The $%*! frustration thread

[Lord J Esq]

man...

...I don't mind a similar legislation getting passed but...

...me telling a no harm intended joke costing me a year in jail?  That is... a bit overcharged.

Or for that matter, me saying a comment that is taken the wrong way (aka: not insulting to insulting)?

It's a tough issue: Where does your right to be "funny" end and the next person's right to be treated humanely begin? Very tough issue.

Except that it's not. Bullies and jerks sometimes need a good punch in the nose--or, in this case, a fine and some jailtime or community service--before they'll learn their lesson.

[KebreI]

man...

...I don't mind a similar legislation getting passed but...

...me telling a no harm intended joke costing me a year in jail?  That is... a bit overcharged.

Or for that matter, me saying a comment that is taken the wrong way (aka: not insulting to insulting)?

It's a tough issue: Where does your right to be "funny" end and the next person's right to be treated humanely begin? Very tough issue.

Except that it's not. Bullies and jerks sometimes need a good punch in the nose--or, in this case, a fine and some jailtime or community service--before they'll learn their lesson.

I think it very simple where to draw the line. At an action. In no way should we punish words, words are are most powerful and simple powers that should never be limited or taken. I find the whole practices completely counter productive to "Freedom" of Speech. As for the idea of crunching down on the behavior the uses it, sure go ahead at smack the bastard for calling someone a nigger but don't ever prevent him from saying it.

[Lord J Esq]

I think it very simple where to draw the line. At an action. In no way should we punish words, words are are most powerful and simple powers that should never be limited or taken. I find the whole practices completely counter productive to "Freedom" of Speech. As for the idea of crunching down on the behavior the uses it, sure go ahead at smack the bastard for calling someone a nigger but don't ever prevent him from saying it.

That sentiment is held out as most laudable...at the mainstream level of intellectualism. At a higher level of thought, it's overly simplistic and not very helpful. The truth of society is that, contrary to nursery school wisdom, names can be as damaging as sticks and stones. It's the damage that should be prevented wherever possible, not the names per se, but if the names cause the damage, then what are you going to do? You discourage the words from being said. It's not as if this is unthinkable: After all, it's not legal to go up to a person and say "I'm going to kill you." Why, then, should it be legal to say "We should shoot the queers," when such sentiments are actually acted upon in real life?

You need to remember that bigotry isn't a transitive institution. What's dangerous to an oppressed group is not necessarily dangerous to other groups. Disenfranchised groups require special protections, up to and including controls on free speech, because they are under serious threat. They are under serious threat in part because of the words spoken against them. This isn't some game...transfolk are routinely harassed, abused, fired, driven to suicide, or murdered because of their sexual status. Their plight is a crisis for our society, and their wellbeing outranks our right to demean them and further endanger them with our words. This is the reasoning where hate crimes legislation comes from. "I was only kidding" is about the lamest excuse imaginable when somebody's life gets ruined.

Oppressed groups require special protections. In the meantime, we have no need to limit speech on most subjects...such as hair color, or white skin, or income level, or handedness...because those groups are not under siege. Those bullies among us who get their kicks from making gay jokes and "kid around" at other people's expense ought to be made, by power of law, not to pick on the victims who are already lying on the ground bleeding.

In practice, these kinds of laws have a very narrow constraining effect on free speech, precisely because America's tradition of free speech is so highly prized. You don't see people going to prison for years at a time because they told a bad joke. You see them get a fine, or some community service, or a few days in jail. Oftentimes you see them get off scot-free! The ones who get multi-year prison sentences are the ones who did far worse than make a bad joke. So don't worry too much. And if you are worried--general "you," not necessarily you in particular--then maybe jail is where you belong after all.

[Lord J Esq]

Another frustration of mine is that these long debates keep erupting in the Frustration thread. This thread should be a spontaneous place. The above discussion more properly belongs in the Sexism thread or in its own thread.

[ZeaLitY]

They can always be split after the fact.

[IAmSerge]

is it a problem when the same people I would tell the joke to tell white person jokes, blonde jokes, black jokes, gay jokes, and any other type of joke in existance, whilst at the same time, the group consists of blondes, whites, blacks, and gays (Oh, and they tell more of these jokes than I do. ever)

We aren't being asses.  We are doing it in good fun.  just like the British make fun of Americans, and vise versa.

If the same jokes were taken to a different crowd, yes, the results could/would be bad.

Assholery being involved, intentional assholery, then yes, I think that punishment should be enacted.  But seriously, a year?  Thats LIFE devastating.  A few months at most is what I think should be the punishment, barring that the assholery was limited to verbal, and strictly verbal.  I mean, if someone is a "frequent flyer" ass to them, then yeah, I think punishment should be enacted.  Very much so.

Jokes about stereotypes that I fit, I personally find hilarious!  Usually, that is.  The rare case exists where I hear one intended to be an ass to me or my stereotype, and that isn't cool.

