The price of respect


Yes, this thread is targeted exactly at the section I posted it in: SF Open Governement.

Unless we take things personally, we will never learn anything.


Ask yourself:
Are you offended by a writing on a wall?
Are you encouraged by it?
Do you feel special after reading it?
Do you feel opposed by it?

If you are, why so?
If you are not, why so?


To take things personally means that the reader takes those words to heart, as words, and gives them thought. Then, the reader should think who is the one saying those words, and what this person is to the reader, and what the reader is to this person. -- This ought to make it clear whether there is an offence, or love, or respect -- or not.

In our times, we like to take everything personally, yet claim that we can be neutral. Really?

Who is the one offending *you* when you read "He who is reading this is a fuckwit!" written on a wall?
The writer? You don't know the writer, you have no apparent relation to the writer.

So why be offended?

Because it is not "politically correct" to write such things?
Why is it not "politically correct" to write such things?

Because your sense of self is so dependant on others, that you feel attacked if you encounter someone or something who doesn't think the way you do.

Because you refuse to stand up for yourself.

Because you know that if you stand up for yourself, others, on whom your personal worth depends so much, for so you think, will likely not respect you anymore. And you could not live this way, oh no.

So you swallow your will, and your pride and endure this misery -- and to make it bearable, you demand political correctness. You demand respect. And political correctness is the price of it.



What is Gendanken to you,
or what are you to Gendanken?


Gendanken was banned for being a writing on a wall.

I was not offended by Gendanken's posts.
Actually I quite enjoyed them and found them to be funny and sarcastic (I like sarcastic).
too bad she's banned :(

I find things on a wall offensive if the writing is targeted specifically at me. That's how those who Gendanken offended felt.

You may think that the words on the screen are just words on the screen. But those words come from a person.

I find things on a wall offensive if the writing is targeted specifically at me. That's how those who Gendanken offended felt.

You may think that the words on the screen are just words on the screen. But those words come from a person.


*You* are the one reading those words.

Who is to say what those words mean for you, but you?

Definitions are in dictionaries, not in someone's imagination.

Definitions are in dictionaries, not in someone's imagination.

How you avoid the truth. You are trying to make others responsible for how you feel. And what is so completely absurd is that you are trying to make those who are nothing to you responsible for how you feel.

ME?! I, personally, never read an offence towards me written by Gendanken; or perhaps I forgot it.

I don't try to make others responsible for how I feel. But I do demand that others are responsible for what they say.

From experience, I've noticed it's better not to tell people that they are nothing to me.

That wasn't nice to ban her but she must have offended someone, who?

I don't try to make others responsible for how I feel. But I do demand that others are responsible for what they say.

And how do you do that -- how do you demand them to be responsible for what they say?
What sanctions do you have if they don't comply with your demands?



From experience, I've noticed it's better not to tell people that they are nothing to me.

And why is it better not to tell?

Why is it better to do as if they are something to you, while you feel nothing for them?

That wasn't nice to ban her but she must have offended someone, who?

Anyone who feels offended by a writing on a wall.

And how do you do that -- how do you demand them to be responsible for what they say?

I hold people responsible for what they say by taking the meaning of words as it comes out, without saying "oh, maybe that's not to me, maybe they don't really mean that."

Sanctions, heh... Chill.


And why is it better not to tell?

Pardon. People are people, not "nothing." That, actually, is respect.

I hold people responsible for what they say by taking the meaning of words as it comes out, without saying "oh, maybe that's not to me, maybe they don't really mean that."

Sanctions, heh... Chill.

What is the point of demanding responsibility -- if nothing follows from not complying with this demand?



Pardon. People are people, not "nothing." That, actually, is respect.

You said:


From experience, I've noticed it's better not to tell people that they are nothing to me.

What is the point of demanding responsibility -- if nothing follows from not complying with this demand?

If I say people are responsible for what they say, it means I don't make excuses for them. What follows, is that if something offensive to me is said, I understand that person wants to offend me, and act accordingly. That is all. Drink some tea.

you said:


you are trying to make those who are nothing to you responsible for how you feel.

Anyways, I'm going for tea.

If I say people are responsible for what they say, it means I don't make excuses for them. What follows, is that if something offensive to me is said, I understand that person wants to offend me, and act accordingly. That is all.

And you act accordingly by going off for tea.

You just don't get it, do you?


EDIT: I know that you are watching. You are still not off for tea.

No, I see what you're saying with perfect clarity. But I disagree, as it appears.

What do you have against tea? Tea is good. Especially cold tea in hot weather.

No, I see what you're saying with perfect clarity. But I disagree, as it appears.

What do you have against tea? Tea is good. Especially cold tea in hot weather.

This is respect, ladies and gentleman, whitewolf is full of it.

Stalker :p

You appear to be a bit angry. How can you be angry, if this is merely type on the screen? Wrighting on the wall?

NOW I am going for tea.

Why do we care what others think? Why does that affect our self image so much? Is this taught by society when we are young? Is it natural?
I've always loved stories where the self-assured 'ignorant' man from the country comes to society and shows the modern people up, emotionally.


I am sorry Gendanken was banned. :(
It was healthy for me to have her to get my goat every so often, to 'practice' dealing with anger. BUT, I don't know the circumstances, that's the mods 'job'.

There should be an active way for Sciforums to reinstate people into it's society. Some way to further examine the problem so it's not just, "So and so got banned cause they called Billy an asshole." I know, moderation is a lot more complicated than that. I picture Sciforums as more than just discussion, as a community. :m:

Stalker :p

You appear to be a bit angry. How can you be angry, if this is merely type on the screen? Wrighting on the wall?

NOW I am going for tea.

She replies with APPEAR.

Yes, I am angry, and more than that: I am furious, that there are people in the world who "stand up for themselves" by trying to emotionally blackmail others, accuse them on the basis of "appear".

Weakenss is indeed something that makes one mad.

I've read your post SkippinStones, but I've got late at night here, and I must go to bed. Come back later.

Weakenss is indeed something that makes one mad.
indeed. I got more sick of Assguard's and his g/f's replies than those of gendanken.

Gendanken was banned for being a writing on a wall.

No. Gendanken was banned for repeated breaches of the site rules. In particular, she was banned for repeatedly insult other members of the forum. These insults were mostly directed, not general.

So Rosa, from what I understand of your questions, insults are not meaningful except in the instance that we care value the opinions held by the one who insults? What about others whose opinions we do care about that hear or read these insults? Should I be allowed to call you any name in the book simply because I can and have decided that you needn't take offense? The fact is, why an individual finds a thing offensive is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the receiver of the insults feels. By your logic, bullying by insulting is an irrational concept, because the abuser in this case should not take offense to any statements directed at them.

It is our nature, whether innate or socially programmed, to sometimes value the statements of people, even when they mean shit to us. You were offended because I nominated you for what you thought I deemed a worthless accolade. What do I mean to you? Please do not start a hypocritical thread that accuses others of hypocrisy or over sensitivity. People have the right to not be offended by anyone. And in an environment such as this, repeated insults directed at a member who does not welcome them is unhealthy. Anyone can go ahead and insult me, I won't give a rat's ass. I will simply insult them back. I am however not representative of even this community, let alone the world at large, and neither are you.

I wouldn't be offended if it wasn't directed at me specifically. They'd hafta say/write something about me specifically for me to take it personally.

what are you to Gendanken?


A pawn, but it's my fault if I allow her to play me, in this face less game.

No. Gendanken was banned for repeated breaches of the site rules. In particular, she was banned for repeatedly insult other members of the forum. These insults were mostly directed, not general.

Still, my point stands. Those people she addressed in an insultive manner -- what are they to Gendanken, or what is she to them?
If she is a nobody to them -- why did they respond in the first place?

It is because they responded as being offended that the whole thing could go on and on the way it did.
If they had ignored her or be indifferent towards her, she would stop being insultive.


***


Why do we care what others think? Why does that affect our self image so much? Is this taught by society when we are young? Is it natural?

I think it is natural, necessary and good that we do care what others think. Yet how much we depend on this, this is the issue in question here. My whole point is that people depend way too much on what others think about them.



There should be an active way for Sciforums to reinstate people into it's society. Some way to further examine the problem so it's not just, "So and so got banned cause they called Billy an asshole." I know, moderation is a lot more complicated than that.

Why reinstate?
Usually, if someone is ingored, they change their ways. What is perplexing is that people don't ignore certain things, even though they find them useless, or slimy, or worthless.



I picture Sciforums as more than just discussion, as a community.

Sure, and the more or less same principles apply.


Is it the message,
or the messenger?


Political correctness teaches us to not distinguish between the two. So what hapens is that messanger is shot, and the message burnt.

The reason why people are offended by a certain message is because it says something that is TRUE ABOUT THEM.
If a writing on a wall says "He who is reading this is a fuckwit", and the person reading this is offended, it is because inside, he truly feels like a fuckwit, and that writing on a wall only hit a mark that is there inside of the reader.
If there were no mark inside of the reader, the message had nothing to hit, and there would be no offense.

The true offense lies in that the reader himself thinks himself a fuckwit; thinking oneself a fuckwit is offensive against oneself, and rightly so.

Blaming the messenger for this offense is sheer cowardice and hypocrisy.

In order to partake in a discussion in a productive and constructive manner, one ought to take the message personally, not the messenger.

So Rosa, from what I understand of your questions, insults are not meaningful except in the instance that we care value the opinions held by the one who insults?

Look at my reply to SkippingStones.



What about others whose opinions we do care about that hear or read these insults? Should I be allowed to call you any name in the book simply because I can and have decided that you needn't take offense?

It all depends on whether you want me as an ally or not. Generally speaking, you don't go at people whom you want to have as allies.
And if you do go at those whom you want to be your allies, then don't be surprised if they refuse you.
But also, just because you don't go at someone doesn't mean that you want them as an ally.



The fact is, why an individual finds a thing offensive is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the receiver of the insults feels.

If someone says something mean to me, I consider what this person is to me, and what those words are.

There is no absolute rule that would say "If A says x to B, then B is to be offended" -- this would be only if we had a duty to be offended. But it is absurd to think that we do have the duty to be offended.



By your logic, bullying by insulting is an irrational concept, because the abuser in this case should not take offense to any statements directed at them.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion.



It is our nature, whether innate or socially programmed, to sometimes value the statements of people, even when they mean shit to us.

Of course, like I said in my reply to SkippingStones. But it is about the message, not the messenger.



You were offended because I nominated you for what you thought I deemed a worthless accolade.

As it later on turned out (when you posted the second awards thread), you did deem the first awards thread was a "worthless accolade", you were "merely trying to stir some emotions and also to lament what /you/ really think has been a degeneration", you told me in a PM.

When I found out that it was a bad joke, I did not want to be part of it.



What do I mean to you?

It first looked as if you wanted me as an ally, and I was willing to be one. But then that first thread turned out to be a prank -- so what you saw was the end of my willingness to be your ally.



Please do not start a hypocritical thread that accuses others of hypocrisy or over sensitivity.

It "accuses others of hypocrisy or oversensitivity" only if they feel addressed this way.



People have the right to not be offended by anyone.

This is exactly my point. But we also do not have the *duty* to be offended.
I think it is silly though to think that one can never be offended. The immense difference lies in how easily one gets offended.



And in an environment such as this, repeated insults directed at a member who does not welcome them is unhealthy.

Sure. But why didn't this member, who didn't welcome those insults, ignore them? This member chose to play the victim.
Sticks and stones can break my bones ...



Anyone can go ahead and insult me, I won't give a rat's ass. I will simply insult them back.

I usually ignore insults, and eventually the person saying them, if this goes on and on.

I try to take communication as professionally as possible: If someone starts using insults, he thereby states that he doesn't wish to keep the communication on a certain level of politeness. And if we cannot talk in a civil manner, there is little point in continuing that communication -- unless there are other goals that wish to be accomplished.



I am however not representative of even this community, let alone the world at large, and neither are you.

Maybe not, and I don't know what "representative" would mean anyway.

My point is to deliver a message: If the reader finds that it is not true for him, in any way whatsoever, then he will ignore it.
But if the reader finds that this message bears some truth for him, in any way whatsoever -- then what will he do?

No. Gendanken was banned for repeated breaches of the site rules. In particular, she was banned for repeatedly insult other members of the forum. These insults were mostly directed, not general.

Thank you for the answer.
:)

Look at my reply to SkippingStones.

That you think people depend too much on the opinions of others? Know that you are attempting to extend your values to others. This too much is an immesurable quantity; it is subjective and therefore worthless within the context of this debate.


It all depends on whether you want me as an ally or not. Generally speaking, you don't go at people whom you want to have as allies.
And if you do go at those whom you want to be your allies, then don't be surprised if they refuse you.
But also, just because you don't go at someone doesn't mean that you want them as an ally.
What does wanting you for an "ally" have anything to do with it? I migh not care about you or your opinions, but when involved in a thread and insults are directed my way, and althouh I unwelcome to them they still come, I have every right to whatever emotion I feel. And if said emotiion is negative, attempts must be made to curtail these insults, for they are obviously unhealthy in the development of a community.


If someone says something mean to me, I consider what this person is to me, and what those words are.
The only meaningful word within this context is me. Again, your subjective take on what ought to prompt certain emotions is hardly relevant in the big picture.


There is no absolute rule that would say "If A says x to B, then B is to be offended" -- this would be only if we had a duty to be offended. But it is absurd to think that we do have the duty to be offended.
What are you talking about? The issue is that if A offends B, and A's statements have no redeemable value besides mere insults, then A should stop insulting B.


I don't see how you come to that conclusion.
I will demonstrate:

If insults from A should not affect B because A is nothing to B outside a simple person, then it follows that in an environment where x wants to be part of, if x continuously batters y with insults, then y should feel no effects because x means nothing to y. x in this case is the bully, and y the victim. Psychology shows that persistent insults do have an effect, especially if the victim is insecure or surrounded by those whose opinions the victim might care about, and pthers whose opinions might be affected by said insults. Do not tell me that a person has no right to their insecurities. I believe noone should be insecure, but it is a stupid belief.


Of course, like I said in my reply to SkippingStones. But it is about the message, not the messenger.
So that the message insults does not make them responsible? That is irrational.


As it later on turned out (when you posted the second awards thread), you did deem the first awards thread was a "worthless accolade", you were "merely trying to stir some emotions and also to lament what /you/ really think has been a degeneration", you told me in a PM.
When I found out that it was a bad joke, I did not want to be part of it.
The issue is you pmed and let know you did not enjoy or were offended by the fact that I may have indirectly insulted you. I am a poster and you are a poster. We are separated by thousands of miles, and I know nothing of you except what you post. Why the should what you perceived as an insult matter to you in this case, and yet not matter to those who thought her comments insulting?


It first looked as if you wanted me as an ally, and I was willing to be one. But then that first thread turned out to be a prank -- so what you saw was the end of my willingness to be your ally.
It was rhetorical. I have no idea what this notion of an "ally" means. I am here to recieve and give my opinions on certain matters.


It "accuses others of hypocrisy or oversensitivity" only if they feel addressed this way.
And what if they do feel that way?


This is exactly my point. But we also do not have the *duty* to be offended.I think it is silly though to think that one can never be offended. The immense difference lies in how easily one gets offended.
No it is not exactly your point because I am disagreeing with your points. I am saying that a person, no matter how "easy" you think it their propensity to take offense, has the right to not be offended. They have the right to NOT have insults directed their way, especially in an environment where one attempts to create a social/intelligent atmosphere.


Sure. But why didn't this member, who didn't welcome those insults, ignore them? This member chose to play the victim.
Sticks and stones can break my bones ...
You miss the overriding issue: why were they insulted in the first place? Why must people on a forum where ideas are to be exchanged simply have to ignore a poster because they choose to be abusive?


I usually ignore insults, and eventually the person saying them, if this goes on and on.
That's you.


I try to take communication as professionally as possible: If someone starts using insults, he thereby states that he doesn't wish to keep the communication on a certain level of politeness. And if we cannot talk in a civil manner, there is little point in continuing that communication -- unless there are other goals that wish to be accomplished.
Again, that's you.


Maybe not, and I don't know what "representative" would mean anyway.
It means how you think and react in certain instances is not necessarily-- and in this case obviously different--like how others react and act.


My point is to deliver a message: If the reader finds that it is not true for him, in any way whatsoever, then he will ignore it.
But if the reader finds that this message bears some truth for him, in any way whatsoever -- then what will he do?
Well then your point is not fully realized: the insults should not be stated in the first place.



You title you thread the "price of respect" and yet imply that the emotions or reactions not be respected if they fit your bill of what is "over sensitive". Give me a break.

RosaMagika , nice try, poor argument.

So the meaning of text is only determined by how the reader feels about it? Are actions only determined by the observer?

If I take a crap on your doorstep, it is you who are offending yourself. I am just shitting in the grass.

So the meaning of text is only determined by how the reader feels about it?


Is that not obervios, the reader reads the messge amd based on his/hers ideals, value and knowledge comes to his/hers own conclusion.



Are actions only determined by the observer?

Nice, you can move that back to "does a tree falling in the wood make a sound"

and btw, why are you suddenly comparing annoymous interaction with up and personal contact.

That you think people depend too much on the opinions of others? Know that you are attempting to extend your values to others.

Everyone is trying to extend their values to others, in some way or another, in some measure or another.



This too much is an immesurable quantity; it is subjective and therefore worthless within the context of this debate.

Of course it is subjective, the very nature of respect is subjective.
As for this "too much" being an "immesurable quantity": we are talking about *directions*, *tendencies* here. Emotional values can't be measured with numbers.



“ There is no absolute rule that would say "If A says x to B, then B is to be offended" -- this would be only if we had a duty to be offended. But it is absurd to think that we do have the duty to be offended. ”

What are you talking about? The issue is that if A offends B, and A's statements have no redeemable value besides mere insults, then A should stop insulting B.

What I am talking about? That there is no absolute rule or list as to what is deemed offensive and what is not. Does the SF policy have a *list* that says which word or phrase is offensive or not? It is a judgement call of the moderators, and of the members.

Some people feel insulted by the mere presence of a black person or a Jew. Are the black person or the Jew feel as if they have deliberately offended the other person? Should they apologize for bein black, or Jewish? Should they leave?



If insults from A should not affect B because A is nothing to B outside a simple person, then it follows that in an environment where x wants to be part of, if x continuously batters y with insults, then y should feel no effects because x means nothing to y. x in this case is the bully, and y the victim. Psychology shows that persistent insults do have an effect, especially if the victim is insecure or surrounded by those whose opinions the victim might care about, and pthers whose opinions might be affected by said insults. Do not tell me that a person has no right to their insecurities. I believe noone should be insecure, but it is a stupid belief.

I am not saying that they *should* not have an effect. I am emphasizing to re-think *why* one gets insulted.

This *why* is a subjective issue for each and every person. I think that it is in place, in such a situation, for the said person to ask "What is this person to me? Is what they have said of any value to me? If yes, why so? If no, why so?"

Like I said in the "Gendanken's banning" thread,
"I have used this time around Gendanken's banning as an opportunity to point at some frequent and disturbing issues regarding respect and offense.

One thing is to discuss those issues as usual, in other forums, esp. in Philosophy and Human science. But how much effect do such debates have? How much interest do they stir?
The topic of respect is an everyday matter, and important in each individual's life.

This happening around Gendanken's banning right now is a practical example of what has been discussed esp. in the thread "Respect is a modern luxury", and in many other threads more or less specifically."



Do not tell me that a person has no right to their insecurities. I believe noone should be insecure, but it is a stupid belief.

I firmly believe that we all have our insecurities; it is totally beyond having those insecurities being a right or not -- we have them, and that's it. They are a matter of fact, not a matter of right. How we handle them, how we express them -- this is what I am interested in.



“ Of course, like I said in my reply to SkippingStones. But it is about the message, not the messenger. ”

So that the message insults does not make them responsible? That is irrational.

Responsible? How? To whom? If they don't comply with this responsibility -- what are the sanctions?
Will you sue someone if they call you a bad name?



Why the should what you perceived as an insult matter to you in this case, and yet not matter to those who thought her comments insulting?

I did not perceive it as an insult, I perceived it almost as a stab in the back. You were nice to me first, and then I found out you used me in that prank. What you did was deception.
Flat out calling someone a moron is not deception.



“ It first looked as if you wanted me as an ally, and I was willing to be one. But then that first thread turned out to be a prank -- so what you saw was the end of my willingness to be your ally. ”

It was rhetorical. I have no idea what this notion of an "ally" means. I am here to recieve and give my opinions on certain matters.

It is human nature to make allies, of one kind or another. If you believe that you can be all by yourself, anywhere, and have no allies or those kindly inclined towards you -- then no wonder we don't get along.

Although this is a virtual place, it is still a place of social communication, and certain social connections and relationships form. Sure, they are much different, and much more abstract than those IRL, but they are social nonetheless. Just because this place is virtual, this doesn't make us robots.



“ It "accuses others of hypocrisy or oversensitivity" only if they feel addressed this way. ”

And what if they do feel that way?

You mean what if they feel like hypocrites and oversensitive? Well, can one love onself if one feels like a hypocrite and oversensitive?Are hypocrisy and overesensitivity something to strive for, something to be proud of?



No it is not exactly your point because I am disagreeing with your points. I am saying that a person, no matter how "easy" you think it their propensity to take offense, has the right to not be offended. They have the right to NOT have insults directed their way, especially in an environment where one attempts to create a social/intelligent atmosphere.

You mean that everyone has the RIGHT to be respected?

Fact is, that those rights are often not respected. How do we defend ourselves? What laws, rules, tendencies, strategies do we make and apply when defending our rights?



especially in an environment where one attempts to create a social/intelligent atmosphere.

Then why lead people on by being nice, and then use them in pranks?



You miss the overriding issue: why were they insulted in the first place? Why must people on a forum where ideas are to be exchanged simply have to ignore a poster because they choose to be abusive?

Why "must"? I never said that anyone "must" ignore anything. I am only summoning to re-think one's own reasons for taking offense, like I said above.



It means how you think and react in certain instances is not necessarily-- and in this case obviously different--like how others react and act.

Of course. But if I am the way I am, it is imaginable that there is a certain amount of like people too. Nobody is really a kind of his own.



“ My point is to deliver a message: If the reader finds that it is not true for him, in any way whatsoever, then he will ignore it.
But if the reader finds that this message bears some truth for him, in any way whatsoever -- then what will he do? ”

Well then your point is not fully realized: the insults should not be stated in the first place.

Of course the insults *should* not be stated in the first place! Of course, there *should* be no wars, there *should* be no poverty, no violence and no racism.
But they are.
And if we wish to work towards a society that has less of these things that should not be, then we must do something.



You title you thread the "price of respect" and yet imply that the emotions or reactions not be respected if they fit your bill of what is "over sensitive". Give me a break.

No. What I find enfuriating is that people "stand up for themselves" by emotionally blackmailing others. What I find enfuriating is protecting "everyone has the right to feel *whatever* way they feel, and everyone has the right to do *whatever* they feel like doing."

If we are to tolerate that people take offense so easily -- beacuse we respect that "everyone has the right to feel *whatever* way they feel, and everyone has the right to do *whatever* they feel like doing" -- then why don't we also tolerate Neonacism, racism? If everyone "has the right to feel *whatever* way they feel, and everyone has the right to do *whatever* they feel like doing." -- why are there courts, why are there laws?
After all, putting a murderer to jail is questioning his "right to feel *whatever* way he feels", and it is limiting his "right to do *whatever* he feels like doing."


