It seems to imply that an individual is an independent being. Nothing could be further from the truth. — praxis

Oh, but it is a long-standing American myth. I think especially the 1950-1960 cowboy TV shows and the John Wayne portrayal of a man fed into the myth. But the Western movement may have also given us the notion that we are individuals who can go it alone. Many of us move when the neighbors get too close. We are not as social as I have heard people of other countries are social. That mythology requires an unsettled West with lots of land and resources just waiting to be taken. It does not work in today's world. Now we need to get along with others and share. Those values were taught in old textbooks, but I don't think they are standards in textbooks for a technological society.

We have been running on the belief that true science is amoral and has nothing to do with our feelings. @AmadeusD is a man of his time.

I think that is an example of poor emotional intelligence. — Athena

Hmm, the problem with this is that it is not. What is a lack of emotional intelligence is thinking that someone else can say something which carries with it a reaction in yourself, and then that somehow that reaction is on the other person. This is immature, unrealistic thinking. It is standard for those who live in fairly land where the realities of life aren't quite landing and wishful thinking is the order of the day. Or, I guess, those who acknowledge all this and just wish it were difference, hence both possibilities of wishful, and delusional thinking.

In the real world, as I have clearly explained, offense cannot be given. It is not possible. There is no mechanism available for it. It isn't a move open to humans. The fact that you chose to not response to me, but to someone objective to me serves me quite well in understanding why you think the way you do: avoiding the point. A good way to illustrate how this is not possible, is discussing how being offended 'on behalf' is not possible. The same lack of thinking leads to both erroneous claims.

Offense is a reaction inside a person's mind, to something they have interpreted, yes? Yes. That's what it is, and we know this. Where in this discussion could there be room for A's actions to carry with it B's reaction? Causing offense? Yes, sure. But causes need not be related to effects. Quite often, social media users will be caused to be offended by something which was not aimed at them, isn't reasonably readable that way, and ultimately has nothing to do with them. It caused their offense, but the offense wasn't in any way attached to the cause. Tricky? Sure. So let's go over transitive offense to try to clear this up.

Now, I was thinking last night (and talking to my wife) about 'necessary and sufficient' conditions for something being 'on behalf" and took two criteria in mind

1) acknowledging an insult (I need restrict this to insults proper, and not something that is 'potentially insulting' for reasons that will become clear), and,

2) caring, in some fashion, about the effect it could have on the person/group it's aimed at.

Totally reasonable conditions, and there's the fact I cannot get around which is that despite any protests of language, talking about 'being insulted' is describing something which clearly actually happens. Again, I'm fairly sure it's not 'on behalf' but nevertheless, I accept that this phrase is standard (it just means the state of experiencing insult, not that you were acted upon as that is not possible, in this sense).

Now, in discussing the actual issue I still have two pretty glaring objections to the claim:

1: "On behalf" appears to be strictly transitive. To do something 'on behalf' of someone seems to mean "in place of" someone. Voting on behalf, acting on behalf, defending someone when they are not there etc... But this requires that there is something to be transposed through you. If party A is not offended, this is where I would say it is not possible for you to be offended on behalf as there is no offence for you to carry through. This also seems to imply that consent is required. Where someone doesn't even feel the thing, that doesn't seem possible.

2: On behalf implies you are conveying the person/group's view (which, if neutral, couldn't be offence - nb: when talking about groups let's assume there's a democratic consensus that could reasonably be conveyed)). If your view doesn't align, it would be very hard to say you were conveying the view of the group, rather than your view in light of the group.

However, if they were offended, and I wasn't, I could still convey their offense on behalf, whether or not I cared/understood/empathized. Lawyers do this constantly, as do several others types of people like parents, advocates to charity or similar.

I think what someone would say - that empathy is an example - unfortunately betrays this issue - if you're empathizing with someone's plight, that means you feel a certain way, and you are incensed/upset/whatever about the issue from a 3p perspective - not feeling their feelings. Not invalid, not unimportant or anything like that - but it seems that it's more akin to "feeling sorry for" or "feeling angry for" and not "on behalf" (which seems to be a conveying of the actual subject's view/feeling/intent).

I feel bad when I see a child laughed at for having no one turn up to their birthday (actually, i completely fall apart and become somewhat inconsolable for a time). But I'm not conveying anything about the child. I am expressing how i feel about it. It destroys me, because my view is that no kid should have to deal with that inter alia. I feel bad for the kid on my own account.

