It happened again

[Awe Thor]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Awe Thor wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

The statement made by Aethelwine was...

"Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about."

The study you cite reports that shadenfreude happens in children and, in the little I could find describing the report, makes no claims about any health effects deriving from it. The presence of shadenfreude is not in doubt. Dresden demonstrated it. The claim to be challenged here is that schadenfreude is not healthy. If the report offers evidence to the contrary, why didn't you mention it?

---

The study offers no indication whatsoever that schadenfreude is not unhealthy. In fact, the tenor of the paper - albeit one written by Germans - implies that schadenfreude is an entirely natural emotion - and the conclusion of the researchers says: "Our data revealed first evidence that schadenfreude might have an important impact on social (i.e. helping) behaviour even among young children. Thus, it is highly important to further analyse the determinants and consequences of schadenfreude. Right now, we are standing at the beginning of the understanding of this emotion."

 

 

Awe . . . is still waiting for any evidence of justification that schadenfreude is unhealthy, as Aethelwine unequivocally stated.

---

The evidence that schadenfreude may impact helping behavior is precisely what you should have brought here in first place. I won't blindly trust that you quoted the study accurately, nor will I take the study itself as gospel (I'm simply being as wary as you), but appreciate being made aware of it.

Aethelwine's statement was, I think, easy to comprehend. 

You had the chance to refute in the first volley and missed it. Instead, you fired off evidence (of shadenfreude in the young) that didn't even graze the target (shadenfreude is unhealthy).

You don't advance a position by waiting for the other side to retreat while you stand still. This MadBagLady is happy to have got you to take a step forward.

Gee, I'm even starting to sound like you!

;-)

---

I am still waiting for a scrap of evidence that does not rely on personal bigotry to suggest that Aethelwine's criticism of Dresden is in any way substantiated.

My contention is that schadenfreude is not unhealthy, as Aethelwine mistakenly stated, and that studies support my belief that it is a natural emotion. I don't have to refute anything, as it is up to Aethelwine to explain the basis for his statement.

Awe . . . enjoys watching others in the forum scrabbling around trying to justify the unjustifiable

[Awe Thor]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

 

Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about.

---

Hmmm, perhaps I misunderstood this. Aethelwine might have meant that schadenfreude IS a healthy pleasure, but he doesn't think it appropriate to boast about it.

So perhaps I should be congratulating him (her? it?) on his recognition of schadenfreude as one of the true pleasures of forum participation - and there is SO much opportunity to indulge in it - but asking, rather, why he considers it inadvisable to admit publicly to wallowing in the overt discomfiture of others.

Awe . . . wonders why Aethelwine might prefer that those enjoying the emotion should snigger silently, without posting.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Awe Thor wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Awe Thor wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

The statement made by Aethelwine was...

"Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about."

The study you cite reports that shadenfreude happens in children and, in the little I could find describing the report, makes no claims about any health effects deriving from it. The presence of shadenfreude is not in doubt. Dresden demonstrated it. The claim to be challenged here is that schadenfreude is not healthy. If the report offers evidence to the contrary, why didn't you mention it?

---

The study offers no indication whatsoever that schadenfreude is not unhealthy. In fact, the tenor of the paper - albeit one written by Germans - implies that schadenfreude is an entirely natural emotion - and the conclusion of the researchers says: "Our data revealed first evidence that schadenfreude might have an important impact on social (i.e. helping) behaviour even among young children. Thus, it is highly important to further analyse the determinants and consequences of schadenfreude. Right now, we are standing at the beginning of the understanding of this emotion."

 

 

Awe . . . is still waiting for any evidence of justification that schadenfreude is unhealthy, as Aethelwine unequivocally stated.

---

The evidence that schadenfreude may impact helping behavior is precisely what you should have brought here in first place. I won't blindly trust that you quoted the study accurately, nor will I take the study itself as gospel (I'm simply being as wary as you), but appreciate being made aware of it.

Aethelwine's statement was, I think, easy to comprehend. 

