when is something an insult?

[The Stranger]

To what extent do we need to consider the feelings of our fellow people? When I say something without the intention to insult anyone but nonetheless people are insulted, whose concern is that?

[Kralizec]

I think that letting it depend on the person who feels insulted is definitely a stretch.

I'd say that for something to count as insulting when it is not intended so, it would have to be something that a comfortable majority of people would find objectionable; and that the person making the statement should have known better. Does that fall under #3?

[HoreTore]

I can't see how the one making a comment can be the one deciding how it should be interpreted.

The insulted must be allowed to react however he wants to a statement, including feeling insulted. And if someone feels insulted, how can that not be called an insult? I say it's a subjective feeling that must necessarily be decided by the one on the receiving end.


This, however, does not in any way mean that anyone should ever care that someone else gets insulted.

[Tellos Athenaios]

An insult is an insult when it is perceived as such. You can't really undo offence given to someone by pointing out you didn't mean to, likewise most people are hardly going to be offended by the suggestion that their father smells of elderberries even if it is most sincerely intended to insult them. The real question, I think, is not about when something is insulting per se, but rather when does it matter whether or not you are insulting, or in other words: (when) do you care?

[Sp4]

I always kind of understood insults to be done on purpose and offenses to happen accidentally or at least I make that distinction. I'm aware that some things I can say might offend people though, so I try to avoid doing it cause if I wasn't doing that, I'd be insulting them on purpose =X XD

[Husar]

There are always two sides to communication and if you want to communicate something and you care how it is received, you have to try to predict how the recipient will interprete it. If you fail and someone feels insulted, you can state you actual intention but it depends on the recipient whether they still believe you. If not, as Tellos says, it depends on how much you care.

I've personally managed to turn some unintended insults around and others not so much.

It generally helps to be a bit more careful with words however if you like the people you talk to.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Communication theorists generally hold with the view that it is the message receiver and not the sender who determines the impact of a message.

If you say "that doesn't flatter you" and your S.O. hears "You're fat and ugly" just GUESS which interpretation dominates the relationship for the next little while.


Some phrases and words do carry too much baggage and can end up causing insult through simple use. Perhaps this should not be so, but it is.

[The Stranger]

And if someone feels insulted, how can that not be called an insult? I say it's a subjective feeling that must necessarily be decided by the one on the receiving end.

Because at the end of the day, people can feel insulted by everything. The clear counter-example to what you just said would be Homophilia and Homophobia. Some people are gay, other people can feel insulted by this, but does it therefor mean that being gay is an insult or is insulting?

Ofcourse when someone feels insulted, no rational reasoning can take away his feeling, but still we can discuss wether his feeling is justified. Similar to fear, sometimes fear is justified and sometimes it isnt, this doesnt take away the fear of one who is afraid, but it can allow us to say that what he is afraid of, is actually not a threat.

[The Stranger]

Communication theorists generally hold with the view that it is the message receiver and not the sender who determines the impact of a message.

If you say "that doesn't flatter you" and your S.O. hears "You're fat and ugly" just GUESS which interpretation dominates the relationship for the next little while.


Some phrases and words do carry too much baggage and can end up causing insult through simple use. Perhaps this should not be so, but it is.

Yes, this seems to be the current status quo but I'm not sure I like it, but its good you bring it up. I may come back to it later with a response!

[The Stranger]

An insult is an insult when it is perceived as such. You can't really undo offence given to someone by pointing out you didn't mean to, likewise most people are hardly going to be offended by the suggestion that their father smells of elderberries even if it is most sincerely intended to insult them. The real question, I think, is not about when something is insulting per se, but rather when does it matter whether or not you are insulting, or in other words: (when) do you care?

yes, that question was part of my OP. and i guess in daily life its the more important question, tho for now ill regard it as of lesser importance.

for now the answer, you should care when you care about the opinion of the person who is insulted, either because you love/respect/fear that person or because you need something of that person.

[Fragony]

Only when it's intended to be an insult, that's an act. If someone feels insulted it was just insulting.

