Is Being Offended by Something Grounds to Claim Being Harmed by it?

[Laika]

I would like to argue with that, but I can't really.

Though I contend that it is their (the public's) fault. At least partially. People are too lazy, too easily swayed by emotions. You can find the truth if you really want to. Or at least a different perspective with more information than the previous source.

The problem is that other people's ignorance and our own has consequences. Those consequences almost always affect more than the person who made the decision in the first place. Nor are people inherently lazy or easily swayed by there emotions; its something that is learned.

But who decides what is an "educated opinion" and what isn't? In the hard sciences that would be a no brainer. Like the STEM fields are usually more logical than emotional. (In terms of their spokespeople.)
But ideologues have seemed to infiltrate some of the soft sciences and academia. Or are currently trying to at least, The, you know Gender Studies courses (or as I like to call them, the evil patriarchy conspiracy 101) and their ilk.

Very true. There isn't a clear distinction between ideology and science even in the hard sciences though, if you argue that because science is man-made it has human limitations. So science isn't wholly "objective" and nor is the knowledge absolute as it is subject to changes over time. our very ideas about nature reflect philosophical and ideological biases and whilst creationists don't have any traditional evidence on their side, they can legitimately make a case that science favours naturalistic explanations over theological ones (because you can actually prove something has a natural cause, whereas "god did it" is a one off so doesn't work in a laboratory setting).

I mean there seems to be a small but loud bias in some areas of academia. Not that I don't trust the "soft sciences" anymore, but I'm talking about the safe spaces crowd. If that makes sense?
Like even Rational Wiki is not trustworthy anymore! Based Mum has an article there calling her "not a true feminist" or something along those lines. For daring to speak out against 3rd Wavers.
And then you have popular culture. Who decides what pop culture critic is worth more than another? And isn't that decision in itself an attempt to control the narrative? Just one you happen to favor? I mean I wouldn't silence the likes of Anita Sarkeesian, though I personally find her critiques nothing but whining and without artistic merit. But people can follow her if they want to.
The same can be said of many of her adversaries, though. Because they critique video games like it's just a random innocuous past time instead of critiquing it like art. Which imo they probably should focus more on when they call out her arguments.
It's like with this GamerGate thingy (I can't believe that's still a thing. Like wtf?) The mass media, worldwide no less, banded together to paint the entire movement and even gamers as a whole as misogynist, racist, transphobic and/or homophobic. Despite many gamers actually being gay, mixed or different races, female and/or transgender. And it was for the crime of many of them just rejecting the identity politics movement as well, a bunch of horse****. Next thing you know, obvious troll messages are being paraded by the news as proof of GamerGate harassment of the likes of the Zoe Quinn/Bianna Wu types (aka professional victims.) True both sides have pretty **** people and like I knew gaming journalism was a cesspool of corruption and before it wasn't that big of a hurdle. Just go to gamer's opinion sites to get legitimate reviews, instead of the media. But I have never before witnessed such a willingness by the media to throw it's consumer base under the freaking bus like that. And for what? To keep their corruption going a while longer? To appease these SJW types who don't seem to make up a large portion of their customer market anyway? Like it baffles me still. It seems to me like a pretty stupid marketing decision. But whatever. If you want the real story you basically now have to wade through YouTube or worse Twitter. So I guess I can see why dependency on news would be the more appealing option in some cases.

I only know about Gamergate through the news (I'm not much of a gamer and I keep off social media), but I think you're right to say the only way you can know what exactly was going on is wading through Youtube or Twitter. We rely on the media to tell us things that we may not have experienced ourselves- that's as true as it is from what's going on in Syria as for Twitter.

Then again, maybe I put too much faith in people's ability to question or be skeptical. Like for instance I remember a friend on Facebook sharing a link where coke and milk were mixed together and it created, well the standard curdling process obviously. She commented something like "ew this is what coke does to your innards" to which I responded sarcastically saying something like "it creates cheese? 0_o"
Then when she was a little upset that I didn't denounce the evil of coke, I responded with something like "the chemical reaction of coke and milk would not be the same reaction as coke mixing with stomach acid. You can't equate the two." And then she seemed impressed with my "education." To which I responded, "umm, I learnt that from watching the Magic School Bus when I was like 7."
Or another who linked this "this is what the health department doesn't tell you" type of sites, with eating advice. To which a quick Google search revealed the guy behind it was a long discredited hack.
I like my friends, they're good peeps. But sometimes I find their deductive skills and willingness to just believe any random internet link a little disconcerting.

I guess this is not really to argue against your points, just random rambling.

lol, Magic School Bus. I can't believe I've forgotten about that honestly. Again the problem isn't when one person does it. it's when loads of people turn round and agree and that's how decisions get made. We have to find a to be free educate people at the same time.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I changed my vote to the one about cats because nobody had voted for it, which was a shame.

