Forum Tone

[Ellyn Elan]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote: 

a lot of stuff

ahh maybe i'm just picking up on other vides or something..but after seeing so many threads i just finally had to say something..even though i may be the only one that understands me lol

  

---

I not only understood what you are saying but agree with it. I wish we could have nice, adult discussions without OVER correcting into walking on eggshells all of the time. I don't think it is JUST this forum as race, money, religion and politics are really in divisive mode here in the States.  Here in the forum I'll speak for myself. I feel stifled by the moderation. I've had really innocent, mild posts pulled here. If someone gets offended I guess the process is to get the posts or threads removed or locked. Depending on my mood that either makes me think, "Eff it and come get me coppers!" or more usually the eggshell walk or even more commonly, I just don't post.

I did something here I usually don't. I haven't read through the entire thread before posting. Sorry if I'm repeating what 10, 000 others have.

[BothamFidor]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

are you tryin to butter my biscut?

---

I think you just made Storm an offer he can't refuse . . .

Fidor

[BothamFidor]

---

Wildcat Furse wrote:

I am only following two threads here closely (

Storm's Vanity & Hippie's friends thread

) because both threads make me feel good, the rest I don't really care much about! *meows*

PS. a forum is like an amusement park .... (choose your ride and have fun!!!) :matte-motes-big-grin-evil:

---

For your continued peace of mind then, I hope that the inhabitants of those two threads maintain an atmosphere of mutually insincere backslapping, and that any disapprobation they have of events outside their self-declared DMZ remains off the page so that they do not attract the attention of any of the stronger personalities who might be inclined to disturb the status quo.

Fidor

[Ima Rang]

---

BothamFidor wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

This sort of thing is -never- proper.

We are all responsible for our actions and how they impact others.

"Bigotry has been "hiding" behind the "its your problem for getting offended" line for far too long."

 

With the ability to speak out freely comes the responsibility to be accountable to what one says.

Self-referential jokes, don't work online. They can work in person when you're a limited audience that can get your angle and that you're 'part of the target group of your own attack' - but online we lack the body language cues - the various senses that can make the hurt go away with such comments.

Online, self referenced jokes can just make a person sound like a bigot to a listener who in person, might have been able to be empathic and even in the same crowd. Such a style of humor is 'best left at the door.'

 

---

Emotionally hypersensitive people who nevertheless lack the empathic intellectual capacity to be able to read and understand the communications expressed competently and coherently by others will always make this argument and will never win with it. It is up to the individual to determine whether they wish to enter the killing-field of internet forums - of whatever format - if lacking the linguistic and comprehension weapons and armour to be able to compete on what is most definitely a level playing field. Partial incompetence in one or other of the directions of the communication arcs will always reveal itself to the humiliation of the inadequately equipped participant. Belief that consideration of this insufficiency of judgment should be the responsibility of the better prepared demonstrates an unacknowledged moral deficit of the defective combatant. That the strong should accommodate the weak is a tenet held only by the weak, as it is their only response to the natural Darwinian effect of survival of the fittest. Any community which supports its runts is doomed to failure. Be responsible for and live with your feelings or remove yourself from situations in which you are unable to do so.

Fidor

---

Interesting language you use there.

Forums should not be a place that any person feels they need to compete.  Those who choose to respond to posts are not combatants by original design.  If you know that you are in the company of and communicating with individuals that range in age from say, 16-60 with varying degrees of emotional as well as intellectual IQ, then the person that demonstrates an unacknowledged moral deficit of a defective combatant is actually the individual that refuses to speak to the audience which is present, as opposed to the audience in which they desire or deem worthy.  Survival of the fittest..An ability to adapt to changing environments and survive...so is it really the 16 year old that cannot understand the erudite language of 50+ year old experienced individual that must GTFO and lick their wounds after being humiliated because they have not made it past the letter P in the thesaurus yet...Or is it the highly educated and sage 50+ year old that should suffer the humiliation for not addressing the audience that actually exists as opposed to the one that lives in their head?  Because if we are being honest with ourselves, when we post on these forums we are well aware that there are teenagers, educated, uneducated, rich, poor, healthy, unhealthy, high functioning autistics, Aspergers, BP1 & 2's, addicts, etc., among us. Which, of course, those of higher intellect already know...it is not always limited to shallow affect or hyper-sensitivity.  Eh, it is a tough question in an environment such as this one...which is dedicated to the adult version of cartoon Barbie and Ken dressup and bump time...The fact that a higher degree of intellect should be a a precursor to being allowed to discuss Barbie and Ken cartoon world without being purposely humiliated by those claiming emotional and intellectual superiority  among us, is just kind of...funny. 

