Support NeoGAF

[Yopis]

This section of Neogaf has some of the most easily offended posters I have ever seen on the internet. It is cursed with a small but significantly loud coterie of over sensitive wall flowers who cannot stand to read an opposing view point and will do all they can to get posters they don't like banned. I cannot count the number of times I've seen these idiots dog piling and avatar quoting posters in their desperate and juvenile attempts to signal mods that someone has posted an opinion they don't like and don't have the ability to counter. They have been a curse on this forum. They are not interested in debating or examining a subject. They are only interested in point scoring at it's most facile level and being seen to be right.

Agree 100 percent on this.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Going by his posts it seems more like he puts people on ignore who aren't interested in a discussion and not because they have an opposing view

That remains to be seen. It's easy for a person to fool themselves into believing others of a different opinion aren't interested in discussing something. But the only reason to add someone to ignore is because they have said something you don't like, which is one type of being offended. Which is fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being offended. I'm just pointing out his hypocrisy.

 

[pants]

Isn't the act of putting someone on "ignore", not wanting to be offended in itself? I noticed how people who participate in alleged "outrage culture" are characterized as effectively "shutting down discussion". Is that not what putting people on "ignore" is doing as well? Seems oddly similar.

Naw man. Speaking for myself, I have never and will never put someone on ignore for having a different viewpoint as myself, that would be doing myself a disservice as I'll forever be stuck in an echo chamber where I'm never challenged to evaluate my own ideas, thought processes nor will i ever learn anything new. Once that happens conversation is pointless. I do however put people on ignore for how they choose to express their opinion (be that sarcastically, looking down or others or arguing like their offense is a valid counterpoint, trying to remove opposing views from a conversation etc) I actually find that i ignore more people I agree with than people I dont.

 

[Savitar]

Pretty much yeah, these days I swear people go out to find something to be offended about.

 

[Kinyou]

That remains to be seen. It's easy for a person to fool themselves into believing others of a different opinion aren't interested in discussing something. But the only reason to add someone to ignore is because they have said something you don't like, which is one type of being offended. Which is fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being offended. I'm just pointing out his hypocrisy.

He does mention avatar quotes which really can't be interpreted as opener for a discussion.
And even if you say that still means he's offended, there's a difference between ignoring someone and actively trying to shut them down

 

[Bronx-Man]

I'm such a welcome supporter of debate and opposing viewpoints that i'm gonna put eight people on ignore because their viewpoints piss me off.

 

[marrec]

Pretty much yeah, these days I swear people go out to find something to be offended about.

If I'm being honest, I think some people go out of their way to look for people being offended about things. *shrug*

Everyone just needs to calm the fuck down so we can be angry about proper shit that needs changing and less angry about people who're offended.

 

[pants]

I'm such a welcome supporter of debate and opposing viewpoints that i'm gonna put eight people on ignore because their viewpoints piss me off.

tbh, this is exactly the kind of post that would usually earn an ignore from me. (i didnt put you on ignore btw)

 

[Admiral Woofington]

I feel that society as a whole is in the same level of getting offended as it always has been, the difference that with platforms like Twitter and Tumblr we have sites where young people and radical minded individuals can rally others who would otherwise let something slide to do something.


See all of the twitter mobs. That's easily the worst aspect of "you pc bro?" folks

 

[A Link to the Past]

I'm such a welcome supporter of debate and opposing viewpoints that i'm gonna put eight people on ignore because their viewpoints piss me off.

Well, I would think that there are sometimes good reasons to ignore people for opposing viewpoints. I don't take Patrol off of ignore, for instance.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I'm starting to think so this very second lol..

 

[Bronx-Man]

Well, I would think that there are sometimes good reasons to ignore people for opposing viewpoints. I don't take Patrol off of ignore, for instance.

I got no problem with using ignore lists, but you kinda lose the right to complain about different viewpoints being shut-out when you use one.

 

[marrec]

Well, I would think that there are sometimes good reasons to ignore people for opposing viewpoints. I don't take Patrol off of ignore, for instance.

I tried, I really really tried with him.

He's the only poster here I've ever put on Ignore because there was no reason to have a discussion with him and his posts always made me want to respond. So in an effort to not have fruitless conversations with what seemed like a robot I put him on ignore.

 

[Beefy]

Is OP offended that people get offended?

 

[Kinyou]

I got no problem with using ignore lists, but you kinda lose the right to complain about different viewpoints being shut-out when you use one.