The issue of offense is to be addressed from *both perspectives*: from the perspective of the offended, and from the perspective of the offender.
The offended should think why he is offended, and the offender should think why he is offending.


***


So the meaning of text is only determined by how the reader feels about it? Are actions only determined by the observer?

Do you see anyone else doing these observations, but the observer(s)?



If I take a crap on your doorstep, it is you who are offending yourself. I am just shitting in the grass.

*To you*, it is just shitting in the grass. You apparently do not care how I feel, or you wouldn't do what you are doing in the first place. You refuse to empathize. If you would go further and hit me, then I'd think you enjoy inflicting pain.
I would find that offensive, yes, because my set of values tells me so. And I would take action against you to defend myself.


The main issue of this thread is about why people get offended, for what reasons they get offended.

One thing is to hit someone, to spray his house, to shit in his garden -- and something else is to call them a bad name.

We do not have an absolute list of all possible offenses. For those offenses that the society deemed serious enough there are laws, and the transgression of them is sanctioned in the supervision of the state.

But as far as verbal offenses are concerned, there are no state laws, at least not in most countries. So it is a judgement call of each individual to determine whether to be offended by something, why he is offended, and what actions he will take against the offender.

An interesting question: why do people care? I don't know why we care. I don't know why I care, or why Rosa cares, or anybody else. The fact remains, however, that people still care about what is said to them. It is human nature. It would be abnormal not to care at all. The individual who keeps insulting another has no respect for the person he insults; the insulting individual also loses respect.

A word is said with intention. A word can't be considered "nothing" in a place where all experience, all acquisition of information depends on words.

Other countries may not have laws that deal with insults. However, this site has rules that have existed for years and with a reason.

*To you*, it is just shitting in the grass. You apparently do not care how I feel, or you wouldn't do what you are doing in the first place.Which also applies in this context.... which is my very point.

I would find that offensive, yes, because my set of values tells me so. And I would take action against you to defend myself.And that's exactly what happened here.

One thing is to hit someone, to spray his house, to shit in his garden -- and something else is to call them a bad name.See, now YOU are the one basing their argument on opinion. It's not that calling someone a bad name and being generally annoying is as bad as hitting someone... but that doesn't mean people have to sit there and just deal with it. It's offensive, they used the excuse that he broke the rules to get him banned.

But as far as verbal offenses are concerned, there are no state laws, at least not in most countries. So it is a judgement call of each individual to determine whether to be offended by something, why he is offended, and what actions he will take against the offender.Wait, so you'll get offended if I shit on your lawn only because there is a law about it? I don't think so....

There is a law because you get offended; not the other way around. The issue here is (to paraphrase):
*To her*, it was just shitting in the grass. She apparently did not care how anyone else felt about her words, or she wouldn't have done what she did.

An interesting question: why do people care? I don't know why we care. I don't know why I care, or why Rosa cares, or anybody else.

Indeed, it is human nature that we care, and that we seek allies, or those kindly inclined towards us, and those we feel kindly inclined towards.



The fact remains, however, that people still care about what is said to them. It is human nature. It would be abnormal not to care at all.

But it depends on *how much* we care. Like it was said before: it is not a measurable quality. What is observable though is whether the care is *mutual*.

This mutuality is *not* a matter of fact or an obligation: B is not obliged to care for A just because A cares for B.

We can't say "You must love me because I love you". We can hope that the love will be returned, but we cannot *demand* it. And same with respect.



The individual who keeps insulting another has no respect for the person he insults; the insulting individual also loses respect.

Certainly.



A word is said with intention. A word can't be considered "nothing" in a place where all experience, all acquisition of information depends on words.

It depends on from whom this word comes and whom it is meant for.

I was called a bitch several times here -- but it was not from a person I have respect for, and thus I didn't feel offended.
Had certain other people called me so, those whom I do respect, then I would be offended, if not deeply hurt.



Other countries may not have laws that deal with insults. However, this site has rules that have existed for years and with a reason.

And I would just like that those rules would be understood as defending good communication, instead of being understood as a means to defend "the weak and immature".


***



See, now YOU are the one basing their argument on opinion. It's not that calling someone a bad name and being generally annoying is as bad as hitting someone... but that doesn't mean people have to sit there and just deal with it. It's offensive, they used the excuse that he broke the rules to get him banned.

Respect is a matter of opinion.

I am saying: Why be offended by someone you do not respect?

In order for me to be offended, I would first have to have a certain amount of respect for that person.

Otherwise, if they do shit, I am not offended, at worst, I am appalled or annoyed. And I am taking action because of this annoyance, or because obvious injustice or material damage has been done, not because I would feel offended.



Wait, so you'll get offended if I shit on your lawn only because there is a law about it? I don't think so....

I didn't say that.



The issue here is (to paraphrase):
*To her*, it was just shitting in the grass. She apparently did not care how anyone else felt about her words, or she wouldn't have done what she did.

First of all, I didn't always like the way she acted, and I am not defending foul language.
However, I can understand that sometimes, politeness won't do to bring a point across, and a harsher tone must be taken.

As for Gendanken's banning -- we do not have the full story to it, we do not know what went on via PM between her and the moderators.


Secondly, we are NOT OBLIGED TO CARE. Whether we care is a matter of personal choice, not of obligation.

I am emphasizing: If she showed that she apparently does not care about other people's feelings, why did they respond as offended?
Why be offended by someone whom you feel doesn't care about you anyway?
Or are we to be offended if a nameless person doesn't care about us?


And third, she did not exactly shit in their grass. It was just some words.

We can't say "You must love me because I love you". We can hope that the love will be returned, but we cannot *demand* it. And same with respect.

Nonono. You can't demand love, certainly. But, because we are humans, we deserve a certain amount of respect; because we are to be considered intelligent, we deserve respect. "Bitch" is a female animal, not human; or, alluding to the less-than-human qualities of our species. Thus, it is a disrespectful word. A good way of reacting is to simply ignore the people which habitually disrespect you, to stay away from them. However, many can't do that.

Actually, one could say that Gendanken shit on someone's lawn. Dave made it clear he did not want insults on his site. Also, wouldn't you feel more pleased if there were no insults here, and if all discourse was held in pleasant writing? It is possible to show someone his errors through well-grounded arguments.

EDIT:

And I would just like that those rules would be understood as defending good communication, instead of being understood as a means to defend "the weak and immature".

Nobody is trying to defend anybody here. It is a matter of principle and civilized behavior, a pleasant overall appearance which stimulates intelligent thought.

Nonono. You can't demand love, certainly. But, because we are humans, we deserve a certain amount of respect; because we are to be considered intelligent, we deserve respect.

This is very disputable. Nice and commendable, but disputable.
What are the measures of intelligence? How do you recognize it? How do you define it?
I am sure that there could hardly be a consesus on what is intelligent and what not. How much of the "power to learn, understand and know" qualifies for "intelligence"?

If anything, we certainly deserve to be *treated with respect* -- but this is not the same as being respected.



"Bitch" is a female animal, not human; or, alluding to the less-than-human qualities of our species. Thus, it is a disrespectful word. A good way of reacting is to simply ignore the people which habitually disrespect you, to stay away from them. However, many can't do that.

Well, then the question stands: Why cannot they do that?
Is it not stupid to still be around someone who does not treat you with respect?

If you are calling upon human intelligence, and my Oxford dictionary calls it "the power to learn, understand and know" -- then you should help pursue that people act on this power and indeed learn, understand and know to stay away from certain situations or certain people, or to make well-grounded arguments in defending themselves.



Actually, one could say that Gendanken shit on someone's lawn. Dave made it clear he did not want insults on his site.

In this sense, I can understand your statement.



Also, wouldn't you feel more pleased if there were no insults here, and if all discourse was held in pleasant writing?

Pleased?

First of all, I believe that tough love is sometimes very much in place.

And most of all, humans have a wide range of emotions. We have a pleasant side, but also an aggressive side, and everything inbetween. To concentrate just on one side of the spectrum, and declare only that one to be "human nature", is a forced reduction.

There is no point in saying that humans are not aggressive by nature: we are, and that's it. We kill other beings to survive.
That doesn't mean that I think we should act aggressively all the time. But we do, and it is our nature to do so. Treating aggressiveness as something "unnatural" is wrong, IMO.


As for all discourse being held in pleasant writing: This means that:
1. All participants would have to be quite professional communicators.
2. All participants should act cooperatively for the sake of a common benefit, and maybe a greater good.

We can see in everyday communication that 1 is hard to achieve.

And 2: Being cooperative is not in human nature. We rarely cooperate. Of course, it would be good, good for all of us, if we would, but we don't. So to expect this is naive.



It is possible to show someone his errors through well-grounded arguments.

This doesn't always work. When it comes to matters like values and preferences, there won't be many well-grounded arguments.

How do you explain to a Neonazi that his dislikes and hatred are unbased?



Nobody is trying to defend anybody here.

I think otherwise.



It is a matter of principle and civilized behavior, a pleasant overall appearance which stimulates intelligent thought.

Intelligent thought. "The power to learn, understand and know" -- this is a rather tedious and unpleasant task. Few things are learned if just nicely sitting in your chair.
It takes the proverbial blood and guts to really learn, understand and know -- or you'll be just regurgitating what someone else said.

To really stimulate intelligent thought, the aforementioned 2 characteristics of a good discourse have to be pursued. For this, some tough love is needed.

Everyone is trying to extend their values to others, in some way or another, in some measure or another.

The site has rules, these are the values of the site, and they do not extend to the interpretations or misinterpretations by members.


Of course it is subjective, the very nature of respect is subjective.
As for this "too much" being an "immesurable quantity": we are talking about *directions*, *tendencies* here. Emotional values can't be measured with numbers.
If this too much is subjective then how do expect your take on it to apply to others?


What I am talking about? That there is no absolute rule or list as to what is deemed offensive and what is not. Does the SF policy have a *list* that says which word or phrase is offensive or not? It is a judgement call of the moderators, and of the members.
It is a set of rules that are subjective to the interpretation of moderators. Each moderated forum has a rule list. Moreover, members can report an offensive post, and if within this rule set, actions can therefore be taken by the moderator(s).


Some people feel insulted by the mere presence of a black person or a Jew. Are the black person or the Jew feel as if they have deliberately offended the other person? Should they apologize for bein black, or Jewish? Should they leave?
You know this is a non sequitur, so even bring it up? The forum does not bar members based on ethnicities, and therefore if a member is unwilling to associate with those of different ethnicities, they can simply leave.


I am not saying that they *should* not have an effect. I am emphasizing to re-think *why* one gets insulted.
I think that is a change in your position, and even then, why should there be a "rethink"?


This *why* is a subjective issue for each and every person. I think that it is in place, in such a situation, for the said person to ask "What is this person to me? Is what they have said of any value to me? If yes, why so? If no, why so?"
No, this should not be the determining factor in whether a person is insulted by an insult on not. The insulted individual can use whatever set of determinants they wish, and if the insult fits within the criteria set by the forum, the insults ought to stop.


Like I said in the "Gendanken's banning" thread,
"I have used this time around Gendanken's banning as an opportunity to point at some frequent and disturbing issues regarding respect and offense.

One thing is to discuss those issues as usual, in other forums, esp. in Philosophy and Human science. But how much effect do such debates have? How much interest do they stir?
The topic of respect is an everyday matter, and important in each individual's life.

This happening around Gendanken's banning right now is a practical example of what has been discussed esp. in the thread "Respect is a modern luxury", and in many other threads more or less specifically."
You seem to miss the fact that it is Gendanken who was being disrespectful when she insulted.


I firmly believe that we all have our insecurities; it is totally beyond having those insecurities being a right or not -- we have them, and that's it. They are a matter of fact, not a matter of right. How we handle them, how we express them -- this is what I am interested in.
How we handle these insecurities is what concerns you? You have asserted again and again that the insults from Gendanken were unworthy of offense. It is clear that the insulted clearly deemed them offensive. You have however stated that you think the reaction "too much" for the given situation. Thus clearly, you are making value statements and not attempting a discussion on the why.

I think the why is clearly too varied; every individual responds differently, and thus, one cannot simply say this should offend and this ought not to offend. Thus, to create a comfortable environment for all involved, certain restrictions as determined by those responsible for the forum are created to facilitate this environment.


Responsible? How? To whom? If they don't comply with this responsibility -- what are the sanctions?
Will you sue someone if they call you a bad name?
You are saying that the individual who insults should bear no responsibility for their acts. They made the insults. The insults did not magically appear on the bloody screen. The responsibility, within the context of the forum, is a ban.


I did not perceive it as an insult, I perceived it almost as a stab in the back. You were nice to me first, and then I found out you used me in that prank. What you did was deception.
Flat out calling someone a moron is not deception.
I have still been nice to you. You have been intelligent and not a moron, so I have been nice to you. You have been nice in return, so I have been nicer to you. I made a practical joke in an attempt to suggest that the level of postings on here have degraded, and therefore, perhaps an awards thread was undue. I still nevertheless qualified within said thread that the nominees deserved their recognition. It was not a stab in the back, and if you cannot understand this, there is nothing else I can say.


It is human nature to make allies, of one kind or another. If you believe that you can be all by yourself, anywhere, and have no allies or those kindly inclined towards you -- then no wonder we don't get along.
I have not changed in my behaviour towards you. You on the other hand obviously think I backstabbed you and therefore have changed your behaviour towards me? I do not understand what warrants your change in behaviour, but that is you and this is I.
I do not think we need allies on this forum, we do not need cliques or individuals that mostly read and participate in threads or discussion only certain individuals are involved. I think the subject at hand ought to determine participation. I did not assert I could do without allies in life.


Although this is a virtual place, it is still a place of social communication, and certain social connections and relationships form. Sure, they are much different, and much more abstract than those IRL, but they are social nonetheless. Just because this place is virtual, this doesn't make us robots.
To an extent, this forum is indeed a social environment, and I am guilty of abusing the forum for the sake of my entertainment many, many times. Still, it should remain primarily a location for intelligent discourses. What I seek most from all involved here is not their "friendship", but rather their knowledge or views, and I hold the view that this is as should be.


You mean what if they feel like hypocrites and oversensitive? Well, can one love onself if one feels like a hypocrite and oversensitive?Are hypocrisy and overesensitivity something to strive for, something to be proud of?
I don't know if oversensitivity is something to strive for; I did not say hypocrisy is something one must strive for. One being oversensitive is simply behavioural, and it should not be subjected to our value systems. Moreover, the "over" is subjective. What is merely sensitive to me might be oversensitive to you.


You mean that everyone has the RIGHT to be respected?
No, I am saying everyone has the right to not be needlessly insulted.


Fact is, that those rights are often not respected. How do we defend ourselves? What laws, rules, tendencies, strategies do we make and apply when defending our rights?
Simply because some morons decide to offend for the sake of offending does not make it alright or allowable. This forum has its rules to allow for the emotional well being of its members. Society also has its own rules.


Then why lead people on by being nice, and then use them in pranks?
If you were referring to you and I, then my answer would be that a prank is simply a joke, and thus, should not be taken seriously. If however, you did not get or appreciate the joke, my apologies.


Why "must"? I never said that anyone "must" ignore anything. I am only summoning to re-think one's own reasons for taking offense, like I said above.
You said this: But why didn't this member, who didn't welcome those insults, ignore them? This member chose to play the victim.

You are saying the member ought to ignore; I am asking why they should ignore when the rules of the environment clearly protects their right not to be insulted.


Of course. But if I am the way I am, it is imaginable that there is a certain amount of like people too. Nobody is really a kind of his own.
You yourself asserted that “how we react” is subjective. That being the case, some, and I will even make the assertion that most do not feel as you do.


Of course the insults *should* not be stated in the first place! Of course, there *should* be no wars, there *should* be no poverty, no violence and no racism.
But they are.
And if we wish to work towards a society that has less of these things that should not be, then we must do something.
Another non sequitur: "..no wars, ....". This is clearly unnecessary and unrelated. The forum presupposes that idiots or even the intelligent will, if not obstructed, go around insulting others and offending them for no reason. This is why there exist rules.


No. What I find enfuriating is that people "stand up for themselves" by emotionally blackmailing others. What I find enfuriating is protecting "everyone has the right to feel *whatever* way they feel, and everyone has the right to do *whatever* they feel like doing."
This makes no sense. You are saying that if I insulted you, you ought not be able to feel what you do? You claimed I backstabbed you. Should your right to feel such a way be rescinded because I think it undue?


If we are to tolerate that people take offense so easily -- beacuse we respect that "everyone has the right to feel *whatever* way they feel, and everyone has the right to do *whatever* they feel like doing" -- then why don't we also tolerate Neonacism, racism? If everyone "has the right to feel *whatever* way they feel, and everyone has the right to do *whatever* they feel like doing." -- why are there courts, why are there laws?
After all, putting a murderer to jail is questioning his "right to feel *whatever* way he feels", and it is limiting his "right to do *whatever* he feels like doing."

You need to learn how to separate arguments. The murderer commits an act that harms others. The insulter commits an act that harms others. The racist has his right to his emotions. If he commits no acts that harm another, I don't give a shit how they feel. Putting a murderer in jail is not questioning his right to his emotion, it questioning his right to his action. The insulter can think the insulted a moronic, an idiot, a dolt-- it does not imply they ought to utter it.


The issue of offense is to be addressed from *both perspectives*: from the perspective of the offended, and from the perspective of the offender.
The offended should think why he is offended, and the offender should think why he is offending.
What are you talking about? The offender has the right to his emotions or opinions, but not his acts, if we are to take the perspective of the offended into account.

The site has rules, these are the values of the site, and they do not extend to the interpretations or misinterpretations by members.

I have nothing against the site rules. In fact, I myself have intervened a couple of times in the name of good communication, once with very good success.
We are dealing with the more general aspect of respect and offense here though, not just regarding the site rules.



If this too much is subjective then how do expect your take on it to apply to others?

Is it so irrational to summon people to first think before they act offended?
Is it so irrational to take the stance "A person needs to have a certain amount of respect from me before I'd get offended by something they said or did"?

I am quite sure that once people would see things from this perspective, they would feel much less offended by things strangers say to them.
Yes, I think the position I have offered here makes sense, and others can apply it in their lives too.



You know this is a non sequitur, so even bring it up? The forum does not bar members based on ethnicities, and therefore if a member is unwilling to associate with those of different ethnicities, they can simply leave.

This thread is not just about issues regarding this forum. I am pursuing the issue of respect and offense in general.



I think that is a change in your position, and even then, why should there be a "rethink"?

No, this is not a change in my position. Maybe it just wasn't that clear in the opening post.
As for why should there be a rethink: Is it not stupid to feel offended by someone who is nothing to you? Is it so irrational to think first before you act offended and demand sanctions?



No, this should not be the determining factor in whether a person is insulted by an insult on not. The insulted individual can use whatever set of determinants they wish,

So, you are saying that it is okay and reasonable to be insulted, by say, the mere presence of a Jew or a black person? That it makes sense to feel insulted by someone who is nothing to you? That it makes sense to be insulted if someone cannot spell well?



and if the insult fits within the criteria set by the forum, the insults ought to stop.

As far as forum policy is concerned, I agree. But once more, this thread is addressing the matter of respect and offense more generally.



You seem to miss the fact that it is Gendanken who was being disrespectful when she insulted.

How am I missing that?! Maybe my argumentation is not in the line order as you would expect it; but I think it is understandable that everything cannot be said at once, in one post.

I didn't always like the way she acted.
Yes, those words came out from under her fingers. And this is where it all gets even more clear: those words were from her -- why did those other people feel so offended by them?

I mean: What is Gedanken that apparently noone was able (or not willing?) to give her a proper counter? Is she really that strong? Are people really that afraid of her? There apparently was no opponent here strong enough, to maybe teach her a lesson -- if the idea was to teach her something too.
She was simply got rid of, shut down, under the rug swept.



How we handle these insecurities is what concerns you? You have asserted again and again that the insults from Gendanken were unworthy of offense.

Worthy of offense, no, in most cases. Worthy of being annoyed, yes, sometimes. I wonder why noone really stood up against her, with a proper counterargument.

We all know that she can listen, we all know that she accepts a good argument. She is very intelligent. Many deem her an insightful poster, there is almost a magic aura around her, as if she were some sort of a guru.

But no. She is just another member here. Why isn't she treated the same way then?

Why does this equal status show only when it comes to being banned for insults?

If people find it usual to be in arguments with other posters -- why not treat her as just another poster? Why this sense of "Oh, it is the Great Gendanken, I daren't oppose!"?

She is the darling of many, but also the nightmare of some others, and I am afraid that this obscured those people's vision. It is not fair towards anyone.



It is clear that the insulted clearly deemed them offensive.

Yes, and why? On what basis? They felt offended by someone who is nothing to them. To take offense so easily -- that girl cried over what G. said about her! -- I find rather stupid.



You have however stated that you think the reaction "too much" for the given situation. Thus clearly, you are making value statements and not attempting a discussion on the why.

I think the why is clearly too varied; every individual responds differently, and thus, one cannot simply say this should offend and this ought not to offend.

Here, I disagree. The why indeed is very varied, and I am not attmpting to make a list of things that offend, and those that don't. I have said earlier that there is not such absolute list.

However, I think that there are some guidelines though -- like I said before: Is it not supid to cry over something a stranger said to you, and then blame this stranger for feeling offended?

Apparently, people do not know themselves well enough.

As for the Playboy Bunny case, I am surprised that noone went against me and what I have said to her. I think that was most likely just as brutal to Bunny as what Gendanken said about her.
But is it not that what really hurt Bunny was that what we said was bearing a painful truth for her?
Was it not that what really hurt Bunny is realizing that her self-image indeed depends a lot on other people, even too much?

This does of course not mean that it was okay to use bad words. But we should not blame Gendanken for Bunny's painful realization either.



Thus, to create a comfortable environment for all involved, certain restrictions as determined by those responsible for the forum are created to facilitate this environment.

Certainly. But for those restrictions to make sense, we ought to strive to be professional communicators: come here primarily to communicate, and not primarily to have our personalities confirmed.

The two are of course inseparatable, but I think that esp. in an enivronment like this, those communication interests should be primary.
If someone cries over something a stranger said, and then blames this stranger, then it is obvious that this person is seeking the confirmation of their personality here -- and is hurt, if the opposite happens.



“ Responsible? How? To whom? If they don't comply with this responsibility -- what are the sanctions?
Will you sue someone if they call you a bad name? ”

You are saying that the individual who insults should bear no responsibility for their acts.

No. I am not saying that we should not bear responsibility for our acts. We *all* are responsible for our acts.
And in a case like here, regarding insults: all are responsible for what they did, respectively: Gendanken for disobeying the site rules, and those who banned her for having adequate reasons for the ban.

But we are also responsible, in the first line to ourselves, but also to others, for how we take offense. Personally, it has happened to me that someone, here, said some things to me that were offensive, and I felt hurt. And in the first moment, I was very angry. But then I thought it over, and I saw that they were right. This person was nothing to me, yet what they said to me was true about me, hurting but true. I didn't go against that person and blame them for hurting me. I had no case against that person.
I think that such a position is reasonable, and I don't see why others could not reconsider it as a viable option too, in similar cases.



They made the insults. The insults did not magically appear on the bloody screen. The responsibility, within the context of the forum, is a ban.

And I agree with that.



I do not think we need allies on this forum, we do not need cliques or individuals that mostly read and participate in threads or discussion only certain individuals are involved. I think the subject at hand ought to determine participation.

