Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Relationships and Sociology' started by Odyne, Jan 30, 2020.
Fuck all yall bitches! j/k Love Fam! ❤ duck bitch. don't get cut in half by my death rays of love
Also, Could I suggest that if you find yourself being offended by something someone has said, you take accountability for your own feelings and deal with them constructively on your own? Redirect the energy. I know we some always do this like I got mad at somebody for calling me dear in a thread but then we smoothed that over. But if you can when you're offended just figure out why, deal with the emotion, move on. What is the point of holding onto negative feelings? Not good for the body. We can experience them but then we must get rid of them by funnelling them into something like exercise or art, or simply letting them go. Don't look for healing at the feet of those who broke you. Even if someone said or did something wrong to you, you have to understand everyone is doing their best to be happy therefore from their perspective they did what was right. Maybe you disagree. But was the severity of the hurt enough that you feel you need to expel your own energy to change it? If you live that way you're going to be very disappointed, because you can't control other people's behavior. You can't make someone explain themselves or apologize. Sometimes people will. Other times they won't. We have to accept everyone's individuality- and some people use jokes to diffuse tension and tragedy instead of though somber tears. On average, the human brain will only experience a single feeling for six seconds. However if you continue to think about the emotion that will prolong it. We chose to dwell on things, to focus on our hurts, rather than to purposefully direct your thought. Thoughts aren't real. They're just thoughts, they go away, you can change them, you can reject thoughts too. Many people who find they are easily upset should likely look into cognitive behavioral therapy, it will really help you to temper emotions so that they don't control you anymore. Don't LET other people occupy your headspace. If you find someone else's words in there, kick them out and replace it with your own thoughts. We all have that power.
One trouble point: it is more difficult online to differentiate when a person is acting in good faith or not Supporting this infrastructure and bringing awareness to those who are/aren't acting in good faith will build a community which is more tolerant of humor/more understanding of others
Lol, this is hilariously nonsensical
even if it's nonsensical to you I still got love for you
Yeah, I disagree. I actually think this idea is not only wrong, but dangerous. I'll explain more later.
There are a lot of great thoughts here, and some impressive analyses (you know who you are), but I just wanted to pick up on this: I think you're right here, John, and what's more I think that it's a natural human instinct to behave in such ways ingrained on the level of Darwinian group selection and even scales of selection above that. Ingroups and outgroups are constantly forming and reforming driven by selective pressures which at bottom have evolved to ensure the general fitness of the group as a whole. These eusocial mechanisms of group selection determine who is 'fit' and 'capable' enough to add to the capacity of the group's survival, and on the contrary who is 'weak' enough that group fitness might be harmed by their presence. In this case, humour is used as a tool to gauge intelligence as well as the skills required to promote social cohesion, much like its role in individual sexual selection. What I find fascinating is how this interacts with other mechanisms of social network polarisation, and particular the almost automatic process whereby 'unitary utopias' are split into 'bipolar states' (these are the only two 'balanced' states of social networks, after the work of Fritz Heider and Harary & Cartwright). Almost every idea/opinion/&c. is drawn into the process of polarisation through oppositional mechanisms of value attribution, even the most seemingly irrelevant things, and the process seems to be, on the whole, generally irreversible. It might even be (probably is) another selective mechanism: split, conflict and conquer; split, conflict and conquer, cycling through unitary state > bipolar states > creative destruction > unitary state. In such ways does the group apply selective pressure to itself and increases its general fitness within the overall environment. There aren't many social or eusocial species who don't do this, and of course those that wouldn't would eventually perish to external (extra-species) threats. The interesting interplay here is that there's a conflict between the lower-level individual and group selective uses of humour and the general state of social-network polarisation today in the West, with this question of 'offensiveness' being held in polar tension between Right and Left. Ten or twenty years ago, 'poltical correctness' was more firmly a feature of the Left, and political incorrectness of the Right (though its been changing hands regularly for God knows how long - it's not a new concept by any means), though it's not as clear today. The problem (and the conflict between selective mechanisms at different levels of the social structure) is that once you're polarised into the side that's currently associated with 'political correctness', then your lower-level individual/sexual and group selective fitness will start to be harmed. There's a tension there which will probably only be resolved with the marginalisation and elimination of the 'sub-clique' of SJWs from the Left more generally (since tripolar states are 'unbalanced' and hence unstable) - their prominence in the media isn't a sign of their cultural triumph or ascendancy, but quite the opposite. It's a sign of their differentiation from the more general 'Left' clique under which they previously subsisted, and the fact that the mechanisms of bipolarisation are kicking them out of the bipolar structure as a whole. 'SJW's as a phenomenon won't survive the next fifteen years as a serious political force. After that, the situation will revert to the Right being associated with being offended more generally, and the Left resuming its 'irreverence' (until it flips again).
@slant I agree that in certain cases people wrong us unintentionally, having actually meant well. I also agree that depending on the situation, it might be more beneficial to move on and redirect our energies elsewhere. But there are also limitless numbers of cases where the wrong perpetrated was intentional and not at all guided by an idea of “doing the right thing”. People are unfortunately capable of doing terrible things to others, and in those cases it is absolutely vital not to legitimize the actions of the wrongdoer. Otherwise it is an open door to all kinds of unnameable abuse and cruelty. I don’t think you disagree with this. Once again it all depends on the nature of the act. And it is true that in order to get to the nature of the act we sometimes have to regain control of our emotions first.
