A quick question.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If people are going to explain their offence taking anyway, then what difference does it make whether they say they are offended or they simply disagree? The difference is that many people see the declaration of offence in and of itself as all that is needed to counter a statement.

I've completely acknowledged that point a good few times. I get your disagreement and have done from the start. But once again, you cannot use the case of MANY people misusing offence as a defence to say offence is redundant in ALL cases. The rest of what you say once again focuses on why offence is redundant if you're looking at it purely from a debating perspective.

I've already stated why and when genuine offence is relevant in points 1) and 2) in my last post, and if somebody makes a genuinely offensive comment which crosses a line of decency, even after you prove that they are wrong, certain types of behaviour cannot be excused. For that reason - the definition and existence of offence is not redundant.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

I've completely acknowledged that point a good few times. I get your disagreement and have done from the start. But once again, you cannot use the case of MANY people misusing offence as a defence to say offence is redundant in ALL cases. The rest of what you say once again focuses on why offence is redundant if you're looking at it purely from a debating perspective.

I've already stated why and when genuine offence is relevant in points 1) and 2) in my last post, and if somebody makes a genuinely offensive comment which crosses a line of decency, even after you prove that they are wrong, certain types of behaviour cannot be excused. For that reason - the definition and existence of offence is not redundant.

As I demonstrated in my last post, you can use the case of many misusing offense as a defense to say offense is redundant, as my alternative to claiming offense (saying that you disagree and explaining why) cannot be misused. It avoids that problem 100% of the time.
If you arent looking at offense from a debating perspective then it is doubly redundant as you are just looking at offense that someone doesn't want to justify or debate.

And lastly, its not the definition and existence of offense that I am saying is redundant, its the application. Its not a bad thing that people get offended at certain things, it is a reactionary position and if people automatically reacted that way to the right "wrongs" that were put them, then we could only commend them. People should get offended at things like racism and sexism and other abuses. But we have the issue of people wanting their sensibilities protected from all criticisms and we need to deal with that.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

People should get offended at things like racism and sexism and other abuses. But we have the issue of people wanting their sensibilities protected from all criticisms and we need to deal with that.

Can't agree more. So how about we let people get offended at things they should, and deal with people who misuse offense when they shouldn't.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Can't agree more. So how about we let people get offended at things they should, and deal with people who misuse offense when they shouldn't.

I have never said otherwise.

confusedquark

Letting somebody be offended means not dismissing their rightful expression of being offended as redundant.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Letting somebody be offended means not dismissing their rightful expression of being offended as redundant.

No it doesn't. You can get as offended as you want, but it is redundant to present that offence to me if I am going to treat it as a disagreement awaiting justification anyway (like how I described in this post).
Its not redundant to get offended, its redundant to bring it up.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No it doesn't. You can get as offended as you want, but it is redundant to present that offence to me if I am going to treat it as a disagreement awaiting justification anyway (like how I described in this post).
Its not redundant to get offended, its redundant to bring it up.

It's not redundant in EVERY situation. Certain behaviours are unacceptable, and telling somebody they're out of line (by telling them they are being offensive) is not redundant. It's ok to be wrong about something, it's not ok to be offensive.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

It's not redundant in EVERY situation. Certain behaviours are unacceptable, and telling somebody they're out of line (by telling them they are being offensive) is not redundant. It's ok to be wrong about something, it's not ok to be offensive.

But even in those situations, you have to justify your offence and explain why that warrants them stopping. If you disagreed without being offended, then you would have to justify your disagreement and explain why that warrants them stopping - ie the exact same thing as if you were offended, if you are justified in both cases, then you are likely to even use the same arguments.

If being (justifiably) offended means you disagree with something and are offended by it, then the outcome is the same as if you just disagreed with it. This makes offence (or at least pointing out that you are offended) redundant, as it doesn't change what you are going to have to do in the discussion. This way we can avoid humouring people who unjustifiably offended, those who don't disagree with something being true, but do disagree with it being said, because they don't like it being true.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If being (justifiably) offended means you disagree with something and are offended by it, then the outcome is the same as if you just disagreed with it.

The outcome isn't always the same. If somebody says something I disagree with, but am not offended by, there's no problem discussing the issue further. However, if somebody says something genuinely offensive (and not every instance of offence needs justifying, some are barn door obvious), then they should be rightfully warned/banned regarding their behaviour, and there sometimes isn't a need or any point in further discussion. The outcome is not the same. Therefore defining, highlighting and dealing with offence is not redundant.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

The outcome isn't always the same. If somebody says something I disagree with, but am not offended by, there's no problem discussing the issue further. However, if somebody says something genuinely offensive (and not every instance of offence needs justifying, some are barn door obvious), then they should be rightfully warned/banned regarding their behaviour, and there sometimes isn't a need or any point in further discussion. The outcome is not the same. Therefore defining, highlighting and dealing with offence is not redundant.

