Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: The Right to not be Offended

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,374

    The Right to not be Offended

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...terson/550859/

    I was watching the interview embedded in this article, and heard the interviewer talk about "the right to not be offended". I've heard a lot of things people need or want asserted as "rights", but this one seems especially odd to me. Offense being such a subjective experience, it would seem to be impossible to avoid it no matter how cautious or pandering we try to be. Basic civility, sure. But cringing before every ridiculous little cavil doesn't strike me as desirable or even possible in day-to-day life. Especially since we seem so intent on looking for new reasons to take offense.

    I think there's a great deal of distance between deliberate insult and micro-aggression, cultural appropriation, etc. I think you can be civil toward people or ideas you despise. Gentlemen used to courteously kill each other in duels. There may even be a positive ethical duty to ignore certain styles of weaponized offense-taking lest it warp our discourse into meaninglessness.

    Or am I being too sensitive?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,156
    Sometimes if you take offense you give the offender satisfaction and it's better to not let them know they have gotten under your skin.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Ultralight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    8,703
    Jordan Peterson is considered public enemy number one by many SJWs.
    I came from a real tough neighborhood. I put my hand in some cement and felt another hand." -- Rodney Dangerfield

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    1,808
    Even though I'm not religious anymore, I still like that Bible verse from the Old Testament "Great peace have they that love thy law and nothing shall offend them." I've always thought it was a sneaky way to win - refuse to let anyone get to me. 😄

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,907
    I don't know about right not to be offended.

    Interviewer doesn't seem to have been fair. Interviewees arguments appear not to be fully supported (if women get paid less due to more agreeableness and you want to say this has nothing to do with sexism don't you first have to prove: 1) disagreeableness is perceived the same in women and men so that both women and men asking for raises are as likely to succeed and get the same % and 2) even if this true doesn't it need to address if women are raised to be more agreeable and if so isn't that itself an example of patriarchy?). I mean if hypothetically it was all due to women being raised to be more agreeable that disproves *discrimination* proper but it does not disprove sexism in the society as raising women that way may itself be kind of a sexist construct.
    If you want something to get done, ask a busy person. If you want them to have a nervous breakdown that is.

  6. #6
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,920
    Radiolab, in their More Perfect subseries, recently did an interesting show about the supreme court where some students did a study of supreme court transcripts that found that the female justices were far more likely to be interrupted than the male justices, both by lawyers presenting, and by other justices. (apparently the norm when arguing a case at the supreme court is that the lawyers presenting are supposed to stop talking at any moment that they get interrupted by a justice). The study found that all the female justices have eventually switched to male norms (going from "may I ask a question" to just interrupting and asking the damn question) and that the quickest learner of that has been Justice Sotomayor. And she's been called lots of unpleasant things for being so "aggressive".

  7. #7
    Senior Member Williamsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Penns Woods
    Posts
    3,046
    My environment my entire life has been a pseudo survival of the fittest mindset. Somebody steals your hat on the school bus, you might be offended but you get them back. Everybody gets their turn in the barrel and you take it because you know it will be your turn to dish it out. I was always told to grow thick skin. There was really never anytime to complain about unfair treatment. You just find a way around it. And that’s the way I raised my kids. I was probably pretty ruthless when it came to anyone in the family complaining about injustice. So when I got exposed to social justice types in college and in the workplace.....they thought I was crude, crass, ignorant, ..... I’ve learned their language and I can fake it when need be but I can’t change who I am. Buck up.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,374
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultralight View Post
    Jordan Peterson is considered public enemy number one by many SJWs.

    Really? He sounded pretty reasonable to me. The interviewer kept going after straw men of her own creation, while he kept saying there were multiple causes for various cultural phenomena.

  9. #9
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VT/NJ
    Posts
    8,330
    Wow. I read most of the article (or at least sped-read it) and I watched some of the interview, and all I can say is Wow. She makes Rachel Maddow look like Walter Cronkite. This is what I HATE about TV journalism. There aren't any journalists.

    I'm a liberal, but at first blush I agree with what Jordan Peterson is saying about the need for people grow up and realize their potential. She really turned something that sounds so obvious into an attack in a way that only our Commander-in-Chief can.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  10. #10
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VT/NJ
    Posts
    8,330
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Radiolab, in their More Perfect subseries, recently did an interesting show about the supreme court where some students did a study of supreme court transcripts that found that the female justices were far more likely to be interrupted than the male justices, both by lawyers presenting, and by other justices. (apparently the norm when arguing a case at the supreme court is that the lawyers presenting are supposed to stop talking at any moment that they get interrupted by a justice). The study found that all the female justices have eventually switched to male norms (going from "may I ask a question" to just interrupting and asking the damn question) and that the quickest learner of that has been Justice Sotomayor. And she's been called lots of unpleasant things for being so "aggressive".
    The Atlantic article confirms that Peterson said something similar about how female behavior had a tendency to hurt them. He said that women are more agreeable than men (in general), but people who are disagreeable make more money than agreeable people. That partially accounts for the pay gap. But to your point, jp1, people tolerate men being "disagreeable" when it comes to getting what they want, but it's intolerable in women. I think a woman's goal should be to increase the number of times she gets called a b*tch. If i could increase my b*tchiness quotient 10% a year, I'd probably be more successful and wealthier. And I bet my family would still like me.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •