This topic has been locked by a moderator.
dude, that’s not at all why mfm is so dedicated to the discussion. he’s simply stating that 99% of people have, at some point, laughed at something that could be considered “acting like a dick” to the “offender”. it’s as simple as that.
just watch modern comedy. A lot of times the joke is some guy is acting like a d___. “Curb Your Enthusiasm”?
This is a strange pattern of argument that occurs in the “culture” threads and Star Wars threads.
Person A gives an opinion. Person B calls that opinion irredeemably horrible. Person A explains why that isn’t the case. Person B repeats that it is irredeemably horrible. Person A tries again to get Person B to see some shade of grey. Person B asks why Person A cares so much and is making such a big deal out of it. And all the person did was express an opinion and defend it when challenged. It’s a relentless shaming of Person A that I don’t understand.
If it goes on long enough, someone will declare its all semantics.
I’m glad you’ve pointed this out, because you’ve exposed the real issue at the heart of this.
That’s an overstatement. The mode of discussion doesn’t qualify as the “heart of this.”
Person B is rarely (if ever at all) saying something is “irredeemably horrible.” It’s almost always just Person A overreacting and assuming they are.
To be precise about this case, it was a series of snarky and dismissive jabs. But reading between the lines isn’t that difficult. Maybe you think I exaggerate with “irredeemably horrible,” but I think you can get the essence of my meaning.
It’s not just semantics, it’s people imagining things that aren’t really being said.
Maybe the discussion hasn’t gone on long enough, but I have faith you’ll get there.
The blue elephant in the room.
This is a strange pattern of argument that occurs in the “culture” threads and Star Wars threads.
Person A gives an opinion. Person B calls that opinion irredeemably horrible. Person A explains why that isn’t the case. Person B repeats that it is irredeemably horrible. Person A tries again to get Person B to see some shade of grey. Person B asks why Person A cares so much and is making such a big deal out of it. And all the person did was express an opinion and defend it when challenged. It’s a relentless shaming of Person A that I don’t understand.
If it goes on long enough, someone will declare its all semantics.
I’m glad you’ve pointed this out, because you’ve exposed the real issue at the heart of this.
That’s an overstatement. The mode of discussion doesn’t qualify as the “heart of this.”
Um… okay.
Person B is rarely (if ever at all) saying something is “irredeemably horrible.” It’s almost always just Person A overreacting and assuming they are.
To be precise about this case, it was a series of snarky and dismissive jabs. But reading between the lines isn’t that difficult. Maybe you think I exaggerate with “irredeemably horrible,” but I think you can get the essence of my meaning.
It’s not just semantics, it’s people imagining things that aren’t really being said.
Maybe the discussion hasn’t gone on long enough, but I have faith you’ll get there.
I’m not wrong. Just calling someone a “dick” is pretty fucking far away from “irredeemably horrible.” It’s a gap that goes beyond hyperbole, and won’t be closed no matter how long the discussion goes on for.
I’m a Person and my name is B!
But really, you might consider that you’re the only one who seems to be making a big deal out of this here.
Actually, mfm could have just said he chuckled and then everyone leave it at that. Your calling him out repeatedly for it seems to be what turned this into a big deal.
I mean, I certainly don’t remember ever coming close to finding humor in someone mocking a person who stutters, but ok.
You certainly participate in openly mocking people for other things here on this site. Other people laugh at times when you do it. The fact that it’s not related to a disability is irrelevant.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
This is a strange pattern of argument that occurs in the “culture” threads and Star Wars threads.
Person A gives an opinion. Person B calls that opinion irredeemably horrible. Person A explains why that isn’t the case. Person B repeats that it is irredeemably horrible. Person A tries again to get Person B to see some shade of grey. Person B asks why Person A cares so much and is making such a big deal out of it. And all the person did was express an opinion and defend it when challenged. It’s a relentless shaming of Person A that I don’t understand.
If it goes on long enough, someone will declare its all semantics.
I’m glad you’ve pointed this out, because you’ve exposed the real issue at the heart of this.
That’s an overstatement. The mode of discussion doesn’t qualify as the “heart of this.”
Um… okay.
De nada.
Person B is rarely (if ever at all) saying something is “irredeemably horrible.” It’s almost always just Person A overreacting and assuming they are.
