Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Everyone’s offended these days

eev.ee

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: Everyone’s offended these days

#91

Post by hyperpape »

_xhok wrote: post #83
hyperpape wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

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.

Re: Everyone’s offended these days

#92

Post by tremon »

capitalsigma wrote: post #81
tomp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> but rather that the discussion/communication 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.

Re: Everyone’s offended these days

#93

Post by dawnbreez »

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].

Re: Everyone’s offended these days

#94

Post by tremon »

hyperpape wrote: post #56
_xhok wrote: post #14

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,…

"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?

Really. Hurting someone's feelings (oh noes, he used directed cursewords!) is not the same as invalidating feelings.

Re: Everyone’s offended these days

#95

Post by mjblack »

hyperpape wrote: post #91
_xhok wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Everyone’s offended these days

#96

Post by vectorjohn »

jackcosgrove wrote: post #71
cconroy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Everyone’s offended these days

#97

Post by michaelbuddy »

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.

Re: Everyone’s offended these days

#98

Post by hyperpape »

mjblack wrote: post #95
hyperpape wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

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."

Re: Everyone’s offended these days

#99

Post by hyperpape »

tremon wrote: post #94
hyperpape wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

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).

Re: Everyone’s offended these days

#100

Post by hartpuff »

krig wrote: post #89
hartpuff wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

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?
Post reply on HN