Offensive Behavior

[Hopper]

Ya know, I got to thinkin: There can't be any offense given unless and until there is offense taken (which, in itself doesn't even mean that any offense has actually been given, but it's still taken, so....).

Then I wondered: What kinda candyass drama queen wants to run around taking offense all the time?

See what I'm axxin?


“If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself but to your own estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” (Marcus Arelius)

“He that would be superior to external influences must first become superior to his own passions.” (Samuel Johnson)

 

[moevillini]

Ya know what? Something finally dawned on me that I hadn't thought of before. I'd kinda always placed the responsibility on the person reading the message board - - that if they really objected to what a poster is saying or the way it's said, they should put that poster on their ignore list since that would make the offending posts invisible. I was more of the opinion that the folks who couldn't or wouldn't take that simple action were almost as guilty as the person making the offensive posts. I am generally not in favor of the idea of a "permanent" ban for anyone for any reason.

But, don't ask why it took me five or so years to figure this out, I finally realized that there are plenty of folks who may read the message board who are not actually members, or members who read when they are not logged in, and so there is no recourse for them to avoid something that is patently offensive or that destroys the readability of the board. So now I can somewhat understand why a poster might have to be banned.

It's kinda like I had an epiphany or something.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, aint, but it's the best I can do.

another thing that took me a while to figure out, and I've been keeping this to myself for several years now, but I figure it's time to unload the burden, is that for the first year or two that I was reading jazzfanz (I read for at least a year before I actually joined up) I thought sirkickyass' user name was "stickyass" and I thought somehow all the threads that were labeled "sticky" had something to do with him. It would really puzzle me when there'd be a "sticky" topic that he hadn't even posted in.

yes, I can be slow about some things.

but it feels good to finally get that off my chest.

 

[colton]

There's a a big difference between "offensive" and "offended", which is for some reason often lost by people here. For example, if I see a guy pee on the sidewalk, I am not personally offended by it. However, it is still offensive behavior. So, if/when we tell you to stop your offensive behavior, it does not necessarily mean that people are being offended by your posts.

 

[UB]

Thread FLAGGED for wanton pugilism.

 

[bordelais7]

There's a a big difference between "offensive" and "offended", which is for some reason often lost by people here. For example, if I see a guy pee on the sidewalk, I am not personally offended by it. However, it is still offensive behavior. So, if/when we tell you to stop your offensive behavior, it does not necessarily mean that people are being offended by your posts.

Right. It just means that you're peeing on Jazzfanz. I get it.

 

[YB85]

There's a a big difference between "offensive" and "offended", which is for some reason often lost by people here. For example, if I see a guy pee on the sidewalk, I am not personally offended by it. However, it is still offensive behavior. So, if/when we tell you to stop your offensive behavior, it does not necessarily mean that people are being offended by your posts.

So you saw my "Edward The Vampire is allergic to ******" link as offensive and calijazz was offended by ******. I get it now.

 

[Hopper]

... there are plenty of folks who may read the message board who are not actually members, or members who read when they are not logged in, and so there is no recourse for them to avoid something that is patently offensive or that destroys the readability of the board. So now I can somewhat understand why a poster might have to be banned.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, aint, but it's the best I can do.

I get it, Mo. It all "for the children." Protecting the helpless and all. A parental role. Wasn't really my question--I wasn't talking about why and when people should be banned from a message board, but I guess your response is related, at least indirectly. Thanks for your input.

"“Depend upon it that if a man talks of his misfortunes there is something in them that is not disagreeable to him.” (Samuel Johnson)

 

[Hopper]

I dunno, maybe a lot of kids learn the "power of whining" very early in their lives and are amply rewarded for it by their parents' responses and actions. They can put my older brother in his place right quick, and they will, even if it's just to "keep the peace." I dont have to make any real effort at all. I don't have to resist, mentally or physically. All I gotta do is whine. Purty simple, actually.

Better yet, I can use my power against him offensively. I bait him into something, then go running to complain that he's "picking on me." One minute, there he was, just mindin his own damn bidnizz, not messin with nobuddy, er nuthin. A minute later---WAMMO. He's done got got. Cool!

 

[GVC]

I think this thread serves as permission to kick aint in the nuts if/when any of us meet him.

 

[Hopper]

I think this thread serves as permission to kick aint in the nuts if/when any of us meet him.

Ya think? You don't need permission to try to do that. Just be prepared for the consequences. Weigh it all out, and go for it, Commie.

 

[moevillini]

I get it, Mo. It all "for the children." Protecting the helpless and all. A parental role. Wasn't really my question--I wasn't talking about why and when people should be banned from a message board, but I guess your response is related, at least indirectly. Thanks for your input.

not exactly, it's more like Colton's peeing on the sidewalk comparison. Most folks would rather not see that, adults included. It has nothing to do with "protecting" the children or the helpless - it's just not something our culture is accustomed to, and we'd rather not be put in situations where we have to see it. Therefore, for the most part, it's against the law.

 

[Hopper]

There's a a big difference between "offensive" and "offended", which is for some reason often lost by people here. However, it is still offensive behavior. So, if/when we tell you to stop your offensive behavior, it does not necessarily mean that people are being offended by your posts.

