Credit: Pervis (@PervisTime) - Twitter
Nitter link: https://nitter.cz/PervisTime/status/1700928952670245321
RSS Feed: https://nitter.cz/PervisTime/rss
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
2373 points (97.0% liked)
Comic Strips
12437 readers
3433 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In this instance i kinda agree, but there's a line that gets crossed where that doesn't apply, so perhaps sturdier logic is needed.
EDIT: For instance, if this Ricky Gervais meme were posted to justify a joke making light of police brutality against black people, that's clearly far over the line. This joke isn't even close to the line IMO. But where is the line? And - genuinely, out of curiosity because dark humour is a deep love of mine - what is the correct line of reasoning? I really do think "just take a joke, it's fun, have a laugh" like the meme implies is the correct stance in regards to things like this. But, since the logic doesn't really hold up at the extreme, it to me implies the logic may be a little off.
Things are damaging or they're not. The question of if someone is offended by it is a very seperate thing, and really just a personal choice.
That is a very privileged position to take. They aren't separate issues at all; the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging. And to consider it a choice is absurd even on the face of it. Being offended is an emotion. You can't genuinely, fully control your emotions. You can control what you do about it, sure, but not always, and not completely.
And apart from that, even if we entertain the idea of it being a choice - who on Earth would choose to feel offended? It feels awful. And it never goes well. If you even have the guts to say something about it, you generally get mocked and laughed at. Who would choose to go through that?
It's not privileged at all lol, you're just wrong.
Someone can put their elbows on the table while eating and offend someone. That person is hurting no one. The fact that it offends someone doesn't make it damaging. Stop acting like being offended in and of itself means anything. Either that or explain to me the real harm of it. Or any other stupid little thing that can offend someone, like taking the lords name in vain or wearing white after labor day to a party. These are BS nonsensical things that people get offended by and you're trying to act like they cause real harm. Get out of here with that pure nonsense.
Who chooses to feel offended? No one, but you chose your world view and that dictates if you will be offended.
Bottom line, you said "the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging". Explain to me how putting your elbows on the table while eating is damaging. Who is it harming?
Nobody has the right to not be offended.
If we gave people that right, everything in civilization would grind to a halt.
Choosing whether or not to offend a small number of people for the sake of expressing something is an individual decision.
It's not harming anyone, and that person is just being an asshole. They are linked, yes, but not always directly correlated. Some people just be crazy.
This whole time I've been talking about bigotry, and I've been consistent on that. These little kooky "Don't put your elbows on the table" level stuff in my own opinion is not a genuine form of offence, it's an enforcement of conformity and tradition. "Offending" tradition is its own can of worms. If you ask me, before we consider if offending a tradition is something actually bigoted and offensive, we must first consider if that tradition might actually be batshit insane.
They're inextricably linked but not correlated, that makes no sense.
You said being offended causes harm, I said it doesn't, there were no classifiers. Someone being offended by something stupid doesn't make them any less offended, they still are. I would argue a lot of people who are offended are because they see some form of tradition or cultural norm they value being upset. Whether that norm is them wanting to be racist or wanting you to eat a certain way.
My point is, people can get offended by literally anything, and I'd say 9/10 times it's not damaging and they're just being professional victims. Yes there are racists and horrible people, and the things they do are damaging. That's why I care, because it's damaging, not because it offends someone.
I don't think you realise you're agreeing with me, lol
Yes, harm and offence are linked, butthat doesn't mean every offence was caused by harm. It just means every offence perceived some harm. But that harm may just be some kooky belief of theirs
I didn't say offence causes harm. I said harm causes offence.
And "professional victim" tells me you're just not taking this issue seriously.
I don't think I am.
Saying being offended and being damaging are inextricably linked means they are, well inextricably linked. Meaning it is impossible to seperate the two. Meaning one always comes with the other, always. This means, by your very own logic, that every instance of being offended is linked to harm and every instance of harm is linked to being offended. That is your logic, using your argument.
I'm not taking it seriously? You said being offended and damage are inextricably linked, but don't always correlate, and doesn't mean one always implies the other. You're either back peddling hard or you didn't know what the term "inextricably linked" meant when you said it.
Also if you think the concept of a professional victim is outlandish or some such you need to watch more Karen videos online, those people %100 exist. And me acknowledging that doesn't make me any less serious, if anything it makes me less naive.
Yes, the fact of them being linked means the offence is always to do with some perceived harm. But we must take it on a case by case basis, like I've said before, and determine whether harm has truly been done, or if they're just nuts. Like the Karens you mentioned.
