Hashtag activism campaign launch and avoiding slippery slopes
With great anticipation of what is to come, I have launched my first hashtag activism campaign. An accompanying video provides the explanation (along with my video filter art), and instructs how one can take part. I believe this will mark an important step as I continue this journey. I encourage everyone to watch the video and make their voice heard in a positive way. I would like to take the time now to address a few things with the rest of this post.
An objection often hinted at by my detractors—attempting to take the form of a reductio ad absurdum—is that if everyone were to become offended by everything, nothing could be socially permissible. Therefore, no one should ever take offense at anything. This is not very well thought out, however, and can easily be refuted, sparing us the misfortune of having to travel down such a rabbit hole. Just apply this thinking elsewhere, and notice how it makes just as little sense. For example, if we were to create laws banning everything, then no one could do anything. Therefore, we should have no laws? Obviously not. To call this line of reasoning childish would be insulting to children. It is not really worth addressing, yet I felt the need to after seeing some variations of it.
It leads, however, to what I wish to discuss, which is the concept of inherently offensive or triggering material. How one determines what is and is not offensive in an inherent sense is an important consideration. The spectrum of this “inherency” is defined by the collective amount of positive and negative associations that apply to various ideas. How does one identify and differentiate between what is and is not inherently offensive or triggering? Something is inherently offensive or triggering if it can be said that for most people it carries more negative associations than positive associations.
An obvious example of inherently offensive material would be jokes that deal with the death and suffering of individuals. Like I have pointed out before, things that are obviously offensive—and thus in an inherent sense—are easy to recognize. It is still important, however, to understand that the reason certain topics should be off-limits from insincere comments is due to the overwhelming amount of negative associations they carry, and the undesirable impact such comments can have.
It is true that people can become offended by many things, but there is a degree to which each of those things has the potential to likely cause offense. The more potential there is, the more negative associations there are, and the more inherently offending something can be deemed.
Furthermore, if something is offensive or triggering to someone, without being inherently so, their sensitivity should be considered and respected. However, in such a case, the initiator is much less at fault. This is how the slippery slope is avoided.
This method is not perfect, but none of the taken-for-granted ways we arrive at conclusions are. Discounting something that is incredibly useful because it lacks an infallible calculus (as does everything else) is terribly misguided. I have presented a very effective method that offers the best indication as to where something lies on the spectrum of inherency with regard to offensive material.
As an aside, I would also like to address that I have never advocated for enforcing limitations on what people can say by law, school ordinance, or any other measure. I do not agree with people who do. I want people to make the decision to be more respectful, as opposed to being forced to. As I have stated before, my goal is to cultivate greater levels of civility in our discourse. The way I intend to do this is through activism and compelling argumentation.
One other thing I have noticed, is that many of my detractors like to use ad hominem attacks against me in place of actually engaging and responding to the ideas I put forth. If this is your best response to my argumentation, you are an embarrassment to public discourse. Your ability to engage with ideas is substandard and inferior. You have displayed rather clearly that you are a fool.
Lastly, to those who might wish to say that the focus should be on other issues in the world today that are of greater importance, I would respond by saying that there is room to address all things. This underlies the importance of specialization. I have chosen to concentrate in this area, because I see it as one that is ripe for meaningful impact and lasting change. This an opportunity we should not miss out on.