 

[SomeRandom]

The problem is that other people's ignorance and our own has consequences. Those consequences almost always affect more than the person who made the decision in the first place. Nor are people inherently lazy or easily swayed by there emotions; its something that is learned.

I think people are easily swayed by emotions. Because we are emotional beings. Unless you have some form of Autism, or are in a STEM field, it can be difficult to be purely logical all the time or even some of the time. Isn't that why many logical fallacies rely on emotional manipulation?

Very true. There isn't a clear distinction between ideology and science even in the hard sciences though, if you argue that because science is man-made it has human limitations. So science isn't wholly "objective" and nor is the knowledge absolute as it is subject to changes over time. our very ideas about nature reflect philosophical and ideological biases and whilst creationists don't have any traditional evidence on their side, they can legitimately make a case that science favours naturalistic explanations over theological ones (because you can actually prove something has a natural cause, whereas "god did it" is a one off so doesn't work in a laboratory setting).

Hmm. So then what criteria is there for something to be a better more important opinion than another? What makes one opinion worthy of being heard and not another? And can that be achieved with all subjects or just the sciences?

I only know about Gamergate through the news (I'm not much of a gamer and I keep off social media), but I think you're right to say the only way you can know what exactly was going on is wading through Youtube or Twitter. We rely on the media to tell us things that we may not have experienced ourselves- that's as true as it is from what's going on in Syria as for Twitter.

Exactly. But the information you can get from Social Media does not come from experts in many cases. It comes from people who have personally witnessed (with evidence) a particular spat on the Internet and can therefore inform people just where the News is being sneaky or when they are lying. Even YouTube feuds are starting to get Media attention and often without any journalistic integrity whatsoever.
So this information that you can get is not because of education, it's because of free speech and people's ability to communicate on the Internet. Isn't that one way where free speech should be fought for? I mean without it wouldn't it be like China or N Korea? Where information is so tightly controlled people couldn't even pick holes in the stories they are presented with?

lol, Magic School Bus. I can't believe I've forgotten about that honestly. Again the problem isn't when one person does it. it's when loads of people turn round and agree and that's how decisions get made. We have to find a to be free educate people at the same time.

Great show lol. But how do you accomplish this?

 

[Laika]

I think people are easily swayed by emotions. Because we are emotional beings. Unless you have some form of Autism, or are in a STEM field, it can be difficult to be purely logical all the time or even some of the time. Isn't that why many logical fallacies rely on emotional manipulation?

Ironically, we may not have as much emotional freedom as we think. Being "emotional" is not necessarily the same as being irrational, nor are reason and emotions mutually opposed to one another. There is sort of a cultural assumption that being emotional is a bad thing because we mistake repressing our emotions for controlling them.

Hmm. So then what criteria is there for something to be a better more important opinion than another? What makes one opinion worthy of being heard and not another? And can that be achieved with all subjects or just the sciences?

It would almost certainly be confined to the sciences. The problem is how you demonstrate that someone has expertise in a subject area and can therefore be an authority on a particular topic.

Exactly. But the information you can get from Social Media does not come from experts in many cases. It comes from people who have personally witnessed (with evidence) a particular spat on the Internet and can therefore inform people just where the News is being sneaky or when they are lying. Even YouTube feuds are starting to get Media attention and often without any journalistic integrity whatsoever.
So this information that you can get is not because of education, it's because of free speech and people's ability to communicate on the Internet. Isn't that one way where free speech should be fought for? I mean without it wouldn't it be like China or N Korea? Where information is so tightly controlled people couldn't even pick holes in the stories they are presented with?

I think in the US, they repealed law on political objectivity and a requirement to tell the truth. This is how Fox News can do what it does. it's a more extreme example, but there are problems with factual inaccuracy in most news agencies in the US I think (according to a survey I read somewhere). Again, in the US corporations are considered legal entities with human rights and can therefore defend their right to false advertising to consumers as "free speech". So not every restriction of personal freedom necessarily results in a totalitarian state.

Great show lol. But how do you accomplish this?

No idea. Without trying to consciously control people's thought process with all the means of mass media at our disposal (not a good idea), just trying to spend more money and improve education is probably the best thing we can do. Maybe teach Evolution in schools rather than the "Controversy" but you could well argue that is a restriction of free speech. its as if all the disputes that were settled in the early and mid 20th century have to be fought out again as "freedom" unravels our intellectual certainties.

 

[SomeRandom]

Ironically, we may not have as much emotional freedom as we think. Being "emotional" is not necessarily the same as being irrational, nor are reason and emotions mutually opposed to one another. There is sort of a cultural assumption that being emotional is a bad thing because we mistake repressing our emotions for controlling them.