I know what you're trying to say here, Colton, and I don't entirely disagree. But it's a fine line which presupposes some objective standard for "offensive." If, as you suggest, people are not being offended, why in the world would any intervention be required? I see a guy pissin on the sidewalk at night, so what? He's not bothering me or anyone else. Am I supposed to go lecture him and tell him to immediately desist? Who's he hurting? Is there something inherently offensive about taking a piss when you have to?

 

[Hopper]

If the standard simply degenerates to what some person, somewhere (no matter how weak, irrational, defensive and/or improperly motivated that "someone" might be), "might" or "could" be offended by, then God help us. Truly a case of the weakest and most inept ruling and controlling the actions of everyone, a sorry state of affairs. Much of what people claim is "offensive" boils down to wanting to control others and to "enforce" adoption of the complainer's opinions, beliefs, or preferences.

 

[GVC]

If the standard simply degenerates to what some person, somewhere (no matter how weak, irrational, defensive and/or improperly motivated that "someone" might be), "might" or "could" be offended by, then God help us. Truly a case of the weakest and most inept ruling and controlling the actions of everyone, a sorry state of affairs. Much of what people claim is "offensive" boils down to wanting to control others and to "enforce" adoption of that's person's opinions, beliefs, or preferences.

Is the implication here that it can be rational to be offended by hurtful behavior?

 

[moevillini]

There's a a big difference between "offensive" and "offended", which is for some reason often lost by people here. For example, if I see a guy pee on the sidewalk, I am not personally offended by it. However, it is still offensive behavior. So, if/when we tell you to stop your offensive behavior, it does not necessarily mean that people are being offended by your posts.

not exactly, it's more like Colton's peeing on the sidewalk comparison. Most folks would rather not see that, adults included. It has nothing to do with "protecting" the children or the helpless - it's just not something our culture is accustomed to, and we'd rather not be put in situations where we have to see it. Therefore, for the most part, it's against the law.

Is there something inherently offensive about taking a piss when you have to?

Not when it's done in the appropriate place. The community designates certain places as being appropriate for that. If you want to find a community where you can piss on the sidewalk, what's stopping you? But if you're choosing to be a part of a society that frowns upon that sort of thing, don't be surprised when you're punished for it.

Right. It just means that you're peeing on Jazzfanz. I get it.

yes, it seems that way.

 

[Hopper]

Is the implication here that it can be rational to be offended by hurtful behavior?

Well, I dunno exactly what you're asking, Commie. Sure, there are times when people may be openly attacking you and trying to hurt you. In such a case, you defend yourself, whether you are "offended," or not. If I am being deliberately attacked, then, as far as I'm concerned, the behavior is "offensive" toward me, even if it is completely justified. I won't let someone beat on me just because they have decided to attack me, even if they have good grounds for wanting to.

As far as being emotionally damaged or "hurt," what's up with that? You have "hurt my feelings," so....what? You can't be allowed to do that, because my feelings trump all?

 

[GVC]

Not when it's done in the appropriate place. The community designates certain places as being appropriate for that. If you want to find a community where you can piss on the sidewalk, what's stopping you? But if you're choosing to be a part of a society that frowns upon that sort of thing, don't be surprised when you're punished for it.

And? To a point, I'm with aint on this one. If peeing on the sidewalk hurts no one (the overwhelming smell of piss on our streets may actually hurt people), what's the big deal?

 

[GVC]

Well, I dunno exactly what you're asking, Commie. Sure, there are times when people may be openly attacking you and trying to hurt you. In such a case, you defend yourself, whether you are "offended," or not. If I am being deliberately attacked, then, as far as I'm concerned, the behavior is "offensive" toward me, even if it is completely justified. I won't let someone beat on me just because they have decided to attack me, even if they have good grounds for wanting to.

As far as being emotionally damaged or "hurt," what's up with that? You have "hurt my feelings," so....what? You can't be allowed to do that, because my feelings trump all?

What if people are openly trying to hurt others, and you have the ability to intervene for the good of someone else or society as a whole? It seems a pretty reasonable assertion that people are largely motivated by emotion. If they aren't "offended" by hurtful behavior (truly hurtful, like the raping of senior citizens), what will motivate them to try to stop that behavior from continuing?

 

[Hopper]

Not when it's done in the appropriate place.

Well, Mo, I'm not sure if you're missing my point, or simply disagree with it. If no one is being hurt, why should someone be "punished." The fallback on "propriety," and what is claimed to be "appropriate," in the absolute, abstract sense, is one thing I question the legtimacy (but not the commonness) of. Does what is "proper" in any way depend on the cicumstances? Does whatt is "harmful" in any way depend on if anyone is harmed?

 

[Hopper]

What if people are openly trying to hurt others, and you have the ability to intervene for the good of someone else or society as a whole? It seems a pretty reasonable assertion that people are largely motivated by emotion. If they aren't "offended" by hurtful behavior (truly hurtful, like the raping of senior citizens), what will motivate them to try to stop that behavior from continuing?

Again, Commie, I have difficulty in discerning what you are asking, exactly. Should senior citizens (and everyone else, for that matter) be protected from rape, if and when possible? Of course. Your question seems to be--why should anyone care? Of course, people care, and want to prevent that. But I'm talking about this "I'm an emotional cripple and you must therefore respect that and NEVER do anything which would "hurt my feelings" mentally. Not to be confused with physical attacks.