Wait so now we're at "perceived harm", you didn't say that at all. You did linked to harm, full stop. Those are two very diffent things.
I originally said that being offended and harm are not connected, they are two separate things. You said I was privileged and wrong. Now you seem to slowly be back peddling to agree with me...
If I'd known you'd be this pedantic, I'd have said from the start, I just thought it goes without saying - all harm has to be perceived to be known at all, doesn't it? And can our senses not deceive us, either simply through illusion or misperception, or more deeply through our intellectual biases?
It's not pedantic lol. You said all offenses cause damage. You said they are inextricably linked. That's not just a common term thrown out there in day to day convos, it has a clear and purposeful meaning. I said the two can exist seperately, you said they couldn't, and now you're saying they can. You've contradicted yourself.
Harm is measurable, you said being offended means its damaging. Those are your words yet you've still not told me how eating with your elbows on the table causes damage to anyone. It can offend, so where is the damage?
We won't move anywhere until you stop lying about this.
I'm lying? I think you just don't like being held accountable for the things you say because it makes it harder for you to back-peddle.
You said:
So I guess I need to break it down and explain what you said back to you. Inextricably linked means they are impossible to separate, they are together forever and always. Now you said it is linked to "it being damaging." You say in this very statement, very clearly, that all offenses are linked to being damaging. I'm not lying I'm just confronting you with what you said as you try to back-peddle and shift the narrative by introducing things like "perceived harm" instead of damaging like you originally said.
There you go. Proof i didn't say being offended causes harm! Why on earth would i even have said that? Earlier you were claiming i said all offence was caused by harm, no idea why you switched them.
Also, what does damage do, my friend? When you are damaged, it harms you. And you can perceive harm anywhere if you're warped enough.
Let me make this very simple. When you are offended, it is because some amount of harm has been done. That amount can be zero. In programming terms, the offence variable comes in a data container that also contains a damage variable. The damage variable does not have to be greater than zero.
Are you done?
Jesus dude, you are really trying to dance to the point of me needing to break it down, ok here we go.
So someone being offended is inextricably linked to something. Ok, that part I hope you get, I mean you wrote it. Now what is it linked to. It is linked to "the fact of it being damaging". Now what is it? It is the offense. So restated the sentence would be: "the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of the offense being damaging". Now if the offense is damaging it would cause harm, by your very own words: "When you are damaged, it harms you". So lets put this all together. Someone being offended is linked to them being damaged by that offense, which means that would experience harm.
No and no. People can get offended by something that causes no harm to them. A person can get offended that I fly a certain teams sports flag, that causes zero harm. Also zero is the absence of anything, so it is not an amount.
Ok, now I love this. I've been in software engineering for over a decade so lets look at this. I would say if you have a container with 2 variables, then in this case one variable would be null, which is the absence of value, not 0 value like you stated. If a variable has null value it has no reference to the heap, meaning it is nothing. So in that situation, the "offense" container would have only 1 value, offense, alone and by itself without damage.
I mean, that's up to you. I can keep explaining to you how you're wrong in a buncha different ways if you like.
The float would be 0, dude. No need to change its type. Even in common language we do this. "How many mls left in the jug?" "Zero."
I don't get why you don't get this. Yeah, being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of damage. But you can be mistaken about the damage! And thus are offended by zero damage.
The float? What a weird random data type to pull out of nowhere. Why not int, why not decimal, why not a double, why not a dozen other data types, how random. Someone just did their first hello world.
Also, a float can be null, it's not changing it's type, it's saying that the variable of that data type has no reference in memory. And if it's a loosely typed language that means there is no data type at that point, until it has a value. Jesus, you really do make it a habit to talk about things you have no idea about.
You seem to not understand what the concept of 0 is. Having 0 damage means there is no damage. Not that there is 0 damage, there is NO damage at all, it does not exist. You saying being offended is linked to something that may not exist makes no sense. You can not inextricably link one action to something that does not exist. There is nothing for it to be intertwined with.
Also inextricably linked means intertwined. Meaning it goes both ways. Meaning that all damage must have an offense and all offense must have damage. You can't have damage if none exists, and you trying to act like "well there is damage but it's 0" is the biggest cop-out ever. That's like saying "I was going to give you money for it, just 0 money." That means you weren't giving any money, none exists that you are giving. I'm not trying to be mean, but I don't think you understand the words you're using.
Yes there are other variable types. Why exactly does it matter whether it's a float or int or otherwise? We can say it's a string if you want. What's weird or random about using a float? I use floats all the time in the games i develop to keep track of values with minute variance. There's really no reason i can see for you to object, since you didn't provide one. Seems all you wanted to do was prove you know something.
