|
On May 19 2017 04:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 03:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 19 2017 03:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like I said there appears to be some sort of cultural barrier between us. You view certain actions due to certain situations and circumstances to be insulting, and upon those same situation and circumstance I do not, such as your strange neo nazi examples. I do not determine whether someone is or is not insulted, the person himself will either be or not be insulted. It is very strange that you would determine something is insulting based on if *you yourself* will be insulted and not simply that other humans can experience and perceive things differently from you. But you're European, it makes sense that you don't really care about how others experience the world. I am sorry for not being able to emphasize with Nazis to the point that I know what is insulting to them as a European. And no I don't hate ticks. Because I am European.
Plenty of ticks in Europe too, and they are evil little blighters. We don't have tickbite fever. We have Lyme disease instead, which is about equally bad. Ticks were an absolute plague in Brazil. The bastard animals really love capybaras, so anywhere with a capybara population has billions of ticks. I once got home and found I had brushed through a tick infested forest and was covered in over 20 of them.
Still not as bad as bed bugs, which are truly the evilest godawful creatures to crawl into existence.
|
I feel like there's two large camps here.
One the one camp you have the group that takes offense.
While the other group only sees intent of the person portraying so, only then resulting in offense.
I can obviously understand that it's offensive for a certain culture to refuse sleeping in their beds when they offer it up to you in name of hospitality -for example-, but I only understand it in the vein of not causing a hassle to those people. It shouldn't be offensive AT ALL to refuse certain kinds of hospitality.
It's clear enough I belong to the second group. Offense is caused from the intent of the one delivering, not from the interpretation of the receiving party. It may be necessary for the sender to explain what is meant, but before its clear what is actually meant, conclusions can't be drawn beforehand.
This is why so many quarrels happen: misunderstanding.
Edit: Also, your examples aren't insults. They're being a hassle for the company and the employer being a cheap shit/asshole. Those are different things. I feel like you're very liberal with the term "insult" here..
|
On May 19 2017 05:53 Uldridge wrote:
I feel like there's two large camps here.
One the one camp you have the group that takes offense.
While the other group only sees intent of the person portraying so, only then resulting in offense.
I can obviously understand that it's offensive for a certain culture to refuse sleeping in their beds when they offer it up to you in name of hospitality -for example-, but I only understand it in the vein of not causing a hassle to those people. It shouldn't be offensive AT ALL to refuse certain kinds of hospitality.
It's clear enough I belong to the second group. Offense is caused from the intent of the one delivering, not from the interpretation of the receiving party. It may be necessary for the sender to explain what is meant, but before its clear what is actually meant, conclusions can't be drawn beforehand.
This is why so many quarrels happen: misunderstanding.
Edit: Also, your examples aren't insults. They're being a hassle for the company and the employer being a cheap shit/asshole. Those are different things. I feel like you're very liberal with the term "insult" here..
I definitely don't feel intent means a damn thing when it comes to how insulted people feel. As an example, most christians who torture the gay away of people do so with the intent of saving people from eternal torment. When racists destroy churches synogouges and temples--it is purely with the intent bettering their community.
Intent is for the thin skinned and the weak. It's about the actual consequences of your actions more than anything else.
A workers strike is more insulting than negotiating for better pay. But purposefully not wanting to negotiate for better pay is insulting to the workers asking for it, leading to the need of a strike.
|
Yeah, fuck what other people say and do right, it's all about how the recipient of said actions feels!
The problem with the examples you provide, once more, is these people act out of ignorance and misguidance. They convey innate pathological behavior which doesn't coincide with being constructive. These people don't have the capability of realizing their intent completely.
It's like you don't think these examples through. You put pathological behavior in the same category as non-pathological behavior and think you can make conclusions on picking examples from the former subset?
Why don't we also add mentally ill people that run from imaginary things and kill people in the process to "help them escape the darkness" to your examples so that intent is even less usable, ok?
Every interaction comes from two sides. The intent is everything. If you say something which is not meant as an insult, but is seen as an insult, then it's the job of the person that took it the wrong way to bounce that back and then make the person realize it wasn't meant that way. That's how a constructive feedback loop can be created and both parties come with a consensus. That's how you avoid a misunderstanding. Most people are capable of this. But the overly touchy "i feel insulted for the smallest whatever" crowd, seems to have forgotten this.
