Readit Newslpcrealmadrid commented on Get Offended More (2020) ammarmian.substack.com/p/... · Posted by u/lpcrealmadrid
I feel like I could have written this exact comment. Most arguments just aren't worth it. You have to know that the other person has this same approach (willingness to see another point of view, plus manners) or else it's just not worth it. Pretty often I'll offer a "disagreement" and if I'm not satisfied that my debating partner is listening, that's it, I'm out.
For the article, I'm ok with the message, but the title is just clickbait. You don't need to get offended more, you just need to be aware of when you are and try to figure out why.
thanks for the click ;)
lpcrealmadrid commented on Get Offended More (2020) ammarmian.substack.com/p/... · Posted by u/lpcrealmadrid
Thanks for the reply! For what it's worth. After reading what I wrote again I think that this is a better way to put what I was saying: (I was going to edit my original, but I'll post it here since you've already replied.)
In terms of improving discussion by differentiating between disagreement and offense:
I think that in order for that to work, it is important that offense is treated as valid and worth addressing. First because, as the article points out, offense is often based on valid fears and concerns. Second because otherwise people will feel the need to present their offense as disagreement in order to get it taken seriously.
+1 !!!
Admittedly, I wrote this post 3 years ago when I was seeking clarity around disagreement during a wild time. Re-reading it now, in yet another wild time (3 years "wiser" aka having learned how to change a diaper or two), I missed out on compassion for those who are offended. Like you said, if it's important to find a mutual way forward, then it is also worth addressing the fears + emotional lives of those that are offended.
lpcrealmadrid commented on Get Offended More (2020) ammarmian.substack.com/p/... · Posted by u/lpcrealmadrid
I agree that offense is often used as an instrument to silence debate. We don't teach people to reason at school or university anymore. We don't instill the ethos of legitimate discussion, or even regard sophistry and attempts at vicious emotional manipulation as shameful. People don't even know what constituted a legitimate argument. The trivium made logic and rhetoric a foundation for all other learning and communication in this respect. Our "education" systems today neglect these horribly, producing "credentialed" savages who falsely believe they amount to something intellectually.
The author, however, confuses some concerns. First, I think that during debate, we simply must put aside matters of offense. We should focus exclusively on the matter at hand and offer counterarguments with substance. The only concern is whether some claim is true or false. That's it. Arguments should be considered apart from the real or imagined motives of the other party. A view may indeed be objectively offensive, whether we take offense or not, but while we can argue and show why something is wrong or gravely immoral, for example, there's nothing you can do with someone's taking of offense. What am I supposed to do with that? I can't argue with it, as it is merely their subjective reaction to a situation, not an argument I can respond to. It has no place in a debate. It has no relevance. It contributes nothing. It is often manipulative. If we are having a debate, and we don't always need to and we cannot always have one, we should either ignore such vacuous reactions, or remark that no reason for the offense was given. That's it. Don't feed the offense monster.
And as always, a debate per se is not a final arbiter of truth. A truth may be revealed, or someone may have the strongest available arguments, but let's avoid this juvenile YouTube attitude of "Watch this guy DESTROY this other guy!". It's stupid.
(Secondary remark as this annoys me whenever I read it:
"The heresy trial of Galileo. The 17th century astronomer wrote a note defending his view that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not the other way around. A shitstorm ensued, the Church got shutdown-offended, and Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest."