Yes, but isn't it just *the* right thing, when the right people come together and strike up a debate?
We cannot help but to pay some more attention to certain posters.



To an extent, this forum is indeed a social environment, and I am guilty of abusing the forum for the sake of my entertainment many, many times. Still, it should remain primarily a location for intelligent discourses. What I seek most from all involved here is not their "friendship", but rather their knowledge or views, and I hold the view that this is as should be.

Yes, and this is why it is so important to strive to be a professional communicator.



I don't know if oversensitivity is something to strive for; I did not say hypocrisy is something one must strive for. One being oversensitive is simply behavioural, and it should not be subjected to our value systems. Moreover, the "over" is subjective. What is merely sensitive to me might be oversensitive to you.

I said: "Well, can one love onself if one feels like a hypocrite and oversensitive?" If A knows that he has characteristic X, and A *himself* deems X not something worth striving for, or A *himself* thinks X not very valuable and wishes to change it anyway: When this characetristic X is being attacked by others, should A justify his position by saying he has X, and this is a proper justification?

I can imagine that this explanation doesn't apply in all cases (say, being ill or in a wheelchair or something like that). But to defend oneself by saying, "I am weak/oversensitive/a hypocrite, you should leave me alone because I am weak/oversensitive/a hypocrite" -- this, I find absurd.



“ You mean that everyone has the RIGHT to be respected? ”

No, I am saying everyone has the right to not be needlessly insulted.

Needlessly insulted? Are there just or righteous insults? I don't think so. I think all insults are needless.



Simply because some morons decide to offend for the sake of offending does not make it alright or allowable.

Certainly. I never claimed that it is alright or allowable. But we shouldn't behave as if there were no insults either. -- Thus, some strategies on how to face insults, and some understanding of the nature of insults is necessary, if we wish to be just to ourselves and others.



If you were referring to you and I, then my answer would be that a prank is simply a joke, and thus, should not be taken seriously. If however, you did not get or appreciate the joke, my apologies.

No, I did not appreciate that joke. I accept your apology, but I am afraid that the initial kind inclination I had for you is gone.



You are saying the member ought to ignore; I am asking why they should ignore when the rules of the environment clearly protects their right not to be insulted.

The rules are something like a double-edge sword.
They are here to protect good communication, and members ought to protest in the name of good communication, IMO. I have protested in the name of good communication before, and will again, if necessary.

Protesting in the name of feeling hurt by what a stranger said to you -- this is absurd.

One ought to be clear about one's justifications for protesting and taking actions.



You yourself asserted that “how we react” is subjective. That being the case, some, and I will even make the assertion that most do not feel as you do.

But listen to what I am saying. Is it really irrational for each individual to hold the stance "A person needs to have a certain amount of respect from me before I'd get offended by something they said or did"?



“ No. What I find enfuriating is that people "stand up for themselves" by emotionally blackmailing others. What I find enfuriating is protecting "everyone has the right to feel *whatever* way they feel, and everyone has the right to do *whatever* they feel like doing." ”

This makes no sense. You are saying that if I insulted you, you ought not be able to feel what you do? You claimed I backstabbed you. Should your right to feel such a way be rescinded because I think it undue?

How I feel is one thing, how I act on this feeling is another thing. We may not be able to control in advance how we feel, and why we feel the way we do, but I think we are able, or can become able to control how we react.

I could have gone at you, called you a liar, a cheater, a backstabber, I could have even demanded to ban you because you played such a mean joke. But have I done that? No. I thought it over, and found that such actions have no reasonable basis -- so why pursue them?



You need to learn how to separate arguments. The murderer commits an act that harms others. The insulter commits an act that harms others. The racist has his right to his emotions. If he commits no acts that harm another, I don't give a shit how they feel. Putting a murderer in jail is not questioning his right to his emotion, it questioning his right to his action. The insulter can think the insulted a moronic, an idiot, a dolt-- it does not imply they ought to utter it.

Still, in society, the prevalent values are those against violence, against racism, or so it seems. So those who wish to be violent do feel that society is against their views and emotions; that society is obstructing "their right to feel whatever they feel".

BRILLIANT topic, Rosa. I'll take time to read the replies before I respond. For the moment I'll just throw a stone in the bush:

Words aren't just words, or we wouldn't use them so much: they evoke - they're intended to evoke, otherwise we would not be able attach meaning to them. How much they evoke is up to personality and context.

We live in an intrusive culture (at least in the proverbial West), where freedoms are your rights first, other people second. That means that we are freed to insult, and it is the insulted's problem to deal with it. Once the ball is in their court, it's not our responsibility anymore. All that legislation does, it to define the court. Only when someone yells "out" is the insultee's intention given closer scrutiny.

So we practice freedom of speech - even to the point of intolerance - and expect tolerance. "Stick and stones", you know. The medium is provides the impersonality people need. Now we're just throwing our garbage out the window, and it's your fault if you happen to walk under my window. As a result we are forced to become desensitized to slander, but we mistrust the instentions of people who are honestly just cleaning out their house. Now, even when the truth addresses us, we try to find fault with the "accuser" first. Both sides lose.

So much for waiting before I respond...

I have nothing against the site rules. In fact, I myself have intervened a couple of times in the name of good communication, once with very good success.
We are dealing with the more general aspect of respect and offense here though, not just regarding the site rules.
Then there shouldn't be anymore mention of bans within your response?


Is it so irrational to summon people to first think before they act offended? Is it so irrational to take the stance "A person needs to have a certain amount of respect from me before I'd get offended by something they said or did"? I am quite sure that once people would see things from this perspective, they would feel much less offended by things strangers say to them. Yes, I think the position I have offered here makes sense, and others can apply it in their lives too.
In every environment, a set of rules must necessarily apply to facilitate what it is that the members seek. Therefore, here on sciforums.com, which is owned by an individual, a set of rules exist to facilitate the sharing of ideas. Insults are needless and serve no purpose, thus the insulter is warned and then banned if they refuse to follow the rules of this environment. Simple. The same would apply at a scientific conference, etc etc. In the world as a whole, insults are generally accepted-- but there is always an extent to which it they are allowed. I'm not going to get into when one should be insulted, for I think it is pointless.



So, you are saying that it is okay and reasonable to be insulted, by say, the mere presence of a Jew or a black person? That it makes sense to feel insulted by someone who is nothing to you? That it makes sense to be insulted if someone cannot spell well?
That it makes sense as in is it logical? No. Do I think that a racist ought to have the right to be insulted by the presence of a Black person? Yes. However, on this site for instance, said racist would either have to leave or deal with the black person. If however the racist were to act out their emotions and insult or degrade a black person, then this is not allowed. Again, everything depends on the circumstance.


I didn't always like the way she acted.
Yes, those words came out from under her fingers. And this is where it all gets even more clear: those words were from her -- why did those other people feel so offended by them?
You again keep asking the same question you yourself have responded to! Because this is how man is. Words have meaning, insults hurt, complimentsdo not,etc, etc


I mean: What is Gedanken that apparently noone was able (or not willing?) to give her a proper counter? Is she really that strong? Are people really that afraid of her? There apparently was no opponent here strong enough, to maybe teach her a lesson -- if the idea was to teach her something too. She was simply got rid of, shut down, under the rug swept.
What the hell are you talking about? People insulted her too; she's gotten into many, many flames. She does not shut up because she chooses not to shut up.


Worthy of offense, no, in most cases. Worthy of being annoyed, yes, sometimes. I wonder why noone really stood up against her, with a proper
counterargument.
What are you talking about? Insults lead to more insults, there is no proper counterargument


We all know that she can listen, we all know that she accepts a good argument. She is very intelligent. Many deem her an insightful poster, there is
almost a magic aura around her, as if she were some sort of a guru.
Who thinks her a guru??? What the hell are you talking about?


But no. She is just another member here. Why isn't she treated the same way then?
She is. Which is why she's banned. Perhaps the member who she insulted in the picture thread was not as forceful as her, maybe he was not well versed at insults, etc...


Why does this equal status show only when it comes to being banned for insults?
huh?


If people find it usual to be in arguments with other posters -- why not treat her as just another poster? Why this sense of "Oh, it is the Great
Gendanken, I daren't oppose!"?
She is the darling of many, but also the nightmare of some others, and I am afraid that this obscured those people's vision. It is not fair towards anyone.

What ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Gendanken is a poster who is very agressive. Many members did not/do not engage her in debate because they didn't often like her responses or were not able to engage her in debate from lack of knowledge, interest, etc in the subject at hand. She is a good poster and therefore the mods claim to have let a lot of her insults ride for a while. If Goofy started warning me about my insults 6+ months ago, then I'm not sure when Gendanken was first warned.


Yes, and why? On what basis? They felt offended by someone who is nothing to them. To take offense so easily -- that girl cried over what G. said
about her! -- I find rather stupid.
I think whatever prompted her offense is irrelevant and really undiscernible as it an amalgam of varied life experiences that can could have influenced her
psyche to therefore produce such a response. It is a psychological issue and mere conjecture does nothing in understanding it.


Here, I disagree. The why indeed is very varied, and I am not attmpting to make a list of things that offend, and those that don't. I have said earlier that there is not such absolute list.
Why do you then still hold the view that feeling offended is stupid?


However, I think that there are some guidelines though -- like I said before: Is it not supid to cry over something a stranger said to you, and then
blame this stranger for feeling offended?
We do not know if she cried. And quite frankly, I doubt if it weren;t for the fact that her boyfriend was there to read it, she'd care that much. Why others may actually cry if a stranger insults them is again, psychological.


Apparently, people do not know themselves well enough.
What?


As for the Playboy Bunny case, I am surprised that noone went against me and what I have said to her. I think that was most likely just as brutal to Bunny as what Gendanken said about her.
But is it not that what really hurt Bunny was that what we said was bearing a painful truth for her?
Was it not that what really hurt Bunny is realizing that her self-image indeed depends a lot on other people, even too much?
I think it is nonsensical to assert that a person's image of themselves is without the influence of other people's opinions, because a lot of how we see ourselves depends on the views of others. And what if she thinks herself ugly? What if she's attempting to somehow come to a better image of herself? What purpose did Gendanken's insult serve? What if Bunny was say, Raithere and he responded likewise, and then left the forum because of what he views as a hostile environment? The insult was needless


This does of course not mean that it was okay to use bad words. But we should not blame Gendanken for Bunny's painful realization either.
This statement is illogical. If it was not OK, then WHY was it not Ok?


Certainly. But for those restrictions to make sense, we ought to strive to be professional communicators: come here primarily to communicate, and not primarily to have our personalities confirmed.
One needn't be a "professional communicator" to avoid directly insulting another.



No. I am not saying that we should not bear responsibility for our acts. We *all* are responsible for our acts.
And in a case like here, regarding insults: all are responsible for what they did, respectively: Gendanken for disobeying the site rules, and those who
banned her for having adequate reasons for the ban.
This is irrational. The moderator who banned Gnedanken has the authority of discretion. Noone holds any responsibility in the ACT-- which is the insult, except the person who insulted. If Gendanken "disobeyed" site rules, then how is is she not the sole bearer of responsibility?


But we are also responsible, in the first line to ourselves, but also to others, for how we take offense. Personally, it has happened to me that someone, here, said some things to me that were offensive, and I felt hurt. And in the first moment, I was very angry. But then I thought it over, and I saw that they were right. This person was nothing to me, yet what they said to me was true about me, hurting but true. I didn't go against that person and blame them for hurting me. I had no case against that person.
I think that such a position is reasonable, and I don't see why others could not reconsider it as a viable option too, in similar cases.
Because others are not you. You got hurt, and so clearly the assertion that we ought not take offense to what is said to us is clearly contradictory. The difference is that you rationalized your emotion and then reacted. I do not claim that how we rect to things is not our responsibility, but I think the why is clearly a subject of psychology.


Needlessly insulted? Are there just or righteous insults? I don't think so. I think all insults are needless.
What again then is your point? Because thus far, I see you contradicting yourself in multiple places


But listen to what I am saying. Is it really irrational for each individual to hold the stance "A person needs to have a certain amount of respect from me before I'd get offended by something they said or did"?
Yes it is irrational.


How I feel is one thing, how I act on this feeling is another thing. We may not be able to control in advance how we feel, and why we feel the way we do, but I think we are able, or can become able to control how we react.
By that same token, then we are able to control how we act! The action precedes the reaction. Thus, if one ought to be stopped, and within this environment, then it should be the action.


I could have gone at you, called you a liar, a cheater, a backstabber, I could have even demanded to ban you because you played such a mean joke. But have I done that? No. I thought it over, and found that such actions have no reasonable basis -- so why pursue them?
You have called me a backstabber. I do not think I was one-- you missed or misunderstood my joke. I have apologized. I've moved on. There is no rule on here that warrants a ban for what I did, so don't make it seem like some favour you did I. Besides, how you react is simply how YOU react. I cannot stand arguments that are tainted with value statements.

Listen, personally I don't give a shit what someone says about me as long as it doesn't affect my safety, etc... Thus, an insult on this forum won't mean shit to me. An insult in the world at large that does not affect me as said, then means shit. Gendanken has insulted me many times, and I have insulted her many times. They've meant shit to me. I am however not everyone, and therefore do not expect all to react as I do.


Still, in society, the prevalent values are those against violence, against racism, or so it seems. So those who wish to be violent do feel that society is against their views and emotions; that society is obstructing "their right to feel whatever they feel".
There is no law against being racist as long as they are in thought and not in actions that discrimminate against another.. There are laws against violence because unpunished violence can cause the downfall of society. Insults are needless so you claim. What purpose then is there to insult in an environment such as this?

You suggest that you intend a discussion on how and why some get offended with by insults. You have asnwered that it is human nature. I assert that most of it is phsycological. You wonder if people should indeed take offense to insults directed at them. I say no, but insults serving no purpose, and others clearly posessing a different opinion or unable to respond how I would, I assert the insulter bear the responsility for their insults. As to what falls under the term of insults, I think the environment and the group at large defines.

I think Rosa is arguing for dialogue between people, who have at least the humanity to respect and forgive each other. People who don't care whether they're insulted will probably also not care to insult others. Yet the nature of the discussion and the person talking should also tell you what your level of sensitivity should be. The only way to maintain a productive environment is to maintain a level of sensitivity and *respect* that makes dialogue possible, just like in the real world.

In the forums, all our words and reactions are moderated by ourselves - we have time to think about what we say - and that means that what we say here has more effect and *says* more than most people realize. At least to people who are willing to be open-minded. Moderators are here to keep the forums habitable for these open-minded people, and they *have* to enforce a kind of artificial sensitivity to establish that environment.

I think Rosa is arguing for dialogue between people, who have at least the humanity to respect and forgive each other. People who don't care whether they're insulted will probably also not care to insult others.
I've gone through the thread, summarized her argument, and taken out the instances within the context of the forum that don't follow her argument.

Thus, I get -->Thoughout the entire thread she has asserted that taking offense to an insult is perhaps the resultant of the proverbial mirror in our face. She made the claim that unless the insulter means something to the insultee--unless there exists a level of respect--the insulted need not feel any offense. And thirdly, that responsibility rests on the insulted for their act of getting offended. <----

Ok, that doesn't seem so bad. In fact, it makes sense in concept, but it doesn't make sense in practise. I think why the insulted takes offense is psychological and far too varied to classify. I think when we ought to be offended by insults should be only when the insulter, in their role, bears some responsibility for our emotional makeup. And thirdly, while the responsibility for how we react is surely on us, I think we ought to attack the problem at the source-- the insult and who is making these insults.


Yet the nature of the discussion and the person talking should also tell you what your level of sensitivity should be. The only way to maintain a productive environment is to maintain a level of sensitivity and *respect* that makes dialogue possible, just like in the real world.
Capito


In the forums, all our words and reactions are moderated by ourselves - we have time to think about what we say - and that means that what we say here has more effect and *says* more than most people realize. At least to people who are willing to be open-minded. Moderators are here to keep the forums habitable for these open-minded people, and they *have* to enforce a kind of artificial sensitivity to establish that environment.

I agree.

Then there shouldn't be anymore mention of bans within your response?

I am trying to see the whole picture of respect and offense, not just the one regarding SF.



Do I think that a racist ought to have the right to be insulted by the presence of a Black person? Yes.

You do know that with this line of thinking you are sending out the message "Racism is good!"?



What the hell are you talking about? People insulted her too; she's gotten into many, many flames. She does not shut up because she chooses not to shut up.

I don't think so. So far, noone gave her a good counterargument, that's all.



What are you talking about? Insults lead to more insults, there is no proper counterargument

Yes, there is, AND ESPECIALLY HERE on SF. As a member, one is supposed to know the site rules. If you feel you have been insulted, report that post and that poster. It is very simple. The moderators will take further actions.

If you insult back, then you are also criminalizing yourself. After that, don't expect the site rules to protect you.

It is the same situation as this:
A sprays B's house.
Then, B sprays A's house in return.
Then, A breaks a window on B's house in return.

If after this, B goes to sue A, B will not have the same protection by the law as if he would have if he had not chosen to take justice into his own hands as his first defense.
If you want to be fully protected by the law, you must call upon it as your first defense.

If you decide to take justice into your own hands and deal with the offender on your own terms -- and your defense turns out to be too weak, then you have brought your own demise upon yourself by your own unlawful actions.

If in such a case the higher power of law steps in, in the form of police and the state law system, it is to protect the greater common good, and not to protect you.


Asguard and Playboy Bunny did not call upon the site rules as their first defense. They decided to defend themselves, they didn't choose the option foreseen by the site rules. And as their defense turned out to be too weak, it was only after that that the moderators stepped in. What truly was protected was the greater common good of this site to not have insultive language used.



Who thinks her a guru??? What the hell are you talking about?

Look into the other thread, "Gendanken's banning". You'll see that she has many fans.
Including you.



She is. Which is why she's banned. Perhaps the member who she insulted in the picture thread was not as forceful as her, maybe he was not well versed at insults, etc...

No. They had the official option provided by the site rules. They did not choose that option. Therefore, they should bear the consequences themselves.



What ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Of all the people, YOU know damn well what I am talking about.



Gendanken is a poster who is very agressive. Many members did not/do not engage her in debate because they didn't often like her responses or were not able to engage her in debate from lack of knowledge, interest, etc in the subject at hand. She is a good poster

There apparently is noone who could play along with her, that's all. And Gendanken *surely* is not the one to be blamed for that.
It takes a tiger to play with a tiger.



I think whatever prompted her offense is irrelevant and really undiscernible as it an amalgam of varied life experiences that can could have influenced her psyche to therefore produce such a response. It is a psychological issue and mere conjecture does nothing in understanding it.

You are supporting pussies and cowards, do you know that?



Why do you then still hold the view that feeling offended is stupid?

Because it often is.



We do not know if she cried. And quite frankly, I doubt if it weren;t for the fact that her boyfriend was there to read it, she'd care that much. Why others may actually cry if a stranger insults them is again, psychological.

Yes, it is psychological. It is about having your self-worth so dependant on others that at the slightest opposition, your world crashes.



“ Apparently, people do not know themselves well enough. ”
What?

Et tu.



I think it is nonsensical to assert that a person's image of themselves is without the influence of other people's opinions, because a lot of how we see ourselves depends on the views of others.

I didn't say *without* the influence of other people's opinion. But we must distinguish between people. Those we care for, and those we don't care for. Why feel hurt by something someone who is nothing to you said to you, and then blame this person for this hurt?

Or is it that to you, there is no difference, you have the same feelings for everyone? Do you make any disctinctions? Do you have loved ones?



And what if she thinks herself ugly?

She most likely does -- judging by her response. Gendanken and I thought that thinking oneself ugly and thus thinking oneself less worth as a human is not healthy. We have pointed this out to her.



What if she's attempting to somehow come to a better image of herself?

Of course she is! We were just pushing her a little in that direction, we gave her some tough love.



What purpose did Gendanken's insult serve? What if Bunny was say, Raithere and he responded likewise, and then left the forum because of what he views as a hostile environment?

Raithere would not respond likewise.



The insult was needless

If they helped Bunny to think that indeed it is not healthy for her to think herself ugly and feel less worth as a human because of that -- then that insult was well-placed. Just mildly telling Bunny that she should have more respect for herself wouldn't teach her anything.



This statement is illogical. If it was not OK, then WHY was it not Ok?

It was not okay in regards to the site rules, as they are against insultive language.



One needn't be a "professional communicator" to avoid directly insulting another.

Not directly insulting another is one of the characteristics of a good communicator.



This is irrational. The moderator who banned Gnedanken has the authority of discretion. Noone holds any responsibility in the ACT-- which is the insult, except the person who insulted. If Gendanken "disobeyed" site rules, then how is is she not the sole bearer of responsibility?

Other members also use insultive language, other members also insult other members -- yet they don't get banned. This is what is perplexing.



Because others are not you. You got hurt, and so clearly the assertion that we ought not take offense to what is said to us is clearly contradictory.

You are trying to make a strawman. Read the whole thing before you accuse me of inconsistencies.



The difference is that you rationalized your emotion and then reacted.

If I can think about things first, and *then* act, why couldn't others as well?



I do not claim that how we rect to things is not our responsibility, but I think the why is clearly a subject of psychology.

So? We can manage our own psychology by thinking about our actions. And when it comes to respect and offense, this is rather easy.



What again then is your point? Because thus far, I see you contradicting yourself in multiple places

No. You just don't understand. You've made a hasty generalization. I never said that we should *never* take offense; I hold the position to not take offense by those whom we do not care for.
Yet you perverted my position into "we should never take offense". As if there was no love in this world.



“ But listen to what I am saying. Is it really irrational for each individual to hold the stance "A person needs to have a certain amount of respect from me before I'd get offended by something they said or did"? ”

Yes it is irrational.

So, you would think *yourself* irrational if you would say to yourself, "A person needs to have a certain amount of respect from me, thefountainhed, before I, thefountainhed, would get offended by something they said or did" ? You would really think yourself irrational if you would hold such a stance?



You have called me a backstabber. I do not think I was one-- you missed or misunderstood my joke. I have apologized. I've moved on. There is no rule on here that warrants a ban for what I did, so don't make it seem like some favour you did I. Besides, how you react is simply how YOU react. I cannot stand arguments that are tainted with value statements.

That joke was not funny. I have dismissed it, I don't mind anymore that you played it.

But I do mind the way you are defending it now. You are one careless and senseless coward. And on top of it, you are proud of it, and you want me to applaud to your cowardice. You are promoting being a careless and insensitive coward as a virtue.



There is no law against being racist as long as they are in thought and not in actions that discrimminate against another.. There are laws against violence because unpunished violence can cause the downfall of society. Insults are needless so you claim. What purpose then is there to insult in an environment such as this?

People use insults IRL, and they take this trait into the virtual life. Each community, real or virtual, has some rules. What the capital punishment is IRL, a permanent ban is in virtual life.



You suggest that you intend a discussion on how and why some get offended with by insults. You have asnwered that it is human nature. I assert that most of it is phsycological.

Aha, and "human nature" and "psychology" are like two soooo totally different things ...


***
I won't argue with you anymore.

This thread is *clearly* about ethics and values, and you say "I cannot stand arguments that are tainted with value statements." -- what are you doing here then?!

Thus it may be said that a person is only offensive if they have the "authority" to be offensive. That authority can only be *attributed* by those in some kind of relationship or contact with them - the insultee in this case. Hence the saying that nobody can patronize you if you don't let them (I think it was Hillary Clinton who said that).