Unless... the reason you put people on there isn't that they have opposing views

 

[NoblesseOblige]

He does mention avatar quotes which really can't be interpreted as opener for a discussion.
And even if you say that still means he's offended, there's a difference between ignoring someone and actively trying to shut them down

Fact remains that the the act of avatar quoting him offended him enough that he hid the offender's posts from himself. And that's fine, but he's making himself out to be above that, which clearly isn't the case.

 

[Oersted]

Is OP offended that people get offended?

A real development as of late, but this kind of offended keeps getting ignored.

 

[pants]

I got no problem with using ignore lists, but you kinda lose the right to complain about different viewpoints being shut-out when you use one.

Fact remains that the the act of avatar quoting him offended him enough that he hid the offender's posts from himself. And that's fine, but he's making himself out to be above that, which clearly isn't the case.

I'm not sure you gents are getting the distinction between ignore listing because something is a waste of time vs being offended.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Unless... the reason you put people on there isn't that they have opposing views

Well then that's kinda implied.

I put people on an ignore list just because people used to have annoying bronie avatars

 

[Dicer]

Is OP offended that people get offended?

I'm offended that you would even ask such a thing...

 

[benicillin]

Are there people who get outraged easily over stupid stuff? Sure, they have always existed. And the Internet mob mentality is a dangerous thing for public figures who might make a mistake and folks would rather shame them or whatever than forgive and let it go. However "PC outrage culture" and "are we too easily offended these days" are more often than not excuses for people who don't want to take responsibility for what they say or do or see any criticism as "people being too sensitive" or "outrage culture." I'm generally less annoyed about people being outraged than I am about "people being outraged about people being outraged."

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I'm such a welcome supporter of debate and opposing viewpoints that i'm gonna put eight people on ignore because their viewpoints piss me off.

You're just mad he won't be reading this post 😉

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I'm not sure you gents are getting the distinction between ignore listing because something is a waste of time vs being offended.

How is ignoring someone because they avatar quoted you saving any time?

 

[Gold_Loot]

This section of Neogaf has some of the most easily offended posters I have ever seen on the internet. It is cursed with a small but significantly loud coterie of over sensitive wall flowers who cannot stand to read an opposing view point and will do all they can to get posters they don't like banned. I cannot count the number of times I've seen these idiots dog piling and avatar quoting posters in their desperate and juvenile attempts to signal mods that someone has posted an opinion they don't like and don't have the ability to counter. They have been a curse on this forum. They are not interested in debating or examining a subject. They are only interested in point scoring at it's most facile level and being seen to be right.

Spot.Fucking.On.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Can I get a few good examples of being too easily offended?

 

[Sianos]

I'm going to cross-post the really long semantics post about the concept of being offended, smuggled connotations, and non-central categorizations I make whenever that Stephen Fry "offended" macro comes up that no one ever responds to. Since its technically a "fresh" post and is very relevant to the subject matter, I hope no one minds. And that people respond to it. Especially those who complain about a deficit of serious discussion Please.

This is more of a criticism of literary prescriptivism than anything else -

Stephen Fry is correct that the series of phonemes constructing the word "offended" are inherently meaningless.

This is also true for every set of phonemes - all of the sets of phonemes we group in words have had their meanings ascribed by humans.

Denotation and connotation may be defined as two separate elements of a word, but the effective meaning of a word is not in the series of phonemes themselves or even what a group of humans with a particular level of authority says the word should mean - the true impact of a word is the message conveyed to the listener, whether it be denotative or connotative in nature.

Because of the way words acquire connotations due to emotions in response to the concept or event being represented by the word being associated with the word itself, words can have different effective meanings to people who have experienced different situations and heard words ascribed to their different situations.

Humans tend to be very object-based, and language and the deployment of words is a convenient way to label things for ease of cognition and explanation of cognition to other humans - but we forget that the word is meaningless; it is the conveyed message that matters.

Due to the effects of connotation, a word tends to have a gradient of meaning - especially words that convey a category. Meaningful categories tend to contain more than one idea grouped together based on a similarity. But that does not mean every idea represented by the label has the same meaning - ascribing a label to something does not homogenize it with other members of its new category and does not subtract any information.

Categorization is often times not done based on emotion unless the category itself explicitly has to do with emotion, yet because categories themselves are words they to are equipped with connotations based on ascribed emotions. Because typical members of the category tend to elicit a certain emotional response, the category obtains the same emotional response due to associations - this is how slurs "work", by attempting to categorize people under a label that is loaded with heavy, heavy negative connotations. People object to being misrepresented and are thus feel the range of emotions transcribed as "the state of being offended" by humans.

