"Relax, it's just a joke."

[Ginny]

I mostly agree with you, I think.

I just get nervous around these types of conversations because I do believe that attempting to protect people from "bad ideas" can result in censorship and when bad ideas are censored they don't go away, they just go underground. But there's definitely a difference between telling someone you don't agree with the message of their joke vs telling them they cannot say it at all.

Could there be some middle ground in "there's a time and a place"?

 

[Lady Jolanda]

I think you might be interested to read about how things have advanced since The Selfish Gene

Oh, it's been ages since I've read that book.

Thank you for this article.

 

[Wyote]

Is it really worth losing a job or respect to tell a zinger?

 

[slant]

Could there be some middle ground in "there's a time and a place"?

Censorship is a tricky thing and can create gradual snowball effects.

This is okay but this isn't.

Now that isn't okay and this also isn't okay and this is.

"
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
Noam Chomsky

 

[Reason]

I remember once in school we were competing to tell the most offensive jokes we could think of. One of my friends make a joke about my mother being dead (this was not terribly long after she passed away) and I was hurt by it.

I let that shit go and we stayed friends. I couldn't imagine going out into the world and banning jokes I dislike. It's just so alien to my inclinations. Also I sometimes glitch peoples' brains with inappropriate jokes, to which they come back with "you wouldn't say that if you've experienced it"

Oh but I have you fool

 

[Ren]

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.

I appreciate your perspective. I also wouldn't want, through the use of 'cold' logical reasoning, to inadvertently undermine the reality of what you have been through and the validity of the way in which you have coped/are coping with it. So here I will make a distinction between two things: personal resilience on the one hand; and justice on the other.

I think the case you make is one of personal resilience, and as such, it is absolutely valid. Its validity comes simply from the fact that this is the path you have chosen as the one that works for you. There is no doubt that it can move and inspire others. At the same time, though, I don't think it is sound to turn this case of personal resilience into one of prescriptive morality.

I think there are two main reasons why. The first is that what works for you may well not work for someone else. People showcase resilience in highly individual ways, as far as I can tell. A believer might find peace in faith in God, although it might be the very same God that would prescribe eternal damnation to their tormentor in the eighth circle of hell. Do I think anybody deserves eternal damnation in hell? No (well, except maybe Satan, though he could be immune to hell.) But that doesn't matter from the perspective of the person who has been wronged, because that is how they find the source of their resilience. And there could be countless other examples as well, wildly different from each other.

The second reason is that, well, like you implied in your post, resilience is a very different kind of thing from justice. Resilience is individual, justice is not. Let me use a thought experiment to illustrate my point. Imagine that someone murders a child, and in the course of their escape, has an accident that causes them brain damage, the result of which is that they become completely incapable of any violent act. Society is safe, they will never hurt anyone again. Should they still be judged and sentenced to years in prison?

I used an extreme example, of course, but this is to highlight that when someone suffers a wrongful act, them showing great resilience over time doesn't make the act any less wrong. This stance does not in any way dehumanize the wrongdoer, by the way. On the contrary, it fully acknowledges their humanity based on the fact that it says "you are a free agent, and yet you still chose to do wrong". It acknowledges their free will, and their ability to change in the future. But for that change to be possible, they must first be judged for what they did, and acknowledge that what they did was wrong.

Wow, that took us far beyond the realm of inappropriate humour, didn't it? But anyway, that is my take

 

[G4RiiM]

I know those as

and

 

[Ren]

Oh but I have you fool

 

[slant]

I appreciate your perspective. I also wouldn't want, through the use of 'cold' logical reasoning, to inadvertently undermine the reality of what you have been through and the validity of the way in which you have coped/are coping with it. So here I will make a distinction between two things: personal resilience on the one hand; and justice on the other.

I think the case you make is one of personal resilience, and as such, it is absolutely valid. Its validity comes simply from the fact that this is the path you have chosen as the one that works for you. There is no doubt that it can move and inspire others. At the same time, though, I don't think it is sound to turn this case of personal resilience into one of prescriptive morality.

I think there are two main reasons why. The first is that what works for you may well not work for someone else. People showcase resilience in highly individual ways, as far as I can tell. A believer might find peace in faith in God, although it might be the very same God that would prescribe eternal damnation to their tormentor in the eighth circle of hell. Do I think anybody deserves eternal damnation in hell? No (well, except maybe Satan, though he could be immune to hell.) But that doesn't matter from the perspective of the person who has been wronged, because that is how they find the source of their resilience. And there could be countless other examples as well, wildly different from each other.