In the real world more factors contribute to a person's perceived authority - and how subversive they seem to be. A person seems more offensive while looking you in the eyes, than when the source is mostly anonymous. But in the forums, I think Rosa has a point. You can't be insulted unless you make a point of being insulted. The patently impersonal nature of the forums buffers just how personal an insult can be at its worst. Of course, this gets worse as more personal relationships develop.

Gendanken certainly has a *presence* on the forums, mainly because she is so straighforward and sometimes hostile. She provokes reaction. That's an effective way of asserting yourself on the forum, but it creates opinions and perceptions that - let's face it - become personal. Other presences are merely irritating, some are disruptive, some comical. Some are so persistently derogatory that they lose credibility. But no presence is potentially more threatening than someone who asserts authority - especially intellectually - and no insult more personal than when the insultee's reputation has already devloped into a recognized personality. To attack someone's online persona and character that has a measure of "public" recognition is as much a personal insult as any in the real world, because it's just as demeaning.

Even ramblings such as these are considered insulting by some... :)

heh

heh

After the first "what are you talking about", I decided to use you as bait. To see how you would react if pushed. Realize, there were no direct insults in my response, except calling your arguments irrational, and yet look at you now. You are upset. YOu are annoyed. These are clearly emotive responses. Please do not assert that people needn't be emotional about statements directed at them. Referring to bunny, it quite apparent that the manner in which you two went about 'educating' her about the unhealthiness of her insecurities was not optimal. Moreover, it is hypocritical. I don't care if I am supporting the pussies and the sissies, the issue at hand is that they have the right to be as the please.

Now, this : "But I do mind the way you are defending it now. You are one careless and senseless coward. And on top of it, you are proud of it, and you want me to applaud to your cowardice. You are promoting being a careless and insensitive coward as a virtue."

annoys. I make a thread which accuses the level of postings here as having degarded and you accuse me of cowardice? You did not appreciate my joke and therefore I am cowardly? Please shut the fuck up.

"People have the right to not be offended by anyone."

LOL.

Says who?

You're wrong.

If I'm fooling around and call you whatever, "jackass" or "fuckface".. and you take offence... who is at fault?

Do you have no responsibility for your fucked up mood or inability to understand that I'm joking around with you?

People have the responsibilty to work that kind of shit out, or not. But they certainly don't have a "right not be offended" especially considering that many people are basically offended by being alive. Fuck them and their fucked up attitude. I will point it out to them so they have a shot at realizing their blunder. They will surely be offended. Why should I care when no matter what I say they'll be offended?

If I come up to you with a truly viscious tone and cuss and threaten you, goddamned well BETTER be offended, because I am being offensive. You should take action to stop it, leaving, police, or kicking my ass would be a start. Now it would be nicer if I wouldn't do that, but there's no accounting for what the shit gets into people's heads. You have no right to live your life free of offense. To think so is entirely deluded. You DO have every right to defend yourself from such an offense.

Here's the deal: You are responsible for your own fucking emotions. I can cuss your mother's grave for days on end and your reaction to it is YOUR responsibility. If you can are pretty sure that I'm in the wrong for doing so, then your responsibility might include trying to get me to shutup. IMO, statements like "People have the right to not be offended by anyone. " are exactly the fucking problem with the scenario above. Asshats who spew that kind of garbage are generally actually spewing "You are responsible for how I feel", because they are not mature enough to be responsible for their own fucking condition. THAT MAKES ME SICK. There's nothing wrong with asking for help with your condition, but pretending it's someone else's responsbility is the source of the shitstorm of a disgusting human behavior known as the PC movement.

I decided to use you as bait. To see how you would react if pushed. Realize, there were no direct insults in my response.


Playing people in an insult in it self, there is no hidding that, and you know.

But no presence is potentially more threatening than someone who asserts authority - especially intellectually - and no insult more personal than when the insultee's reputation has already devloped into a recognized personality. To attack someone's online persona and character that has a measure of "public" recognition is as much a personal insult as any in the real world, because it's just as demeaning.

Yes! Just look at Porfiry: If he says something, then this is so. Who would dare object?

After the first "what are you talking about", I decided to use you as bait. To see how you would react if pushed. Realize, there were no direct insults in my response, except calling your arguments irrational, and yet look at you now. You are upset. YOu are annoyed. These are clearly emotive responses. Please do not assert that people needn't be emotional about statements directed at them. Referring to bunny, it quite apparent that the manner in which you two went about 'educating' her about the unhealthiness of her insecurities was not optimal. Moreover, it is hypocritical. I don't care if I am supporting the pussies and the sissies, the issue at hand is that they have the right to be as the please.

Now, this : "But I do mind the way you are defending it now. You are one careless and senseless coward. And on top of it, you are proud of it, and you want me to applaud to your cowardice. You are promoting being a careless and insensitive coward as a virtue."

annoys. I make a thread which accuses the level of postings here as having degarded and you accuse me of cowardice? You did not appreciate my joke and therefore I am cowardly? Please shut the fuck up.

You are a lonely, pathetic worm.

Whew, that must be unbearably lonely in your self-made hell, down there, huh? Freezing. Whose photograph is it that you have pasted on your mirror, so that you wouldn't have to see your own face?


You have no appreciation for other people, we are like things to you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

You are a lonely, pathetic worm.

How so?



Whew, that must be unbearably lonely in your self-made hell, down there, huh? Freezing. Whose photograph is it that you have pasted on your mirror, so that you wouldn't have to see your own face?

Noone's actually. I quite enjoy myself, as it were...


You have no appreciation for other people, we are like things to you. Shame on you. Shame on you.
You simply have no appreciation for irony. I do appreciate people and all that...bla bla bla. One that thing though that does annoy me is self righteous crap. I have clearly shown that your basis of your statement on when to get emotional about perceived insults on this forum is clealry hypocritical. Now you can act like a child and stay angry and "not argue with" me "anymore" and keep insulting me at your whim, but it is obvious that my point is made, even if I had to resort to manipulation.

"People have the right to not be offended by anyone."
LOL.

Says who?

You're wrong.

Within this context, says me.



If I'm fooling around and call you whatever, "jackass" or "fuckface".. and you take offence... who is at fault?

If I'm unaware that this is a joke, then of course it is also your fault for having made the insults. If after being made aware of this "joke", I remain offended, then I have to mostly share in the responsibility of my current state.


Do you have no responsibility for your fucked up mood or inability to understand that I'm joking around with you?
Look above


People have the responsibilty to work that kind of shit out, or not. But they certainly don't have a "right not be offended" especially considering that many people are basically offended by being alive. Fuck them and their fucked up attitude. I will point it out to them so they have a shot at realizing their blunder. They will surely be offended. Why should I care when no matter what I say they'll be offended?
Firstly, I share you view, but I do not think the correct stance to hold in the want of a social and respective environment. Also, you exaggerate when you claim that some are going to be offended no matter what you say. Their "fucked up" attitude, from their perspective, is no more "fucked up" than yours. Afterall, what kind of fucked up person insults another for no bloody reason?


If I come up to you with a truly viscious tone and cuss and threaten you, goddamned well BETTER be offended, because I am being offensive. You should take action to stop it, leaving, police, or kicking my ass would be a start. Now it would be nicer if I wouldn't do that, but there's no accounting for what the shit gets into people's heads. You have no right to live your life free of offense. To think so is entirely deluded. You DO have every right to defend yourself from such an offense.
Perhaps you do not get it? I say that a person has the right to feel offended by what people say to them. Rosa asserted that people ought not feel offended by what people say to them and that someone taking offense to what is said to them is entirely their resposibility. The insulted shouldn't feel insulted, and the insulter ought not partake in the responsibility. If a person did not have the right to be absent of what you term a "truly viscious tone and cuss and threaten you", then your suggestion on their reaction holds no water.


Here's the deal: You are responsible for your own fucking emotions. I can cuss your mother's grave for days on end and your reaction to it is YOUR responsibility. If you can are pretty sure that I'm in the wrong for doing so, then your responsibility might include trying to get me to shutup. IMO, statements like "People have the right to not be offended by anyone. " are exactly the fucking problem with the scenario above. Asshats who spew that kind of garbage are generally actually spewing "You are responsible for how I feel", because they are not mature enough to be responsible for their own fucking condition. THAT MAKES ME SICK. There's nothing wrong with asking for help with your condition, but pretending it's someone else's responsbility is the source of the shitstorm of a disgusting human behavior known as the PC movement.
No, moronic fucks who go around thinking, "don't be offended if I call you a beer drinking redneck with a pussy for a mouth", or "sissy faggot with a hotrod up their ass" shouldn't be offended because these are mere words are the fucking problem. Said insults serve no bloody purpose except to instigate hostility. If therefore you act in such a manner, expect and accept the reaction. You helped cause the reaction by first making those stupid statements. You in your stupidity, share in the responsbility of their hurt. Otherwise, what right do they have to get pissed of at you for insulting them?

even if I had to resort to manipulation.

And you wish to preach about healthy communication?!
You disgust me.

No, moronic fucks who go around thinking, "don't be offended if I call you a beer drinking redneck with a pussy for a mouth", or "sissy faggot with a hotrod up their ass" shouldn't be offended because these are mere words are the fucking problem. Said insults serve no bloody purpose except to instigate hostility. If therefore you act in such a manner, expect and accept the reaction. You helped cause the reaction by first making those stupid statements. You in your stupidity, share in the responsbility of their hurt. Otherwise, what right do they have to get pissed of at you for insulting them?

You make a good point -- but I don't understand why you yourself are resorting to such hideous methods as manipulation and trickery.


Anyway, as you said, "what right do they have to get pissed of at you for insulting them?"


If we are supposedly such individuals, subjective, autonomous etc. -- as the modern theory of personality goes -- then why be so offended by the mere words a stranger utters? For people do feel offended by the words of a stranger, and what is more, we do feel offended by certain things those whom we respect say to us.

Either our "individuality, subjectivity, autonomy" are worth jack squat if they can be so easily offended; or we aren't nearly as individual, subjective and autonomous as some would like to believe.

And I think the latter is the case. Humans have a gregarious side as well, and it is very important to us. Most of us were brought up with the psychology that treats each individual as an individual, indepenedently from society, whereas society being just a social space this individual lives in. -- And this kind of individualistic psychology is misleading.


In the other thread, "Respect is a modern luxury" this very issue was debated, right at the beginning. The dilution of modern man. Respect is originally something designed to have for the members of your tribe, and within the tribe, what any member says *is* important to the other member, it has value and it is supposed to have value, be it compliment or criticism.

Society grew, and the tribe got lost -- but we are left with the same tribal need and the same tribal sense for respect and mutual dependency. And now this is abstracted and perverted into political correctness! What a sad replacement for the tribal sense!

And you wish to preach about healthy communication?!
You disgust me.
Quit your crying, woman. It's starting to really annoy me.


You make a good point -- but I don't understand why you yourself are resorting to such hideous methods as manipulation and trickery.
I tried to reason but I failed. You were being hypocritical.



Anyway, as you said, "what right do they have to get pissed of at you for insulting them?"


If we are supposedly such individuals, subjective, autonomous etc. -- as the modern theory of personality goes -- then why be so offended by the mere words a stranger utters? For people do feel offended by the words of a stranger, and what is more, we do feel offended by certain things those whom we respect say to us.

Either our "individuality, subjectivity, autonomy" are worth jack squat if they can be so easily offended; or we aren't nearly as individual, subjective and autonomous as some would like to believe.

Your conclusion does not follow from you your argument. It is precisely because of existing idividuality that different reactions do result from insults. But again, you fail to address my point. Why sould a person have the right to be pissed if they are insulted? Why do they have the right to insult back? This right is understandable only if you accept their right to take offense to what is said to them.


And I think the latter is the case. Humans have a gregarious side as well, and it is very important to us. Most of us were brought up with the psychology that treats each individual as an individual, indepenedently from society, whereas society being just a social space this individual lives in. -- And this kind of individualistic psychology is misleading.
But you've been preaching it all along?!



In the other thread, "Respect is a modern luxury" this very issue was debated, right at the beginning. The dilution of modern man. Respect is originally something designed to have for the members of your tribe, and within the tribe, what any member says *is* important to the other member, it has value and it is supposed to have value, be it compliment or criticism.

Society grew, and the tribe got lost -- but we are left with the same tribal need and the same tribal sense for respect and mutual dependency. And now this is abstracted and perverted into political correctness! What a sad replacement for the tribal sense!
I haven't read that thread. I tried, but it failed to hold my interest-- mostly because it is too long. That said, it is very clear that political correctness is not a mutation of this so caled "tribal respect". Within the different tribes/nations, there is existed various set of codes of respect. There is no such code as expecting to be respected simply because you are a member of the tribe. In some tribes, strength demanded respect. In orders, age and experience demanded respect. Still in others, birthright demanded the level of respect. Modern political correctness stems simply from an awareness of the different and conflicting cultures/groups/etc that are as a result of the modern climate, forced to into the same environment or coexist. It is tantamount to the trading post of old. For the sake of not insulting one whom you wanted to trade with, you simply watched what you said. We have as of now, not yet developed the respect codes. The so called global village, or even the state, is merely different tribes attemting coexistence. With time, codes will develop as old tribal affiliations diminish via one or more culture's dominance.

Within this context, says me.

You're wrong, says me. Further, you contradict yourself. You say later that people have the right to be offended. So they have the right to be offended or not offended?


If I'm unaware that this is a joke, then of course it is also your fault for having made the insults.

Fault? I didn't know you were unaware. I thought you were bright. Do you see how communication involves mutual responsibility? Ultimately, I'm responsible for what I say to you, and you should take the responsibility of trying to understand what I'm saying. It appears you're irresponsible. Hehe. Regardless you're responsible for your goddamned response.


If after being made aware of this "joke", I remain offended, then I have to mostly share in the responsibility of my current state.

No, you are entirely responsible for your current state from its inception. To think otherwise lends to Rosa's theory that you're a coward. That doesn't preclude being offended. It's that you are responsible for being offended. I may have been the cause, but you are still responsible for your reaction. Like I mentioned in my previous post, which you completely and utterly missed, if I deliberately insult you or threaten you or whatever, you SHOULD TAKE OFFENCE. You should also take action to defend yourself from such an attack. I'm responsible for my offensive words and you're responsible for your reaction to them. You need to determine if I really mean something offensive or threatening (which you may be able to do without further investigation if the tone or your instinct tells you whassup - and you are still responsible if you over-react and are incorrect in that I was not a threat or offensive) and react accordingly.


Firstly, I share you view, but I do not think the correct stance to hold in the want of a social and respective environment. Also, you exaggerate when you claim that some are going to be offended no matter what you say. Their "fucked up" attitude, from their perspective, is no more "fucked up" than yours. Afterall, what kind of fucked up person insults another for no bloody reason?

In the example I gave, people were offended by being alive. As such anything you say is offensive. "can I get a glass of water?" "what the hell do you want to steal my water for you stupid asshole, get out of my house!" If you've never met anyone like that, you're missing right out. You might note that mood comes into play. The point that you seemingly miss is that if a person is simply a hateful fuck, it is their emotional fuckedupedness that renders their perception of the world offensive. Their own vortex of self-loathing is projected to me and they will hold me responsible for it, when they are their own problem. That was all. It was an example of that. Of course my attitude appears fucked up to somone that hates themselves. That doesn't mean it is.

And who said there was "no bloody reason"? If I insult you and you don't know the reason, does that mean I didn't have one? :rolleyes: Hello?


Perhaps you do not get it?

LOL. Perhaps you didn't really understand what I said?


I say that a person has the right to feel offended by what people say to them.

If you'll note, I took that thought one step further to:

"If I come up to you with a truly viscious tone and cuss and threaten you, goddamned well BETTER be offended, because I am being offensive"


Rosa asserted that people ought not feel offended by what people say to them and that someone taking offense to what is said to them is entirely their resposibility.
I disagree with the first half, and agree with the second. You can freely be offended at whatever, but that does not at all relieve your responsibility for your actions or feeling offended. This is the reality of the situation.


The insulted shouldn't feel insulted, and the insulter ought not partake in the responsibility.

It's simple: Everyone is responsible for their actions and their emotional state.


If a person did not have the right to be absent of what you term a "truly viscious tone and cuss and threaten you", then your suggestion on their reaction holds no water.

Or maybe you just don't get it? Hey can you get a little more confounded there? "did not have the right to be absent of"? Hehe. Topsy turvey! How can a person not have the right to be absent of a truly viscious tone? A person has a right to have whatever presense of absense of tone they want, and thusly people have the right to react to said tone in self defense, or not react to the lack of tone... do a tone of their own.


No, moronic fucks who go around thinking, "don't be offended if I call you a beer drinking redneck with a pussy for a mouth", or "sissy faggot with a hotrod up their ass" shouldn't be offended because these are mere words are the fucking problem.
So you think they are the reason for the PC movement? Do you think someone who would say such a thing would actually think such a thing? They think you're a pussy, they don't care if you're offended. Perhaps actually, they are hoping you'll be offended. Can you think of one example of a person who would say that kind of shit and expect you not to be offended? Would you consider them sane? Come to think of it, I don't know if I've ever run across someone like that. Have you? From my experience I think your analysis is shit, because it has no basis in reality. People who blame their emotional problems on other people, that has basis in reality.


Said insults serve no bloody purpose except to instigate hostility.
Which is generally what they are intended to do, DUH. The most retarded oaf I've ever met wouldn't say shit like that and expect you not to be offended. He would say it in hopes you are offended so he can get his aggro on. Does that relieve you of the responsibility of your reaction (in either case, though the case you present is basically fantasy)? If you think it does, you're fucking deluded.


If therefore you act in such a manner, expect and accept the reaction.
Der duh.


You helped cause the reaction by first making those stupid statements.
Dubblederduh.


You in your stupidity, share in the responsbility of their hurt.
Wrong again. While I may be the cause of your hurt, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO BEARS IT. I literally cannot take responsibility for it, because it is part of YOU. YOU are responsible for YOU, no matter what I do to you. YOU have to live with YOU, I don't. To think otherwise is to simply incorrect.

That said, being the cause of whatever annoyance or disturbance, you may attack in self-defense. You are justified to do so, ignoring for the sake of argument the whole "some people don't care about what is justified and might just shoot you" kind of thing, which brings us back to your responsibility. Say I say the stupid shit you mentioned before "fuck you, you piece of shit" or whatever. You rationally get annoyed by my unproved attack. I pull a gun on you. Does my responsiblity for having annoyed you have shit to do with anything now? Bah, it doesn't matter anyway because pretending that someone else is responsible for part of you is a disgusting delusion anyway. It begs dependence and the role of the victim. Victims get victimized.

I have no responsibilty whatsoever for your "emotional duress". That is your problem to deal with regardless of the fact that I caused it. That doesn't however, relieve me of accountability from your reaction. You can be super angry, I'm the cause, and so it's reasonable for you to vent that anger on its cause. Then I defend myself from your attack, on and on and on until the situation ends one way or another.


Otherwise, what right do they have to get pissed of at you for insulting them?

Everyone has the right of interpretation of their stimulous, to judge it for what they think it is; and everyone is culpable for that judgement... so it generally behooves one to attempt to ensure that judgement is reflective of reality.

You're wrong, says me. Further, you contradict yourself. You say later that people have the right to be offended. So they have the right to be offended or not offended?
They have the right to take offense to what is said to them.


Fault? I didn't know you were unaware. I thought you were bright. Do you see how communication involves mutual responsibility? Ultimately, I'm responsible for what I say to you, and you should take the responsibility of trying to understand what I'm saying. It appears you're irresponsible. Hehe. Regardless you're responsible for your goddamned response.
Let's keep the vitriol light on this one, old man wes, because clearly you are one who takes offense very quickly to what is said to you. I wouldn’t want your dick shrinking anymore than it already has.

Yes, I am bright, and no there is no communication when one is insulted and they do not welcome it. Take the "responsibility" of trying to understand what is being said? That makes no sense. The insulted has taken what is said as offensive; they have understood what is being said-- from their perspective. We are not talking here about unintended insults for clearly we agree on that.


No, you are entirely responsible for your current state from its inception. To think otherwise lends to Rosa's theory that you're a coward. That doesn't preclude being offended.
Get your head of your ass. You are not a coward simply because you want to share the responsibility of your state with the insulter. Clearly, you would not been in the mood you are unless insulted in the first. Besides, when the fuck have you seen me playing the victim role for having been insulted? This is a debate of ideas, if you cannot get the implications then you are not thinking.


It's that you are responsible for being offended. I may have been the cause, but you are still responsible for your reaction. Like I mentioned in my previous post, which you completely and utterly missed, if I deliberately insult you or threaten you or whatever, you SHOULD TAKE OFFENCE. You should also take action to defend yourself from such an attack. I'm responsible for my offensive words and you're responsible for your reaction to them. You need to determine if I really mean something offensive or threatening (which you may be able to do without further investigation if the tone or your instinct tells you whassup - and you are still responsible if you over-react and are incorrect in that I was not a threat or offensive) and react accordingly.
This is essentially saying that the cause and the effect are mutually exclusive.
Thus, without the cause, there is no effect. However, the effect depends on the cause; unless there exists a cause, the induced reaction would not be exact. Therefore, you are responsible for insulting or threatening another. In how they react, they are responsible, bur so are you for having insulted them. This is why the insulted have every right to get offended and then insult back or attack the insulter how they seem fit. Were you not responsible to a degree for their current state, their getting offended and their reacting in their offense as said would be irrational.

I will revive the scenario of the bully and the bullied:

If the bullied were entirely responsible for their current state, one could not therefore hold the bully also responsible for any insecurity or hurt the bullying may induce.


In the example I gave, people were offended by being alive. As such anything you say is offensive. "can I get a glass of water?" "what the hell do you want to steal my water for you stupid asshole, get out of my house!" If you've never met anyone like that, you're missing right out. You might note that mood comes into play. The point that you seemingly miss is that if a person is simply a hateful fuck, it is their emotional fuckedupedness that renders their perception of the world offensive. Their own vortex of self-loathing is projected to me and they will hold me responsible for it, when they are their own problem. That was all. It was an example of that. Of course my attitude appears fucked up to somone that hates themselves. That doesn't mean it is.
Your example is irrational. And yes, from their perspective, your attitude is fucked up, and this stance is as equally valid as yours.


And who said there was "no bloody reason"? If I insult you and you don't know the reason, does that mean I didn't have one? :rolleyes: Hello?
"bloody reason" is meant to mean needless


LOL. Perhaps you didn't really understand what I said?
I understood what you said. Do you perhaps need a stronger statement to exact from what is said what is truly meant?


If you'll note, I took that thought one step further to:

"If I come up to you with a truly viscious tone and cuss and threaten you, goddamned well BETTER be offended, because I am being offensive"
Nonsense. And insult is an insult. The insult being deemed offensive is entirely up to the receiver.



I disagree with the first half, and agree with the second. You can freely be offended at whatever, but that does not at all relieve your responsibility for your actions or feeling offended. This is the reality of the situation.

And who said he is relieved of "all" responsibility??


It's simple: Everyone is responsible for their actions and their emotional state.
In some cases, as in this, when their state is induced by the actions of someone else, the responsibility is shared.


Or maybe you just don't get it? Hey can you get a little more confounded there? "did not have the right to be absent of"? Hehe. Topsy turvey! How can a person not have the right to be absent of a truly viscious tone? A person has a right to have whatever presense of absense of tone they want, and thusly people have the right to react to said tone in self defense, or not react to the lack of tone... do a tone of their own.

