Everyone’s offended these days(eev.ee)
eev.ee
Everyone’s offended these days
http://eev.ee/blog/2016/02/15/everyones-offended-these-days/
110 comments
Came here to post this. The author of this post just made the biggest possible strawman:
> “Now the pool is stagnant, …frothy with scum.” Fry’s feelings aren’t feelings — they are a universal and objective standard of behavior, which everyone else is violating.
When he says "stagnant, frothy with scum" I don't interpret that as him complaining about his feelings, but rather that the discussion/communication (which, I guess, is the ultimate purpose of any communication medium) has become impossible, precisely because people keep being offended and complaining about their feelings.
> “Now the pool is stagnant, …frothy with scum.” Fry’s feelings aren’t feelings — they are a universal and objective standard of behavior, which everyone else is violating.
When he says "stagnant, frothy with scum" I don't interpret that as him complaining about his feelings, but rather that the discussion/communication (which, I guess, is the ultimate purpose of any communication medium) has become impossible, precisely because people keep being offended and complaining about their feelings.
You missed what he was saying. He's saying that Fry has feelings. He has an urge to talk about the feelings he has, but simultaneously feels he can't mention they're his feelings. So he rationalizes it into objective facts (which also prevents people from answering usefully).
In short: He says Fry is trying to claim his subjective views as objective facts.
In short: He says Fry is trying to claim his subjective views as objective facts.
His whole blog post is him talking about his feelings. Those are his feelings.
Exactly. Fry is writing about his feelings. Yet almost all of it uses the vocabulary of someone describing immutable and unarguable facts about the state of twitter.
I don't get it, both you and the blogger seems to think that this is revealing some big gotcha, that haha! Fry is hiding his feelings! But it isn't, there is no gotcha, those are his feelings. To him, Twitter is a cesspool, those are his feelings about it. So, he stops using it and he feels better.
There are no objective facts to be had regarding the state of Twitter. This is not physics or mathematics. The state of twitter is entirely subjective. How is Fry ever denying this?
"uses the vocabulary of someone describing immutable and unarguable facts".. What does that even mean? It's using the vocabulary of Stephen Fry talking about this thing that annoyed him and how distancing himself from it made him feel better. It is entirely about his feelings.
There are no objective facts to be had regarding the state of Twitter. This is not physics or mathematics. The state of twitter is entirely subjective. How is Fry ever denying this?
"uses the vocabulary of someone describing immutable and unarguable facts".. What does that even mean? It's using the vocabulary of Stephen Fry talking about this thing that annoyed him and how distancing himself from it made him feel better. It is entirely about his feelings.
> but rather that the discussion/communication
So you mean he's not offended --- rather, the other people violated some universal standard of behavior?
So you mean he's not offended --- rather, the other people violated some universal standard of behavior?
Next time, try a little honesty. There's a lot more to feelings than simply "offended". Fry's post read as disheartened, emotionally drained. Not offended.
That this post tries to frame Fry's post as some kind of veiled offense and then smugly points out the inconsistency in that, is quite insulting in my eyes. Even if it were accurate about Fry's message, it would still be immensely rude to me to belittle another person like that.
That this post tries to frame Fry's post as some kind of veiled offense and then smugly points out the inconsistency in that, is quite insulting in my eyes. Even if it were accurate about Fry's message, it would still be immensely rude to me to belittle another person like that.
> disheartened, emotionally drained
So he wasn't offended, he just had his feelings hurt?
So he wasn't offended, he just had his feelings hurt?
no
As an aside, I was stunned to see that "Stephen Fry leaves Twitter" qualifies as national news in Sweden [1]. I don't know how this could get any more ridiculous. Can't wait to get the non-stop 24-hour coverage of Stephen Frys Twitter account: Is he going to start using it again? Will he start posting on Google+? Twitter CEO refuses to comment!
[1]: http://www.svt.se/kultur/film/stephen-fry-lamnar-twitter
[1]: http://www.svt.se/kultur/film/stephen-fry-lamnar-twitter
It's not in the news because of the event... Like they don't track Twitter posts and see some celebrity stops posting and go put it in the news.
It's the commentary about the platform and the people using it. Sure it's not exactly 9/11 but it's not THAT bizarre that someone picked it up.
It's the commentary about the platform and the people using it. Sure it's not exactly 9/11 but it's not THAT bizarre that someone picked it up.
That would be one thing, if that was what it was. But it's not! It's exactly what you say, "in the news because of the event". The whole story is "Stephen Fry made a joke and then he left twitter and wrote about it on his blog". There is zero discussion of the platform or the people using it.
It's kind of legitimate news because he was an early Twitter star and did a lot to popularize it, and now he's decided it's not working out for him anymore. This somewhat interesting angle seems to be getting buried under more clickworthy and dramatic narratives.
I dont know Fry but he isn't handling things as well as Dawkins does it seems. Dawkins has a hilarious video of him reading the most hateful tweets.
You have to be careful. Some of the people who complain about others being offended all the time are the biggest babies.
[Edit] If he is leaving bc it is no fun anymore that is an excellent reason.
You have to be careful. Some of the people who complain about others being offended all the time are the biggest babies.
[Edit] If he is leaving bc it is no fun anymore that is an excellent reason.
Why does someone even need to justify to others their decision to leave Twitter? Why do they need to handle it well? Social media sucks more because complete strangers feel they have the right the dissect someone else's behavior from thousands of miles away, and pass judgment upon them for violating rules that the target may not even know exist, more than because some people are "babies" and can't stand the nitpicking.
Dawkins and everyone else in the world are certainly entitled to express themselves, but there are also repercussions for that expression. He's said some rather dim-witted stuff about religions in general and some religions in particular and while I will defend to the death his right to say those things, it doesn't reflect all that well on his person imo.
What is the worst thing he said that was dim-witted that you remember off hand? Generally curious, he defends his positions rather well I believe.
I think his comment about Muslims and Nobel Prizes was not one of his finer moments.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/richard...
It's one of those comments that was so obviously stupid and pointless, its difficult to know where to start in responding to it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/richard...
It's one of those comments that was so obviously stupid and pointless, its difficult to know where to start in responding to it.
For one he has attacked Christianity for being, well, religulous, more than he has attacked Islam. And that doesn't mean Christianity is more religulous than Islam; it means Dawkins is a coward and fears fewer repercussions from attacking Christianity than from attacking Islam.
There is nothing wrong with being afraid to attack Islam. It is a legitimate scary death cult. So is Christianity, but Christianity is somewhat safer to criticize.
[deleted]
> It's everyone else who is making a big deal out of him leaving Twitter
When I clicked this link I (genuinely) had to check the date, because Fry has been flouncing from Twitter for years.
And yes, flouncing is the word. Fry could quite easily stop using Twitter if he wanted to. He could just stop using it.