Again, you seem to use the word insulted for such a broad spectrum of things. Your final examples is dissatisfaction with the working environment. How does that equate to being insulted? They're insulted that they have to work in these kinds of conditions? Well, then you can use that as a synonymous with everything. I'm insulted by that my body is too tired and my brain too void of motivation so that I can work out! I'm insulted by the fact my baker ran out of brown bread! I'm insulted that it's raining so I'm getting wet when walking to the store, fuck that sky!
|
On May 19 2017 08:10 Uldridge wrote:
Yeah, fuck what other people say and do right, it's all about how the recipient of said actions feels!
The problem with the examples you provide, once more, is these people act out of ignorance and misguidance. They convey innate pathological behavior which doesn't coincide with being constructive. These people don't have the capability of realizing their intent completely.
It's like you don't think these examples through. You put pathological behavior in the same category as non-pathological behavior and think you can make conclusions on picking examples from the former subset?
Why don't we also add mentally ill people that run from imaginary things and kill people in the process to "help them escape the darkness" to your examples so that intent is even less usable, ok?
Every interaction comes from two sides. The intent is everything. If you say something which is not meant as an insult, but is seen as an insult, then it's the job of the person that took it the wrong way to bounce that back and then make the person realize it wasn't meant that way. That's how a constructive feedback loop can be created and both parties come with a consensus. That's how you avoid a misunderstanding. Most people are capable of this. But the overly touchy "i feel insulted for the smallest whatever" crowd, seems to have forgotten this.
Again, you seem to use the word insulted for such a broad spectrum of things. Your final examples is dissatisfaction with the working environment. How does that equate to being insulted? They're insulted that they have to work in these kinds of conditions? Well, then you can use that as a synonymous with everything. I'm insulted by that my body is too tired and my brain too void of motivation so that I can work out! I'm insulted by the fact my baker ran out of brown bread! I'm insulted that it's raining so I'm getting wet when walking to the store, fuck that sky!
For you to believe that ideas and goals different from your own must pathological is puzzling and deeply troubling. People have different ideas on what their intentions are. If you make the mistake of hurting others--it is up to you to learn from your mistake and not make the same one again unless you believe the pain you are causing them is worth the results of your infliction.
You can definitely be insulted by anything. Depending how shallow and thin skinned you are. Heck, you're currently having an argument with someone online just because he is pointing out that meaning well means jack shit when you're hurting people.
|
But I'm not insulted. I'm just not agreeing. I'm having a (hopefully) constructive discussion with you. There's a difference.
I'm saying there's a difference between people that have a grasp on reality with ideas and goals different than mine and there's people who don't, who are incapable of discerning what's good for other people or even themselves. You have provided examples of the latter group, without providing examples of the former group.
Is it wrong to make your son or your friend go through agonizing pain so he can get rid of his drug addiction? Is it worth it?
Mistakes are only made when intent had the wrong content. If your intent is to hurt people and that's what it does, why should you want to change that? If your intent, however, was to be nice, but you've actually said/done something hurtful, it shouldn't be met with hostility, but a way so the person given the wrong intent can learn. Like you said. But intent is still the primary cause of action, not how it's interpreted. People can actually discern that something with good intentions, even with the action should normally be insulting, was meant with good intentions. So they say that: hey, you can't say/do that because point a), b), c), ... and then the initiator gets to learn from his mistakes. If the person doesn't learn, then it's his own fault for being stubborn or incapable of doing so.
|
On May 19 2017 08:33 Uldridge wrote:
But I'm not insulted. I'm just not agreeing. I'm having a (hopefully) constructive discussion with you. There's a difference.
I'm saying there's a difference between people that have a grasp on reality with ideas and goals different than mine and there's people who don't, who are incapable of discerning what's good for other people or even themselves. You have provided examples of the latter group, without providing examples of the former group.
Is it wrong to make your son or your friend go through agonizing pain so he can get rid of his drug addiction? Is it worth it?
Mistakes are only made when intent had the wrong content. If your intent is to hurt people and that's what it does, why should you want to change that? If your intent, however, was to be nice, but you've actually said/done something hurtful, it shouldn't be met with hostility, but a way so the person given the wrong intent can learn. Like you said. But intent is still the primary cause of action, not how it's interpreted. People can actually discern that something with good intentions, even with the action should normally be insulting, was meant with good intentions. So they say that: hey, you can't say/do that because point a), b), c), ... and then the initiator gets to learn from his mistakes. If the person doesn't learn, then it's his own fault for being stubborn or incapable of doing so.
That's actually the opposite of what happens in real life.
In real life the manager makes a sexist joke, the new employee is afraid to rock the boat so he laughs along despite being insulted.
In real life the teacher uses God as examples of good things happening with phrases like "thank god for ___" and atheists just tell themselves "he meant in general, don't want to argue with my teacher for something that doesn't really affect me"
When you hurt someone, it is up to you to apologize and ask how to best do it instead. Period, end of story.