To be precise about this case, it was a series of snarky and dismissive jabs. But reading between the lines isn’t that difficult. Maybe you think I exaggerate with “irredeemably horrible,” but I think you can get the essence of my meaning.
It’s not just semantics, it’s people imagining things that aren’t really being said.
Maybe the discussion hasn’t gone on long enough, but I have faith you’ll get there.
I’m not wrong. Just calling someone a “dick” is pretty fucking far away from “irredeemably horrible.” It’s a gap that goes beyond hyperbole, and won’t be closed no matter how long the discussion goes on for.
This smells like semantics to me. Granted I enjoy the probably unintended irony of “a gap that goes beyond hyperbole” which attempts to chart the supposed outer limits of hyperbole. Answer: there are none.
Sometimes the claim is that an opinion or phrase is racist or sexist, sometimes like here just jerkish. I was explicitly writing about a general pattern. What appears to be exaggeration (at least regarding the current discussion) isn’t the “heart” of my incisive commentary.
The blue elephant in the room.
I’m a Person and my name is B!
I forgot the disclaimer:
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
The blue elephant in the room.
What I really need to do is purge whatever remaining delusional fantasy I have that I’ll be able to understand you people. That’s real point I’ve gleamed from this conversation.
good grief.
It seems like the healthy thing to do.
I know of a couple of restaurants where rude waiters are part of the appeal.
How could rude waiters be part of the appeal at a restaurant?
Because it’s funny. There’s a place like that in Chicago.
In this instance, sure. But I don’t know if he’s a total dick. He probably is, but who cares? Everyone else is too.
It seems like you care quite a bit actually.
I care about the hypocrisy of people’s reaction to this ludicrous story. That doesn’t mean I care about the people in the story.
I’m not sure to what “hypocrisy” you refer.
There was a very obvious implication that I was in the wrong for finding this a little bit amusing, even though we all find things funny sometimes that are hurtful to some other person. I used the example of someone falling, which can sometimes be really funny. It doesn’t mean you’re glad that the person got hurt or that they fell.
I mean, I certainly don’t remember ever coming close to finding humor in someone mocking a person who stutters, but ok.
You certainly participate in openly mocking people for other things. The fact that it’s not related to a disability is irrelevant.
He’s certainly mocked me before, and you, and almost everyone else. That’s actually a big part of why I kind of like him, but apparently chuckling at a situation in which someone’s feelings were hurt hundreds of miles away crosses some imaginary line. I don’t know why, but it does.
The Person in Question
Mrebo said:
I forgot the disclaimer:The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
You should put that in your signature.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
I’m a Person and my name is B!
I forgot the disclaimer:
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
Oh hi Jay.
Mrebo said:
I forgot the disclaimer:The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
You should put that in your signature.
Approved.
In actual news, Scott Pruitt resigned.
What I really need to do is purge whatever remaining delusional fantasy I have that I’ll be able to understand you people. That’s real point I’ve gleamed from this conversation.
good grief.
It seems like the healthy thing to do.
I know of a couple of restaurants where rude waiters are part of the appeal.
How could rude waiters be part of the appeal at a restaurant?
Because it’s funny. There’s a place like that in Chicago.
That actually does sound funny. But of course, you go there expecting it. It’s part of the deal. I’m not aware of Starbucks recently adding that to their routine.
I’m a Person and my name is B!
I forgot the disclaimer:
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
Oh hi Jay.
I’m cuter, at least by half.
The blue elephant in the room.
I’m a Person and my name is B!
I forgot the disclaimer:
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
Oh hi Jay.
I’m cuter, at least by half.
I’ll take your word for it, but IIRC Jay’s not half-bad looking himself.
Person B is rarely (if ever at all) saying something is “irredeemably horrible.” It’s almost always just Person A overreacting and assuming they are.
To be precise about this case, it was a series of snarky and dismissive jabs. But reading between the lines isn’t that difficult. Maybe you think I exaggerate with “irredeemably horrible,” but I think you can get the essence of my meaning.
It’s not just semantics, it’s people imagining things that aren’t really being said.
Maybe the discussion hasn’t gone on long enough, but I have faith you’ll get there.