 

 

[Sy Beck]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

you would think there were a bunch of people here before us that came in and broke a bunch of eggs to make some omelets..

because it sure seems like a lot of people are walking on eggshells lol

 

we are all human..people are not perfect..why are people trying to act perfect in a world where we know we are not and everyone makes mistakes??

myself i don't think there are ignorant people here posting up that would be serious about a generalization about a group or race..

there is something i notice about these forums when race or groups get brought up..people walk on eggshells...

when people start to tread lightly it gets scary..i mean jesus scary hehehehe

why can we never relax and talk about these things rather than our butts tighten up hoping we don't cross a line we may not have known about ..at least we will be getting more educated in the things rather than dodging them to avoid conflict..

stresses like these will never go away if they are kept in undertones and shunned the second someone either makes a mistake or attempts to actually learn something..

it's like when the subjects come up everyone seems to change into PC mode or not PC mode.

i may get bashed for this i don't know..

but i'm just trying to be honest in how these threads feel and what i tend to see..they feel like oprha when DR phil was still around  lol

does this make sense or am i just sounding like a loon here?

it's hard to put into words really..but they just feel all strange n stuff hehehe

as my father says..are you tryin to butter my biscut? hehehe

 

ahh maybe i'm just picking up on other vides or something..but after seeing so many threads i just finally had to say something..even though i may be the only one that understands me lol 

 

---

 

Well said Ceka.

I'll defend anybody's right to say what they believe and how they want to say it, but they had better be able to justify it and argue after they have.  That's the honest and intellectual deal that we strike in debate.  If anybody says anything that is illegal then it's out of bounds, there are more proper places for them to be held to account.

You cannot use a defence or deny somebody else an opinion because you are offended.  So what if you are offended?  What bearing does that have on an argument, it is a subjective statement.  What offends you, may delight and profit many more other people than you.  I'm offended by Christian Fundamentalists, Anti-Abortionists and Creationists, but I don't go around saying they must be banned or silenced because they offend me.  If I think they are wrong or immoral then it's up to me and others to argue with them and debate and let people decide at the end whose arguments win.

 

[BothamFidor]

---

Ima Rang wrote:

 

Interesting language you use there.

Forums should not be a place that any person feels they need to compete.  Those who choose to respond to posts are not combatants by original design.  If you know that you are in the company of and communicating with individuals that range in age from say, 16-60 with varying degrees of emotional as well as intellectual IQ, then the person that demonstrates an unacknowledged moral deficit of a defective combatant is actually the individual that refuses to speak to the audience which is present, as opposed to the audience in which they desire or deem worthy.  Survival of the fittest..An ability to adapt to changing environments and survive...so is it really the 16 year old that cannot understand the erudite language of 50+ year old experienced individual that must GTFO and lick their wounds after being humiliated because they have not made it past the letter P in the thesaurus yet...Or is it the highly educated and sage 50+ year old that should suffer the humiliation for not addressing the audience that actually exists as opposed to the one that lives in their head?  Because if we are being honest with ourselves, when we post on these forums we are well aware that there are teenagers, educated, uneducated, rich, poor, healthy, unhealthy, high functioning autistics, Aspergers, BP1 & 2's, addicts, etc., among us. Which, of course, those of higher intellect already know...it is not always limited to shallow affect or hyper-sensitivity.  Eh, it is a tough question in an environment such as this one...which is dedicated to the adult version of cartoon Barbie and Ken dressup and bump time...The fact that a higher degree of intellect should be a a precursor to being allowed to discuss Barbie and Ken cartoon world without being purposely humiliated by those claiming emotional and intellectual superiority  among us, is just kind of...funny. 

