The price of respect

[wesmorris]

Rosa;

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

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

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

 

[water]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CounslerCoffee]

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

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

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

 

[invert_nexus]

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

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

But, yes, I think you are the mother fucker with the fucked-up misconceptions. Namely that you don't understand what this thread is about. You seem to feel that it's that we all deserve respect. It's actually just the oposite. Or rather, it's about another subject entirely (Respect being a modern Luxury is dealt with elsewhere.

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

Do try to keep up.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

v. intr.

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

1. To violate a moral or divine law; sin.
2. To violate a rule or law: offended against the curfew.​

By these definitions, I would be offended when my balls itch. So, I doubt very seriously from what I've read that this is what you mean. Give us a definition, Rosa. I'll give what I've gathered from reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I think.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


Getting long.

A quote:

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

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

 

[CounslerCoffee]

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

Do try to keep up.

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

 

[water]

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

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

 

[wesmorris]

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

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

Meh.

 

[gendanken]

Coffee:

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

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


Rosa:

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

Precicely what I was waiting on- didn't want to waste precious energy on a deafmute.

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

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

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

Is rare.

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

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

Of course.
Cripples dig cripples.

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

Ditto.

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

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

 

[water]

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

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

Prebloodycisely.

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

 

[wesmorris]

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

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

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

(but they are fucking morons)

 

[thefountainhed]

Gendanken:

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

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

You are finally thinking rationally, eh woman? It is funny that people talk of tribes, come on this forum wanting to share their ideas and wanting others to respond, comment or adopt their ideas and not realize that this forum is a modern manifestation of the tribe. The notion that what we say to individuals needn't hurt, offend, etc them is bloody irrational.

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

And we have a perfect example of the "Cute vendettas". Get off the dick.


Rosa:

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

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

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

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

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

However, this choice is now a hard thing to do; the original tribe was defined by blood, it was pre-choice. Modern humans bear the burden, as well as the duty to choose and make their own tribe. And this burden, and duty, are for many too hard a thing to bear -- so they refuse to choose, or try to avoid this choice, and try to feel respect and mutual dependency for everyone. We can see these two loudest phenomena resulting from this generalization (and dilution) of respect and mutual dependence: 1. Political correctness. 2. People who feel easily offended by what a stranger says.
The price of respect in such a non-tribal social organization is political correctness. As such, this respect is not worth much.

This conclusion does not follow from the previous two. You have been trying to link political correctness to the absence of a tribe and the reach of seeking a community within the presently crowded world. I don't buy that for a second. Political correctness is nothing new; the only new aspect of being political correct is that some is written in law. An entire society--Japanese was and is essentially an example in political correctness. I have given you the example of trading posts of old as examples in political correctness. Political correctness is seeped in pragmatism.

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

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

 

[thefountainhed]

wesmorris

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

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

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

….. Your sense of ethics and fairness exist only in you, yet it seems to me the gist of this conversation attempts exactly the contrary. You're "me-thropomorphising" this issue by projecting your own perspective of ethics upon it.

No. You are limited in your POV. It is not simply that in your head, your action is justified; it is not simply that from your perspective, your attack was warranted. You see, for their reaction to your act to have been as it is, your specific act had to have occurred. You are therefore partly responsible for having caused said reaction. People refusing to accept this responsibility does not somehow validate your assumption that the responsibility is nonexistent. People have children and then decide to not take responsibility for them—this is akin to it. How can you utter that a sense of “fairness” or “ethics” is what warrants your responsibility in being the cause of a person emotional state? To be the cause of something is to bear responsibility for the thing.

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

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

Then the notion of responsibility becomes moot. If responsibility is viewed from the individual perspective, the accountability is only warranted if the individual is willing to accept responsibility.

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

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

The checks you make prior to assaulting and the notion of responsibility are mutually exclusive when not viewed from the individual standpoint. If I am to buy your argument, then insofar as I justify in mind, the action of blowing your head off, I am relieved of a responsibility in my action.
I will again say this: the reaction of the assaulted, if it is to assault/attack in return is only justifiable if you accept that he has a right to feel as he does—to hold you responsible for his hurt. It is bloody simple.

