Does the outrage culture backfire? Should subjective experience be the main (and sole) indicator for perceived offensive behavior?

[noname223]

I have not as much time for this thread. (Lol it got pretty long as so often)
I read some scientical papers on moralism in our modern culture. I probably forgot the most of the content. But here is a thing I considered interesting. The whole has to do with the culture war. I consider most of it as overheated and that most of it gets way too much attention. The media loves this topic to get revenue while the billionaires run away with all the money laughing themselves to death over what we argue.

There were things I disagreed with and some I agreed with.


But something struck a nerve of me. He used the German word "Betroffenheit" which is seemingly in this context very hard to translate. I try to mediate it "being affected by something" often by some sort of discrimation, one is the victim of some form of offense; at least in theory he calls it subjective "Betroffenheit". He wants to point out that that the process of feeling offended is often explicitly entirely subjective.

He sees a problem in that. And honestly I see some truth in that. Maybe it is too trivial he used a lot of technical terms which get lost with my translation.

He says subjective feelings are the fundamentals by which we have to judge nowadays. Discrimination and offenses are determined completely by the person who feels offended.

Here I am ambivalent. One has to differentiate between the extremes. Is the judgemental still rational? Of course an offense is dependent on the context and the circumstances. Sometimes jokes are appropriate and sometimes not. One has to use empathy while communicating with others to assess the situation.

I think he wants to point out that we reached a point where offenses are completely up to the person to interpret them and to determine whether the content was "morally bad" "a violation of societal rules/netiquette" and a "personal attack". He concludes that this development is highly problrmatic.

So here is my question. Have we reached a point where the person who feels offended has "too much power" to determine that? Even this question itself could be considered as offensive or questionable. There is the implication that power could be exploited on purpose. That there is a risk involved for bad actors.

Bro the thread is once again way too long and I just cannot stop myself. But I need to add this anecdote. A German somewhat celebrity who is a Jew posted a viral video that he experienced an antisemitic attack against himself in a hotel. The German media was shocked the video became extremely viral. It got all the headings etc. The hotel got in a lot of trouble. The case is now in front of a court. But there are doubts whether the antisemitic attack ever happened in the way he described it. There are some witnesses who describe the evening in that hotel completely different. My summary could also be biased due to its shortness. Considering different perspectives this anecdote could be an example of condemnation in advance of trial against the hotel but also against the celebrity. Currently many call him a blatant liar and he got in some trouble.


Recently in my self-help group someone shared their addiction issues and I shared my take on it. Things I have internalized. I explicitly said maybe this is not that helpful, this is just my point of view as someone who stands outside of the context. The person I told my reply to was okay with it. He did not feel offended at all. Though someone in that group felt offended that I dared to speak about the subject/or to give the first reply even if I am not affected by addiction.

I have accepted that reply but it was telling for me that I got this reply not from the person I talked to but from a third person that was not involved (and who also had no experience with addiction by the way - how was she able to judge my reply if she herself is not affected by it?).

It is not the end of the world. It was a minor interaction and it would be hypocritical of me to judge the person for that.

I think there are many issus where becoming more sensitive to discrimnation in many different forms is very positive. There is no black and white scheme though. There are instances where I welcome it though some things go beyond reason in my opinion. I could talk about a lot of things but I want to stick to this exact question. The topic is too complex to make a very broad approach. And anecdotal evidences can be treacherous.


Back to the core question. Is subjective offense a good indicator for perceived offensive behavior? I would say yes to a certain degree. Though it certainly should not be the sole indicator. Many human interactions involve ambivalences. We send so many different messages to different people in our daily life. Most of them are subconscious and not well-thought. The notion of being able not to offense anyone ever is ridiculous. Things like that happen (daily) and that cannot be eradicated. Of course there are different levels of offenses though.

Here is the question again at which stage are we currently? I read in the USA the outrage culture is way worse than in Germany. But there are also countermovements of distgusting groups who explicitly insult people with the most horrible insults with no ethical considerations. The main thought behind that is probably to destroy the enemy and to leave as much damage as possible. Many say the US culture is the future for Germany on many different levels in this instance. Extreme polarization.

I am not sure how I would judge Germany. I experienced a lot of discrimation in my life. But college is in some instances a good safe space. I never experienced bullying there I think. Except the first time I went to college but this is a very weird story. I was psychotic and cannot judge how much of the bullying was delusional.

Personally I think subjectivity as the sole indicator for offensive behavior "how you perceived it" "you alone can determine it" what counts as offensive comes with a lot of issues. There are so many nuances I cannot cover with this thread. I had to go issue for issue and give explicit examples where I consider it appropriate and where not.

How do you currently evaluate the "state of art" in your country? Do you experience things differently on the internet? I certainly do. It is way more extreme.
I often want ot use the idiom debate climate. It is a literal translated German idiom. It means the atmosphere of the current "debate landscape" in one's society. Lol.

