Ah, that’s fair. My comment is phrased as though I’m presenting a fact. Perhaps “the things which are seen as insensitive” is better phrasing.
I can agree that people are often over-sensitive but I wouldn’t expect that calling a person deadweight is likely to garner their thoughtful attention, precisely because it is disrespectful. Indeed, it would be foolish of me to expect them to start (or continue) listening to my words.
Maybe you have better luck in New York but I bet you could find people (read: strangers whom you’ve never met or spoken to) there who are personally offended when you call them deadweight. If you’re walking somewhere and you see someone whom you think is homeless, do you let them know they’re deadweight to society? Do you think one is being over-sensitive if they become offended after they are simply called “stupid”? It might be worth explaining an opinion more instead of using such terminating cliches.
Maybe because the one commenter used the phrase “insensitive opinion” there is a misunderstanding. I’m not trying to suggest that the opinion is insensitive, only the way it’s expressed. This opinion can be presented in a friendlier way, despite the topic. (It may also be worth pointing to four words in my initial comment: “regardless of the veracity”.) One can be tolerant of opinions while being intolerant of name-calling in a way that is compatible with not being the “tyrannical minority”.
Yet akin to the article, because of the overly sensitive, everyone's expressive creativity must be dulled down. Who's the intolerant one?
Reminds me of this classic https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...