Offensive speech should be protected, but, if you speak only to offend, you're still an asshole. Classical Liberals are making a strategic error defending offensive speech in particular so often, instead of free speech in general.
The problem is that "offensive" is an entirely observer dependent notion. If you are a competent preschool teacher, nothing your kids say can offend you. Likewise, if you are a fully competent adult, nothing some kid on youtube says can offend you.
-
-
There is an empirical fact of "being likely to offend reasonable people." (for some conception of "reasonable" that I'll leave unspecified for now). And I'm not saying that we shouldn't offend, but merely that a non-asshole will justify offense in such circumstances.
-
And, again, I'm for defending free speech for assholes. But it's a strategic error to always be seen defending assholes. It's bad framing.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Of course there are cases when the speech is clearly used with the intention to offend, which is an objectionable strategy that works when the other side is not able to deal with their feelings of offense. (This is how Trump is getting re-elected btw.)
-
Yes. High offense sensitivity makes one fragile and vulnerable to manipulation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.