[a completely inoffensive name]

When the intent of the speech is insulting in nature. Removing intent from the equation makes every statement an insult.

[Ironside]

Because at the end of the day, people can feel insulted by everything. The clear counter-example to what you just said would be Homophilia and Homophobia. Some people are gay, other people can feel insulted by this, but does it therefor mean that being gay is an insult or is insulting?

Ofcourse when someone feels insulted, no rational reasoning can take away his feeling, but still we can discuss wether his feeling is justified. Similar to fear, sometimes fear is justified and sometimes it isnt, this doesnt take away the fear of one who is afraid, but it can allow us to say that what he is afraid of, is actually not a threat.

The same comment, in the same tone, can be an intended insult, unthoughtful insult, unintended insult and a helpful question (Can I help you?). So evidently, it's the perciever that decides if it's an insult or not.

The justification has to do with the next phase. How do you respond to the insult and how should the (sometimes accidental) insulter respond to that in turn? I don't think there's a good generalisation that doesn't have plenty of exceptions for that.

Edit:
Take a gaming example. Say that you're extra helpful towards a girl in a computer game, because she's a girl and "girls aren't good at computer games". That's an insult and should be treated as "education time" (same thing as you gay example gave, even if it's rather offended than insulted), even if you didn't intend it as such. It's unintentionally demeaning. With a child, that kind of stuff can be both demeaning and correct at the same time.

One symbolic part of friendship is tolerating comments that if said by anyone else is an insult. That also means that the "insulter" needs to know when to not throw that "insult" since it will be taken as an insult at that point.

It basically falls down to what the larger society finds acceptable/tolerable or not.

[The Stranger]

The same comment, in the same tone, can be an intended insult, unthoughtful insult, unintended insult and a helpful question (Can I help you?). So evidently, it's the perciever that decides if it's an insult or not.

The justification has to do with the next phase. How do you respond to the insult and how should the (sometimes accidental) insulter respond to that in turn? I don't think there's a good generalisation that doesn't have plenty of exceptions for that.

Edit:
Take a gaming example. Say that you're extra helpful towards a girl in a computer game, because she's a girl and "girls aren't good at computer games". That's an insult and should be treated as "education time" (same thing as you gay example gave, even if it's rather offended than insulted), even if you didn't intend it as such. It's unintentionally demeaning. With a child, that kind of stuff can be both demeaning and correct at the same time.

One symbolic part of friendship is tolerating comments that if said by anyone else is an insult. That also means that the "insulter" needs to know when to not throw that "insult" since it will be taken as an insult at that point.

It basically falls down to what the larger society finds acceptable/tolerable or not.

ofcourse we can never determine effectively what the intention is of the one making the comment (but the same is true about being offended, we can never know if offense is actually taken or people pretend for whatever reason), that is why people misinterpret and sometimes are offended by something that was not intended as an offense (make note, that for those who are offended, intention may not always matter, but it often does).

Your reasoning allows the same to be said about the reception of the comment, because every comment can be perceived in many ways, surely it cannot be left up just to the one interpreting the comment. And if as you say, it cannot also be left up to the one making the comment, there must be another qualifying factor.

But Im not sure if it cannot be left solely up to the one making the comment (lets call him the commentator). The interpretator can make mistakes in interpreting the intent of the commentator (he can however make no mistake in interpreting what the comment means to him at that point in that context). The commentator however cannot mistake his intent (unless we are going to factor in unconsious decisions, which i would leave out for now).

Neither approach is flawless, putting the power to qualify something as an insult in the hands of the interpretor would result as someone else pointed out, in everything possibly being an insult, in a justice analogy, everything you say and do could be a crime and you would always be guilty. If you put the burden soley with the commentator, then to make another justice analogy, everyone could always claim innocence, and nobody could ever prove the contrary.

so what could that other factor be, it could be what society finds acceptable or not, so it would come down to some sort of convention to function as an objective anchor between two subjective points. But there is a problem with that convention, how does society decide what is acceptable and what not?