Personally, I don't tell jokes to be malicious.



However, in truth, what I fear from this kind of legistlation isn't against joking.
What I mainly would fear would be abuse of the legistlation into stealing a year away from someones life, just for making a comment that gets misunderstood.  Something like a "I have this gay friend named John" kind of thing.  Not trying to be rude or mean about it, merely trying to add a description and category to the following name.  I fear those kinds of statements being taken to court.

The reason?  Because of the court case where a robber tripped and got injured while robbing some peoples house.  The robber took those people to court and WON a lawsuit against them.  These kinds of foolish lawsuits and stuff really bother me.

Anyone understand what I'm saying?

This isn't some game...transfolk are routinely harassed, abused, fired, driven to suicide, or murdered because of their sexual status.

^^ that is pure asshattery, and assholery.  TOTALLY not for that.  This is the side of the legistlation that I LOVE.

[KebreI]

It's not as if this is unthinkable: After all, it's not legal to go up to a person and say "I'm going to kill you." Why, then, should it be legal to say "We should shoot the queers," when such sentiments are actually acted upon in real life?

I would like to say that I find it complete crap that we can't say "I'm going to kill you."

You need to remember that bigotry isn't a transitive institution. What's dangerous to an oppressed group is not necessarily dangerous to other groups. Disenfranchised groups require special protections, up to and including controls on free speech, because they are under serious threat. They are under serious threat in part because of the words spoken against them. This isn't some game...transfolk are routinely harassed, abused, fired, driven to suicide, or murdered because of their sexual status. Their plight is a crisis for our society, and their wellbeing outranks our right to demean them and further endanger them with our words. This is the reasoning where hate crimes legislation comes from. "I was only kidding" is about the lamest excuse imaginable when somebody's life gets ruined.

To start in no way do I defend the "Joking" plea made by some.

There "plight" won't be solved by censoring a word, it just a quick political fix that in the end does harm by creating more Taboo linguistic tool for those who do wish harm on others. And as you said each situation needs special attention, so how does a blanket penalty on hate prevent that?

Oppressed groups require special protections. In the meantime, we have no need to limit speech on most subjects...such as hair color, or white skin, or income level, or handedness...because those groups are not under siege. Those bullies among us who get their kicks from making gay jokes and "kid around" at other people's expense ought to be made, by power of law, not to pick on the victims who are already lying on the ground bleeding.

Oppressed groups given special protections WILL make them more of an outstanding sect. It there is an effective enforcement that protects, in this case transsexuals, the people wishing ill can easily turn to say those benefits that they are receiving. Equality needs well...equality special treatment is just bait for the rabid dogs.



As for a frustration, I have a hella big one:

These topics although interesting to me very much as a reader (I really have read every single page of these discussions for the 14 months I have been here), are very embarrassing to me as a participator. I been bad at writing all my life top of my school all the time in math and science but never was I an outstanding student due to my remedial writing conventions.

I can't keep up with you guys, and I hate using that "excuse". I try think of a way to mold my ideas into words but the are not the ideas I have in my head. I don't try and write the huge fucking essays that are here, in fact I find many of the more illuminating post to be only a paragraph or two. I do think that in some ways my "philosophy" is simpler then many of the ones posted here. I also fell that is an advantage in my favor. One saying I have lived by my whole life:

"Intelligence can solve everything, the problem is that intelligent people can rationalize everything even if it obviously wrong."

Its simple but has gotten me threw most everything. So in the case of transsexuals or more broadly the law censoring words. I say Fuck No! A word is a powerful tool I ain't given' it up.

[Uboa]

I can't keep up with you guys, and I hate using that "excuse". I try think of a way to mold my ideas into words but the are not the ideas I have in my head. I don't try and write the huge fucking essays that are here, in fact I find many of the more illuminating post to be only a paragraph or two.

In my philosophy courses, I knew people who could straight "stream-of-thought" 15 pages on a topic in one night, and then be angry when they had to cut their essay down to six pages.  I had the opposite problem.  I always had to struggle to get ideas on paper.  I spent a lot of time second-guessing and running every little phrase by my own logic gates, so to speak.  I finally had to accept that I wasn't one of those people who could just write and write for the sake of, well, anything.  I also found that I felt better writing and reading things which said as much as possible with few words.

[ZeaLitY]

In my philosophy courses, I knew people who could straight "stream-of-thought" 15 pages on a topic in one night, and then be angry when they had to cut their essay down to six pages.  I had the opposite problem.  I always had to struggle to get ideas on paper.  I spent a lot of time second-guessing and running every little phrase by my own logic gates, so to speak.  I finally had to accept that I wasn't one of those people who could just write and write for the sake of, well, anything.  I also found that I felt better writing and reading things which said as much as possible with few words.