 

[thefountainhed]

Invert:

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

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

Being “hurt” by insults clearly brings to view psychological issues, and therefore to some extent you are correct. However, we have stayed on what ought to be offensive and not. Clearly one doesn’t feel better about compliments after having rationalized to themselves whether or not they believe it deserved. Compliments for complete strangers still makes the majority of people feel good, it is an affirmation that man seeks by nature as a social animal. To accept a person feeling better about being complimented and not feel offended by the opposite is irrational.

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

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

Invert, you lie to yourself. The ego cannot be devoid of influence outside the self; this is fundamental. You cannot have a view of yourself that is not influenced by the views of others around you. Even in the realization that your view of yourself is influenced, attempting to limit the impact of said outside influence is very hard. Granted, once the ego fully established, the affirmation becomes decreasingly needed as defenses are put in place to guard the ego and the ego tested against barrages. Nevertheless, the formation of the ego depends on outside influences.

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

Most insightful thing you’ve said so far. It is environmental and psychological.

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

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

This much I agree, but I disagree that the man sees his entire city or state or world as one tribe. Tribal associations are manifested in a myriad of ways in the modern world, social groups for instance. I also find myself disillusioned by the repeated worldview that is the fruit of this society. It seems that a lot are unable or perhaps even unwillingly to see the world outside the constraints of this nation or civilization. Many tribal structures, although different from our educated guesses on our ape ancestors, still retain many of the same dynamics exists in the notions of extended families and the like within cultures in China, Japan, Western and Eastern Africa, Latin America, etc

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

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

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

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

 

[Jenyar]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[thefountainhed]

Gendanken,

Psychologists say personality is shaped by environnemt, don't they?
They, including some in here, throw that word around as if every man on the street has one- a personality.

I see no one abusing said word more than you.

The main ingredient in that word is 'person', so why must we think everyone has one when all are simply echos of each other?
Children simply are, the impassioned simple are- I'd even go so far as to say Khan had personality since he brought it up- its only when the spirit is broken to become something appropriate and likeable by all that personality becomes the hollow substitute of attitude.

What are you smoking? The main ingredient of the word is "person", that is the indivdiual that is the ego. No two egos are alike. Children once born simply are a reflection of genetical makeup and act on pure instinct. Once adapted to their environemt through time and association, they become shaped by the environment-- they grow a "personality" that is limited by their environemnt. The impassioned are the resulting confluence of varying degrees of pshycological makeup and environemnt. YOu made the claim that man of old had more "personality". Your claim is wrong. The dymanics in the devlopment has not changed, and a more diverse environemnt less contrained by the limit of the tribe exists to create ever more differing "personalities" or indivdiuals.

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

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

 

[water]

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

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

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

Political correctness is seeped in pragmatism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[wesmorris]

Very good point.

Though it seems disengenuous to me, thank you.

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

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

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

The reaction is to feel offended by being considered unworthy of respectable behaviour (i.e. disrespected), especially when the norm is that people deserve respect.

Says you. I generally offer people respect, but that doesn't mean I have a mandate to do so. If you feel that you can bear the consequences of your actions, you can do anything you want. Many people do not think you or I deserve respect.

It is in recognition of who you are to another person compared to your own perceived worth (whether learnt from a dogmatic environment, indoctrination that people should be respected, or whatever) that you feel hurt.

What if you're just a pussy?

To 'take offense' is to be hurt - at least in principle. That's why I say you have a good point: it's knowing that you *should* or *can be justly expected* to be hurt that makes it offensive.

The point is that many people think they are supposed to be hurt for unjustifiable reasons. They simply learned it that way and don't question it. Often "being hurt" is a means for passive aggression. It's abused. I can take offense at anything you say. All you have to do is point to the DNS table entry where it says "fuck.you = offensive" and rally your one-dimensional troops. Context be damned.

Otherwise it's like cursing someone in a foreign language they don't understand.

I understand what you're trying to say but I don't think it's nearly as simple as you're putting it. I think my previous two posts summarized the issue nicely.

That's why you'll see children sometimes frantically looking around for confirmation (re-inforcement, as you put it) that they are expected to be hurt before they start crying.

LOL. No, I don't think so. When you see that it's because they aren't getting attention. They aren't looking for approval, they're looking to see if anyone is paying attention. If they aren't, they do something to gain the attention they seek. If they are hurt they will start crying before seeking approval. If you're saying this is how they learn when to be hurt, that's not true either. In the sense you put it, that is them learning how to be manipulative.

