logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 778

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

And bullies can be pitied.

In can be difficult to pity the bully that is bulling you.

Some of them have really shitty lives, which is sometimes why they end up becoming bullies.

It is not the fault of the bullied that the bullies have really shitty lives.

Plus, kids are stupid and don’t know what they’re doing.

Hence why we have adults to teach them when they do wrong.

It’s best to not hold too much against them.

true, but sometimes what they do can have lasting effects.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The only way to stop a bully is to violently assault the bully.

No, there are other ways. Maybe the strategy Post Praetorian suggests could be employed by those capable of doing it, but not all are good at it. Another way is for those in legitimate authority to stop them(legitimate punishment, etc).

I disagree. Kids don’t listen to authority and authority can’t be everywhere at once. You have to bloody the bully in order to make him go harass someone weaker. It’s unfortunate, but life is pretty unfortunate.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

And bullies can be pitied.

In can be difficult to pity the bully that is bulling you.

Ok.

Some of them have really shitty lives, which is sometimes why they end up becoming bullies.

It is not the fault of the bullied that the bullies have really shitty lives.

Nope.

Plus, kids are stupid and don’t know what they’re doing.

Hence why we have adults to teach them when they do wrong.

Adults are stupid and don’t know what they’re doing. The worst bully I ever had was actually a teacher.

It’s best to not hold too much against them.

true, but sometimes what they do can have lasting effects.

Yeah?

The Person in Question

Author
Time

You have to be careful with violence, mfm, though I agree broadly with requiring a willingness to fight in self defence.

If you fight, you need to be mindful of the possibility of escalation. That is to say, there’s a chance that instead of backing down, your bully may instead begin to fight back even harder. The problem with this, of course, is that you don’t know who’s more willing to do however much harm to the other, and if your opponent ends up more capable than you, it could end badly for you.

That being said, if they’re already in the process of harming you physically, then yeah. Fight back.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

flametitan said:

You have to be careful with violence, mfm, though I agree broadly with requiring a willingness to fight in self defence.

If you fight, you need to be mindful of the possibility of escalation. That is to say, there’s a chance that instead of backing down, your bully may instead begin to fight back even harder. The problem with this, of course, is that you don’t know who’s more willing to do however much harm to the other, and if your opponent ends up more capable than you, it could end badly for you.

Well, then at least you’ve got your pride. You could also attack the bully while he isn’t looking if he’s too strong to take on head to head.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

flametitan said:

You have to be careful with violence, mfm, though I agree broadly with requiring a willingness to fight in self defence.

If you fight, you need to be mindful of the possibility of escalation. That is to say, there’s a chance that instead of backing down, your bully may instead begin to fight back even harder. The problem with this, of course, is that you don’t know who’s more willing to do however much harm to the other, and if your opponent ends up more capable than you, it could end badly for you.

Well, then at you’ve got your pride. You could also attack the bully while he isn’t looking if he’s too strong to take on head to head.

At least in my case, the disparity between myself and my peers in size is enough that even getting the upper hand in a surprise attack would just lead to me being overpowered. Mind, considering the groups I identify with, I’m lucky enough to have only had jeering in elementary school with it dying off for the most part in High school. I dunno if I’d even be here to type this if I had people who were willing to physically harm me…

Author
Time

flametitan said:

moviefreakedmind said:

flametitan said:

You have to be careful with violence, mfm, though I agree broadly with requiring a willingness to fight in self defence.

If you fight, you need to be mindful of the possibility of escalation. That is to say, there’s a chance that instead of backing down, your bully may instead begin to fight back even harder. The problem with this, of course, is that you don’t know who’s more willing to do however much harm to the other, and if your opponent ends up more capable than you, it could end badly for you.

Well, then at you’ve got your pride. You could also attack the bully while he isn’t looking if he’s too strong to take on head to head.

At least in my case, the disparity between myself and my peers in size is enough that even getting the upper hand in a surprise attack would just lead to me being overpowered.

ditto.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

The only person explaining the context of the use here is the person who used it (and is potentially trying to save face). We don’t necessarily have the full picture.

Agree we don’t have the full picture. But the memo we have is from the CEO who fired him, not the person who used the word. And contrary to flametitan’s reading, the use is described as “descriptive” during a meeting on “sensitive” words, for which he was told inappropriate after the fact. Then he used the word again with colleagues when discussing his original use.

It’s obvious to me he wasn’t calling anyone that word.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

flametitan said:

moviefreakedmind said:

flametitan said:

You have to be careful with violence, mfm, though I agree broadly with requiring a willingness to fight in self defence.