You had the chance to refute in the first volley and missed it. Instead, you fired off evidence (of shadenfreude in the young) that didn't even graze the target (shadenfreude is unhealthy).

You don't advance a position by waiting for the other side to retreat while you stand still. This MadBagLady is happy to have got you to take a step forward.

Gee, I'm even starting to sound like you!

;-)

---

I am still waiting for a scrap of evidence that does not rely on personal bigotry to suggest that Aethelwine's criticism of Dresden is in any way substantiated.

My contention is that schadenfreude is not unhealthy, as Aethelwine mistakenly stated, and that studies support my belief that it is a natural emotion. I don't have to refute anything, as it is up to Aethelwine to explain the basis for his statement.

Awe . . . enjoys watching others in the forum scrabbling around trying to justify the unjustifiable

---

But don't you think it was counterproductive to exhibit a lack of comprehension of the statement by refuting something else, while you were waiting for supporting evidence from Aethelwine? Perhaps my analogy was a bit off.

You don't advance a position by waiting for the other side to retreat while shooting yourself in the foot.

It was only after I brought your aiming error to light that you fired off a shot in a potentially productive direction.

I don't have an opinion on this, but at least I now have a few things to read.

[Bronxcheer]

If my team is tied with a rival in the league with one match to go and our rival team gets the biggest beating of their season I can't tell you how healthy my schadenfreude makes me feel and boy would I want to share that feeling with everybody.  

You think if this week's US open goes down to a play off then the winner isn't going to be deliriously happy and feel good after his opponent's 6th failed attempt to scramble out of the bunker?  Whereupon he will then, to the rapturous applause of the crowd, raise the trophy up in celebration of his victory over his hapless challenger.

Schadenfreude may well be unhealthy to the recipient, but it's my observation in these forums that the recipient can soon turn it around into self-pity thus giving the original awethor an unexpected slice of further schadenfreude to revel in.

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Malanya wrote:

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

---

Malanya wrote:

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

 

But how crazy are people that they have to actually take the time to look someone up in-world, and go on a rant in IMs over a forum post?

---

Actually, it's not crazy at all according to the

community guidelines

...

Interpersonal Disputes or Personal Negative Commentary

: If you have a personal disagreement, do not post about it on the Second Life community pages. Residents who have personal differences have other channels of communication available to them —

private messaging in the forums, IM within Second Life, or chatting within Second Life.

Then again, some people never read the CG or TOS.

---

I have read the TOS and CS and completely understand it. Interpersonal Disputes, covers Residents that are acquainted with each other as well as Residents who have had an encounter, an Issue with a merchant I could go on and on. Community Pages = Feeds too. I am sure you know how much "drama" and mud slinging can happened between people that were friends, partners, etc. If you had a disagreement with your landlord, YES IM in world, or a friend you have a dispute with or a merchant. WHY is there a PM option in the forum? It is for just that, if you have a personal dispute PM them, not stalk them in world or,as many do, use the community pages, the feeds to harass people.

---

 

You are arguing semantics dependent on which dictionary a person uses.

 

It clearly shows 3 options to resolve issues. It's a personal preference as to which one for which type.

 

---

I said that community pages are not just limited to the forum. I am not going to type the different forms of contact showing with the examples I used as you can see I have already done that it. There is a PM option and the ability to block a PM from a user in the forum. I don't think there many different reasons for those options being available here. It makes sense. Everyone reads text differently, I believe that's been well known to mankind for thousands of years.

The method of which a person chooses I have already answered in another post of being personal choice. It seems odd that are repeating what I have already answered, have you not read the whole thread?

p.s. I am not arguing. Having an opinion is not an argument, I believe it's a discussion.

edit- in regards to you quoting my phrase to Czari, I make friends with people while in the forum and then take it in world. It's my personal preference. We all have our own choices here in sl and just because someones belief does not go along with anothers clearly doesn't make either wrong = personal choice.

---

I think I need to clear this up re: my response that was then quoted and now referenced...lol.

