"Emotional reasoning dominates many campus debates and discussions. A claim that someone’s words are “offensive” is not just an expression of one’s own subjective feeling of offendedness. It is, rather, a public charge that the speaker has done something objectively wrong. It is a demand that the speaker apologize or be punished by some authority for committing an offense."
"The thin argument “I’m offended” becomes an unbeatable trump card. This leads to what Jonathan Rauch, a contributing editor at this magazine, calls the “offendedness sweepstakes,” in which opposing parties use claims of offense as cudgels. In the process, the bar for what we consider unacceptable speech is lowered further and further."
"...All of these actions teach a common lesson: smart people do, in fact, overreact to innocuous speech, make mountains out of molehills, and seek punishment for anyone whose words make anyone else feel uncomfortable."
Originally shared by Simon Urquhart (welshkid)
Fascinating article. Originally shared by Prof. Brian Cox
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
This passage is also particulary telling here: " The press has typically described these developments as a resurgence of political correctness. That’s partly right, although there are important differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the 1980s and ’90s. That movement sought to restrict speech (specifically hate speech aimed at marginalized groups), but it also challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. The current movement is largely about emotional well-being. More than the last, it presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche, and therefore elevates the goal of protecting students from psychological harm. "
ReplyDeleteExactly. Plenty of people profess to value tolerance and freedom unless someone actually disagrees with them.
ReplyDeleteI'm very much with Stephen Fry on this whole question of being offended.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqPcjm-X5GQ
It's fortunate I don't have a job to lose...
Chris Blackmore I tend to agree. As I wrote a while back :
ReplyDelete"This is a very important message. Racists and homophobes are sincerely offended by all kinds of ridiculous things - and more importantly, a century ago it was normal to be a racist homophobe. Without people standing up and saying, "well so fucking what ?" we would have had considerably less social progress in the last century. And yet, just because you're offended doesn't mean you're wrong either. It is indeed no more than a whine : without an explanation as to why you're offended, it's a meaningless statement of your own emotions, totally uncorrelated with whether the subject of your objections is truly right or wrong."
Rhys Taylor Nailed it.
ReplyDeleteTrigger warnings are not about protection from offense. They're not about not discussing something. They're about giving advance notice that what will be talked about may trigger traumatic memories for some members of the audience.
ReplyDeleteThey're Trigger Warnings, not Offense Silencings.
Their purpose is to let the audience know what's coming so that they can prepare to discuss potentially traumatic events, or to leave the discussion if they can't handle being triggered.
Anyone suggesting that victims and sufferers of mental health issues like PTSD are just being oversensitive need to develop some empathy and understanding, and anyone claiming that their general disclaimers about potentially offending content are "trigger warnings" are outright abusing the concept.
Christopher Cooke So I think that one of the real problems IMHO is one of "lines of demarcation". What I mean by that is, at what point is a behavior considered a form of PTSD and therefore justifiable and at what other it is just a form of "over-sensitivity"? Also shouldn't PTSD have a clear diagnostic definition so that not everyone can just come out and claim PTSD?
ReplyDeleteIn another related example, most of us are aware of controversy and argument surrounding over prescription of Ritalin and other ADD in children, and the claim that many kids are just "being kids" but are been given medication as that is easier to "calm them down" from disruption by diagnosing them with ADD. So, are all diagnosed with ADD really affected or not?
I am reminded of the trailer for Happy Feet which featured the, err, warning, "Contains scenes of mild peril".
ReplyDeleteYeah, at that point you've gone too far.