Yes, you have changed it from a normal float to a null reference. There is no reason to do that. You just seem to want to avoid using the number zero.
Yeah, zero damage means no damage. Do you think you're the first person to realise that?
Of course it doesn't make sense to be offended by something that doesn't exist. It's irrational. And emotions are irrational. Like i said, you could be offended because you think harm is done, but no harm has actually been done. Offence doesn't come out of nowhere, and even so called professional victims are still offended by something, whether that something actually caused harm or not. It is an action with a damage value of zero - no damage. Yet in their heads they see damage and react as if it were some higher value.
I'm getting tired of this. We're going in circles. I don't know why i have to explain the concept of someone just... being wrong about something being offensive.
Well you said "0" harm so I assumed you were using a numeric data type, so String is out. Just felt odd to pick a random numeric data type instead of saying "the variable" is all. I would say that by you calling out "float" as a data type when it has no relevance on the topic sounds like you trying to prove you know something. Works both ways.
Wrong. If you are in a strongly typed language, which by you saying it's games and using the term String I'm assuming it's C# or Java, my guess would be C#, then it doesn't change it. A variable declared as a float is still a float even if it is null. A float will null value is still a "normal float", I don't even know what an "abnormal float" would even be? A corrupt address? The data type doesn't change. You can't declare a float, set it to null and then use it like it has no data type, it is still of float data type. I dunno what you're talking about man. You're mixing the concepts of data types and value types. Having a float with a 0 value vs a float that is null are VERY VERY different. You thinking the only difference is me trying to avoid using 0 shows a gross misunderstanding of data architecture within software development.
No, but I don't think you've realized it yet. You said there would be damage, but it would be 0. That means there is no damage. How is one thing linked to another thing that doesn't exist? You're now talking about perceived damages, not actual damages, which is very different. I classified my original statement as "damages" not "perceived damages" and you replied the exact same way. This concept of "there is 0 damage but someone may think there is", is nothing but trying to change the narrative of what you said.
Listen I don't want to have to keep explaining this, but you have muddied the waters constantly, shifting between "there being damage" and there only being "perceived" damage. Those are not the same thing, you said it is linked to damage. If it is linked to damage there must be damage that exists for it to link to. If there is no damage, then the offense is not linked to anything and my very original statement is right, they are separate.
You keep contradicting yourself. If an offense is linked to harm, like you said, there has to be harm it is linked to. You are saying offense can exist without harm which was exactly what I said to start with and you called me wrong.
And I don't know why someone disagreed with me only to slowly back-peddle into agreeing with me. I originally said offense and damage are independent. You said they weren't, now you're saying they can be. That there can be offense without damage, without any damage, the damage that it is linked to. What you're basically saying is like saying "To enter this building you must pay. You cannot enter without paying. But you can just pay $0 because you still paid, it's just 0." That's not how logic works. You can't pay someone $0, and you can't experience harm/damage that doesn't exist and you can't tie offenses to harm/damage that doesn't exist.
If you wanna play the "perceived harm" and "perceived offense" game. Sure anyone can perceive anything, but that was not what I said, and that was not how you responded when you called me wrong.
Offense and damage are not separate. People can just be wrong about how damaging something is. But they are still offended by something, because you can't be offended by nothing. And harm cannot affect you, imagined or otherwise, if you have not perceived the harming action - as I have said before, all harm is perceived harm. And foe you to be offended, there must exist something for you to be offended by, whether or not you're wrong about how much damage it has dealt.
Take the elbows example. Really, it has a damage of 0. But to someone who is a complete snob, they see it differently, with some other damage value. So they are offended not by something that doesn't exist, but instead by their misperception of something that does exist.
That is it. There is no reason for us to continue. I am sick of this.
Yes they are, if there is no damage there is nothing for it to be tied to. How do you have damage tied to an offense when there is no damage. Again, you're trying to pay someone $0, that is not a thing.
This is %100 wrong. Perceived harm is something like I thought you stole from me but you didn't. Real harm is you stole money from someone and you now have that money. One is real harm that did actual damage, the other is a perception. They are very different, that's why you can't go to jail just because someone perceives you stole something.
If someone is offended by me flying a sports team flag they don't like, there is no actual harm. No one is hurt, and there is no measurable damage. You can be upset without there being damage. There isn't damage every time you get upset about something. If I left my phone in the other room and I have to go get it, is there damage? No. I could be slightly upset I forgot it, but I'm not damaged in any way.
So, you agree with me. That's the end of the debate. There was an offense with no damage. Case closed.
