Hacker News Reader

Comment by PhasmaFelis | Hacker News Reader

So, here's part of the problem: Sandy Hingston mentions some genuinely absurd overreactions (a student enraged when a grocery circular put an Black History Month banner next to an ad for chicken); and she also mentions Jennifer Livingston, who called bullshit on a guy who tried to guilt-trip her for being fat in public; and Hingston implies that both of these are equally bad.

This right here is half the problem. The reason we have people who are offended by everything is because of people who refuse to permit anyone to be offended by anything. Ms. Hingston, their bullshit is an overreaction to your bullshit. If you refuse to acknowledge any difference between oversensitive conniptions and calling out genuine assholes, you really have no business speaking on the subject.

View on HN

Here is exactly how you deal with some guy writing in to tell you you're too fat: delete the email and get on with your life.

It's simple, it's easy, it solves the problem.

Of course it's not the modern solution of publicly bullying your correspondent into a retraction while claiming the moral high ground but it works and it's less unpleasant.

Using your solution will not get the complainant the media time the person so very much craves.

In the language of the article, shouldn't that be "post-modern"?

It is, of course, important to pick one's battles; but wherever possible, bullshit should be called out and dragged into the light, not quietly tolerated. Especially when, as in this case, it is widespread, entrenched, pernicious bullshit.

And you've got the "bullying" backwards. It wasn't Ms. Livingston doing it. You should know by now that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is a comforting lie we tell to children.

I think it helps to separate the problem into two spheres. I took the article to be arguing that we've blended the two spheres below:

On a human, moral level if someone is offended by something I've said which I didn't intend to cause offence, I'll feel bad about that and apologise. I don't want that to happen.

But, on a legal/societal level, the above should not be grounds for losing your job, getting sued, etc.

This is certainly the American perspective on free speech - there is freedom of speech, there is no freedom to not be offended.

> there is freedom of speech, there is no freedom to not be offended.

Unless, of course, your employer is knowingly or unknowingly inflicting a hostile environment on you.

Which in many cases translates to "unless I can find a capable lawyer with not too many ethical qualms and make some money out of it".

"I have the right not to be offended" is a false statement. No one has such a right.

People have the rights we collectively want them to have. If people are punished for offending others, then that right exists, whether you and I like it or not.

Why the quotes? No one said there was a right not to be offended.

That's another part of the problem - anyone who complains about stuff like being called fat is accused of demanding "the right not to be offended" and wanting special treatment even if they're doing nothing of the sort, as a way of pressuring them into shutting up.

If they _are_ fat, what is the basis of their complaint for not wanting to be called fat?

He didn't just tell Jennifer Livingston was fat, he told her that she should be ashamed of herself for being fat and should hide herself from the public eye unless and until she got thin. That's bullshit, and bullshit deserves to be called.

I feel comfortable saying there is a right not to be abused, even if it is not enshrined in the US Constitution. The dividing line between offensive and abusive is murky and grey, but I still believe there is a line to cross, and that it is desirable not to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com