Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Other
  3. General Discussion

Taking offense

posted
Total Posts
18
Railey2
515 posts
Joined February 2015
Topic Starter
Railey2
"Do you think I don't see things that annoy me? That I don't feel insulted now and then?
But one develops a shield to deal with these things, thats what you do in a free society, because you are inevitably confronted with things you don't like.
The religious are especially bad at this, because they tend to believe they have a monopoly on the truth."
- Hans Teeuwen (comedian)

I've noticed that there is a trend of individuals being unable to distinguish between someone taking offense as a rightful response to someones blatant intention to slander, defame and discriminate, and someone taking offense as a result of his own inability to shield his weak self against opinions that don't match his own.
I say this practice promotes a culture of weakness, where people are motivated to victimize themselves instead of maturely approaching topics where opinions greatly diverge.
Although the quote names religious characters in particular, (because that happened to be the context), I think it can be applied to almost any topic where opinions are held in a comparably passionate fashion. Modern day radical feminism comes to mind, where offense gets circulated like a holy grail of moral high ground. Like a privilege, that entitles the person that got offended to propagate his/her own values without resistance from anyone.

But our society needs the opposite of that, for protecting this mindset is equal to creating an alleyway for stagnation and regression. If open conversation between directly antithetical camps is not possible, conflict ensues. A culture of offense is putting a stop to conversation and invites people to be childish instead of making up their minds to understand different viewpoints.

Discuss, give your own experiences etc.
Last edited by Railey2 , edited 1 time in total.
Plane
55 posts
Joined April 2015
Plane
I was driving along a road, and happened to see about 4 people holding up signs saying things like: "God is real." I decided to listen in on what was going on, so I rolled my windows down. People were yelling, just in the time I drifted past them, things along the lines of: "God isn't real, f***ing idiots!" It was disgusting. I don't personally believe in God, but there's no reason to yell at people for exercising their freedom of speech.
Railey2
515 posts
Joined February 2015
Topic Starter
Railey2

Paronte wrote:

I was driving along a road, and happened to see about 4 people holding up signs saying things like: "God is real." I decided to listen in on what was going on, so I rolled my windows down. People were yelling, just in the time I drifted past them, things along the lines of: "God isn't real, f***ing idiots!" It was disgusting. I don't personally believe in God, but there's no reason to yell at people for exercising their freedom of speech.
I think this is more of an example for the yelling people to put people down because it feels like pushing themselves up. I don't think that the yelling people were being offended.
The religious people however could get offended rightfully in this case, because it is not their belief that gets attacked, but they themselves as people. In this case nothing would be lost by getting offended, because there was never a conversation to be had in the first place. The yelling people clearly weren't interested in anything they had to say, and preferred to attack them personally instead.



One more thing though- There is another phrase that gets used quite frequently and I saw you using it too. I suspect that this phrase is allied to taking offense, since the two often co-occur.
"I am just exercising my right for freedom of speech"
Freedom of speech is not a wildcard, it doesn't mean that you don't get flak if your opinion happens to be shit in the eyes of others. It just means that you won't have to fear legal prosecution.

People tend to misuse the term, in a sense that they think it can be used as an argument against criticism (similarly to being offended). This is another form of the same problem as I see it. It promotes weakness by offering a way of retreating yourself in your safe bubble, where nobody is allowed to say that your beliefs are in fact wrong, harmful, idiotic, and so on.
Another stop for any sort of growth.
Plane
55 posts
Joined April 2015
Plane
One more thing though- There is another phrase that gets used quite frequently and I saw you using it too. I suspect that this phrase is allied to taking offense, since the two often co-occur.
"I am just exercising my right for freedom of speech"
Freedom of speech is not a wildcard, it doesn't mean that you don't get flak if your opinion happens to be shit in the eyes of others. It just means that you won't have to fear legal prosecution.
I agree with this entirely. I hate when people use it as an argument. It only in the end makes them look immature and idiotic.
JackBezarius18
13,742 posts
Joined July 2013
JackBezarius18
So in a nutshell there any topic you want to impose any religion?
Jordan
1,037 posts
Joined December 2010
Jordan

Railey2 wrote:

One more thing though- There is another phrase that gets used quite frequently and I saw you using it too. I suspect that this phrase is allied to taking offense, since the two often co-occur.
"I am just exercising my right for freedom of speech"
Freedom of speech is not a wildcard, it doesn't mean that you don't get flak if your opinion happens to be shit in the eyes of others. It just means that you won't have to fear legal prosecution.