It could be the shocked expression on a mothers face, the sudden silence of their friends, but the simple shock of realization is enough to provoke reaction.

In whom? You mean as they realize they're "supposed to be hurt"? I haven't seen this behavior. If they're hurt they let you know. The scenario you provide is about learning the DNS table (as I've put it) and manipulation. That's not necessarily bad, as society does promote certain types of behavior and the children need to be aware of it, but when this learned manipulation is the end of the story, it yields a kid who becomes an asshat as an adult, always pointing their shallow little finger at behavior they dislike though they may not fathom the reality of what they criticize.

And at other times they're simply having too much fun to care about being hurt. Then you'll get some people who are more sensitive than others. But the basic line is that people, as people, know what it means not to be respected.

Hardly. They may initially have decent instincts but they get skewed. Some people's instincts remain intact and others simply sheep it up or become vile with passive aggression and manipulation in their propensity to take offense. Or worse, they use that propensity to justify their lacking self image or to promote a fantasy about themselves they hold to be true. Their ego dependent on that fantasy, they must be offended if the fantasy if threatened... so offense is taken at any sign thereof.

But as we get older I think it becomes more complicated. Maybe society, and your perceived part of it, still has a lot do with it.

If you're a sheep, yeah. If you can think for yourself, not so much eh?

Nobody wants to feel less than human, and hence nobody wants to be treated that way.

But they are responsible for their own damned feelings. If they find themselves being offended a lot, perhaps questioning their values, comprehension (or any number of other qualities of self that can lead to abusing the condition of being offended) or choice of company is wise. Here is the deal: Never stay where you aren't appreciated. If you find yourself constantly offended, perhaps you aren't appreciated. Then I suppose you have to ask "Do I offer anything to appreciate?". If the answer if yes, then you need to find people who offer that appreciation. If the answer is no, then perhaps you have some work to do.

It's possible to offend without provoking reaction by using tact or by negotiating cultural niceties.

Yet you don't question the validity of the offense? You sound like a slave to me. You sound like you'll take offense from anyone who offers it. That seems desperate to me.

I think Rosa's entire point is that it is retarded to take offense from writing on the wall. If I don't know you, that's what you are. Allowing Joe Schmoe to offend you is to me a sign that you're a pussy. You can get pissed at his behavior if he threatens you or frustrates you somehow, but taking offense?

Generally as I see people take offense from whomever, they only do it to get the upper hand or because they have a victim mentality. I can't stand victims and doing it to get the upper hand is straight up dishonest.

That said there ARE cases where it makes sense. It's just that they are rare in my experience.

Basically, I can't stand people who are prone to be offended. I find it sickeningly weak.

Some people can be offended by an American simply acting too "American", like when they invade into the personal space you're used to in your culture.

Which could likely be rectified with a tiny thing called communication.

For that a little tolerance is needed, but how much?

There is no single answer.

Where does directness border on invasion?

How does directness relate to the topic as you see it?

I'd guess when it's purposely perpetrated.

I'm a little confused by that. I purposefully perpetrated directness all the time with the intention of communication. Does that mean I'm constantly offensive? IMO, being direct is the generally the preferred mode of communication.

We're back at cursing someone (does the word come from ancient times?). Swearing, directed at nobody in particular, is nontheless related, because it offends indirectly.

Is that a joke? Fuck shit damn cock cunt shit whore bitch. I gaurentee you that many people reading that did not take offense. What's your excuse? Passive agressive much? You disapprove of my behavior? LOL. I don't care. Your judgement is IMO, a vain attempt to control me. I will not allow it.

It offends sensibilities.

If you're stupid or a prude, maybe.

After all, what are we without sensibilities?

My sensibilities tell me that taking offense at a "curse word" is as shallow as it gets. Seems to me if you say otherwise, you lack sensibility. As such, what are you?

The same thing that make you take offense at a foul smell makes you take offense at foul language.

Pardon, but you take that literally? You would literally be offended at a smell? Ack. It may smell nasty, but I do not understand how you could possibly be offended at a smell unless you're hopelessly wrapped up in some social dogma and are incapable or unwilling to look beyond the tip of your nose to understand life, society and the way the world works.

