3 ms·

> The right to be offended, which is the other side of free speech, is therefore a genuine right. True belief and honest doubt are both impossible without it.

> The right to be offended, which is the other side of free speech, is therefore a genuine right. True belief and honest doubt are both impossible without it. It seems to me that the author is actually advocating the right to offend, which is quite a bit different. And what is "True belief"? This statement seems wrong in its core. A belief is by definition the opposite of evidence, certainty and rationality. So debate and free speech have nothing to do with it. It does not need it.

Shivetya 12y ago
well when everything is an offense to someone your going to need a right to offend just to say something they don't agree with. groups have become adept with identity politics, they use it to stop debate. When your ideas are unpopular you instead lay claim that the attack is bigoted because the disagreement stems from the the identity of the person's whose idea was debated, not their idea. This allows one side to effectively stifle debate and run amok
- astrobe_ 12y ago
  > well when everything is an offense to someone your going to need a right to offend just to say something they don't agree with. Or you need a third party that defines what is offensive and what isn't. The "right to offence" is like an arms race to me. But in arms races, it's not rightness or truth that win. It's power. The only case where power should win is when it's people's power, id est democracy. That's why I accept, at least in principle, laws and courts as the "third party".
spindritf 12y ago
True belief here is one actually held. A belief is also not by definition the opposite of evidence, certainty or rationality. It's just something accepted as true, due to evidence or despite it, certain or uncertain, rational or irrational.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> A belief is by definition the opposite of evidence, certainty and rationality. No, it is not. A belief may be unjustified, or it may be justified by evidence and/or reason, or, in certain schools of thought, it may be justified by other means, but, in any case, belief is not the opposite of evidence, certainty, or reason.

Shivetya 12y ago

well when everything is an offense to someone your going to need a right to offend just to say something they don't agree with. groups have become adept with identity politics, they use it to stop debate. When your ideas are unpopular you instead lay claim that the attack is bigoted because the disagreement stems from the the identity of the person's whose idea was debated, not their idea. This allows one side to effectively stifle debate and run amok

astrobe_ 12y ago
> well when everything is an offense to someone your going to need a right to offend just to say something they don't agree with. Or you need a third party that defines what is offensive and what isn't. The "right to offence" is like an arms race to me. But in arms races, it's not rightness or truth that win. It's power. The only case where power should win is when it's people's power, id est democracy. That's why I accept, at least in principle, laws and courts as the "third party".

spindritf 12y ago

True belief here is one actually held. A belief is also not by definition the opposite of evidence, certainty or rationality. It's just something accepted as true, due to evidence or despite it, certain or uncertain, rational or irrational.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> A belief is by definition the opposite of evidence, certainty and rationality. No, it is not. A belief may be unjustified, or it may be justified by evidence and/or reason, or, in certain schools of thought, it may be justified by other means, but, in any case, belief is not the opposite of evidence, certainty, or reason.