The price of respect

[thefountainhed]

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.

 

[Jenyar]

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.

 

[thefountainhed]

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.

 

[water]

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?!

 

[Jenyar]

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...

 

[thefountainhed]

heh

 

[thefountainhed]

heh

 

[thefountainhed]

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.

 

[wesmorris]

"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.

 

[Kunax]

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.

 

[water]

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?

 

[water]

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.

 

[thefountainhed]

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.

 

[thefountainhed]

"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?

 

[water]

even if I had to resort to manipulation.

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

 

[water]

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!

 

[thefountainhed]

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.

 

[wesmorris]

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? 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.

 

[thefountainhed]

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? 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-à 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.

 

[water]

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.