How Bodega typifies Silicon Valley’s cultural ignorance

I don't take anyone seriously who casually calls something like Bodega an "offensive idea", as if this is the most natural thing to do. A name choice ca be bad without the whole idea "being offensive". Lazy labels are bad for discourse.

The article is not centered around the choice of name, it's an example. The offensiveness, to the author, comes from more than that.

It's the idea that "offensiveness" even is a reasonable critical descriptor of a startup idea that i see as a problem. This is such a fluid term which lacks any clear, objective boundaries. Everybody has their own view on what's offensive (apart from some areas in which somewhat of a consensus exists about offensiveness, mostly regarding pejorative expressions). Some people have a thick skin and find nothing offensive, others consider any opposing argument presented in a determined tone offensive. And then there is a huge space in between.

Therefore expanding the scope of "offensiveness" more and more is, in my eyes, a problematic trend.

If offensiveness is a fully subjective concept, as you say, then "expanding the scope of offensiveness" is an oxymoron, since everyone has their scope.

I don't know if that's a correct conclusion. Some individuals or groups can promote an expansion of "offensiveness", which under certain circumstances becomes the new default for everyone who is part of a cultural/social sphere, no matter the individual's subjective position in the matter.

This is similar to what Nassim Taleb described in his essay "The Dictatorship of the small Minority". Essentially, the most easily offended person will win, as everyone is expected to adhere to his/her requirements (as most people would, despite disagreeing with the claim, still feel morally forced to oblige, as they don't like to hurt someone else's feelings - so all power is concentrated on the person with the offended "feelings" - the more sensible he/she is, the more everyone else needs to comply. If this person cannot handle any kind of different point of viewpoint or idea, everyone else would have to avoid expressing viewpoints and ideas. This is the extreme scenario of course, but what's stopping us to end up there?) https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

The waste of money on a stupid idea is offending the author in light of the increasing issue of wealth discrepancy and homelessness in SF. This may not be offensive to all, but is not inappropriate usage.

It might not be inappropriate to you, but I'd argue it's counterproductive to use it. If the idea is to find allies outside of certain digital echo chambers of very like-minded people who all would instanly agree on the offensiveness, then it's not working, as outside of such groups, the concepts of what's offensive and what's not are very different.

It's like someone highly involved in church talks to non-religious people on the street in the same way as to members of the church, assuming that they by definition have the same context & associations. This assumption then could be considered a sign of ignorance from the church representative, who seemingly isn't even aware of what he/she is doing.