Types of people you don't like

[The Butt]

Your friend needs to grow the fuck up

Apparently I'm "insensitive".

 

[Mort Divine]

Casual use of the word rape especially by the gaming community as a word to mean "dominated" or whatever is immature at best and dangerous in a sense due to it casualizing the idea of rape as something that is "ok" to do to someone and makes you strong and good for doing so.

Also I'm really not approving of this idea that the intent of your words are all that matter and if it isn't meant for someone than who gives a shit, right? Whether or not you agree, the words you choose to use can affect others and if it harms them you are responsible for the harm you did. You do not necessarily need to get on all fours and beg for forgiveness (and you likely shouldn't feel guilty unless you purposefully weaponize words), but you should make it clear you didn't mean to cause harm and should avoid saying what did that in the future.

At the very least, you should be aware that your words can cause harm and should make attempts to minimize that harm.

Mind you, I'm not speaking of simple offense. I don't care if someone is offended necessarily (though people who go out of their way to be offensive are pretty shit tier people). I'm speaking of harm exclusively.

 

[The Butt]

Oh I've been trying to avoid using the word "rape" in that sense while gaming. I can see how using the word "rape" in that sense could upset someone.

But even like... standing behind my shoulder getting upset that I teabagged an opponent playing Halo. THAT, I think is ridiculous. Lines have to be drawn; and I think that getting upset over something like that is ridiculous and irrational.

Edit: Fun fact, I was banned from another board for posting this very opinion. Amusingly.

 

[Matt]

Are they unable to say no, or are the doing the annoying New Gen thing of "keeping all options open"? Agree to everything and then see what turns out to be the best thing for them.

If you make a plan with someone you should at least call/text to say that you can't make it in an appropriate amount of time.

 

[Dak]

If you make a plan with someone you should at least call/text to say that you can't make it in an appropriate amount of time.

Yeah, but that would be responsible and mature.

 

[Einherjar86]

Or maybe there is no best thing to say. Or maybe the best thing to say is what's honest and genuine instead of fake and/or possibly condescending?

If you piss your friend off, and care about him/her, how would an apology be fake or condescending?

This is what pisses me off about people who get all up in their fucking freedom of speech: no is saying you have no freedom of speech. It is impossible to avoid controversy, but it is not impossible to apologize when have upset someone.

 

[Vimana]

Casual use of the word rape especially by the gaming community as a word to mean "dominated" or whatever is immature at best and dangerous in a sense due to it casualizing the idea of rape as something that is "ok" to do to someone and makes you strong and good for doing so.

Also I'm really not approving of this idea that the intent of your words are all that matter and if it isn't meant for someone than who gives a shit, right? Whether or not you agree, the words you choose to use can affect others and if it harms them you are responsible for the harm you did. You do not necessarily need to get on all fours and beg for forgiveness (and you likely shouldn't feel guilty unless you purposefully weaponize words), but you should make it clear you didn't mean to cause harm and should avoid saying what did that in the future.

At the very least, you should be aware that your words can cause harm and should make attempts to minimize that harm.

Mind you, I'm not speaking of simple offense. I don't care if someone is offended necessarily (though people who go out of their way to be offensive are pretty shit tier people). I'm speaking of harm exclusively.

That's just how you see it. The way you react isn't inherent in hearing the words for everyone. It's not like I hear "you just got raped in Halo" and my mind goes, "oh, someone used rape to not mean forcing someone into sex, so now I don't think rape is as bad as it was before I heard that sentence." That's because it makes no fucking sense. I've known rape victims and hearing rape used with a different meaning is not going to suddenly make me trivialize what they went through. I think any sane person looks at how people feel in a situation first and foremost and isn't about to trivialize a traumatized rape victim because when they were playing Halo, someone said "rape" differently. It's almost as if the trauma itself gives the word its meaning in the situation, not that the word gives the trauma meaning.

If I said "anime" with some really bad connotation like "rape," would that change anime for you, or are you a conscious human being able to separate your experience of anime from any other ways the word is used by other people? I don't think you give people enough credit.

 

[tagradh]

People who yell at cashiers or act like assholes when they are getting their shit checked out.

I told some fat pleb woman to shut the fuck up for doing this the other week.

She got all flustered and said she was going to talk to the management about me, which was odd, given that I was queued behind her and blatantly a customer.

Fuck people like that.

 

[Onder]

RAPE RAPE RAPE. RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE. RAPE RAPE RAPE. TRANNY TRANNY RAPE RAPE RAPE. A TRANNY RAPE.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's just how you see it. The way you react isn't inherent in hearing the words for everyone. It's not like I hear "you just got raped in Halo" and my mind goes, "oh, someone used rape to not mean forcing someone into sex, so now I don't think rape is as bad as it was before I heard that sentence." That's because it makes no fucking sense. I've known rape victims and hearing rape used with a different meaning is not going to suddenly make me trivialize what they went through. I think any sane person looks at how people feel in a situation first and foremost and isn't about to trivialize a traumatized rape victim because when they were playing Halo, someone said "rape" differently. It's almost as if the trauma itself gives the word its meaning in the situation, not that the word gives the trauma meaning.