Instead he, not "everyone else", writes a lengthy post about the event on his website, perhaps for anyone who missed his leaving Twitter announcement of 2014, or his 2009 announcement about leaving Twitter.
When I clicked this link I (genuinely) had to check the date, because Fry has been flouncing from Twitter for years.
And yes, flouncing is the word. Fry could quite easily stop using Twitter if he wanted to. He could just stop using it.
Instead he, not "everyone else", writes a lengthy post about the event on his website, perhaps for anyone who missed his leaving Twitter announcement of 2014, or his 2009 announcement about leaving Twitter.
How is writing a lengthy post about your feelings on your website making a big deal about anything? That's what your website is there for. It's a public diary where people who care about what you think can read your thoughts.
That he has quit Twitter before makes it even more of a non-event, if possible.
That he has quit Twitter before makes it even more of a non-event, if possible.
How is writing about a "non-event" for his thousands of Twitter fans and media friends to share and talk about and report on not making it a big deal?
Exactly!
We have a saying in Portugal: "Quem está mal que se mude" that can be roughly translated to "Who doesn't feel well [here] should/can move". It mean that anyone who is unconfortable here isn't obliged to stay here and is free to go anywhere else.
That's what Fry did. He is not happy with/in Twitter, so he went away. His "‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what." remark remains sound.
We have a saying in Portugal: "Quem está mal que se mude" that can be roughly translated to "Who doesn't feel well [here] should/can move". It mean that anyone who is unconfortable here isn't obliged to stay here and is free to go anywhere else.
That's what Fry did. He is not happy with/in Twitter, so he went away. His "‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what." remark remains sound.
I think this is a property of the way voting/distribution work on some sites, but not others. On Twitter or Tumblr, if you want to reply to something, you have to increase its visibility in the process. So if something is really wrong and everyone wants to correct it, it creates these horrible positive-feedback spirals where mass-outrage explodes out of nothing. This doesn't happen on Hacker News, partly because the churn of top-level posts cuts off discussions before they can go too far off the rails, and partly because there's a downvote button which makes things less visible. So people reading comments see mostly positive examples (things that were upvoted), which influences the culture, which in turn makes the comments they write better.
Which is not to say that there's no outrage here. But it tends to be a better sort of outrage, expressed by providing context and explaining what's wrong and what ought to be done.
Which is not to say that there's no outrage here. But it tends to be a better sort of outrage, expressed by providing context and explaining what's wrong and what ought to be done.
I've made a minor hobby of studying how communities are formed by the technical structure of the community, and what interactions they enable. The control of visibility is actually a subtle art, and a lot of things like Twitter or Facebook start with an initial design that is quite unsubtle that works at first, but scales poorly.
I'm not convinced Twitter is fixable as-is. The most obvious technical solution is to do what Reddit did and make sub-Twitters, but they're not going to do that. But as one big global broadcast platform, it too easily exceeds the ability of the human mind to deal with things when you get even modestly popular, to say nothing of being a celebrity trying to directly participate.
But in reality there's simply no way to be a member of a "community" of that size. Arguably that's one of the places where this essay sort of stalls out... there's no community here to be discussing in the first place. Just a really, really big pile of people, with affiliations too loose to even remotely be a community. If there is "power" here, it's not at all clear to me who has it, and it certainly seems on the evidence that Stephen Fry is actually on the short end of that stick rather than the long one. To the extent that the essay seems to vaguely try to suggest that he did the wrong thing, itself ironic in light of, well, itself, I don't think the case was made.
I'm not convinced Twitter is fixable as-is. The most obvious technical solution is to do what Reddit did and make sub-Twitters, but they're not going to do that. But as one big global broadcast platform, it too easily exceeds the ability of the human mind to deal with things when you get even modestly popular, to say nothing of being a celebrity trying to directly participate.
But in reality there's simply no way to be a member of a "community" of that size. Arguably that's one of the places where this essay sort of stalls out... there's no community here to be discussing in the first place. Just a really, really big pile of people, with affiliations too loose to even remotely be a community. If there is "power" here, it's not at all clear to me who has it, and it certainly seems on the evidence that Stephen Fry is actually on the short end of that stick rather than the long one. To the extent that the essay seems to vaguely try to suggest that he did the wrong thing, itself ironic in light of, well, itself, I don't think the case was made.
Even sub-communites don't solve the problem. There are certain subreddits notorious for dogpiling on posts in other subreddits. The article mentions this indirectly by observing that what starts out on one platform can easily migrate across communities, even to communities you're not aware of.
I can't say I've made a study of it, but I've certainly thought about it.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on reddit style voting with visible points and reordering. In my observation each of those things are detrimental, at least with respect to community building and maintenance.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on reddit style voting with visible points and reordering. In my observation each of those things are detrimental, at least with respect to community building and maintenance.
It seems to scale to medium size OK (several thousand lurkers, ~100 regular posters and a steady stream of drive-bys), though I observe even a medium sized subreddit doesn't feel all that different than a Usenet forum of the same size. Voting may let the community get a little larger than just a threaded conversation, especially because it can distribute spam filtering, but I'm not sure it's that meaningfully different in the end.
I'm also not convinced it's terribly detrimental. Most of the accusations against vote systems are true of threaded forums in general. Group think develops, regardless. People can be hounded out of a community, regardless, for the same set of reasons. It seems to me the real key is the use of a threading system in the first place, rather than the votes attached to the threads.
It may be fair to say that threaded voting enables the largest communities I know about. At the scale they break down, I don't know anything that works. I've never seen a mechanism for having a tightly-knit single community of larger size without being what most of us would consider a community fail.
By contrast, threaded vs. flat is a vital change.
I'm also not convinced it's terribly detrimental. Most of the accusations against vote systems are true of threaded forums in general. Group think develops, regardless. People can be hounded out of a community, regardless, for the same set of reasons. It seems to me the real key is the use of a threading system in the first place, rather than the votes attached to the threads.
It may be fair to say that threaded voting enables the largest communities I know about. At the scale they break down, I don't know anything that works. I've never seen a mechanism for having a tightly-knit single community of larger size without being what most of us would consider a community fail.
By contrast, threaded vs. flat is a vital change.
There's a bit of nuance needed re: the paragraphs near the start. Offended people tend to expect others to cater to them. Stephen doesn't; he's simply explaining why people are wrong: for treating "I'm offended" as something that should be pandered to. That isn't the same.
The author seems to be suggesting that because everyone thinks their behavior is universal and objective, one cannot justifiably make this claim, and that every objective thrust must necessarily have emotional underpinnings. Maybe; but Fry never tries to invalidate others' feelings. Those offended tend to.
The author seems to be suggesting that because everyone thinks their behavior is universal and objective, one cannot justifiably make this claim, and that every objective thrust must necessarily have emotional underpinnings. Maybe; but Fry never tries to invalidate others' feelings. Those offended tend to.
"Maybe; but Fry never tries to invalidate others' feelings."
