I haven't read all the comments so I'm not sure if anyone feels the same as I do. This seems to be a popular video but I also think it's a little much for VideoSift. I'd hate to see this site become a gore site. I see this video was published just about 6 years ago, to my surprise.

I do body recovery, meaning that if there are human remains from motor vehicle crashes, crime scenes, suicides etc, it's my job to pick them up and bag them. My point being that I'm not offended by content like this but, rather it's something that tends to "grow kids up" before they are ready. There is no "NSFK" warning so I think videos like this might be better off at sites that publish this kind of content.

Just my opinion. Anyone else?

I know that Maher didn't mean to offend her and that he was just alluding to Trump's comments, but I still found it kinda unsavoury.

It's a bit like calling a black politician "uncle tom". Sure, you might not mean anything by it (other than those other guys are awful and they'll call you names), but I'm not surprised she took offence at it.

Can someone tell me if I should be offended by what the bartender said, because he seemed to make sense?

1. You don't speak for all trans/POC/gays etc, so you can only describe your personal experience. There are a number of documented trans people who agree with Peterson and don't want the state strong arming people in to mouthing the words...

2. Peterson does not promote transphobia, he resists being forced to speak certain words. They are not synonymous. If the fuckwits yelling their heads off spent the time to listen, they'd understand that.

3. Peterson was fine with the idiots at the event chucking a trantrum because it showed them up to be the intolerant idiots, not him. He was calm and reasonable, and if they had listened to him then put questions to him, they may have advanced whatever cause they claim to represent. Instead they came across as a pack of morons. /shrug

4. You talk about drawing lines around things, lines that should not be crossed, but without people daring to propose going outside those lines, gay rights would not be a thing... You see? It takes a brave person to step outside the lines and propose something that may be offensive to some. Same with women rights, transgender folk etc.

5. You have the right to be offended. You do not have the right to not be offended.

6. Mobs strongarming people in to silence has far more to do with Nazi ideology than resisting being forced to speak certain words. It's okay to punch Nazi's right?? \= )

Sorry, did not mean to offend. I'll concede defeat. My apologies.

Me too....offended at the insult to my intelligence.
*ban

No "apology" necessary -- I can definitely see how it would look like bad AI in a one-off context like this, I just wasn't sure if you were making a sarcastic dig at them or not (and it would be fine if you were, also).

There's actually an amazing level of depth in subtle details that get put into the GTA games. Some of them are immersion-enhancing things that you tend to only notice on a subconscious level, like "tick tick tick" sounds of car engines cooling after you shut them down. And some are little in-joke tropes like this.

Honestly, it seems like it would take a LOT of work to coordinate all of those details and references and keep them fairly internally consistent. On top of that effort, the payoff is arguably somewhat dubious in cost-benefit terms -- a few people with notice these things and find them a little bit funny, a few will notice them and be offended to varying degrees, and a bunch either won't notice at all or will chalk them up to AI / simulation glitches.

But I still think it is cool that Rockstar doesn't shy away from including this kind of stuff, and/or stuff that more blatantly pushes the limits.

The historical precedents being (self)censorship and gulags.

Subjective offense and harm defined by well-meaning panels of social judges are the road to hell.

Is the man really black enough to be allowed to say nigger? Is the woman really ugly or is she justly offended? Who decides? Or is there some other concept at work here? Like common morals decided upon by peers in normal social contact (conflict), instead of dictated by a "higher" entity, the SJW.

Let the people decide for themselves. The normal path is that legislation is formed based on morals, not the other way round.

"Offended" is different from "harmed". The SJWs need to learn that lesson fast. Harm in this context means put in physical danger of injury, which a stampede or riot would fall under and why you can't incite either.

If one is truly "harmed" by offensive words, that's an extremely odd personal mental problem that should not be inflicted on the rest of us, please just avoid the public and stick with your similarly afflicted group.

Your TV point is good, change the channel or turn it off.
Your college point is terrible, IMO. College is, in large part, intended to expose you to new and differing ideas and mindsets and teach you how to interact with those holding them. Interpersonal communication was a requirement where I went. If that's something people are uncomfortable with, they don't belong in colleges. Period. If someone wants to start a school where those ideals (safe space, regulated speech, trigger warnings, etc) are reinforced, fine, but it shouldn't be accredited because, no matter how good the classes and students are, it's missing a key component.
The boss being offensive, there's a clearly defined legal line, if they cross that line you can sue, if not, grow a pair and realize two of the most important lessons my parents taught me...."life's not fair", and "what you want and what you need are two different things, and knowing which is which can be the road to contentment, while not knowing is always a road to ruin". I feel like a lot of kids today have never heard either.

