So, I am supposed to weigh my reactions to the statements “Religious people are irrational.” and “Women are irrational”. And if I react differently to those two statements, that demonstrates what, exactly?
I would encourage everyone here to follow komponisto’s advice and try to minimize the extent to which their ‘reactions’ colour their comments. In both cases you should address the truth or falsity of the claims and try to leave offense out of it. You are obviously entitled to react however you choose to anything you read but I will generally downvote comments where people express offense to indicate that I want to see fewer comments of that kind.
So, if someone says “You have just called me a bad person!” that would be an example of reacting with an expression of offense? And it should be discouraged by downvoting?
Disregard the exclamation point, and that’s just a statement of (possibly incorrect, but objectively discussable) fact, and so long as the person doesn’t object to it being handled as such, I think it’d be okay. I’d even consider ‘you have just called me a bad person, and I feel offended’ to be okay if handled as a fact; as far as I can tell, the situation turns problematic when people start handling emotions as problems to be solved rather than facts to be observed. This does intentionally imply that the problem can be caused by any member of the conversation: If I say I’m offended, and don’t intend that to be taken as anything but an observation, but the person I’m talking to takes it upon themselves to try to un-offend me, that’s also likely to derail the conversation, as is a third party trying to force the offender to un-offend me.
(That’s not to say that it’s never useful to try to avoid offending someone, but such situations also seem to work best when they’re primarily handled on a fact-based level. For example, someone can say ‘I find it very distracting when I’m offended, which will happen if this topic is discussed in that way; could we discuss it in this way instead? Otherwise, I’ll have a hard time contributing and may decide to leave the conversation’, and the answer to that can be yes or no depending on whether the other people in the conversation think that the change is worthwhile.)
He didn’t say should, he said ‘he will’. This is a distinction that is sometimes overlooked. Even though there was a clear should claim regarding the the practice of expressing offence.
Oops. I actually deleted the ‘good point’ because in this context there were multiple different levels of potential exhortation, normative assertion, statement of intended response and normative assertion regarding how other people should respond that could have been mixed and matched. I thought technical comments on the difference on “should be” and “I will” may have just been confusing.
Wouldn’t it make just as much sense to downvote expressions of any emotional reaction whatsoever? For example, if someone tells you that they love your idea, will you downvote them?
Expressions of offense—of the type being discussed here—are different in that they constitute the imposition of a social penalty on a person for expressing an idea. This—and not emotional expression per se—is what should be discouraged.
(Although unfortunately there are some people here who would downvote comments that express positive emotions, on the grounds that they are “noise”.)
Expressing offence causes emotional harm. Expressing appreciation causes emotional benefit. Neither of those increases the actual informational content of a discussion but the second option still makes the world a slightly better place.
This discussion is becoming more and more bizarre. We started with the topic of giving or causing offense and apparently came to the consensus that in our quest for the truth, we really shouldn’t worry to much about whether we give offense—the truth is just too important.
Now we are asked not to express the fact that we have been offended, because this truth is just too painful—it causes emotional harm. Does anyone else think that this is positively insane?
Now we are asked not to express the fact that we have been offended, because this truth is just too painful—it causes emotional harm. Does anyone else think that this is positively insane?
I have no fundamental objection to people expressing the fact that they have been offended. What I object to is the use of offense as a means to silence dissenting opinions or discussion. Religions use this tactic all the time and it disgusts me. I disagree with the ‘emotional harm’ argument except to the extent that it is the mechanism by which dissent is suppressed.
What I object to is the use of offense as a means to silence dissenting opinions or discussion.
Fine. I join you in your objection. As a comment on the current sorry state of American political discourse, it is right on.
But, do you really think it is a problem here on LW? Seriously? What I see here being used to silence people are objections to style or tone of argument. Which is certainly not completely inappropriate in a forum dedicated to rationality.
But consider. Person A offers an arational and emotional argument. Person A is roundly criticized and downvoted for this. Has person A’s dissenting opinion been “silenced”? Of course not. Person A is free to make his/her point in a more rational style.
Now let’s look at Person B who offers a speculation which person C finds offensive.
Person C expresses offense. Has person B been silenced? Of course not. Person B is free to go on to back up the speculation with data, argument, and even evolutionary psychology. I just cannot see person C’s complaints as “the mechanism by which dissent is suppressed.”
But, do you really think it is a problem here on LW? Seriously?
LW is about as good as it gets in this regard and I’d very much like to keep it that way, hence my concern when I see anything that looks to me like movement in the wrong direction.
Does anyone else think that this is positively insane?
Who specifically is it that you think holds an insane conjunction of beliefs? You seem to be treating several different commenters as if they were one person. (Cf. my other comment.)
Experiencing offense silently causes emotional harm as well; depending upon the situation, expression of that experience may help to alleviate the cause of the problem.
To put it another way: if something heavy lands on my foot and I need help lifting it off, it may cause some sympathetic pain and suffering in other people if I yell out loudly… but assuming the people around aren’t jerks, yelling out will lead in the longer term to less total pain than suffering in silence.
True, but it’s possible to yell without blaming one of the people around from dropping it on your foot. And if you can tell that one of them did it, you might be able to yell for help without accusing that person of dropping it intentionally.
Expressing offense might also cause emotional benefit
Possibly. But in most cases it wouldn’t. And I simply wanted to point out a significant difference between two things that, according to your argument, should be equated.
Sidenote: if a native speaker of English wants to make the world a slightly better place, then please tell me whether finishing the sentence with “that you argued should be equated” would make sense?
Possibly. But in most cases it will be like I said. Which is by no means a watertight argument in defense of mattnewport’s position but I wasn’t trying to provide that. I just pointed out an obvious, significant difference between things that, according to your argument, should be treated equally.