What is meant by the statement is this: If you the insulter, bears no responsibility for your insult, then I have no right to get pissed at you. I should instead get pissed at myself for having been offended. However you clearly stated that a person who is offended ought to go on the offensive for having been insulted. That you qualified with “tone…” is irrelevant, for clearly the level of the offense is the onus of the insulted.


So you think they are the reason for the PC movement? Do you think someone who would say such a thing would actually think such a thing? They think you're a pussy, they don't care if you're offended. Perhaps actually, they are hoping you'll be offended. Can you think of one example of a person who would say that kind of shit and expect you not to be offended? Would you consider them sane? Come to think of it, I don't know if I've ever run across someone like that. Have you? From my experience I think your analysis is shit, because it has no basis in reality. People who blame their emotional problems on other people, that has basis in reality.
No, you thick headed arrogant piece of shit, there'd be no fucking reason for a check-- or a this so called "PC movement" if the dipshit who actually thinks someone is a moron did not say it. Exactly what purpose is there in going around insulting people at whim? I'm not sure what kind of crazed existence you live but going around insulting those in your presence at whim does not create a social atmosphere. You don't do business with a Jew if you needlessly tell them you wished Hitler would come back and terminate their pathetic race, even if you do feel that fucking way.


Which is generally what they are intended to do, DUH. The most retarded oaf I've ever met wouldn't say shit like that and expect you not to be offended. He would say it in hopes you are offended so he can get his aggro on. Does that relieve you of the responsibility of your reaction (in either case, though the case you present is basically fantasy)? If you think it does, you're fucking deluded.
I have said again and again that in the instance whereby the insult induces the offended state, both share in the responsibility.


Wrong again. While I may be the cause of your hurt, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO BEARS IT. I literally cannot take responsibility for it, because it is part of YOU. YOU are responsible for YOU, no matter what I do to you. YOU have to live with YOU, I don't. To think otherwise is to simply incorrect.
What kind of irrational nonsense is this? Replace gun with insult-ŕ If I take a gun and shoot you, "YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO BEARS IT. I literally cannot take responsibility for it, because it is part of YOU. YOU are responsible for YOU, no matter what I do to you. YOU have to live with YOU, I don't. To think otherwise is to simply incorrect. " Utter stupidity


That said, being the cause of whatever annoyance or disturbance, you may attack in self-defense. You are justified to do so, ignoring for the sake of argument the whole "some people don't care about what is justified and might just shoot you" kind of thing, which brings us back to your responsibility. Say I say the stupid shit you mentioned before "fuck you, you piece of shit" or whatever. You rationally get annoyed by my unproved attack. I pull a gun on you. Does my responsiblity for having annoyed you have shit to do with anything now? Bah, it doesn't matter anyway because pretending that someone else is responsible for part of you is a disgusting delusion anyway. It begs dependence and the role of the victim. Victims get victimized.
And yet these so called victims have you bitching about the so-called harm of this PC movement.


I have no responsibilty whatsoever for your "emotional duress". That is your problem to deal with regardless of the fact that I caused it. That doesn't however, relieve me of accountability from your reaction. You can be super angry, I'm the cause, and so it's reasonable for you to vent that anger on its cause. Then I defend myself from your attack, on and on and on until the situation ends one way or another.
CONTRADICTION! Accountability is impossible without accepting that the person to be held accountable for the act bears some responsibility in their act.


Everyone has the right of interpretation of their stimulous, to judge it for what they think it is; and everyone is culpable for that judgement... so it generally behooves one to attempt to ensure that judgement is reflective of reality.
Certain stimuli however precipitate specific reactions.

Just a short intermezzo, as I don't have time for more, but I'll come back later:


One:


Rosa asserted that people ought not feel offended by what people say to them and that someone taking offense to what is said to them is entirely their resposibility.

I am holding the stance: "A person needs to have a certain amount of respect from me before I'd get offended by something they said or did." This means that one shouldn't feel offended by just anything anyone says.
This offense here is meant in the sense of your respect and self-respect suffering a blow.


Two:


if I deliberately insult you or threaten you or whatever, you SHOULD TAKE OFFENCE. You should also take action to defend yourself from such an attack.

I would consider this as an *assault*, not as an offense. The reactions and sanctions for an assault are different from those for an offense.
We have slightly different definitions, but I think we can understand eachother now.


Three:

Fountainhed, I do not mind that you are doing social and psychological experiments here, in order to provoke certain reactions from people.
But you ought to take a professional attitude, make two accounts and use one account for your usual posting, and the other one for your experiments. But the way you are doing it now, you are only discrediting yourself.

HED:

You did not respond to what I wrote. You responded to horrific misinterpretations. It is not worth my time to correct you. Re-read what I wrote a few thousand times after having removed staved your ego long enough to do so. I'm right on all counts. Perhaps I'm just beyond you.

Further, you claim you intend to minimize the vitriol and then proceed to call me stupid and "an thick headed arrogant piece of shit".

Check yourself.

Rosa:

"I would consider this as an *assault*, not as an offense. The reactions and sanctions for an assault are different from those for an offense.
We have slightly different definitions, but I think we can understand eachother now."

But would you not be offended by such an assault? I do agree that it is an assault, but the point was "being offended" is a very very valid state of being depending on the circumstances. I was pointing to the extreme case of an assault to easily make the point.

I am holding the stance: "A person needs to have a certain amount of respect from me before I'd get offended by something they said or did." This means that one shouldn't feel offended by just anything anyone says.
This offense here is meant in the sense of your respect and self-respect suffering a blow.

Ah, very clear. I completely agree. This fits perfectly with your summation of "respect is a modern luxury" in the sense that people generally recieve at minimum a modicum of respect from each other to begin with (via the whole tribal survival thing). I assume your point would be that such respect should be dropped immediately when you're assaulted eh? In other words, why empower someone who is simply trying to push your buttons? Perfectly consistent with what I've been getting at.

HED:

You did not respond to what I wrote. You responded to horrific misinterpretations. It is not worth my time to correct you. Re-read what I wrote a few thousand times after having removed staved your ego long enough to do so. I'm right on all counts. Perhaps I'm just beyond you.

I responded to precisely what you said. Don't give any crap about being "beyond" me, for you know that is plain nonsense. If you claim that I had not responded directly, show it, else cease with this shit.


Further, you claim you intend to minimize the vitriol and then proceed to call me stupid and "an thick headed arrogant piece of shit".
I said you ought to, but then as your post progressed, I simply got annoyed with you insulting me again and again.

I am holding the stance: "A person needs to have a certain amount of respect from me before I'd get offended by something they said or did." This means that one shouldn't feel offended by just anything anyone says.
This offense here is meant in the sense of your respect and self-respect suffering a blow.

I can understand this view point, but I think that sometimes, the audience at hand may also be important as to why some get offended. Also, certain things do in fact offend some people regardless of who says them. This could be due to principle, psychological makeupe, etc.

I think the only time I get offended by an insult is when I have relegated to an extent, some of my emotional makeup to them. For example, a loved one. Simple respect induce disappointment-- perhaps


Fountainhed, I do not mind that you are doing social and psychological experiments here, in order to provoke certain reactions from people.
But you ought to take a professional attitude, make two accounts and use one account for your usual posting, and the other one for your experiments. But the way you are doing it now, you are only discrediting yourself.you have a point

F:

I haven't read that thread. I tried, but it failed to hold my interest-- mostly because it is too long.
Nice try.
You were fucking ignored.
Gee, wonder why.

Read it again, Illerato:

Rosa:

In the other thread, "Respect is a modern luxury" this very issue was debated, right at the beginning. The dilution of modern man. Respect is originally something designed to have for the members of your tribe, and within the tribe, what any member says *is* important to the other member, it has value and it is supposed to have value, be it compliment or criticism.

Society grew, and the tribe got lost -- but we are left with the same tribal need and the same tribal sense for respect and mutual dependency. And now this is abstracted and perverted into political correctness! What a sad replacement for the tribal sense!

Simple shit, Fountain.
Men made tribes, tribes made cities, cities made crowds and crowds unmade men.
In the unmaking, personality and character is substituted with attitude.
Haven't you noticed that attitude is the easiest clone?
Every last human on the street sounds just like the one next to him, with each nursing a quiet insecurity of being Nobody.
So the attitude becomes a victimization demanding validation from the outside in the form of Respect, as Nobody simply insists on being Somebody.

Along comes someone to prove nobody is just that, and *poof* he is vilified by the Nobodies.
Therefore, the Unmade man (like the thousand plus members on this site) is the kind of prey that believes his predators should be held accountable for their being prey.

This is what Rosa is saying, roughly. Squint when you read next time.

I responded to precisely what you said.

Incorrect.


Don't give any crap about being "beyond" me, for you know that is plain nonsense.

I'll give you the crap I think you deserve. That you would think "nothing is beyond me" is as arrogant a statement as has ever been stated.


If you claim that I had not responded directly, show it, else cease with this shit.

I've already said what I had to say. Your inability to comprehend it isn't really my problem. I'd rather you attempt to re-read what has been said rather than trying to re-state the same shit over and over. It's a waste of my time.


I said you ought to, but then as your post progressed, I simply got annoyed with you insulting me again and again.

Show me where I insulted you ONCE in that post. Regardless of your annoyance, you said one thing and did another. That is YOUR responsibility as is your annoyance.

F:

Nice try.
You were fucking ignored.
Gee, wonder why.

Read it again, Illerato:
By you? I think someone did reply. The truth still remains that I attemped to read the thread and couldn't.



Simple shit, Fountain.
Tribes made cities, cities made crowds and crowds unmade men.
In the unmaking, personality and character is substituted with attitude.
Haven't you noticed that attitude is the easiest clone?
Stop right there. Personality and character is substituted with "attitude"? I suppose you use attitude as a diminished state of personality and character? I still think it is utter nonsense. Do you somehow claim that in the unmaking of the tribe to the city we somehow lost our character and personality? That if I were to somehow go into the amazon and compare a tribal member to the modern man, the modern man would somehow lack in personality and character? Firstly, define personality and character for the sake of avoiding a needless side argument. The modern man does in fact feel lost amongst the many, but I think it is simply because of a loss in intense/meaningless socialization, the feeling of a community. It is not a loss of the self as in a loss of personlaity or character


Every last human on the street sounds just like the one next to him, with each nursing a quiet insecurity of being Nobody.
So the attitude becomes a victimization demanding validation from the outside in the form of Respect, as Nobody simply insists on being Somebody.
I do not see this in the manner in which you see it. I think that everyone is in the street crying deep inside for society's insistencce that he be like everyone else, when he cannot and does not want to. I do agree that most habour a feeling of being a nobody as a result of this loss of community, but I think they seek the affirmation of self importance not in respect but rather in a sense of importance. This sense of self importance is manisfested in many ways.



Along comes someone to prove nobody is just that, and *poof* he is vilified by the Nobodies.
Therefore, the Unmade man (like the thousand plus members on this site) is the kind of prey that believes his predators should be held accountable for their being prey.
You are attempting to somehow bring that you were banned into this issue. I don't but that. What makes you able to separate yourself from these so called nobodies? Have you created a delusional space whereby all that surround you are mere minions? People react as you accuse them if what you are saying is false or if it is true and they are unable to accept it. What makes you think the latter is the case?


This is what Rosa is saying. Squint when you read next time.
Perhaps that was what she meant to say, but that is clearly different from what she said.

Incorrect.
I'll give you the crap I think you deserve. That you would think "nothing is beyond me" is as arrogant a statement as has ever been stated.
I was quoting your statement-- your claim that you were perhaps beyond me.


I've already said what I had to say. Your inability to comprehend it isn't really my problem. I'd rather you attempt to re-read what has been said rather than trying to re-state the same shit over and over. It's a waste of my time.
What is a waste of my time is to re-read shit I obviously understood, thought it nonsense, and then showed for it as nonsense.


Show me where I insulted you ONCE in that post. Regardless of your annoyance, you said one thing and did another. That is YOUR responsibility as is your annoyance.
Said what and did what?

"once"?
how the childish change of fountainhed to "brainded"?? Pathetic wes.

F:

Personality and character is substituted with "attitude"? I suppose you use attitude as a diminished state of personality and character? I still think it is utter nonsense. Do you somehow claim that in the unmaking of the tribe to the city we somehow lost our character and personality?
Ah, now I see.
The man didn't read the Fountainhead, he flirted with it.

In that case:
"Keating let himself be carried by the torrent: He needed the people and the clamor around him. There were no questions and no doubts when he stood on a platform over a sea of faces......He was great; great as the number of people who told him so. He was right; right as the number of people who believed it. He looked at the faces, at the eyes; he saw himself born in them, he saw himself being granted the gift of life. That was Peter Keating, that, the reflection in those staring pupils, and his body was only its reflection"

Keating is the modern man in that all alone in a room there is Nobody.
He’s only a reflection, as in attitude.
Personality is the unified whole of one's definition, flexible but impenetrable.
Its a creation born and made from the inside, with external personalities being allies- not obligations or intoxicants.
It defines a man at any one point in his life- its not the chameleon that Attitude is.

A man without character or personality will ask for its definition:

Firstly, define personality and character for the sake of avoiding a needless side argument.
See?


I think that everyone is in the street crying deep inside for society's insistencce that he be like everyone else, when he cannot and does not want to.
Oh?
The hippie, the Goth, and the angsty teen are all tiny hermit crabs protesting from within the warmth of camaraderie.
Remove that shell of category and they'll scurry away like all nobodies do when there is nothing to hide in.


but I think they seek the affirmation of self importance not in respect but rather in a sense of importance
And how is one made to feel important?
Yoga?

Something tells me you don't even read your own gibberish.


You are attempting to somehow bring that you were banned into this issue. I don't but that.
No.
You are.

I was quoting your statement-- your claim that you were perhaps beyond me.

Again I'm absolutely sure that I'm beyond you about some things, and not about other and vice-versa. Hence the statement about YOUR arrogance.


What is a waste of my time is to re-read shit I obviously understood, thought it nonsense, and then showed for it as nonsense.
You thought it nonsense because you didn't understand it. Hence my request that you reconsider.


Said what and did what?
And you claim you can read? You SAID "Let's keep the vitriol light on this one, old man wes, because clearly you are one who takes offense very quickly to what is said to you. I wouldn’t want your dick shrinking anymore than it already has."

... contradiciting yourself in the sentence that followed your proclamation. Further, if you had the capacity for comprhension as you claim, you'd note a complete lack of vitriol in my post in question. You project it there. The comments you were responding to in your statement about vitriol were directed towards the general "you" which had been established in the exchange prior. That you would take it personal and find it vitriolic is clear evidence that you indeed do not understand what was said.


"once"?
how the childish change of fountainhed to "brainded"?? Pathetic wes.

Okay, so you were getting "sick of all the insults", you found one (barely), show 3 more so you can make your case for "all the insults". One questionable insult (because you obviously aren't brain dead, it was a play on your name giving you hell about the fact that you don't seem to understand what you read before responding) doesn't constitute "all the insults". So bring forth your evidence.

Ah, now I see.
The man didn't read the Fountainhead, he flirted with it.
I read the crap and thought it mostly generalized nonsense.


In that case:
"Keating let himself be carried by the torrent: He needed the people and the clamor around him. There were no questions and no doubts when he stood on a platform over a sea of faces......He was great; great as the number of people who told him so. He was right; right as the number of people who believed it. He looked at the faces, at the eyes; he saw himself born in them, he saw himself being granted the gift of life. That was Peter Keating, that, the reflection in those staring pupils, and his body was only its reflection"

Keating is the modern man in that all alone in a room there is Nobody.
He’s only a reflection, as in attitude.
Personality is the unified whole of one's definition, flexible but impenetrable.
Its a creation born and made from the inside, with external personalities being allies- not obligations or intoxicants.
It defines a man at any one point in his life- its not the chameleon that Attitude is.
Rand created a character who is not simply a reflection of the modern man. He is a reflection of man, period! Keating's need to reaffirm his importance, his need to bleed others for the sake of his own elevation has been a characteritic of man dating from God knows when. It prompted Khan to conquer half the world, and for Louis XIV to ..., for Hitler to ...., etc etc

And you have either decided to ignore the fact that a person's personality is indeed a product of their environment and psychological makeup, and instead relied exclusively on some romanticized conception of man as should be. Man, when alone is a nobody; man seeks the affirmation of his importance through other avenues. You seem to forget the character Wynard, and the importance wealth played in Keating's being. Respect was a part of self affirmation, but so was jealously, envy, authority, power and all the other wants of man.


A man without character or personality will ask for its definition:
“ Firstly, define personality and character for the sake of avoiding a needless side argument. ”
A person using words without realizing their meaning would make such a claim.


Oh?
The hippie, the Goth, and the angsty teen are all tiny hermit crabs protesting from within the warmth of camaraderie.
Remove that shell of category and they'll scurry away like all nobodies do when there is nothing to hide in.
The hippie, goth and angsty teen are seeking a sense of belonging or community as was previously said. Besides, said groups are merely a minority of the groups existing in the modern world. It is funny how your worldview is dominated by the occurences in this country.


And how is one made to feel important?
Yoga?
Look above


Something tells me you don't even read your own gibberish.
Something tells me you think your generalities and jumps in logic as statements of brilliance.


No.
You are.
You brought it up. But fine, we shall drop it.

Ooohh.
Its modern men, my dear. The man born from mass, and I ain't talking 1984 or 90.


Fountainboy: Man, when alone is a nobody; man seeks the affirmation of his importance through other avenues.
Quipped the nobody.
And as anybody, that is somebody, knows this body is a cannibal.
Ta.

Move on wes. If you think I misunderstood what was said, show it.

Ooohh.
Its modern men, my dear. The man born from mass, and I ain't talking 1984 or 90.
So Ghengis is modern man, eh? Shall we go futher back and pick alexander?

Perhaps we have here yet another attempt by one to discuss the personality of prehistoric man? You know shit about man as he was when he lived in caves-- his personality and character.


“ Fountainboy: Man, when alone is a nobody ”

Quipped the nobody.
And as anybody, that is somebody, knows this body is a cannibal.
Ta.
What a bunch of crap. Dismiss my argument because you have nothing in response and attack one bloody line? The fact is, man needs reaffirmation, and unless he is able to rise above this mindset, he's forever stuck. You gendanken, need reaffirmation. You can bloody well hide behind your visage but it shows though. I certainly won't make the claim otherwise for myself, but I am much more absent from this need that I assume 99.99% of the population. And the people who preach nonsense about man as once was-- prehistoric man, are clearly romantics

Too to consider is this fallacy of being value neutral.
Everyone here logs on claiming sticks and stones- yet cry over sticks and stones.
Why?

Men personalize everything, yet claim otherwise.
But at least they have their boyfriends and girlfriends to keep them nice and strong and fluffy wuffy. Ha.

I'm back -- I'll sum up:


As far as tribal matters are concerned: This whole tribal issue was brought up for one sole reason: re-establishing the tribe.


One:

Even though human society may now look as one big tribe, and that as such, throughout the whole of human society the same tribal sense for respect and mutual dependency is pursued, this pursue is a faulty one. There are only 24 hours in a day, and each man has only one body -- there are inavoidable limitations that prevent us from feeling an active and meaningful respect and mutual dependency for everybody.

If we agree that humans have an individualistic as well as a gregarious side to their personalities, it is flawed to pursue strict individualism, and explain everything from a strictly individualistic perspective.
This means that sometimes, certain others are responsible for how we feel, and we are responsible for how certain others feel.



Two:

Re-establishing the tribe is about making a tribe on the basis of choice. And within this tribe, respect and mutual dependency can be exercised in an active and meaningful way.

Here, within the tribe, compliments and criticisms make full sense, and also have consequences that are agreed upon.

A sign of acting on this "modernized" tribal sense is to seek allies, and deem something an offense (when your respect and self-respect suffer a blow) only if it is said by those you deem to be of your tribe -- those whom you respect and love.

Within such a tribe, a mutual responsibility for eachother and eachother's feelings exists.


Three:

However, this choice is now a hard thing to do; the original tribe was defined by blood, it was pre-choice. Modern humans bear the burden, as well as the duty to choose and make their own tribe.

And this burden, and duty, are for many too hard a thing to bear -- so they refuse to choose, or try to avoid this choice, and try to feel respect and mutual dependency for everyone.

We can see these two loudest phenomena resulting from this generalization (and dilution) of respect and mutual dependence: 1. Political correctness. 2. People who feel easily offended by what a stranger says.

The price of respect in such a non-tribal social organization is political correctness. As such, this respect is not worth much.

Though I may be the cause, it is impossible for me to be responsible for how you feel.

I am not you.

I am not responsible for your behavior.

I am not responsible for your reaction to my behavior.

I am responsible to deal with my reaction to your behavior.

I am responsible for my behavior (including my emotions).


In a sense, this is akin to a recursive relationship when looked at from a POV outside of either you or I (like for instance, me observing the action of others) as in the points above. We are both responsible for our behavior and our reactions to the behavior of others.

If I respect the lessons of my experiences, I should expect that if I assault you, I may incite any number of reactions. You will react as your psyche dictates. I am still responsible for my reaction to your behavior. You are still responsible for yours.

I get stuck here:

If I'm not you, how can I be responsible for your thoughts?

If I attack you, it is inherent that I feel justified in doing so even if you deem that it has no reason. Though my reason may be a chemical imbalance or wrong (lacking ethics or fairness as you see them), I still feel justified or the behavior would be quelled before actualized. Your sense of fairness or ethics do not apply to me no matter how much you think they should. Saying that I am responsible for your emotional state due to my assault on you is projecting your sense of fairness or ethics onto me. It's a nice thought but it's fantasy or we wouldn't see people assaulting other people and not giving a fuck about it. Your sense of ethics and fairness exist only in you, yet it seems to me the gist of this conversation attempts exactly the contrary. You're "me-thropomorphising" this issue by projecting your own perspective of ethics upon it.

The tribe is comprised of individuals. Thus individualism is reality.

"If we agree that humans have an individualistic as well as a gregarious side to their personalities, it is flawed to pursue strict individualism, and explain everything from a strictly individualistic perspective."

I don't think everyone has a gregarious side. Even if they do, it still only exists in the individual. As such, it should be explained from that perspective. The interactions of perspectives is an interesting topic of discussion, but is is inherently explained from a strictly individual perspective, even if that perspective attempts to project itself elsewhere.

IMO, there is no weaker position than to hold others responsible for your internal status. By doing so, you become their slave.

Note that this doesn't negate respect as in my respect for others. In fact IMO it promotes it, but remains wary that respect comes in many forms and sometimes not at all. My experience teaches me how people react to my words. If I wish to avoid negativity or badness as I see it in general, I will modify my behavior such that I do not assault or attack, since I've learned that it may incite a reaction that I don't desire. Assaulting or attacking you may well risk my survival. If I value assaulting or attacking you more than than I value not taking the risk, I will assault or attack you and take the risk.

Wes, I understand your position, but I am not talking about any two people or any group of people.

As soon as there is a close or intimate relationship, there exists a certain repsonsibility for eachother's feelings, and also for eachother's actions.

You don't treat your wife the way you do a stranger on the street, and you don't treat your children as if they were nothing to you.
What you say to them, can deeply move them, be it in a positive or negative way, and the same goes for you for what they say to you.

Because of this intimacy, there exists a sensitivity and vulnerability in the persons involved, and this sensitivity and vulnerabilty apparently must be there, or the relationship wouldn't be perceived as intimate.


