The price of respect

[Avatar]

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.

 

[James R]

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.

 

[thefountainhed]

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.

 

[Athelwulf]

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.

 

[Kunax]

what are you to Gendanken?

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

 

[water]

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.

 

[water]

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?

 

[cosmictraveler]

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.

 

[thefountainhed]

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.

 

[Persol]

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.

 

[Kunax]

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.

 

[water]

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.

 

[whitewolf]

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.

 

[Persol]

*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.

 

[water]

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.

 

[whitewolf]

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.

 

[water]

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.

 

[thefountainhed]

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.

 

[water]

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".

 

[Jenyar]

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...