Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Different ways of dealing with things??

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
King Monkey 



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....

PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:29 pm
Post subject: Different ways of dealing with things??Reply with quote

For anyone that is easily offended - that is on behalf of either yourself, or on behalf of others who may or may not be offended themselves - I have a genuine question, (not necessarily specific to this one involving Heritier Lumumba at the moment, or anything to do with Adam Goodes, or any specific incident at all, just a general question):

Wouldn't you rather let someone carry on so you know who you're dealing with, rather than create an environment where people bite their tongues and then talk or act behind closed doors????

_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight."
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 9:09 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

It's an interesting question, KM, and one I'm a bit of a fence-sitter on.

This may surprise you, but very little offends me. I don't think there are any words in the English language that should never be used and I don't think there are any concepts that shouldn't be discussed. I will likely get angry if I see someone being directly humiliated or assaulted, but I expect you'd feel the same.

So, perhaps I'm not who this question is directed to. But I'll do my best to answer it anyway.

In theory, as a general rule, I completely agree with you. I don't think repression does much good. Far better to let people speak their minds and receive critical feedback than make certain topics (and ways of talking about certain topics) taboo.

But free speech has consequences too, and I think certain kinds of speech are illegal for good reason. Like abuse. Or yelling racist insults at people in the street. There, permitting people to do as they please can have more negative consequences than good, and so I think it's right to make that sort of stuff unlawful.

Where's the line, then? I'm not sure, but I'd be inclined to set it pretty high. But that's the law; what about workplace situations? There are things you can do at a nightclub that you can't do in an office, and I think certain forms of speech fall under that category. It's about professionalism, I guess.

As for everyday conversation, it really depends. Sometimes I'd rather pull someone up and tell them what they're saying is unfair or uneducated. Totally depends on my relationship with them and the context of the situation. I'm not sure if there's a definitive rule.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
HAL 

Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.


Joined: 17 Mar 2003


PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 9:14 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

""? Depends on what? Dude!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:35 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

(I haven't followed the recent discussions, so I'm reading between the lines here).

No, you can't really stop people carrying on, but the idea that words are not connected to consequences is makes no sense, and thus you have to consider consequences as part of any related issues.

That is, our intrinsic sense of logical symmetry is not configured to solve every problem in the universe at all times, meaning we also have to factor a knowledge of consequences into our decision making.

And that's why we call a blind commitment to an inherited sense of logical symmetry at the expense of consequences fundamentalism. We get it in politics every bit as much as religion, from far right and far left nonsense, to Libertarianism. Such thought systems—impervious as they are to context—are extremely autistic in character.

Given our limitations we are always holding competing claims in tension, even if we pretend we're being "rational". One such case is where we trade off one aspect of free speech (the right to incite violence and peddle discriminatory memes) for the fundamental rights of safety and fair competition.

And that's a plainly reasonable trade off when you filter in rather than filter out the human context. This is why, say, Ayn Rand might make more sense when you're fleeing communist oppression and less sense if you're living in a stable, wealthy country with strong access rights and protections. (Of course, Ayn Rand might also more sense if you still imagine you're fighting the Cold War even though it's long over Laughing).

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
King Monkey 



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....

PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:49 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Great response! Thanks David.

Question was for anyone really, probably poorly worded at the start to be honest.

I suppose I'm asking whether people want to try and stamp out all kinds of derogatory remarks?, do we stop at racist, mysogynist, homophobic?, only those directed at minority groups?, at the historically oppressed?,is it worse to call someone fat, or ugly, or gay?, blanket ban on offending people? where does the line sit when one feels the need to intervene on another's behalf?
It becomes a bit of a slippery-slope to use a favourite term around here.

The other side of that is to say - there'll always be mean people in this world, some mildly so, some properly mean, there'll be people without tact that don't mean any harm, there'll also be out-and-out c***s...... but there are also ways to deal with adverse situations and difficult people.
Those ways aren't always to ensure they're punished or "educated". Some people will be receptive to attempts at attitude adjustment, but some won't. And some instances warrant a quiet word rather a sledgehammer approach.
To round it off, "better the devil you know".



I was hoping the conversation would eventually steer towards the topic of supporting and teaching resilience to people, young people in particular - over the course of action where someone else comes in waving a big finger to "fix" a problem.
In many cases it can make it worse, and nobody really learns anything new from that outcome.