I’m not wrong. Just calling someone a “dick” is pretty fucking far away from “irredeemably horrible.” It’s a gap that goes beyond hyperbole, and won’t be closed no matter how long the discussion goes on for.
This smells like semantics to me. Granted I enjoy the probably unintended irony of “a gap that goes beyond hyperbole” which attempts to chart the supposed outer limits of hyperbole. Answer: there are none.
I meant your specific hyperbole.
Sometimes the claim is that an opinion or phrase is racist or sexist, sometimes like here just jerkish. I was explicitly writing about a general pattern. What appears to be exaggeration (at least regarding the current discussion) isn’t the “heart” of my incisive commentary.
No, you’re right it’s a general pattern, and I think it’s exactly what I describe. Not just on this site but in general on the internet, when people say something is “racist,” “sexist,” or just “jerkish,” others take it to mean they’re condemning the transgressor to eternal damnation, or, at least as mfm said, claiming they’re a “giant pile of sub-human shit that no one would miss if he died tomorrow.”
People exaggerate the extent of the criticism and take it to a deeply personal place that is never ever intended. You can say something racist, sexist, or dickish and still be an okay person. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that. And I don’t know why people are more taken aback and upset by someone calling someone else out on being a dick more than that person’s dickish actions. Seems insane to me, but it’s a rampant mentality.
In this instance, sure. But I don’t know if he’s a total dick. He probably is, but who cares? Everyone else is too.
It seems like you care quite a bit actually.
I care about the hypocrisy of people’s reaction to this ludicrous story. That doesn’t mean I care about the people in the story.
I’m not sure to what “hypocrisy” you refer.
There was a very obvious implication that I was in the wrong for finding this a little bit amusing, even though we all find things funny sometimes that are hurtful to some other person. I used the example of someone falling, which can sometimes be really funny. It doesn’t mean you’re glad that the person got hurt or that they fell.
I think there’s maybe a difference between laughing when someone falls, and laughing when someone trips someone else.
In actual news, Scott Pruitt resigned.
I’m from Oklahoma, so I should know who that is, but I had to google him to find out.
Apparently I hadn’t been following whatever scandal he’s involved in. Not that it should be surprising or interesting to me if I had.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
Person B is rarely (if ever at all) saying something is “irredeemably horrible.” It’s almost always just Person A overreacting and assuming they are.
To be precise about this case, it was a series of snarky and dismissive jabs. But reading between the lines isn’t that difficult. Maybe you think I exaggerate with “irredeemably horrible,” but I think you can get the essence of my meaning.
It’s not just semantics, it’s people imagining things that aren’t really being said.
Maybe the discussion hasn’t gone on long enough, but I have faith you’ll get there.
I’m not wrong. Just calling someone a “dick” is pretty fucking far away from “irredeemably horrible.” It’s a gap that goes beyond hyperbole, and won’t be closed no matter how long the discussion goes on for.
This smells like semantics to me. Granted I enjoy the probably unintended irony of “a gap that goes beyond hyperbole” which attempts to chart the supposed outer limits of hyperbole. Answer: there are none.
I meant your specific hyperbole.
I’m giving myself a pat on the back for discovering hyperbole beyond the known universe of hyperbole.
Sometimes the claim is that an opinion or phrase is racist or sexist, sometimes like here just jerkish. I was explicitly writing about a general pattern. What appears to be exaggeration (at least regarding the current discussion) isn’t the “heart” of my incisive commentary.
No, you’re right it’s a general pattern, and I think it’s exactly what I describe. Not just on this site but in general on the internet, when people say something is “racist,” “sexist,” or just “jerkish,” others take it to mean they’re condemning the transgressor to eternal damnation, or, at least as mfm said, claiming they’re a “giant pile of sub-human shit that no one would miss if he died tomorrow.”
People exaggerate the extent of the criticism and take it to a deeply personal place that is never ever intended. You can say something racist, sexist, or dickish and still be an okay person. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that. And I don’t know why people are more taken aback and upset by someone calling someone else out on being a dick more than that person’s dickish actions. Seems insane to me, but it’s a rampant mentality.
I easily understood mfm as finding something jerkish and funny. Is mfm a jerk for thinking it funny? Nope.
