegal, then it's okay" will not lead you anywhere you like.
tomjen3 14y ago
I take offense that somebody as stupid as you could post on this forum. Please cut of your hands. See how that doesn't make any sense? Heck I get offended by overly politically correct people and people who get easily offended.
Torgo 14y ago
The Hollywood Blacklist was completely justified then, because employing (suspected) commies subjected your company to negative publicity. Alternately, firings can represent the witch hunt of the age (except when it is actual witch hunts and they are actually setting them on fire.)

RougeFemme 14y ago

I don't see how offense could be anything but subjective to the individual, really. (Yes, I know there are things that are considered objective to the sub-group, but even within those sub-groups, there will be disagreement. That's clear from the various threads on this topic on HN.) The question many of us struggle with is where to draw that line between that "individual objection" and "free speech" - and how flexible that line should be.

drharris 14y ago
1600 Penn (great show, btw) had an episode where people picketed the White House for the environmental policies. Through a series of hijinks, these people got an audience with the President to express their concerns. Once in there, it becomes a cacophony as some argue for public transit, others argue to corporate responsibility, etc. They had some "thing" in common, but each had much different ideas about what really brought them there. So, I find true your statement that even within subgroups, there is disagreement over an offense's legitimacy. Yet, we as flawed humans still seek objective punishment for others's offenses, even when we don't personally ascribe to claiming those offenses for ourselves. This to me is the most interesting part of all of this, that everybody has a ready-made opinion about what thing should happen to these people involved even though the original offense was 100% subjective. This brings up some interesting questions: 1) Can one really be offended by hearing a story about a subjective offense from someone else, and thus pass legitimate judgment? If so, what is the real offense - the original act, or merely what the act represents. 2) If the true offense is about what the act represents, then does passing judgment on the offensive party appropriately handle the situation? 3) If an offense is a subjective thing, then does it need to be personal, and directed toward the offendee in order to be legitimate?