Above Political Correctness

[Seil]

What do you think Mr. Carlin? And you, Mr. Rock?

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

The notion that people's immediate emotional responses are actually the result of some sort of conscious decision is really going to need more support before I consider it anything more than a spurious claim. And the notion that this somehow removes blaming is also fairly unbelievable since as OC demonstrates above, it is absolutely about blame, IE, blaming the individual having an offended reaction for that reaction.

It's about sense of agency, not blame.

When you say 'You make me angry' or 'When you do this, it makes me angry', you are eliminating your own sense of agency, your own free will, and giving control of your life to another person. What's more, you're giving it to a person you see as belligerent.

Indeed, this is exactly how trolling works, and why trolling is so obnoxious. It is a bunch of people abusing people's natural tendency to give away their own freedom to others in anger to get them to react in a way that is humorous.

It's not about blaming the injured party or about passive aggressiveness, it's about reestablishing the injured party's sense of agency and teaching them to move through life without being controlled by what other people do to them.

EDIT: I should say, I can certainly see where there is a place for the sort of thing you're talking about, but really, it likewise shouldn't take a lot to see where that sort of thing can easily be used as a shutdown tactic against people's entirely valid reactions to injurious conduct.

Oh, certainly, and it shouldn't be used as such. Indeed, I would argue that if you're calling someone a faggot and that person informs you that they were offended by it, it is you who is in the wrong to tell them to fuck off.

On the other hand, it is entirely not the proper response to this situation to call that person a cock gobbling ass muncher or hit them in the face or whatever. That simply escalates the situation and causes more issues for everyone involved, yourself included, and does absolutely nothing to make that person change their views.

They're an insensitive prick, and your best bets involve either avoiding them or learning to live with it--or, in a situation where you are not given the option of avoiding them, going to the proper authorities (your HR department if it is your boss, etc.)

That's the sense of agency involved here. You don't have to lash out and get all bent out of shape and have a shitty day because someone says something injurious to your person, but you also don't have to just take it. We are adults now, and as adults we have better ways to deal with these issues.

[rpgdemon]

What the heck? He changed suits halfway through that clip.


Edit: Though, I kind of think he has no point at all there, since he's saying that using a label as an insult isn't insulting to the people who were originally labeled as such. I mean, if we started calling people who started silly threads Seils, well... Crap.

[Overcast]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

By your own admission above, you were not asking a sincere question, but rather, were indicating that people who don't share your viewpoint are idiots.

It is specifically that blunt dishonesty and insincerity in your OP that I responded to and objected to.

Again, I really cannot stress enough that by your own words, your intention was to use the posture of "asking questions" to condescend to people who don't share your views, because you consider them idiots.

That being your view, it's fairly amazing that you would then go on to say that I'm obligated to respond to the rest of your post, premised as it is on a false claim.

Okay I'll admit I went about it wrong, I won't admit to it being a false claim, but I will admit to making a stilted claim because I have such a high opinion on my opinion. Really, my bad, but at this point it is a little beyond being able to to go back and edit it. A lot of reads have been done and I think that aside from the bad beginning I did state a fairly natural point in the rest of the post. And really I would like to know your honest opinion on it.

[Nique]

What the heck? He changed suits halfway through that clip.

His DVDs are like that. They just edit them heavily to take the best parts of each show I guess.

I'm not sure I buy into comedians' justification for using offensive terms 100% of the time, even as socially aware as many of them claim to be. But they do make a good point about context.

[Amake]

Yes, it's hard to be conscious of how you speak at all times. It is hard to respect people all the time. But if you like talking to people, then suck it up and apologize when you offend someone and try to learn from it. Try really hard and people may actually like to have you around.

[Seil]

Edit: Though, I kind of think he has no point at all there, since he's saying that using a label as an insult isn't insulting to the people who were originally labeled as such. I mean, if we started calling people who started silly threads Seils, well... Crap.

His DVDs are like that. They just edit them heavily to take the best parts of each show I guess.

I'm not sure I buy into comedians' justification for using offensive terms 100% of the time, even as socially aware as many of them claim to be. But they do make a good point about context.

DVD called 'Kill The Messenger' Wasn't great - normal Chris Rock stuff. He does the same material in Johannesburg, London and Brooklyn, and I guess they took his best set and stuck it on the clips of him in each area.

Yes, it's hard to be conscious of how you speak at all times. It is hard to respect people all the time. But if you like talking to people, then suck it up and apologize when you offend someone and try to learn from it. Try really hard and people may actually like to have you around.

Yes miss, sorry miss, I'll try harder next time miss.

[Premmy]

Originally Posted by Krylo

I

Oh, certainly, and it shouldn't be used as such. Indeed, I would argue that if you're calling someone a faggot and that person informs you that they were offended by it, it is you who is in the wrong to tell them to fuck off.

On the other hand, it is entirely not the proper response to this situation to call that person a cock gobbling ass muncher or hit them in the face or whatever. That simply escalates the situation and causes more issues for everyone involved, yourself included, and does absolutely nothing to make that person change their views.

I feel like there's some math involved. Where if you call me a nigger/faggot and I call you a cock muncher once, You're still in the wrong. But if you call me a nigger/faggot once, and call you a cock muncher once. Leave, come back, do it again, leave come back, and hit you in the nuts, THEN we can talk about how I should react.

And if you go around fucking with people I'm not gonna feel bad for you or pursue the guy/girl who did it with all that much vigor when you get your ass kicked.

[Krylo]

But what if I'm some skinhead packing heat that you didn't see and you kick me in the balls and when I get up I shoot you in the chest? Maybe I have a knife? Maybe I'm just better in a scrap than you and give you a thorough curb stomping?

It's just not a good idea to unnecessarily escalate any situation, even removing the very legal repercussions you could be facing.

[Premmy]

Originally Posted by Krylo

But what if I'm some skinhead packing heat that you didn't see and you kick me in the balls and when I get up I shoot you in the chest?
It's just not a good idea to unnecessarily escalate any situation, even removing the very legal repercussions you could be facing.

This has some bearing on the "Who's the asshole" conversation we're having?
Edit: Basically what you're saying is "people respond to shit"
Whereas this conversation and ANY "Political Correctness" conversation being had ANYWHERE is basically the "who's the bigger asshole" conversation on the part of the initial asshole. And the guy who throws the first punch in a fight is usually in the wrong.