Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
- LazyPasta
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: February 8th, 2018, 4:56 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
"Offensive" is subjective. Someone who is gay and has suffered abuse due to they sexuality may be simply more offended by the word "f*ggot" than say a straight person who has never had any trouble with sexuality or abusive language.
Just as easily, someone who is white may claim they feel "offended" by a black person starring in a movie.
Surely, there is no consistent sense of moral when it comes to being "offensive", making a set of rules or human rights incredibly restrictive to pin down; this takes away freedom.
Hope reliable are ones morals to have total freedom of speech, and expect responsible and respectful use of freedom, with freedom of consequence?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
It is too bad that he gave up so easily. There are intelligent arguments to be made for and against any subject. If, that is, one is intelligent enough to find one. The curse words when translated equal: "I ran out of cogent arguments". Again, too bad.Frost wrote: ↑February 7th, 2018, 12:44 amAhh, coming from the woman that instead of addressing the actual economic issues presented is attempting to label me and insult that label. **** off you stupid bitch.Greta wrote: ↑February 7th, 2018, 12:39 am Your views are orthodox, standard libertarian fare.
Do you disagree with any of the Libertarian Party's platform? https://www.lp.org/platform/
You are simply arrogant and smug as you cling to your cliched, blinkered so-called "education" while airing the ignorant notion that no one should have to pay tax, and speaking about tax as if it's theft, as though all the shared infrastructure would appear and be maintained automatically.
You seem more deft in your abuse than in debate. You could have shown me how I was wrong to label you a libertarian - if that was true - but you did not. It's easier to just abuse.
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Ok. I understand what you meant now. I agree that there is a valid distinction here. For example, if I would repeatedly tell someone who is suicidal to kill herself that would amount to intentional harm or at least to culpable negligence. This is precisely what law regulating culpable speech tries to prevent without impinging on debate in good faith about controversial issues. The original post was focussed on the kind of restriction that some want to impose on free speech even if exercised in good fait, that is, in pursuit of the truth. I agree that speech can be abused and in some cases can amount to intentional harm when one is aware of a particularly vulnerable, irrational state of another person. Perhaps the only exception to this rule would be the case of a professional therapist intentionally poking to expose inner dynamics of someone’s psyche for their own benefit.Greta wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 7:29 amBut giving offence does not equal verbal assault, although the notions can be confused either way.
Consider the physical equivalents of verbal acts and the situation seems more clear. Is the speech the equivalent of an accidental bump on the street, a playful nudge made in good faith or an aggressive push? Are the words spoken the equivalent of accidentally stepping on a person's foot or deliberately standing on it?
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Yes, the link to Habermas (and Apel) does not automatically follow from what Peterson said, but I think it is analysable in those terms and we stand to benefit from analysing the problem of free speech in those terms. I also agree that Habermas and Apel have presented far more analytical developed positions, but there is much value to Peterson’s lowbrow stance; it reaches an incomparably wider audience, who would find Habermas and Apel incomprehensible, or just too hard to follow.I'm not sure if Peterson's argument necessarily invokes Habermas' thinking, or if it just rests on the long history of contractualism (something for which Habermas has been criticized too). In any case, he is right about this. There's no right not to be offended, because usually one can decide, almost arbitrarily, what is offensive. It becomes just too easy and convenient (to the point of laziness) to raise the "offense" card every time one wants to shield any view from criticism.
I also think your distinctions of "ethical pluralism" and "ethical elitism" were right on the money. As you said, they can only be resolved in violence, which is pretty much how it is unfolding these days.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15004
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Yes, but sometimes it's not our place to drive "the truth" (as we see it) home to someone. I generally prefer to be considerate ... unless annoyed, of course, in which case it's usually wisest to choose one's words especially carefully :)Monky11 wrote: ↑February 14th, 2018, 5:44 amOk. I understand what you meant now. I agree that there is a valid distinction here. For example, if I would repeatedly tell someone who is suicidal to kill herself that would amount to intentional harm or at least to culpable negligence. This is precisely what law regulating culpable speech tries to prevent without impinging on debate in good faith about controversial issues. The original post was focussed on the kind of restriction that some want to impose on free speech even if exercised in good fait, that is, in pursuit of the truth. I agree that speech can be abused and in some cases can amount to intentional harm when one is aware of a particularly vulnerable, irrational state of another person. Perhaps the only exception to this rule would be the case of a professional therapist intentionally poking to expose inner dynamics of someone’s psyche for their own benefit.Greta wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 7:29 am
But giving offence does not equal verbal assault, although the notions can be confused either way.
Consider the physical equivalents of verbal acts and the situation seems more clear. Is the speech the equivalent of an accidental bump on the street, a playful nudge made in good faith or an aggressive push? Are the words spoken the equivalent of accidentally stepping on a person's foot or deliberately standing on it?