I agree with all of that, and there definitely are reasonable limits to completely "free" speech -- like the fire in a crowded theater staple example.

"Harm" seems like a good place to start when defining those limits. It works in the "fire in a theater" base case really well; by making that out of bounds you avoid trample / stampede injuries.

But what about "trauma or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual", as you suggest? I'd agree that cases like that can exist. But to me, the question then becomes "how easily can you avoid those words?"

Offended / "harmed" (perhaps genuinely) by something you see/hear on TV? Very easily solved -- change the channel. Publish "trigger warnings" recommending like-minded individuals also avoid that channel/program/whatever if you like; people who do not agree can also easily avoid those.


Offended / "harmed" (perhaps genuinely) by something your professor said in a University? A bit harder to avoid. Someone in that situation can drop the class and try to take it with a different professor (which may not be possible), avoid taking the class entirely (although it may be a requirement for graduation), or contemplate moving to a different university (which is likely an uneconomical overreaction).

There are arguably better options available for such a person. I'd encourage them to reflect on the phrase "choose your battles wisely", and decide if this particular "harm" (giving all benefit of the doubt that it does actually exist) is worth escalating.


Offended / "harmed" by something your boss says at work? "Choose your battles" still applies, but perhaps also consider asking people who have had a job and who have had to work for a living for advice. When (trigger warning) 99.9% of them say something like "welcome to the real world", maybe -- just maybe -- it is time to look within and re-evaluate your own offense / "harm" threshold.

Are you really blaming the debacle that is Trump on a small sect of the left wing, cos like, maybe its contributory...but you know, the straw that breaks the back is, afterall, still only a piece of straw.

Have you actually, personally, been pepper sprayed for just trying to speak?

If not...faux outrage? Irony detected.

Idk. I'm white, I'm male, I'm straight, but we clearly swim in different circles. The only person censoring me is me. I think the white, male, straight demo is heard from quite enough. He IS President afterall.

Not that I don't think there has been a tendency to stifle discussion through the abuse of "poltical correctness", but honestly, sometimes the "precious snowlflakes" thing seems like a more apt to description of the anti-SJW crowd that seem more butthurt that some people disagree with them than the people they offend.

What exactly does "Rule 19" say?

@newtboy 's description:
"This means that now republicans have ended free speech in the senate, and any time they feel they have been insulted, they'll end the debate and silence the offenders. I find that treasonous, as it directly and horrendously effects how the senate works (or doesn't) and means the party in power can now enforce their un-American idea that they are the only one's allowed to speak."

I agree that it seems to have been used to stifle free speech in this instance. But it doesn't seem like it could be used that way "any time" -- only when the the content being read/spoken is a quote from previous senate sessions?

The reason that I think the full story is important is that the best way to put the kibosh on this would be to turn the tables and have Warren et al. use it on Republicans to demonstrate that it is a bullshit "rule". That sort of violates the whole "they go low, we go high" thing, but a disfunctional, ineffective legislature might be preferable to an actively evil/corrupt legislature. And more importantly, (ab)using the rule is likely the best way to get it removed ASAP so this shit can't happen again.

--edit--
OK, I guess that the "impugn" part is the key, rather than specifically referring to any previous senate session statements. But that just makes it more bullshit, because "impugn" (synonyms include "challenge", "criticize", etc.) is way to broad to be enforceable. I suggest that the moment any senator refers to anybody, dems should "take offense" and invoke Rule 19 themselves.

I wasn't offended enough for a downvote, so I didn't.
The thumb on a mobile told me nothing, like the title, so I watched and gave my opinion....kind of what this site is all about, isn't it?

I'm an atheist.

No once has merry Christmas offended me.

Other people's mouths are not my property. They're welcome to wish whatever the hell they want. I'm welcome to not give a crap.

Talk is cheap. I'd be embarrassed to be emotionally affected enough to actually whine about it.

In general, I think the 'type of person' that would try to create law to use the police to silence people they disagree with, are the fundamental problem. Whether it's right wing churchies, or left wing SJWs, they share the same character flaw that is the root cause of suffering for much of the world. The only good thing about them is that they often manage to cancel each other out.

Re. atheism in public, crap I care about would be things like: marriage tax benefits, or marriage co-100%-ownership benefits. Because marriage (a historically religious arrangement - and before that an arrangement of human chattel) has no business being in the government sphere, and no business having tangible effects on people's economic and legal lives.

-scheherazade