Just on this point, I'm currently interested again in the evolutionary model (in my work) - it's partly why I talk about what I do in the video I made for my new blog - and particularly the development of 'cultural evolution' as a field; a field which uses the evolutionary model as an integrative framework for the social sciences and the humanities (personally, though, you know that I'm building something which I think is more fundamental and appropriate to do this: an aetiological framework). Alex Mesoudi has made it his life's work to push this view, and I think you might be interested to read about how things have advanced since The Selfish Gene (which is to say that memetics - or the more general epidemiological model of idea transmission advanced by Alvin Goldman and those guys under the label of 'memetics' - gets a lot of things wrong about cultural evolution). I'll attach an article.
Even in the worst situations when we have acted and done what we could do about the situation it's most beneficial to let it go. For example, I was raped, and because it was a date rape the attitude in Utah is that the prosecutor won't take those cases because it's considered a "he said she said" situation which likely wouldn't win. That is the reality. It doesn't really matter if that was right or wrong; I cannot force the prosecutor to file charges. Secondly, I reported it so the police now have a record to create a case if he continues to do this. Some wounds are deeper so they take longer to move on from. But you must move on. You can't hold on to those things. And it really isn't healthy to villainize people who do wrong. This person who did that to me may be dangerous because of his behavior, but it doesn't make him inferior to me or some inhuman entity. People are people and the fact with trauma is that it is a chain reaction; someone learns abuse so they reenact it, We have a choice in our actions and if we chose to play out our trauma there's consequences. But as part of taking accountability for ourselves, we take accountability for our reaction to our trauma and hurt. Including how we react to those who hurt us whether it is right or wrong. Many people react to hurt by wanting to cause hurt back and label it as "Justice". There is a difference between necessary intervention and what we do just to make ourselves feel better.
TL;DR - Be Alt Right, make INFJs funny again
How bout people stop telling people how they should feel or respond? Just because it wouldn't bother you or you think you can take a joke doesn't mean it should not bother someone else. But good for you I guess. You can't dictate how someone should or will respond to their own trauma either. All anyone can do is not be a jackass and know your audience. If you screw up and hurt someone accept that YOU screwed up and apologize and then stop it. Don't try to make it into the other party is too sensitive. And I guess I'm talking about making edgy jokes TO or maybe around someone who might take offense. Joke like that with close friends who get it. But it's stupid to do it around anyone who can take it wrong.
Personally, I found rebellious mindsets have most potential to be funny. It's the only thing so far with any permanence. Politics be damned, as it always has been
Fascinating and profound Hos. While your analysis runs outside my competence to really reply from a similar depth of knowledge of the field, my gut tells me that this is very much what structures the changes to the components of our cultures - and of course as a side effect, it determines how different parts of our communities evaluate the acceptability of the way humour is used. As I said quite a long time ago now, I'm really intrigued by the idea that your own work is contributing to the possibility of a real equivalent of Asimov's psychohistory - the possibility of analysing, and even predicting the way human societies evolve quantitatively using mathematical modelling based on defined and formalised social laws akin to those in hard science.
It's easier to be a rebel than it is to own up to wrongdoings, so people travel that path more often to avoid accountability. But you're right tho. Be a rebel, in good faith.
It depends how far you take it. You can be a rebel to your rebelliousness and defy the system within its own rights. It's the Loki way
Is there ever a time when someone truly is too sensitive and telling them to develop a thicker skin is good and necessary advice? Looking at this from another side, the unfortunate reality is that we live in a world populated and run by humans. And humans are selfish, violent, envious, duplicitous, power seeking, irrational and possessed by their own insane beliefs -- and as such, there's an undercurrent of that in our institutions and almost any social situation we encounter. We've learned to be civilized and crush it down until it becomes a shadow self, but it is absolutely there and drives us more often than we care to admit. When you have individuals who are so sensitive to anything with the slightest tone of aggression or teasing that they become immobilized, I can't fathom how they'll ever be successful in a career, mate selection, LTR's or really even building any kind of stable life at all which is often fraught with the brutal realities of human nature. Frankly, they often don't (IME) which is why I mentioned a loose correlation between those who are most vocal about how they've been aggressed upon and those who have isolated, unhappy lives (and are often vocal about that, too). At some point, it has to stop being about the rest of the world changing and more about that person getting help or at least attempting to meet in a newly defined middle. It doesn't mean their feelings are invalidated, it means they need to develop an ability to cope with unpleasantness as a life skill, fair or not. I don't know where that threshold is, but I am sure it exists.
[ These two sentences are direct contradictions of each other. Are you trying to control other people's behavior or not? People are all responsible for their own feelings and emotions and how they choose to act or not act upon them. If you are upset by a joke: that is your choice. Likewise is someone does not apologize for their joke as they do not believe it was offensive, that was their choice. The problem isn't the getting offended, the problem is thinking you can control others actions. It is true that I find it more helpful to let things go. That is my belief as an individual. If you don't like that you have the right to dislike it. You have the right to dislike a joke I tell, just as I have the right to tell it. If you do not want me to tell you not to be hurt, then you likewise cannot tell me to apologise for a joke which made you hurt. That is my choice.
No. I'm talking about taking ownership of screwing up and not making all these statements (not just you specifically) about how being offended means the other person is somehow stunted. If you don't care that you offended someone then fine. But I think all these tldr posts about the other person needing to take a joke to promote personal growth are silly. And they are exactly what OP is about. If you can take a joke then that's great if that's how you deal with it. But some people aren't on that level yet. And them not being on that level doesn't nullify that they were hurt. And I'm not talking about people getting offended by a comedian or something like that. I'm thinking along the lines of someone just saying something shitty and not in context. I'm thinking along the lines of telling racist or sexist jokes at work or in some other inappropriate place. It's just stupid and immature. Is it really worth losing a job or respect to tell a zinger? I'm also not saying certain types of jokes should never be made. I said if you have to make those types of jokes just know your audience. Otherwise don't expect that it's going to be accepted.