If I said "anime" with some really bad connotation like "rape," would that change anime for you, or are you a conscious human being able to separate your experience of anime from any other ways the word is used by other people? I don't think you give people enough credit.

You're being very obtuse.

It may the case that you don't trivialize what happened to someone despite using the word "rape" in a casual sense; but you are contributing to a network of social usage and meaning, and the way we use words associates with how other people use them, and if enough people use a word casually it can begin to achieve a casual, trivial meaning and thus enter into increasingly inappropriate conversations.

You have this solipsistic conception of meaning, as though it can be purely traced back to your intentions regardless of context. While I admire the fact that you may have "freed your mind" from language and history, the idea that your words somehow evade such connotations is a fantasy that you need to rid yourself of and think about social consequences and how meaning is a network, not a creation from some wellspring in your head.

You may have perfectly innocent intentions, but language doesn't give a shit. Language is social and binds us to certain social considerations, and we need to be aware of such things. Enough with this fucking purity of the individual and what you mean when you say something. You don't mean what you think, no matter how much you've meditated, because meaning doesn't end at the vibration of your vocal cords.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Yeah I kind of know how it is for the cashiers. Luckily, most of the time when I've been working directly with customers, I've been in a situation where I could pretty much tell them to suck a barrel of cocks if they pissed me off too much. I know specific people who aren't exactly the best of friends but have to be all nice and lovely with me in the supermarket they work at. It's kind of awkward. I wouldn't abuse that situation to be an asshole and the only time I've disputed shit is when I've had to. That said, at certain places the staff are retards, although it's more high up people than the kids who work there. I got shouted at and called a wanker by the boss at a budget warehouse type place for spoiling his display by taking a drink from the front of the shelf (like everyone else does). I still go there though lol, because it's obvious the other members of staff were only pretending to go along with him to keep their jobs.

 

[Vimana]

You're being very obtuse.

It may the case that you don't trivialize what happened to someone despite using the word "rape" in a casual sense; but you are contributing to a network of social usage and meaning, and the way we use words associates with how other people use them, and if enough people use a word casually it can begin to achieve a casual, trivial meaning and thus enter into increasingly inappropriate conversations.

You have this solipsistic conception of meaning, as though it can be purely traced back to your intentions regardless of context. While I admire the fact that you may have "freed your mind" from language and history, the idea that your words somehow evade such connotations is a fantasy that you need to rid yourself of and think about social consequences and how meaning is a network, not a creation from some wellspring in your head.

You may have perfectly innocent intentions, but language doesn't give a shit. Language is social and binds us to certain social considerations, and we need to be aware of such things. Enough with this fucking purity of the individual and what you mean when you say something. You don't mean what you think, no matter how much you've meditated, because meaning doesn't end at the vibration of your vocal cords.

We use language. Language doesn't use us. It's obvious enough in the fact that you disagree with me, meaning you are capable of examining an idea and thinking your own thoughts about it. My argument isn't rewriting your mental program.

This network you propose is just an idea, since you are you where you are and are not experiencing meaning within the minds of millions of English speakers.

I know I don't mean what I think. I mean whatever whoever witnesses my expression thinks I mean (as evidenced by your assumptions that I'm not even going into). Which is precisely my point. You can say humorous uses of the word "rape" trivialize rape, but that's all going on in YOUR head. You can only infer about others' heads.

I've heard "you killed that" in reference to eating. None of those people seem to have trivialized killing. Or "you bombed that test." I doubt anyone magically thought 9/11 was a little bit more okay. Or "just shoot me" at embarrassment. You get the idea.

In fact, I doubt you even trivialize rape from hearing hyperbolic uses of it. You only seem to think others do so, but do you have any examples instead of a hypothetically plausible idea?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

If you piss your friend off, and care about him/her, how would an apology be fake or condescending?

This is what pisses me off about people who get all up in their fucking freedom of speech: no is saying you have no freedom of speech. It is impossible to avoid controversy, but it is not impossible to apologize when have upset someone.

Yea, I'm not the guy who gives the freedom speech so I'll ignore the second part.

If I piss off my friend by saying a certain WORD and he demanded an apology I'd tell him to go fuck himself and he'd have a glass of water and eventually laugh it off. Now if I say something that might go too far ... something like "I just saw your whore ex wife, she was probably on her way to fuck all our friends again" (Yes, some guys talk to each other like this) ya know something really personal and there's obviously a valid reason for apologizing I'd do it on my own in a genuine manner, not because someone made me or because the person I said it to is weak and needs to be coddled.