If I'm not you, how can I be responsible for your thoughts?

Take you and one of your daugthers. You are not her, and she is not you. But because of the intimacy that exists between you two, you are responsible for eachother's well-being.

If you'd call her an idiot, she'd cry and be hurt. If she'd call you an idiot you'd be hurt too. Why? According to your logic, neither of you should be -- but because of the intimacy between you two, you are, and you are supposed to be hurt. If you wouldn't be, this would be a sign of a lessened intimacy.

Wes, I understand your position, but I am not talking about any two people or any group of people.

This is not sarcastic: Who then are you talking about? Isn't all this about people? I though my comments relevant. My apologies if you disagree. I'll butt out if you'd rather me do so.


As soon as there is a close or intimate relationship, there exists a certain repsonsibility for eachother's feelings, and also for eachother's actions.

I understand, but disagree on the part about the responsibilty of course.


You don't treat your wife the way you do a stranger on the street, and you don't treat your children as if they were nothing to you.

You're right. I'm still not responsible for their internal state. I affect it by my actions for sure, but that doesn't make me responsible for it. If I desire their happiness (which I do) I will undertake actions that I think will lead to that end.


What you say to them, can deeply move them, be it in a positive or negative way, and the same goes for you for what they say to you.

Of course. That still doesn't speak to responsibility. I can take that responsibility, but it cannot be forced on me. I may FEEL responsible for it, but ultimately I cannot affect it unless they allow it. Note the inconsolable person.


Because of this intimacy, there exists a sensitivity and vulnerability in the persons involved, and this sensitivity and vulnerabilty apparently must be there, or the relationship wouldn't be perceived as intimate.

Agreed.


If I'm not you, how can I be responsible for your thoughts?

Take you and one of your daugthers. You are not her, and she is not you. But because of the intimacy that exists between you two, you are responsible for eachother's well-being.

Intamacy implies you have chosen to take that responsibility. Once intimacy is attained, you are correct, but intamacy is fragile and generally conditional. It may seem that children have little choice in most cases... but many parents have little to no intamacy with their children. Intimacy comes in many forms. Generally I'd think it involves accepting responsibility for part of the other person's state, but it's different in the dynamic between any two people.


If you'd call her an idiot, she'd cry and be hurt.

Doesn't that depend on how I say it, or how she has learned to understand it, or how emotionally stable she is regardless of what responsibility for her I've taken?


If she'd call you an idiot you'd be hurt too.

That would depend. Actually I probably wouldn't be because she wouldn't do that unless her emotions had gotten the better of her. Since I care about her, I'd ignore the words for the meaning underneath "I'm hurt and emotional and I'm lashing out at you for help". If I am hurt, that's my problem to deal with. If she loves me, she might care that I've been hurt and try to help me deal with that problem.


Why? According to your logic, neither of you should be -- but because of the intimacy between you two, you are, and you are supposed to be hurt.

No, according to my logic everyone will react in the manner they must by the nature of who they are.


If you wouldn't be, this would be a sign of a lessened intimacy.

It could very well be, or it could be like the example of the underlying meaning I referred to in the example above. If we were a couple and you called me an idiot everyday and I thought you meant it to hurt me, I doubt we'd be a couple long.

If someone apparently fails to contribute in an intelligent manner more than not, then what is the harm done to the community when he/she is banished?

However: To err is human, to forgive is divine.

I do not know that if gendanken were allowed back she would accept or if she did come back she would change whatever offensive display she masqueraded. Does she have to comform to group standards in order to be 'acceptable' on an internet forum?

The culmination:
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but a harsh word will never heal.

Rosa;

Regardless of current context, I agree with your opening post. I'm only taking issue with specific supporting comments. IMO, my logic leads to the same conclusion you reach in your opening post which I think is summarized from my perspective by my statement about weakness and slavery:

"IMO, there is no weaker position than to hold others responsible for your internal status. By doing so, you become their slave."

Perhaps from what you've said I gather that the cost of respect is vulnerability. I think if your respect is well-placed, it is worth the cost.

"Wes, I understand your position, but I am not talking about any two people or any group of people."

This is not sarcastic: Who then are you talking about? Isn't all this about people? I though my comments relevant. My apologies if you disagree. I'll butt out if you'd rather me do so.

By "I am not talking about any two people or any group of people" I meant that I was concentrating on those between whom exists an *intimate* relationship, I meant that I wasn't talking about any two strangers who meet on the street and are nothing to eachother.



“As soon as there is a close or intimate relationship, there exists a certain repsonsibility for eachother's feelings, and also for eachother's actions. ”

I understand, but disagree on the part about the responsibilty of course.

"Responsibility" is such an official term to use when it comes to intimacy; but I can't think of any other.

You said: "You're right. I'm still not responsible for their internal state. I affect it by my actions for sure, but that doesn't make me responsible for it. If I desire their happiness (which I do) I will undertake actions that I think will lead to that end." -- What is this but a display of responsibility?



Of course. That still doesn't speak to responsibility. I can take that responsibility, but it cannot be forced on me. I may FEEL responsible for it, but ultimately I cannot affect it unless they allow it.

When it comes to intimacy, people *do* allow that what you say to them, can deeply move them, be it in a positive or negative way, and the same goes for you for what they say to you.



"Take you and one of your daugthers. You are not her, and she is not you. But because of the intimacy that exists between you two, you are responsible for eachother's well-being."

Intamacy implies you have chosen to take that responsibility. Once intimacy is attained, you are correct, but intamacy is fragile and generally conditional.

Exactly. Intimacy implies that you have chosen to take that responsibility.



Generally I'd think it involves accepting responsibility for part of the other person's state, but it's different in the dynamic between any two people.

I said previously, "As soon as there is a close or intimate relationship, there exists a certain repsonsibility for eachother's feelings, and also for eachother's actions" -- not full responsibility, but a certain.

It is this *for part* that is so intriguing when it comes to relationships. How much is too much, how much is too little? Of course, no absolute standards can be listed, but I like to think that there are certain guideline questions one can ask oneself (and the other person), and when answered, that particular relationship with its dynamisms should be more clear.



“If you'd call her an idiot, she'd cry and be hurt. ”

Doesn't that depend on how I say it, or how she has learned to understand it, or how emotionally stable she is regardless of what responsibility for her I've taken?

Certainly. Maybe it'd be better if I stated my example as, "If you'd call her a bad name (ie.something she has learned to understand to be a bad name, and that being called that name in that situation is hurtful to her), she'd cry and be hurt." (But "idiot" seemed clearer, and shorter.)



Regardless of current context, I agree with your opening post. I'm only taking issue with specific supporting comments. IMO, my logic leads to the same conclusion you reach in your opening post which I think is summarized from my perspective by my statement about weakness and slavery:

"IMO, there is no weaker position than to hold others responsible for your internal status. By doing so, you become their slave."

Like I mentioned before, I don't think that there is an absolute list of standards on what is right and what not, what is respectful and what not etc.

But I have noticed that there are certain guideline questions -- like "What am I to that person, and what is this person to me?". Once these questions are answered, things sort of "fall into place", and you know what to do next.
However, answering those questions takes some knowledge of self, and above all honesty. Here, things get delicate for many people (and you can catch them saying, "I have the right to feel offended by whathever whomever says" -- which is just absurd).



Perhaps from what you've said I gather that the cost of respect is vulnerability. I think if your respect is well-placed, it is worth the cost.

I wouldn't say just vulnerability. Sensitivity is more in place. For once in a relationship with mutual respect, you are receptive to both the negative *and* the positive things. You can never (or should never) feel as hurt if a stranger calls you a bad name, as you would be if it would be someone you respect calling you that. And you can never feel the same joy with a complete stranger, as you feel with those whom you respect. -- So it is about sensitivity.

However, being sensitive doesn't mean that you will react more or less intensely to *any*thing *any*one does or says. Sensitivity is about the ability of the careful consideration about how something or someone is to be treated.
And this *careful consideration* is something that political correctness completely excludes and overrides, and replaces it with "be nice to everyone, feel hurt by everyone".

This thread made me laugh. People here want respect but they actually don't do anything to deserve it. Here y'all are, having a conversation on the price of respect, and you can't even keep it civil.

Your feelings are your own. If you don't like what someone says, tell them. Then be done with it. Other then that, there isn't much you can do.

So really, what the fuck is wrong with you mother fuckers? Or am I the mother fucker with the fucked-up misconceptions?

So really, what the fuck is wrong with you mother fuckers? Or am I the mother fucker with the fucked-up misconceptions?

Better watch it, Coffee. Might get edited again... :eek:

But, yes, I think you are the mother fucker with the fucked-up misconceptions. Namely that you don't understand what this thread is about. You seem to feel that it's that we all deserve respect. It's actually just the oposite. Or rather, it's about another subject entirely (Respect being a modern Luxury is dealt with else (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39295)where (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39097).

The topic is about how much damage to your self-respect is incurred by writing on the wall. By taunts and insults from those whom you do not respect. Do not know. Do not care about.

Do try to keep up.


Your feelings are your own. If you don't like what someone says, tell them. Then be done with it. Other then that, there isn't much you can do.

I don't know. Maybe you do undestand. This is Rosa's point in a nutshell, I believe.

The problem, of course, occurring in places where your feelings are not your own responsibility. Places where wounded feelings are equivalent to physical assault. Places such as Sciforums.


================

Anyway, I'm a bit late coming in here, so I'll try to catch up. I'll deal with the original post first.

"Are you offended by a writing on a wall?"
So, am I offended? First of all, what do you mean by offend? I gather from the context of the thread (I've read the whole thing tonight. My eyes are crossing.) that you are using a specialized meaning of offense. None of these seem to cover it.

of·fend
v. of·fend·ed, of·fend·ing, of·fends
v. tr.

1. To cause displeasure, anger, resentment, or wounded feelings in.
2. To be displeasing or disagreeable to: Onions offend my sense of smell.
3.

1. To transgress; violate: offend all laws of humanity.
2. To cause to sin.
v. intr.

1. To result in displeasure: Bad manners may offend.
2.

1. To violate a moral or divine law; sin.
2. To violate a rule or law: offended against the curfew.
By these definitions, I would be offended when my balls itch. So, I doubt very seriously from what I've read that this is what you mean. Give us a definition, Rosa. I'll give what I've gathered from reading.

Offend: To cause an internal hurt within someone that belittles them. Damages their self-respect. Makes them run crying home to mother.

I would add the possiblity of inspiring aggresion, but it seems that you split that into a seperate category. Annoyance and anger. (Which by the way negates Hed's "experiment." By pushing Rosa's buttons he annoyed and/or angered her, not offended her. Or so it seemed to me.)

Also to consider is the nature of the writing. At the beginning of the thread, I had thought that it was to be a directionless jibe aimed nowhere and written by no one. Coming across a "Fuck you all" for instance. But, as the thread progressed, it fairly quickly descended into a discussion of directed personal insults.

Well, in either case, by my tentative definition of offend... No. Very little would offend me. By the dictionary definition... Yes. Practically everything would offend me. By the dictionary definition, I'm offended right now at the goddamned heat of summer. And in a few months I'll be offended by the dismal cold and damp of winter.

Are you encouraged by it?
Might be. Depends. Propaganda is an art form, you know. The marketing rats have human instinctual reactions down to a science.

Do you feel special after reading it?
Again. Possibly. Especially with subliminal messages. ;)

Do you feel opposed by it?
Ask a jew in Berlin in 1936. Or a black man in 1950's Alabama. Or a teenager outside a quickie mart. "No loitering."

Who is the one offending *you* when you read "He who is reading this is a fuckwit!" written on a wall?
The writer? You don't know the writer, you have no apparent relation to the writer.

So why be offended?
This was what I thought the thread was originally about. In this case I would not be offended. Even by the dictionary sense of the word. Unless it was my wall and I was going to have to repaint it.


However, this thread is about more than 'writing on the wall' isn't it? It's about what it takes to get past someone's defenses and do them damage. Real damage. Internal damage. Damage that is worthy of punishment.

It's about what responsibility someone has for the words that one utters to others. And how it makes the others feel about themselves.

I think.

So, what do I feel about it? Hmmm. I can understand people becoming offended (dictionary meaning. Displeased.) by someone's words. But, to be truly hurt by words is a sign of serious weakness. Unless that person were extremely close, then their words should mean nothing to them. One way or the other. Good or bad. Nothing that is truly damaging or building to the self.

For instance, praise from a stranger may make one feel good if one thinks one likely deserves it, and if one feels the stranger is in a position to be offering 'true' praise. But, it should not make someone a better person inside. And insults from strangers should do even less damage inside.

What about acquaintances? Well, the nice feelings or displeasurable feelings might be more intense, but the building or destroying of self should be equally absent in both.

What about close friends? Tricky. Loved ones? Trickier. I myself have always been a self-established individual. I've never really relied on others conceptions of me. I've always been satisfied with my own will. I don't need to borrow the will of others. So, it is hard for me to judge whether this is average behavior or not. From my perspective, I'd say not. It seems that most people are slaves to external validation. But, it's hard to say for sure.

And who's fault is it? That so many are dependent on others for their own self-image? That my words might just push them over the edge into a spiral of self-destruction and annorexia or some stupid shit? Mine? Theirs? The marketing rats? (Writing on the wall indeed.)

I don't know.

You know, if the tribal theory is correct, then it is our outdated social methods that are to blame. It's the goddamn australopithecines and cro magnons who are at fault.

I suppose the question comes down to "why are some people weak-willed and some people are strong-willed?" Is it genetics? Environmental? Likely a combination of the two, huh?


The concept of the tribe has been recently brought up. I don't feel that it has been explained properly to those who haven't followed the relevant threads. I'll try to give a short summary. Humans are social creatures. We have social instincts. We evolved from animals that lived in small social groups. When the groups became too large for the social constructs which promoted solidarity within the group, the group splintered. This is still the way chimps and bonobos live. As well as other social animals. However, man has artificially expanded his social group. First into tribes, larger tribes, cities, nations, continents, the world.

Now, we are all brothers. We are all one tribe. We stilll try to use the same social constructs as the apes we were used to hold the group together. Well, actually there was a few advancements that allowed man to exceed the splintering stage of apes. But, after this we came to the conclusion that it has been in stasis for millenia. A new shift needs to occur to facilitate the new expanded humanity or a cataclysm will reduce our group size to manageable levels. Nature is a self-balancing system.

I won't go into what constructs arose that allowed man to grow larger groups. That would be far beyond the scope of this thread. I'll give you a hint though. We're using one right now. ;)


So, anyway, solidarity within the tribe has spread to solidarity with all. Political correctness. Enforced solidarity. Artificial and passive aggressive.

For instance, it's perfectly fine to insinuate that one is a pig and a descendant of pigs as long as one doesn't come straight out and say it. One can use circuitous language to wrap the insult in layers of obscurity. Politically correct, but far more offensive (to me) than directly calling me a pig. I mean who is more politically correct than a politician right? And they have indirect insults down to a science. Or rather their speech writers do. Althought, often they do resort to straight up mud-slinging.


Getting long.

A quote:


Sticks and stones may break my bones, but a harsh word will never heal.

Then you, sir, are a weak willed pansy. Now, if I chucked an unabridged dictionary at your head, then you could claim injury, but otherwise you're being weak. I mean God forbid that you someone should ever say a harsh word to your precious ass... How dreadful. How absolutely unthinkable. Bring on the sticks and stones yet don't curse at me!

The topic is about how much damage to your self-respect is incurred by writing on the wall. By taunts and insults from those whom you do not respect. Do not know. Do not care about.

Do try to keep up.

If you do not care about them, and see them for the shells of internet losers that they are, then you would not care if someone said "Fuck you,".

If you do not care about them, and see them for the shells of internet losers that they are, then you would not care if someone said "Fuck you,".

But that's the thing: Those people who felt offended apparently did care for the offender; or never even thought to see it from the perspective of care or not care.
As as this may seem to you. What is apparent to you may not necessarily be apparent to others.

I was just thinking though that the case you refer to has to do with expectation. People unjustly go through their lives with the expectation that people won't tell them "fuck you" or that "good people" don't ever say that. Thus when it happens, a one-dimensional pavlovian reaction occurs. "You can't say that, that is OFFENSIVE!". People think they are doing the right thing by condemning it and have also learned that they MUST be offended by such an offensive comment. The context of the usage is beyond their scope of comprehension due to the one-dimensionality.

Respect has little to do with it I think, except perhaps self-respect on the part of the people taking offense which may suffer or grow from their obligatory indulgance in offense. They key in on things in their environment (like the people they know or the stuff they read or whatever) and take from it re-enforcement of the righteousness of their conviction. If that person has low self-esteem, they will likely have a proportionally increased emotional reaction compared to simpletons to are or feign confidence - like that asshat WCF. He simply doesn't understand because he cannot see beyond his single dimension.

Meh.

Coffee:

This thread made me laugh. People here want respect but they actually don't do anything to deserve it. Here y'all are, having a conversation on the price of respect, and you can't even keep it civil.


No shit.
It would help if something like Fountainwhore oops Head would quit thinking he is actually capable enough to manipulate people.
Not to mention the cute vendettas he keeps drowning in.


Rosa:

Even though human society may now look as one big tribe, and that as such, throughout the whole of human society the same tribal sense for respect and mutual dependency is pursued, this pursue is a faulty one. There are only 24 hours in a day, and each man has only one body -- there are inavoidable limitations that prevent us from feeling an active and meaningful respect and mutual dependency for everybody.
Precicely what I was waiting on- didn't want to waste precious energy on a deafmute.

Psychologists say personality is shaped by environnemt, don't they?
They, including some in here, throw that word around as if every man on the street has one- a personality.
The main ingredient in that word is 'person', so why must we think everyone has one when all are simply echos of each other?
Children simply are, the impassioned simple are- I'd even go so far as to say Khan had personality since he brought it up- its only when the spirit is broken to become something appropriate and likeable by all that personality becomes the hollow substitute of attitude.

So the man on the street doesn't have a personality and the psychologists are wrong- they have attitudes, in other words something inactive and meaningless but appropriate.
Which is why this:


Here, within the tribe, compliments and criticisms make full sense, and also have consequences that are agreed upon.

Is rare.

People bawl their eyes over skeeter bites nowadays- imagine getting mawed by a lover who knows you.
I believe this is strengthening.


And this burden, and duty, are for many too hard a thing to bear -- so they refuse to choose, or try to avoid this choice, and try to feel respect and mutual dependency for everyone.

Of course.
Cripples dig cripples.


We can see these two loudest phenomena resulting from this generalization (and dilution) of respect and mutual dependence: 1. Political correctness. 2. People who feel easily offended by what a stranger says.
Ditto.


The price of respect in such a non-tribal social organization is political correctness. As such, this respect is not worth much

None at all, other than in the service of crowd control.

I was just thinking though that the case you refer to has to do with expectation. People unjustly go through their lives with the expectation that people won't tell them "fuck you" or that "good people" don't ever say that. Thus when it happens, a one-dimensional pavlovian reaction occurs. "You can't say that, that is OFFENSIVE!". People think they are doing the right thing by condemning it and have also learned that they MUST be offended by such an offensive comment. The context of the usage is beyond their scope of comprehension due to the one-dimensionality.

Respect has little to do with it I think, except perhaps self-respect on the part of the people taking offense which may suffer or grow from their obligatory indulgance in offense. They key in on things in their environment (like the people they know or the stuff they read or whatever) and take from it re-enforcement of the righteousness of their conviction. If that person has low self-esteem, they will likely have a proportionally increased emotional reaction compared to simpletons to are or feign confidence - like that asshat WCF. He simply doesn't understand because he cannot see beyond his single dimension.

Prebloodycisely.

A couple of times when I was in "offense situations", I used the "what is XY to you and what are you to XY?" strategy, that girl was struggling for words, couldn't understand what I wanted with that question. And I couldn't understand her. But what you've said above perfectly fits! It is a rigid objectivist morality that produces this sort of one-dimensional, context-ignorant thinking about offenses, and prevents those people from making ethical judgements for themselves. To them, a situation like "Is it moral to kill in self-defense?" is an everlasting loop -- and they "solve" it by saying, "It should never happen".

Indeed. It's a freakin DNS table. What's the IP of "fuck.you" and the index says "offensive statement". Game over, because that's what's right because that's what I learned what's right because that's what's right you know. Maybe the bible even tells me so - or ER uhm, I mean what my dad told me this one verse in it means. I thought it said "have a good time and be cool to people" but the preacher said it means you'll burn in hell if you say fuck you because fuck you is wrong because I learned it from god because god said in in this book that I read where I learned it.

It's that their brains simply couldn't or never learned to consider that there may be more to it than the lookup in that context (the context in which they learned the lookups, like morals - ten commandments, blah). They probably understand context perfectly in certain scenarios where they've perceived need to employ it, but for whatever reason their "hey shit is relative" circuit doesn't work regarding situations where they've learned that the lookup is the answer.

They likely have a natural tendency to that effect, plus perhaps the lookup was re-enforced early strongly and repetetively, thus making it part of the fundmental schema of their mind in the contexts that lead to the condition. It seems to me that as it is so fundamental, it is primary to the function of mind and cannot be changed or the mind simply wouldn't function - at least in most cases. Rather it probably just can't change, so "the mind wouldn't function is irrelevant because the condition couldn't be undertaken (without perhaps... biochemical/genetic engineering)" So basically many people raised in dogmatic environments learn it as primary to existence and project it onto their stimulous as such. This indicates to me that there are simply a lot of people who cannot fathom the subject matter, yet via the vindication of their dogmatic premise... feel as entitled to their opinion as anyone.

(but they are fucking morons)

Gendanken:


Too to consider is this fallacy of being value neutral.
Everyone here logs on claiming sticks and stones- yet cry over sticks and stones.
Why?

Men personalize everything, yet claim otherwise.
But at least they have their boyfriends and girlfriends to keep them nice and strong and fluffy wuffy. Ha.
You are finally thinking rationally, eh woman? It is funny that people talk of tribes, come on this forum wanting to share their ideas and wanting others to respond, comment or adopt their ideas and not realize that this forum is a modern manifestation of the tribe. The notion that what we say to individuals needn't hurt, offend, etc them is bloody irrational.


No shit.
It would help if something like Fountainwhore oops Head would quit thinking he is actually capable enough to manipulate people.
Not to mention the cute vendettas he keeps drowning in.
And we have a perfect example of the "Cute vendettas". Get off the dick.


Rosa:



Even though human society may now look as one big tribe, and that as such, throughout the whole of human society the same tribal sense for respect and mutual dependency is pursued, this pursue is a faulty one. There are only 24 hours in a day, and each man has only one body -- there are inavoidable limitations that prevent us from feeling an active and meaningful respect and mutual dependency for everybody.
If we agree that humans have an individualistic as well as a gregarious side to their
personalities, it is flawed to pursue strict individualism, and explain everything from a
strictly individualistic perspective. This means that sometimes, certain others are responsible for how we feel, and we are responsible for how certain others feel.

So you accept now that others can be partly responsible for how we feel or react?




Re-establishing the tribe is about making a tribe on the basis of choice. And within this tribe, respect and mutual dependency can be exercised in an active and meaningful way.

Here, within the tribe, compliments and criticisms make full sense, and also have consequences that are agreed upon. A sign of acting on this "modernized" tribal sense is to seek allies, and deem something an offense (when your respect and self-respect suffer a blow) only if it is said by those you deem to be of your tribe -- those whom you respect and love. Within such a tribe, a mutual responsibility for eachother and eachother's feelings exists.

