The practical power of "that's offensive" is so much stronger than "we should allow free speech". I'd love for a better and more succint method of conveying the threat that putting "offensiveness" on a pedestal puts to science and democracy. Do you have one?

It needs to be made clear that the path of progress is littered with hurt feelings, and that the importance of our feelings is significantly dwarfed by the collective good of science and democracy.

Your whole post here could be applied to the folks storming the capitol with equal ease as it could be applied to the stereotypical "triggered" university student.

So it doesn't seem to have much explanatory power as to how we got to the point where the President is inciting those rioters... the President is literally telling them to be offended, and to be angry. Speech promoting violence. How is that speech not itself a threat to democracy?

The supreme court has ruled that speech presenting "imminent public danger" is not protected (i.e. free) speech.

Aren't you inadvertently proving their point here?

The fact that it applies to both perhaps suggests validity, no?

But we don't see an anti-Trump politician encouraging a set of counter-insurrectionists... so we're looking for what's DIFFERENT about the Trump side here, not something that applies everywhere.

    It needs to be made clear that the path of 
    progress is littered with hurt feelings, and 
    that the importance of our feelings is 
    significantly dwarfed by the collective 
    good of science and democracy. 

This is a false dichotomy.

The human race is not a zero-sum game with "feelings" on one side and "progress" on the other!

Don't lose sight of why we're making all of this progress in the first place.

We are not building more highways and inventing more computers just for the heck of it. We are -- or should be -- doing it to improve the happiness of ourselves and those who come after us.

Y'know, happiness? One of those pesky feelings you mentioned?

He did not present a dichotomy. He said one is more important than the other, and that is correct.

We used to teach our children to "have a thick skin." "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me." When someone took offense we told them to "grow up."

Being offended, especially on behalf of someone else, is useless. Teach people not to take offense. They'll be happier.

Buy that saying is lie. It is simply not true. It is just something said to kids when adults don't want to deal with situation. It is good for adults to say that, because then they can continue to watch tv unbothered.

Words to affect people and if you don't respond to insult, you will be bullied and insulted more and more. You will not have respect and you will lose ability to influence what is going on with and around you.

In addition, men used to hold duels over words, so it was not even historical standards.

> When someone took offense we told them to "grow up."

Yes, some adults were enabling bullies like that. Especially if they themselves did not like the target. But it still was exactly that - enabling.

Just letting it go or being submissive is not functional strategy to deal with these issues.

    Teach people not to take offense. They'll be happier. 

Nonsense. Again, not a dichotomy. You can have "thick skin", a strong sense of self, not easily be harmed by others' words and not be an asshole.

Yes - this notion is the actual thing that is becoming lost to many in our culture over time. People constantly excuse each other for being pointless assholes by lamenting that the 3rd party is just too sensitive, which can certainly be true, but usually the 3rd party is just reacting like any emotionally normal person, and may or may not have "thick skin", which is an independent quality.

We also teach children (still, I hope?) to not say anything if you don't have anything nice to say, and to walk a mile in someone's shoes before judging them, and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So yes, teach people not to take offense, and also teach people not to be offensive. Being offended on someone else behalf helped us get rid of slavery, helped end the holocaust, gave us many of our social programs that support the poor - it's not wrong to see injustice and call it out, even if it's not happening to you.

Would you really rather live a pleasing fiction than face a sad or uncomfortable reality? Would you be okay if we just pumped you up on some concoction or other and called it a day of it caused you to be happier?

Sorry, what? Nothing I said had anything to do with denying reality, achieving happiness at all costs, or anything like that. I'm certainly not in favor of that.

I am expressing my belief that progress and happiness pair pretty well -- they should not be at odds with each other.

In addition to earning a living, it's why I got into this industry. Is that not why most of us are here? Aren't we here to write code that makes things better for people? Perhaps not on world changing levels, but hopefully on some level even if it's just making the file upload box on some fourth-rate social media site a little easier to use?

>Would you really rather live a pleasing fiction than face a sad or uncomfortable reality

This is never said or implied.

Except not everyone has the same type of happiness. This is why the declaration of independence does not say "life, liberty, and happiness", it says "life, liberty, and _the_ _pursuit_ _of_ happiness". There's an implied statement there that not everyone, or even most will be happy, but we should be free to be able to seek what makes us happy. You don't have a right to happiness, but you have a right to be able to try to make yourself happy.

> This is irrational and hostile.

The way I interpret this argument is this: the world wasn't meant to be pleasing all the time. Excluding unpleasant facts from one's information diet because it hurts their feelings is what the OP is arguing against. It is absolutely possible to present hostile/offensive statements that are also true. Feel free to agree/disagree, but it's quite rational line of thinking.

DC is filled with a violent mob that feels uncomfortable with the truth that Trump lost. They are lashing out because they do not have the emotional fortitude to deal with their hurt feelings.

Getting angry when a stranger makes a statement that you disagree with is not a normal social reaction, or at least it wasn't until recently. The possibility of error is just one reason that it shouldn't be.

Yes it is. Heck if you look in the history books there are plenty of examples of people not just being criticized but actually being murdered over the statements they make. Which statements draw social ire may change over time, but you can't seriously be suggesting that until recently nobody got offended ever.

People used to fight duels.