The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight

Trying Not To Offend People

Chat about anything your heart desires here, just be civil. Factual or scientific questions about philosophy go here (e.g. "When was Socrates born?"), and so most homework help questions belong here. Note, posts in the off-topic section will not increase new members post counts. This includes the introductions and feedback sections.
User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1188
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Trying Not To Offend People

Post by Newme » November 29th, 2018, 1:21 am

Vivek7 wrote:
February 14th, 2018, 12:10 pm
I often cannot help it. I will offend myself if I do not offend others or vice versa. When an argument commences I have to agree or disagree and if I choose to agree to the thing I have already disagreed there arises a problem and I am in that case offending myself. I must do justice to myself or else I may silently be conflicting with the person I have agreed with. This demands a great deal of meditation but we humans living in a city of hustle bustle try to comfort at our expenses it creates a mountain of pains.
:D Hm, Maybe that’s my problem - offending myself. How do safe spaces work with yourself as the offender?

https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-cont ... 044636.jpg

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 555
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Trying Not To Offend People

Post by Mark1955 » December 10th, 2018, 12:43 pm

Newme wrote:
November 29th, 2018, 1:21 am
How do safe spaces work with yourself as the offender?
Perfect question that I'd suggest demonstrates why the whole concept of 'safe spaces' is an ill thought through dreamscape.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3351
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Trying Not To Offend People

Post by LuckyR » December 12th, 2018, 4:55 pm

Mark1955 wrote:
December 10th, 2018, 12:43 pm
Newme wrote:
November 29th, 2018, 1:21 am
How do safe spaces work with yourself as the offender?
Perfect question that I'd suggest demonstrates why the whole concept of 'safe spaces' is an ill thought through dreamscape.
It is if viewed through the typical limited lens of true vs false, but makes sense when viewed from the more practical perspective of issue in relation to relationship.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1188
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Trying Not To Offend People

Post by Newme » December 12th, 2018, 9:15 pm

Mark1955 wrote:
December 10th, 2018, 12:43 pm
Newme wrote:
November 29th, 2018, 1:21 am
How do safe spaces work with yourself as the offender?
Perfect question that I'd suggest demonstrates why the whole concept of 'safe spaces' is an ill thought through dreamscape.
Dreamscape is a good term for the notion that one ought to be protected from truth. What a sick society to teach youth to fear truths. They should be teaching them to strengthen themselves so no (or few) truths could ever really damage them. “Safe spaces” and similar coddling is actually cruel because it doesn’t prepare them for the real world but instead sets them up for failure.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Trying Not To Offend People

Post by Burning ghost » December 13th, 2018, 2:18 am

I find the idea of not offending people to be offensive! ;)

What really bothers me is judging between words said that are plain stupid, ignorant and/or purposefully antagonistic without any aim. No doubt I will continue to judge ignorant people as stupid, the antagonist as ignorant, and the stupid as antagonstic.

Sometimes being offensive is a compliment to the target - when the target is hit by a plain or blunt assertion of their position then they generally get angry and double down. The really passionate thinkers knuckledown and expand their ideas even if they don’t shift much from their initial positions.

I stick to one principle when discussing anything online. If someone cannot see ANY problem with what they’re saying then they are here looking to be refuted strongly in order to breakout of the deadend they’ve fuond themselves at or they are dogmatic and simply fishing for compliments to bolster their myopic world view so they can revel in the hubris of their blind ignorance.

If your own thoughts don’t offend you you’re not thinking hard enough. Other people’s thoughts are tame representations of our own inner demons; oft we simply project our misgivings onto others and blame them for our own lack of underdtanding - that said idiots do exist! :D if you think you’re not one then chances are ... ;P
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
ktz
Posts: 166
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Trying Not To Offend People

Post by ktz » December 13th, 2018, 8:53 pm

TigerNinja wrote:
February 14th, 2018, 11:49 am
What about in scenarios, whereby fact is clearly more powerful than emotions yet people are adamant that either the strength of their emotions or volume of their voice makes them correct? Just tell me your ideas on offending people, offensive ideas, and how to avoid offending people when that is in the nature of an argument without just tossing away a perfectly reasonable or logical argument.
I think in the case where you actually care about the other person, or having the other person's goodwill is of real value to you (like in the case you're trying to sell something to them), I think Dale Carnegie's techniques -- basically civility gone wild -- are useful to be aware of. Here's a summary although the full text of his book How To Win Friends and Influence People will provide some justification and historical examples probably necessary for a complete understanding. Carnegie's process basically boils down essentially to buttering people up and trying to find common ground to start from, rather than hitting them with cognitive dissonance up front like you are suggesting.

In practice I confess that I frequently let the negative emotional contagion flow through me more freely than I should when arguing on the internet, so I am probably a bit hypocritical to be making any recommendations in this sphere due to the sheer volume of epistemic closure I induce in the people I argue with. But in cases where it's possible that I'll end up with fighting with someone I actually care about, like a friend or family member, I try to do my best to follow his techniques and it's served me reasonably well when I do it right and don't end up as a doormat.
You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1188
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Trying Not To Offend People

Post by Newme » January 11th, 2019, 12:20 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
December 13th, 2018, 2:18 am
1) What really bothers me is judging between words said that are plain stupid, ignorant and/or purposefully antagonistic without any aim.

2) Sometimes being offensive is a compliment to the target...

