intolerable tolerance

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The author also seems to be calling out certain liberals-in-name-only who deplore people taking offence in the first place - 'How DARE you take offence at my justified remark?' yadda yadda.

Well, quite.

The problem is that the "taking offence" strategy is too often used when people have no better response to criticism.

Peace

 

[Muezzin]

Greetings,


Well, quite.

The problem is that the "taking offence" strategy is too often used when people have no better response to criticism.

Peace

I suppose. It does depend on the criticism in question, and the intent of the critic. If they're solely out to offend, just to stir the pot, I try not to give them the light of day. If they're serious (though a bit hamfisted) I do my best to debate... which I suck at, but whatever.

If I'm trying to have a serious discussion with someone who is just stuck on the 'taking offence' strategy, I tend not to whine at them about it and instead try and find someone else who is willing to discuss things.

If they're the only person, I still don't tend to whine about them taking offence. That's their right. I tend to try and reason with them, in as non-confrontational way as possible, so that they will join the discussion.

But that's (probably an idealised version of) me.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I don't propose to whine at people simply because they take offence - as you say, that's their right. It's only when offence is used as a way of closing down discussion that I object.

Why should religious views be protected from examination and criticism in this way?

Peace

 

[Muezzin]

Greetings,

I don't propose to whine at people simply because they take offence - as you say, that's their right. It's only when offence is used as a way of closing down discussion that I object.

Of course. I agree that 'I'm offended, therefore there is absolutely no merit in this discussion at all, even if someone else could and has found merit in it' is a silly position.

I just get miffed at the people who get offended at other people who are offended at the offensive things the first group of people said. If that makes sense.

Basically, I'm tired of people justifying their abuse of other people with freedom of speech. There's a difference between valid criticism and derogatory abuse. I know sometimes the distinction is murky, but come on, I can't be the only one tired of nutjobs insulting people under the pretence of free speech, then clambering onto their high horse when the subject of that abuse dares to answer back or demand an apology.

Why should religious views be protected from examination and criticism in this way?

Oh, they should not be protected from examination and criticism. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting people choose their words and their battles.

Person A: 'I hate all purple people. They all stink and I take pleasure in their pain.'

Person B: 'Purple people have some problems. They don't really wash much. I wish they did, because if they did, there would be less conflict.'

Person A is a bigot or just juvenile. Ignore him. However, Person B has provided the basis of a civil conversation, even if his views may be offensive to some.

I've oversimplified it, but I hope that's made my position a little clearer.