Damage is not a value like that though. You dot just experience 5 damage like a video game. Damage needs to be measurable. If I'm at home with my mom say, and she gets upset I put my elbows on the table, where is the damage. What harm was caused that there is actual, legit damage. Not someone might feel bad, what is the actual damage?
Jesus you are bending over backwards to avoid admitting you were wrong. So you went from every offense causes damage to now the perception of an offense may lead to the perception of damage that doesn't exist. Jesus dude, just say it doesn't always cause damage, it's a much easier way to say what you're saying without dancing around admitting you're wrong.
As soon as you started changing the narrative and saying BS like "all harm is perceived harm" and "damage can be perceived damage that doesn't exist". You said offenses always cause damage because you can't have cause and effect without the effect. They don't. Full stop. I've explained in detail how you're wrong and even entertained all your narrative shifts.
That is it.
These are both perceived harm, because you saw (perceived) money missing. You were just wrong in the first instance. All harm that offends us has to first be perceived by us in order to offend us. And since our perceptions can deceive us, we can mistakenly think an action is harmful.
I've said this a million times.
No they are not lol. One actually happened and is real damage, the other is a misconception. One cased actual damage (lost money), the other case they did nothing wrong. You perceived the money was gone, then it actually was. That's the actual damage. With that last part there is no damage for the offense to be linked to, you would be referencing something that doesn't exist. You have trouble understanding that, which is the same reason you have a problem understand the difference between a value of 0 and null. One exists with no value the other doesn't exist at all. I mean would you say I lost money because someone stole it, or would you say someone stole my money? You would say the latter because that's the actual case, you perceived something and confirmed it was reality. A perception can't take things from you, a person can. If your whole stance is every offense can cause a perceived harm that doesn't even exist, well then like I said, there's easier ways to say that. Such as, not every offense causes actual harm or damage. You called me out for trying to hard to not use 0 when I was talking about null, even though those things are extremely different. And yet here you are trying to act like all damage, perceived and actual, are all the same.
Jesus, yes, if you want to be so pedantic to the point of everything we ever experience is perceived. But there are things that cause actual damage and things that don't. You thinking I stole money doesn't mean there is any damage, me actually stealing money causes damage.
Yes, so there might not be actual harm. So not every offense causes harm I don't know how to explain it any simpler. You can be offended in a situation where there is no actual damage done. How hard is that to understand? And in that situation, there is no damage driven by the offense because there is no actual damage done. There is a cause with no effect. There is nothing for it to be inextricably linked to, there is nothing to link it to at all, it doesn't exist. It's not that it exists with a value of 0, it doesn't exist at all. It is null, void, non-existent.
And I've explained the flaws in it a million times.
Listen dude you said you were done, just be done with it and move on then. Don't keep engaging with me and then bitching about engaging with me lol. You can keep saying the same thing and I'll keep explaining why it's not accurate. How many times you wanna go around that circle is up to you. You keep setting em up, I'll keep knocking em down.
That's what i fucking said. Why did you cut off the part where I said that, and pretend I wasn't aware of this?
This is outright lying by omission. We agree on this fact, yet you're pretending otherwise in order to troll me.
People feel emotions based on misperceptions all the time. Happy because we thought we heard our significant other's car driving home, but it was someone else. Sad because we thought we heard them crying, but they were laughing.
Because you constantly contradict yourself. You do say "And since our perceptions can deceive us, we can mistakenly think an action is harmful." So, there is no harm. So, an offense didn't cause harm. So, you agree with me?
I'm not trolling I'm trying to keep up with your distinctions between real damage, perceived damage, no damage, and 0 damage. You seem to be creating new metrics and measurements constantly to fill gaps in your logic.
Yes but FFS look at what you said. You said offense is inextricably tied to damage. Not perception of damage, not feelings, damage. Damage means there was actual damage done. You feeling like there was damage done doesn't mean there was damage done. You feeling like I stole money doesn't cause damage. So you being offended doesn't mean there is damage at all, in any sense. Me and another adult can be alone in a room and they can get offended I say "fuck" in front of them, that causes no damage at all to anyone. There is no harm at all. It is a single word that has no impact or real meaning. They are not damaged or harmed by me saying a single word. By your logic they would be damaged in some way, what way would they be damaged in?
Edit: I'ma go ahead and enjoy the rest of my day since I just wrapped up work. If you wanna keep going back and forth feel free to have at me and I'll respond tomorrow.
You have to perceive damage to be offended by it. And you can be mistaken in perceiving it. And that doesn't actually deal damage. I've said this before. You keep arguing for no reason.