Some objections, but I’ll buy in the time being.



However, this choice is now a hard thing to do; the original tribe was defined by blood, it was pre-choice. Modern humans bear the burden, as well as the duty to choose and make their own tribe. And this burden, and duty, are for many too hard a thing to bear -- so they refuse to choose, or try to avoid this choice, and try to feel respect and mutual dependency for everyone. We can see these two loudest phenomena resulting from this generalization (and dilution) of respect and mutual dependence: 1. Political correctness. 2. People who feel easily offended by what a stranger says.
The price of respect in such a non-tribal social organization is political correctness. As such, this respect is not worth much.
This conclusion does not follow from the previous two. You have been trying to link political correctness to the absence of a tribe and the reach of seeking a community within the presently crowded world. I don't buy that for a second. Political correctness is nothing new; the only new aspect of being political correct is that some is written in law. An entire society--Japanese was and is essentially an example in political correctness. I have given you the example of trading posts of old as examples in political correctness. Political correctness is seeped in pragmatism.

It is not simply that viewing person A as a moron, I ought to call person A a moron.
Taking sciforums.com as an example, you must first realize that this community is a tribe. The interactions held here carry over to some extent, our personal lives. To some, the site is a group of their intellectual and social peers, to some the vast majority of their waking lives are spent on this forum, to some this forum is an adaptation to a world increasingly devoid of easily identifiable tribal associations. Therefore, it is not simply that you are insulting someone and you being a "stranger" to them, they needn't view your insults as offensive.

I have reiterated again and again that it is not simply an exchange between the insulted and the insulter. By the nature of this forum, others can view all exchanges between two individuals. Therefore, this being a tribe, it is more than a display of "disrespect" to one from another. Rather, it is a show of disrespect in front of the tribe. When extrapolated to the society as a whole, certain things hold and others do not. I highly doubt that a perfect stranger walking up to an individual who is alone at a park and then uttering, "you are a dickless faggot" would somehow offend the individual. If the individual is however with say a group of friends or family, then the response might be utterly different.

wesmorris


Though I may be the cause, it is impossible for me to be responsible for how you feel.
I am not you.
I am not responsible for your behavior.
I am not responsible for your reaction to my behavior.
I am responsible to deal with my reaction to your behavior.
I am responsible for my behavior (including my emotions).


I am not you.
I am not responsible for your behaviour (qualify with level of influence)
I am partly responsible for your reaction to my behaviour because I caused your behaviour
I am responsible to deal with my reaction to your behaviour
I am responsible for my behaviour.


In a sense, this is akin to a recursive relationship when looked at from a POV outside of either you or I (like for instance, me observing the action of others) as in the points above. We are both responsible for our behavior and our reactions to the behavior of others…….

….. Your sense of ethics and fairness exist only in you, yet it seems to me the gist of this conversation attempts exactly the contrary. You're "me-thropomorphising" this issue by projecting your own perspective of ethics upon it.
No. You are limited in your POV. It is not simply that in your head, your action is justified; it is not simply that from your perspective, your attack was warranted. You see, for their reaction to your act to have been as it is, your specific act had to have occurred. You are therefore partly responsible for having caused said reaction. People refusing to accept this responsibility does not somehow validate your assumption that the responsibility is nonexistent. People have children and then decide to not take responsibility for them—this is akin to it. How can you utter that a sense of “fairness” or “ethics” is what warrants your responsibility in being the cause of a person emotional state? To be the cause of something is to bear responsibility for the thing.


I don't think everyone has a gregarious side. Even if they do, it still only exists in the individual. As such, it should be explained from that perspective. The interactions of perspectives is an interesting topic of discussion, but is is inherently explained from a strictly individual perspective, even if that perspective attempts to project itself elsewhere.

IMO, there is no weaker position than to hold others responsible for your internal status. By doing so, you become their slave.
Then the notion of responsibility becomes moot. If responsibility is viewed from the individual perspective, the accountability is only warranted if the individual is willing to accept responsibility.

So I suppose “internal status” is somehow different from “external status”? Is a blow to the head somehow different from repeated mental abuse as the latter is “internal”?


Note that this doesn't negate respect as in my respect for others. In fact IMO it promotes it, but remains wary that respect comes in many forms and sometimes not at all. My experience teaches me how people react to my words. If I wish to avoid negativity or badness as I see it in general, I will modify my behavior such that I do not assault or attack, since I've learned that it may incite a reaction that I don't desire. Assaulting or attacking you may well risk my survival. If I value assaulting or attacking you more than than I value not taking the risk, I will assault or attack you and take the risk.
The checks you make prior to assaulting and the notion of responsibility are mutually exclusive when not viewed from the individual standpoint. If I am to buy your argument, then insofar as I justify in mind, the action of blowing your head off, I am relieved of a responsibility in my action.
I will again say this: the reaction of the assaulted, if it is to assault/attack in return is only justifiable if you accept that he has a right to feel as he does—to hold you responsible for his hurt. It is bloody simple.

Invert:

But, to be truly hurt by words is a sign of serious weakness. Unless that person were extremely close, then their words should mean nothing to them. One way or the other. Good or bad. Nothing that is truly damaging or building to the self.

For instance, praise from a stranger may make one feel good if one thinks one likely deserves it, and if one feels the stranger is in a position to be offering 'true' praise. But, it should not make someone a better person inside. And insults from strangers should do even less damage inside.
Being “hurt” by insults clearly brings to view psychological issues, and therefore to some extent you are correct. However, we have stayed on what ought to be offensive and not. Clearly one doesn’t feel better about compliments after having rationalized to themselves whether or not they believe it deserved. Compliments for complete strangers still makes the majority of people feel good, it is an affirmation that man seeks by nature as a social animal. To accept a person feeling better about being complimented and not feel offended by the opposite is irrational.


What about acquaintances? Well, the nice feelings or displeasurable feelings might be more intense, but the building or destroying of self should be equally absent in both.

What about close friends? Tricky. Loved ones? Trickier. I myself have always been a self-established individual. I've never really relied on others conceptions of me. I've always been satisfied with my own will. I don't need to borrow the will of others. So, it is hard for me to judge whether this is average behavior or not. From my perspective, I'd say not. It seems that most people are slaves to external validation. But, it's hard to say for sure.
Invert, you lie to yourself. The ego cannot be devoid of influence outside the self; this is fundamental. You cannot have a view of yourself that is not influenced by the views of others around you. Even in the realization that your view of yourself is influenced, attempting to limit the impact of said outside influence is very hard. Granted, once the ego fully established, the affirmation becomes decreasingly needed as defenses are put in place to guard the ego and the ego tested against barrages. Nevertheless, the formation of the ego depends on outside influences.


I suppose the question comes down to "why are some people weak-willed and some people are strong-willed?" Is it genetics? Environmental? Likely a combination of the two, huh?
Most insightful thing you’ve said so far. It is environmental and psychological.


The concept of the tribe has been recently brought up. I don't feel that it has been explained properly to those who haven't followed the relevant threads. I'll try to give a short summary. Humans are social creatures. We have social instincts. We evolved from animals that lived in small social groups. When the groups became too large for the social constructs which promoted solidarity within the group, the group splintered. This is still the way chimps and bonobos live. As well as other social animals. However, man has artificially expanded his social group. First into tribes, larger tribes, cities, nations, continents, the world.

Now, we are all brothers. We are all one tribe. We stilll try to use the same social constructs as the apes we were used to hold the group together. Well, actually there was a few advancements that allowed man to exceed the splintering stage of apes. But, after this we came to the conclusion that it has been in stasis for millenia. A new shift needs to occur to facilitate the new expanded humanity or a cataclysm will reduce our group size to manageable levels. Nature is a self-balancing system.
This much I agree, but I disagree that the man sees his entire city or state or world as one tribe. Tribal associations are manifested in a myriad of ways in the modern world, social groups for instance. I also find myself disillusioned by the repeated worldview that is the fruit of this society. It seems that a lot are unable or perhaps even unwillingly to see the world outside the constraints of this nation or civilization. Many tribal structures, although different from our educated guesses on our ape ancestors, still retain many of the same dynamics exists in the notions of extended families and the like within cultures in China, Japan, Western and Eastern Africa, Latin America, etc


So, anyway, solidarity within the tribe has spread to solidarity with all. Political correctness. Enforced solidarity. Artificial and passive aggressive.
Yuck. No, political correctness has absolutely nothing to do with solidarity for the whole. Political correctness is simply rooted in practicality. You have made a logical jump that is unsupported by the evidence. Political correctness is a wire stringing different peoples who for instance may otherwise not desire to associate but are forced to within the social constructs of now.


For instance, it's perfectly fine to insinuate that one is a pig and a descendant of pigs as long as one doesn't come straight out and say it. One can use circuitous language to wrap the insult in layers of obscurity. Politically correct, but far more offensive (to me) than directly calling me a pig. I mean who is more politically correct than a politician right? And they have indirect insults down to a science. Or rather their speech writers do. Althought, often they do resort to straight up mud-slinging.

How does this relate to a feeling of solidarity? It is pragmatism. The politician is politically correct because he does not want to offend a certain voting base. Still, if one base outnumbers the other, and the votes of the other are unneeded, political correctness by the politicians ceases to be a practice.

I was just thinking though that the case you refer to has to do with expectation. People unjustly go through their lives with the expectation that people won't tell them "fuck you" or that "good people" don't ever say that. Thus when it happens, a one-dimensional pavlovian reaction occurs. "You can't say that, that is OFFENSIVE!". People think they are doing the right thing by condemning it and have also learned that they MUST be offended by such an offensive comment. The context of the usage is beyond their scope of comprehension due to the one-dimensionality.

Very good point. But it rests on one principle: that people have an idea that being offensive (and let's face it, most of the time "fuck you" intends to be offensive), is not respectable behaviour. The reaction is to feel offended by being considered unworthy of respectable behaviour (i.e. disrespected), especially when the norm is that people deserve respect. It is in recognition of who you are to another person compared to your own perceived worth (whether learnt from a dogmatic environment, indoctrination that people should be respected, or whatever) that you feel hurt. To 'take offense' is to be hurt - at least in principle. That's why I say you have a good point: it's knowing that you *should* or *can be justly expected* to be hurt that makes it offensive. Otherwise it's like cursing someone in a foreign language they don't understand.

That's why you'll see children sometimes frantically looking around for confirmation (re-inforcement, as you put it) that they are expected to be hurt before they start crying. It could be the shocked expression on a mothers face, the sudden silence of their friends, but the simple shock of realization is enough to provoke reaction. And at other times they're simply having too much fun to care about being hurt. Then you'll get some people who are more sensitive than others. But the basic line is that people, as people, know what it means not to be respected.

But as we get older I think it becomes more complicated. Maybe society, and your perceived part of it, still has a lot do with it. Nobody wants to feel less than human, and hence nobody wants to be treated that way. It's possible to offend without provoking reaction by using tact or by negotiating cultural niceties. Some people can be offended by an American simply acting too "American", like when they invade into the personal space you're used to in your culture.

For that a little tolerance is needed, but how much? Where does directness border on invasion? I'd guess when it's purposely perpetrated. We're back at cursing someone (does the word come from ancient times?). Swearing, directed at nobody in particular, is nontheless related, because it offends indirectly. It offends sensibilities. After all, what are we without sensibilities? The same thing that make you take offense at a foul smell makes you take offense at foul language. It's a choice how sensitive to these things you wish to be, but it's also a choice what you let yourself be associated with. It isn't so much about what you can resist and endure, but about what you condone.

Gendanken,


Psychologists say personality is shaped by environnemt, don't they?
They, including some in here, throw that word around as if every man on the street has one- a personality.
I see no one abusing said word more than you.


The main ingredient in that word is 'person', so why must we think everyone has one when all are simply echos of each other?
Children simply are, the impassioned simple are- I'd even go so far as to say Khan had personality since he brought it up- its only when the spirit is broken to become something appropriate and likeable by all that personality becomes the hollow substitute of attitude.
What are you smoking? The main ingredient of the word is "person", that is the indivdiual that is the ego. No two egos are alike. Children once born simply are a reflection of genetical makeup and act on pure instinct. Once adapted to their environemt through time and association, they become shaped by the environment-- they grow a "personality" that is limited by their environemnt. The impassioned are the resulting confluence of varying degrees of pshycological makeup and environemnt. YOu made the claim that man of old had more "personality". Your claim is wrong. The dymanics in the devlopment has not changed, and a more diverse environemnt less contrained by the limit of the tribe exists to create ever more differing "personalities" or indivdiuals.


So the man on the street doesn't have a personality and the psychologists are wrong- they have attitudes, in other words something inactive and meaningless but appropriate.

You have NOT shown why the man on the street has no "personality", not shown how the psychologists are "wrong". YOu have made unrelated statements and drawn a conclusion unreachable from the argument so placed.

So you accept now that others can be partly responsible for how we feel or react?

Not *now*. I always have. This mutuality, intimacy, responsibility is summed up in the "A person needs to have a certain amount of respect from me before I'd get offended by something they said or did." As soon as I respect someone, there exists a certain intimacy, a common space where we are both in, and where we are mutually responsible for eachother and eachother's well-being to a certain degree.

(Note for example that the old Romans thought that if you see a friend comitting a crime or hurting himself, and don't prevent it, you are also guilty of that crime or that hurt. This is an extreme case of mutual obligation though.)



Political correctness is seeped in pragmatism.

Of course it is, I never denied it. But many politically correct people don't view it as pragmatism, I think it is even politically incorrect to call political correctness pragmatism.

What is pragmatic is good communication, and there is a long history of that all over the world. But good communication is far more than PC.

Maybe the problem here is that we are dealing with somewhat different definitions of PC. As far as I can see, Gendy, Wes, Invert and I are using PC in the sense of 'being overtly polite, nice to everybody, never saying anything disturbing in any way whatsoever'.

PC people simply don't talk about certain things, even though they call you " a close friend". They are PC at all times and in all places, no matter what. This is what some of us are attacking when it comes to PC and respect.

In general, in Europe, we consider Americans to be "politically correct" -- and the way they behave is traditionally seen as being fake, putting on a mask, lying to your face.



Political correctness is a wire stringing different peoples who for instance may otherwise not desire to associate but are forced to within the social constructs of now.

Question: Do SF members see eachother as having no desire to associate but are forced to within the social constructs of now?

The premise here on SF is: Posting here is a privilege, not a right. If you don't like it, go. -- So, are we forced to associate?


Taking sciforums.com as an example, you must first realize that this community is a tribe.

It certainly seems as a tribe, and I have toyed with this idea before.
But I don't know how many members feel SF to be a tribe.



The interactions held here carry over to some extent, our personal lives. To some, the site is a group of their intellectual and social peers, to some the vast majority of their waking lives are spent on this forum, to some this forum is an adaptation to a world increasingly devoid of easily identifiable tribal associations. Therefore, it is not simply that you are insulting someone and you being a "stranger" to them, they needn't view your insults as offensive.

This is a very good point. But still, some measure of thinking before feeling offended is still very much in place.



I have reiterated again and again that it is not simply an exchange between the insulted and the insulter. By the nature of this forum, others can view all exchanges between two individuals. Therefore, this being a tribe, it is more than a display of "disrespect" to one from another. Rather, it is a show of disrespect in front of the tribe. When extrapolated to the society as a whole, certain things hold and others do not. I highly doubt that a perfect stranger walking up to an individual who is alone at a park and then uttering, "you are a dickless faggot" would somehow offend the individual. If the individual is however with say a group of friends or family, then the response might be utterly different.

True. But what worries me is the part in bold: a group of friends or family.
Do you view your fellow forum members as more or less equal peers? Do you view some of them as allies, or even friends? Would you feel bad, or even offended if someone here called you a bad name -- because you'd know that others are watching?

(Funny, you've been banned yourself for calling people names ...)

Very good point.

Though it seems disengenuous to me, thank you.


But it rests on one principle: that people have an idea that being offensive (and let's face it, most of the time "fuck you" intends to be offensive), is not respectable behaviour.

Certainly, but everyone's idea of "respectable behavior" is different and some people - as has been recently demonstrated... are simply shallow. The determination of "disrespectful behavior" when coming from a demonstrably shallow person (shallow in the relevant context) is basically meaningless to me.

Is it offensive if it's not directed toward you, if it's "writing on the wall"? Why? Because your DNS table says so? Did you consider the context before reading it or just perform a lookup, deem it offensive and move on? Further, what if I don't give a damn about your respect? Honestly I don't care if I'm not respected by those I don't respect. I assume that generally I won't be. I offer my brand of respect from the get go and if it's not reciprocated, it won't likely continue. Everyone has their own brand of what respect is and how it should work.


The reaction is to feel offended by being considered unworthy of respectable behaviour (i.e. disrespected), especially when the norm is that people deserve respect.

Says you. I generally offer people respect, but that doesn't mean I have a mandate to do so. If you feel that you can bear the consequences of your actions, you can do anything you want. Many people do not think you or I deserve respect.


It is in recognition of who you are to another person compared to your own perceived worth (whether learnt from a dogmatic environment, indoctrination that people should be respected, or whatever) that you feel hurt.

What if you're just a pussy?


To 'take offense' is to be hurt - at least in principle. That's why I say you have a good point: it's knowing that you *should* or *can be justly expected* to be hurt that makes it offensive.

The point is that many people think they are supposed to be hurt for unjustifiable reasons. They simply learned it that way and don't question it. Often "being hurt" is a means for passive aggression. It's abused. I can take offense at anything you say. All you have to do is point to the DNS table entry where it says "fuck.you = offensive" and rally your one-dimensional troops. Context be damned.


Otherwise it's like cursing someone in a foreign language they don't understand.

I understand what you're trying to say but I don't think it's nearly as simple as you're putting it. I think my previous two posts summarized the issue nicely.


That's why you'll see children sometimes frantically looking around for confirmation (re-inforcement, as you put it) that they are expected to be hurt before they start crying.
LOL. No, I don't think so. When you see that it's because they aren't getting attention. They aren't looking for approval, they're looking to see if anyone is paying attention. If they aren't, they do something to gain the attention they seek. If they are hurt they will start crying before seeking approval. If you're saying this is how they learn when to be hurt, that's not true either. In the sense you put it, that is them learning how to be manipulative.


It could be the shocked expression on a mothers face, the sudden silence of their friends, but the simple shock of realization is enough to provoke reaction.
In whom? You mean as they realize they're "supposed to be hurt"? I haven't seen this behavior. If they're hurt they let you know. The scenario you provide is about learning the DNS table (as I've put it) and manipulation. That's not necessarily bad, as society does promote certain types of behavior and the children need to be aware of it, but when this learned manipulation is the end of the story, it yields a kid who becomes an asshat as an adult, always pointing their shallow little finger at behavior they dislike though they may not fathom the reality of what they criticize.


And at other times they're simply having too much fun to care about being hurt. Then you'll get some people who are more sensitive than others. But the basic line is that people, as people, know what it means not to be respected.

Hardly. They may initially have decent instincts but they get skewed. Some people's instincts remain intact and others simply sheep it up or become vile with passive aggression and manipulation in their propensity to take offense. Or worse, they use that propensity to justify their lacking self image or to promote a fantasy about themselves they hold to be true. Their ego dependent on that fantasy, they must be offended if the fantasy if threatened... so offense is taken at any sign thereof.


But as we get older I think it becomes more complicated. Maybe society, and your perceived part of it, still has a lot do with it.

If you're a sheep, yeah. If you can think for yourself, not so much eh?


Nobody wants to feel less than human, and hence nobody wants to be treated that way.

But they are responsible for their own damned feelings. If they find themselves being offended a lot, perhaps questioning their values, comprehension (or any number of other qualities of self that can lead to abusing the condition of being offended) or choice of company is wise. Here is the deal: Never stay where you aren't appreciated. If you find yourself constantly offended, perhaps you aren't appreciated. Then I suppose you have to ask "Do I offer anything to appreciate?". If the answer if yes, then you need to find people who offer that appreciation. If the answer is no, then perhaps you have some work to do.


It's possible to offend without provoking reaction by using tact or by negotiating cultural niceties.

Yet you don't question the validity of the offense? You sound like a slave to me. You sound like you'll take offense from anyone who offers it. That seems desperate to me.

I think Rosa's entire point is that it is retarded to take offense from writing on the wall. If I don't know you, that's what you are. Allowing Joe Schmoe to offend you is to me a sign that you're a pussy. You can get pissed at his behavior if he threatens you or frustrates you somehow, but taking offense?

Generally as I see people take offense from whomever, they only do it to get the upper hand or because they have a victim mentality. I can't stand victims and doing it to get the upper hand is straight up dishonest.


That said there ARE cases where it makes sense. It's just that they are rare in my experience.

Basically, I can't stand people who are prone to be offended. I find it sickeningly weak.


Some people can be offended by an American simply acting too "American", like when they invade into the personal space you're used to in your culture.

Which could likely be rectified with a tiny thing called communication.


For that a little tolerance is needed, but how much?

There is no single answer.


Where does directness border on invasion?

How does directness relate to the topic as you see it?


I'd guess when it's purposely perpetrated.

I'm a little confused by that. I purposefully perpetrated directness all the time with the intention of communication. Does that mean I'm constantly offensive? IMO, being direct is the generally the preferred mode of communication.


We're back at cursing someone (does the word come from ancient times?). Swearing, directed at nobody in particular, is nontheless related, because it offends indirectly.

Is that a joke? Fuck shit damn cock cunt shit whore bitch. I gaurentee you that many people reading that did not take offense. What's your excuse? Passive agressive much? You disapprove of my behavior? LOL. I don't care. Your judgement is IMO, a vain attempt to control me. I will not allow it.


It offends sensibilities.

If you're stupid or a prude, maybe.


After all, what are we without sensibilities?
My sensibilities tell me that taking offense at a "curse word" is as shallow as it gets. Seems to me if you say otherwise, you lack sensibility. As such, what are you?


The same thing that make you take offense at a foul smell makes you take offense at foul language.

Pardon, but you take that literally? You would literally be offended at a smell? Ack. It may smell nasty, but I do not understand how you could possibly be offended at a smell unless you're hopelessly wrapped up in some social dogma and are incapable or unwilling to look beyond the tip of your nose to understand life, society and the way the world works.


It's a choice how sensitive to these things you wish to be, but it's also a choice what you let yourself be associated with.
True enough, but many people don't see choice. They see a DNS table.


It isn't so much about what you can resist and endure, but about what you condone.

All of that plays into it... but I'm not sure what you're really trying to get at. Are you saying if I don't condone your behavior I should be offended by it? Why should I concern myself with it? Your conclusion makes no sense to me.

Maybe I didn't make one crucial point clear enough: offense is invasion. Sensibility is a buffer - an alarm system if you will - of impending or potentially threatening invasion.

In the case of children, I didn't mean physical hurt as much, although the border between physical and psychological hurt is hazy at best. I was speaking about their psychological reaction to an invasion of the senses. If there is physical pain then it's easy, but when it's still questionable (as it is in the discussion at hand, of "taking offense") they're not sure where there impulse ends and the reaction should begin.

Your everyone-be-damned view might work for you, but I doubt you can seriously grant everyone that freedom. You're only able to hold on it because someone else takes the punch. Somewhere, someone is taking offense at a terrorist threat so that you can have the freedom not to. But it's when you can't move the wall away, or move away from the wall, that you have to face the invasion and react.

