"How dare you insult me!" - "What...!?"

[Betterave]

When you call Jo’s view simplistic, is this an insult? Of course not. It is just a claim that Jo’s view is simplistic, most views are simplistic, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, and you think Jo’s view is one of those simplistic views. But to your surprise, Jo gets upset: “How dare you insult me!”

Why do people think it is not okay for someone to criticize their view? Suppose Jo says, “I don’t know you, but I do know that I am your intellectual equal - you couldn’t possibly be more intelligent or better informed than me.” Would it be an insult to point out to Jo that s/he is being arrogant and irrational? Suppose s/he responds by saying, “How dare you suggest that what I have said is not true and insult me by calling me arrogant and irrational!” Would it be an insult to point out to Jo that s/he is still being arrogant and irrational, and that s/he is proving the very point that s/he is disputing?

It seems like people are often unable to distinguish between a legitimate criticism (which is essential to philosophical dialogue) and a gratuitous insult. I wonder: why is that?

 

[davidv]

When you call Jo’s view simplistic, is this an insult? Of course not. It is just a claim that Jo’s view is simplistic, most views are simplistic, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, and you think Jo’s view is one of those simplistic views. But to your surprise, Jo gets upset: “How dare you insult me!”

Why do people think it is not okay for someone to criticize their view? Suppose Jo says, “I don’t know you, but I do know that I am your intellectual equal - you couldn’t possibly be more intelligent or better informed than me.” Would it be an insult to point out to Jo that s/he is being arrogant and irrational? Suppose s/he responds by saying, “How dare you suggest that what I have said is not true and insult me by calling me arrogant and irrational!” Would it be an insult to point out to Jo that s/he is still being arrogant and irrational, and that s/he is proving the very point that s/he is disputing?

It seems like people are often unable to distinguish between a legitimate criticism (which is essential to philosophical dialogue) and a gratuitous insult. I wonder: why is that?

Why? In this particular case the words, “simplistic”, “arrogant” and “irrational” are very emotionally laden words. From a total stranger, without a fairly detailed explanation, I would consider them insulting.

 

[Barbkw]

Who’s Jo?

 

[faithfully]

Who’s Jo?

DUH!!! The village idiot.

I THINK there might be a perceived difference in saying to someone: I think you’ve over simplified the situation, and “Your view is simplistic”

Because if your view is simplistic, then YOU are simplistic. And don’t we usually quietly turn to another when they hear something crazy from such a person and say… “shhh… he’s just a little simple.” In the same way that Forrest Gump is Simple.

But if you’ve over simplified a situation… then it’s not YOU or your brain that we’re discussing.

So, for example. When you tell someone they have a simplistic view, I might in turn say… just like your social skills???

 

[Ceil-1]

It is condescending in its tone.

 

[jmcrae]

When you call Jo’s view simplistic, is this an insult? Of course not. It is just a claim that Jo’s view is simplistic, most views are simplistic, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, and you think Jo’s view is one of those simplistic views. But to your surprise, Jo gets upset: “How dare you insult me!”

Why would you be surprised? You just implied rather strongly that she was a simpleton.

Instead of telling her that her views are simplistic, ask her to explain herself in more detail.

 

[Betterave]

Interesting. So people don’t generally seem to care about whether it’s true or not. If a view is simplistic, and even obviously so, still, we shouldn’t say so for the following reasons:

1. People who make simplistic statements are simpletons, so pointing out that a person’s view is simplistic is implying that that person is a simpleton (that’s not true actually - even the most intelligent people make plenty of simplistic statements).
2. It is condescending in tone (of course it is - so what? - it would be more condescending to treat someone like a mental defective who is simply incapable of recognizing a simplistic statement when one is pointed out).
3. Refusing to assume that someone is a simpleton, refusing to treat a person who posts on a philosophy forum like Forrest Gump, like someone whose back we should whisper behind, is itself simplistic, social skill-wise (and apparently this is supposed to be bad? - simple isn’t always bad and I’m sure there’s often a fine line between simple and simplistic).
4. Certain words are emotionally-laden, so they shouldn’t be used, even if they are completely accurate (I just don’t buy that - if someone tells me I’m being arrogant or irrational, unless I actually am arrogant or irrational, that is a signal for me to check what I have said in order to see what may have been arrogant or irrational about it (maybe ask some questions if I don’t see it myself) - but if I am arrogant or irrational, then it’s a bit of catch-22… so I guess the rule should be that’s it’s okay to tell someone she’s being arrogant or irrational, unless she really is an arrogant or irrational person - in that case don’t tell her because she’s bound to interpret it as an insult).

 

[vera_dicere]

There’s no such right as a right not to be offended.