"“Will all you sanctimonious fuckers fuck the fuck off Jenny Beavan is a friend and joshing is legitimate."
Really?
"“Will all you sanctimonious fuckers fuck the fuck off Jenny Beavan is a friend and joshing is legitimate."
Really?
Some guy makes an inside joke to a female friend that in public might to some group be considered sexist. Someone nearby hears him and yells "this guy's sexist" and soon he's swarmed by an angry mob. "Oh for fuck's sake fuck off you sanctimonious fuckers," he says with exasperation. That's not quite "invalidating others' feelings" in the sense we're talking about, is it?
I don't know what sense you're talking about, so I can't tell you. It sounds like he's bothered by how they're treating him, and he wants them to shut up, because he thinks their opinion is dumb and their way of expressing it is awful. That's being offended in my book.
"It sounds like he's bothered by how they're treating him, and he wants them to shut up, because he thinks their opinion is dumb and their way of expressing it is awful."
Yes, because I've seen first hand what people do to those on twitter that say something that can be misconstrued as punching down, racist, bigoted, etc. It's not pretty and not nice in any sense.
He is telling them to shut up in the sense that they're being offended means jack shit. The mentality of them being offended and people having to cater to them is why free speech on universities are pretty much non-existent.
I saw a core contributor on a project be attacked because he disagreed with italian schools teaching children about transgender subjects without permission from the parents. They literally attacked the project, going on about how the core contributor was "transphobic", that his code will translate into that too. It was literally shocking to see the comments going back and forth. And, that isnt the only instance I've seen in the last year or so.
We've seen people have their platform removed because others claimed that their mere presence would violate their "safe space", even though the person isnt violent and just has a different view.
He is offended, the only difference is he isnt using it to try and ruin people or change policies. He is venting his frustrations publicly because he can. He isnt looking for others to cater to him. This is contrast to the people he is complaining about who do everything they can to shame and silence people that have a difference of an opinion.
Yes, because I've seen first hand what people do to those on twitter that say something that can be misconstrued as punching down, racist, bigoted, etc. It's not pretty and not nice in any sense.
He is telling them to shut up in the sense that they're being offended means jack shit. The mentality of them being offended and people having to cater to them is why free speech on universities are pretty much non-existent.
I saw a core contributor on a project be attacked because he disagreed with italian schools teaching children about transgender subjects without permission from the parents. They literally attacked the project, going on about how the core contributor was "transphobic", that his code will translate into that too. It was literally shocking to see the comments going back and forth. And, that isnt the only instance I've seen in the last year or so.
We've seen people have their platform removed because others claimed that their mere presence would violate their "safe space", even though the person isnt violent and just has a different view.
He is offended, the only difference is he isnt using it to try and ruin people or change policies. He is venting his frustrations publicly because he can. He isnt looking for others to cater to him. This is contrast to the people he is complaining about who do everything they can to shame and silence people that have a difference of an opinion.
The vast majority of your comment is a non-sequitur.
But returning to Fry: I think he's offended by his critics, even if he doesn't use that word.
But here's what will blow your mind: as far as I understand what happened, I think he's right to be that way. They attacked him for doing nothing wrong.
People are acting like there's some magical thing "offense" that's only felt by people they disagree with. But we all feel offense on a regular basis, whether we call it that or not. It's just on us to do our best to only feel it for things that are actually bad, and to react in a measured way. Our offense doesn't mean anything per se--you can be equally offended by a good thing as a bad thing--it's the content of the thing that shows whether your offense shows that the problem is inside you or the thing you're made about.
Don't create some kind of dumb rule "being offended is bad". That makes no more sense than saying "because I'm offended, your opinion is wrong."
But returning to Fry: I think he's offended by his critics, even if he doesn't use that word.
But here's what will blow your mind: as far as I understand what happened, I think he's right to be that way. They attacked him for doing nothing wrong.
People are acting like there's some magical thing "offense" that's only felt by people they disagree with. But we all feel offense on a regular basis, whether we call it that or not. It's just on us to do our best to only feel it for things that are actually bad, and to react in a measured way. Our offense doesn't mean anything per se--you can be equally offended by a good thing as a bad thing--it's the content of the thing that shows whether your offense shows that the problem is inside you or the thing you're made about.
Don't create some kind of dumb rule "being offended is bad". That makes no more sense than saying "because I'm offended, your opinion is wrong."
No, my comments are exactly part of the problem that Fry is talking about. He isnt saying that you shouldnt be offended, he is saying that just because you are offended no one should cater to you. He is choosing to leave twitter instead of asking twitter or the community to attack the people bothering him, which is a stark contrast to the social "justice" crowd on twitter, which are the ones attacking him. He can make commentary about being offended but thats about all he is doing.
Fry isnt exactly offended by his critics but to the outrage culture that believes that being offensive means that the person is a racist, homophobe, etc. That is why if you disagree with them on topics, while not being an actual bigot at all, they'll still call you a name that is defined by bigotry. That is why if you disagree with feminists (depending on which one), you're instantly labeled a men's rights activists without ever giving indication you are one.
Fry isnt exactly offended by his critics but to the outrage culture that believes that being offensive means that the person is a racist, homophobe, etc. That is why if you disagree with them on topics, while not being an actual bigot at all, they'll still call you a name that is defined by bigotry. That is why if you disagree with feminists (depending on which one), you're instantly labeled a men's rights activists without ever giving indication you are one.
Really. Hurting someone's feelings (oh noes, he used directed cursewords!) is not the same as invalidating feelings.
So you're saying his response to those people is "your feelings are valid, I understand why you are offended by my comments" or is it closer to "your feelings are dumb--you're only mad because you didn't think about what I said?"
(Note also the other comment where I said I think he's right. I don't really talk about feelings being "valid" that much, but I don't think his critics' feelings are "valid" with regard to the Beavan joke).
(Note also the other comment where I said I think he's right. I don't really talk about feelings being "valid" that much, but I don't think his critics' feelings are "valid" with regard to the Beavan joke).
Maybe it's just that our definitions don't match. When I think of "invalidating" someone's feelings, I think of downplaying them, refusing to acknowledge them, or even denying someone's right to have that feeling. Think of comments like "oh, you're just PMS'ing", "don't fuss, how can you make this into such a big deal?" or "you're white/black/male, so you're not allowed to feel insulted about this".
No, what I mean is not closer to "your feelings are dumb" either. Telling someone to fuck off is communicating that their /presence/, or their /attitude/ is unwanted. It doesn't directly attack their feelings at all. It may be uncaring, and the recipient may still be hurt by it, but it's a far cry from denying people their right to feel.
No, what I mean is not closer to "your feelings are dumb" either. Telling someone to fuck off is communicating that their /presence/, or their /attitude/ is unwanted. It doesn't directly attack their feelings at all. It may be uncaring, and the recipient may still be hurt by it, but it's a far cry from denying people their right to feel.