There are obviously different levels to all this as a broader topic.
This is more about being called something or not feeling great about a comment or a joke, someone says something distasteful at the footy, there's a crude e-mail at work, (to use a few examples) - not about being directly discriminated against in the true sense of the word.

_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight."
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 9:22 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^The technical psychological term you want is "immature defenses". You could conceivably use therapeutic techniques to strengthen people's egos and teach them how to defend themselves productively.

That's not a bad thing in and of itself, obviously; but it might also be the equivalent of forcing people to learn Muay Thai in lieu of you dealing with violent crime.

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
King Monkey 



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....

PostPosted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:27 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

pietillidie wrote:
^The technical psychological term you want is "immature defenses". You could conceivably use therapeutic techniques to strengthen people's egos and teach them how to defend themselves productively.

That's not a bad thing in and of itself, obviously; but it might also be the equivalent of forcing people to learn Muay Thai in lieu of you dealing with violent crime.


No.
In your violent crime analogy - it's more like learning the signs and trying to avoid the violence before it occurs - rather than learn Muay Thai to fight violence with violence.

And "therapeutic techniques to strengthen people's egos", can start with things as simple as encouraging others to include the shy kid in their game of footy or tiggy or marbles.

_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight."
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
King Monkey 



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....

PostPosted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:06 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

pietillidie wrote:
(I haven't followed the recent discussions, so I'm reading between the lines here).

No, you can't really stop people carrying on, but the idea that words are not connected to consequences is makes no sense, and thus you have to consider consequences as part of any related issues.

That is, our intrinsic sense of logical symmetry is not configured to solve every problem in the universe at all times, meaning we also have to factor a knowledge of consequences into our decision making.

And that's why we call a blind commitment to an inherited sense of logical symmetry at the expense of consequences fundamentalism. We get it in politics every bit as much as religion, from far right and far left nonsense, to Libertarianism. Such thought systems—impervious as they are to context—are extremely autistic in character.

Given our limitations we are always holding competing claims in tension, even if we pretend we're being "rational". One such case is where we trade off one aspect of free speech (the right to incite violence and peddle discriminatory memes) for the fundamental rights of safety and fair competition.

And that's a plainly reasonable trade off when you filter in rather than filter out the human context. This is why, say, Ayn Rand might make more sense when you're fleeing communist oppression and less sense if you're living in a stable, wealthy country with strong access rights and protections. (Of course, Ayn Rand might also more sense if you still imagine you're fighting the Cold War even though it's long over Laughing).


I re-read, and I agree with the main point. (Went the long way around to make it though.... Laughing )
Each case needs to be treated on its own merits.
This is true in most facets of life, or how it should be anyway. I can't believe anybody in their right minds would support mandatory sentencing, rendering the surrounding circumstances irrelevant, but that's way off topic.........

The other part - I'm not trying to "defend free speech" as such.
Where I'm coming from, is that the current way of a mob thirsting for blood in naming, shaming, punishing, anyone that says or does something we don't like - fosters a bit of a victim mentality.

I'd prefer to see positive reinforcement, over "let's get the bast**d".
Young people, well, all people that are confused or unsure about who they are - to be encouraged to celebrate their differences, instead of being encouraged to point a finger at that nasty person making them feel sad........

_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight."
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Different ways of dealing with things??Reply with quote

King Monkey wrote:
For anyone that is easily offended - that is on behalf of either yourself, or on behalf of others who may or may not be offended themselves - I have a genuine question, (not necessarily specific to this one involving Heritier Lumumba at the moment, or anything to do with Adam Goodes, or any specific incident at all, just a general question):

Wouldn't you rather let someone carry on so you know who you're dealing with, rather than create an environment where people bite their tongues and then talk or act behind closed doors????


I'm not particularly easy to offend, I'm pretty broad minded, and I think it's fair to say, you know where you stand with me! I was never one to bitch at the school gate, I'd go straight to the principles office! So, yep definitely, carry on, and get over it already!

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 9:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Different ways of dealing with things??Reply with quote

King Monkey wrote:
For anyone that is easily offended - that is on behalf of either yourself, or on behalf of others who may or may not be offended themselves - I have a genuine question, (not necessarily specific to this one involving Heritier Lumumba at the moment, or anything to do with Adam Goodes, or any specific incident at all, just a general question):

Wouldn't you rather let someone carry on so you know who you're dealing with, rather than create an environment where people bite their tongues and then talk or act behind closed doors????


mate, we're all different with different wiring,

I like to know what people are like rather than have them artificially silenced by peer pressure, I'd prefer to know how their heads work.

