"Relax, it's just a joke."

[Wyote]

Yes and no.

no and yes
maybe and maybe
(lol)

 

[Wyote]

I'm saying control your reaction to your emotions.

I'm saying control what you do with your emotions... Or what you chose not to do.

I didn't realize this was such a radical idea.

In an age where being offended gets you social clout, being unoffended is a radical idea

 

[Ginny]

I feel like I'm being misunderstood.
I'm not saying don't have emotions.
I'm not even saying control your emotions.

I'm saying control your reaction to your emotions.

I'm saying control what you do with your emotions... Or what you chose not to do.

I didn't realize this was such a radical idea.

Maybe it's what you wanted to say, but not what you put out there.

Besides, you're saying it like it's easy. Perhaps as an Fi-dom it is, I don't know. But you've certainly played down the effort and the potentially crippling effect of dealing with emotions in such a way, including effect it'd have on society if everyone acted that way. It's not radical as much as it is easily mistaken for a lack of control and misattributed. I have seen people, even just on the forum, that claimed to be in control of their emotions while acting out in a fashion that exemplified just how much their emotions controlled their behaviour.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I have seen people, even just on the forum, that claimed to be in control of their emotions while acting out in a fashion that exemplified just how much their emotions controlled their behaviour.

Yeah, the risk of unconscious displacement of emotions is there (though I'm not referring to the forum context, just in general).

We must accept our human limitations sometimes. You might be able to ignore the cortisol pumping through your veins, but it's still there.

Feeling composed? Then where did that weird rash come from? Why are you eating so much? Why are you getting injured in the gym? Why are you engaging in ego-boosting behaviours elsewhere?


P.S. @slant you are being understood - your position is solid, well-articulated and respectable - but I think we're just taking an interesting tangent here and exploring what this means.

 

[slant]

I'm an INFP

maybe trying to have this conversation with me is what's causing the frustration

Your INXJness and my INFPness

Heh. Pness

Are kinda different.

Y'all want there to be one answer and there isn't

 

[Wyote]

Does being offended really give anyone social clout? If you think so please elaborate because I think the opposite.

Oh definitely. People use their offenses for social positioning all the time. The opposite is also true though, being kind and good natured is also beneficial.
There are many ways to skin a cat.

 

[acd]

Oh definitely. People use their offenses for social positioning all the time. The opposite is also true though, being kind and good natured is also beneficial.
There are many ways to skin a cat.

Because I'm thinking if it this way:

I don't really see how being offended gets clout. people commented that they hid their offense and laughed along just to get along. Being offended is seen as a position of weakness.

Because typically these types of humor target groups with less social clout. So it's interesting that when people start to say, "It's not funny," and then assert themselves that those making jokes act like they are being oppressed... Because these individuals and groups are now gaining clout. So you know what on second thought I think we agree in that people asserting themselves are asserting their own clout or refusing to be offended or labeled as inferior.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

You can intellectualize it as much as you want.

It's the irritating way I roll sometimes, lol.

I see it simply as telling someone they are too sensitive and can't take a joke is what is pretty weak because it takes no responsibility. There's a time and place and audience for being off color. That's the point. When someone actually offends or hurts someone else the problem is just as much theirs. It's not a fault of the harmed party for feeling harmed.

I agree with you, actually, it's just that I don't know how to square that instinct with the 'intellectualizations' of 'it's deliberate', 'it serves a social function', &c.

The other problematic side is that often it's just a clash of incongruent value systems: one guy thinks the other is a lame-ass who can't take a joke; the other thinks he's a weak jerk without self-awareness.

 

[Wyote]

Because I'm thinking if it this way:

I don't really see how being offended gets clout. people commented that they hid their offense and laughed along just to get along. Being offended is seen as a position of weakness.

Because typically these types of humor target groups with less social clout. So it's interesting that when people start to say, "It's not funny," and then assert themselves that those making jokes act like they are being oppressed.