[deleted]
For those that didn't read the article, I think the crux of it is here:
> The subtext here is that cretinism is acceptable, but being a target is not. If you’re a total dick who only uses the Internet to seek out strangers and ruin their day for kicks, you are absolutely welcome. If you happen to be one such sought-out person, there’s the door. What kind of reasoning is that, and what kind of society does anyone think it’s going to create?
It's almost a call for more putting the blame in the right place, given that Twitter's sheer volume can take a grumble from an off-color joke at a party and multiply it by a thousand fold into something much harder to bear.
Whether the solution is technical or social, it seems like a real problem to me. We haven't had the ability to unify with similar voices in large numbers so quickly before. It should be unsurprising that when we do so for the first time we're a bit indiscriminate and heavy-handed with the power.
> The subtext here is that cretinism is acceptable, but being a target is not. If you’re a total dick who only uses the Internet to seek out strangers and ruin their day for kicks, you are absolutely welcome. If you happen to be one such sought-out person, there’s the door. What kind of reasoning is that, and what kind of society does anyone think it’s going to create?
It's almost a call for more putting the blame in the right place, given that Twitter's sheer volume can take a grumble from an off-color joke at a party and multiply it by a thousand fold into something much harder to bear.
Whether the solution is technical or social, it seems like a real problem to me. We haven't had the ability to unify with similar voices in large numbers so quickly before. It should be unsurprising that when we do so for the first time we're a bit indiscriminate and heavy-handed with the power.
That tendency to react to other people's opinions and to be easily offended is a behaviour that is most prominent in the Anglo-Saxon world (and North America in particular) where defense groups and lobbies are powerful. I'm not commenting on whether or not that kind of policing is actually good or not, just that this is not "everyone", just "Some people in the Anglo-Saxon world, especially the United States".
EDIT: I live in France and I have never observed that kind of behaviour in the Latin world or Eastern Europe for example. Most of the time when someone would say something "offensive" that doesn't directly impact the people in the room, the reaction goes along the lines of "Well, that's your opinion, whatever" or some form of polite debate.
EDIT: I live in France and I have never observed that kind of behaviour in the Latin world or Eastern Europe for example. Most of the time when someone would say something "offensive" that doesn't directly impact the people in the room, the reaction goes along the lines of "Well, that's your opinion, whatever" or some form of polite debate.
The tsunami analogy was quite eye-opening for me. It puts things into perspective. It's easy to look at an individual drop and say: "this is nothing!"
Anyhow, it's a shame that it looks like only half the comments here are from people who read the article instead of just jumping to conclusions.
Anyhow, it's a shame that it looks like only half the comments here are from people who read the article instead of just jumping to conclusions.
Perhaps. On the other hand it's not so easy to avoid a tsunami by simply putting down your phone and going for a nice stroll.
"None of our platforms are built to deal with it" is a false equivalence. The same social factors exist on every platform, but somehow you don't get the same outrage-storms on other platforms, only Twitter and Tumblr.
I don't suggest people who find themselves offended quit the Internet. But I do suggest that they, and everyone else, quit Twitter. You'll find you're much happier for it.
I don't suggest people who find themselves offended quit the Internet. But I do suggest that they, and everyone else, quit Twitter. You'll find you're much happier for it.
It probably extends beyond Twitter and Tumblr, but they certainly seem to be the first ones anyone thinks about when you talk about emotional echo chambers.
Given that, your advice does make some sense. If the problem is worse on certain platforms, people should be asking themselves if staying on those platforms is worth the price they pay. Of course this entails a trade-off - this article was right that there are no easy solutions to the problem.
Full disclosure - this is the only active account I have on anything remotely "social," although I do browse some of the other things without logging in, so I'm talking as something like an outside observer with a personal bias against the whole medium, precisely because I find the emotional echo-chamber off-putting and distracting.
Given that, your advice does make some sense. If the problem is worse on certain platforms, people should be asking themselves if staying on those platforms is worth the price they pay. Of course this entails a trade-off - this article was right that there are no easy solutions to the problem.
Full disclosure - this is the only active account I have on anything remotely "social," although I do browse some of the other things without logging in, so I'm talking as something like an outside observer with a personal bias against the whole medium, precisely because I find the emotional echo-chamber off-putting and distracting.
It's pretty interesting that the people complaining about people being offended too often are so easily "triggered" by other people being offended.
I've been noticing this a lot lately, even on HN. Someone will mention equality or fairness and there will be a whole slew of people complaining about how people are too sensitive now-a-days. In reality, those complainers are being overly sensitive themselves.
I've been noticing this a lot lately, even on HN. Someone will mention equality or fairness and there will be a whole slew of people complaining about how people are too sensitive now-a-days. In reality, those complainers are being overly sensitive themselves.
> It's pretty interesting that the people complaining about people being offended too often are so easily "triggered" by other people being offended.
Not really (for me). I couldn't care less if you're offended. But if you start attacking me because I offended you (or someone else), and start making the general discussion impossible ("pissing in the pool"), then of course I'll oppose you, not because I'm "triggered", but simply because I want my discussion back! (And also because I don't think people should be fired for having opinions.)
> Someone will mention equality or fairness and there will be a whole slew of people complaining
Only if they mention "equality" (e.g. affirmative action) and "fairness" (e.g. wage gap). That's not because our feeling are over-sensitive, but because we're over-sensitive to the bullshit arguments proponents of these ideas keep repeating as if they were the greatest achievements of logic and/or statistics.
Not really (for me). I couldn't care less if you're offended. But if you start attacking me because I offended you (or someone else), and start making the general discussion impossible ("pissing in the pool"), then of course I'll oppose you, not because I'm "triggered", but simply because I want my discussion back! (And also because I don't think people should be fired for having opinions.)
> Someone will mention equality or fairness and there will be a whole slew of people complaining
Only if they mention "equality" (e.g. affirmative action) and "fairness" (e.g. wage gap). That's not because our feeling are over-sensitive, but because we're over-sensitive to the bullshit arguments proponents of these ideas keep repeating as if they were the greatest achievements of logic and/or statistics.
Of course these discussions do get out of hand, and it's true that not all forms of inequality are completely valid in all cases, but it seems best to ignore the people you disagree with instead of trying to convince them to be like you. This goes for all discussions both on and offline. However, if you're in an arena where being argumentative is encouraged than you should have a better argument than "stop being so sensitive!" and the other side should have an argument other then "things are unfair" or else you barely even have a real conversation going.
> The subtext here is that cretinism is acceptable, but being a target is not.
> If you’re a total dick who only uses the Internet to seek out strangers and ruin their day for kicks, you are absolutely welcome. If you happen to be one such sought-out person, there’s the door.
Sums it up perfectly.
> If you’re a total dick who only uses the Internet to seek out strangers and ruin their day for kicks, you are absolutely welcome. If you happen to be one such sought-out person, there’s the door.
