"Hunt you down"

[pigou]

The problem with the outrage isn't that it infringes upon someone's right to be an ass or otherwise act thoughtlessly. Rather, it imposes a permanent mental tax: everything you write (or say) now has to go through various filters to see who might be offended by it. Not using "hunt you down" is just one rarely used phrase that's easy to avoid -- but it could similarly apply to a billion other phrases.

The consequence is that it impoverishes language and by extension thought. In fact, that statement itself might be offensive to someone who struggled with homelessness and the very real consequences of material poverty -- how could we possibly compare that to less varied language or thoughts?

Instead of debating the appropriateness of "hunting someone down," I'd much rather we discuss (and implement) policies that help victims of stalking and harassment.

[hungry_ghost]

Anybody who would complain about that is just looking for things to be upset about and is, almost certainly, a huge pain in the ass in a variety of other ways.

The faculty member who complained has been teaching here for less than a semester and the faculty member that they complained about was on their hiring committee.

This is about getting final grades in, no?
Is this the first semester this individual has taught at the college level? Is it possible that this person does not fully comprehend understand the importance of submitting final grades on time, and the potential problems (for students, for administrators) that can be caused by missing this extremely important deadline?

[Hegemony]

The "permanent mental tax" is one that all speech goes through anyway — "Is this an appropriate and non-offensive thing to say?"  I remember when I was six and my best friend and I were having an argument and yelling at each other, "I'm going to kill you!  I'm going to murder you!  I'm going to stab you!  I'm going to cut you into pieces with a knife!  I'm going to strangle you until you die!", etc., and my mother intervened and said, "It doesn't matter if you're angry, those are not things you say to someone."  The permanent mental tax of having to avoid saying those things hasn't proved too burdensome.

[Caracal]

The problem with the outrage isn't that it infringes upon someone's right to be an ass or otherwise act thoughtlessly. Rather, it imposes a permanent mental tax: everything you write (or say) now has to go through various filters to see who might be offended by it. Not using "hunt you down" is just one rarely used phrase that's easy to avoid -- but it could similarly apply to a billion other phrases.

The consequence is that it impoverishes language and by extension thought. In fact, that statement itself might be offensive to someone who struggled with homelessness and the very real consequences of material poverty -- how could we possibly compare that to less varied language or thoughts?

Instead of debating the appropriateness of "hunting someone down," I'd much rather we discuss (and implement) policies that help victims of stalking and harassment.

Eh. I don't buy this. It seems reasonable, but you're basically arguing that there is a new dangerous idea that people should consider how other people will interpret the language they use.

(Hegemony said it better above..)

[marshwiggle]

The problem with the outrage isn't that it infringes upon someone's right to be an ass or otherwise act thoughtlessly. Rather, it imposes a permanent mental tax: everything you write (or say) now has to go through various filters to see who might be offended by it. Not using "hunt you down" is just one rarely used phrase that's easy to avoid -- but it could similarly apply to a billion other phrases.

The consequence is that it impoverishes language and by extension thought. In fact, that statement itself might be offensive to someone who struggled with homelessness and the very real consequences of material poverty -- how could we possibly compare that to less varied language or thoughts?

Instead of debating the appropriateness of "hunting someone down," I'd much rather we discuss (and implement) policies that help victims of stalking and harassment.

Eh. I don't buy this. It seems reasonable, but you're basically arguing that there is a new dangerous idea that people should consider how other people will interpret the language they use.

(Hegemony said it better above..)

There's a huge difference between saying things that are intended to offend people and saying things that unintentionally bothered people for reasons the speaker didn't forsee.  The tendency now is to ignore motive and only assess result; ie. if someone was "hurt", then whoever did the "hurtful" thing is guilty and must apologize. There's a reason the legal system requires considering intent to determine guilt. Otherwise we're all at the mercy of the most hypersensitive.

