So in several prior posts I talked about the controversy surrounding Ann Coulter’s comments and in the past I’ve discussed the Danish cartoon controversy and even talked a bit about the whole Larry Summers thing. Now in several of these posts I complained that the same conversational standards weren’t being applied to the supposed offenders as we apply to the population as a whole. I’m more convinced of this than ever and I think the recent political debate about the Armenian genocide is a perfect example.

Now there obviously was a genocide and it is clearly horrible that Turkey continues to deny it but it’s clear as day that even the minimal recognition the motion officially recognizing it in the US house offends many Turks and passing it would offend many more. It’s also undeniable that many Turks will misunderstand the resolution as an attack on Turks and a foreign attempt to undermine their country. This obviously raises the question as to why the backers of this motion aren’t creating similar outrage. Note that the congressmen pressing for this measure have large concentrations of Armenian-Americans in their districts so their is more reason to believe they are motivated by self-interest than there is in most cases that provoke outrage.

I’m not actually arguing that just because someone would be offended by something it’s impermissible to say. Just the opposite. I’m offering a reducto of the thesis that it is (substantially) blameworthy to make true claims knowing they will offend someone, even if you have selfish motives for the claim. The duty to avoid confusion an offense only extends so far. As in this case when we have no reason to believe the speaker isn’t motivated by prejudice or a desire to needlessly denigrate some group and they have made a good faith attempt to belay offense and confusion we don’t consider them to be behaving unacceptably even if some group insists on taking offense anyway. While we might question the congressmen’s judgement in this case and vote against them in the next election we still don’t take them to be behaving unacceptably even though we have good reason to believe that this resolution will cause substantial harm, perhaps even deaths, with little benefit¹. The critical point here is that even statements likely to cause massive harms by offending people likely made for personal gain, while obviously bad, don’t warrant the sort of outrage and social approbation we see in response to Coulter, Summers and the like.

So if it isn’t actual harm caused, the self-interested motivation, or the fact that the claims could be reasonably predicted to be misconstrued in an offensive way what explains the outraged reactions we see in some cases? I think the clear answer here is that people are parsing these statements as matters of identity an allegiance rather than actual factual claims. People aren’t so much interested in the actual content of the issue or even so much whether you have noble intents but whether you’re with us or with them. When someone proposes a measure like this their actions clearly place them with the ‘good guys’ and against those bad genocidal racists. When the NAACP, ADL or NOW overreaches, even when their mistakes cause more overall harm to race relations than most racists remarks they don’t generate any outrage because even their wrong choices illustrate that their on the ‘right side.’ On the other hand when someone like Coulter or Summers makes their claims what provokes the outrage isn’t the content but the fact that they have eschewed the accepted ways of saying ‘I’m with you.’

This picture is perfectly capture in the following quote from overcoming bias

Politics is an extension of war by other means. Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you’re on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it’s like stabbing your soldiers in the back – providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Sadly as a quick heuristic this group identification approach is actually fairly accurate. The vast majority of the time someone expresses skepticism about affirmative action they are expressing solidarity with the people who view blacks as lazy neerdowell. Most of the time someone suggests that inherent differences might play a role in the gender gap they do mean to affiliate themselves with people who think women are inherently inferior. However, just like correlations between race or gender and performance themselves this doesn’t justify the prejudice of assuming everyone who expresses such views has such an intent. Obviously we need to take offense at the thinly disguised statements of affiliation with prejudice but when that isn’t the case we should give people the same freedom to be mistaken or even unintentionally cause harm without being crucified that we give organizations that are clearly on the ‘good’ side.