This then also shades into things that can be insulting rather than are insults. In those cases, I don't even think you can be reasonably become offended (though, clearly you can unreasonably become offended). If you read a sign that, in your mind specifically, without recourse to any other individual is "potentially offensive" to (lets just stick with, for ease) trans people then that is an emotion all of your own, based on your own views and your own internal circumstances, I should think.. Here, you, personally, think trans people should be referred to in X way, and that this isn't the case pissed you off. Those are your feelings of offence about that group, as I see it.

A reverse eg: I am pretty openly bisexual. I always have been. People used to point out to me things(or lack of things, i guess) which they assumed I would be offended by and I simply didn't read them the same way. I didn't see why It would be offensive and refused to pretend I did. In those cases, these people are definitely not offended for me. They are offended because of their personal view about how bisexuals should be represented/included/what have you. Granted, I think people are grossly oversensitive and find offence literally everywhere, but these examples aren't those. Perhaps it would be more stark to say in several instances, I was incensed by their intimation that I wasn't intellectually capable of being "correctly offended" or something.

So, to sum up: I think "offense" is a concept which is simply not what it purports to be. The problem of 'other minds' seems to imply we can't possibly feel anything on behalf of others and I would say that's true - you can't feel someone else's feelings, and even more thoroughly, cannot feel someone else's feelings if they don't have them. These are the exact same reasons why you(a) cannot package offense into an utterance and send it over the airwaves to (b). You can simply intend that the person becomes offended - given this routinely fails, it is obvious that there is no offense in the utterance.

Unless there is some explanation of how offence can be packaged in speech (i.e, the reactionary internal state of mind "being offended") and sent over the airwaves, the argument doesn't even get off the ground. It's just a neat way to jettison responsibility for our own emotional states. Reality doesn't really care about the witterings of self-help ghouls from the 90s.

We have been running on the belief that true science is amoral and has nothing to do with our feelings. AmadeusD is a man of his time. — Athena

Your underhanded attempts to insult are keenly noted, Athena. Ironic to the nth. Particularly when you do not have the gall to actually tag me or address me directly - addressing a third party with your thoughts about one is a sure-fire sign you are not emotionally intelligent.

Your underhanded attempts to insult are keenly noted, Athena. Ironic to the nth. Particularly when you do not have the gall to actually tag me or address me directly - addressing a third party with your thoughts about one is a sure-fire sign you are not emotionally intelligent. — AmadeusD

The @ symbol in front of your name shows the intention to tag you. Must be a technical glitch that the link isn’t working.

And btw, didn’t you say before that words can be given or are you walking that back also?

I'm not sure i understand hte question there. Can be a little clearer? I've never said words cannot be given between interlocutors, to my knowledge. If I have, it's definitely a mis-statement of my position.

Words physically move through the air to ear drums. Intentions do not. That's the distinction that is lost in the claim that one can in fact 'offend another' rather than cause them to become offended, in themselves.

Words physically move through the air to ear drums. Intentions do not. — AmadeusD

I think you mean to say that sounds move through the air to ear drums. Words do not. Right?

The offense exists solely, and inarguably, in your reaction. — AmadeusD

This is a normative recommendation. Your saying it ought to be the case that we treat offense as if it is solely the responsibility of the receiver. We'd have better control over ourselves if we could pause and not reciprocate the bait of an insult, whatever the intention behind it, and escalate a loss of self control in ourselves.

"Sticks and stones will break my bones by words will never hurt me." Oh but they do hurt, since we are not so disciplined to be be immune to the effect they might otherwise have on us.

Try to explain to your mom that she is totally responsible for her reaction when you call her an "ugly bitch". No one knows if you meant to be offensive. You gave no offense (because you can't). She took offense. It was an empirical test, which yielded some data. Now you just need to train your mom to accept that she carries the responsibility for her reactions every time you insult her.

Quite often, social media users will be caused to be offended by something which was not aimed at them, isn't reasonably readable that way, and ultimately has nothing to do with them. It caused their offense, but the offense wasn't in any way attached to the cause. — AmadeusD

This is definitely true, I'll give you that.

You can simply intend that the person becomes offended - given this routinely fails, it is obvious that there is no offense in the utterance. — AmadeusD

But it also routinely succeeds. You suggest that all the victims of verbal abuse choose to be victims of verbal abuse. It sounds incredibly callous and something most folks would not agree with, to make the victim shoulder all the responsibility of the effects of verbal abuse. And even if it ought to be the case doesn't mean that it is the case. It's a normative prescription.

Words aren't abstract. They are sounds (or, written symbols). They are not like numbers. So, no, i don't mean to say that. It might be worth reducing the discussion further to "sounds", but this would just result in the second sentence I've put forth here. Words are sounds, for this purpose.