If you call your black friend a Nigger and it insults him--it is not his responsibility to baby you like he's somehow responsible for your thoughts and beliefs. It's up to you to apologize to him and ask how to better yourself.
|
Manager and teacher: positions of power, what another good example! Of course I can see here that's it's the opposite.
You actually think that using God in an entrenched saying will insult atheists?
Letting someone know what's up because of your ignorance is not babying someone, it's helping them understand/expand their world view. You learn something by doing the wrong thing.
Your last example is fine, but I'm wondering how this would work. You call your black friend nigger and he does what? Yes, he reacts on that content. He won't be pleased if he doesn't like you using that word in that/any context. So that reaction already gives you feedback. This person doesn't have to be insulted for you to learn/apologize for using that kind of language. And it's certainly not babying someone. And he's certainly not responsible for your thoughts, where do you pull that out from. But he can help you shape your worldview for the better depending on how he reacts and if you're understanding enough of interpreting his reaction.
He could even do it with just body language and you'd be able to gauge that it's not okay to say nigger. That is feedback. Did he baby you? No, but there was some form of interaction nonetheless. I don't understand how you think I presume that the black man needs to sit the white man down for a serious lecture on why he can't say the n-word. That's unrealistic.
Again. You can choose to be insulted by ignorance, or you can lend towards being constructive. I opt for the latter.
|
In theory that is how it should always work. But there shouldn't be an exception that someone needs to run the full break down of why BLANK thing was not ok and offended them. They shouldn't have to convince the other party or meet the other parties burden of proof. If the discussion is in good faith and both parties value each other, a simple "that was not cool/ok/funny" should be more than sufficient to justify their offence.
Wolf is right that intent doesn't really matter to the offended party. If some dude comes up and hits on my wife, knowing full well we are married, I can just say "not cool". If that dude asks why he can't compliment my wife, that dude is an asshole.
It is totally fine to fuck up and offend someone. It happens all the time. The response to being told you fucked up is really what matters.
|
Intent should matter because it's part of the surrounding context. It also matters to the person that sends the message. Why does the receiver get the right to completely disregard the intention of the sender when evaluating the content? It's a parameter intrinsically tied to content and the surrounding context.
|
On May 19 2017 09:00 Uldridge wrote:
Manager and teacher: positions of power, what another good example! Of course I can see here that's it's the opposite.
You actually think that using God in an entrenched saying will insult atheists?
Letting someone know what's up because of your ignorance is not babying someone, it's helping them understand/expand their world view. You learn something by doing the wrong thing.
Your last example is fine, but I'm wondering how this would work. You call your black friend nigger and he does what? Yes, he reacts on that content. He won't be pleased if he doesn't like you using that word in that/any context. So that reaction already gives you feedback. This person doesn't have to be insulted for you to learn/apologize for using that kind of language. And it's certainly not babying someone. And he's certainly not responsible for your thoughts, where do you pull that out from. But he can help you shape your worldview for the better depending on how he reacts and if you're understanding enough of interpreting his reaction.
He could even do it with just body language and you'd be able to gauge that it's not okay to say nigger. That is feedback. Did he baby you? No, but there was some form of interaction nonetheless. I don't understand how you think I presume that the black man needs to sit the white man down for a serious lecture on why he can't say the n-word. That's unrealistic.
Again. You can choose to be insulted by ignorance, or you can lend towards being constructive. I opt for the latter.
No one chooses to be insulted. They simply are or they aren't. If they have become insulted by what you said or did--then you have insulted them. There is no minimum requirement to the exchange, no level of pain, intent, or anything.
If the person who you insulted does not say anything and you simply go on being an asshole for the rest of your life--then you're simply the asshole waiting for others to tell them how to act like a decent human being before taking their own initiative in learning how to treat others.
As Planxis said, if you fuck up then you fuck up. you don't need to wait for people you hurt to tell you when something is wrong or not, many ways to teach yourself about other cultures, your culture, your history, the history of others in order to become a better and more whole person. If you're only going to learn to be a better person after the fuck up then it reeks of white privilege.
|
On May 19 2017 09:27 Uldridge wrote:
Intent should matter because it's part of the surrounding context. It also matters to the person that sends the message. Why does the receiver get the right to completely disregard the intention of the sender when evaluating the content? It's a parameter intrinsically tied to content and the surrounding context.