Yet that was repeatedly the suggestion and thus it escalated. It’s great when a scolding leads an opponent to overreact so one can pretend that overreaction was the initial problem even though it wasn’t.
The blue elephant in the room.
at least as mfm said, claiming they’re a “giant pile of sub-human shit that no one would miss if he died tomorrow.”
That’s a lie actually, I didn’t claim that or say that anyone else claimed that. I said that we literally know nothing about this person other than that he was mean to one guy at Starbucks. I said that for all we know he could be the most charitable guy on earth, or a “giant pile of sub-human shit that no one would miss if he died tomorrow,” or anything in between. I was basically just voicing a thought that I had about how easily people label others as bad without really knowing any of their contributions to society.
You can say something racist, sexist, or dickish and still be an okay person.
That was my point.
The Person in Question
Mrebo said:
It’s great when a scolding leads an opponent to overreact so one can pretend that overreaction was the initial problem even though it wasn’t.
That’s exactly what happened. And me “overreacting” doesn’t mean anything. I react intensely to almost everything, but that says nothing about my points or arguments.
The Person in Question
In this instance, sure. But I don’t know if he’s a total dick. He probably is, but who cares? Everyone else is too.
It seems like you care quite a bit actually.
I care about the hypocrisy of people’s reaction to this ludicrous story. That doesn’t mean I care about the people in the story.
I’m not sure to what “hypocrisy” you refer.
There was a very obvious implication that I was in the wrong for finding this a little bit amusing, even though we all find things funny sometimes that are hurtful to some other person. I used the example of someone falling, which can sometimes be really funny. It doesn’t mean you’re glad that the person got hurt or that they fell.
I think there’s maybe a difference between laughing when someone falls, and laughing when someone trips someone else.
Is there? I’d say it also depends. Plus tripping someone is actually worse than typing their name as a stutter on a receipt.
The Person in Question
Person B is rarely (if ever at all) saying something is “irredeemably horrible.” It’s almost always just Person A overreacting and assuming they are.
To be precise about this case, it was a series of snarky and dismissive jabs. But reading between the lines isn’t that difficult. Maybe you think I exaggerate with “irredeemably horrible,” but I think you can get the essence of my meaning.
It’s not just semantics, it’s people imagining things that aren’t really being said.
Maybe the discussion hasn’t gone on long enough, but I have faith you’ll get there.
I’m not wrong. Just calling someone a “dick” is pretty fucking far away from “irredeemably horrible.” It’s a gap that goes beyond hyperbole, and won’t be closed no matter how long the discussion goes on for.
This smells like semantics to me. Granted I enjoy the probably unintended irony of “a gap that goes beyond hyperbole” which attempts to chart the supposed outer limits of hyperbole. Answer: there are none.
I meant your specific hyperbole.
I’m giving myself a pat on the back for discovering hyperbole beyond the known universe of hyperbole.
In case you actually need me to clarify (which I somehow doubt), I meant your specific hyperbolic statement.
Sometimes the claim is that an opinion or phrase is racist or sexist, sometimes like here just jerkish. I was explicitly writing about a general pattern. What appears to be exaggeration (at least regarding the current discussion) isn’t the “heart” of my incisive commentary.
No, you’re right it’s a general pattern, and I think it’s exactly what I describe. Not just on this site but in general on the internet, when people say something is “racist,” “sexist,” or just “jerkish,” others take it to mean they’re condemning the transgressor to eternal damnation, or, at least as mfm said, claiming they’re a “giant pile of sub-human shit that no one would miss if he died tomorrow.”
People exaggerate the extent of the criticism and take it to a deeply personal place that is never ever intended. You can say something racist, sexist, or dickish and still be an okay person. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that. And I don’t know why people are more taken aback and upset by someone calling someone else out on being a dick more than that person’s dickish actions. Seems insane to me, but it’s a rampant mentality.
I easily understood mfm as finding something jerkish and funny. Is mfm a jerk for thinking it funny? Nope.
I don’t recall saying he was.
Yet that was repeatedly the suggestion and thus it escalated.
Was it?
It’s great when a scolding leads an opponent to overreact so one can pretend that overreaction was the initial problem even though it wasn’t.
Um, okay.
at least as mfm said, claiming they’re a “giant pile of sub-human shit that no one would miss if he died tomorrow.”