Oh yea, I'm not thinking of this in terms of humor anymore so that's where the confusion is coming from here

 

[Wyote]

Oh yea, I'm not thinking of this in terms of humor anymore so that's where the confusion is coming from here

Thread: Relax, it's just a joke
Wyote: Gets super serious

Typical.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Oh definitely. People use their offenses for social positioning all the time. The opposite is also true though, being kind and good natured is also beneficial.
There are many ways to skin a cat.

Yup.

The weird thing about this discussion though, is that it's literally a popularity contest. There's no 'right answer', because the right answer is what people want, and then consent to. If there's a divide in opinion, then the group will simply split and kick each other out of their respective cliques.

But what's the mechanism for reforging the unitary utopia, and is such a thing even desirable? It seems not, nowadays; people are so attached to their opinions that they forget the value and import of the public forum (not this forum, 'forum' in the ancient sense), and of compromise. Most people don't seem to be democrats at heart, only by convenience.

 

[Ginny]

Most people don't seem to be democrats at heart, only by convenience.

They submit to the system because they were born into it while it was so thoroughly established that it would take I don't know what to change that. And society is more self-focussed than it was ever supportable by evolution.

Just to sum up some points that have already been made

 

[slant]

Oh definitely. People use their offenses for social positioning all the time. The opposite is also true though, being kind and good natured is also beneficial.
There are many ways to skin a cat.

Call out culture

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Do y'all want an obnoxious graph?

Didn't think so.

Here it is anyway:
View attachment 62920
Waning interest drops off the averages, of course, but generally...

Here's what people like:
1) Personal Vulnerability
2) Humour (rejective of opinion/debate)
3) Objective analyses (without opinion/position)

Here's what people don't like:
1) Overt displays of knowledge (i.e. lack of self-awareness)
2) Opinion


In this case, what people approve of seems to be, in general, social harmony - step out too much, reveal a lack of self-awareness (that is, make a cringey post), and people will distance themselves from you (as people will do to this post, lol). People like to agree. People like to be associated with the socially successful. People also appreciate vulnerability and humility.

What's the purpose of this? Well I think taking a meta look at how this social group has organised itself is informative of the discussion. What stuck out to me was really the effectiveness of the rejective position - don't even engage; settle into humility and vulnerability and crack jokes on the sidelines.

So this association also reveals something else. While yes, humour can be used to marginalise individuals within social groups in order to establish hierarchies, and marginalise social groups from general society, it is also the language of weakness and dignity in equal measure. In other words, humour is power, and it can be used by the powerful to oppress, or the weak to assert.

This question, then, seems indivisible from the social positioning of whoever it applies to. If you in some way reject the ability of a person in weakness to joke about something or mock it, you rob them of the only power they might have.Take it away from someone powerful and you weaken them, too. Allow it, give the ability to someone and you empower them. 'Its just a joke, bro, lighten up!' means 'I'm keeping this power, fucker. I make the social rules, it's up to you to conform'. On the other hand, saying 'oh I didn't mean to upset you, sorry about that' means 'I respect you. You're important to me. We'll make the rules together. I'll lay aside this power for you.'

It's not a minor question at all, and I suspect that this is why it's captured the attention of the forum so much. Humour is very serious business, ironically.

 

[Ginny]

Do y'all want an obnoxious graph?

Didn't think so.

Here it is anyway:
View attachment 62920
Waning interest drops off the averages, of course, but generally...

Here's what people like:
1) Personal Vulnerability
2) Humour (rejective of opinion/debate)
3) Objective analyses (without opinion/position)

Here's what people don't like:
1) Overt displays of knowledge (i.e. lack of self-awareness)
2) Opinion


In this case, what people approve of seems to be, in general, social harmony - step out too much, reveal a lack of self-awareness (that is, make a cringey post), and people will distance themselves from you (as people will do to this post, lol). People like to agree. People like to be associated with the socially successful. People also appreciate vulnerability and humility.

What's the purpose of this? Well I think taking a meta look at how this social group has organised itself is informative of the discussion. What stuck out to me was really the effectiveness of the rejective position - don't even engage; settle into humility and vulnerability and crack jokes on the sidelines.

