• irmoz@reddthat.com
        42·
        1 year ago

        In this instance i kinda agree, but there’s a line that gets crossed where that doesn’t apply, so perhaps sturdier logic is needed.

        • Lightor@lemmy.world
          3·
          1 year ago

          Things are damaging or they’re not. The question of if someone is offended by it is a very seperate thing, and really just a personal choice.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            2·
            1 year ago

            That is a very privileged position to take. They aren’t separate issues at all; the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging. And to consider it a choice is absurd even on the face of it. Being offended is an emotion. You can’t genuinely, fully control your emotions. You can control what you do about it, sure, but not always, and not completely.

            And apart from that, even if we entertain the idea of it being a choice - who on Earth would choose to feel offended? It feels awful. And it never goes well. If you even have the guts to say something about it, you generally get mocked and laughed at. Who would choose to go through that?

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          1 year ago

          I mean the argument will always require context. You could stab Gervais in the leg and say “but I found it funny, I must be happier than you.”

          There is a line and there isn’t. Some audiences are big, some a small, the same audience can like one thing and dislike another and there’s no way to tell, the exact same audience could like the opposite the next day.

          In the end, we sometimes make work, and sometimes it’s good and sometimes, regardless of the quality, it is liked, and regardless of all, it is popular.