I mean sure, if I asked up front every single time to the point where people get annoyed? But that's what we are discussing here.
Yes, we humans have millions of years ready subtle signals, but we are also really fucking bad at reading minds and knowing what others are thinking. Thus, by clarifying with things like actual words in a direct and non-confrontational way we can actually communicate and understand.
I don't know why people are so keen to get me in some kind of "gotcha!" when it's pretty simple what I'm suggesting. Like since when has the intention of wanting to be sure that you're not offending someone become a replacement for inept social person who can't read subtle signs?
Your suggestion is akin to the Victorian gentlemen who didn't swear around the ladies and talk about intellectually heavy and upsetting things because they couldn't handle it.
It's the opposite of empowering somebody to speak up and decide on their own what they can and can't handle.
So yes you might get some pushback when you "simply" suggest we change our interactions.
what are you even talking about? My original post to the op was about why is it wrong to not want to offend someone? It has nothing to do with trying to dictate anything for the rest of the population, just my opinion. No where do I tell you that it’s better to shut up for fear of offending someone.
It’s you who is projecting whatever issue you have with people even remotely suggesting thinking about what we are saying to some greater problem.
Because it's patronizing. You can use normal language without intending to offend someone, but if you actively censor your own language in their presence, you're removing their agency.
Yeah you lost me there I guess, then. There are numerous instances I can think of where we censor our own language and it has nothing to do with removing someone's agency. And of course you can intend to not offend someone and still offend them; that doesn't mean your intent was wrong.
We can agree to disagree here. In the end, I would rather converse with someone who errs of the side of not wanting to "offend" me, but can still freely say whatever they want vs. someone who speaks with no regard to how their words might affect me and makes no apologies for it.
The outcome is the same, but to me, one person is thoughtful and the other person is a jerk. I have never thought that someone trying to be thoughtful with their words was patronizing me, but that's only my experience.
> The outcome is the same, but to me, one person is thoughtful and the other person is a jerk. I have never thought that someone trying to be thoughtful with their words was patronizing me, but that's only my experience.
I have the opposite visceral response to this sort of thing. If someone refers to me either singly or as a part of a collective such as "persons having a mental impairment" I immediately know I'm dealing with the sort of bastard that no human connection can be formed with.
The language betrays the intent, and the intent is to proclaim a shibboleth for the purposes of in-group/out-group reinforcement.
In my opinion, it is not wrong to not want to offend someone, but it is wrong to give that priority over actually communicating.
I do not intend to deliberately try to offend someone, but I think that it is more important to actually say things, freedom of speech, making an argument for or against something, etc, than it is to avoid offending someone.
Those same millions of years of evolution have also made us quite adept at reinforcing power and dominance structures through those same signals. Seems like there might be more to the discussion than "doesn't matter", no?
Do you think the worry of always having to ask up front (if xyz is ok) comes from ironically a lack of natural empathy in your case?