The second reason is that, well, like you implied in your post, resilience is a very different kind of thing from justice. Resilience is individual, justice is not. Let me use a thought experiment to illustrate my point. Imagine that someone murders a child, and in the course of their escape, has an accident that causes them brain damage, the result of which is that they become completely incapable of any violent act. Society is safe, they will never hurt anyone again. Should they still be judged and sentenced to years in prison?

I used an extreme example, of course, but this is to highlight that when someone suffers a wrongful act, them showing great resilience over time doesn't make the act any less wrong. This stance does not in any way dehumanize the wrongdoer, by the way. On the contrary, it fully acknowledges their humanity based on the fact that it says "you are a free agent, and yet you still chose to do wrong". It acknowledges their free will, and their ability to change in the future. But for that change to be possible, they must first be judged for what they did, and acknowledge what they did as wrong.

Wow, that took us far beyond the realm of inappropriate humour, didn't it? But anyway, that is my take

Well reality is subjective so of course what works for me isn't going to work for everyone. That's the beauty is free will and individuality; we all choose what we want to believe.

I don't think what you're saying is in disagreement with what I am saying .

We have the right to act and do what we want, and there can be consequences to those actions.

The moral scenario you gave isn't a good one because how can we know the future? How can we know if someone will or will not hurt again? It makes sense to enforce existing rules and abolish them if they are no longer effective.

I do think if rehabilitation is proven to work, it should be enforced. In much the same way as if someone close to us betrays our trust sometimes we give them a chance to rebuild it. That's a personal decision and there's not a right or wrong way to go about it.

With the social contact we do surrender certain rights we have to preserve the safety of the whole.

I personally just find ideas as not dangerous; actions are. When you criminalize ideas you get into minority report territory.

 

[Reason]

 

[Ginny]

Censorship is a tricky thing and can create gradual snowball effects.

This is okay but this isn't.

Now that isn't okay and this also isn't okay and this is.

"
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
Noam Chomsky

I never used the word censorship nor did I say anything about its use or enforcement.

Like, if I said everything I thought or wanted to say, I would be the weakest shithead, both without a job and a place to call home. I take freedom in restraint for the sake of (mental) health and peace. I can say it elsewhere, to other people, but not always in the very moment that it crosses my mind.

It is right to speak up to the things we aren't okay with. So too when jokes become inappropriate and hurtful, whether intentionally so or not.

Your claims from before do imply a road of censorship for the sake of freedom, which in the end isn't freedom at all because it merely redistributes the rights to speak (up). The way you said (for example) that people should just take what is thrown at them which they react sensitively to, be it because of a clash of values or a past trauma, it may even be detrimental to their healing process to make such demands. Who says that sensitivity must be a weakness, in this time and age or other? In a naturally sensitive person to blunt that sensitivity can be seen as a trauma in itself. I don't have the science to back it up, but it is my intuitive understanding that anything never works the same way with everyone.

 

[slant]

I never used the word censorship nor did I say anything about its use or enforcement.

Like, if I said everything I thought or wanted to say, I would be the weakest shithead, both without a job and a place to call home. I take freedom in restraint for the sake of (mental) health and peace. I can say it elsewhere, to other people, but not always in the very moment that it crosses my mind.

It is right to speak up to the things we aren't okay with. So too when jokes become inappropriate and hurtful, whether intentionally so or not.

Your claims from before do imply a road of censorship for the sake of freedom, which in the end isn't freedom at all because it merely redistributes the rights to speak (up). The way you said (for example) that people should just take what is thrown at them which they react sensitively to, be it because of a clash of values or a past trauma, it may even be detrimental to their healing process to make such demands. Who says that sensitivity must be a weakness, in this time and age or other? In a naturally sensitive person to blunt that sensitivity can be seen as a trauma in itself. I don't have the science to back it up, but it is my intuitive understanding that anything never works the same way with everyone.

It's not sensitivity; it's a decision. A choice .

Someone isn't being "sensitive" or "insensitive". They are making a decision as to how to behave.

I feel an emotion- do I act on my emotion? Do I instead turn my emotion into something else, transform that emotion to be useful to me instead of demanding another person somehow take care of my emotion for me?

No one can make you feel happy.

Only you can.

Likewise no one can make you feel unhappy.

Only you can.

Emotions are just thoughts and we decide how we respond to them.

Nobody should do anything. That's your decision.

What I say and believe is what I believe. You don't have to. I'm just sharing my own unique perspective and what works for me. There's no such thing as a universal truth so all I can do is express what I find to be true and if you like it you can take it, if you don't like it you don't have to take it.