[Kron3007]

The "permanent mental tax" is one that all speech goes through anyway — "Is this an appropriate and non-offensive thing to say?"  I remember when I was six and my best friend and I were having an argument and yelling at each other, "I'm going to kill you!  I'm going to murder you!  I'm going to stab you!  I'm going to cut you into pieces with a knife!  I'm going to strangle you until you die!", etc., and my mother intervened and said, "It doesn't matter if you're angry, those are not things you say to someone."  The permanent mental tax of having to avoid saying those things hasn't proved too burdensome.

I guess it comes down to what tax rate you find acceptable and what services you are being provided by the tax.

 

[pigou]

The "permanent mental tax" is one that all speech goes through anyway — "Is this an appropriate and non-offensive thing to say?"  I remember when I was six and my best friend and I were having an argument and yelling at each other, "I'm going to kill you!  I'm going to murder you!  I'm going to stab you!  I'm going to cut you into pieces with a knife!  I'm going to strangle you until you die!", etc., and my mother intervened and said, "It doesn't matter if you're angry, those are not things you say to someone."  The permanent mental tax of having to avoid saying those things hasn't proved too burdensome.

Those are things intended to hurt, which I think most of us would be rarely inclined to utter in the first place. Yes, in a state of anger, it's worth pausing to more carefully choose one's words. But I suspect most of us aren't angry most of the time... at least I hope not.

The issue here is speech that someone could potentially be offended by, which is a very different standard. As I mentioned, referring to "impoverished" thought could be triggering to someone who experienced abject poverty. "Rule of thumb," it seems, could be offensive to someone who has a false belief about the origin of the term -- but it ultimately doesn't matter if their belief is based on right or wrong information for it to be offensive to them.

Ultimately, there is no right not to be offended... and such a right, if it existed, would be overly detrimental to the pursuit of knowledge as well as to the quality of the education students receive. For example, I've talked about prostitution in a public policy class -- which some students (usually the ones who think it's morally abhorrent) at times complain about. On the other hand, a couple students over the years "confessed" in private that they had engaged in it to pay tuition (and I suspect they'd be offended by people who think it's morally abhorrent). Discussing the evidence on such policies tackles issues of STDs and rapes -- hardly "easy" topics. But then, if we skipped all the hard stuff, what'd be the point of the class?

[Caracal]

Those are things intended to hurt, which I think most of us would be rarely inclined to utter in the first place. Yes, in a state of anger, it's worth pausing to more carefully choose one's words. But I suspect most of us aren't angry most of the time... at least I hope not.

The issue here is speech that someone could potentially be offended by, which is a very different standard. As I mentioned, referring to "impoverished" thought could be triggering to someone who experienced abject poverty. "Rule of thumb," it seems, could be offensive to someone who has a false belief about the origin of the term -- but it ultimately doesn't matter if their belief is based on right or wrong information for it to be offensive to them.

Ultimately, there is no right not to be offended... and such a right, if it existed, would be overly detrimental to the pursuit of knowledge as well as to the quality of the education students receive. For example, I've talked about prostitution in a public policy class -- which some students (usually the ones who think it's morally abhorrent) at times complain about. On the other hand, a couple students over the years "confessed" in private that they had engaged in it to pay tuition (and I suspect they'd be offended by people who think it's morally abhorrent). Discussing the evidence on such policies tackles issues of STDs and rapes -- hardly "easy" topics. But then, if we skipped all the hard stuff, what'd be the point of the class?

1. Well, no, it actually isn't a different standard. We calibrate our speech constantly so that we don't offend people, or at least, people who aren't deeply unpleasant do. If a student comes to my office to ask why they got a C on a paper, I don't tell them, "well, because your writing is awful and I couldn't understand a thing you said." Hopefully, I'm clear and direct about the problems with their work, but I still want to couch things in a way that isn't going to unnecessarily anger or upset them, because I don't think that would be productive.