So this association also reveals something else. While yes, humour can be used to marginalise individuals within social groups in order to establish hierarchies, and marginalise social groups from general society, it is also the language of weakness and dignity in equal measure. In other words, humour is power, and it can be used by the powerful to oppress, or the weak to assert.

This question, then, seems indivisible from the social positioning of whoever it applies to. If you in some way reject the ability of a person in weakness to joke about something or mock it, you rob them of the only power they might have.Take it away from someone powerful and you weaken them, too. Allow it, give the ability to someone and you empower them. 'Its just a joke, bro, lighten up!' means 'I'm keeping this power, fucker. I make the social rules, it's up to you to conform'. On the other hand, saying 'oh I didn't mean to upset you, sorry about that' means 'I respect you. You're important to me. We'll make the rules together. I'll lay aside this power for you.'

It's not a minor question at all, and I suspect that this is why it's captured the attention of the forum so much. Humour is very serious business, ironically.

What people like and don't like has changed a lot since I joined, which is not captured in the graph. Mostly because of a change in social dynamics (members leaving, new members joining (each with their own different style of liking) associative fluctuations etc). But it's an interesting first step.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

What people like and don't like has changed a lot since I joined, which is not captured in the graph. Mostly because of a change in social dynamics (members leaving, new members joining (each with their own different style of liking) associative fluctuations etc). But it's an interesting first step.

Oh of course, it's shit data, no doubt. Some people (like me) just blanket like everything because I don't really want to make it a 'signal' of any kind (I don't even have alerts for likes turned on), whereas others join in, lose interest, pick up interest and don't really 'follow' the thread.

It was interesting to go through all the posts, though, and see what people seemed to approve of in the immediate context. E.g. a post that got a handful of likes can precede one that gets a lot, and in those instances it's safe to assume that we're looking at a meaningful indication of community 'approval'.

 

[Rit4lin]

Do y'all want an obnoxious graph?

Didn't think so.

Here it is anyway:
View attachment 62920

@Reason Better watch yo ass boi, I'm coming for you

Spoiler

 

[Deleted member 16771]

@Reason Better watch yo ass boi, I'm coming for you

Spoiler

Oh I love me an INTP deathmatch.

 

[Rit4lin]

Oh I love me an INTP deathmatch.

Oh no not this INTP thing again you'll make me have another existential crisis, you've already asked me what star sign I am what more do you want from me man

 

[Deleted member 16771]

This question, then, seems indivisible from the social positioning of whoever it applies to. If you in some way reject the ability of a person in weakness to joke about something or mock it, you rob them of the only power they might have.Take it away from someone powerful and you weaken them, too. Allow it, give the ability to someone and you empower them. 'Its just a joke, bro, lighten up!' means 'I'm keeping this power, fucker. I make the social rules, it's up to you to conform'. On the other hand, saying 'oh I didn't mean to upset you, sorry about that' means 'I respect you. You're important to me. We'll make the rules together. I'll lay aside this power for you.'

I think I've clarified my own rules here... thanks for the thread, @Odyne!

1) Be cognizant of the relative social status of you (subject; you) and the offending party (object; they), and apply the following calculus:

Positive Affect (i.e. you like them; overwhelming majority of people)
a) You are more powerful + they 'offend' you = wry smile, raised eyebrows; i.e. you let them get away with it; let them tease you.
b) They are more powerful + they 'offend' you = stand your ground, call them out. Do not back down.
c) You are more powerful + you 'offend' them = apologise.
d) They are more powerful + you 'offend' them = 'I was just joking' Not sure about this. I think this is the trickiest dynamic to manage, though the instinct is to want to ensure mutual respect. If they're really that powerful, though, they should be applying rule (a) themselves, unless they're particularly insecure.

Negative Affect (i.e. they're cunts)
The opposite of the above, I suppose.

= The principle that seems to emerge from this is that I want to level all hierarchies within my own social groups. Give the power of humour to my friends, and if there's really anyone I don't like, then I shouldn't be associating with them anyway. Don't entertain frenemies.

I could be argued out of this position, of course.#


P.S. If I end up flowcharting this, I'd be the biggest nerd...