But to get back to Stephen Fry's quote: he makes the point that just saying "that offends me" doesn't really send much more information than "I am experiencing negative emotions expressed in a certain gradient over this". That is true, and I agree with him that just saying you are offended by something does not actually transcribe something with the characteristics that would lead it to be categorized as offensive.

But then fools try to overdraw this logic to say that the very concept of being offended is being ridiculous. They seem to be under the deluded notion that if they can disavow the label offended for any connotation under its gradient than all of the ideas conveyed by the word must also be invalid.

They try to attack the idea of a person not wanting to have untrue negative connotations ascribed to them by attacking the word used to represent the idea of a person not wanting to have untrue negative connotations ascribed to them by pointing out that this word can also be used in a fashion that conveys only vague discontent. Their baffling logic is that if the word offended is disavowed for this one definition than all meanings represented by the word should also be disavowed.

This image is effective because it takes far more to explain to people how human language operates than it is to shout about how since this word has been overused now the concepts traditionally represented by the word have had their honor damaged.

It is usually used by spineless fools who cannot think of a way to effectively argue that people should not be upset by untrue negative connotations being ascribed to them but also lack the guts to say that they do not care how this other human feels.

/rambly post about semantics

 

[marrec]

I'm going to cross-post the really long semantics post about the concept of being offended, smuggled connotations, and non-central categorizations I make whenever that Stephen Fry "offended" macro comes up that no one ever responds to. Since its technically a "fresh" post and is very relevant to the subject matter, I hope no one minds. And that people respond to it. Especially those who complain about a deficit of serious discussion Please.

Disregarding the specifics on the Fry.jpg, I think you bring up a great point about the negative connotations people are trying to ascribe to being "offended".

What's so wrong with being offended anyway?

Nice read btw

 

[E92 M3]

tbh, this is exactly the kind of post that would usually earn an ignore from me. (i didnt put you on ignore btw)

Honestly, what's the point of an ignore feature? Just don't respond to people you don't agree with. Overall, I just never understood the concept of ignoring someone for a differing opinion.

Guess, I'm just trying to understand the psychology behind it.

 

[gruenel]

Can I get a few good examples of being too easily offended?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1120054

 

[TanookiTom]

I would just like to go ahead and answer with a simple "Yes!".

The Internet has a lot to do with that, because it made it very easy for us to get publicly offended. And I feel there's a lot of attention grabbing going on there as well.

But of course this is the negative side of a generally positive phenomenon, which is that the Internet allowed us to rise awareness about real issues regarding racism, sexism etc.

It can be a fine line between "too easily offended" or "rightfully offended" but as always it's a subjective matter.

 

[deli2000]

Can I get a few good examples of being too easily offended?

Not for this forum. At best there will be a ton of passive aggressive posts decrying the evil oppressive mods and SJWs, but no actual examples because it doesn't actually happen and they just want to take shots at BCT.

 

[TheSlySoul]

People throwing the word "Triggered" to me means yes. Remember the reaction to the South Park premiere?

 

[Sianos]

Disregarding the specifics on the Fry.jpg, I think you bring up a great point about the negative connotations people are trying to ascribe to being "offended".

What's so wrong with being offended anyway?

Nice read btw

Thank you for reading. :>

Yeah, it's pretty ironic that people are ascribing negative connotations to the response people tend to have when others ascribe negative connotations to them.

 

[marrec]

People throwing the word "Triggered" to me means yes. Remember the reaction to the South Park premiere?

You mean the tiny, tiny reaction had in a remote corner of the internet that people had to search out and aggregate into an image macro that was then re-tweeted many more times than the original tiny, tiny reaction?

Yes... I remember that...

 

[themagicalkitsune]

I think we can all agree Stephen Fry said it best.

That Stephen Fry quote is terrible and you know it.

 

[PSYGN]

I'very Trump talk about us being too politically correct. I've heard that comedians avoid college campuses because the stadents get way too offended. Internet outrage happens weekly. Are we just too thin skinned these days?

I'm not easily offended but the people on this forum sure are.

 

[Ecto311]

We? I am not offended ever really. I do sense the internet and people in general either being offended or a lot of wimpy beta shitbags that do their best to not be offensive. My self personally though, I am not offended ever.

Rogan on his podcast just did a good talk on this with Milo and they discussed the people waiting around to be offended or fight about something. Since I am dumb as shit I don't remember the specifics much but it was a great listen about the subject. The guest is a gay republican who fights for hetro rights. About as bizarre and interesting as it sounds though.

 

[pants]

How is ignoring someone because they avatar quoted you saving any time?