A "barn door obvious" case of offence doesn't need justifying because it has been justified before. Ideally, that's what makes it "barn door obvious". The problem, though, is that sometimes "barn door obvious" is not so obvious at all, even if it is wholly justified.

Ideally, yes, offence should be a convenient short-hand for the reaction of being presented with something that is "barn door obvious"ly wrong and has been previously debunked. But its not. Its so, so easy to abuse, because it is so subjective.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A "barn door obvious" case of offence doesn't need justifying because it has been justified before. Ideally, that's what makes it "barn door obvious". The problem, though, is that sometimes "barn door obvious" is not so obvious at all, even if it is wholly justified.

Ideally, yes, offence should be a convenient short-hand for the reaction of being presented with something that is "barn door obvious"ly wrong and has been previously debunked. But its not. Its so, so easy to abuse, because it is so subjective.

You've already acknowledged that we should be offended by certain comments. The issue was whether expressing offence (barn door obvious or not) has any effect on the outcome. It does effect the outcome in some instances, as described above, and therefore is not redundant in ALL cases.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

You've already acknowledged that we should be offended by certain comments. The issue was whether expressing offence (barn door obvious or not) has any effect on the outcome. It does effect the outcome in some instances, as described above, and therefore is not redundant in ALL cases.

But the problem is that expressing offence may effect the outcome in situations where the offence is not entirely justified.
If a claim of offence can only be justified in the same way as a claim of disagreement (you explain why the person has not substantiated their statement or act and conclude that they should withdraw it or stop), then why not treat them all like disagreements, if only to avoid the cases of abuse? How else would you stop the abuse, if not by requiring any claim of offence to be justified anyway?

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But the problem is that expressing offence may effect the outcome in situations where the offence is not entirely justified.

If a claim of offence can only be justified in the same way as a claim of disagreement (you explain why the person has not substantiated their statement or act and conclude that they should withdraw it or stop), then why not treat them all like disagreements, if only to avoid the cases of abuse? How else would you stop the abuse, if not by requiring any claim of offence to be justified anyway?

From that I'll gather you agree that offence is not redundant in all cases.

Claims of offence don't always have to be justified. The forum charter is a set of pre-defined rules, that help define what is offensive and what isn't before anything is said. The mods on this forum who aren't personally offended by comments often take action before any claim of offence is made or justified based purely on those pre-defined rules. They're equally perfectly capable of telling an "offendee" that he/she is incorrect in claiming offense to a comment that they shouldn't be, and that would reflect on how weak their defense is.

If you want to more closely scrutinise those rules and their implementation, and focus more on where that line of offense should be, then that's a different argument, but the line is there and should be there, and there should be action taken against those who cross it.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

From that I'll gather you agree that offence is not redundant in all cases.

No, I'll agree that it is not always invalid, but it is always redundant. It is redundant if it is invalid as it is unjustified. And it is redundant if it is valid as it is only valid if there is justification for the disagreement underlying it.

confusedquark wrote: »

Claims of offence don't always have to be justified.

Yes, they do. Sometimes that justification doesn't require explicit explanation because the justification has been given so many times before and is common knowledge.

How the forums here are run is not actually relevant to my argument, as my argument is saying how arguments in general should be approached. The forums here have rules designed to ensure the most efficient level of debate on their specific topics, hence they will have stricter rules on offence to suit those with more delicate perspectives. Even so, a person cannot just declare that something someone says is offensive according to the rules of forum, they need some level of justification to validate that offence (even if that justification is simply pointing to a previous example of the same statement being banned for offence) and even then, it is usually the way things are said (and the attitude of the poster) that are deemed to be offensive, rather then the topic.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, I'll agree that it is not always invalid, but it is always redundant. It is redundant if it is invalid as it is unjustified. And it is redundant if it is valid as it is only valid if there is justification for the disagreement underlying it.

If anything, it's less redundant if there's justification for the disagreement underlying it. It's the practical application of something being confirmed offensive that determines it's redundancy or lack thereof, as you mentioned earlier, and I've already demonstrated it's practical application.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, they do. Sometimes that justification doesn't require explicit explanation because the justification has been given so many times before and is common knowledge.