I have to go now :/ will come back later to finish this post.

[Fragony]

But insulting is an act. You simply can't help accidently offending people because you never know what offends them. For that we have 'being offended'. But an insult is a concious act, it serves only one purpose, to insult, it's an act of hostility. Wether or not something is percieved as being insulting is in the eye of the beholder.

[Beskar]

Intention is the biggest thing, though some people are naturally cruel in their expressions which people are then forced to adapt to due to pressures of society forcing them to be in proximity with.

Some one once said a story how this person worked hard all day then managed to sit down for their unpaid break, starting to get their lunch together when another employee from a different department came along and said "Wow, I wish I got paid to sit on my bum all day". Obviously the person who was sat down got very offended and cursed the person who said it, then their boss had to calm them down saying about how the other employee is always curt and doesn't mean anything by it, and they should take it as a joke.

Personally, in the example, I disagreed with the boss. The other employee was not being 'curt', they were frankly just rude and wrong but the person agreed with the Boss saying how X is always like that is everyone and Y shouldn't react to it, but I fail to see why it makes it okay for X to do that.

[Montmorency]

I'm not sure whether it is understood here that the speaker, the hearer, and convention can all be at odds in a given situation, and that it is possible to create an insult that is an insult from three perspectives simultaneously - and have it be different for each perspective simultaneously.

[The Stranger]

But insulting is an act. You simply can't help accidently offending people because you never know what offends them. For that we have 'being offended'. But an insult is a concious act, it serves only one purpose, to insult, it's an act of hostility. Wether or not something is percieved as being insulting is in the eye of the beholder.

im inclined to agree, but it does create situations such as beskar describes where some people just go around being ***holes to people and then claim it was just a joke and they shouldnt get all upset when people get offended. A way to arm yourself against this is to decide upon certain standards or conventions which must be upheld by both parties, but this makes us come back to where i previously left off, how do we decide this. And how adequate is this solution, it seems to me that convention is never capable of fully dealing with the diversity of life. There will always be exceptions and special cases, and how do we proceed then? What happens when people constantly refuse to meet these standards, can we use force to make them comply? Or must we suffice with ignoring them, banning them from the community.

[Fragony]

If you insult someone youstill acknowedge someone's existence, why bother otherwise. Why give a crap when being insulted. It's a different kind of courtesy to insult someone.

[Husar]

I'm not sure whether it is understood here that the speaker, the hearer, and convention can all be at odds in a given situation, and that it is possible to create an insult that is an insult from three perspectives simultaneously - and have it be different for each perspective simultaneously.

e = mc²

[Montmorency]

Good enough. I'm not fussy.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Something can be an insult when it is not a criticism of a person's ideas or behaviors, but an attack on the person, or it is a deliberately inaccurate label of the person.

Examples being: "That idea is bad for the economy" is not an insult. It's a criticism of an idea. "Your ideas are all stupid" is an attack on the person.

"You are a jackass" is a deliberately inaccurate label. Therefore, it's intended to be offensive.

There are other ways to insult people, such as saying their parents are sub-human or inferior, things of that nature.

Some things people find insulting, but that is because some of their ideas are open to criticism in the marketplace of ideas, and they can't handle that, and have no business being on the internets.

[Fragony]

Examples being: "That idea is bad for the economy" is not an insult. It's a criticism of an idea. "Your ideas are all stupid" is an attack on the person.

That would still be seen as critism here in Dutchland, not as a personal attack. I would call it an observation if the ideas are indeed stupid, maybe not the most polite way to say it, but it's not an insult imho. Of course we have kinda a reputation for not being very subtle. 'Your an idiot' is an insult (non taken), but 'your ideas are idiotic' is not.

[Myth]

When it's intended. Stupid people can possibly miss a cunning insult or jab at themselves. If someone smarter explains how they were insulted they have the right to claim it was an insult.

However if a moron takes something as an insult because they are too narrow minded, dumb, uneducated etc. to understand what you meant, it's not your fault that they are a moron and thus should not be held liable for some imagined offense.