Sums it up perfectly.
> If you’re a total dick who only uses the Internet to seek out strangers and ruin their day for kicks, you are absolutely welcome. If you happen to be one such sought-out person, there’s the door.
Stephen Fry wasn't "kicking" anyone. On the other hand, people who are offended usually do, they viciously attack others (even get them fired!).
Stephen Fry wasn't "kicking" anyone. On the other hand, people who are offended usually do, they viciously attack others (even get them fired!).
>Stephen Fry wasn't "kicking" anyone.
I don't think the author was implying that Stephen Fry was the "kicker" in the quote above.
I don't think the author was implying that Stephen Fry was the "kicker" in the quote above.
> who cares? It’s just some noise. No one is going to have an existential crisis over it; we’re all surrounded by each other, a network of people whose very presence demonstrates that of course Python doesn’t suck. That person has negligible influence here.
> Now, you’re the only Python developer at a Haskell conference. You go to a talk, and one slide makes a joke at Python’s expense. The entire room laughs. Suddenly you feel much smaller, maybe embarrassed, maybe annoyed. It was still only one person making one joke, but that person clearly had more influence here
I'm not sure what the author is trying to accomplish here. Maybe they thought they were "pandering to the audience." But I found this metaphor to be inappropriate, poorly formed, and implicitly draws a comparison between 1st world technical choices and actual harassment.
While we can respect other people's feelings, at some point we have to draw a line and say, "This is something where you may be able to brush it off, since it's basically an arbitrary choice you made that you could unmake at any time." As opposed to the deeply-rooted and often immutable nature of subjects that are axis of discrimination elsewhere, such as someone's race or personal gender identity.
Either this author has so little respect for their audience that they think this metaphor will actually speak to the average and intended reader (in which case, wow... you genuinely think I'm stupid), or they genuinely believe that these sorts of things are in a similar category.
Either way, I get a really bad feeling from it.
> Now, you’re the only Python developer at a Haskell conference. You go to a talk, and one slide makes a joke at Python’s expense. The entire room laughs. Suddenly you feel much smaller, maybe embarrassed, maybe annoyed. It was still only one person making one joke, but that person clearly had more influence here
I'm not sure what the author is trying to accomplish here. Maybe they thought they were "pandering to the audience." But I found this metaphor to be inappropriate, poorly formed, and implicitly draws a comparison between 1st world technical choices and actual harassment.
While we can respect other people's feelings, at some point we have to draw a line and say, "This is something where you may be able to brush it off, since it's basically an arbitrary choice you made that you could unmake at any time." As opposed to the deeply-rooted and often immutable nature of subjects that are axis of discrimination elsewhere, such as someone's race or personal gender identity.
Either this author has so little respect for their audience that they think this metaphor will actually speak to the average and intended reader (in which case, wow... you genuinely think I'm stupid), or they genuinely believe that these sorts of things are in a similar category.
Either way, I get a really bad feeling from it.
At best, this author is misinterpreting Stephen's intent. At worst, it's an attempt to offendedly spin Stephen's post in exactly the way he described.
author of this article, has no idea of comparison. Some people who are offended, gather the torches and try to get somebody fired for having a different opinion. Stephen Fry is doing exactly what people who don't like a conversation should do, leave. As much as we can connect the digital world as real, kids should not be stressed or committing suicide over facebook. And race relations aren't going to be solved over twitter. Best to disconnect and take care of things one can control.
There's a mismatch in scale: the number and diversity of members on platforms like Twitter is huge, but the ability to moderate is tiny. It would be interesting to see if a system could detect the dogpile effect, by looking at common phrases, checking if many users messaging one user all follow a common user, etc. and offer some sort of temporary relief until a controversy dies down. On the other hand, that's not actually solving the root of the problem.
Well, the author's suggestion that everything is fine, trolls can be ignored and Fry is somehow hypocritical with being fed up with trolls and offended people is really something that I cannot agree with. Twitter, by its very own format, encourages the worst in the human behaviour. Those who shout loudest get the most visibility, and it has the very real potential to destroy lives and encourage mob justice which is just the worst.
Remember this girl who tweeted a joke that she hope's she doesn't get HIV when going to Africa, and was absolutely DESTROYED by twitter, sent death threats and had her personal information published on the internet? This is what Fry meant when he said that the pond is full of scum.
Well, the author's suggestion that everything is fine, trolls can be ignored and Fry is somehow hypocritical with being fed up with trolls and offended people is really something that I cannot agree with.
This is actually the opposite of what the post says.
The subtext here is that cretinism is acceptable, but being a target is not. If you’re a total dick who only uses the Internet to seek out strangers and ruin their day for kicks, you are absolutely welcome. If you happen to be one such sought-out person, there’s the door. What kind of reasoning is that, and what kind of society does anyone think it’s going to create?
That is a paragraph from later in the article.
This is actually the opposite of what the post says.
The subtext here is that cretinism is acceptable, but being a target is not. If you’re a total dick who only uses the Internet to seek out strangers and ruin their day for kicks, you are absolutely welcome. If you happen to be one such sought-out person, there’s the door. What kind of reasoning is that, and what kind of society does anyone think it’s going to create?
That is a paragraph from later in the article.
I agree. I feel like people amplify their emotional reasoning to the extreme with social networks enough to jump into whatever moralistic "shoulds" or anything that can get them behind the "right", sort of like putting your morals on the line in a popularity contest, a hell of a emotional rollercoaster.
People seldom take perspective and context in account. Especially if they all go into the angry mob mentality as you mention which I'm pretty sure we have seen plenty of times.
People seldom take perspective and context in account. Especially if they all go into the angry mob mentality as you mention which I'm pretty sure we have seen plenty of times.
>> People seldom take perspective and context in account.
Part of the problem is the speed that the Internet affords us. People feel the need/urge to respond to things instantly, which often prevents them from taking a breath to get some perspective or maybe to even do some fact checking.
Part of the problem is the speed that the Internet affords us. People feel the need/urge to respond to things instantly, which often prevents them from taking a breath to get some perspective or maybe to even do some fact checking.
Article makes some good points, but then rolls into an increasingly common "nerd" talking point that completely undercuts the point:
"It’s fine that no one cares about whatever dorky thing you’re into, but wow why would you make fun of the sacred and hallowed Super Bowl, which is so important to so many people, how could you be so inconsiderate"
and the strawman couldn't be more blatant absent some flame emoji.
Now, she didn't reference the tweets which provided the supposed context, but everyone's probably heard the "Ha ha, sportsball!" jokes from people who don't enjoy athletics. The problem isn't that people are making jokes about the popularity of sports, it's that the joke really isn't funny. Instead, it perpetuates the behavior the author claims to oppose — rather than be pleasant with one another and take at least a conversational interest in what someone's saying...let's be inconsiderate and vitriolic about one another's hobbies! This is wrong whether said hobby is football or League cosplay.
