The Right to not be Offended

[LDAHL]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/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?

[Yppej]

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.

[Ultralight]

Jordan Peterson is considered public enemy number one by many SJWs.

[Tammy]

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. 😄

[ApatheticNoMore]

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.

[jp1]

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".

[Williamsmith]

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.

[LDAHL]

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.

[catherine]

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.

[catherine]

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.

[JaneV2.0]

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. ...

That's interesting. I recently heard someone--I think it was Malcolm Nance--praise Maddow and her staff for generating powerful and meticulous investigative work--I think he even mentioned Cronkite. She has done, and continues to do, the most granular study of the issues surrounding the Mueller probe. I don't recall such in-depth analyses of similar issues since I binge-watched coverage of the Watergate hearings. My idea of "not journallism" is on display daily on morning "news" shows.

[oldhat]

That's interesting. I recently heard someone--I think it was Malcolm Nance--praise Maddow and her staff for generating powerful and meticulous investigative work--I think he even mentioned Cronkite. She has done, and continues to do, the most granular study of the issues surrounding the Mueller probe. I don't recall such in-depth analyses of similar issues since I binge-watched coverage of the Watergate hearings. My idea of "not journallism" is on display daily on morning "news" shows.

Maddow is one of the very few talking heads of cable, regardless of political stripe, who sometimes does actual reporting. Cable "news" these days consists mainly of regurgitating the same headlines as everyone else, and then encouraging your base of viewers to work themselves into a self-righteous snit through interviewing "commentators" who mostly tell the left-leaning/right-leaning audience what they want to hear. Maddow does a certain amount of this too (it's what drives ratings), but she has a staff who sometimes get into the weeds and report something that's not being reported everywhere else.

[JaneV2.0]

As far as "microagressions" go, they give me an idea of who someone is, so I'd hate if people went underground and got all Eddie Haskell on me. I say pick your battles, and grow the aforementioned thick skin. Indiscriminate whininess is more annoying than the actions it protests, IMO.

[catherine]

That's interesting. I recently heard someone--I think it was Malcolm Nance--praise Maddow and her staff for generating powerful and meticulous investigative work--I think he even mentioned Cronkite. She has done, and continues to do, the most granular study of the issues surrounding the Mueller probe. I don't recall such in-depth analyses of similar issues since I binge-watched coverage of the Watergate hearings. My idea of "not journallism" is on display daily on morning "news" shows.

I haven't watched her in quite some time, but back then, I really felt that her reporting was very partisan. This may be part of her being "guilty by association" with MSNBC, which I have always viewed to be the liberal yin to FoxNews' conservative yang. My husband and I used to toggle between Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly when they were on at the same time, and I felt that both presented a pretty strong personal agenda, which I object to, even though more often than not I was on Rachel's "team". Maybe she's changed. I'll have to check her out.

[JaneV2.0]

Maddow is one of the very few talking heads of cable, regardless of political stripe, who sometimes does actual reporting. Cable "news" these days consists mainly of regurgitating the same headlines as everyone else, and then encouraging your base of viewers to work themselves into a self-righteous snit through interviewing "commentators" who mostly tell the left-leaning/right-leaning audience what they want to hear. Maddow does a certain amount of this too (it's what drives ratings), but she has a staff who sometimes get into the weeds and report something that's not being reported everywhere else.

And to be fair, it's not just cable news that does that--most of the major news organizations do a lot of regurgitation--it's a 24/7 business, after all. I lament the loss of Al Jazeera, that presented lots of international stories--stuff never see from US-based outlets.

[JaneV2.0]

I haven't watched her in quite some time, but back then, I really felt that her reporting was very partisan. This may be part of her being "guilty by association" with MSNBC, which I have always viewed to be the liberal yin to FoxNews' conservative yang. My husband and I used to toggle between Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly when they were on at the same time, and I felt that both presented a pretty strong personal agenda, which I object to, even though more often than not I was on Rachel's "team". Maybe she's changed. I'll have to check her out.

I'm clearly biased, but Fox has been caught out in lies time and time again (I have trouble taking an organization seriously that uses Breitbart as a source and gives credence to every wacky conspiracy theory they espouse), and I think MSNBC sticks pretty close to the truth, albeit truth with a slant. I know Maddow corrects herself if she misstates something, or gets it wrong.

[LDAHL]

Suddenly, I'm reading about this Peterson guy all over the place. The Atlantic. National Review. The New York Times. The Wall Street Journal.

Based on the one half-hour video I've seen, I can't claim to be an expert on his positions. I'm hearing that he upsets "the outrage culture" and "progressive orthodoxy". David Brooks even compared him to a young William F. Buckley.

I'm going to have to buy his book.

[Ultralight]

Suddenly, I'm reading about this Peterson guy all over the place. The Atlantic. National Review. The New York Times. The Wall Street Journal.

I have known about him for maybe a couple years now. I watched many of his talks on YouTube. There is a lot that he says that I actually agree with.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Pu$h controver$y $ell book$. And if you ask us the name of the game boy, we call it riding the gravy train. But have you anything to say. Maybe, maybe not. The very controversy would TEND TO ARGUE NOT, as people who have genuinely interesting things to say don't tend to need it to sell books. That's a ploy afterall that usually indicates your main interest is marketing. But eh hey we are all brands these days or should be or something. Even the president is a brand.

[ToomuchStuff]

http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?12982

Reminds me of this thread


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

[LDAHL]

I have known about him for maybe a couple years now. I watched many of his talks on YouTube. There is a lot that he says that I actually agree with.

Looking at a few of his videos, he doesn't appear to me to be a provocateur in the Ann Coulter or Milo Whatshisname mold. But I'm reading he seems to have elicited the same fear, loathing and shouting-down on some campuses. I find this interesting.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Looking at a few of his videos, he doesn't appear to me to be a provocateur in the Ann Coulter or Milo Whatshisname mold. But I'm reading he seems to have elicited the same fear, loathing and shouting-down on some campuses. I find this interesting.

yea he does seem of a higher caliber than that (which may not be saying much but ...), I was too hasty about the provocateurs. Still there are many books in the world and it's not on my must read list. Oddly though I had never heard of him before for whatever reason Amazon recommended the "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos" book to me, I looked at it (well the title is really good marketing afterall, the modern world does seem like chaos to deal with) but after I looked at it I wasn't sure it would give me any help there. There is no user manual to modern life, and if there was there would be too few copies :~)