when is something 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.

[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.

[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.