"I don’t think too many people are wanting for someone who’ll listen to them talk about football."
The strawman continues with vague references to undefined populations that strip people of their individuality. They're all rude sports bros, while we're enlightened board gamers.
"Yet I haven’t seen any comics and snarky jokes suggesting that sports fans listen to their friends rave about Warhammer.
Must not have been paying too much attention. Here ya go, guy is a pretty popular standup who notoriously loves nerds, hates sports, and has a show discussing internet culture with three comedians every weeknight(!). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hardwick
At this point, you may be asking. Wait — this started about Stephen Fry and Twitter...why are we now talking about nerds vs sports? I'd ask the same thing of the author. The section is poorly though-out and explains nothing about power dynamics; Was hatred of one another's interest the most appropriate horse to hitch the "serious discussion of Twitter mobs" wagon to?
"It’s fine that no one cares about whatever dorky thing you’re into, but wow why would you make fun of the sacred and hallowed Super Bowl, which is so important to so many people, how could you be so inconsiderate"
and the strawman couldn't be more blatant absent some flame emoji.
Now, she didn't reference the tweets which provided the supposed context, but everyone's probably heard the "Ha ha, sportsball!" jokes from people who don't enjoy athletics. The problem isn't that people are making jokes about the popularity of sports, it's that the joke really isn't funny. Instead, it perpetuates the behavior the author claims to oppose — rather than be pleasant with one another and take at least a conversational interest in what someone's saying...let's be inconsiderate and vitriolic about one another's hobbies! This is wrong whether said hobby is football or League cosplay.
"I don’t think too many people are wanting for someone who’ll listen to them talk about football."
The strawman continues with vague references to undefined populations that strip people of their individuality. They're all rude sports bros, while we're enlightened board gamers.
"Yet I haven’t seen any comics and snarky jokes suggesting that sports fans listen to their friends rave about Warhammer.
Must not have been paying too much attention. Here ya go, guy is a pretty popular standup who notoriously loves nerds, hates sports, and has a show discussing internet culture with three comedians every weeknight(!). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hardwick
At this point, you may be asking. Wait — this started about Stephen Fry and Twitter...why are we now talking about nerds vs sports? I'd ask the same thing of the author. The section is poorly though-out and explains nothing about power dynamics; Was hatred of one another's interest the most appropriate horse to hitch the "serious discussion of Twitter mobs" wagon to?
I take an opposing view, and not because of any love for Fry.
OP of TFA says, "I love Stephen Fry, really I do".
I am someone who loathes Stephen Fry, with his pseudo-intellectual wittering, his incorrect presumption of understanding of technical matters, and his flippant arrogance. He has been described as "a stupid person's idea of a clever person", something I wouldn't disagree with.
Watching him stupidly misinform viewers of Qi about how GPS works is one thing. Reading him butcher the history of Dr Gary Kildall is another. I'd argue the latter could reasonably be said to be "offensive" to most of the HN crowd.
With that said, I don't think Fry's wrong on this.
Twitter (and Tumblr) have become a hive for the professionally and vicariously offended. From the de-verifying of Milo Yiannopoulos, to this case which resulted in Fry sulking off Twitter yet again, Twitter especially seems to have it institutionally ingrained.
The bag lady remark was not unreasonable, nor mean-spirited. Nor was it taken as such by the lady in question.
If you don't like Twitter, you can log the heck off. One is not forced to use Twitter, certainly not with one's own real-world identity. If you don't like it, you can say so, take a bow, and take your 120 characters elsewhere. As Fry has done.
Twitter and Facebook are not the bastions of Free Speech they might claim to be, but they do host proponents of both sides of most debates. If you say something unpopular or something divisive, rightly or wrongly, you risk taking flack.
But a boatload of people calling you a dick on Twitter is not the equivalent of people throwing bricks through your window. Some people just need to get a perspective.
Free speech is a double-edged sword. It is, however, required for freedom, liberty, democracy, real equality and progress. Part of that is accepting people are going to say stuff that you personally don't like.
A lot of people will disagree with my views on Fry. He is effectively a British institution at this point. And that's fine. They can happily complain bitterly about my characterization of him, although the number people would actually care about what I say is probably rather small. That's all fine. That's free speech. And I'm sure we all agree free speech is preferable to the alternative.
OP of TFA says, "I love Stephen Fry, really I do".
I am someone who loathes Stephen Fry, with his pseudo-intellectual wittering, his incorrect presumption of understanding of technical matters, and his flippant arrogance. He has been described as "a stupid person's idea of a clever person", something I wouldn't disagree with.
Watching him stupidly misinform viewers of Qi about how GPS works is one thing. Reading him butcher the history of Dr Gary Kildall is another. I'd argue the latter could reasonably be said to be "offensive" to most of the HN crowd.
With that said, I don't think Fry's wrong on this.
Twitter (and Tumblr) have become a hive for the professionally and vicariously offended. From the de-verifying of Milo Yiannopoulos, to this case which resulted in Fry sulking off Twitter yet again, Twitter especially seems to have it institutionally ingrained.
The bag lady remark was not unreasonable, nor mean-spirited. Nor was it taken as such by the lady in question.
If you don't like Twitter, you can log the heck off. One is not forced to use Twitter, certainly not with one's own real-world identity. If you don't like it, you can say so, take a bow, and take your 120 characters elsewhere. As Fry has done.
Twitter and Facebook are not the bastions of Free Speech they might claim to be, but they do host proponents of both sides of most debates. If you say something unpopular or something divisive, rightly or wrongly, you risk taking flack.
But a boatload of people calling you a dick on Twitter is not the equivalent of people throwing bricks through your window. Some people just need to get a perspective.
Free speech is a double-edged sword. It is, however, required for freedom, liberty, democracy, real equality and progress. Part of that is accepting people are going to say stuff that you personally don't like.
A lot of people will disagree with my views on Fry. He is effectively a British institution at this point. And that's fine. They can happily complain bitterly about my characterization of him, although the number people would actually care about what I say is probably rather small. That's all fine. That's free speech. And I'm sure we all agree free speech is preferable to the alternative.
For those who don't want to comb through the article, the TL;DR seems to be:
"Criticism of bad behavior is good and necessary, but it far too easily spirals into a howling typhoon of nonstop vitriol and hate that's difficult for the target to deal with, especially if they're not rich/powerful."
Still I'd recommend reading, it's not as long as it looks.
"Criticism of bad behavior is good and necessary, but it far too easily spirals into a howling typhoon of nonstop vitriol and hate that's difficult for the target to deal with, especially if they're not rich/powerful."
Still I'd recommend reading, it's not as long as it looks.
While it's true that "A) I'm offended, change yourself to accomodate me" and "B) I'm offended, so I'm going to leave" are both forms of offence, it seems pretty dishonest to say "A and B are equal, you're a hypocrite to complain about A while doing B" :/
[deleted]
I always wondered why people who take offense at what someone else says make such a big deal of it.