You can call someone out on their simple opinions and view points, but its a different matter entirely to call someone simple, that’s insulting and you really shouldn’t do it because its not very Christian like, but even if you do, no one has a right to have their feelings safeguarded.

Call me thick skinned, but when people tell me I’m being offensive or “insulting” when all I’m doing is pointing out flaws in argument or hypocrisy, I simply respond with;

Harden up, princess.

 

[faithfully]

Interesting. So people don’t generally seem to care about whether it’s true or not. If a view is simplistic, and even obviously so, still, we shouldn’t say so for the following reasons:

1. People who make simplistic statements are simpletons (that’s not true actually - even the most intelligent people make plenty of simplistic statements).
2. It is condescending in tone (of course it is - so what? - it would be more condescending to treat someone like a mental defective who is simply incapable of recognizing a simplistic statement).
3. Refusing to assume that someone is a simpleton, instead treating her like Forrest Gump, like someone whose back we should whisper behind, is social skill-wise simplistic (and apparently this is supposed to be bad? - simple isn’t always bad and I’m sure there’s often a fine line between simple and simplistic).
4. Certain words are emotionally-laden, so they shouldn’t be used, even if they are completely accurate (I just don’t buy that - if someone tells me I’m being arrogant or irrational, unless I actually am arrogant or irrational, that is a signal for me to check what I have said in order to see what may have been arrogant or irrational about it (maybe ask some questions if I don’t see it myself) - but if I am arrogant or irrational, then it’s a bit of catch-22… so I guess the rule should be that’s it’s okay to tell someone she’s being arrogant or irrational, unless she really is an arrogant or irrational person - in that case don’t tell her).

1)No, it’s not that people that make simplistic statements are simple. But you’re saying that their VIEW is simplistic. It comes off as an attack on the person. If it didn’t, then you would not have rec’d the complaint.
2)So you do infact mean to be rude and condensending. As observed by your “so what?”
3)See? Forest Gump is ACTUALLY simple in mind. The person you are talking with on the net is probably not mentally impaired. Just reasons differently than you. And perhaps oversimplifies some topics.
4)You bring NOTHING to the table by insulting people. And you know you’re insulting them, but WHO CARES??? right? Give the person something to work with. Ask more questions. Lead them to a more complex analysis.

The rule should be DO UNTO OTHER AS YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERS DO UNTO YOU…

So, given you like to hear it how it is… Sounds like you were rude. And you’re looking to defend your rudeness. Rather than realize that you hurt someone’s feelings and ego. You’ve gained nothing… No intellectual debate, and no kuddos for being nice to people… and perhaps no insight on how to treat others…

 

[Betterave]

DUH!!! The village idiot.

I THINK there might be a perceived difference in saying to someone: I think you’ve over simplified the situation, and “Your view is simplistic”

Because if your view is simplistic, then YOU are simplistic.

Non sequitur. In any case, surely it would be just as true (or in this case just as false) to say that if you over-simplify situations, then you are a simpleton - would it not?

And don’t we usually quietly turn to another when they hear something crazy from such a person and say… “shhh… he’s just a little simple.” In the same way that Forrest Gump is Simple.

But if you’ve over simplified a situation… then it’s not YOU or your brain that we’re discussing.

So, for example. When you tell someone they have a simplistic view, I might in turn say… just like your social skills???

So do you think it might be perceived as insulting to say, “if you tell someone they have a simplistic view, as you have, then (regardless of the truth of that statement) *your social skills *are simplistic”? This certainly seems to be directed much more to the person than a statement that someone has made a simplistic claim, doesn’t it? - or are my simplistic social skills failing me again? It is also much less likely to be verifiably true, it smacks much more of a general insult, not really tied to any definite mistake that you are attempting to point out so as to correct. It seems like a sophomoric ‘comeback,’ not an attempt to move a philosophical discussion forward.

 

[JM3]

Interesting. So people don’t generally seem to care about whether it’s true or not. If a view is simplistic, and even obviously so, still, we shouldn’t say so for the following reasons:

1. People who make simplistic statements are simpletons, so pointing out that a person’s view is simplistic is implying that that person is a simpleton (that’s not true actually - even the most intelligent people make plenty of simplistic statements).
2. It is condescending in tone (of course it is - so what? - it would be more condescending to treat someone like a mental defective who is simply incapable of recognizing a simplistic statement when one is pointed out).
3. Refusing to assume that someone is a simpleton, refusing to treat a person who posts on a philosophy forum like Forrest Gump, like someone whose back we should whisper behind, is itself simplistic, social skill-wise (and apparently this is supposed to be bad? - simple isn’t always bad and I’m sure there’s often a fine line between simple and simplistic).
4. Certain words are emotionally-laden, so they shouldn’t be used, even if they are completely accurate (I just don’t buy that - if someone tells me I’m being arrogant or irrational, unless I actually am arrogant or irrational, that is a signal for me to check what I have said in order to see what may have been arrogant or irrational about it (maybe ask some questions if I don’t see it myself) - but if I am arrogant or irrational, then it’s a bit of catch-22… so I guess the rule should be that’s it’s okay to tell someone she’s being arrogant or irrational, unless she really is an arrogant or irrational person - in that case don’t tell her because she’s bound to interpret it as an insult).

