when is something an insult?

[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.