 

 

---

I post for those people who are able to understand me. If others do not then they have three choices. They can remain silent; they can ask for clarification; or they can take a guess at what I have said and potentially make fools of themselves.

Unfortunately many participants here fall into that last category, but deny that they do, and in their denial they draw even more attention to their deficits.

Nobody is forced to respond to anything I or anybody else post here.

And why should I restrict myself to simple single syllable words and short sentences, diluting the richness and colour of my communications,  just because it would suit a very small proportion of the overall audience better?

Oh, and competition is the default mode for all human beings, wherever they are.

Fidor

[Ima Rang]

---

BothamFidor wrote:

---

Ima Rang wrote:

 

Interesting language you use there.

Forums should not be a place that any person feels they need to compete.  Those who choose to respond to posts are not combatants by original design.  If you know that you are in the company of and communicating with individuals that range in age from say, 16-60 with varying degrees of emotional as well as intellectual IQ, then the person that demonstrates an unacknowledged moral deficit of a defective combatant is actually the individual that refuses to speak to the audience which is present, as opposed to the audience in which they desire or deem worthy.  Survival of the fittest..An ability to adapt to changing environments and survive...so is it really the 16 year old that cannot understand the erudite language of 50+ year old experienced individual that must GTFO and lick their wounds after being humiliated because they have not made it past the letter P in the thesaurus yet...Or is it the highly educated and sage 50+ year old that should suffer the humiliation for not addressing the audience that actually exists as opposed to the one that lives in their head?  Because if we are being honest with ourselves, when we post on these forums we are well aware that there are teenagers, educated, uneducated, rich, poor, healthy, unhealthy, high functioning autistics, Aspergers, BP1 & 2's, addicts, etc., among us. Which, of course, those of higher intellect already know...it is not always limited to shallow affect or hyper-sensitivity.  Eh, it is a tough question in an environment such as this one...which is dedicated to the adult version of cartoon Barbie and Ken dressup and bump time...The fact that a higher degree of intellect should be a a precursor to being allowed to discuss Barbie and Ken cartoon world without being purposely humiliated by those claiming emotional and intellectual superiority  among us, is just kind of...funny. 

 

 

---

I post for those people who are able to understand me. If others do not then they have three choices. They can remain silent; they can ask for clarification; or they can take a guess at what I have said and potentially make fools of themselves.

Unfortunately many participants here fall into that last category, but deny that they do, and in their denial they draw even more attention to their deficits.

Nobody is forced to respond to anything I or anybody else posts here.

Oh, and competition is the default mode for all human beings, wherever they are.

Fidor

---

 

True..However, there has to be some recognition of the fact that people are not always aware of the fact that you are only posting to those that can understand you.  That you are doing a people of like mind and intellect parse is not always that obvious--especially when it is housed in a General Discussions forum dedicated to cartoon land.  If someone makes a stab at what they think/thought you said, is that really them making a fool of themselves...or are they only made a fool of when the misunderstood one unloads a verbal assault weapon of ego and esteem squashing verbal napalm on them instead of offering up some clarification? 

I agree that self-awareness is not always abundant and that surely it is no fun to spend a great deal of time trying to bail individuals out of what appears to be intellectual/emotional bankruptcy...but again, if that is the audience for which you present to....it is to be expected and upon that expectation...who really has the moral obligation to remain silent and ignore...the one of inferior intellect or the one with superior intellect?   Perhaps the only one that recognizes what needs to be done is the one of superior intellect? 

Indeed there is no force going on here in the forums...I myself have a "thing" for the smart types...I'm well equipped at identifying them...but I confess, I don't always understand WTF they just said.  I have a really smart friend I can run it past though and avoid the public humiliation ;D  (sometimes, occasionally, fine!..Rarely).

Really? Competition is default mode...I wish you would start a thread on that concept, because I would like to read more about your thoughts on that...especially relative to SL...but I won't risk a derail here...

[Melita Magic]

Strategy? No. I just try to be on topic and to the point. (As well as helpful, ideally.) You'd have to ask others how it's received.