Having been the victim of the later I can say it's pretty annoying.

[Fragony]

When it's intended. Stupid people can possibly miss a cunning insult or jab at themselves. If someone smarter explains how they were insulted they have the right to claim it was an insult.

However if a moron takes something as an insult because they are too narrow minded, dumb, uneducated etc. to understand what you meant, it's not your fault that they are a moron and thus should not be held liable for some imagined offense.

Having been the victim of the later I can say it's pretty annoying.

Arrogance looks so good on you, but I agree. Intelligence or the lack of it it can be found in having a sense of humour I think. If you don't have that you are just playing by the numbers without understanding any outcome. The greatest genius of our time is the Marquis de Sade who was shamelesly hedonistic, imho of course.

[Husar]

When you call someone a moron, that's an insult. ~;)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

When you call someone a moron, that's an insult. ~;)

Agreed, but are you insulting that person....or morons?

[Husar]

Agreed, but are you insulting that person....or morons?

AFAIK both since moron is a derogatory term for mentally retarded persons. Retard has the same negative connotation though so maybe mentally challenged would be a term that is not insulting to "morons" without wanting to be incredibly PC. Using moron as an insult is as insulting to morons as using gay as an insult is insulting to gay people because by using the term as an insult you insinuate that it's a bad/inferior/disgusting thing. And this is insulting if the group of people did not choose to be that way and your classification is needlessly harsh. One could say that a mentally challenged person is indeed inferior but it's the mean-spirited nature of using the word as an insult that actually makes it insulting. :dizzy2:

So yeah, quite a good point there Seamus.

[Montmorency]

AFAIK both since moron is a derogatory term for mentally retarded persons. Retard has the same negative connotation though so maybe mentally challenged would be a term that is not insulting to "morons" without wanting to be incredibly PC. Using moron as an insult is as insulting to morons as using gay as an insult is insulting to gay people because by using the term as an insult you insinuate that it's a bad/inferior/disgusting thing. And this is insulting if the group of people did not choose to be that way and your classification is needlessly harsh. One could say that a mentally challenged person is indeed inferior but it's the mean-spirited nature of using the word as an insult that actually makes it insulting.

So yeah, quite a good point there Seamus.

IOW, convention.

[Myth]

Well knowing someone is a moron is not the same as stating it. I was illustrating my point :yes: And I used the word as a generalization for stupid, I didn't know it was synonymous with "retard".

But, the same thing can happen because of the language barrier. Imagine a foreign exchange student coming to the USA (for example) and someone telling him he looks like a fruitcake. He might take it as a positive thing. It was an intended insult for all to hear, meant to ridicule that person. If someone else who knows what that meant explains it to him, he has every right to be offended.

[Husar]

IOW, convention.

Yeah, I was a little tired and noticed that I was just blabbering like Captain Obvious, thus the smiley.

I'm glad someone else noticed it though.

[The Lurker Below]

The singer has agreed to pay Dawn Simorangkir $430,000, plus interest, to settle a lawsuit the designer filed in March 2009 over comments Love made on Twitter and her MySpace blog.

Courtney Love wasn't sure whether her comments would be well received until the other parties lawyer made it clear she'd be paying for the perceived insult.

Insults, like transgender restrooms, is serious business...for attorneys.

[The Stranger]

not just for attorneys :/ it can send entire countries into a fit of rage and turmoil. I bet Frag hasnt been out of the house for days now.

[Fragony]

Maybe 28 days later I will give it a shot

[Myth]

not just for attorneys :/ it can send entire countries into a fit of rage and turmoil. I bet Frag hasnt been out of the house for days now.

What are you referring to?

[Kadagar_AV]

Very good TS.

I guess we have to separate insults and offense...

What is, or isn't, an insult is decided by the one making it.
What is, or isn't, offensive is however decided by the receiver.

This of course results in a HUGE grey area, and that's why social skills are so important, to navigate those grey waters.

[The Stranger]

Very good TS.

I guess we have to separate insults and offense...

