crashfrog writes:
You're right. But the response to that isn't to throw up our hands and refuse to criticize people who insult others, because we can't read their minds and know that they're not Martians, or something, who just don't understand our human insult technology.
The problem is some people get offended way to easily. In fact, I'd say most people get offended way to easily. Someone mentioning his favourite football team should be critisized? I know you personally mentioned you don't believe Jesus existed as portrayed in the bible. Should you be critisized for that, seeing as you insult some Christians by saying that?
Some people need to hit the guardrails to know where they are. That's fine, but they shouldn't act like that and then expect people not to let them know where the guardrails are.
Of course. A reasonable way to go about things.
And they shouldn't expect people not to criticize them for not yet having matured into the adult technique of knowing where the guardrails are before you hit them.
Bullshit. Some guardrails are far to easy to hit, and hitting them deserves no criticism whatsoever.
All things considered, we as a society prefer that people live according to the latter technique instead of the former, and people who haven't yet caught up to that should expect to suffer criticism for it - even criticism they may find unfair. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Yes, it is. Me not knowing that someone gets offended by me mentioning my favourite football team is absolutely a good defense for not critisizing me for offering that oppinion.
That's true. But Rebecca Watson didn't act like "some grave injustice was committed". In fact, she did exactly what you suggested - she mentioned to the guy, and to others, that his proposition caused offense.
Great. She did however make a youtube video because of the incident. I could be malicious right now and claim that ths offends me, and we should critisize her for offending me, but I won't do that, since a) that's not true and b) I am not malicious.
Did he apologize and move on? I don't know.
Presumably, there are only two people who know. Miss Watson and The Dude.
But in response to Watson, a great deal of entitled men suddenly acted like some grave injustice was committed merely by Watson pointing out that offense was caused, an injustice that they tried to rectify by "punishing" her with threats of sexualized violence.
Perhaps they were offended by Watson. Should we not critisize her for offending them? Of course, if they were, acting like dicks just offends more people (like you), furthermore, this (the mens reaction) was intended offense, and therefore, I think this
should be critisized. However, what I don't think should be critisized, is a) The Dude's actions or b) Miss Watson's actions. They were both unintentional offenses. I do think it's okay to tell Miss Watson that the guy's actions probably weren't intentionally offensive, and that perhaps making a youtube video about it wasn't the best thing to do. After which she would say "hmm yes, perhaps you are right, it was not my intetion to offend", and the whole case could be dropped and we could all get along with our lives doing usefull stuff. Just like she should have said to the guy (which, apparently, she did) "No, sorry not interested, and please stop you're maing me feel unconfortable". After which he would've said: "Sorry miss, didn't mean to cause offfense, I think I'll get off on the next floor, and let you continue your elevator ride in peace". and all would be well. Of course, I am an idealistic dreamer, who thinks people are far to emotional, and this sometimes stands in the way of proper conduct, but wouldn't it be nice if we coudl all act that way?
That's the actual controversy we're talking about. Not that Watson took offense to an elevator proposition, but that her simple statement that she had taken offense instigated a torrent of sexist filth, including by a number of very public figures in movement atheism that should have known better.
Well no, I was talking about your statement that people should be critisized for their actions, apparently regardless of what their actions were. The only factor that seems important in this is the offense felt by the receiving party. I disagreed with this, and that's why I gave my response.
The fact that some uncivilized dickheads intentionally insulted Miss Watson for what was perhaps not the smartest thing to do, is of course worthy of plenty of critisism. However people should all stop acting like they're special little snowflakes. They're not. No one is.
If Miss Watson wanted to raise an issue with this, she probably should've made it more of a hypothetical. Perhaps a lot of "backlash" was caused because people, tribal as they are, saw her video as an attack on one member of a specific group. And we all know what kind of shitstorm can ensue when that happens.
™ Version 4.2
(1)