3) If someone cannot see ANY problem with what they’re saying then they are here looking to be refuted strongly...

4) If your own thoughts don’t offend you you’re not thinking hard enough. Other people’s thoughts are tame representations of our own inner demons; oft we simply project our misgivings onto others and blame them for our own lack of underdtanding...
1) Yes, like ad hominem attacks. Pretty common. When you spot them, it’s easy to see that generally they’re used to try to compensate for feeling threatened and having no better argument to offer. The problem is that it seems few are able to identify this logical fallacy and instead allow themselves to be persuaded by such cheap blows.

2) Before homosexual “marriage” was unconstitutionally decreed, and it was really being pushed, and I’d post biological, social and psychological facts and statistics, I was often and viciously attacked personally. Some who saw how they were trying to shoot the messenger because of the ugly truths of the message, told me that I must have hit the target for them to hate me so much.

3) Bigotry is often used hypocritically as ad hominem attacks. What it actually means is “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.” Even when I strongly believe one perspective if most accurate, I acknowledge there are always other ways of looking at it. And I try to consider I could be mistaken in some way and need to be open to improvement. Also, if you want to argue well, you become familiar with all sides of th argument.

4) I love how you put that! So true! A common trait in narcissism is projecting and blaming others. Scott Peck suggested that mistakes and bad decisions are not real evil - we all do that to some extent. Real evil is the persistent attempt to shift blame and make others pay. That is damning - in preventing one from progressing.

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1188
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Trying Not To Offend People

Post by Newme » January 11th, 2019, 12:34 pm

ktz wrote:
December 13th, 2018, 8:53 pm
...Carnegie's process basically boils down essentially to buttering people up and trying to find common ground to start from, rather than hitting them with cognitive dissonance up front like you are suggesting.

In practice I confess that I frequently let the negative emotional contagion flow through me more freely than I should when arguing on the internet, so I am probably a bit hypocritical to be making any recommendations in this sphere due to the sheer volume of epistemic closure I induce in the people I argue with. But in cases where it's possible that I'll end up with fighting with someone I actually care about, like a friend or family member, I try to do my best to follow his techniques and it's served me reasonably well when I do it right and don't end up as a doormat.
I also try to find common ground, but I need to work on buttering people up. It seems so fake, but most people need it in order to be open. I think it also takes time - patience. I tend to want to get to the point.

In some cases (like trying to get cult-members see they’re in a cult) it has been especially challenging. Some have had years of mind-control that cause them to automatically reject even the slightest hint of “anti-[their cult]” information, and worse - to reject those offering even substatiated facts that make their cult look bad, even when it’s family.

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 555
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Trying Not To Offend People

Post by Mark1955 » January 24th, 2019, 12:51 pm

Newme wrote:
January 11th, 2019, 12:34 pm
I also try to find common ground, but I need to work on buttering people up. It seems so fake, but most people need it in order to be open. I think it also takes time - patience. I tend to want to get to the point.

In some cases (like trying to get cult-members see they’re in a cult) it has been especially challenging. Some have had years of mind-control that cause them to automatically reject even the slightest hint of “anti-[their cult]” information, and worse - to reject those offering even substantiated facts that make their cult look bad, even when it’s family.
Here's a few thoughts, what if people aren't interested in substantiated facts that disagree with their point of view. Suppose nobody ever fell for a substantiated fact [even if such a thing existed]. Suppose people run on emotions, they just want to be loved, or at least paid attention to and treated like they matter. Maybe if you want to get someone away from a cult [or just to change their mind] you need to make them more attracted to what you offer than what the opposition does. As an example a lot of the pro EU propaganda in the UK has been 'project fear'; if we leave the EU [without a treaty] then you will pay in all these ways. No one has stood up and said, the EU is good for you because.... Currently we're leaving and probably without a treaty. In a similar way I suspect a lot of Americans voted Trump because they don't feel wanted by the established politicians, they feel they are regarded as 'vote fodder' by politicians who use them to get elected, but otherwise ignore them. The attraction of cults, and people who just butter you up to get you to agree to their plan for where to go for dinner, is just that you feel more important, regarded, loved; so maybe to change people's minds you need to show them the benefits of accepting your view by showing the good things that come out of it and in particular the love and attention they'll get. If you study 'cult' methods I think you'll find that's exactly what they do.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

User avatar
meaningful_products
New Trial Member
Posts: 17
Joined: January 25th, 2019, 4:17 am

Re: Trying Not To Offend People

Post by meaningful_products » January 26th, 2019, 6:45 am

To make a philosophical post without people being offended, you have to understand that its art. One might say that people react differently to every theory so negative reactions are impossible to avoid, but if you work really hard at your word usage and keep editing until the post is phrased in a way that would not evoke the negative emotional reactions you will achieve the response you want.

The real concern I think the original post makes is that the topics that tend to bring the most clarity to the mind involve asking others to wrap their minds around concepts which have a strong tendency to evoke negative emotional reactions. I believe that this is the price you pay to ask people to think about these sorts of things. To change this you will have to change humanity as a whole. As humanity evolves, we seem to statistically change the way we react to philosophical ideas. Whether it would be "better" or even inevitable that people would evolve to the point where they can talk about philosophy without expressing emotion is a different issue altogether. Sure, you can have a group of people who live on an island work together and deliberately live in such a way so that they don't have emotional reactions to philosophy, but what fun would that be? Maybe this sheds some light on the issue.

Post Reply