Why does the sender have the right to complete disregard the feelings of the receiver because they feel the context was acceptable? Is that how we have respectful, civil discourse, but forcing the offended party to justify their offence at all times? Can you claim to respect someone, but then say their feelings don't matter? How can that be considered a good faith discussion when one side wants to disregard a fundamental part of the other persons humanity?
|
On May 19 2017 09:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
No one chooses to be insulted. They simply are or they aren't. If they have become insulted by what you said or did--then you have insulted them. There is no minimum requirement to the exchange, no level of pain, intent, or anything.
If the person who you insulted does not say anything and you simply go on being an asshole for the rest of your life--then you're simply the asshole waiting for others to tell them how to act like a decent human being before taking their own initiative in learning how to treat others.
As Planxis said, if you fuck up then you fuck up. you don't need to wait for people you hurt to tell you when something is wrong or not, many ways to teach yourself about other cultures, your culture, your history, the history of others in order to become a better and more whole person. If you're only going to learn to be a better person after the fuck up then it reeks of white privilege.
No, people have predispositions on how you are as a person before you interact with them. This can skew how they react to you. I do agree that being insulted or not is binary, yes. Of course there is a minimum requirement. What are you even talking about. Facial expression, tone of voice, body language, surroundings, current state of mind all contribute to skew that binary outcome of being insulted or not. The message will of course have the biggest impact, but how and why that message was sent definitely matters. You're making human interaction extremely simplified to fit your narrative.
Sure, if you fuck up and continue to fuck up that's on you to be an asshole. But at some point you'll have cues on you fucking up. How do you learn? Are you going to go learn what's okay to say and what's not from a book before you go out into the world and interact with people? Or are you going to learn what to say and not by interacting with people? Learning about different cultures, amazingly, is best done when experiencing said culture. You pick up extremely fast what's appropriate or not, because humans have this innate ability to understand the surrounding context.
A person should obviously continuously better itself and luckily there's a plethora of choices how to do that. I'm not saying that you should only better yourself after fucking up, but it's one of the possibilities and one certainly shouldn't be chastised for fucking up (depending on the gravity of the fuck up of course) solely on content only. That makes no sense to me.
On May 19 2017 09:34 Plansix wrote:
Why does the sender have the right to complete disregard the feelings of the receiver because they feel the context was acceptable? Is that how we have respectful, civil discourse, but forcing the offended party to justify their offence at all times? Can you claim to respect someone, but then say their feelings don't matter? How can that be considered a good faith discussion when one side wants to disregard a fundamental part of the other persons humanity?
No, but you act out of ignorance regarding that what you send out isn't hurtful by default. It's only after you've sent your message you learn it was hurtful. If you know beforehand it's hurtful, you're not going to use it other than to test the waters in the most risky way possible (to potentially see if they, by any chance, don't feel insulted by that content) or to simply insult them.
Does everyone having every conversation ever regarding potential sensitive issues have to thread on thin ice just because they have to mind potential offense? That seems a very impractical way of interacting to me.
|
If you mess up and say something racist, the first thing you should do is as you are sorry and that you didn't know. If the other person wants to explain it to you, cool. If not, then just roll with it. It isn't the world's job to educate you. Or me. Its not like there aren't a billion books on racism.
As a country white boy from an all white community who moved to the city for a job, I fucked up a lot. I never got yelled for fucking up. But I also didn't demand people explain to me why I was racist. I accepted the fact that was ignorant and needed to educate myself. And no one was going to do that for me.
Edit: It isn't' about thin ice. There is no moment when you become a full blown racist or sexist person. We do racist/sexist things and we own them.
|
I will clarify myself again, because it seems you've not read what I've previously typed. You know you fucked up. But how? Demeanor changes, the mood of the conversation changes, the reaction is not pleasant. That's enough to educate you. I'm not saying they have to literally sit you down and give you a lecture on why it's bad to use certain words. If you're a capable human being you should be able to understand that from the reaction. So I guess I agree on that.
|
I personally have never been confused by how I fucked. It was normally the last thing that came out of my mouth. And people will normally answer the question for you. The problem is that shitty people want to prove they are "not a racist/sexist" and then demand proof what they said was bad. Or attempt to offload responsibility for their actions by saying the other side "took offence" or "got offended".
|
Sometimes you also won't find out. Sometimes the recipient is tired of hearing it for millionth time and would rather walk away. Sometimes the reason you saw messed up shit is because you are part of the hierarchy that produces that fucked up shit and your victims either remain silent or just keep away from you.
The only real way to know is to research on your own and grow as a person.
|
In what context are you talking about victims here precisely?
And researching on your own for general stuff is general. This information can't be pinned down to every single person. Social interaction depends on context. But research is a very good rule of thumb nonetheless.
|
On May 19 2017 10:11 Uldridge wrote:
In what context are you talking about victims here precisely?