Likewise; I can't write for the sake of writing like so many other people, or even make a half-hearted effort for a term paper. When I really care about a subject and intend to write about it, I have to own it, so to speak. And really owning a subject is very difficult for a lot of large topics and issues; there's either too much information, or too much change to keep track of things. It's the same thing that holds me back from helping or editing the articles of others on Wikipedia—if I don't know enough about a subject, I don't feel qualified to edit the prose describing it, and possibly obscure the meaning. I could only write the featured articles about the Chrono series and The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest because I researched the everliving hell out of those topics (especially the latter, which I spent countless hours in academic search databases finding information about and even interviewed the creators of the show for). I'd rather not write anything at all about a topic I don't confidently own than wing it.

[idioticidioms]

the problem with a lot of people who can just write and write like that is that most of what they write is filled with fluff. Not really any specific detail or needed piece of information, just fluff. There is a very big difference between a person who actually has something to say and a person who just loves to hear themselves talk.

A person who actually has something to say could fill pages of illuminating material where every word counted for something, while a person who loves to hear themselves talk could fill pages with absolutely nothing but ramblings, which is what a lot of people do. Or, you get the type of person who is so in love with their own intelligence that they will use large, very rarely used words, just to flaunt it.

My belief is that if someone has something to say, just come out and say it and try to make it as non-confusing as possible.

That being said, my current frustration is looking in on this thread to see this huge posting mess of conflicting conversations.

[Lord J Esq]

I take the opposite view: I rarely see long posts that are pointless, although they can be verbose (like my own). However, verbosity is independent of substance, and for me the real problem is all those people who can't be bothered to string together more than two or three sentences at a time, and whose vocabulary is locked squarely in the confines of junior high school. They feel just as entitled to their opinion as the next person (which they are), but they are unwilling or unable to structure their ideas effectively and to make an argument in support of their claims.

When your ideas have no structure, they cannot be properly understood by others. When you don't support your claims in an argument, you're just spouting off...and your opinions are next to worthless. When you limit yourself to brevity, you lose the space needed to build coherent, comprehensive lines of thought such as are required to communicate complex ideas or lengthy chains of ideas. When you refuse to utilize a mature vocabulary, you lose the ability to write with subtlety and to make fine distinctions. Remember 1984? One of the whole points of Doublespeak was that people would literally lose the ability to talk about revolutionary ideas because the language would have no words for it.

There is a lot of anti-intellectualism in this country. When I was a kid, I took my share of grief from classmates who were dumb and proud of it. As an adult, I see those same people swaggering around, thinking their feeble little grasp of the world is the supreme truth, and mocking those who are "too serious" or who "think too much," or, in this case, who "write too much."

Rarely, I will come across a person who writes long posts that have little or no substance. In comparison, short posts are very frequently devoid of substance. As for the snobbery factor: I think it is the people who "can't be bothered" to write more than short blurbs who tend to be more disrespectful of their conversation partners, because they expect their ideas to be treated with the same worth as those of people who actually work to communicate successfully.

Consider this: If I wanted, I could just write the topic sentences of my ideas: Sexism is everywhere. Sexists suck. You probably have sexist tendencies. Game, set, and match. Right? Why bother with all those other paragraphs...right?

Right...  

[KebreI]

Whoa whoa whoa...whoa I am not bashing on larger posts at all, I am just saying that they're not my forte.


The larger point I was making is something you yourself just stated my good Tomato. You seek the lengthier and more verbose passages to combat with, more often then the short and sweet ones.

[Lord J Esq]

My reply was focused mostly at idioticidioms...although I suppose it stands just as well as a general comment. No personal offense intended, of course.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Yes, like not supporting this particular legislation, which will get me slammed as a bigot or ignorant or both, if past experience is any indication, or agreeing to sell out people's right to free speech for some oppressed(yes, I'm using that word in this instance) minority's civil right not to be picked on or criticized.

Those are the only two options: support it or oppose it. There was a third, which I tried using; that being, not getting involved and not caring, because it doesn't really affect me down here in SC, but of course I got slammed for that too.

It is a no-win situation.

You don't understand. If you feel that the presently proposed legislation is somehow deficient, think about what sort of legislation (or non legislative solution) would more ideally solve the problem. Not getting involved, not attempting to solve a problem is not a solution. I know it sounds tautological with me spelling it out in those terms, but I'm trying to get you to see that the actual set of options is not the same as the set you've laid out.

I'm not trying to trap you in a support-or-else false dichotomy. I'm saying "If not this legislation, then what do you see as a better solution?" Remember, doing nothing doesn't solve problems, so that's not a valid answer.

[Thought]

Remember, doing nothing doesn't solve problems, so that's not a valid answer.

Unless the problem is that you're always doing crap; then doing nothing would indeed solve the problem.

... now where is that "Love" thread when I need it...