• Lightor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s not privileged at all lol, you’re just wrong.

    Someone can put their elbows on the table while eating and offend someone. That person is hurting no one. The fact that it offends someone doesn’t make it damaging. Stop acting like being offended in and of itself means anything. Either that or explain to me the real harm of it. Or any other stupid little thing that can offend someone, like taking the lords name in vain or wearing white after labor day to a party. These are BS nonsensical things that people get offended by and you’re trying to act like they cause real harm. Get out of here with that pure nonsense.

    Who chooses to feel offended? No one, but you chose your world view and that dictates if you will be offended.

    Bottom line, you said “the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging”. Explain to me how putting your elbows on the table while eating is damaging. Who is it harming?

    • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nobody has the right to not be offended.

      If we gave people that right, everything in civilization would grind to a halt.

      Choosing whether or not to offend a small number of people for the sake of expressing something is an individual decision.

    • irmoz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not harming anyone, and that person is just being an asshole. They are linked, yes, but not always directly correlated. Some people just be crazy.

      This whole time I’ve been talking about bigotry, and I’ve been consistent on that. These little kooky “Don’t put your elbows on the table” level stuff in my own opinion is not a genuine form of offence, it’s an enforcement of conformity and tradition. “Offending” tradition is its own can of worms. If you ask me, before we consider if offending a tradition is something actually bigoted and offensive, we must first consider if that tradition might actually be batshit insane.

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re inextricably linked but not correlated, that makes no sense.

        You said being offended causes harm, I said it doesn’t, there were no classifiers. Someone being offended by something stupid doesn’t make them any less offended, they still are. I would argue a lot of people who are offended are because they see some form of tradition or cultural norm they value being upset. Whether that norm is them wanting to be racist or wanting you to eat a certain way.

        My point is, people can get offended by literally anything, and I’d say 9/10 times it’s not damaging and they’re just being professional victims. Yes there are racists and horrible people, and the things they do are damaging. That’s why I care, because it’s damaging, not because it offends someone.

        • irmoz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t think you realise you’re agreeing with me, lol

          Yes, harm and offence are linked, butthat doesn’t mean every offence was caused by harm. It just means every offence perceived some harm. But that harm may just be some kooky belief of theirs

          I didn’t say offence causes harm. I said harm causes offence.

          And “professional victim” tells me you’re just not taking this issue seriously.

          • Lightor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think I am.

            They aren’t separate issues at all; the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging.

            Saying being offended and being damaging are inextricably linked means they are, well inextricably linked. Meaning it is impossible to seperate the two. Meaning one always comes with the other, always. This means, by your very own logic, that every instance of being offended is linked to harm and every instance of harm is linked to being offended. That is your logic, using your argument.

            I’m not taking it seriously? You said being offended and damage are inextricably linked, but don’t always correlate, and doesn’t mean one always implies the other. You’re either back peddling hard or you didn’t know what the term “inextricably linked” meant when you said it.

            Also if you think the concept of a professional victim is outlandish or some such you need to watch more Karen videos online, those people %100 exist. And me acknowledging that doesn’t make me any less serious, if anything it makes me less naive.

            • irmoz@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, the fact of them being linked means the offence is always to do with some perceived harm. But we must take it on a case by case basis, like I’ve said before, and determine whether harm has truly been done, or if they’re just nuts. Like the Karens you mentioned.

              • Lightor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Wait so now we’re at “perceived harm”, you didn’t say that at all. You did linked to harm, full stop. Those are two very diffent things.

                I originally said that being offended and harm are not connected, they are two separate things. You said I was privileged and wrong. Now you seem to slowly be back peddling to agree with me…

                • irmoz@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If I’d known you’d be this pedantic, I’d have said from the start, I just thought it goes without saying - all harm has to be perceived to be known at all, doesn’t it? And can our senses not deceive us, either simply through illusion or misperception, or more deeply through our intellectual biases?

                  • Lightor@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    It’s not pedantic lol. You said all offenses cause damage. You said they are inextricably linked. That’s not just a common term thrown out there in day to day convos, it has a clear and purposeful meaning. I said the two can exist seperately, you said they couldn’t, and now you’re saying they can. You’ve contradicted yourself.

                    Harm is measurable, you said being offended means its damaging. Those are your words yet you’ve still not told me how eating with your elbows on the table causes damage to anyone. It can offend, so where is the damage?