I do think that was a very much worthwhile question to ask though.

This is a normative recommendation. Your saying it ought to be the case that we treat offense as if it is solely the responsibility of the receiver. — Nils Loc

No, clearly I am not doing this. I wouldn't open a reply by telling someone what they meant to say, my dude. The chances are the rest of your post wont make sense.

What I said is what I mean: The claim is that offense is a reaction internal to the receiver of information (and sometimes, not even in receipt of information, but that's another issue). Offense does not exist in a word, or a phrase, or in saying something. It exists, solely, in the mind of hte offended person. It's not been 'taken in' from without. That's the claim, and I would appreciate treating it as such.

We'd have better control over ourselves if we could pause and not reciprocate the bait of an insult, whatever the intention behind it, and escalate a loss of self control in ourselves. — Nils Loc

This, for certain, is the normative aspect: One should note the fact outlined above (again, that's 'my claim' not something I'm willing to just say you have to accept, but on this account...) and then behave as you say. I think that's best for people's mental health and general co-operative principles. So that is a normative position, and its harder to defend if the initial 'fact' im positing isn't understood or accepted. But the two are not the same thing at all. A=Boiling water hurts. B=Therefore, don't touch it. I was claiming A, in relation to offense. But i agree with B.

Oh but they do hurt, since we are not so disciplined to be be immune to the effect they might otherwise have on us. — Nils Loc

Hmm. This is a tricky one. I can't really disagree, because that is obviously what happens - but if we focus on 'discipline' the fact I'm arguing for still obtains. The effect they 'might other have' on us seems to me to be an effect that we have re-recorded in our psyche, ready to be deployed upon receiving information of a certain kind which we have, internally, discussed with ourselves and settled on .. usually, pre-consciously, but sometimes consciously. But, equally, people are capable of jettisoning that reactive faculty almost entirely. I find it very hard to get offended by anything. I can be incensed by what I might think is unjust, or irrational or whatever but I, personally, don't tend to feel offense these days.

Ultimately, you're right that this is what happens but I don't thikn it butters bread for the arguments hereabouts.

Try to explain to your mom that she is totally responsible for her reaction when you call her an "ugly bitch". No one knows if you meant to be offensive. You gave no offense (because you can't). She took offense. It was an empirical test, which yielded some data. Now you just need to train your mom to accept that she carries the responsibility for her reactions every time you insult her. — Nils Loc

Roughly speaking, I agree with this. I just would want to have an appended conversation about the responsibility on someone for not letting their emotions get the better of them and saying something like that. I don't think they're responsible for the other person's reaction though.

I want to be really clear, also, before some edgelord tries this line or agument: Incitement and offense are totally different things. We need to read them across one another. I accept that words have power, and people have reactions to words. I simply don't lay those reactions at the feet of those saying words. Incitement is different. Incitement is hijacking the internal reasoning mechanisms of an erstwhile emotionally stable person.

Ftr, This is something I have explicitly worked on with my wife, and she is much, muuuuch happier for it. My mother, on the other hand, seems to enjoy being offended by fucking everything. We don't talk much. She's not a happy person.

But it also routinely succeeds. You suggest that all the victims of verbal abuse choose to be victims of verbal abuse. — Nils Loc

No I don't, at all. Again, please do not tell me what I'm saying. I am not suggesting it is a choice to be offended. I am suggesting it is a choice not to work on your emotional stability such that offense serves you no purpose. They are different. I have a lot of sympathy for being reasonably offended. I just also hold this position on bettering one's lot. It's a choice to view offense as someone elses fault. Its a choice to excuse your own actions due to something someone else said to you. There's umpteen videos across the internet about 'fuck around and find out'. Why not grow the fuck up?

It sounds incredibly callous — Nils Loc

To someone who cannot control their emotions, of course it would. If you feel you're being asked to do something impossible, it will sound both callous and irrational. But I have empirical evidence that this is not so... People do this all the time. That the majority of people don't is a symptom of... well, something I personally view to be a real shame. If trolls had no power, I think the world would be better off. So I agree with what you're putting forward as a normative prescription, and I enact that in my daily life wherever I can, usually to great benefit. But that isn't what I've argued for thus far. I just happen to agree with it, now that it's brought up.

I think probably we can simply state: If some people can do this, all people can do this. If all people can do this, I, at least, would want to say they should.

The bold seems to put paid to the argument I'm making, anyhow. I understand this may be rejected, but you seem to accept some people can do this, and sometimes intended offense fails. That's all we need.

If some people can do this, all people can do this. — AmadeusD

Classic hasty generalization fallacy.