Justification IS explicit explanation, so you can't argue that justification is always necessary, but that it doesn't require justification when it's common knowledge. That was my point - justification/explicit explanation is not always necessary when issues are pre-defined / common knowledge.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How the forums here are run is not actually relevant to my argument, as my argument is saying how arguments in general should be approached. The forums here have rules designed to ensure the most efficient level of debate on their specific topics, hence they will have stricter rules on offence to suit those with more delicate perspectives. Even so, a person cannot just declare that something someone says is offensive according to the rules of forum, they need some level of justification to validate that offence (even if that justification is simply pointing to a previous example of the same statement being banned for offence) and even then, it is usually the way things are said (and the attitude of the poster) that are deemed to be offensive, rather then the topic.

How the forums are run here is very relevant to my argument. One the one hand you say people should be offended by certain comments, but then how do we deal with people who make genuinely offensive comments if we don't highlight their comments as being offensive?

The alternative is to let people spew our whatever racist, sexist etc comments they want without any repercussions (as the expression of offence would be redundant, those comments couldn't be labelled offensive), and expect people at the receiving end to take it and try and have a rational discussion in the face of it. I quite agree that offence is in the way and attitude with which things are said, and therefore people can still make the same point on whatever topic, only phrased slightly differently, and not be offensive.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

If anything, it's less redundant if there's justification for the disagreement underlying it. It's the practical application of something being confirmed offensive that determines it's redundancy or lack thereof, as you mentioned earlier, and I've already demonstrated it's practical application.

But you need to confirm it's offensive first, hence it's equally redundant.

confusedquark wrote: »

Justification IS explicit explanation, so you can't argue that justification is always necessary, but that it doesn't require justification when it's common knowledge. That was my point - justification/explicit explanation is not always necessary when issues are pre-defined / common knowledge.

What you mean is that repeated justification/explicit explanation are not always necessary when issues are pre-defined / common knowledge. Which is what I meant. The justification has already been made, so it doesn't need to be repeated. However, it did need to be made in the first place.

confusedquark wrote: »

How the forums are run here is very relevant to my argument. One the one hand you say people should be offended by certain comments, but then how do we deal with people who make genuinely offensive comments if we don't highlight their comments as being offensive?

The alternative is to let people spew our whatever racist, sexist etc comments they want without any repercussions (as the expression of offence would be redundant, those comments couldn't be labelled offensive), and expect people at the receiving end to take it and try and have a rational discussion in the face of it.

Those comments could still be labelled as offensive. However, it would be (and is, imo) irrelevant if they are aren't also (justifiably) labelled as wrong.

confusedquark wrote: »

I quite agree that offence is in the way and attitude with which things are said, and therefore people can still make the same point on whatever topic, only phrased slightly differently, and not be offensive.

I think the problem here is that you are assuming that you, as an observer to two people arguing, can tell if something one person says is genuinely offensive. But you can't do that, it's not always going to be obvious. The only thing we can say for certain, is that if you can't tell, and the offendee complains about offence, then you are almost guaranteed to ask "why is that offensive?". This is the same question if the two people simply disagreed and you just wanted to know why. And its a lot better for discussion to ask why, rather than assume that the offence taking is genuine. The things deemed offensive on the various forums on boards are things where the questions have long since been asked and answered.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think the problem here is that you are assuming that you, as an observer to two people arguing, can tell if something one person says is genuinely offensive. But you can't do that, it's not always going to be obvious. The only thing we can say for certain, is that if you can't tell, and the offendee complains about offence, then you are almost guaranteed to ask "why is that offensive?". This is the same question if the two people simply disagreed and you just wanted to know why. And its a lot better for discussion to ask why, rather than assume that the offence taking is genuine. The things deemed offensive on the various forums on boards are things where the questions have long since been asked and answered.

Let's cut to the chase, do you think people should ever be warned/banned specifically for making offensive comments?

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Let's cut to the chase, do you think people should ever be warned/banned specifically for making offensive comments?

Only if those comments are also wrong.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Only if those comments are also wrong.

Agreed. So if we are to enforce such warning/banning, then we need some sort of a measure by which to define/judge what's sufficiently offensive (and wrong) to warrant such action.

We obviously can't use subjective offensive solely as a marker by which to go by, because that would be open to misuse, so we need some form of an independent measure - whether it be an (ideally neutral) observer, or a set of agreed upon/pre-defined rules/justifications, or both (as we have on boards). Sometimes that's an easy task for the observers, sometimes it isn't, but it still needs to be done.

I know where you're coming from, and offence can be easily misused, and it is pointless sometimes in vague cases when not accompanied by a justification, and that's not right either. We need to tackle both extremes in the interest of meaningful discussion.