No, because someone claiming they hear a noise doesn't affect anyone except them, and the people they directly interact with. An equivalent example would be someone claiming they hear a noise, and demanding that everyone in the world acknowledge that the person hears the noise, whether or not they ever interact with the person who hears the supposed noise.

It is applied. More often that not, the argument is not that these words don't have a single true opposition. But that it's negligent to take this opposition and extrapolate it to the world.

What's the problem with the Lena image?

I see, thank you.

Fascinating. What a time to be alive.

Isn't that... more or less exactly what happened? Many companies are / have already replaced those terms

> If someone says they can hear a high-pitched noise that you can't, it's only polite to take them at their word, i

Sorry, no, no way. It might be polite to agree that they believe they hear a noise, but it cannot be the motivation to go and destroy all electronic devices in immediate vicinity. This is so easily exploitable. Replace "can hear a noise" with "can see a witch" and imagine the consequences.

>Sorry, no, no way.

Denying someone's lived experience is obnoxious. Excusing that obnoxiousness by introducing a false slippery slope seems like an excuse to not be conscientious.

There's a world of difference between accepting someone's claims of their experience at face value and accepting that these claims justify the demanded changes.

There's no conflict in acknowledging that someone does hear a high-pitched noise in the presence of a particular device and at the same time do not accept that this would be a sufficient reason to prohibit such devices or turn off a particular device; and at the same time one can acknowledge that the term 'blacklist' is offensive or triggering to some people and at the same time not accept that a term being offensive or triggering to some people is sufficient justification to require the world to change that term.

So if someone says their lived experience is pain and suffering from the existence of cancel culture, you fully embrace that and want to do everything you can to help them stamp out cancel culture?

Or how about this one: what if someone says their lived experience has always been a negative interaction with every member of some specific racial group. You then believe them and accept their racist views as legitimate?

I just can't accept that you actually believe what you are claiming. We all must evaluate and judge so called lived experience on its merit, not blindly accept it as legitimate.

I think you are missing the point, and the point of the original "appeal to politeness" argument. It is polite and appropriate to give someone the benefit of the doubt and "believe them" as in follow their line of thinking and investigate the point of view that they have. However - giving someone the benefit of the doubt and trying to see their point of view doesn't mean you follow their every command and accept every proposed solution. It just means you listen, and try to work with them to solve the problem.

that slippery slope is totally real, unfortunately

It'd be rude to deny you think there's a slippery slope, though I would note that you did introduce that part yourself.

Because it's not sincere, and only sanctimony and bullying. If the people who claim to be triggered by magic words were sincere, then surely they themselves would avoid doing things that offend other such emotionally fragile groups e.g. religious conservatives. If they did, then at least I could take them seriously, but as it is, all I can manage is contempt.