In a footy club environment, despite popular opinions, I only ever had a handful of mates in a team of 25-30. Again, I'd prefer to have people act naturally so you can see what you're dealing with, and then if necessary put measures in place to deal with ferals,

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 9:41 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

When we assert offence, we are implicitly asserting our right to control the permitted limits of speech, and so asserting that our rights prevail over those of the speaker. I think that's a very serious thing to do, and the burden of proof should be strongly on the offended to show that the intent behind the speech, and/or the consequences of the speech, were so malign that it justifies the curtailment of the rights of the speaker.

Certainly the received offence of a given person or group is way too low a bar for me - there has to be a reasonable person standard in there, somewhere.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:00 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

King Monkey wrote:
pietillidie wrote:
(I haven't followed the recent discussions, so I'm reading between the lines here).

No, you can't really stop people carrying on, but the idea that words are not connected to consequences is makes no sense, and thus you have to consider consequences as part of any related issues.

That is, our intrinsic sense of logical symmetry is not configured to solve every problem in the universe at all times, meaning we also have to factor a knowledge of consequences into our decision making.

And that's why we call a blind commitment to an inherited sense of logical symmetry at the expense of consequences fundamentalism. We get it in politics every bit as much as religion, from far right and far left nonsense, to Libertarianism. Such thought systems—impervious as they are to context—are extremely autistic in character.

Given our limitations we are always holding competing claims in tension, even if we pretend we're being "rational". One such case is where we trade off one aspect of free speech (the right to incite violence and peddle discriminatory memes) for the fundamental rights of safety and fair competition.

And that's a plainly reasonable trade off when you filter in rather than filter out the human context. This is why, say, Ayn Rand might make more sense when you're fleeing communist oppression and less sense if you're living in a stable, wealthy country with strong access rights and protections. (Of course, Ayn Rand might also more sense if you still imagine you're fighting the Cold War even though it's long over Laughing).


I re-read, and I agree with the main point. (Went the long way around to make it though.... Laughing )
Each case needs to be treated on its own merits.
This is true in most facets of life, or how it should be anyway. I can't believe anybody in their right minds would support mandatory sentencing, rendering the surrounding circumstances irrelevant, but that's way off topic.........

The other part - I'm not trying to "defend free speech" as such.
Where I'm coming from, is that the current way of a mob thirsting for blood in naming, shaming, punishing, anyone that says or does something we don't like - fosters a bit of a victim mentality.

I'd prefer to see positive reinforcement, over "let's get the bast**d".
Young people, well, all people that are confused or unsure about who they are - to be encouraged to celebrate their differences, instead of being encouraged to point a finger at that nasty person making them feel sad........

Sorry, I shouldn't post when I'm rushing around; it tends to end up like that! Nonetheless, your example of mandatory sentencing shows you have fine exegetical skills! That's a perfect example.

I'm also with you on the positive reinforcement thing; IMO the moral hectoring is part of a PR overreach (drive the enemy back while we can), and an unfortunate side-effect of the public PR debate game. (Is it the same sort of overreach Israel resorts to when under threat?).

I keep mentioning the biological limits not to make the problem harder, but because I think a lot of people haven't though about "the limits of thought", and thus feel pressured to take sides on issues that probably don't have any sides.

What if a lot of this stuff is like the free will problem; we have the capability to sense the dilemma, but not the capability to resolve it in a way which feels satisfactory?

We need to let people know there's nothing wrong with holding things in tension—an approach which seems to be nearing extinction!

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:59 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump wrote:
When we assert offence, we are implicitly asserting our right to control the permitted limits of speech, and so asserting that our rights prevail over those of the speaker. I think that's a very serious thing to do, and the burden of proof should be strongly on the offended to show that the intent behind the speech, and/or the consequences of the speech, were so malign that it justifies the curtailment of the rights of the speaker.

Certainly the received offence of a given person or group is way too low a bar for me - there has to be a reasonable person standard in there, somewhere.


That's a good point.

It's important, or at least very helpful, for a person to know where there button is on certain subjects, good for your own personal well being to know your hyper sensitive places!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
3.14159 Taurus



Joined: 12 Sep 2009


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 2:59 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 5:19 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

3.14159 wrote:
...


Heh, I posted that too. Doesn't go down well amongst the professionally offended.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group