 

[Einherjar86]

We use language. Language doesn't use us. It's obvious enough in the fact that you disagree with me, meaning you are capable of examining an idea and thinking your own thoughts about it. My argument isn't rewriting your mental program.

This network you propose is just an idea, since you are you where you are and are not experiencing meaning within the minds of millions of English speakers.

I know I don't mean what I think. I mean whatever whoever witnesses my expression thinks I mean (as evidenced by your assumptions that I'm not even going into). Which is precisely my point. You can say humorous uses of the word "rape" trivialize rape, but that's all going on in YOUR head. You can only infer about others' heads.

I've heard "you killed that" in reference to eating. None of those people seem to have trivialized killing. Or "you bombed that test." I doubt anyone magically thought 9/11 was a little bit more okay. Or "just shoot me" at embarrassment. You get the idea.

In fact, I doubt you even trivialize rape from hearing hyperbolic uses of it. You only seem to think others do so, but do you have any examples instead of a hypothetically plausible idea?

This is like talking with a squirrel.

Language does use us, although not in the way that we also use language.

I'm not going to run through the list of textual scholarship, research, and philosophy on this. Meaning is not only in my head; this is the misconception that you keep trying to reinforce. Meaning can be studied, it can be qualified, it has social value, it takes on gravity. I don't need to infer about others' minds because I know that some people will see casual references to rape as offensive! I know that, it is something we have scientific evidence for. You cannot say otherwise. We have a cultural public sphere, we have discourse. I don't need to only guess at what other people are thinking. If you took the time to educate yourself you would find that there are explicit ways in which meaning operate in our culture, regardless of who's doing the speaking and who's doing the listening.

As a final point, meaning is never singular; meanings can be primary and secondary, they can be contradictory, they can be ancillary, they can be illogical and irrational. Meaning is never only one thing. You can't put a handle on it by reducing it to subjective perception.

 

[Vimana]

This is like talking with a squirrel.

Language does use us, although not in the way that we also use language.

I'm not going to run through the list of textual scholarship, research, and philosophy on this. Meaning is not only in my head; this is the misconception that you keep trying to reinforce. Meaning can be studied, it can be qualified, it has social value, it takes on gravity. I don't need to infer about others' minds because I know that some people will see casual references to rape as offensive! I know that, it is something we have scientific evidence for. You cannot say otherwise. We have a cultural public sphere, we have discourse. I don't need to only guess at what other people are thinking. If you took the time to educate yourself you would find that there are explicit ways in which meaning operate in our culture, regardless of who's doing the speaking and who's doing the listening.

As a final point, meaning is never singular; meanings can be primary and secondary, they can be contradictory, they can be ancillary, they can be illogical and irrational. Meaning is never only one thing. You can't put a handle on it by reducing it to subjective perception.

Amusing simile. Meaning is subjective, but there is shared meaning (hence this debate). The fact that some people have subjective experiences of a certain type does not mean meaning exists out the faculties of a person's mind. It's a changeable creation, not static. No one's offense is contained in the words themselves. It is their reaction.

I can call you a douchebag, a cactus, a dragon, or a woman, but all I'm doing is throwing symbols for simulated realities within the mind at you. You do not have to think you are the words I say, same as triggered people aren't doomed to be triggered by the way words are used. But I can only say that from my own experience being triggered by stupid shit until I realized it was all just going on in my head and I can put a stop to it by seeing the meaning as simulation, not the ever-changing, wordless reality I constantly experience and create meaning from. My reality makes meaning and words, not the other way around. I think anyone can reverse that, but I'm not everyone.

 

[SentinelSlain]

closeted homos who go about desperately accusing men they find attractive of being gay. If it's continued late into life they're usually bald retards with their mouths held open simulating the blow job they want to give you.

 

[Carpe Mortem]

Good friends who talk all kinds of shit about someone I'm indifferent on, then invite them over and get all huggy and 'Omg how've you been!' It's none of my business if they got beef but that fake shit is just really annoying. And confusing. I'm never sure how to act when they're talking to that person more than me.

I guess I don't really dislike them, because some real homies do the shit, but it's just weird and wrong. None of them can explain this behavior except for 'I'm just being civil'. That's not polite, it's overkill.

 

[Einherjar86]

My reality makes meaning and words, not the other way around. I think anyone can reverse that, but I'm not everyone.

Actually, it works both ways for everyone.

 

[Vimana]

Actually, it works both ways for everyone.

They're the same thing. Words are a sensory experience that references memories of others. The individual is a sort of nexus of sensory experiences. Point being that words do not automatically sway people, so censoring people is a less effective solution than getting people to understand their own agency in how they react to words.

 

[Einherjar86]

Okay, I feel as though you're going in circles, so I want to pursue a different line of questioning.

If "getting people to understand their own agency in how they react to words" is indeed a solution, then do you believe that there is a correct way in which all individuals should respond to all situations? If we cannot institute any means of censorship, then does the burden lie on individuals to correct their own responses? And if so, what response should that be?