A persons ‘view’ is who they are. If their road is a small country road and your’s a freeway, is that a reason to be uncharitable?

Is the point to win souls or arguments?

 

[larkin31]

These are all excellent replies, and I will keep them in mind.

Wait, I did not start this thread!

 

[fhansen]

In general I think humans are way too sensitive to perceived criticism. For some reason we simply prefer-to an inordinate degree-to be right and will often defend ourselves in manners beyond what reason would dictate. Has to do with original sin/pride IMO-the more innocent a person is, the less of this trait they possess.

 

[faithfully]

Barbkw:
It seems like a sophomoric ‘comeback,’ not an attempt to move a philosophical discussion forward.

See? another rude comment. Which shows that you lack in social graces… I don’t actually see a philosophical discussion here. I see a person that wants to justify their rude behavior by some form of logic. I see no way to justify the behavior, other than you purposefully intend to be rude and mean… and you feel justified by way of intelligence to be so…

Have at it…

 

[Betterave]

It seems like a sophomoric ‘comeback,’ not an attempt to move a philosophical discussion forward.

For now I’ll just steal this delicious one-liner from Ernest Bunbury’s signature and hope that your understanding, if not your social graces, can profit from reflecting upon it:

“Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.”
-Oscar Wilde

[How can you not love Oscar Wilde?]

 

[Betterave]

A persons ‘view’ is who they are. If their road is a small country road and your’s a freeway, is that a reason to be uncharitable?

Is the point to win souls or arguments?

I assume you’ve read the gospels, not to mention the rest of the New Testament. Maybe you’ve even read some philosophy written by canonized saints. It’s not all lovey-dovey stepping on egg-shells what-about-my-“social-graces” kind of stuff, right? For example, who’s the guy who said this: “you white-washed tombs!..you go to the ends of the earth to gain a follower, then you make him twice as fit for hell as you yourselves are!” (See Matthew 23 - some people will accuse Jesus of being uncharitable here; I don’t.) So certainly the point is to win souls, but not at the expense of truth, it seems. In fact, the truth is the only thing that can set us free, even if we are often too arrogant to accept the truth. This message is actually basic to philosophy too - read Plato for example, e.g., Plato’s Apology. Socrates was essentially executed because of his lack of social graces and his devotion to (love of) wisdom. So what is the point? (of philosophy? of life?) Perhaps read the Apology and the gospels. Some good food for thought there.

 

[Betterave]

In general I think humans are way too sensitive to perceived criticism. For some reason we simply prefer-to an inordinate degree-to be right and will often defend ourselves in manners beyond what reason would dictate. Has to do with original sin/pride IMO-the more innocent a person is, the less of this trait they possess.

Yes! The simple innocence of the child who wants to learn, who is ready to recognize when she is ignorant and is genuinely curious and thirsty for knowledge. We cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (or think well, think philosophically) without struggling for this freedom from arrogant presumption about our own feeble intellectual prerogatives.

 

[JM3]

I assume you’ve read the gospels, not to mention the rest of the New Testament. Maybe you’ve even read some philosophy written by canonized saints. It’s not all lovey-dovey stepping on egg-shells what-about-my-“social-graces” kind of stuff, right? For example, who’s the guy who said this: “you white-washed tombs!..you go to the ends of the earth to gain a follower, then you make him twice as fit for hell as you yourselves are!” (See Matthew 23 - some people will accuse Jesus of being uncharitable here; I don’t.) So certainly the point is to win souls, but not at the expense of truth, it seems. In fact, the truth is the only thing that can set us free, even if we are often too arrogant to accept the truth. This message is actually basic to philosophy too - read Plato for example, e.g., Plato’s Apology. Socrates was essentially executed because of his lack of social graces and his devotion to (love of) wisdom. So what is the point? (of philosophy? of life?) Perhaps read the Apology and the gospels. Some good food for thought there.

You can use the gospels to justify your lack of charity, if that is your choice.

 

[LilyM]

You can use the gospels to justify your lack of charity, if that is your choice.

Didn’t someone use scripture to justify tempting Jesus to throw Himself off the pinnacle of the Temple?

 

[tonyrey]

If in doubt say nowt! Silence is the most effective weapon…