So you think this is a nurture thing not a nature one? Why not a mix of both? I mean society expects a certain emotional reaction of parents, for example. We don't always repress our emotions, nor is it always see as something good to do. Except maybe in a debate setting, but that's a controlled environment, not real life.
And emotional knee jerk reactions are seen as irrational for a reason, right?

Maybe there is justification for this thinking, at least in some cases.

It would almost certainly be confined to the sciences. The problem is how you demonstrate that someone has expertise in a subject area and can therefore be an authority on a particular topic.

Years of experience and respect maybe? But then again highly respected scientists call fall off the tracks, so to speak. By all accounts I have heard Dr Paul Cameron used to be very well regarded before he started on his anti gay crusade.

I think in the US, they repealed law on political objectivity and a requirement to tell the truth. This is how Fox News can do what it does. it's a more extreme example, but there are problems with factual inaccuracy in most news agencies in the US I think (according to a survey I read somewhere). Again, in the US corporations are considered legal entities with human rights and can therefore defend their right to false advertising to consumers as "free speech". So not every restriction of personal freedom necessarily results in a totalitarian state.

Well that's a bit messed up.

No idea. Without trying to consciously control people's thought process with all the means of mass media at our disposal (not a good idea), just trying to spend more money and improve education is probably the best thing we can do. Maybe teach Evolution in schools rather than the "Controversy" but you could well argue that is a restriction of free speech. its as if all the disputes that were settled in the early and mid 20th century have to be fought out again as "freedom" unravels our intellectual certainties.

Controversy? You've lost me a little. You don't teach Evolution in schools, even implicitly?

 

[Laika]

Controversy? You've lost me a little. You don't teach Evolution in schools, even implicitly?

I was under the impression that teaching intelligent design along side evolution (teaching the "controversy") was considered a state matter in the US (and therefore legal/possibly even common). Rather I'd prefer it if Intelligent Design was just banned from Schools, or at least from Science Classrooms so that only Evolution is taught. It would make sense to debate it in Religious Studies or philosophy, but not Science.

 

[SomeRandom]

I was under the impression that teaching intelligent design along side evolution (teaching the "controversy") was considered a state matter in the US (and therefore legal/possibly even common). Rather I'd prefer it if Intelligent Design was just banned from Schools, or at least from Science Classrooms so that only Evolution is taught. It would make sense to debate it in Religious Studies or philosophy, but not Science.

Oh well I'm from Australia, so I can't comment one way or the other on that.

 

[Laika]

Oh well I'm from Australia, so I can't comment one way or the other on that.

lol. I'm from the UK. I tend to assume it mainly Americans on RF so I thought you might know.

 

[Sunstone]

I was under the impression that teaching intelligent design along side evolution (teaching the "controversy") was considered a state matter in the US (and therefore legal/possibly even common). Rather I'd prefer it if Intelligent Design was just banned from Schools, or at least from Science Classrooms so that only Evolution is taught. It would make sense to debate it in Religious Studies or philosophy, but not Science.

Teaching intelligent design in the public schools has never been successfully defended in court here in America. Rather, it has consistently been found to be a violation of the separation of church and state. There are plenty of high school teachers, however, who either don't teach evolution, or who teach ID instead of evolution. Taking them all to court would be prohibitively expensive.

 

[Draka]

I don't think the purpose or motivation of bullying is to offend, but rather to exert power or intimidation. The primary reaction of the bullied is fear or submission, not offense.

This ^

I just don't think of bullying when I think of "taking offense". Offense is something you tend to take at being confronted with something which goes against your principles and beliefs. Verbally abusing someone, "bullying", is an attack. It is to generate a response from a specific person, often times to provoke an emotional or physical response. It, like any other abuse, is about control and power, and often has more to do with the esteem of the abuser than one knows.

Being offended over something is simply not the same thing. One may be offended that same sex marriage is the law in a place but...their offense does not bring them harm. Same sex marriage does not bring them harm nor does their perception of others getting married actually bring them harm. One may be offended that Christian Creationism isn't taught in schools, but their offense does not harm them. One may be offended at the fact that so many people in the US seem to think that refugees are all terrorists yet ignore that most of our terroristic crimes in this country are perpetrated by white men, however the offense does not hurt. The stupidity of it may drive you batty, but you are not hurt.

Offense is something you take. A reaction to your beliefs and principles being challenged. An affront to your personal stances. This does not harm you. It annoys you if you choose to let it. It may cause some cognitive dissonance if you choose to dwell on it, but it doesn't actually ever truly harm you.

 

[SomeRandom]

lol. I'm from the UK. I tend to assume it mainly Americans on RF so I thought you might know.

Lol that's what I do too!!