If you fight, you need to be mindful of the possibility of escalation. That is to say, there’s a chance that instead of backing down, your bully may instead begin to fight back even harder. The problem with this, of course, is that you don’t know who’s more willing to do however much harm to the other, and if your opponent ends up more capable than you, it could end badly for you.

Well, then at you’ve got your pride. You could also attack the bully while he isn’t looking if he’s too strong to take on head to head.

At least in my case, the disparity between myself and my peers in size is enough that even getting the upper hand in a surprise attack would just lead to me being overpowered.

ditto.

Then pay someone bigger to bloody them.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Some of my biggest regrets regarding my school days was not violently attacking people that deserved it.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

The only person explaining the context of the use here is the person who used it (and is potentially trying to save face). We don’t necessarily have the full picture.

Agree we don’t have the full picture. But the memo we have is from the CEO who fired him, not the person who used the word. And contrary to flametitan’s reading, the use is described as “descriptive” during a meeting on “sensitive” words, for which he was told inappropriate after the fact. Then he used the word again with colleagues when discussing his original use.

It’s obvious to me he wasn’t calling anyone that word.

Obvious he was calling anyone that to their face. Which isn’t the only problematic way to use it. Beyond that we don’t know. Seems weird to pass judgment one way or the other. Entirely possible there were other factors at play too.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

flametitan said:

moviefreakedmind said:

flametitan said:

You have to be careful with violence, mfm, though I agree broadly with requiring a willingness to fight in self defence.

If you fight, you need to be mindful of the possibility of escalation. That is to say, there’s a chance that instead of backing down, your bully may instead begin to fight back even harder. The problem with this, of course, is that you don’t know who’s more willing to do however much harm to the other, and if your opponent ends up more capable than you, it could end badly for you.

Well, then at you’ve got your pride. You could also attack the bully while he isn’t looking if he’s too strong to take on head to head.

At least in my case, the disparity between myself and my peers in size is enough that even getting the upper hand in a surprise attack would just lead to me being overpowered.

ditto.

Then pay someone bigger to bloody them.

what kid would have the money to do that?

Author
Time

It’s all about context and intent and we don’t know either.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

flametitan said:

moviefreakedmind said:

flametitan said:

You have to be careful with violence, mfm, though I agree broadly with requiring a willingness to fight in self defence.

If you fight, you need to be mindful of the possibility of escalation. That is to say, there’s a chance that instead of backing down, your bully may instead begin to fight back even harder. The problem with this, of course, is that you don’t know who’s more willing to do however much harm to the other, and if your opponent ends up more capable than you, it could end badly for you.

Well, then at you’ve got your pride. You could also attack the bully while he isn’t looking if he’s too strong to take on head to head.

At least in my case, the disparity between myself and my peers in size is enough that even getting the upper hand in a surprise attack would just lead to me being overpowered.

ditto.

Then pay someone bigger to bloody them.

what kid would have the money to do that?

All it’d take is a dollar or two probably.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

The only person explaining the context of the use here is the person who used it (and is potentially trying to save face). We don’t necessarily have the full picture.

Agree we don’t have the full picture. But the memo we have is from the CEO who fired him, not the person who used the word. And contrary to flametitan’s reading, the use is described as “descriptive” during a meeting on “sensitive” words, for which he was told inappropriate after the fact. Then he used the word again with colleagues when discussing his original use.

It’s obvious to me he wasn’t calling anyone that word.

We don’t have a transcript, nor do we know how he used the word in that meeting. The memo said he made, “descriptive use of the word,” in a separate paragraph from that detailing the initial event, which doesn’t read as “using the word as an example.” Likewise, the fact that people said “Hey, the way you used it was pretty badly handled,” as stated in the memo, even further implies it wasn’t just used as an example.

Also, considering the second incident was with black employees specifically, not just “colleagues,” I can see how the second incident implied some… lack of awareness, even if it wasn’t directed at them, per se.

It’s impossible to really fall one way or the other on this without further context, but I’m on the side of giving Netflix the benefit of the doubt on the decision.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Saying the “n-word” instead of n_____ when you’re referring to the word is childish and pathetic.

Hard disagree.

Author
Time

Why? I’ve yet to hear a single concrete reason as to why it’s better to substitute something else when we all know what we’re talking about. I––surprisingly, given my thoughts on humanity––tend to give people more credit than to expect them to be shattered by hearing a word even in an appropriate context, but okay with hearing something that refers to that word. Perhaps I shouldn’t though, maybe even that is an unreasonable expectation.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Well since we’re not black I don’t think we should be telling people that it’s ok to use the word.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Why? I’ve yet to hear a single concrete reason as to why it’s better to substitute something else when we all know what we’re talking about. I––surprisingly, given my thoughts on humanity––tend to give people more credit than to expect them to be shattered by hearing a word even in an appropriate context, but okay with hearing something that refers to that word. Perhaps I shouldn’t though, maybe even that is an unreasonable expectation.