People tend to misuse the term, in a sense that they think it can be used as an argument against criticism (similarly to being offended). This is another form of the same problem as I see it. It promotes weakness by offering a way of retreating yourself in your safe bubble, where nobody is allowed to say that your beliefs are in fact wrong, harmful, idiotic, and so on.
Another stop for any sort of growth.
Oooh my god this this this. Couldn't agree more. Can't add any more. If only people could understand that "freedom of speech" does not equal "my opinion values just as much as yours".

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." ― Harlan Ellison

Society nowadays pushes the individual-centric concept that everyone's value is the same as somebody else's, that YOU and only YOU matter, that you're entitled to your opinion no matter how shitty it is etc, and the results of that are radical feminism and selfish cunts. In fewer words, "Do whatever you want, no matter how wrong or illogical, if it makes you happy" are the code people live by nowadays.
Railey2
515 posts
Joined February 2015
Topic Starter
Railey2

Jordan wrote:

If only people could understand that "freedom of speech" does not equal "my opinion is worth just as much as yours".

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." ― Harlan Ellison

Society nowadays pushes the individual-centric concept that everyone's value is the same as somebody else's, that YOU and only YOU matter, that you're entitled to your opinion no matter how shitty it is etc, and the results of that are radical feminism and selfish cunts. In fewer words, "Do whatever you want, no matter how wrong or illogical, if it makes you happy" are the code people live by nowadays.
I am unsure about what "I am entitled to my opinion" really means in the first place.

Like.. "I am allowed to have my opinion". Well, d'uh, not like anyone could do something against that in the first place. As far as I am informed we don't have the technology to hack minds yet, so whats even the point of saying that you are entitled to your opinion.

Maybe it means: "I am allowed to express my opinion". That would make more sense, and I agree that nobody should get shot just because he said something that you don't agree with.

And yet I can't help but think that people really mean: "I am allowed to express my terribly uninformed opinion that I think is valid, and then you aren't allowed to criticize me for making your ears bleed with my stupidity, that I am unaware of".
As you might imagine, this is the point where I say no, that can't be right.

Interestingly, it's sorta the same deal with the Harlan Ellison quote. I don't really get what he means, but I figure its between the lines of: "If you are ignorant and show everyone that you are ignorant, prepare for being criticized"



JackBezarius18 wrote:

So in a nutshell there any topic you want to impose any religion?
I don't really understand what you are going for with this. Could you explain it to me in more detail?
Plane
55 posts
Joined April 2015
Plane
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." ― Harlan Ellison
Love that quote. I had never heard it till now. People can be so ridiculous.
Rilene
2,105 posts
Joined April 2014
Rilene
-
Last edited by Rilene , edited 1 time in total.
Plane
55 posts
Joined April 2015
Plane
Yeah, this sucks.
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd
The OP is true, but this sort of thing is obvious to anyone who doesn't already have an large ideological bias, in which case explaining things won't do anything.

Jordan wrote:

Oooh my god this this this. Couldn't agree more. Can't add any more. If only people could understand that "freedom of speech" does not equal "my opinion values just as much as yours".

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." ― Harlan Ellison

Society nowadays pushes the individual-centric concept that everyone's value is the same as somebody else's, that YOU and only YOU matter, that you're entitled to your opinion no matter how shitty it is etc, and the results of that are radical feminism and selfish cunts. In fewer words, "Do whatever you want, no matter how wrong or illogical, if it makes you happy" are the code people live by nowadays.
No it doesn't, society doesn't push any of that. In fact society is against free speech in general. Hate speech is illegal. And what's the line between hate speech and free speech? Whatever the fuck the prosecutors says it is. In other words, 'your rights end where muh feels begin' is the message in society today. Feminist are only allowed to spout their dogma because for they have enough influence and power in society to do so.
Green Platinum
2,660 posts
Joined July 2011
Green Platinum
A society that allows completely free speech is also one that allows defamation, slander and false claims to pass as true. I ultimately think these would result in much greater problems than the free speech problems we have now.
Railey2
515 posts
Joined February 2015
Topic Starter
Railey2
This makes me think of The Paradox of tolerance

It is actually less of a paradox and more about how total tolerance is self-defeating.
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
- Karl Popper (philosopher)

I think a similar case can be made for freedom of speech. Or, to (sorta) say it with the words of the linked article: Freedom of speech has a reasonable right to make exceptions in its totality for the sake of self-preservation, which should supersede the principle of absolute freedom. For if we allow all speech without prosecution, we would endanger this very practice just by doing so.
abraker
Global Moderator
8,327 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker

Railey2 wrote:

One more thing though- There is another phrase that gets used quite frequently and I saw you using it too. I suspect that this phrase is allied to taking offense, since the two often co-occur.
"I am just exercising my right for freedom of speech"
Freedom of speech is not a wildcard, it doesn't mean that you don't get flak if your opinion happens to be shit in the eyes of others. It just means that you won't have to fear legal prosecution.

