When I first started texting, I would sometimes send a picture of my face displaying the appropriate emotional content of a message that I thought might not be interpreted correctly. And maybe it was a commentary on my face as well... but people did not like it. They universally did not like it.
So I question that emojis truly fill in for face to face content...since my actual face tested poorly.
I suspect they occupy something closer to a simplified combination of shorthand and punctuation.
Exactly, and that's why I say what you are posting (that if someone is hurt doesn't matter the intention) then you are going to get manipulators who will exploit other people, I would just need to tell you that somebody told me something hurtful and you would immediately side with me cause I was hurt and the intention does not matter.
You are being rude right now, all your words are hurtful to me, stop typing cause everything you type is hurtful
now will you continue or ignore my hurt feelings?
We have to learn to take a step back. Making sure that no one's feelings is ever accidentally hurt maybe be possible only (and I don't personnally think it is a good thing AT ALL), in a small community with people all having the same objective: being in a quiet, unchallenged, homogeneous environment.
I can't even imagine what that mindset would to to me who's constantly between 3/4 cultures. Half the stuff one culture thinks is ok, the other does not; politeness rules are entirely different etc.
I know everyone is not in such a situation, but what I mean is that as soon as one goes out of their little homogenous friend group/community, it's just not applicable. Intent is the only thing that count, because delivery depends on cultural aspects so much (not only whole countries culture, also community, group etc cultures).
even inside that group isn't necessarily safe, I have lived almost all my life in one culture/group and still there is friction, we just learned to deal with it and move on, or if we truly fuck up we apologize and move on I.E (depends on intention).
Exactly, hell where I come from we have a story where and American boxer almost beat up some guys cause they said "Oye negrito vente pa comer" to the Venezuelan Boxer, the Venezuelan boxer had to explain to the American that "negrito" was an affectionate and friendly nick name I.E Black or "Negro" isn't a denigrating word in Venezuela actually it's endearing, the American was so surprised he could not believe it at all.
different cultures different meanings and intentions =0
The basic riddle stems down to a basic question...
Which approach seems most feasible...limiting people's speech, and actions, to insure nothing is done to offend...OR have an expectation that people should learn to process being offended/insulted better?
@IdiotWithPencil Please, ease up a little bit. If it'll continue this way, it will start to look like you make claims against @therealbereth personally, even if it wasn't your intent. I'd ask to keep this discussion more calm to avoid unnecessary quarrels. If topic will turn into quarrel, it will cause closing it by mod. 
(Shit, I feel like a HIGH-SOCIETY LADY now. I'm so polite and cultural today. Holy fuck 
)
3
Oh yes, even inside a small group there can be such issues, it's normal. But after a while we know enough the people to avoid most problems if it's our ultimate goal (it is not mine. I don't want to intentionally hurt people, but if, to be sure I don't, I have to shut up/sugarcoat everything and expect people to shut up/sugarcoar, to be sure no offensive topic/behaviour will occur... no thanks!). While, as soon as we broaden our horizons and get out of these small groups.. we don't have any control anymore. I'm flabbergasted to see some people on the Internet, who apparently thinks they are entitled to be treated by the whole world the same way that their small closed social group is treating them.
I think we should both expect people to process being offended, and process if they are behaving in an offensive way. Limiting someone from responding to something they find offensive is also limiting speech and actions. Which doesn't mean we should tolerate people getting offended at the drop of the hat and tip toe around every little thing any more than we should let offensive behavior go unquestioned.
Or something like that. I'm sleepy. 
There's going to be no balance in that because you're asking a culture/community as a whole to define, agree and weigh what is offensive to each individual.
As an individual I can determine what I find potentially offensive but when you ask the individual to champion/reject what others find offensive ...that's iffy ground.
It's not the same as agreeing to equal rights and protections for all. It's too fluid and tied to cultural events and emotional triggers.
The name KAREN is currently a potentially offensive insult to some. How do you balance that ?