That’s a lie actually, I didn’t claim that or say that anyone else claimed that. I said that we literally know nothing about this person other than that he was mean to one guy at Starbucks. I said that for all we know he could be the most charitable guy on earth, or a “giant pile of sub-human shit that no one would miss if he died tomorrow,” or anything in between. I was basically just voicing a thought that I had about how easily people label others as bad without really knowing any of their contributions to society.
You can say something racist, sexist, or dickish and still be an okay person.
That was my point.
I almost see something of a contradiction here. You say that we shouldn’t call someone a dick unless we know their whole life story. Then you admit that being a dick (at least once) doesn’t define one’s entire life. What I don’t get, what exactly is the issue with calling someone a dick for an isolated incident?
In this instance, sure. But I don’t know if he’s a total dick. He probably is, but who cares? Everyone else is too.
It seems like you care quite a bit actually.
I care about the hypocrisy of people’s reaction to this ludicrous story. That doesn’t mean I care about the people in the story.
I’m not sure to what “hypocrisy” you refer.
There was a very obvious implication that I was in the wrong for finding this a little bit amusing, even though we all find things funny sometimes that are hurtful to some other person. I used the example of someone falling, which can sometimes be really funny. It doesn’t mean you’re glad that the person got hurt or that they fell.
I think there’s maybe a difference between laughing when someone falls, and laughing when someone trips someone else.
Is there? I’d say it also depends. Plus tripping someone is actually worse than typing their name as a stutter on a receipt.
I think that depends too. Maybe the more accurate (in some ways) analogy would be to say there’s a difference between laughing when someone falls, and laughing when a disabled person falls.
Still not perfect, but more to the point of why this specific making fun of isn’t cool.
Person B is rarely (if ever at all) saying something is “irredeemably horrible.” It’s almost always just Person A overreacting and assuming they are.
To be precise about this case, it was a series of snarky and dismissive jabs. But reading between the lines isn’t that difficult. Maybe you think I exaggerate with “irredeemably horrible,” but I think you can get the essence of my meaning.
It’s not just semantics, it’s people imagining things that aren’t really being said.
Maybe the discussion hasn’t gone on long enough, but I have faith you’ll get there.
I’m not wrong. Just calling someone a “dick” is pretty fucking far away from “irredeemably horrible.” It’s a gap that goes beyond hyperbole, and won’t be closed no matter how long the discussion goes on for.
This smells like semantics to me. Granted I enjoy the probably unintended irony of “a gap that goes beyond hyperbole” which attempts to chart the supposed outer limits of hyperbole. Answer: there are none.
I meant your specific hyperbole.
I’m giving myself a pat on the back for discovering hyperbole beyond the known universe of hyperbole.
In case you actually need me to clarify (which I somehow doubt), I meant your specific hyperbolic statement.
I’ll take all the praise I can get, even from myself.
Sometimes the claim is that an opinion or phrase is racist or sexist, sometimes like here just jerkish. I was explicitly writing about a general pattern. What appears to be exaggeration (at least regarding the current discussion) isn’t the “heart” of my incisive commentary.
No, you’re right it’s a general pattern, and I think it’s exactly what I describe. Not just on this site but in general on the internet, when people say something is “racist,” “sexist,” or just “jerkish,” others take it to mean they’re condemning the transgressor to eternal damnation, or, at least as mfm said, claiming they’re a “giant pile of sub-human shit that no one would miss if he died tomorrow.”
People exaggerate the extent of the criticism and take it to a deeply personal place that is never ever intended. You can say something racist, sexist, or dickish and still be an okay person. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that. And I don’t know why people are more taken aback and upset by someone calling someone else out on being a dick more than that person’s dickish actions. Seems insane to me, but it’s a rampant mentality.
I easily understood mfm as finding something jerkish and funny. Is mfm a jerk for thinking it funny? Nope.
I don’t recall saying he was.
Okay. But you’re not person B. Who is totally imaginary.
Yet that was repeatedly the suggestion and thus it escalated.
Was it?
Sure.
It’s great when a scolding leads an opponent to overreact so one can pretend that overreaction was the initial problem even though it wasn’t.
Um, okay.
De nada.
The blue elephant in the room.