2. This doesn't mean that avoiding upsetting someone should always outweigh everything else. In the previous example, the student needs to know what the problems were with their work. I shouldn't be unnecessarily mean, but I can't help it if my feedback is tough for them. In the case of class material, we should teach all kinds of upsetting things. My classes just this semester have included grisly murders, cannibalism, spousal abuse, rape, racial violence and spree shooters. My students read KKK newsletters, justifications for racial slavery, and treatises about the dangers of masturbation among the young. The point is not to avoid things that might be upsetting, it is to be sensitive to the possibility that someone might have a different experience that I do about things. I tell students at the beginning of class that if anything feels like it might be a tough read for any reason, just let me know and we'll figure it out. I think I've only had one student contact me about something like that.

[marshwiggle]

2. This doesn't mean that avoiding upsetting someone should always outweigh everything else.

Remember the shock after the 2016 election due to the fact that so many polls were wrong? The reason seems to be that people who thought their preferences would be considered "wrong" either didn't answer or gave the "acceptable" answer. This isn't about fringe people; people who have extreme views often are used to being unpopular and so may speak out regardless. But if ordinary people feel silenced by language police, then that is terrible for democracy, since it will be very difficult to figure out what mainstream values are.

The more people hear any statement, the greater chance that someone somewhere will take offense. Requiring people to apologize because "someone" was offended means that speaking publicly will inevitably get anyone labelled a "bad" person. The only thing this insures is that people will keep their ideas and opinions to themselves; it in no way suggests that those ideas and opinions will change. (In fact, since they can't discuss them openly, they're probably even less likely to spend time examining other points of view.)

[ciao_yall]

2. This doesn't mean that avoiding upsetting someone should always outweigh everything else.

Remember the shock after the 2016 election due to the fact that so many polls were wrong? The reason seems to be that people who thought their preferences would be considered "wrong" either didn't answer or gave the "acceptable" answer. This isn't about fringe people; people who have extreme views often are used to being unpopular and so may speak out regardless. But if ordinary people feel silenced by language police, then that is terrible for democracy, since it will be very difficult to figure out what mainstream values are.

The more people hear any statement, the greater chance that someone somewhere will take offense. Requiring people to apologize because "someone" was offended means that speaking publicly will inevitably get anyone labelled a "bad" person. The only thing this insures is that people will keep their ideas and opinions to themselves; it in no way suggests that those ideas and opinions will change. (In fact, since they can't discuss them openly, they're probably even less likely to spend time examining other points of view.)

My understanding was that the respondents weren't lying. It was that the pollsters didn't believe there were that many people stupid enough to vote for Trump. So they kept adjusting the "likely voter" numbers.

[apl68]

2. This doesn't mean that avoiding upsetting someone should always outweigh everything else.

Remember the shock after the 2016 election due to the fact that so many polls were wrong? The reason seems to be that people who thought their preferences would be considered "wrong" either didn't answer or gave the "acceptable" answer. This isn't about fringe people; people who have extreme views often are used to being unpopular and so may speak out regardless. But if ordinary people feel silenced by language police, then that is terrible for democracy, since it will be very difficult to figure out what mainstream values are.

The more people hear any statement, the greater chance that someone somewhere will take offense. Requiring people to apologize because "someone" was offended means that speaking publicly will inevitably get anyone labelled a "bad" person. The only thing this insures is that people will keep their ideas and opinions to themselves; it in no way suggests that those ideas and opinions will change. (In fact, since they can't discuss them openly, they're probably even less likely to spend time examining other points of view.)

I wonder too whether one contributing factor to the coarsening of our public discourse is a growing sense among some that since somebody's probably going to take offense at what they say anyway, they might as well be hanged for a sheep as hanged for a lamb and go all-out on the offensive stuff.  Myself, I don't believe that's a justification for anything.  I do think it's another reason for being mindful not to allow oneself to have disproportionately strong responses to minor provocations.