I would question: why is it that you want to say those things and censor yourself instead of saying them? Could it be you don't want to to say those things and we all have intrusive thoughts that we dismiss? We all act with intention and yes, perhaps you have a feeling and let it pass instead of acting on it. That is the point. But if you decide the right thing to do is act on that emotion, you are allowed to do so. Everyone expresses themselves and sometimes they conflict. That is the way of life. Trying to prevent conflict entirely is impossible. Problems are gifts. When presented with something which make you feel certain ways you examine them and decide whether to act or not to act. That is the point.

But as you have that right, others have that right. Sometimes you will be at conflict with another person's view. That's okay and natural.

 

[Reason]

It's not sensitivity; it's a decision. A choice .

Someone isn't being "sensitive" or "insensitive". They are making a decision as to how to behave.

I feel an emotion- do I act on my emotion? Do I instead turn my emotion into something else, transform that emotion to be useful to me instead of demanding another person somehow take care of my emotion for me?

No one can make you feel happy.

Only you can.

Likewise no one can make you feel unhappy.

Only you can.

Emotions are just thoughts and we decide how we respond to them.

Nobody should do anything. That's your decision.

What I say and believe is what I believe. You don't have to. I'm just sharing my own unique perspective and what works for me. There's no such thing as a universal truth so all I can do is express what I find to be true and if you like it you can take it, if you don't like it you don't have to take it.

I would question: why is it that you want to say those things and censor yourself instead of saying them? Could it be you don't want to to say those things and we all have intrusive thoughts that we dismiss? We all act with intention and yes, perhaps you have a feeling and let it pass instead of acting on it. That is the point. But if you decide the right thing to do is act on that emotion, you are allowed to do so. Everyone expresses themselves and sometimes they conflict. That is the way of life. Trying to prevent conflict entirely is impossible. Problems are gifts. When presented with something which make you feel certain ways you examine them and decide whether to act or not to act. That is the point.

But as you have that right, others have that right. Sometimes you will be at conflict with another person's view. That's okay and natural.

Although I don't think you are precisely right I think I understand what you're driving at.

 

[slant]

Although I don't think you are precisely right I think I understand what you're driving at.

No one can be precisely right

That's the point

 

[Ginny]

Emotions are just thoughts and we decide how we respond to them.

Nobody should do anything. That's your decision.

What I say and believe is what I believe. You don't have to. I'm just sharing my own unique perspective and what works for me. There's no such thing as a universal truth so all I can do is express what I find to be true and if you like it you can take it, if you don't like it you don't have to take it.

I would question: why is it that you want to say those things and censor yourself instead of saying them? Could it be you don't want to to say those things and we all have intrusive thoughts that we dismiss? We all act with intention and yes, perhaps you have a feeling and let it pass instead of acting on it. That is the point. But if you decide the right thing to do is act on that emotion, you are allowed to do so. Everyone expresses themselves and sometimes they conflict. That is the way of life. Trying to prevent conflict entirely is impossible. Problems are gifts. When presented with something which make you feel certain ways you examine them and decide whether to act or not to act. That is the point.

But as you have that right, others have that right. Sometimes you will be at conflict with another person's view. That's okay and natural.

I disagree with how you say it, because it conflates things that I see as independent. But I think we are more or less on the same page. However, I don't think that I can make my view clear enough for you to acknowledge, so I'll just leave it be.

 

[Ren]

There's no such thing as a universal truth

1 = 1 seems legit universal to me

 

[Reason]

1 = 1 seems legit universal to me

numbers are a social construct

 

[Ren]

numbers are a social construct

Your face is a social construct

(As far as your current avi is concerned, anyway )

 

[Ren]

Likewise no one can make you feel unhappy.

Only you can.

slant, have you read any Stoic writings?

I think they really resonate with what you are saying. Again, I don't completely agree with everything you say (and I do believe there are universal truths), but there is definitely a lot of useful stuff in what you are saying.

 

[acd]

I never used the word censorship nor did I say anything about its use or enforcement.

Like, if I said everything I thought or wanted to say, I would be the weakest shithead, both without a job and a place to call home. I take freedom in restraint for the sake of (mental) health and peace. I can say it elsewhere, to other people, but not always in the very moment that it crosses my mind.

It is right to speak up to the things we aren't okay with. So too when jokes become inappropriate and hurtful, whether intentionally so or not.

Your claims from before do imply a road of censorship for the sake of freedom, which in the end isn't freedom at all because it merely redistributes the rights to speak (up). The way you said (for example) that people should just take what is thrown at them which they react sensitively to, be it because of a clash of values or a past trauma, it may even be detrimental to their healing process to make such demands. Who says that sensitivity must be a weakness, in this time and age or other? In a naturally sensitive person to blunt that sensitivity can be seen as a trauma in itself. I don't have the science to back it up, but it is my intuitive understanding that anything never works the same way with everyone.

I think this is really well said. I agree.