My emotions can occasionally be engaged by anti-America(n) trolls baiting the forumites. If they are actually that bothered, when logic dictates their own nation has done worse long before we existed, then they need a healthy dose of fresh air. So, obvious trolls R obvious, really. I wish the mods would step on that type of thing more often and with prejudice.

[Aristophanese]

Hello, friend. Out of curiosity, I googled your name, interesting what came up.

leech, or in other words a total lack of responsibility to provide for oneself. Relies heavily upon friends, neighbors or anyone really for sustenance. a slacker through and through.

Not that I am calling you that, I just thought you may want to know.

[Melita Magic]

Ah. And Shakespeare asked "what's in a name?"

 

[Aristophanese]

Indeed, serendipitous almost, the sagacity of being able to link together apparently innocuous facts to come to a valuable conclusion. That came from wikipedia.

[Ellyn Elan]

---

Aristophanese wrote:

Hello, friend. Out of curiosity, I googled your name, interesting what came up.

leech, or in other words a total lack of responsibility to provide for oneself. Relies heavily upon friends, neighbors or anyone really for sustenance. a slacker through and through.

Not that I am calling you that, I just thought you may want to know.

---

I Googled too and noted that your scholarly citation is from the Urban Dictionary, that highly distinguished fount of knowledge esteemed by academicians everywhere.  If you had looked elsewhere, perhaps in more scientific works, you'd have learned that the general term you Googled encompasses a wide variety of species, each with their own unique and important contribution to the environment in which they live.

It seems you chose your name to be negatively ironic, for I have been reading none of the original's wit or verbal finesse in your offerings.

“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.” 

― Aristophanes, the real one, and still a timeless observation.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Online

, self referenced

jokes can just make a person sound like a bigot

to a listener who in person, might have been able to be empathic and even in the same crowd. Such a style of humor is 'best left at the door.'

---

Pussycat, you have made a very keen observation in the above sentence.   I'm going to extrapolate on that thought, as it is an important one.

That online "jokes", references, and the type of humor that a poster understands...can...and very often will be misconstrued.  

If an online joke is worded, so that a meaning other that with which the writer intended, can be gleaned, often what will happen is that a dissenter who wishes to find an area of complaint....will pick out that "joke" and use it as an example of how the person is "bad".  

Then even when the poster explains their intent, the dissenter will not acknowledge the posters intent.   The dissenter, can then keep trotting out the "words" that the poster wrote...and never acknowledge that the poster clarified the meaning of the words.   In this manner, a war of words can be waged.  By twisting the intent and meaning of another person, one can work a campaign to vilify them. 

Now, in Pussycat's comment above, she ends with the "best left at the door" recommendation regarding the "jokes".  I *think*, part of her reason for that recommendation, is because of the very type of word manipulation that I describe.  Those jokes can, and will, be used against someone...by those that dislike them.  

So, it's really up to the individual, if they want to take the risk of making a "joke" that could be misconstrued, and used against them.   I suppose if one feels the audience is sufficiently savvy and will "get" the joke, then they are fairly safe.  If not, then one takes a chance, and posts the joke or not.  But, they had better be prepared for fall-out.

Now, the issue is not just with the person who might make a questionable joke...but the issue is also with those that would deliberately use that joke to malign and discredit someone.  This is done in politics all the time, and personally, I cringe when I see it.  Particularly, if the person who wrote those words has clearly stated what the words were intended to mean. 

[Cinnamon Mistwood]

I agree Celestial.  ^^this^^ is a tactic used by a few here.  It MAY be what Dres was trying to say earlier that had been misconstrued.  He said something to the effect that people can deliberately 'not get' the joke.  It is always possible that our words can be manipulated into meaning something that was not intended.  Thank you for stating it so clearly.

Cinn

[Pussycat Catnap]

Its not always the listener intentionally misconstruing.

Genuine offense can happen when hateful words are used - even when used by a -claimed to be- member of the target class.

But it is also quite easy online for a person to pretend to be some group they are not, and then convey very negative stereotypes about that group - the so-called 'inter-racial' sims that are largely about 'big black ghettoized men' forcing themselves on 'helpless white women' as a case in point. There is nothing in the internet to say 'this person is really of that group, so I guess its ok.'