My initial response as to what happens in the forums stays in the forums was in reference to disagreements.  I realize my one word response didn't reflect that.   The majority of my in world friends are people I first met on the forums so I'm not in any way against that - I applaud and use it. (Still being a personal preference if others feel differently, of course.)

 

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

Awe Thor wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

Awe Thor wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

Wow, did this whole thing escalate out of control.

---

It sure did, but it's been great.  I just love threads where people talk about some interaction they had with a crazy person, only to have that crazy person come along and try to prove how crazy they're not... making themselves look that much more crazy.

...Dres

---

Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about.

---

What sort of nonsense is that? I can't see that you mean

physically

healthy, so you must be disparaging Dresden's

mental

health, in which case perhaps you would like to reference the relevant element of the DSM (either 4 or 5 would do) that supports your contention, since one narrow-minded person's opinion is all that it is.

I entirely agree with Dresden; the Forums are a wonderful place to see morons demonstrate their idiocy, to see masochists complain about how badly they have been beaten up, to see naive serial romantics whinge about the ephemeral nature of their partners' affections, and especially to see those, like you, who would like to believe in the the underlying humanity of humanity, but are confronted here by the greater mass of humanity who enjoy nothing more than to hear the plaintive adult versions of the immature "It's not fair!". I note that - entirely appropriately it appears - you even have "whine" as part of your name.

Awe . . . suggests you start a thread called "Healthy Pleasures" and see what responses

that

get s you.

---

Are you intending to inject some humour in to the debate by making me laugh at your apparent lack of basic comprehension skills and bizarre logic?

Well no laughs from me I am afraid i feel sorry for you and your delicate sensibilities... Awe Diddums...

Maybe you should ask your mummy for help with understanding what has been said before sharing.

---

A lack of comprehension? I was basing my comments on a

professional study recently published in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology

, which found that  children as young as four had a righteous sense of schadenfreude, which had developed considerably by the time they were eight years old. Unless you have reasons for suggesting that this is only a pre-adolescent phenomenon - and I have considerable practical evidence to confirm it is not - then I would suggest that it is you who is suffering from a lack of comprehension and logic.

Awe . . . I am afraid that the laugh is on you; I am enjoying your publicly humiliating verbal pratfall.

ETA Particularly since you have demonstrated a considerable degree of moral insensitivity regarding maternal support.

---

You appear to have absolutely no clue what my point was.

Taking pleasure from other peoples failing is not healthy for a community, for the individual targeted for bullying nor for the person taking delight in the others misfortune.

No where did I say it is a mental illness, nor that it is restricted to any age group.

Maternal support? what are you on about? it is the subject of your enjoyment here that has lost their mother and is suffering the same condition.

 I feel very sorry for you, you are so insulted that anyone would have the impertinence, to say hold on a minute.... can you really not think of a more constructive way to find your pleasure than laughing at those suffering misfortune?

You come across as a bit pathetic. Awe Diddums indeed.

---

A suggestion...and just my opinion...I'd just skip over anything *ahem* Awe says.

[Bronxcheer]

---

Czari Zenovka wrote: herself into a hole

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Bronxcheer wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote: herself into a hole

---

I have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

---

Bronxcheer wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote: herself into a hole

---

I have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

---

That would make two of you ;-)

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

---

Bronxcheer wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote: herself into a hole

---

I have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

---

That would make two of you ;-)

---

LOL!  Based on the recent join date and totally blank profile, I assume Bronx is an alt of someone with some grudge against me, or a friend of someone with a grudge against me....or...

I have my own personal forum troll!!!

WOOT!!!!!

[Dillon Levenque]

While it is true that shadenfreude means enjoying other people's troubles, most people (maybe because the word is in a different language than theirs and they give it more meaning than it really has) think of it as a somewhat malicious and envious enjoyment of the troubles of others. The example in the study referenced elsewhere in this thread described a bright, over-achieving student with fabulous life prospects falling from grace, the idea being that less bright people might enjoy seeing the failure, just because it happened. That is not a pretty sentiment.