What is, or isn't, an insult is decided by the one making it.
What is, or isn't, offensive is however decided by the receiver.

This of course results in a HUGE grey area, and that's why social skills are so important, to navigate those grey waters.

i guess thats a nice way of putting it.

The way I see it the grey areas are mostly the result of not knowing what the intentions are of others, and that, since it is subjective, pretty much anything can be offensive to someone.

Which brings us back to a question posed a few times before, to what extent should i concern myself when someone else is offended by what i say. And what happens when I know what I say will be offensive to the other person, but I simple think he shouldnt be such a whining *****. To take homosexuality again, I think every gay person knows that explicit gay behaviour offends some people, but they may simply not care. I think im right in saying that the majority of the people on this forum would say they have every right to ignore the feelings of those who are offended by their sexuality. But that brings us to the question of why it is ok in this case, and why it is not ok other cases, such as swearing. I may swear aloud, not with the intention to offend others, however while fully aware it will or may offend others.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Let's say that someone shows you some art they have made, and asks you to comment on it.

If it is good, and you tell them it isn't good, you have insulted them, because you are wrong. If it is bad, and you tell them it isn't good (tactfully) you haven't insulted them, even if they are offended, because you are justifiably telling the truth. If it is bad, and you tell them it is good (not just politely), you have insulted them even though they are happy, because you have been dishonest and flattered them or treated them like a child.

[The Stranger]

im sorry Sasaki, but i think that only moves the problem from who decides what an insult is to what is beautiful/art/true.

also the tactfully you but between () is interesting, because that hints at convention and culture. As you will hear frag say many times, dutch people are considere to be blunt, to the point of rudeness, but why is telling the truth bluntly any worse than telling it tactfully? Asides from the obvious pragmatism, which is only a result of us aparantly not being able to cope with blunt thruths, I dont see a principal point that can be made.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

im sorry Sasaki, but i think that only moves the problem from who decides what an insult is to what is beautiful/art/true.

No not really. It just means that the truth is relevant to whether something is an insult. The issue could have been something other than art. For example, the issue could have been immature behavior. Something that is commonly perceived as an insult is giving advice or a bit of a lecture to someone who you think is being immature. Whether they are actually immature is very important with regards to whether it is an insult. Although possibly a teenager telling an old person that they are being immature is an insult no matter whether it is true.


also the tactfully you but between () is interesting, because that hints at convention and culture. As you will hear frag say many times, dutch people are considere to be blunt, to the point of rudeness, but why is telling the truth bluntly any worse than telling it tactfully? Asides from the obvious pragmatism, which is only a result of us aparantly not being able to cope with blunt truths, I dont see a principal point that can be made.

I just say tactfully there because sometimes people say something like that in a nasty way. You can be blunt without being insulting. If you say something bluntly but obviously no disrespect is intended people won't usually be offended.

*********

basically it depends and you have to decide on a case by case basis. It's actually almost never hard to tell whether something is an insult unless you have a bad theory about intent being required, or the person being offended being sufficient, or something like that.

[The Stranger]

No not really. It just means that the truth is relevant to whether something is an insult. The issue could have been something other than art. For example, the issue could have been immature behavior. Something that is commonly perceived as an insult is giving advice or a bit of a lecture to someone who you think is being immature. Whether they are actually immature is very important with regards to whether it is an insult. Although possibly a teenager telling an old person that they are being immature is an insult no matter whether it is true.

yes exactly, so the problem becomes who decides what is true, when you say its an ugly painting, and the artist says otherwise, who is right?




I just say tactfully there because sometimes people say something like that in a nasty way. You can be blunt without being insulting. If you say something bluntly but obviously no disrespect is intended people won't usually be offended.

