4 ms·

Intention isn’t all that matters. The point is to be thoughtful about what you say and if someone else says they are offended to actually listen and apologise.

• pandaman 13y ago
  I am offended by your implications. Please apologize now.
  • arrrg 13y ago
    What, specifically, are you offended by? Just to be clear, I do not accuse everyone who ever failed this of lacking basic empathy. People make mistakes and that’s just normal. I think in many situations pretty much all people do actually listen and apologise when someone else is offended. Pretty much everyone can recognise the value of doing just that. Just to be clear, my goal was not to accuse others of lacking basic empathy. I apologise for not making that clear. I should have made it clearer. My goal was to explain the thinking behind what detractors call “political correctness”. It’s about respecting other people, their identity and what they want to be called. And that’s about it. Of course, that respect is not unlimited. Especially the expression of political views that doesn’t grant others that same kind of respect is typically excluded from that respect. I think that’s perfectly sensible, maybe you disagree. (And just to be clear, this is not a call to limit political speech, at least not from me. This is about using free speech to harshly criticise other free speech.)
    • pandaman 13y ago
      Is not the proper form to apologize for being an insensitive person yourself, not for the "victim" misunderstanding you? Anyways, I'd be fine with this if not for the arbitrary exclusions. I.e. it's okay to mock people, who believe the world is 5000 y.o for the reason that they are likely intolerant bigots (because such a belief automatically implies not following PC?) but on the other hand, mocking people who believe that a man can become a woman by claiming to be one is an extreme bigotry comparable only to enslavement of blacks (because everybody who believes this, apparently, is automatically PC?). Obviously you need to do these exclusions because, without the witch hunts and angry mobs, PC would not be any fun and the participant would quickly become tired of apologizing to everybody. But, since you have divided people into "good" and "bad" you are now not fighting for respect, you are just another "us against them" angry group. And I am fine with that (i.e. I don't want a crusade against all the angry people to make the world a happy place). The hypocrisy though is funny.
      • arrrg 13y ago
        Yeah, you are right, I apologise for offending you. If you unpack that it means that I think I should have written my original comment differently. I do not divide people. If creationists are persecuted for their beliefs I will stand right by their side. No questions asked. And that’s not so much the point. The problem I have with creationists is their belief in something demonstrably false and their attempts to push that false belief on other people, especially in schools. That doesn’t make me assume that they are also racist or stupid or any of those things. Yes, I will speak out loudly and harshly against creationists when their belief is harmful to other people. And I will roll my eyes when it’s something they believe merely in private. And that’s that. In that context the comparison to trans* people makes no sense at all. There really isn’t much of an argument there. Respecting trans* people for who they are doesn’t harm anyone else. They are not trying to convince anyone of anything demonstrably false. And so, yeah, denying them that is extreme bigotry. It’s denying them their basic human dignity for just no reason at all. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old and the belief that trans* people exist and that gender dysphoria is best treated by allowing trans* people to, well, transition are not exactly comparable.
        • pandaman 13y ago
          I find cross-dressers funnier than believers in the thousands years old universe. For me a man dressed as woman is demonstrably a man, not a woman and vice versa, quite unlike the age of the universe, which is just a good theory (even if I'd been 10000 y.o. myself and claimed not seeing the creation going on somebody could have asserted that the whole universe had been created just a second ago all together with my memories of past 10000 years). I know, this does not make sense to you but it might give you some insight on what other people are thinking. Anyways, this was just an example of hypocrisy. When you claim to respect feelings it should not have mattered whose feelings you respect. Bringing in the "false" and "true" feelings just underlines the separation between the "good" and "bad" people.
          • arrrg 13y ago
            I think I made the difference between different beliefs quite clear.
  • detcader 13y ago
    never seen this type of humor in this context before in my whole life
    • pandaman 13y ago
      This is not humor. I am genuinely offended by socipathic implications claiming that somebody who does not follow PC lacks "basic empathy" (which is the PC code for "subhuman"). Of course, offending bigots and haters is fine from your point of view. If you had any empathy (not the "basic" kind ) you knew how do we feel about this crap. PS. I guess you down voted me to offend me? Tough cookies, I am actually not offended by that. "Basic empathy" though does indeed offend me.
    • detcader 13y ago
      wow you're really upset
• makomk 13y ago
  No, the point is that if someone who's a member of an recognized marginalised group says they are offended in a way members of that marginalised group are allowed to be offended, you have to listen and apologise. For instance, telling a woman who's been raped by a man that she was asking for it and should stop complaining is both politically incorrect and an awful thing to do. Doing the same to a cis man is still awful, but since he's not a member of the relevant marginalized group it's actually politically incorrect to object to it under some circumstances. Likewise, telling anti-rape campaigners that they're only doing it to get revenge on the gender that raped them is politically correct if they're male victims and politically incorrect if they're female ones. Similarly, if a woman who's been raped by a man is using her experiences to advocate for rape prevention campaigns aimed solely at men, it's an attack on her personal experiences and therefore politically incorrect to question the merits of her campaign. On the other hand, if a woman who's been raped by a woman is calling for campaigns that include women, even though she's a member of the right group that's not an appropriate use of her experiences and so she's fair game for everything up to and including deliberately triggering her PTSD to get her to shut up. Decency and empathy barely enter into it.
  • arrrg 13y ago
    Fuck off MRA.
• summerdown2 13y ago
  What if I'm offended by you giving apologies? (this is a thought experiment, a little tongue in cheek). Let's be clear, I'm not suggesting people shouldn't be nice where they can. I just think there ought to be a threshold before apologies are in order, and the fact someone is offended shouldn't be the only condition. I suggest a three step procedure: a) Someone says they are offended. b) You agree with them and feel sorry. c) If so, apologise. I don't think it should go: a) Someone says they are offended. b) You disagree with them. c) You apologise anyway. ... if you do the latter, my feeling is that trolls will soon control your behaviour and any interesting and unusual thought will become unsayable.