Literally the whole point is that it is a word that shouldn’t be said. This isn’t about people are saying “what up my ‘n-word,’” in that case I would agree. It’s not being used as the word itself, it’s being used when talking about it. There’s a distinction.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It’s a word that shouldn’t be used to describe someone. It can be said if it’s being quoted or referred to. Unless of course we’re children that can’t handle hearing a word and need to refer to it with other language.

TV’s Frink said:

Well since we’re not black I don’t think we should be telling people that it’s ok to use the word.

That’s not compelling at all. I actually think it’s not okay to use the word really at all, but it’s not a problem to refer to it when speaking of it. I don’t care what color you are, if you find it less objectionable to here “the n-word” instead of someone just saying it when you’re in a context-appropriate discussion, like in reciting an old book or quoting something or talking about how insulting the word itself is, then you’re being immature and I find your stance obnoxious. I guess this is just one of about a million things that supposedly healthy-minded people agree on that I think is total bullshit, but I’m used to that so I’ll just move on and complain about something else. My feelings apply to any and all other “[insert letter here]-words”.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

Post Praetorian said:

Warbler said:

Post Praetorian said:

It would seem, on the whole, that the longer one allows words to retain negative power, the less progress society seemingly has made in overcoming its past…or, from another view, is not the continued giving to an opponent the absolute power of knowing precisely which words will reduce one to emotional ruin necessarily providing said rival unnecessary strength and credibility at each outcry of its usage? For imagine an instance in which an American at large might be considered to be so emotionally slain by use of some specific epithet (Yankee, or perhaps more considerately phrased as the “Y” word, for instance) that it assumes an overwhelming and unjustifiable weight: would such a society truly be ameliorated by encouraging each successive generation to yet quail at the very nearness of the word so that an opposing nation might use it with impunity and redundancy to detrimental effect? Or might it not be an improved situation to teach, instead of fear, horror, and outrage of the word, the patent absurdity of reacting in any given fashion to any mere arrangement of letters…? For most certainly a word may retain emotional weight, but how is it best to deprive it of same? Is it to encourage all to view it at its greatest weight…consistently and repeatedly underlining its ability to wound and cause irreparable harm…? Or is it perhaps an improvement to strive at all turns to instead merely trivialize those who might consider it to be yet potent in light of today’s more reasonable era?

I’d be interested in hearing you say this to the NAACP and the ensuing conversation.

If said organization is comprised of reasonable individuals with a true aim of overcoming perpetual victim-hood, then would not any such possible conversation be received in a generally positive light?

I don’t think it would be received in a positive light by the NAACP.

To clarify, if a word were to be used against my children that appeared to cause them abject misery due to its ability to recall to them their cultural suffering at the hands of some previous power, it would seem to me to be bad policy to encourage them to feel outrage and to stagger into the field of battle,

If you ask me, it is bad policy for someone to deliberately use a word with the intent of causing them abject misery due the word’s ability to recall cultural suffering.

Is it not equally bad policy for one to steal…?

yes.

And yet who among us would then consider the individual who has left his key in his front door on successive evenings in order to save time to be truly wise?

Somehow, I can’t equate leaving the key in the door with considering the n-word insulting.

Words hurt. We can pretend they don’t, sometimes that may be a good strategy(and some aren’t as good playing it as others), but words can still hurt.

For while it is fair to condemn the aggressor, do not forget that the one over whom one actually has reasonable control is oneself in a general sense. The advice is provided in order to alleviate the potential for shots fired to find their mark…for is not a soldier who is given armour in a better position to resist the piercing of an arrow than is one given only the advice to shout repeatedly at the enemy to cease firing…?

One can condemn the aggressor and give the advice you suggest.

One can give the soldier armor and give the soldier a gun to shoot the guy firing at him.

already so wounded, demanding an apology (thereby greatly exaggerating the hurt being afflicted and thereby delivering themselves directly into the power of the bully at hand)

I see nothing wrong with demanding an apology from someone that tries to insult you(to be clear, I am not saying that is was the guy from netflix did).

Which is the stronger position:

  1. To demand an apology by admitting what was said was indeed hurtful, explaining both the depth of the wound and its long-lasting effect?

  2. Or to look up in amusement/surprise/disappointment at the would-be assailant and shake one’s head at the futility of the attack?