Maybe I didn't make one crucial point clear enough: offense is invasion. Sensibility is a buffer - an alarm system if you will - of impending or potentially threatening invasion.

You're right and that point I can agree with, but that's the point Rosa made. It's sensitivity rather than sensibility, but perhaps either works. It's probably important however to ensure your buffer is calibrated to reality. If not, you are bound to introduce unneccessary conflict.


In the case of children, I didn't mean physical hurt as much, although the border between physical and psychological hurt is hazy at best. I was speaking about their psychological reaction to an invasion of the senses. If there is physical pain then it's easy, but when it's still questionable (as it is in the discussion at hand, of "taking offense") they're not sure where there impulse ends and the reaction should begin.

You're right to an extent. To become aware of potential attacks we do depend on cues from our environment, our peers and parents being a key source of feedback. The first means by which we can become aware of it is pretty straightforward... not nearly so abstract as writing on the wall.


Your everyone-be-damned view might work for you, but I doubt you can seriously grant everyone that freedom.

I don't damn everyone. This is a contrast of perspectives, I just recognize it for what it is. It's not everyone be damned, it's everyone for themselves... then throw in alliances and blah blah and you get a crazy dynamic. I do have specific gripes with people who are so simplistic as to take offense with smells or words regardless of context, but they are generally by the nature of the relationship... offended at me - except that I can generally charm most people into stretching their boundaries a bit because I know how to convey social cues that signal "this is not intended to offend, it's just who I am".

I'm not sure what you mean by "granting somone freedom". Perhaps you ought to reconsider. I don't grant you any freedom. If you are not free, it's not because of me.


You're only able to hold on it because someone else takes the punch.

LOL. That I do not condone your delicate sensibilities is not me punching you. It's me watching you drown in your own slop. I always throw a rope. Most seem too pround of their slop to grab it.


Somewhere, someone is taking offense at a terrorist threat so that you can have the freedom not to.

There is a difference between being offended for silly shallow reasons and responding to a threat to your life. Oh and I served my time, did you?


But it's when you can't move the wall away, or move away from the wall, that you have to face the invasion and react.

A message on a wall is not an attack. That you would represent it as such is evidence as to the intensity of the stench of your slop.

If I do not pose a physical threat to you, that you react to my words is that you empower them. If you empower them, that power is your responsibility. (and spare me the iterations, as if I repeatedly threaten to physically harm you, it is sensible for you to take the defensive, if I repeatedely physically attack you, it's sensible for you to take the offensive) If you refuse to deal with it, I have little respect for you as IMO, you are demonstrably unworthy. You made that slop, it's your responsibility to clean it up.

I have little respect for you as IMO, you are demonstrably unworthy.
I was with you until this point... unworthy of what? If you aren't offended because I can empathize with more offense than I neccessarily take personally, then why react with disrespect at all?

As delicate as flowers may be, they aren't limited to being delicate. Flowers can survive under the harshest conditions and still be crushed by a child. I don't jump at shadows, but I think we could shed light on them and deal with the forms they precede.

I was with you until this point... unworthy of what?

Respect. That doesn't mean I'd treat you like crap (and of course I don't mean YOU), it only means your objections to my behavior have zero impact.

I realize that. People don't take offense in order to change the world, but to make it more sensitive about giving offense. At least you feel some reason not to treat people like crap. That's already a sensibility.

That doesn't mean I'd treat you like crap (and of course I don't mean YOU), it only means your objections to my behavior have zero impact.

You know what this means for me, personally, meeting people who say "your objections to my behavior have zero impact"? That no matter what I would do or say, nothing would get to them. Neither positive nor negative. As if I were talking to a wall.

People don't take offense in order to change the world, but to make it more sensitive about giving offense.

That is an incredibly naive statement. I really think you should reconsider that. People often take offense to gain power because they like power and manipulation. It often has little to do with whether or not "offense has been given".


At least you feel some reason not to treat people like crap.

It's quite simple. It's no benefit to me or them. It's innefficient and cruel. Cruelty pisses me off except under extreme circumstances. I generally see no reason to unduely increase negativity in the world. There is plenty as it is. Besides, my ultimate selfishness decrees that at least initially you deserve the respect I have for myself. It can increase or decrease from there.


That's already a sensibility.

My desire to "be cool to people" is the result of my projection of my own values onto the world. Selfishness. I don't want to be treated like shit. It would be stupid for me to promote that behavior by undertaking it.

You know what this means for me, personally, meeting people who say "your objections to my behavior have zero impact"? That no matter what I would do or say, nothing would get to them. Neither positive nor negative. As if I were talking to a wall.

I'm with that, that's what I meant. I'm saying that if I deem you incapable of rationally judging behavior, I will remove your status as a judge. You may still think you are, but I will refuse to empower it.

That is an incredibly naive statement. I really think you should reconsider that. People often take offense to gain power because they like power and manipulation. It often has little to do with whether or not "offense has been given".
I've reconsidered, but I don't see how taking offense can gain you power except by playing on the emotions of others. That kind of power can't last, because someone who is constantly "hurt" can never come across as a strong leader. But manipulation of sensibilities is simply another kind of evil to take offense at. If sensitivity doesn't encourage responsibility, it is irresponsible itself.

I've reconsidered, but I don't see how taking offense can gain you power except by playing on the emotions of others.

Which most people are susceptable to. See my rant about passive aggression above. ;) Further, people defend the victim and attack the aggressor. All I have to do to gain the favor of the crowd is play the victim, even if they aren't there at the time (if I'm a good actor).


That kind of power can't last, because someone who is constantly "hurt" can never come across as a strong leader.

Very true. Still though... the passive aggressive route of dissapproval? Yeah. You haven't noticed the people who control people just because they like to control people? Whatever the reason, it's easy to control many people through judging them. Ever seen that happen?

Regardless I'm thinking of it as along the lines of competition. Say you and I engage in a conversation like this one. There is a subtext of competition for superiority (to promote your opinion, to seem cool, whatever). It doesn't seem to me that you or I are particularly concerned with "winning". Regardless though, if I were to imagine it there... it would be. For many it exists subconsciously. A subconscious tool to gain advantage in this competition is the power I was referring to. There are so many variations. One of them is like I said before... I can write you off if I deem you unworthy of respect. All I have to do to find you unworthy of respect is wait for you to make a mistake as I see it... like saying fuck. Now I don't have to respect you and can abuse your opinion however I like.

So I suppose I'm just on about the potential for abuse in the concept of "taking offense". The PC movement is a prime example of this disgusting abuse. It's about dishonesty like my example above. I didn't give your context an honest examination before abusing it to dehumanize you. Perhaps the bunny in question did the same but opposite, in that she dehumanized herself by abusing Gendanken's context (though she probably didn't realize that's what she was doing).


But manipulation of sensibilities is simply another kind of evil to take offense at.

That's an interesting try, but I fundamentally disagree. It's the manipulation of their own sensibilities (or lack thereof) that created the situation of offense in the first place. I come up to you and say "how the fuck are you?" and project my gregarious nature to you. If you take offense, I won't be offended. The problem is that you will have created offense where none was offered. I did not attack or invade you. I'm simply NOT you. If you're looking to be offended by that kind of thing regardless of the spirit in which it is offered, you are only offending yourself IMO. I may not engage you further, but your offense will only be shocking to me. I won't be offended unless you turn it into an attack on me.

LOL. Okay now I can't tell if I agreed or disagreed. Something.

I guess I'm just saying that as long as you don't physically attack me or infringe upon my rights (which does not include "not being offended", but does include "not being physically attacked" and "a right to pursue liberty blah blah"), I have no problem with your problem with yourself besides that I may find it annoying when you're directing that problem at me.


If sensitivity doesn't encourage responsibility, it is irresponsible itself.

I'm not sure what you mean, so what do you see as an example of sensitivity encouraging responsibility.

If you're looking to be offended by that kind of thing regardless of the spirit in which it is offered, you are only offending yourself IMO.
I think that's the crux of it.

What I meant by encouraging responsibility, is taking possession of the spirit in which yuo do things. Bringing it under some kind of control. Then anyting can be forgiven. But we have "free spirits" running amok and trying to win physical wars - inflicting hurt and raping the spirit of freedom. Abusing freedom in order to take possession of it for themselves. Anyway, I'm ranting now.

I think a lot of learning can be done if people would be less quick to be insulted or offended, and give more weight to the spirit of more important things. I'm sure you agree. Sometimes talking to a feminist, for example, is downright exhausting. You're right: PC is an abuse. Although I'm sure it arose in answer to abuse in the first place. Now it's just a vicious circle of taking offense with no point.

I think that's the crux of it.

I think we mostly agree on the fundamentals, but likely have honest disagreements on some of the details. Regardless, I'll comment because an unavoidable consequence of this analysis came to mind.


What I meant by encouraging responsibility, is taking possession of the spirit in which yuo do things. Bringing it under some kind of control. Then anyting can be forgiven.

What's funny is that you are ultimately responsible for it whether or not you accept that responsibility. Here's the kicker though: To what end? The usefulness of PC and related offense-related abuses occured to me a few minutes ago in the context of politics and power - where it's impersonal and image becomes amplified in importance (because there's no way it could get personal due to the sheer volume of peeps involved).


But we have "free spirits" running amok and trying to win physical wars - inflicting hurt and raping the spirit of freedom. Abusing freedom in order to take possession of it for themselves. Anyway, I'm ranting now.
Indeed. You're right but I'd imagine we'd disagree on who is doing what to whom. Maybe not. Let's put it terms of fundamentalist Islam and Fundamentalist Christians, who are by their faith inherently opposed. The muslim takes offense at capitalism. They take offense at the existence of Israel. They take offense at oppression as they see it. They look at it as a real attack on their existence. They take offense at people who don't follow their beliefs. Similar stuff with fundy christians, thought the details are much different. This scenario is honest (at least those involved think it is due to their faith), but potentially deadly.

Crap I'm all over the place now. It's too big. I was trying to get at the power that can be gained from the dark side, from the abuse... and how when it IS abused for a long time, those who do not abuse it are at a significant disadvantage and will likely burn at the stake for instance, or be blown up by fundamentalists... or be put at the will of the sheepish masses who blindly follow an abuser because he's so damned good at abusing. Sometimes then the only way the honest people can win is by abusing, because it's the only way to match that power... at least it seems that way at the time... man it gets all complicated. Bah!


I think a lot of learning can be done if people would be less quick to be insulted or offended, and give more weight to the spirit of more important things. I'm sure you agree.
Totally.


Sometimes talking to a feminist, for example, is downright exhausting.
Definately.


You're right: PC is an abuse. Although I'm sure it arose in answer to abuse in the first place.
You're right.


Now it's just a vicious circle of taking offense with no point.

Well, one would hope the point is the pendulum swinging until it finds equilibrium, but there's no telling if the bitch will have to be almost completely taken on its hinge in order to find it.

Sometimes then the only way the honest people can win is by abusing, because it's the only way to match that power... at least it seems that way at the time... man it gets all complicated. Bah!
But that only adds to the problem - not to mention selling out your honesty. Why play the along with the power struggle? That's what's wrong with the fundamentalist mentality: it's people asserting their ego's. Faith and belief has actually been left far behind, as if they justify such a struggle by definition and have no further use beyond that.

Back to everyday life: Someone who suspends his impulse to take offense is sacrificing any "benefits" of taking offense. Someone who uses the "benefits" in order to eventually offend (read: exploit) others is similarly abusing the reason for being sensitive to sensitive issues in the first place. It's for other people - that's what responisbility means, isn't it? Keeping yourself in check for the sake of ....

When I ask someone to refrain from being offensive, or inflicting pain (physical or psychological), I'm asking them to sacrifice their desire to, and also whatever they might gain from it. If I do it out of weakness, it's just defensive measure strategically positioned to protect or assert my ego - but if I do it out of concern for the spirit in which people do things, the lack of sensitivity people show each other, I think it might be justified. Real heroism is sacrificing your desires in order to remain honest.

But maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here. :)

Jenyar, Wes,

You two had quite a talk. :) I have made some comments, alternately to both of you, so you'll have to please read through the whole post:



If sensitivity doesn't encourage responsibility, it is irresponsible itself.

I think I can understand this very well. I *hear* each time the word "fuck" is uttered. This is my sensitivity. How I respond though, is a matter of consideration to me, and this consideration is tightly bound to the feeling of responsibility.



All I have to do to gain the favor of the crowd is play the victim, even if they aren't there at the time (if I'm a good actor).

One cannot play the victim and still love oneself. -- This is a painful discovery for the passive aggressive.



Whatever the reason, it's easy to control many people through judging them. Ever seen that happen?

True. Blurt out judgements, at noone in particular, and see the insecure shrink into themselves, the self-conscious doubt themselves. The passive aggressive point fingers at others.



I can write you off if I deem you unworthy of respect. All I have to do to find you unworthy of respect is wait for you to make a mistake as I see it... like saying fuck. Now I don't have to respect you and can abuse your opinion however I like.

Note that thereby you'd commit at least a strawman, if not also a slippery slope, hasty generalization and some other logical fallacies. Come to think of "being rational and trying to follow logical thought" ...



That's an interesting try, but I fundamentally disagree. It's the manipulation of their own sensibilities (or lack thereof) that created the situation of offense in the first place. I come up to you and say "how the fuck are you?" and project my gregarious nature to you. If you take offense, I won't be offended. The problem is that you will have created offense where none was offered. I did not attack or invade you. I'm simply NOT you. If you're looking to be offended by that kind of thing regardless of the spirit in which it is offered, you are only offending yourself IMO. I may not engage you further, but your offense will only be shocking to me. I won't be offended unless you turn it into an attack on me.

There are some practical problems with this: Online, the spirit in which things are offered is not always easy to recognize. In fact, it is very easy to misjudge.
Also, if I don't know you, I'll have troubles determining in what spirit you have offered what you've said.

So, when initially meeting new people, depending on what you hope from them, of course, I think that it is good to use some more neutral language.

Alright, hold your horses -- but personally, I have a mind to behave as ladylike as possible. And foul language is just not a part of that. Not that I would feel easily offended by foul language, I just don't deem it ladylike.



What's funny is that you are ultimately responsible for it whether or not you accept that responsibility. Here's the kicker though: To what end? The usefulness of PC and related offense-related abuses occured to me a few minutes ago in the context of politics and power - where it's impersonal and image becomes amplified in importance (because there's no way it could get personal due to the sheer volume of peeps involved).

It has been mentioned before that PC is probably closely connected with seeing a very large group of people as your tribe, a group much much larger than a tribe can be. In such circumstances, certain kinds of behaviour are observable that seem dishonest at the level of a smaller group though.

I.e. If someone considers himself a close friend of mine, yet is PC even in private, I'd consider him dishonest.



Crap I'm all over the place now. It's too big. I was trying to get at the power that can be gained from the dark side, from the abuse... and how when it IS abused for a long time, those who do not abuse it are at a significant disadvantage and will likely burn at the stake for instance, or be blown up by fundamentalists... or be put at the will of the sheepish masses who blindly follow an abuser because he's so damned good at abusing. Sometimes then the only way the honest people can win is by abusing, because it's the only way to match that power

Not necessarily. You can also take the honest -- the slower and in the long run more satisfying way. It will certainly cost you some of your "friends". But you will at least be true to yourself.

As for honest people winning: What if the true human impulse is to be dishonest? And the honest are not to win anyway?

Rosa and Jenyar:

The end game is unfortunately, survival. I agree with both of you on principle, however the point was that if I gain more power than you through dishonest means, sometimes dishonest means are required to equalize the power; hence wars and such. All it takes is for someone to simply not care about the ethical implicaitons of their actions to put you in a position that might mean fight or flight. If it's hundreds of people against you alone, dishonesty (a charade for instance) might be required to survive. If your ethics are more important than your survival, you will die and the unethical killers will remain. I'm talking about an extreme case of course, but I use it to make the point of reality:

When your survival (or that of your family, or everything in your life you deem as good) is on the line, I'd think that the value of ethics diminishes inversely to the level of impending threat.

I'd say terrorism is a prime example of this. I'd guess in the mind of the average terrorist, their original set of ethics is skewed into vengance and righteousness (as it is perhaps with most militant rebels, unless it's just a testosterone thing or something). Things they value highly are unavailable to them, or have been stripped from them. The resultant tension skews their minds to a bitter focus. They can justify anything (like kidnapping and beheading people, or deliberately killing children) to seek relief to that tension. Our principles, the ethics we deem so universal... they don't much matter in the face of the determined killer.

One cannot play the victim and still love oneself. -- This is a painful discovery for the passive aggressive.

I agree, but many are not so wise. They invite their bitterness. I was off on a tangent about the fact that some WILL play the victim regardless that it is undesirable from a rational perspective. I've stayed on that tangent for a while and have just realized I'm not sure how it related back to the topic. I am now a rambling schmuck.


True. Blurt out judgements, at noone in particular, and see the insecure shrink into themselves, the self-conscious doubt themselves. The passive aggressive point fingers at others.

... and the healthy ego thinks "what the hell?" ?


Note that thereby you'd commit at least a strawman, if not also a slippery slope, hasty generalization and some other logical fallacies. Come to think of "being rational and trying to follow logical thought" ...

I agree. That's basically what I'm describing. The deal is though, many slip. Their opinion however, do not lose weight... nor do the consequences of their actions. As this slope leads to a bitter valley, the likelihood of an impasse in dealing with that individual increases. Since many cannot avoid the slope, conflict is implicit. As a rational character, all you can do is try to minimize the impact.

How does this relate to respect? Shit I don't know now. Ack.


There are some practical problems with this: Online, the spirit in which things are offered is not always easy to recognize. In fact, it is very easy to misjudge.

Definately. For whatever reason I was talking about the person who doesn't consider that and so to them it doesn't impact their behavior towards you.


So, when initially meeting new people, depending on what you hope from them, of course, I think that it is good to use some more neutral language.

I figure I just act like me and assist if I sense I've hurt someone, then explain what a dork I am and blah blah. I figure if you can't handle that we probably don't have much chemistry anyway.

Ah, so I get it now. I forgot.. "taking offense". Right, I actually had a point that whole time I swear. *clears throat* Okay so what I was trying to do was simply point out that some bastards are going to take offense no matter what and offense begat anger and anger begat war blah blah blah.


Alright, hold your horses -- but personally, I have a mind to behave as ladylike as possible. And foul language is just not a part of that. Not that I would feel easily offended by foul language, I just don't deem it ladylike.
I can appreciate that. Perfectly cool. I just learned to behave "wesleylike" instead. It works okay.

I almost went into a stuart smalley rant there. Ack.


It has been mentioned before that PC is probably closely connected with seeing a very large group of people as your tribe, a group much much larger than a tribe can be.

Where was it mentioned (approximately?)? At least what context? Who mentioned it? Did I subconsciously rip someone off?


In such circumstances, certain kinds of behaviour are observable that seem dishonest at the level of a smaller group though.

Probably not to the person who is engaging in the behavior, but yes of course. Ego unchecked promotes denial. The dishonesty is in the authority I think, er at least that's the only part I could think of right away.


I.e. If someone considers himself a close friend of mine, yet is PC even in private, I'd consider him dishonest.

I'm with that.


Not necessarily. You can also take the honest -- the slower and in the long run more satisfying way.

Even when your child is hanging from a meathook and you've got your laser site on the killer's forehead? I would be quite far beyond offended by that sight. I think I'd be vindictive. I think my ethics would be "pull the trigger" but I don't know for sure of course - thankfully. I don't believe in revenge because I haven't been pushed to it. I can't say that I couldn't be. I suppose we could just say 'ethics are transitional'? Hehe.


I wonder though if that would mean I'd be offended by things I wasn't offended by before.

Either way, this scenario plays itself out all the time in some way or another... people's threshold for skewing their values and ethics are different for everyone in every scenario. If I find myself in screwed over by a clerk, will slash his tires? Will I piss in his soup? I wouldn't, but shit it seems like a lot of people do.


It will certainly cost you some of your "friends". But you will at least be true to yourself.
Well, so far I'm with you but I can imagine circumstances that could drastically change my perspective, and I've been rambling on about it for a long, potentially annoying time. I'm indefinate about the value of this tangent at the moment.


As for honest people winning: What if the true human impulse is to be dishonest? And the honest are not to win anyway?

The always honest are at the biggest disadvantage in many short-term scenarios, some of which may lead down paths that demand dishonesty or death. I don't know if the honest are not to win anyway.. honestly I think it's a wash and we are all players to our own nature. Honesty and dishonesty in the context of social interactions pretty much cancel one another out in the long term it would seem. I suppose it depends on what you mean by winning. If controlling you mercilessly is my goal, I win much easier with dishonesty. If promoting your health and my own is my goal, the honest person wins. If survival is your goal... I dunno I still think dishonesty has the upper hand, but then again honesty is pretty powerful... ack, but really good dishonesty is just as powerful. Yeah it's a damned wash I guess.

The end game is unfortunately, survival. I agree with both of you on principle, however the point was that if I gain more power than you through dishonest means, sometimes dishonest means are required to equalize the power; hence wars and such. All it takes is for someone to simply not care about the ethical implicaitons of their actions to put you in a position that might mean fight or flight. If it's hundreds of people against you alone, dishonesty (a charade for instance) might be required to survive. If your ethics are more important than your survival, you will die and the unethical killers will remain. I'm talking about an extreme case of course, but I use it to make the point of reality:

When your survival (or that of your family, or everything in your life you deem as good) is on the line, I'd think that the value of ethics diminishes inversely to the level of impending threat.

Sure. I can understand how the debate naturally came to this point. This very issue has been discussed in Respect is a modern luxury (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=666306#post666306) .


From there:


When it comes to practical real life morality, it is about choices that are usually regarded as "second-best", meaning that if others behave immorally, one could distance oneself both from what others are doing, as well as from the behaviour that would have to be accepted in an ideal situation of a universally moral behaviour.

If one would act blindly on the basis of the ethical rule that is not sensitive to context (go strictly by the Jewish scriptures in this case), that wouldn't be a sign of autonomous behaviour, and it would also be to one's own demise.

To act blindly on the basis of the ethical rule is frequent with persons who need rules and avoid ethical judgements. Even though they may appear to be the paradigms of morality and autonomy, they actually lack both.

A most ethical life means to break the rules that have become too narrow for a certain situation.

And this is what the Jews did when they accepted Schindler's help: It would be to their own demise to blindly follow their scriptorial rules. In that given situation, the ideal option for them was to give in to the Nazis, and come what may, while the second-best option was to hope for salvation from Schindler, at least optically a Nazi himself.


So if I am being played with, to take a more benign, but very common example of dishonesty, I could simply play back, pretend, be dishonest in return.

Yet this an-eye-for-an-eye-and-a-tooth-for-a-tooth logic will not make the world a better place, it will not solve any problems in the long run.

It is possible that even though others behave immorally, one can distance oneself both from what others are doing, as well as from the behaviour that would have to be accepted in an ideal situation of a universally moral behaviour.

You can see this often at SF when there is a flame war.
Someone starts the flame, and the way the attacked respond is usually one of these:
a) Attack back, flame back.
b) Play the victim.
c) Leave without saying anything.
d) Saying, "It's not worth arguing with you" or "Your attitude is uncalled for, I have been nice to you" and similar context dependent responses.

Option a is the most frequent, followed by b.
Option c tends to be rare (sometimes it is a victim in disguise who will use other means to get his right).
Option d is the rarest, but in my view, best. Of course, if you want to behave that way, then you yourself have to have a history of honest conduct, with clear motives.