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Same here. But the original question is about being prohibited to use our discretion in such matters and be either prohibited from speaking or, worse, being compelled to say things that we do not believe are true (which is one of Peterson’s objections).Yes, but sometimes it's not our place to drive "the truth" (as we see it) home to someone. I generally prefer to be considerate ... unless annoyed, of course, in which case it's usually wisest to choose one's words especially carefully
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
I'm sure he connects easily with that wider audience, but I'm not sure that's necessarily positive, having in mind that he presents himself as a sophisticated intellectual, which he's not. He helps to lower the bar. While pretending to be countercultural, he is actually a good old reactionary, in some way in the same fashion of those he criticizes.Monky11 wrote: ↑February 14th, 2018, 7:27 amYes, the link to Habermas (and Apel) does not automatically follow from what Peterson said, but I think it is analysable in those terms and we stand to benefit from analysing the problem of free speech in those terms. I also agree that Habermas and Apel have presented far more analytical developed positions, but there is much value to Peterson’s lowbrow stance; it reaches an incomparably wider audience, who would find Habermas and Apel incomprehensible, or just too hard to follow.I'm not sure if Peterson's argument necessarily invokes Habermas' thinking, or if it just rests on the long history of contractualism (something for which Habermas has been criticized too). In any case, he is right about this. There's no right not to be offended, because usually one can decide, almost arbitrarily, what is offensive. It becomes just too easy and convenient (to the point of laziness) to raise the "offense" card every time one wants to shield any view from criticism.
I also think your distinctions of "ethical pluralism" and "ethical elitism" were right on the money. As you said, they can only be resolved in violence, which is pretty much how it is unfolding these days.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15004
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
But that happens constantly. Try arguing with a patriotic American saying that the US is the "greatest country in the world". Try noting that flag burning is not a big a deal because it's just a piece of cloth (is it so outrageous that known enemies act like enemies?). About a decade ago, try saying that the Iraq invasion was immoral and a huge mistake in certain circles and you'd be accused of disloyalty - "with us or against us". Today one is not allowed to mention the terms "foetus" or "climate change" in the White House.Monky11 wrote: ↑February 14th, 2018, 7:19 pmSame here. But the original question is about being prohibited to use our discretion in such matters and be either prohibited from speaking or, worse, being compelled to say things that we do not believe are true (which is one of Peterson’s objections).Yes, but sometimes it's not our place to drive "the truth" (as we see it) home to someone. I generally prefer to be considerate ... unless annoyed, of course, in which case it's usually wisest to choose one's words especially carefully :)
Usually one will operate within set boundaries for the sake of social order and peace unless one makes a career of questioning and analysing as does Peterson. He doesn't need to "choose his battles" because he has the time to speak about just about everything. However, if one is, for instance, going to use up one's time and energy outside of one's duties inflicting hard truths and public humiliation on some poor androgynous wretch, then we need to ask why we don't also challenge patriotic or conservative political correctness so much? Perhaps it's because the latter has serious "teeth".
One is always more inclined to give the unvarnished truth to a small, androgynous person than an aggressive six-foot "good old boy" patriot who loves his guns. By the same token, people will rarely adjust their path when walking for a mere bird that is in their way. They simply walk through as though the bird didn't exist, with the bird will be forced to flee. However, if a crocodile or snake lay in their path there would be much more respect shown. Are the latter predators are no more deserving of respect than birds? Birds are actually the more sensitive and intelligent animals.
My response to the realisation that I'd spent my life being a bully, was to walk around birds and other small animals (within reason) - to pay more attention to the birds, paying them the same respect that I would a snake in the same situation. For me, the analogy largely holds when it comes to humans and their relative empowerments.
So I have zero problem with being "forced" to show respect because that is my general aim these days. I still fail plenty because it's clear to me that bullying is quite an engrained and unconscious behaviour, very natural. It seems to me that, when it comes to humans, the main aim is to be less natural - less wild, more civilised, gentle, aware, empathetic and analytical.
However, it's clear that the regulatory approach has not been well handled, underestimating submerged resentments, and thus provoking opposition. It's easy to be wise with hindsight, I guess. I suspect that the answer is not to focus on targeted oppressed groups so much as on courtesy and consideration generally. This leaves a need for balance between courtesy and honesty. We need to retain the capacity to say that the king wears no clothes. This comes down to subtlety, I suspect.
There is a way of pointing out that the king wears no clothes (or the "queen" is wearing odd ones) that involves respect for the others' unique journey, which will include tact, consideration and a strong intent to fairly represent rather than mischaracterise, which seems to be quite common in today's public discourse. Honesty is key, but not brutal honesty.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Both sides seemed slightly surprised at the other.
My take was that Peterson didn't understand how they could be so dense as to not get his point. While they didn't understand how Peterson could be so dense as to take it all at face value.
This is probably the cynic in me but the officials are conducting politics. They have no intention of applying a law like that to someone they see as reasonable, a category Peterson would fall into.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended
Anyway, look forward to it. Apparently being released on Saturday - Popcorn at the ready! haha!!
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023