Being happy a rival team got handed its collective head is something entirely different, although technically the word shadenfreude fits for that too. A rival team is by definition something close to your equal (our your team's, if you're speaking as a supporter). There's no envy factor. To me that makes a big difference.

Your golf example leads me to believe you don't know a lot about professional golf. Six shots to get out of a bunker?

 

ETA: Now that I've seen some posts that were made while I was still composing mine (okay yes I'm slow) I believe I needn't have bothered. But that's true of almost everything I post (the 'almost' was just to give me the benefit of the doubt) so I'll leave it alone.

[Malanya]

No I got that Czari, I was referring to the "what happens in the forums stays in the forums" meaning if you have an issue with someone a reply or a PM is what I meant by first saying that phrase. That was separate from how I feel about people contacting me in world. I was told I was making humor and that I needed a dictionary so I figured I should respond to that poster as such

I am not saying anything wrong with making friends on the forum, I have many times, I just prefer it to start here and move in world, that's all. I think everyone should be respected for their personal choice (not directing that at any of your posts) and also I recall a post that someone said others can't be a mind reader, that's true, but I guess I see it as when I see many posters putting in their post "feel free to contact me in world re: whatever" that's telling people it's ok. This was not directed towards you either lol I just forgot to mention that in my illiterate humorous post  

[Malanya]

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

---

Bronxcheer wrote:

---

Czari Zenovka wrote: herself into a hole

---

I have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

---

That would make two of you ;-)

---

LOL!  Based on the recent join date and totally blank profile,

I assume Bronx is an alt

of someone with some grudge against me, or a friend of someone with a grudge against me....or...

I have my own personal forum troll!!!

WOOT!!!!!

---

Nooooo... not in this forum .. lmao

[SLtesterL2]

Had that happen to me before and I find it funny to say the least (more so since the guy who IM'd me had his face photoshopped over a six pack having bodybuilder). I don't think it's an SL only issue, many other gaming communities have this sort of thing too. Just ignore/block and move on and just think how sad it is people actually take the time to do all of that in spite and be the better person. I don't mind if its just ranting but threatening is a different story.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Awe Thor wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

 

Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about.

---

Hmmm, perhaps I misunderstood this. Aethelwine might have meant that schadenfreude

IS

a healthy pleasure, but he doesn't think it appropriate to boast about it.

So perhaps I should be congratulating him (her? it?) on his recognition of schadenfreude as one of the true pleasures of forum participation - and there is SO much opportunity to indulge in it - but asking, rather, why he considers it inadvisable to admit publicly to wallowing in the overt discomfiture of others.

Awe . . . wonders why Aethelwine might prefer that those enjoying the emotion should snigger silently, without posting.

---

This was my initial interpretation, though I don't consider that simply admitting to something, to which most people wouldn't admit, equates to being boastful about it.  I'm also not convinced that schadenfreude accurately characterizes my original statement.

I liken such forum antics to that of watching a slapstick comedy.  Sure people are throwing things at each other, slapping each other back and forth, poking each other in the eye and such... but, at the same time, you know that no one is really getting hurt.  As such, I can sympathize with their "pain" and laugh at them at the same time.  If this is so unhealthy for the community, then The Three Stooges should have been banned a long time ago.

...Dres

[Awe Thor]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

While it is true that shadenfreude means enjoying other people's troubles

---

No it doesn't. If you are going to discuss a concept you might at least spell it correctly.

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

maybe because the word is in a different language

---

Ah, that's your excuse - although everybody else in this thread has, so far, managed to get it right.

 

 

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

 

Your golf example leads me to believe you don't know a lot about professional golf. Six shots to get out of a bunker?

 

---

..it happens. Even to the best.

 

 

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

yes I'm slow

---

Belatedly, some self-awareness.

 

 

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I believe I needn't have bothered. But that's true of almost everything I post

---

You get no quarrels from me about that.

 

 

Awe . . . is still waiting for an explanation of why schadenfreude might be unhealthy.