Tell 'em you don't like X, block 'em, and boom, you're done. No need to make 15btweets explaining just how much you hate [Scapegoat off the week here].
Tell 'em you don't like X, block 'em, and boom, you're done. No need to make 15btweets explaining just how much you hate [Scapegoat off the week here].
> Tell 'em you don't like X, block 'em, and boom, you're done.
Until X start automating the creation of new account and spamming your specifically because you blocked them of course.
Until X start automating the creation of new account and spamming your specifically because you blocked them of course.
At that point, the whole conflict has become ridiculous. Who has the time to create a bot that automates creating accounts to spam, say, the N-word?
That's not even accounting for captchas.
That's not even accounting for captchas.
Egalitarianism is dead, most opinions aren't worth hearing.
Democracy is dead, once shared common culture is destroyed the polis turns into a rampaging destructive mob.
So the people pushing this, not the foot soldiers but the people at the top, whats their angle, their logical next step? My guess is authoritarianism, mass censorship, a return to some kind of monarchy. Or maybe they just like watching the world burn. Or they think 1984/BNW/AF are instruction manuals not dystopias. I suppose for the ruling classes, those books ARE utopias. We seem very comfortable with those folks being the only people with money; perhaps its time for us to give them all our civil rights too.
Divide and conqueror... people pay too much attention to the former and forget the purpose of all the drama is the latter.
Democracy is dead, once shared common culture is destroyed the polis turns into a rampaging destructive mob.
So the people pushing this, not the foot soldiers but the people at the top, whats their angle, their logical next step? My guess is authoritarianism, mass censorship, a return to some kind of monarchy. Or maybe they just like watching the world burn. Or they think 1984/BNW/AF are instruction manuals not dystopias. I suppose for the ruling classes, those books ARE utopias. We seem very comfortable with those folks being the only people with money; perhaps its time for us to give them all our civil rights too.
Divide and conqueror... people pay too much attention to the former and forget the purpose of all the drama is the latter.
Is Fry leaving bc of the PC culture or bc of all the mean things trolls say about him? This may be obvious but I don't know Fry or his circumstances.
He's leaving because of the pc culture.
http://www.stephenfry.com/2016/02/15/peedinthepool/
Are you sure it is not just because he is not having fun anymore. Otherwise is skin is too thin.
well there is no shortage of those who want to see the world burn and there is still a lot of anonymity in many of these tools. so the sycophants that join in the attacks are pretty insulated from responsibility for their actions while the higher profile instigators can pass off responsibility as well.
a common method that works in politics as well. leaders don't need to ask for those who support them to cross the line because they know there will be those who will and they derive benefit from their actions all the while decrying them.
social media is just the back room games of mover and shakers out in the open. the same rules but just more visible
a common method that works in politics as well. leaders don't need to ask for those who support them to cross the line because they know there will be those who will and they derive benefit from their actions all the while decrying them.
social media is just the back room games of mover and shakers out in the open. the same rules but just more visible
My safe space has bully proof windows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXQkXXBqj_U
offended by others taking offence
Because we live in an age where real morals have been lost sight of, since deterministic faith in the correctness of any authority has been lost sight of ( thanks, Post Modernism ! ), people are scrambling to fabricate the authority of whatever they can grab nearest them ( since we all need a compass, even if it's just a finger drawing in the sand ) -- so it works to be prepared that you live in a world where someone else's subjective interpretation of their own offence taken at whatever they select, and the fallacy they delude themselves with that such offence makes them a fake victim of some fabricated "wrong", which they make to therefore mean that they are "right", does, they believe, afford them, what passes for moral value, these days. And, mostly, this incorrect belief, passes the smell test, and "seems legit", in contemporary discourse. As long as you claim you have been offended, you are fucking-completely-morally-right, so long as you can own the narrative on why you're a bigger victim than any other contenders for the crown of self-appointed righteous one. Welcome to the Age of the Biggest Fake Victim. Of course, the real evil starts when these self proclaimed victims use their self-anointed righteous status ( face-painted on themselves in the authority-skeptical moral vacuum of the present ), to pretend to justify whatever ways they try to harm others. Wait, are we talking about terrorists who pretend they are full fake-justified, because, of course, they are victims of the West's oppression -- or were we talking about just some fake-left liberal arts student at Cornell who's claiming to have been permanently damaged by whatever "offensive" idea their professor happened to raise in class? Or is that propensity to anoint the self proclaimed "offended fake victim" the status of "moral mother superior" really the same evil unworkable force behind both of these apparitions? You decide, dear reader. #CoddlingOfTheAmericanMind, #FakeVictimClaimingAbusesRealVictims
-- I value my tiny little accumulation of rep here. Please don't down vote unless you really, really thought it through and mean it. And if in any way you agree, upvote, you know...to protect me. ;)
-- I value my tiny little accumulation of rep here. Please don't down vote unless you really, really thought it through and mean it. And if in any way you agree, upvote, you know...to protect me. ;)
Didn't read, but this offends me.
HN gets offended by people who joke.
Boring, obvious jokes aren't really contributing much, are they?
I find this idea interesting! Look at what John Oliver, John Stewart, Jay Lenno, etc. have done with jokes as a method to make a point have more bite. They entertain and also report information. So jokes' by themselves are not bad. The thing that detracts from conversation are jokes without content which only server to annoy and clutter. Much like comments that do the same.
Ironically, the article mentions you!
>People who have so desensitized themselves to everything offensive that they’re offended by mere attempts to be considerate.
>People who have so desensitized themselves to everything offensive that they’re offended by mere attempts to be considerate.
It's not being offended by 'attempts to be considerate`.
I feel like many of bullied are not getting the therapy they truly need. Instead, they are becoming the bullies through sites like Twitter and big companies, schools, and now even governments are catering to their whims because nobody wants the bad press.
The same feminist group that twitter appointed to ther new free-speech censorship board has said some of the most horrific stuff about men. It’s beyond offensive, yet there are no bannings or accountability.
These groups see direct results and the power they have over individuals.
It really needs to stops or we will have no freedoms left and the mentally ill will be in charge of our lives.
I feel like many of bullied are not getting the therapy they truly need. Instead, they are becoming the bullies through sites like Twitter and big companies, schools, and now even governments are catering to their whims because nobody wants the bad press.
The same feminist group that twitter appointed to ther new free-speech censorship board has said some of the most horrific stuff about men. It’s beyond offensive, yet there are no bannings or accountability.
These groups see direct results and the power they have over individuals.
It really needs to stops or we will have no freedoms left and the mentally ill will be in charge of our lives.
> The same feminist group that twitter appointed to ther new free-speech censorship board has said some of the most horrific stuff about men. It’s beyond offensive, yet there are no bannings or accountability.
Because not enough people do, I'll assume good faith here.