I dont have a problem with avatar quoting when used humorously, I laugh at avatar quoting 9/10 times. If someone decided to lay their thoughts out in a few paragraphs of genuine talk it's probably not going to go down well if you avatar quote them though.

Honestly, what's the point of an ignore feature? Just don't respond to people you don't agree with. Overall, I just never understood the concept of ignoring someone for a differing opinion.

Guess, I'm just trying to understand the psychology behind it.

I tend to read every post in a thread when I'm interested, this is just a good way of making posters 'opt in'. If I see someone consistently not trying to have a genuine conversation and being snarky/trying to shout people down I dont think it's worth my time to read it unless I'm super bored.

 

[Kinyou]

Well then that's kinda implied.

I put people on an ignore list just because people used to have annoying bronie avatars

I don't think so. Someone can be annoying despite having the same viewpoints.

 

[marrec]

We? I am not offended ever really. I do sense the internet and people in general either being offended or a lot of wimpy beta shitbags that do their best to not be offensive. My self personally though, I am not offended ever.

Rogan on his podcast just did a good talk on this with Milo and they discussed the people waiting around to be offended or fight about something. Since I am dumb as shit I don't remember the specifics much but it was a great listen about the subject. The guest is a gay republican who fights for hetro rights. About as bizarre and interesting as it sounds though.

Milo Yiannopoulos is not someone I'd look to for any kind of salient discussion on ANY topic. He writes tabloid-esque articles with terrible sources whose only reason for being written is to ruin the lives of people he disagrees with. The very apogee of outrage culture reflected in the American Right-Wing News.

That said, off the cuff he doesn't come off as such a bad guy like he does in his writings, and that interview was interesting to listen too.

 

[Infinite_Daremo]

Can I get a few good examples of being too easily offended?

Go to tumblr?

 

[E92 M3]

I dont have a problem with avatar quoting when used humorously, I laugh at avatar quoting 9/10 times. If someone decided to lay their thoughts out in a few paragraphs of genuine talk it's probably not going to go down well if you avatar quote them though.



I tend to read every post in a thread when I'm interested, this is just a good way of making posters 'opt in'. If I see someone consistently not trying to have a genuine conversation and being snarky/trying to shout people down I dont think it's worth my time to read it unless I'm super bored.

I am strongly against censorship so even when people are insulting me, I welcome it.

One of the biggest advocates of freedom of speech right here lol.

 

[Bishop89]

Can I get a few good examples of being too easily offended?

Being indian/asian and going to a russell peters show, and getting offended at the material.

 

[SigSig]

Seems to me that the "SORRY IF I'M NOT PC"-crowd are the ones who are most offended these days.

Go to tumblr?

I went to tumblr and only saw neat mecha concept art, wip gamedev gifs, nice pixelart and a lot of dumb ass dogs. "Go to tumblr?" is like saying "Go to the Internet", it's the broadest generalization one can possibly make. The site is more diverse than reddit.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I dont have a problem with avatar quoting when used humorously, I laugh at avatar quoting 9/10 times. If someone decided to lay their thoughts out in a few paragraphs of genuine talk it's probably not going to go down well if you avatar quote them though.

That doesn't answer my question though. You implied I don't know the difference between not wanting to waste time, and being offended. How does ignoring someone who avatar quoted save any time? If you give a paragraph response and they give you an avatar quote back then you're not retroactively getting your time back by then ignoring them. The only reason you'd be ignoring them is because you're huffy (see: offended) that they didn't give you a response back. Which again I will say is fine, but let's not pretend it's not what it is.

 

[Skinpop]

yes but not because of political correctness but because youngsters these days can't handle criticism without taking it as a personal attack.

 

[User 73706]

Sanders stans have got to be some of the most vocal proponents of outrage culture on the internet.

 

[E92 M3]

Being indian/asian and going to a russell peters show, and getting offended at the material.

Russell Peters is awesome and I'm a Jew. He got us in his skits as well. That dude is honestly hilarious. I grew up in a very diverse community and all of his jokes make a lot of sense.

 

[Stitch]

Can I get a few good examples of being too easily offended?

Just go the gaming side and read every thread about Quiet or Marie Rose.

 

[Infinite_Daremo]

Seems to me that the "SORRY IF I'M NOT PC"-crowd are the ones who are most offended these days.


I went to tumblr and only saw neat mecha concept art, wip gamedev gifs, nice pixelart and a lot of dumb ass dogs. "Go to tumblr?" is like saying "Go to the Internet", it's the broadest generalization one can possibly make. The site is more diverse than reddit.

Never been. I only ever hear of Tumblr when it makes the front page of Reddit/r/all.