2 ms·

You know, I've made a point in my life of avoiding people that are actively looking to be "offended", because they always find a way to do so. RG said somethin

You know, I've made a point in my life of avoiding people that are actively looking to be "offended", because they always find a way to do so. RG said something publicly that's probably been uttered a million times between friends bantering. I've heard things that are a thousand times worse. It's unfortunate that they chose the wrong channel for that sort of utterance, but frankly the only people "hurt" by what they said were the people that chose to be "hurt" by it. Let's be clear, being "offended" is always a choice. There's 7 billion people on the planet, you'll never be able to avoid things you dislike, but you have a choice in how you deal with it. I choose to respect other people's freedom of expression, and interact with people I think add value. I don't have to throw a public temper tantrum if someone has wildly different values. (I view posting private correspondence publicly to try to shame someone as being equivalent to a temper tantrum) I hear people say a lot of things I think are /stupid/, but I never feel a need to tell them that they're "offensive", I just don't deal with those people when I realize our values don't align. So I find the idea that RG broke some obvious "code" that "everyone" agrees to is laughable. Clearly, not "everyone" agrees with your very sensitive sense of humor. The way I see it: they pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off. My level of caring about that is pretty much zero.

sheetjs 13y ago
overgard: there are two internally consistent ways to interpret the matter: 1) "they [only] pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off" including this fellow who posted the email. If you truly believe that they only pissed off people actively looking to be pissed off, then only those people will be pissed off now. No one else. There would be no real change in RG's reputation, and all this post does is take up a spot on the front page. 2) they pissed off a lot of people, including those that aren't "actively looking to be pissed off". In that case, dredging up the past actually does affect them even more. You can't have it both ways. You want to believe that only people actively looking to be offended would be bothered by the remark and that somehow discussing the past is actually hurting them more, but they are inconsistent beliefs. > I choose to respect other people's freedom of expression Right, which is why you should respect other people's rights to discuss the matter at hand. You shouldn't get upset because this conversation is happening. > I don't have to throw a public temper tantrum if someone has wildly different values. (I view posting private correspondence publicly to try to shame someone as being equivalent to a temper tantrum) RG's tweet was public and so is this discussion. The email reminded us of the original tweet. There was no rape joke in the email. I think you are missing that part -- the actual offense that we are talking about happened long before this email in a public forum (twitter). RG apologized, true. But that doesn't magically mean that the internet forgets that the event happened. And it sounds like you wish for everyone to forget. > The way I see it: they pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off. My level of caring about that is pretty much zero. But your level of caring about the fact that history is being rehashed is almost surely nonzero.

sheetjs 13y ago

overgard: there are two internally consistent ways to interpret the matter: 1) "they [only] pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off" including this fellow who posted the email. If you truly believe that they only pissed off people actively looking to be pissed off, then only those people will be pissed off now. No one else. There would be no real change in RG's reputation, and all this post does is take up a spot on the front page. 2) they pissed off a lot of people, including those that aren't "actively looking to be pissed off". In that case, dredging up the past actually does affect them even more. You can't have it both ways. You want to believe that only people actively looking to be offended would be bothered by the remark and that somehow discussing the past is actually hurting them more, but they are inconsistent beliefs. > I choose to respect other people's freedom of expression Right, which is why you should respect other people's rights to discuss the matter at hand. You shouldn't get upset because this conversation is happening. > I don't have to throw a public temper tantrum if someone has wildly different values. (I view posting private correspondence publicly to try to shame someone as being equivalent to a temper tantrum) RG's tweet was public and so is this discussion. The email reminded us of the original tweet. There was no rape joke in the email. I think you are missing that part -- the actual offense that we are talking about happened long before this email in a public forum (twitter). RG apologized, true. But that doesn't magically mean that the internet forgets that the event happened. And it sounds like you wish for everyone to forget. > The way I see it: they pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off. My level of caring about that is pretty much zero. But your level of caring about the fact that history is being rehashed is almost surely nonzero.