Are Poems The Right Way To Discuss Issues?

[eFestivals]

I'd say maybe a little intolerance

any intolerance (say) I might show towards anyone is equalled by the intolerance that Celery has just shown for those who do things outside of his own approval.

Claims of tolerance by anyone are often the most ridiculous claims of all. We're all only tolerant of the things we're prepared to tolerate.

 

Edited October 22, 2015 by eFestivals

[mrtourette]

It's up to the bullied or harassed to decide whether it's bullying or harassment, not a third party and certainly not the person being accused. A situation often forgotten by those dismissing the accusations.

[eFestivals]

It's up to the bullied or harassed to decide whether it's bullying or harassment,

... and even then it doesn't mean they're right about being bullied.

Some people think they should be free from criticism.

Edited October 22, 2015 by eFestivals

[mrtourette]

any intolerance (say) I might show towards anyone is equalled by the intolerance that Celery has just shown for those who do things outside of his own approval.

Claims of tolerance by anyone are often the most ridiculous claims of all. We're all only tolerant of the things we're prepared to tolerate.

 

To tolerate intolerance, we must first learn to be intolerant towards that which we tolerate

[t8yman]

a lot of SJW's around here....

[feral chile]

It's up to the bullied or harassed to decide whether it's bullying or harassment, not a third party and certainly not the person being accused. A situation often forgotten by those dismissing the accusations.

yes it is, but I'd prefer it if other terms were used - that's a bit judgemental/not very welcoming/negative/not celebrating diversity/harsh/whatever, it's more specific, and clearly points to behaviour rather than the person.

unfortunately, using the term bully tends to get people on the defensive, and can escalate a situation rather than resolve it - or fail to address it, as it leads to denials (as is happening here).

I think bullying can be more accurately applied if someone has been made aware that their behaviour is hurtful, and then continue with it.

[eFestivals]

I think bullying can be more accurately applied if someone has been made aware that their behaviour is hurtful, and then continue with it.

I think you're talking bollocks.

You possibly think it's hurtful of me to say you're talking bollocks.

The fact that you might doesn't mean I'm not permitted to tell you I think you're talking bollocks.

Edited October 22, 2015 by eFestivals

[fred quimby]

I wonder if a poem will be written about this thread. 

[mrtourette]

That's been the case for a long time here.

[eFestivals]

if anyone can say what they like, then it should be perfectly ok to say that sometimes it might be perceived as bullying 

Yep, and it's also perfectly OK to call it out as bollocks.

It's called freedom, which is a much better thing than submitting to the oppression of those who think they are the moral guardians of all society who have the right to dictate what others might say.

 

[feral chile]

That's been the case for a long time here.

every time I hear a male talk about taking the piss, I wonder whether they'd still see it that way if it was a bunch of females talking about someone else - or would that be 'being bitchy' or 'catty'?

Banter is only acceptable when the object of the banter is included in it. So, if they don't feel included/accept the banter, once the people involved become aware of this, to me that's bullying.

 

Thirs party offence - that's accepted as bullying in many organisations, you'd need that to counter backstabbing bullying/.racism/sexism etc.

[feral chile]

if anyone can say what they like, then it should be perfectly ok to say that sometimes it might be perceived as bullying 

Bullying is definitely defined as in the eye of the beholder, not necessarily the target either.

it's a fine line - a person intending harm will try to lay blame on political correctness gone mad, lack of sense of humour etc. Not all denials are malicious, however. Cognitive dissonance steps in as well.

[feral chile]

defence of the passive aggressive - 'I was only joking'.

[Winslow Leach]

a lot of SJW's around here....

Please tell me this isn't unironic.

[Winslow Leach]

Can I just be the first to say how disappointed I am that this isn't a poetry thread? Had very high hopes when I clicked on it.

[eFestivals]

so any level of abuse, racism etc is ok?

No.

But the idiots can be called out for being idiots - something you're quite happy to do as much as me.

[eFestivals]

ok... so some level of intolerance is acceptable, but to varying degrees, depending on where any individual stands

that's cleared that up 

 

the tolerance/intolerance idea is a fake one. Too many people are blind to that.

 

 

[feral chile]

the tolerance/intolerance idea is a fake one. Too many people are blind to that.

 

 

no it isn't. it's a way to counter in/out group behaviour..

 

yes, it contains a contradiction, so does the verification principle, democracy etc. doesn't mean they aren't aspirational though.

 

[eFestivals]

no it isn't. it's a way to counter in/out group behaviour..

It's a way to control other people for personal benefit.

Social imperialism.

Cultural imperialism.

 

Edited October 22, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

It's a way to control other people for personal benefit.

Social imperialism.

Cultural imperialism.

 

you don't think mockery is about dominance?

[fred quimby]

you don't think mockery is about dominance?

I really hope that was said in a mocking tone

[feral chile]

which is what bullying is

if neil was saying intolerance is a way to control other people for personal benefit, I agree. I think he was also claiming that, because tolerance contradicts itself by refusing to tolerate intolerance, it's also about control.

If people are truly hiding intolerance behind tolerance arguments, then yes. but if people are genuinely considering other people's feelings, that's another matter. Controlling negative behaviour still has a positive outcome.

Edited October 22, 2015 by feral chile

[mrtourette]

Controlling negative behaviour still has a positive outcome.

BUT AT WHAT COST TO OUR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY

[feral chile]

BUT AT WHAT COST TO OUR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY

seriously? You want the freedom to hurt people?

you think that someone challenging people who do that are trying to control others, and this is more important than stopping someone causing another person pain?

If lack of social control means a free for all, then I'm in favour of social control.

 

(which I am, incidentally, as a behaviourist - the carrot, rather than the stick - usually what libertarians think is freedom anyway).

[eFestivals]

you don't think mockery is about dominance?

It can be, but isn't necessarily.

It can also be about using a light-hearted method to point out the flaws in what's been said. It's attacking the message and not the messenger.