I mean, that's an exact example of someone going over the top. Because to compare Karen to a slur like the n-word is ridiculous. When you look at the context behind both (one criticizing how someone acts entitled over meaningless situations vs one that has historically been used to opposed a group), they're not on even ground.
For me, it's all about context and experience. You can't expect everyone to pick and choose what's offensive and what's not. But you can learn how to understand the context of a situation and react accordingly, and I feel that's something anyone can do, regardless of your background.
Absolutely, understanding context is what's important. But no one has the knowledge and experience to understand EVERY context. That's why we need to keep a bit of distance. When offended, we need to ask ourselves, is it a real offense, or something I don't understand yet? It also helps us to grow as individuals. There is so much more to learn by trying to understand the intent, and why something is delivered the way it was, than by getting offended as a 'default setting'.
Of course it is when you compare the intellectual roots of them but that's not the rub of it...the rub is that to the offended party it has the same emotional impact.
We can't intellectualize every context. Even the broadest minds are limited by experience. So "balance" is not ever going to be a likelihood for the majority.
So which is the better option for change... The offender or the offended?
Was I being too rude? sorry about that I was just using myself as an example of what his argument could turn into I.E someone can use it against him or the innocent =/ I mean it's not like I actually think he's being rude or anything.
Though I do try and make it so people know what I'm actually doing ,since I place most of my Rude remarks after a specific section that says he can't go against a claim since he doesn't know if the person is really hurt or not so he will take it at face value and assume he has offended the person ergo me just out of the blue saying he has hurt me, or placing Example before my comment.
I am, in fact, not asking that. I am saying both behaviors are relevant and you shouldn't focus on one to the exclusion of the other.
You give a this OR this, and I am answering your question that consideration for both is necessary. I disagree that that consideration would require a concrete definition of some kind. It is a growing and evolving conversation. Over time our view of what is or is not inappropriate may change, and that should be okay.
I am not going to pretend like I'm capable of offering some kind of algorithm for sussing out exactly what is and is not offensive. XD
Not trying to put words in your mouth. What I keep questioning is the mechanism or process for establishing an approach of that sort that you, or anyone else is using.
Which is my point, it's highly unlikely that anyone claiming they can do it is correct. It would require a massive amount of knowledge and experience, empathy without restriction and probably mind reading.
That makes a middle out approach to solving the problem....unobtainable. It's always going to have bias and restrictions of experience and knowledge in the way.
I think it's largely what we already do. No single person decides societal norms, for instance. Through teaching, learning, story telling, discussion, absorption of media, we communicate expectations. And I think things like, say, critiquing "cancel culture" is a good example of push back against the "I'm offended" side that's appropriate and needed.
You suggested (from what I could tell, feel free to correct me!) that either we completely side with the offended, and inhibit the free speech of the offender, or we completely side with the offender, and tell the offended unanimously to shove off. How is that in any way more practical, equitable, or unbiased?
Those are really the only options that can remove bias and retain any form of equitable resolution.
If you remove ALL words identified as problematic, there's no bias. Or if you tell individuals that ALL words are fair game, there's no bias. Either approach, if handled unilaterally, does remove bias. That's the logistics of saying the problem can only be solved from a this OR this approach.
Are they practical ? Nope. But I doubt they will ever be practical solutions for what boils down to a problem of emotions and emotional responses.
| Topic | Category | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Let’s make a Creator’s guild! | Off Topic | 38 | 1.2k | Dec '24 |
| My opinion on the Batman Caped Crusader reimaginings | Off Topic | 4 | 330 | Aug '24 |
| Is Eve from Stellar Blade human? | Off Topic | 0 | 262 | May '24 |
| I need more options in the dashboard, pls | Off Topic | 0 | 146 | Oct '24 |
| What would be a visual novel story you would like to see in a game? | Off Topic | 3 | 144 | Dec '24 |