People tend to misuse the term, in a sense that they think it can be used as an argument against criticism (similarly to being offended). This is another form of the same problem as I see it. It promotes weakness by offering a way of retreating yourself in your safe bubble, where nobody is allowed to say that your beliefs are in fact wrong, harmful, idiotic, and so on.
Another stop for any sort of growth.
A law broad enough to be misused WILL be misused, and if it is broad enough still, it will be abused. I understand some laws were made to be abstract, to be interpreted to mean several things in an attempt to encapsulate everything intended (and not intended) into the scope, but I just think it produces more confusion than effectiveness. I sometimes cringe at how laws can be bent to the point the interpretation is the complete opposite of what another might think. I would suggest things to change to help the interpretation of the laws, but I'll hold my opinions back for the sake of not accidentally stepping on a landmine.
Jordan
1,037 posts
Joined December 2010
Jordan

B1rd wrote:

The OP is true, but this sort of thing is obvious to anyone who doesn't already have an large ideological bias, in which case explaining things won't do anything.

Jordan wrote:

Oooh my god this this this. Couldn't agree more. Can't add any more. If only people could understand that "freedom of speech" does not equal "my opinion values just as much as yours".

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." ― Harlan Ellison

Society nowadays pushes the individual-centric concept that everyone's value is the same as somebody else's, that YOU and only YOU matter, that you're entitled to your opinion no matter how shitty it is etc, and the results of that are radical feminism and selfish cunts. In fewer words, "Do whatever you want, no matter how wrong or illogical, if it makes you happy" are the code people live by nowadays.
No it doesn't, society doesn't push any of that. In fact society is against free speech in general. Hate speech is illegal. And what's the line between hate speech and free speech? Whatever the fuck the prosecutors says it is. In other words, 'your rights end where muh feels begin' is the message in society today. Feminist are only allowed to spout their dogma because for they have enough influence and power in society to do so.
I don't remember ever saying society allows free speech.
Railey2
515 posts
Joined February 2015
Topic Starter
Railey2

abraker wrote:

A law broad enough to be misused WILL be misused, and if it is broad enough still, it will be abused. I understand some laws were made to be abstract, to be interpreted to mean several things in an attempt to encapsulate everything intended (and not intended) into the scope, but I just think it produces more confusion than effectiveness. I sometimes cringe at how laws can be bent to the point the interpretation is the complete opposite of what another might think. I would suggest things to change to help the interpretation of the laws, but I'll hold my opinions back for the sake of not accidentally stepping on a landmine.
On the other side, making laws as concrete as possible, leaving absolutely no gaps for misinterpretation, leaves us with this:
SPOILER
I am unsure about what I find to be more confusing, and about what is easier to exploit and abuse.

What would your suggestion be? A compromise of some sort maybe? ( I don't mind landmines )
B1rd
2,974 posts
Joined December 2013
B1rd

Green Platinum wrote:

A society that allows completely free speech is also one that allows defamation, slander and false claims to pass as true. I ultimately think these would result in much greater problems than the free speech problems we have now.
You don't understand the difference between freedom of speech and slander and defamation do you.

Railey2 wrote:

I think a similar case can be made for freedom of speech. Or, to (sorta) say it with the words of the linked article: Freedom of speech has a reasonable right to make exceptions in its totality for the sake of self-preservation, which should supersede the principle of absolute freedom. For if we allow all speech without prosecution, we would endanger this very practice just by doing so.
No, it doesn't. That's just a silly justification and an excuse to censor and prosecute people because of their opinions. If you say the limit of free speech it being 'intolerant' then you no longer have free speech.
abraker
Global Moderator
8,327 posts
Joined July 2014
abraker

Railey2 wrote:

What would your suggestion be? A compromise of some sort maybe? ( I don't mind landmines )
Making it vague doesn't work, and making the concrete creates too many conditions to follow and keep track of, yet there is a tool that came into existence in the last half century that would allow to keep track of so many things and give us a general result.

Might sound a bit radical (and perhaps impossible), but I would suggest digitizing the laws into a format which could be used to compute whether any laws are violated, not violated, or unknown based on given conditions. This would require a mathematical definition of almost everything, hence its near impossibility.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 18