It's a choice how sensitive to these things you wish to be, but it's also a choice what you let yourself be associated with.

True enough, but many people don't see choice. They see a DNS table.

It isn't so much about what you can resist and endure, but about what you condone.

All of that plays into it... but I'm not sure what you're really trying to get at. Are you saying if I don't condone your behavior I should be offended by it? Why should I concern myself with it? Your conclusion makes no sense to me.

 

[Jenyar]

Maybe I didn't make one crucial point clear enough: offense is invasion. Sensibility is a buffer - an alarm system if you will - of impending or potentially threatening invasion.

In the case of children, I didn't mean physical hurt as much, although the border between physical and psychological hurt is hazy at best. I was speaking about their psychological reaction to an invasion of the senses. If there is physical pain then it's easy, but when it's still questionable (as it is in the discussion at hand, of "taking offense") they're not sure where there impulse ends and the reaction should begin.

Your everyone-be-damned view might work for you, but I doubt you can seriously grant everyone that freedom. You're only able to hold on it because someone else takes the punch. Somewhere, someone is taking offense at a terrorist threat so that you can have the freedom not to. But it's when you can't move the wall away, or move away from the wall, that you have to face the invasion and react.

 

[wesmorris]

Maybe I didn't make one crucial point clear enough: offense is invasion. Sensibility is a buffer - an alarm system if you will - of impending or potentially threatening invasion.

You're right and that point I can agree with, but that's the point Rosa made. It's sensitivity rather than sensibility, but perhaps either works. It's probably important however to ensure your buffer is calibrated to reality. If not, you are bound to introduce unneccessary conflict.

In the case of children, I didn't mean physical hurt as much, although the border between physical and psychological hurt is hazy at best. I was speaking about their psychological reaction to an invasion of the senses. If there is physical pain then it's easy, but when it's still questionable (as it is in the discussion at hand, of "taking offense") they're not sure where there impulse ends and the reaction should begin.

You're right to an extent. To become aware of potential attacks we do depend on cues from our environment, our peers and parents being a key source of feedback. The first means by which we can become aware of it is pretty straightforward... not nearly so abstract as writing on the wall.

Your everyone-be-damned view might work for you, but I doubt you can seriously grant everyone that freedom.

I don't damn everyone. This is a contrast of perspectives, I just recognize it for what it is. It's not everyone be damned, it's everyone for themselves... then throw in alliances and blah blah and you get a crazy dynamic. I do have specific gripes with people who are so simplistic as to take offense with smells or words regardless of context, but they are generally by the nature of the relationship... offended at me - except that I can generally charm most people into stretching their boundaries a bit because I know how to convey social cues that signal "this is not intended to offend, it's just who I am".

I'm not sure what you mean by "granting somone freedom". Perhaps you ought to reconsider. I don't grant you any freedom. If you are not free, it's not because of me.

You're only able to hold on it because someone else takes the punch.

LOL. That I do not condone your delicate sensibilities is not me punching you. It's me watching you drown in your own slop. I always throw a rope. Most seem too pround of their slop to grab it.

Somewhere, someone is taking offense at a terrorist threat so that you can have the freedom not to.

There is a difference between being offended for silly shallow reasons and responding to a threat to your life. Oh and I served my time, did you?

But it's when you can't move the wall away, or move away from the wall, that you have to face the invasion and react.

A message on a wall is not an attack. That you would represent it as such is evidence as to the intensity of the stench of your slop.

If I do not pose a physical threat to you, that you react to my words is that you empower them. If you empower them, that power is your responsibility. (and spare me the iterations, as if I repeatedly threaten to physically harm you, it is sensible for you to take the defensive, if I repeatedely physically attack you, it's sensible for you to take the offensive) If you refuse to deal with it, I have little respect for you as IMO, you are demonstrably unworthy. You made that slop, it's your responsibility to clean it up.

 

[Jenyar]

I have little respect for you as IMO, you are demonstrably unworthy.

I was with you until this point... unworthy of what? If you aren't offended because I can empathize with more offense than I neccessarily take personally, then why react with disrespect at all?

As delicate as flowers may be, they aren't limited to being delicate. Flowers can survive under the harshest conditions and still be crushed by a child. I don't jump at shadows, but I think we could shed light on them and deal with the forms they precede.