I would encourage everyone here to follow komponisto’s advice and try to minimize the extent to which their ‘reactions’ colour their comments. In both cases you should address the truth or falsity of the claims and try to leave offense out of it. You are obviously entitled to react however you choose to anything you read but I will generally downvote comments where people express offense to indicate that I want to see fewer comments of that kind.
So, if someone says “You have just called me a bad person!” that would be an example of reacting with an expression of offense? And it should be discouraged by downvoting?
Disregard the exclamation point, and that’s just a statement of (possibly incorrect, but objectively discussable) fact, and so long as the person doesn’t object to it being handled as such, I think it’d be okay. I’d even consider ‘you have just called me a bad person, and I feel offended’ to be okay if handled as a fact; as far as I can tell, the situation turns problematic when people start handling emotions as problems to be solved rather than facts to be observed. This does intentionally imply that the problem can be caused by any member of the conversation: If I say I’m offended, and don’t intend that to be taken as anything but an observation, but the person I’m talking to takes it upon themselves to try to un-offend me, that’s also likely to derail the conversation, as is a third party trying to force the offender to un-offend me.
(That’s not to say that it’s never useful to try to avoid offending someone, but such situations also seem to work best when they’re primarily handled on a fact-based level. For example, someone can say ‘I find it very distracting when I’m offended, which will happen if this topic is discussed in that way; could we discuss it in this way instead? Otherwise, I’ll have a hard time contributing and may decide to leave the conversation’, and the answer to that can be yes or no depending on whether the other people in the conversation think that the change is worthwhile.)
He didn’t say should, he said ‘he will’. This is a distinction that is sometimes overlooked. Even though there was a clear should claim regarding the the practice of expressing offence.
Good point.
Oops. I actually deleted the ‘good point’ because in this context there were multiple different levels of potential exhortation, normative assertion, statement of intended response and normative assertion regarding how other people should respond that could have been mixed and matched. I thought technical comments on the difference on “should be” and “I will” may have just been confusing.
No problem. I’ll just delete my compliment. ;)
Bother. I like being complimented! :)
Well then, let me know the next time you delete one of your comments, and I will compliment it.
Wouldn’t it make just as much sense to downvote expressions of any emotional reaction whatsoever? For example, if someone tells you that they love your idea, will you downvote them?
Expressions of offense—of the type being discussed here—are different in that they constitute the imposition of a social penalty on a person for expressing an idea. This—and not emotional expression per se—is what should be discouraged.
(Although unfortunately there are some people here who would downvote comments that express positive emotions, on the grounds that they are “noise”.)
Expressing offence causes emotional harm. Expressing appreciation causes emotional benefit. Neither of those increases the actual informational content of a discussion but the second option still makes the world a slightly better place.
This discussion is becoming more and more bizarre. We started with the topic of giving or causing offense and apparently came to the consensus that in our quest for the truth, we really shouldn’t worry to much about whether we give offense—the truth is just too important.
Now we are asked not to express the fact that we have been offended, because this truth is just too painful—it causes emotional harm. Does anyone else think that this is positively insane?
I have no fundamental objection to people expressing the fact that they have been offended. What I object to is the use of offense as a means to silence dissenting opinions or discussion. Religions use this tactic all the time and it disgusts me. I disagree with the ‘emotional harm’ argument except to the extent that it is the mechanism by which dissent is suppressed.
Fine. I join you in your objection. As a comment on the current sorry state of American political discourse, it is right on.
But, do you really think it is a problem here on LW? Seriously? What I see here being used to silence people are objections to style or tone of argument. Which is certainly not completely inappropriate in a forum dedicated to rationality.
But consider. Person A offers an arational and emotional argument. Person A is roundly criticized and downvoted for this. Has person A’s dissenting opinion been “silenced”? Of course not. Person A is free to make his/her point in a more rational style.
Now let’s look at Person B who offers a speculation which person C finds offensive. Person C expresses offense. Has person B been silenced? Of course not. Person B is free to go on to back up the speculation with data, argument, and even evolutionary psychology. I just cannot see person C’s complaints as “the mechanism by which dissent is suppressed.”
LW is about as good as it gets in this regard and I’d very much like to keep it that way, hence my concern when I see anything that looks to me like movement in the wrong direction.
Fair enough.
Downvoted for expressing your offense.
Upvoted for being witty. Downvoted again for missing the point.
Who specifically is it that you think holds an insane conjunction of beliefs? You seem to be treating several different commenters as if they were one person. (Cf. my other comment.)
I was responding to Gabriel.
Why do you suggest that?
Experiencing offense silently causes emotional harm as well; depending upon the situation, expression of that experience may help to alleviate the cause of the problem.
To put it another way: if something heavy lands on my foot and I need help lifting it off, it may cause some sympathetic pain and suffering in other people if I yell out loudly… but assuming the people around aren’t jerks, yelling out will lead in the longer term to less total pain than suffering in silence.
True, but it’s possible to yell without blaming one of the people around from dropping it on your foot. And if you can tell that one of them did it, you might be able to yell for help without accusing that person of dropping it intentionally.
Expressing offense might also cause emotional benefit, if the source of offense is easily remedied, and the expression avoids unnecessary shaming.
Possibly. But in most cases it wouldn’t. And I simply wanted to point out a significant difference between two things that, according to your argument, should be equated.
Sidenote: if a native speaker of English wants to make the world a slightly better place, then please tell me whether finishing the sentence with “that you argued should be equated” would make sense?
It makes sense, but it’s more confusing than the way you wrote it above.
Possibly. But in most cases it will be like I said. Which is by no means a watertight argument in defense of mattnewport’s position but I wasn’t trying to provide that. I just pointed out an obvious, significant difference between things that, according to your argument, should be treated equally.