I dont know if this is true, but in any case, in the odd situation that people do get offended when you put something bluntly, whose problem is it then? I mean its not just something thats crazy and out there, we have laws for it and laws suits are being filed for insults regularly, and we in 2010 (i think it was) an entire continent was in turmoil because of a perceived insult. It often happens that when people say they are offended by something the other person has to be on the defensive, explaining this and that, held responsible for this and that. The offended people always seem to be under the impression that it is the problem of the offender that they are offended. But why is that

*********


basically it depends and you have to decide on a case by case basis. It's actually almost never hard to tell whether something is an insult unless you have a bad theory about intent being required, or the person being offended being sufficient, or something like that.

could you elaborate a bit more on this? Do you have such a "good" theory, or is your point that there is none. In some cases intent matter, and in some not?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

yes exactly, so the problem becomes who decides what is true, when you say its an ugly painting, and the artist says otherwise, who is right?

I am.


I dont know if this is true, but in any case, in the odd situation that people do get offended when you put something bluntly, whose problem is it then? I mean its not just something thats crazy and out there, we have laws for it and laws suits are being filed for insults regularly, and we in 2010 (i think it was) an entire continent was in turmoil because of a perceived insult. It often happens that when people say they are offended by something the other person has to be on the defensive, explaining this and that, held responsible for this and that. The offended people always seem to be under the impression that it is the problem of the offender that they are offended. But why is that

I think this is mostly about how people react to being insulted. Often they have no right to demand apologies and create a bunch of drama, much less file lawsuits.

I think usually when people are that angry it is not the specific incident that they care about.



could you elaborate a bit more on this? Do you have such a "good" theory, or is your point that there is none. In some cases intent matter, and in some not?

I would say insults are something we have pretty good instincts about, when we don't confuse ourselves. Except wrong about what's mature, etc, whatever the topic is.

[Montmorency]

I am.

Have you ever considered the possible that absolutely no one is right except you?

[The Stranger]

I am.



I think this is mostly about how people react to being insulted. Often they have no right to demand apologies and create a bunch of drama, much less file lawsuits.

I think usually when people are that angry it is not the specific incident that they care about.



I would say insults are something we have pretty good instincts about, when we don't confuse ourselves. Except wrong about what's mature, etc, whatever the topic is.

lol, cmon sasaki, i remember much more inspiring debates with you.

so we are confused when we do not understand what is wrong or right according to what you think or actually decide is true. this must be why people are so often confused, I think they have never been educated about what you have decided is true.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Have you ever considered the possible that absolutely no one is right except you?

Some people agree with me so that is not logically possible.


lol, cmon sasaki, i remember much more inspiring debates with you.

so we are confused when we do not understand what is wrong or right according to what you think or actually decide is true. this must be why people are so often confused, I think they have never been educated about what you have decided is true.

They aren't confused, they act on what they have decided is true (sometimes they decide to trust the judgment of others). What do you think they should do?

There doesn't need to be any finality to an argument about whether some art is good or not. The finality comes when you make an action, like buying it or not. If you are convinced you have been insulted you act like it. Isn't this just a bunch of truisms? I don't understand what you disagree with, why are you concerned about the fact that people will disagree, and that there is no one standing above it all to say who is right?

[Montmorency]

Some people agree with me so that is not logically possible.

Logic is a way of thinking, not a way of being.

[The Stranger]

Some people agree with me so that is not logically possible.



They aren't confused, they act on what they have decided is true (sometimes they decide to trust the judgment of others). What do you think they should do?

There doesn't need to be any finality to an argument about whether some art is good or not. The finality comes when you make an action, like buying it or not. If you are convinced you have been insulted you act like it. Isn't this just a bunch of truisms? I don't understand what you disagree with, why are you concerned about the fact that people will disagree, and that there is no one standing above it all to say who is right?

first, they were confused about the truth, now they arent because they are acting on what they decide is true. And while first it mattered what was true, now it doesnt seem to matter because people decide what is true themself anyway. No offense, but your few posts have been confusing.

its not about disagreement, its about that there seems to be a growing trend where the offended get most of the attention and saying "im offended by that" seems to carry such weight that it forces people into hiding, to receive threats. I guess its not actually a new phenomenon... but im interested in it anyway, and the question stands still, if we have laws about it, then surely we must agree somehow on a way to decide when something is an insult.