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.
-
Show this thread
-
There are times to give offense, of course -- when it serves a higher good. But, in general, offensive speech should be framed as an "unfortunate, but ineliminable" side-effect of protecting free speech in general, not as somehow good in-and-of itself.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Evolving_Ego
A better strategy IMHO: if you think that speech is offensive and you cannot just ignore it because it happens in a context that warrants engagement, point out to the speaker why you think the speech is offensive, and how that makes it difficult for you to engage with its content
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
Yes. That's coming at it from the other side. I agree. It takes two to have reasonable dialectic/dialogue. And I'm not using "offensive" as a synonym for "someone can take offense".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Evolving_Ego
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.)
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Yes. High offense sensitivity makes one fragile and vulnerable to manipulation.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.