That's actually not how it happened. "The Church" wasn't offended. "The Church" is made up of billions (then millions) of people, and many clergy with diverse concerns and functions and roles and things they do. "The Church" doesn't care which sphere revolves around which other sphere as the Church. This is such a theologically uninteresting question, that making this claim is a pretty good litmus test for basic ignorance about the subject. The Church has never taught geocentrism or anything about astronomy. It has one mission: to lead souls to salvation. This entails moral leadership and authority, but astronomy trivia like this has no moral import here. It is not a matter of doctrine and it would be a preposterous thing to make a matter of doctrine. Those who make a big deal out of the common language about the sun rising or setting in the Bible need to ask themselves why they themselves continue to use that language in everyday life having accepted heliocentrism. Geocentrism simply was, at the time, merely the common and accepted view, one held by most academics (Copernicus feared them, not the Church, when publishing his magnum opus), not a teaching of the Church. The reason Galileo was put under house arrest, overlooking the Vatican garden (a rather gentle punishment for the time), was political. The Galileo "affair" spanned decades and had much to do with Galileo's tendency to insult and badger his patrons and those in power. He had a foolish knack for pointlessly making powerful enemies, including those who were once his friends. If anything, anything to do with geocentrism was a pretext on the part of his enemies to attack him. That's it. I know the Galileo "affair" has become a founding myth of scientism, but it's false. Don't get offended at that, have the courage to face the boring truth of it.)
Author here, thanks for writing this thoughtful comment.
1. I agree, during debate, put the offense monster to the side.
2. In an effort to spare words, I compressed the Galileo story into something that missed important details. My bad. My understanding of the saga was that many members of the Church did engage with good faith in the emerging science of the time. What happened was mostly a political spat (though I still think there was an element of "offense" involved).
lpcrealmadrid commented on Get Offended More (2020) ammarmian.substack.com/p/... · Posted by u/lpcrealmadrid
I agree with the premise of this article; that discussion would be improved if we were more explicit about when we disagree and when we are offended.
However, it seems to me that conflating disagreement and offense, and in particular using that to shut down discussion, is a symptom not a root cause. I believe that the root cause is that one half of the current culture war has refused to recognize the validity of offense or prioritize the issues that are at the heart of the offense.
As a result, the other side has concluded that conflating disagreement & offense, and using that as a weapon against opponents, is their only option.
This is a great point. I suppose my hope is that by being less shutdown-offended yourself, you can have an open heart to those that are shutdown-offended. Because engaging with such people is crucial to understanding what’s actually going on (rather than just lobbing facts and conflicting histories back and forth). Trauma is real!
lpcrealmadrid commented on Get Offended More (2020) ammarmian.substack.com/p/... · Posted by u/lpcrealmadrid
>A shitstorm ensued, the Church got shutdown-offended, and Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest. We’re so offended, we can’t even disagree, we shut shit down.
This is really bad history in a very relevant way to the topic. The Church wasn't really offended, they disagreed. The church in that case included most scientists at the time. This was because Galileo's theory didn't actually check out at all when he made the argument as it couldn't explain the observed sizes of most stars. This was because diffraction wasn't known yet as a principle. When he was challenged on this he basically wrote an entire tract that today would basically be considered a 'shitpost', where he insulted most scientists and church figures for pointing the problems with his theory out.
So it was actually Galileo who was offended, the Church who disagreed (and then was potentially also offended), and completely independent of this Galileo just happened to be right
Author here— interesting! Mind sharing some stuff where I can learn more about this?
lpcrealmadrid commented on Second-Guessing the Modern Web (2020) macwright.com/2020/05/10/... · Posted by u/cdme
I love Django. I will be the first to throw spears at modern JS dev. Django's template language works well for simple cases. By design, it is restrictive compared to a proper programming language. I find this to be problematic.
For things beyond if/for statements, the solution is usually to write custom tags in a DSL that I have a hard time grokking. With JS, you can write arbitrary logic in an imperative language.
Came here to agree with this. Beyond basic conditionals and loops, Django templates get really hard to read IMO. Combine that with “sprinkling in” some HTMX and Alpine and you’ve got the making of a true headache that no one wants to work with, even though it technically gets the job done
Deleted Comment
I think the article could be a lot shorter and easier to understand if it simply said that the current design is in a local maximum, and you have to work your way incrementally out of the local maximum to reach a different local maximum. I think programmers would get that metaphor a lot more easily than the "buying widgets for a new factory" metaphor.
I do like how the article puts the spotlight on designing the process of change: picking the route, picking the size of the steps, and picking the right spot to announce as the goal. That gives me a lot of food for thought about the changes my team is contemplating right now.