Perceiving means nothing, stop trying to change your stance lol. You said "They aren’t separate issues at all; the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging." The fact of it BEING damaging, not perceived as damaging. There can be no damage at all, meaning there was an offense with no damage.
Because you contradict yourself constantly because you've realized that what you said makes no sense so you've taken this new "perceived damage" angle in order to save face.
You said an offense is linked to the FACT OF IT BEING DAMAGING. The fact. Of it being damaging. If something is damaging it causes damage. That's how that works. It something doesn't cause damage it's not damaging. So if an offense happens and it's damaging, like you said, there would be damage. Full stop.
Stop trying to weasel out of what you said lol.
While I understand your perspective, it's worth noting that reactions to offenses, like many emotions, exist on a spectrum. Some individuals might experience deep hurt from a comment that others brush off with ease. While we can't always control our immediate emotional responses, we can cultivate resilience and perspective over time. Claiming that no one would choose to be offended might oversimplify a complex web of human emotions and social dynamics. Some might lean into being offended as a defense mechanism or to further a personal or societal narrative. Emotions are complex, and so are the reasons behind them.
I believe I addressed this. Of course that's true. That's why I said you can control your actions, "but not always, and not completely".
We can, but certain things are bound to simply be offensive, no matter what. "Perspective" is a buzzword in this conversation. No amount of perspective will get me to react kindly to statements like "women belong in the kitchen". The onus should not lie with the offended party to just not be offended, it should lie with people trying to not be offensive. I don't think that's too much to ask.
No, it really doesn't. Saying people choose their emotions is the oversimplification. Would you "choose" to be angry, sad or scared? No. You can only choose your actions. I think you're conflating emotions with actions.
Being offended doesn't protect you whatsoever. Again, maybe you're conflating actions with emotions. But what actions are you talking about here?
This just seems like a dogwhistle to me. What narrative is furthered by feeling something?
Yes, which is why we should put in more effort than just saying "they're doing it on purpose", and justifying that with a truism. "It's complex" is easy to say. Digging into that complexity is harder, and maybe that's why you're not doing so.
Jesus, I didn't really want to respond to you in another thread but this line I had to say something. Anyone can be offended by anything, so you're saying everyone should go out of their way to not offend anyone? Ok I'm offended by your user name, change it. I'm offended by the way you speak, the onus is on you to change it. I mean a society with that mindset wouldn't function, anything I didn't like I would just say it offends me and demand you change. We need to follow laws, that's why we have them, and we should strive to be good people, but suggesting that a person should try to conform to every little offense anyone could have is unreasonable, that's a VERY slippery slope.
Unless you live in a world where that is normal for decades on end and it becomes your normal. Nazis never saw themselves burning people in ovens, it's not a switch that happens over night. What can become your normal is very scary.
For example saying that you are offended by pride flags because you are homophobic. Maybe you "feel" (general "you", not you specifically) that gay people touch kids, many homophobic people do "feel" that. Feeling that way and expressing your offense to pride flags in that way very much is pushing a homophobic narrative that can be damaging to the gay community.
That's not what defense mechanisms are in psychology. They are subconscious responses, usually to avoid anxiety or facing any cognitive dissonance. If you point out that they hate gay people but are best friends with a gay guy, they may get offended as a way to avoid confronting that cognitive dissonance.
I mean the argument will always require context. You could stab Gervais in the leg and say "but I found it funny, I must be happier than you."
There is a line and there isn't. Some audiences are big, some a small, the same audience can like one thing and dislike another and there's no way to tell, the exact same audience could like the opposite the next day.
In the end, we sometimes make work, and sometimes it's good and sometimes, regardless of the quality, it is liked, and regardless of all, it is popular.
I've always considered "I find that offensive" to mean "I think what you said means you're a dickhead and I want you to know that". That's why I'm offended by people who say "Hitler did nothing wrong" un-ironically but not offended by people who say "Hitler did nothing wrong" as a joke.
"I find that offensive" seems to be a bit of a straw SJW. I'm sure some exist that make things all about themselves like that, but if someone said "black people are lazy criminal scum", I don't think the response would be "I find that offensive". I think the response would be "that's racist garbage, get out of here. Black people are just people". Point being, the response to an offensive statement generally consists of an argument explaining why it is harmful or factually incorrect.
Wow I really started something huh? lol
Haha yeah it sure seems that way
I think "the line" you're talking about is all in the delivery of the joke. Poor delivery could make a relatively tame dark joke really bad, and great delivery could make a heinous joke the talk of the night.
I think you're on to something, there.