But even if they are, is it ok?

Witness the NAACP's war on the N-word. At what point is the 'target' of a negative stereotype helping to promote it and 'hold others of their group down'?

Chris Rock and Jeff Foxworthy are funny to many - because we can look at who they are and know where they come from. But imagine if they switched joke cards - Chris Rock telling Mr. Foxworthy's jokes, and Jeff Foxworthy telling Mr. Rock's jokes. There'd be a national uproar and two guys on CNN making apologies with their agents standing behind them...

If they were anonymous SL users posting their way of humor in a forum, it might not go over so well - even if they 'claimed to be' what they indeed really were.

 

Humor, as in any speech; has no need to sink into hate-speech and hateful conduct or harrasment of others. This thread, as a case in point, has a few posters already who are finding no way to respond but to demean the intelligence of their fellow posters.

A more eloquent, or perhaps sophisticated speaker, has no need to sink into vulgarity to get a message across. Vulgarity and insult are the vehicles of an emotional loss of control over one's message.

 

[Cinnamon Mistwood]

You are absolutely correct in this, Pussycat.  There really is NO excuse for true hate and intolerance, not even hidden under a joke.  I happen to like both of those comedians, but I am not sure how I'd feel about the joke switching.  I can't say I've never been offended by a comedian either.  There are times when I thought a joke went too far.  When I say I like stereotypes and find them funny, it is because I recognize a stereotype when I see one.  I also have first hand experience in being a minority in a community, so feeling the disapproval of others for being just what I am is known to me.

I can not, however, take comedy away from people as a valid strategy for getting a point across.  It works when used properly and can cause change in a non-threatening manner.  (This is not to take away from your point that hate-filled jokes have no place here or anywhere).  I can't speak to those who are pretending to be someone else to get away with perpetuating negative stereotypes.  If I have run into that, I have not seen it for what it was, but I would never support it.

>A more eloquent, or perhaps sophisticated speaker, has no need to sink into vulgarity to get a message across. Vulgarity and insult are the vehicles of an emotional loss of control over one's message.<

^^This^^ is very clear, well said and I agree 100%.  I believe there are many here that would also agree with this assessment.  I hope a few more people are willing to read this whole thread.  I have seen myself in a few of these responses.  I hope others do to and think a second time about their words before pressing the "post" button

Cinn

I am aware I missed more than a few commas in this, but I thought it more important to get my thoughts out than proofread.

[Randall Ahren]

What about Louis C.K.? He's extremely vulgar and insulting, but extraordinarily funny. I don't see anything wrong with his humor. 

[Aristophanese]

Yes, you are correct. That site is a favourite of my friend Gary, one of the reasons I believed he would appreciate my comment. Also, my name has an e at its ending, but thank you for the comparison.

(they) are like the fishers for eels; in still waters they catch nothing, but if they thoroughly stir up the slime, their fishing is good - the same

[Cinnamon Mistwood]

@ Randall - I had to look him up.   He is funny - not for everyone granted, but LOL!!!!

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its not always the listener intentionally misconstruing.

Genuine offense can happen when hateful words are used - even when used by a -claimed to be- member of the target class.

But it is also quite easy online for a person to pretend to be some group they are not, and then convey very negative stereotypes about that group - the so-called 'inter-racial' sims that are largely about 'big black ghettoized men' forcing themselves on 'helpless white women' as a case in point. There is nothing in the internet to say 'this person is really of that group, so I guess its ok.'

But even if they are, is it ok?

Witness the NAACP's war on the N-word. At what point is the 'target' of a negative stereotype helping to promote it and 'hold others of their group down'?

Chris Rock and Jeff Foxworthy are funny to many - because we can look at who they are and know where they come from. But imagine if they switched joke cards - Chris Rock telling Mr. Foxworthy's jokes, and Jeff Foxworthy telling Mr. Rock's jokes. There'd be a national uproar and two guys on CNN making apologies with their agents standing behind them...

If they were anonymous SL users posting their way of humor in a forum, it might not go over so well - even if they 'claimed to be' what they indeed really were.