Thought experiment: if the feminists are just a handful of loud bullies, why does anyone care what they think? Why can they even get press outside of obscure publications of their own creation? Why do we actually pass laws to placate them?
If the rest of the world largely thought they were out of their minds and refused to entertain them, they'd have no power. Clearly they've convinced enough people that they're right, or at least pointed in the direction of right, that we try to help solve their problems, imperfectly as that may be… and imperfect it is! There's no Grand Poobah of feminists calling the shots, and different people have different ideas of how to go about things. Some of them will be wrong, and wrong ideas will gain traction anyway. These days, I see it as growing pains on the way to becoming a less horrible society.
On free speech: you have the right to hold your opinions, and to voice them in general. You have no right to demand that anyone listen to you, or that anyone give you space to speak. Even the law is more nuanced than people think: harassment is a crime, despite the first amendment.
Because not enough people do, I'll assume good faith here.
Thought experiment: if the feminists are just a handful of loud bullies, why does anyone care what they think? Why can they even get press outside of obscure publications of their own creation? Why do we actually pass laws to placate them?
If the rest of the world largely thought they were out of their minds and refused to entertain them, they'd have no power. Clearly they've convinced enough people that they're right, or at least pointed in the direction of right, that we try to help solve their problems, imperfectly as that may be… and imperfect it is! There's no Grand Poobah of feminists calling the shots, and different people have different ideas of how to go about things. Some of them will be wrong, and wrong ideas will gain traction anyway. These days, I see it as growing pains on the way to becoming a less horrible society.
On free speech: you have the right to hold your opinions, and to voice them in general. You have no right to demand that anyone listen to you, or that anyone give you space to speak. Even the law is more nuanced than people think: harassment is a crime, despite the first amendment.
Are people actually deeply offended by things they read on the interest? Or are people looking for reasons to be "offended"? Because the latter seems far more often the case.
Did you actually read the article? Or did you just look at the title and see a "witty quip" opportunity? Because the latter seems far more likely given your comment seems unrelated to the article's content.
No, I didn't read it. From a quick skim, the article doesn't look worth reading, given its length. Are we not allowed to discuss the title of submissions, only the body of text?
> Are we not allowed to discuss the title of submissions, only the body of text?
You're certainly allowed to do anything you wish for, just as you're allowed to discuss novels based solely on their title. However you seem quite offended, is that some sort of meta-acting demonstrating your original thesis through the medium of yourself?
Nevertheless, if you're discussing the title and ignoring the body, you're quite literally missing the forest for the tree, or in this case missing the forest for a signpost. This article is not a Cosmo listicle, its title is neither its meat nor its thesis, it's a starting point.
You're certainly allowed to do anything you wish for, just as you're allowed to discuss novels based solely on their title. However you seem quite offended, is that some sort of meta-acting demonstrating your original thesis through the medium of yourself?
Nevertheless, if you're discussing the title and ignoring the body, you're quite literally missing the forest for the tree, or in this case missing the forest for a signpost. This article is not a Cosmo listicle, its title is neither its meat nor its thesis, it's a starting point.
This is very often a bad idea as titles are often not written by the articles' authors, and are often written to generate clicks rather than to accurately summarize the article. IMO it's to be discouraged.
Edit: It's kind of like discussing the layout of the site. There are occasions when it's reasonable to do so, but generally people want to discuss the content.
Edit: It's kind of like discussing the layout of the site. There are occasions when it's reasonable to do so, but generally people want to discuss the content.
Agree. I didn't like the article. I wish i haven't read it, really it it was waste of time. Sorry author, don't get offended, please.
How would you ever know?
You can judge actions, moderate actions, reward actions... But feelings are harder to identify.
Which was sorta the point of this article, I guess. There's a good chance that everyone is offended... So, what are we gonna do about that? If everyone is offended - and if we stop trying to sort out who has a "right" to be and who doesn't - then these notions that some bad behavior is justified kinda start looking silly: if we're gonna welcome everyone into the proverbial pool, then we can't let anyone get away with abuse, including the system itself.
You can judge actions, moderate actions, reward actions... But feelings are harder to identify.
Which was sorta the point of this article, I guess. There's a good chance that everyone is offended... So, what are we gonna do about that? If everyone is offended - and if we stop trying to sort out who has a "right" to be and who doesn't - then these notions that some bad behavior is justified kinda start looking silly: if we're gonna welcome everyone into the proverbial pool, then we can't let anyone get away with abuse, including the system itself.
[deleted]
Yes, I agree that other people's feelings are hard to know. (Possibly unknowable.) I just can't recall ever in my life having been offended, so I'm skeptical.
What you're doing is translating your experience to the human experience. With 7,000,000,000 of us, there's more than a fair chance that someone else's experience is different than yours.
Put simply, (but not meant as an insult) you're not thinking about anyone but yourself.
Put simply, (but not meant as an insult) you're not thinking about anyone but yourself.
[deleted]
Yes, I realize that there are all sorts of human experiences that I've never, and will never, have. I'm simply asking if anyone else here has truly been offended by something they read on the internet. Because the concept is completely foreign to me.
And yes, I see the potential for irony- that I'm on my soapbox, much like someone who is offended might be. But I'm not offended by anything that's been said. I'm not against criticism or disagreement or reasoned arguments. I'm just frustrated by the chilling effects that the prevailing cultural climate, which is humorless, politically-correct, and context-free, has had and will continue to have on public discourse.
And yes, I see the potential for irony- that I'm on my soapbox, much like someone who is offended might be. But I'm not offended by anything that's been said. I'm not against criticism or disagreement or reasoned arguments. I'm just frustrated by the chilling effects that the prevailing cultural climate, which is humorless, politically-correct, and context-free, has had and will continue to have on public discourse.
Well, the other problem here is that you can't know for sure how you come off to others; again, they can't know whether your actions reflect ACTUAL offense any more than you can know the motivation for theirs; we can take you at your word, or decide that your actions are what matters and react accordingly.
Going back to the article, we have no way of knowing if Fry was ACTUALLY offended by the response he got on twitter. Perhaps he is as dispassionate as his post alleges. But he's walking a path well-worn by the offended.
If I had a nickel for every person who ranted about some perceived slight, words dripping with the common indications of hurt and ire, while repeatedly assuring readers that they were perfectly calm...
Going back to the article, we have no way of knowing if Fry was ACTUALLY offended by the response he got on twitter. Perhaps he is as dispassionate as his post alleges. But he's walking a path well-worn by the offended.
If I had a nickel for every person who ranted about some perceived slight, words dripping with the common indications of hurt and ire, while repeatedly assuring readers that they were perfectly calm...
I'm with you. I just naturally accept that everyone has their own opinion and it doesn't have to match mine.
Yes, read the HN thread on GitHub.
It's everyone else who is making a big deal out of him leaving Twitter, which (again) kind of proves his original point. Stephen Fry leaves Twitter. Well, so fucking what.