My motto is "Follow the Dread". If I dread public speaking I should do it, if I dread setting up IPsec VPNs I should do more of it, if I dread working with money and run a business as opposed to working solely as a technical person I should do it, so on and so forth.

"The Dread" is a good north star for discovering what to improve next, since most Dreads are somewhat common/shared among peers, communities and colleagues. Being able to do something nobody likes to do is a good edge against the world.

I get what the author is trying to convey but for me, I find avoiding sources of offense leads to a happier life. Primarily, this means low social media consumption. I spend about 15 minutes a week catching up with the happenings of my family and a few actual friends. I try to ignore the rest, but even when I see something I disagree with or take offense to, I just don’t engage. I also try to mirror this in meatspace. I certainly like a debate with certain people, it’s a great conversation. But most people I find just like to argue and will stand their ground until death even when faced with evidence/proof/reason of the contrary. I don’t need that type of debate. I’m always willing to admit I may be wrong or have outdated/incomplete information and a lot of people just don’t engage on that same level. I suppose this represents the “shutting down” but why would I continue a conversation where someone is obviously having strong convictions and I believe it’s absolute rubbish (based on lies, wrong facts, regurgitated news media opinions as truths, etc)

>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

Am I misreading something or is this just a way to stay stuck in perpetual internet flamewars?

If anything I feel that the stereotypical “terminally online” person might try to get offended a bit less.

(That person used to be me, I’m not pointing at some outgroup)

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.

An unstated premise of this article is that most people are self-reflective and introspective. Most people aren't. Being offended is exactly the emotional response we need less of, no matter whether that is coupled with some supposedly helpful self-reflection that should follow.

I will posit we need less of any kind activity or thought that puts ourselves--thoughts, feelings, proclivities, reactions--at the center. You just aren't that important. Stop focusing on yourself and just follow facts. Listen to other people. Not "active listening" or trying to find a way in to insert your own thoughts, conclusions or bright ideas. Just bloody listen and follow facts and stop thinking your opinions amount to more than a hill of beans. You aren't that dang important and your ego is wily, desperately maneuvering to put it at the center of your thoughts. Offense is just one of its tactics.

Stop being offended that the sky is blue, stars burn hydrogen and termites eat your walls.

I have a similar script in my head: Notice when I'm angry. Not, get angry more, but notice it, because it's pointing right at whatever I need to fix or learn from. For instance I've found that it usually arises from some failure to communicate, and has the result of making that problem worse ... until I notice and change course.

> If you haven’t read the memo yourself, give it a read. Are you disagreeing, or are you offended?

Damore's memo made very flimsy scientific arguments, supported uncritically by a couple of studies at best, from a field which is currently undergoing a replication crisis, to make sweeping criticism of a policy widely regarded as beneficial. The disagreement is obvious. The offense is that he would, apparently in good faith, expect people to be convinced by such paltry evidence.

With the author's hunting example, the author has no evidence that 'offence comes first', or even that offence exists at all for the friend in question now that they're an adult.

With the Galileo example, there was no "pretence at disagreement". The church straight-up tried him for heresy. That's nothing to do with offense OR disagreement: it's the church maintaining its authority.

The reason the examples are so weak is because there is no strong dividing line between disagreement and offence. Trying to find one is to pretend people are rational beings when they're not. You can make a pretty good case for "what caused what" (disagreement) or for "self conception and identity" (offence) for each of these, and to attempt to shoehorn them into one or the other position is simply to argue for your own preferences -- but to do so from an imaginary position of scientific legitimacy.

I really don't get offended by anything anymore.

I can get quite passionate in my discussions, but I don't take anything personally, and always welcome the opportunity for criticism. Though it is usually the ones who take offence who are the least able to criticize me.

Being offended represents a passive position. Doing, even against the haters, represents an active position.

You decide which is better for the circumstances of your life.

The substantial point here is good, but I think it's poorly articulated and needs an overhaul.

> To disagree is to provide an observation that counters a specific claim.

> To get offended is to have a strong aversion to something.

Neither of these are true. Someone may use these words this way, but it simply isn't how we collectively normally use these words.

If you want to express a concept as a contrast, don't do so by twisting the meanings of existing words. It won't stick because it doesn't integrate with the rest of our language.

My progress began when I stopped putting up with some jerk professors in my department and decided to just do what I wanted to do. The moment I stopped justifying the way they were treating me I realized just what an unhealthy dynamic I had put up with. Maybe I needed to get seriously offended in order to completely be done with that.

I noticed that there is a finite amount of certain emotions I can sustain.

I managed to trick myself into feeling sympathy ( e.g. for the victims ) in many cases people demand my anger, but I have not found a replacement for being offended.

Seems to be a long way of saying to go get offended but not too offended.

Taking offense is a choice. Be better at making choices.

>To get offended is to have a strong aversion to something.

No it is not. The actual definition:

>cause to feel upset, annoyed or resentful

Low quality article.

Oof please don’t. Unless of course I can say that this very much offends me…

The article left me 99% disagreeing and 0% offended.

If I disagree on this website, i get downvoted (ala - reddit groupthink/hivemind), so maybe I'll try getting offended next time and see how that goes.

The title is misleading. He really advocates for leaving your comfort zone.

That said, I would really love it if everybody could calm down and stop getting offended so much.

Realize that from the perspective of the other person, YOU are the one spewing obvious falsehoods and uttering offensive things. Everybody is the hero in their story.

Yes, some trolls are out to cause offense. You know what empowers and enables those people? Success. If anyone actually does get offended by their trollery.

TL;DR:

   - disagreeing and being offended aren't on the same level
   - getting offended is a good thing, it shows you care deeply about an issue, you should do it more
   - behaving like and ass***e because you're offended is not ok

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).