Classic hasty generalization fallacy. — praxis

No. It is presenting a counter-example, only one of which is needed to unsecure a claim. This isn't a fallacy in any way.

If I am right, and people are capable of controlling their reactions to words, then the offense in not in the words. We're not at the whim of those speaking to us.

Textbook refusal to admit it’s a fallacy fallacy.

Offense does not exist in a word, or a phrase, or in saying something. It exists, solely, in the mind of hte offended person. It's not been 'taken in' from without. That's the claim, and I would appreciate treating it as such. — AmadeusD

I suppose this is also true of many physical acts that give rise to an offense. If I slap one on the face, the pain/sensation as well as the offense exists solely in the mind of the receiving person. The pain itself doesn't constitute that the slap is offensive, rather the perceived insult or annoyance felt by the slapped person. Even in the case of a physical slap, the offense has not been 'taken in' from without because the offense is about the perceived meaning of the act, which comes from somewhere else.

Is this right?

To someone who cannot control their emotions, of course it would. If you feel you're being asked to do something impossible, it will sound both callous and irrational. But I have empirical evidence that this is not so... People do this all the time. — AmadeusD

I can't get the guy I work with to wear closed toed shoes or come in at a specific time, even though he lives across the street. He actually almost died from getting a foot infection while working outside, which he could've avoided if he had just worn his shoes when doing physical labor. Think he was slapped with a $10,000 bill for intravenous antibiotics. He doesn't know how to or doesn't want to go through the trouble to pay his taxes. I value him as a friend though so I can't whip him into shape without making myself out to be an asshole. He is a charming human being despite all his faults.

Even capable/competent people are breaking under modern conditions. The stress of our lifestyles actually undermines the ability for people to control their emotions by virtue/vice of the "monkey see monkey do" and "tit for tat" phenomena. Chronic stress in childhood undermines the ability of emotional control in adult life.

LOL, you're getting much better.

I don't think I understand the anecdote. That person lacks discipline and clear understanding of what's been told to them. They are not incapable.

I can't see I see much in the second paragraph. Modern conditions are objectively better than essentially any previous period in history other than perhaps the late 90s.

Unless you're making an argument about simpler lifestyles, which is legitimate, but wholly irrelevant here. Besides, even granting what you've said my point stands fairly strongly.

Modern conditions are objectively better than essentially any previous period in history other than perhaps the late 90s. — AmadeusD

In materialistic terms this is likely true but in psychological terms, possibly not. We're facing a loneliness/despair epidemic in the US. A lot of people are mentally not doing so great. It's all well and great to say people ought to control their emotions, and anyone can start, but who is going to help them do that? Though maybe that's not your concern or your point. Does a moral obligation spring from your argument/philosophy to help others to help themselves, if there is any normative prescription that passes from it.

People ought to do X. Who will do Y, M, L and Z, in order for people to facilitate/achieve X.

Or do we just say people ought to do X.

LOL, you're getting much better. — AmadeusD

I trained with the best.

Is this right? — Nils Loc

I would want to ask a question: Do you not see a stark difference between a physical act, and spoken words? I am not suggesting words do not enter the ear and alter the physical system. But the subjective experience of offense is not analogous with the physical act of slapping someone resulting in a physical chain reaction.

That said, roughly speaking, yes. That's right. The pain is so much more closely linked to the act that we can't morally say this is 'true' but your description is correct. We know this because some people can train their minds not to experience pain (at least in some ways). My consideration would be that no amount of offense can lead to death, where physical pain leads to things which can, hence a moral difference.

but who is going to help them do that? — Nils Loc

This is probably my biggest (social, not philosophical) gripe with this issue: Why are you owed help in getting your emotions in check? There's a line in a Taylor Swift song "Life is emotionally abusive". This seems to be how many people think of their mental health. I suggest this is utterly absurd, counter to reality and a specific, modern reason people are suffering mentally. There is nothing about the world which makes sense of this, other than unreasonable expectation and blaming others. Something which modernity allows en masse. This is now a different sort of convo, so I'll bring it back...

Does a moral obligation spring from your argument/philosophy to help others to help themselves, if there is any normative prescription that passes from it. — Nils Loc

The normative prescription ends at "It's best for you to have your emotions in check" (and this is not "objective" - I've stipulated, and it seems you've leaned into, the idea that psychological health is likely what we're aiming for). I can't see an argument against this.

I can't understand where from a moral obligation would spring that I, or anyone else, would be obligated to help anyone do this. But I think it is best that we do. The problem is plenty of people are either too stupid, stubborn or set in their beliefs to change anything. At some stage, we need to stop throwing money and accommodations at those people, I think.