I don’t know, maybe #2 but I still think the person is entitled to an apology.

In which instance has the assailant most properly landed his attack? In which instance does the victim remain so? In which instance has the assailant been affirmed in his/her position of strength? In which instance have all other would-be assailants learned any form of lesson?

Sometimes assailants can learn from being punished.

…it would seem instead a more plausible escape from the past to derail the significance of the word itself and to teach my children to laugh at each and every instance of same…stripping it of its power, removing any desire for an opponent to use it for fear that they will merely be laughed at and labeled a fool rather than being labeled a victor over another’s emotional stability…

I also think the bully/name caller should be taught a lesson too.

Agreed…yet what should that lesson properly contain? Is the bully to be affirmed in his position of dominance?

If I had had the ability, I would have kicked the bullies’ asses. If I had been able to do, I don’t think they would have been able to maintain a position of dominance afterwards.

Or is he to be instead ridiculed for his provable lack of power?

I sucked at trying the strategy you suggest.

For in an instance in which a bully might truly hate enough to call out a racial slur, expecting a given reaction and thereby reaffirming his sense of dominance, in which instance is his supposed superiority more clearly underlined? In a situation in which his words wound, or in one in which they fall flat?

What about a situation where the bully gets his teeth broken? What about a situation where those in the authority properly punish the bully?

I get kind of upset when we concentrate on how the bullied should react to the bully and as opposed to how the bully should have acted in the first place. To be clear I get upset, because I was once the bullied and instead of just simply stopping the bullies the punishing them, it seems like they wanted to concentrate more on how I reacted to them.

It is understood that those who have been bullied would have the experience and qualification to offer true empathy to any other perceived victims…yet if one knew that a bully thrived on achieving a given reaction from his victims, would one not at least caution them to avoid providing that off which their oppressor is logically feeding?

Sure one could caution the bullied, but one can all punish the bully(or kick his ass)

For even though a response from all by-standers to act in support of the victims by turning bully to the bully at each perceived instance is indeed one measure of a solution, is not an improved version one in which the victims themselves simply cease to be so permanently…?

Like I said, I sucked at ceasing on my own. And again words hurt.

For me the only way the bullying would have stopped if the adults around me had stopped the bullies.

For in which instance is the lie of the bully more glaring and obvious? The one in which the victims might yet act wounded and defeated, whilst outwardly protected by their allies…or the one in which they might find the bully to be merely an object of pity rather than that of oppression?

  1. I was never able to pity those that bullied me. I just couldn’t.
  2. I don’t know which would have made the lie of the bully more glaring and obvious. I just know the bully shouldn’t be bullying and when he does he should be punished(or have his ass kicked).

Far be it for one to convene upon another a style of defense with which they (the other) have had personal experience attempting and with which they have tasted failure…ultimately experience will color any consideration against the veracity of the initial statement made, and subsequently expanded upon, which was primarily that words have only the power they have–including the potential to cause harm–solely if both sides agree to same. Should the aggrieved party cease to believe in such a power, any usage of said word necessarily falls short of its goal of causing harm.

If such may be agreed to be the case, it certainly seems justifiable to encourage would-be victims to reject further victim-hood by simply denying the word its power…rather than by ramping up the same word’s potential for harm by further attaching to it any credible level of severity and seriousness by generating a societal furor at each and every use.

For it is certainly true that an individual calling his neighbour a word not yet in the common vernacular will achieve little more than a curious stare at present…yet were the result of him so doing a media circus and loss of livelihood at every possible utterance of same (as well as a total and complete public shaming accompanied with outraged demands for an apology) what would society itself have taught both the perpetrator and the intended victim with regards to the power of such a word? Has it become more powerful or less so? Has society advanced towards a goal of growing beyond petty insults or has it further entrenched itself towards their accepted credibility? Has it assisted in dissuading others that such an insult may only be considered mindlessly petty, or has it shown them the power they might yet wield over any potential neighbours who may be considered to fit the profile…?

I shall leave to you the last word on this subject, as your thoughtful responses generally provide some fairly interesting insights which bear reasonable consideration…

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Remember when Kendrick Lamar, who I guess is what passes for a musician these days,

LOL

I genuinely expected better from you. But I guess I can’t say that I’m surprised.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Never heard his music, so I can only guess. And since I hate pretty much all popular music these days (that I’ve heard) I tend to lean towards the expectation that I won’t like it.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

And who cares what you expect from me? I don’t know why anyone would expect anything positive from me. Anyone who expects anything more than failure and embarrassment from me needs to lower their expectations.

The Person in Question