And researching on your own for general stuff is general. This information can't be pinned down to every single person. Social interaction depends on context. But research is a very good rule of thumb nonetheless.
Lets take it a step back then.
Every single person in the history of existence will at some point or another say or do or express something that is insulting to the person receiving such information.
That victim might or might not say something back to you about the incident.
You might never know it has happened.
Sometimes, they express something that gives you a clue or message informing you of your wrongs. If they do--apologize, take responsibility for it, and try to learn from it.
If your victims never say anything explicit enough for you to "get" that you were being an ass--simply learning about as many different cultures and traditions as you can and using what you learned at appropriate times can teach you that.
As such, at no point is it the victims responsibility to teach you how to be a better person. You could proactively strive to be a better person knowing that something you say or do could be hurtful to others at some point.
HOWEVER
That is assuming your goal is to not hurt them. There are opinions and ideas that can be considered dangerous to some. For example--as a person of color race issues bother me a lot, and racist opinions bother me a tonne. So when I learn that someone has those opinions--I feel okay engaging with them in a way that does not always produce the friendliest results, and sometimes the things I saw might even insult them. Such as if I tell them they are racist.
In every human interaction there is a chance you can hurt others with what you say, and at each juncture you are able to make the decision to be okay with insulting them or not.
When I meet new people, I try to be as status quo as I can in the hopes to find a common ground with them before I run my mouth. I could still fail at being nice, I could still say something insulting--but that is an issue of my ignorance and not their thickness of skin. When I am more comfortable with people, I am more fast and loose with what I say, knowing they better understand the context of my actions. But, the goal with strangers is always to find a commonality first and generalizations second.
And even then I could still say the wrong thing. One should never be afraid to say the wrong thing, being uneducated in another person's realities easy to be and hard to resolve. Accept your mistake and try better the next time.
But if the person has to be talked to candidly. If the hard conversation has to happen for whatever reason--then accept that you are about to insult or hurt that person and have the hard conversation. Don't be so cowardly to try to make that hard conversation be about how guilty you feel, or how much you'd rather sound like a nice guy--if it has to be done then have it. But if there is no need to hurt the person, don't.
Its that simple.
|
On May 19 2017 10:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Lets take it a step back then.
Every single person in the history of existence will at some point or another say or do or express something that is insulting to the person receiving such information.
That victim might or might not say something back to you about the incident.
You might never know it has happened.
Sometimes, they express something that gives you a clue or message informing you of your wrongs. If they do--apologize, take responsibility for it, and try to learn from it. Sure
If your victims never say anything explicit enough for you to "get" that you were being an ass--simply learning about as many different cultures and traditions as you can and using what you learned at appropriate times can teach you that.
As such, at no point is it the victims responsibility to teach you how to be a better person. You could proactively strive to be a better person knowing that something you say or do could be hurtful to others at some point.
Not every one has the time or the resources or the willingness to find out about as many cultures possible. I don't like how you call people that feel insulted victims. It's extremely blown up for what it is. You have an issue with the content of another human being, that's not what being a victim entails.
HOWEVER + Show Spoiler +That is assuming your goal is to not hurt them. There are opinions and ideas that can be considered dangerous to some. For example--as a person of color race issues bother me a lot, and racist opinions bother me a tonne. So when I learn that someone has those opinions--I feel okay engaging with them in a way that does not always produce the friendliest results, and sometimes the things I saw might even insult them. Such as if I tell them they are racist.
In every human interaction there is a chance you can hurt others with what you say, and at each juncture you are able to make the decision to be okay with insulting them or not. When I meet new people, I try to be as status quo as I can in the hopes to find a common ground with them before I run my mouth. I could still fail at being nice, I could still say something insulting--but that is an issue of my ignorance and not their thickness of skin. When I am more comfortable with people, I am more fast and loose with what I say, knowing they better understand the context of my actions. But, the goal with strangers is always to find a commonality first and generalizations second.
+ Show Spoiler +And even then I could still say the wrong thing. One should never be afraid to say the wrong thing, being uneducated in another person's realities easy to be and hard to resolve. Accept your mistake and try better the next time.
But if the person has to be talked to candidly. If the hard conversation has to happen for whatever reason--then accept that you are about to insult or hurt that person and have the hard conversation. Don't be so cowardly to try to make that hard conversation be about how guilty you feel, or how much you'd rather sound like a nice guy--if it has to be done then have it. But if there is no need to hurt the person, don't. Its that simple. I don't really think human interaction is that simple and there's a lot more to it than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