[marshwiggle]

2. This doesn't mean that avoiding upsetting someone should always outweigh everything else.

Remember the shock after the 2016 election due to the fact that so many polls were wrong? The reason seems to be that people who thought their preferences would be considered "wrong" either didn't answer or gave the "acceptable" answer. This isn't about fringe people; people who have extreme views often are used to being unpopular and so may speak out regardless. But if ordinary people feel silenced by language police, then that is terrible for democracy, since it will be very difficult to figure out what mainstream values are.

The more people hear any statement, the greater chance that someone somewhere will take offense. Requiring people to apologize because "someone" was offended means that speaking publicly will inevitably get anyone labelled a "bad" person. The only thing this insures is that people will keep their ideas and opinions to themselves; it in no way suggests that those ideas and opinions will change. (In fact, since they can't discuss them openly, they're probably even less likely to spend time examining other points of view.)

My understanding was that the respondents weren't lying. It was that the pollsters didn't believe there were that many people stupid enough to vote for Trump. So they kept adjusting the "likely voter" numbers.

If that's the case it's incredible. I was kind of shocked that nobody seemed to be concerned that these polling firms were so bad at their task. Why would anyone pay for their predictions if they can't be counted on? But it hardly seemed to register as a concern, (at least in terms of what the media chose to report on).

[pigou]

My understanding was that the respondents weren't lying. It was that the pollsters didn't believe there were that many people stupid enough to vote for Trump. So they kept adjusting the "likely voter" numbers.

The phenomenon isn't new to Trump: in any election between a white and a black candidate, for example, the black candidate underperforms in the election compared to the polls. People don't want to appear racist so they just say they'll vote for the black candidate.

But it's also true that "likely voters" can be hard to model when an anti-establishment candidate like Trump runs. There may be a lot of first-time voters who would in any other election be expected to be non-voters. So you need some model of who will actually turn out, even if they haven't voted in the past 20 years, and who they will break for: more for Trump than Clinton, presumably.

Normally, even people who haven't voted in the last 3 presidential elections are almost certain not to vote either... even if they say they intend to. (Much like everyone intends to go to the gym, but most people don't.)

That said, the best predictions had Trump's chance of winning at 30%, which doesn't mean they were widely off: it means slightly greater than the chance of getting two Heads in a row when you toss a fair coin.

[Parasaurolophus]

This is definitely being over sensitive and only feeds into the university stereotype.  PC principal would not approve...

Hunting can mean many things, we have treasure hunts, scavenger hunts, etc.  If someone saying they are going to hunt you down for grades offends you, you should seek counseling because you will not be able to function in the world.  If I had a colleague complain about this, I would do everything I could to avoid working closely with them as this is only the tip of the iceburg (sorry if this metaphor is insensitive to the very real climate change issue).

What about defending a thesis?  Would that not be even worse since it implies you are being attacked? 

     

No, that's valid language.

Validity is a property of arguments. Language can't be valid. ;)

[marshwiggle]

My understanding was that the respondents weren't lying. It was that the pollsters didn't believe there were that many people stupid enough to vote for Trump. So they kept adjusting the "likely voter" numbers.

The phenomenon isn't new to Trump: in any election between a white and a black candidate, for example, the black candidate underperforms in the election compared to the polls. People don't want to appear racist so they just say they'll vote for the black candidate.

But it's also true that "likely voters" can be hard to model when an anti-establishment candidate like Trump runs. There may be a lot of first-time voters who would in any other election be expected to be non-voters. So you need some model of who will actually turn out, even if they haven't voted in the past 20 years, and who they will break for: more for Trump than Clinton, presumably.

But if this is correct, the original model was probably not so far off; it was their "adjustments" that actually made their predictions worse than their original model would have given.  And the whole point of a scientific process is to rely on established evidence to generate results; you don't fudge them by your own whim if they seem off.*

*(Yes, that actually does happen from time to time in science, but it's generally recognized to be a bad thing.)