 

Humor, as in any speech; has no need to sink into hate-speech and hateful conduct or harrasment of others. This thread, as a case in point, has a few posters already who are finding no way to respond but to demean the intelligence of their fellow posters.

A more eloquent, or perhaps sophisticated speaker, has no need to sink into vulgarity to get a message across. Vulgarity and insult are the vehicles of an emotional loss of control over one's message.

---

I don't care if you or anyone else believes I am what I say I am.  I have no control over your beliefs.  If you want to see hatred brimming under every joke ever told here, go right ahead.  I, on the other hand, will continue joking with my friends and having a good time... because, otherwise, I would not be here at all.

...Dres

[Derek Torvalar]

' I read too much, I thought we should kill ourselves. She doesn't read a thing; she believed me. "Are you really the messiah?" "Yes, I am." She was younger than me, too. She was younger than me. And I said to her. I said, "You know, Pauline? No-one stamps on a burning bag of **bleep** any more. Nobody!" '

[madjim]

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

' I read too much, I thought we should kill ourselves. She doesn't read a thing; she believed me. "Are you really the messiah?" "Yes, I am." She was younger than me, too. She was younger than me. And I said to her. I said, "You know, Pauline? No-one stamps on a burning bag of **bleep** any more. Nobody!" '

---

Steppenwolf called, Derek, and they would like their riff back. Talking Heads said you could keep the lyrical delivery.

Father - Mad as ***bleep*** - Jim

[Venus Petrov]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

 

does this make sense or am i just sounding like a loon here?

 

---

 

No.  Ceka, I have never known you to sound like a loon.

[Venus Petrov]

---

BothamFidor wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

This sort of thing is -never- proper.

We are all responsible for our actions and how they impact others.

"Bigotry has been "hiding" behind the "its your problem for getting offended" line for far too long."

 

With the ability to speak out freely comes the responsibility to be accountable to what one says.

Self-referential jokes, don't work online. They can work in person when you're a limited audience that can get your angle and that you're 'part of the target group of your own attack' - but online we lack the body language cues - the various senses that can make the hurt go away with such comments.

Online, self referenced jokes can just make a person sound like a bigot to a listener who in person, might have been able to be empathic and even in the same crowd. Such a style of humor is 'best left at the door.'

 

---

Emotionally hypersensitive people who nevertheless lack the empathic intellectual capacity to be able to read and understand the communications expressed competently and coherently by others will always make this argument and will never win with it. It is up to the individual to determine whether they wish to enter the killing-field of internet forums - of whatever format - if lacking the linguistic and comprehension weapons and armour to be able to compete on what is most definitely a level playing field. Partial incompetence in one or other of the directions of the communication arcs will always reveal itself to the humiliation of the inadequately equipped participant. Belief that consideration of this insufficiency of judgment should be the responsibility of the better prepared demonstrates an unacknowledged moral deficit of the defective combatant. That the strong should accommodate the weak is a tenet held only by the weak, as it is their only response to the natural Darwinian effect of survival of the fittest. Any community which supports its runts is doomed to failure. Be responsible for and live with your feelings or remove yourself from situations in which you are unable to do so.

Fidor

---

Even things simply written can be misinterpreted.  Years ago I wrote a piece of prose describing an effort to hang wet laundry outside on a windy day.  It was interpreted by one reader as a cry for help from someone about to attempt suicide.

The best we can do is communicate our intent as clearly as we are able by our choice of words.  They will be interpreted via the prisims of one or one thousand and each may have a slightly different take on it.

[Ellyn Elan]

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

Even things simply written can be misinterpreted.  Years ago I wrote a piece of prose describing an effort to hang wet laundry outside on a windy day.  It was interpreted by one reader as a cry for help from someone about to attempt suicide.

The best we can do is communicate our intent as clearly as we are able by our choice of words.  They will be interpreted via the prisims of one or one thousand and each may have a slightly different take on it.

---

^^this^^

 

I think we've all had this experience if we communicate with any frequency. I have had simply stated things wildly and widely misinterpretted, leaving me to scratch my head and wonder wtfreak. Although, LOL, I have to say your story beats the heck out of mine.