 

[Abandoned Character]

I think the affects of "outrage culture" are warranted when one of the partys involved do something that is morally reprehensible. Sexual assault, discrimination, abuse of some kind. I do agree that it would be beneficial to highlight emotional maturity when dealing with some instances of outrage, but it is admittedly very difficult to forgive someone while simultaneously seeking justice.

I do think in the anecdote that you present, it is a odd that a third party feels the need to involve themselves. In that instance, they are being quite selfish and inconsiderate of the true intentions of yourself. Empathy requires trust and a great deal of compassion, and many people whom may have experienced varying forms of trauma may struggle with those skills. I think that, while "outrage culture" is an important component in positive societal change, we should also stress the importance of noticing when our own feelings get in the way. Like all things, a balance exists, and we don't get there if we don't listen.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think we probably do all have things we become triggered by. They can tie in to recognised inequality- sexism, racism, homophobia. Could be more personal though- snarky remarks about someone's appearance. Is it 'wrong' to feel offended by something? No- it probably ties in to something deeper. Someone who has always been bullied about their weight may struggle with even a light joke about it. I guess what's important is what we do with that.

Take Will Smith's assault on Chris Rock at the Oscars 2022. It was a cruel joke Chris Rock made about Will Smith's wife that provoked him. Was he right to call out Chris Rock for making a nasty remark relating to alopecia? Yeah- why not? Comedians can choose to pick on people and humiliate them for laughs but they ought to be prepared to be called out if they cross the line. Should he have slapped him though? I'd say- no. That was an overeaction.

I think free speech needs to exist but in all directions. If someone says something another person finds hurtful- they have the right to tell them why they found that offensive. I've called my Dad out for being racist, sexist and homophobic at times. People have rightly called me out when I've said something insensitive. Beyond that though- should they be prosecuted? Only if their words incite violence or defame someone's character- those are legal offenses. People should feel safe to express their views but they should be prepared to have them challenged in a civil way if they hurt others.

Sometimes, I think people say stuff without really thinking it through. But- discrimination of any kind can be insiduous. A lifetime of snarky, cynical remarks. If people aren't ever challenged on them- nothing changes. We probably just all need to be more sensitive to one another's feelings.

 

[noname223]

I think the affects of "outrage culture" are warranted when one of the partys involved do something that is morally reprehensible. Sexual assault, discrimination, abuse of some kind. I do agree that it would be beneficial to highlight emotional maturity when dealing with some instances of outrage, but it is admittedly very difficult to forgive someone while simultaneously seeking justice.

I do think in the anecdote that you present, it is a odd that a third party feels the need to involve themselves. In that instance, they are being quite selfish and inconsiderate of the true intentions of yourself. Empathy requires trust and a great deal of compassion, and many people whom may have experienced varying forms of trauma may struggle with those skills. I think that, while "outrage culture" is an important component in positive societal change, we should also stress the importance of noticing when our own feelings get in the way. Like all things, a balance exists, and we don't get there if we don't listen.

I think we probably do all have things we become triggered by. They can tie in to recognised inequality- sexism, racism, homophobia. Could be more personal though- snarky remarks about someone's appearance. Is it 'wrong' to feel offended by something? No- it probably ties in to something deeper. Someone who has always been bullied about their weight may struggle with even a light joke about it. I guess what's important is what we do with that.

Take Will Smith's assault on Chris Rock at the Oscars 2022. It was a cruel joke Chris Rock made about Will Smith's wife that provoked him. Was he right to call out Chris Rock for making a nasty remark relating to alopecia? Yeah- why not? Comedians can choose to pick on people and humiliate them for laughs but they ought to be prepared to be called out if they cross the line. Should he have slapped him though? I'd say- no. That was an overeaction.

I think free speech needs to exist but in all directions. If someone says something another person finds hurtful- they have the right to tell them why they found that offensive. I've called my Dad out for being racist, sexist and homophobic at times. People have rightly called me out when I've said something insensitive. Beyond that though- should they be prosecuted? Only if their words incite violence or defame someone's character- those are legal offenses. People should feel safe to express their views but they should be prepared to have them challenged in a civil way if they hurt others.

Sometimes, I think people say stuff without really thinking it through. But- discrimination of any kind can be insiduous. A lifetime of snarky, cynical remarks. If people aren't ever challenged on them- nothing changes. We probably just all need to be more sensitive to one another's feelings.

I agree with both of you but I as always do not know what to respond.
Thanks for taking the time to read it and for sharing your thoughts with us.

 

[iamalreadydead]

this specifically is something that i think can only be noticed and not changed, and its only a conclusion we could only come to while facilitated by modern perspective. Incidents that maybe at one point in the past may have only reached local news or maybe have even stayed between the affected parties are now mass publicized, and people blow it out of proportion because its the only rational answer if we're being real, and we can't really do anything about it. You see something that upsets you and you respond to it. Whatever power someone has in the situation or however they perceive it to be depends wholly on whatever standard for a moral compass is "in" at this point of time.