 

 

[Awe Thor]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

I liken such forum antics to that of watching a slapstick comedy.  Sure people are throwing things at each other, slapping each other back and forth, poking each other in the eye and such... but, at the same time, you know that no one is really getting hurt.  As such, I can sympathize with their "pain" and laugh at them at the same time.  If this is so unhealthy for the community, then

The Three Stooges

should have been banned a long time ago.

...Dres

---

Agreed!

Awe . . . as usual, a drunken Dresden makes more sense than most sober forumites.

 

[Ted McGregor]

---

Awe Thor wrote:

 

Awe . . . is still waiting for an explanation of why schadenfreude might be unhealthy.

---

 

Because everybody knows the stupid boy, who points his index at others and laughs hard at them for sheer vitriolic joy, eventually gets his head caved in.  :robotindifferent:

 

 

[Awe Thor]

---

TDD123 wrote:

---

Awe Thor wrote:

 

Awe . . . is still waiting for an explanation of why schadenfreude might be unhealthy.

---

 

Because everybody knows the stupid boy, who points his index at others and laughs hard at them for sheer vitriolic joy, eventually gets his head caved in.  :robotindifferent:

 

 

---

Life's not a cartoon, Willy.

Awe . . . although Second Life is.

[Ted McGregor]

---

Awe Thor wrote:

---

TDD123 wrote:

---

Awe Thor wrote:

 

Awe . . . is still waiting for an explanation of why schadenfreude might be unhealthy.

---

 

Because everybody knows the stupid boy, who points his index at others and laughs hard at them for sheer vitriolic joy, eventually gets his head caved in.  :robotindifferent:

 

 

---

Life's not a cartoon, Willy.

Awe . . . although Second Life is.

---

Life's not a slapstick-comedy either, you Wally.

[Awe Thor]

---

TDD123 wrote:

---

Awe Thor wrote:

---

TDD123 wrote:

---

Awe Thor wrote:

 

Awe . . . is still waiting for an explanation of why schadenfreude might be unhealthy.

---

 

Because everybody knows the stupid boy, who points his index at others and laughs hard at them for sheer vitriolic joy, eventually gets his head caved in.  :robotindifferent:

 

 

---

Life's not a cartoon, Willy.

Awe . . . although Second Life is.

---

Life's not a slapstick-comedy either, you Wally.

---

I beg to differ, Willy.

Awe . . . and I enjoy watching you clowns.

[Suspiria Finucane]

---

Awe Thor wrote:

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

 

You are arguing semantics dependent on which dictionary a person uses.

 

---

Some of us know English well enough not to require a dictionary.

 . . . nor a thesaurus, nor a translator, nor a spell/grammar-checker.

---

Some of us can actually understand what we read instead of creating definitions based on illiteracy.

 

…and strive for multilingual excellence while others choose to languish in cultural mediocrity.

 

Some of us don’t post ennui based torpor replies.

 

Some of us creatively think for themselves and don’t have to replicate another’s style.

 

Some of us don’t need to use alts because our main was permabanned.

[Ted McGregor]

---

Awe Full wrote

Awe . . . and I enjoy watching you clowns.

---

Obnoxious Bozo Awe Full insisting on having the last word, sez wut ? :robotindifferent:

 

[Awe Thor]

---

Suspiria Finucane wrote:

Some of us creatively think for themselves and don’t have to replicate another’s style.

Some of us don’t need to use alts because our main was permabanned.

---

Some of us don't contradict ourselves in the course of two sentences.

Awe . . . or perhaps you're just as confused as I intend you to be.

[Awe Thor]

---

TDD123 wrote:

---

Awe Full wrote

Awe . . . and I enjoy watching you clowns.

---

Obonoxious Bozo Awe Full insisting on having the last word, sez wut ? :robotindifferent:

 

---

Have you not been told that it is inadvisable to post real-life photos of yourself, Willy?

Awe . . . someone might recognise you and turn you in to the cops.