Help support TMP


"Free speech or abuse?" Topic


56 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Miscellaneous Discussion Plus Board



1,540 hits since 6 May 2016
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

GarrisonMiniatures Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member06 May 2016 6:24 a.m. PST

'A petition to have Rhodes Must Fall activist Ntokozo Qwabe sent down from Oxford or stripped of his scholarship for verbally abusing a white waitress has been rejected by the university which said it would violate his "free speech".'

link

To me, this wasn't 'free speech', it was racially motivated verbal abuse. No excuses for this – for me, this type of behaviour should simply not be tolerated.

Incidentally, I agree with the decision not to strip him of his scholarship m- it's the reason given I disagree with.

'Jan Hendrik Ferreira, a South African social worker based in London, started the change.org petition with an open letter to Louise Richardson, the Oxford University vice-chancellor.
"Mr Ntokozo Qwabe and friend violated a person's dignity, publicly degraded and humiliated her, and created a highly offensive situation which Mr Ntokozo Qwabe has since taken great pleasure in narcissistically boasting over her reaction across social media," he wrote. '

This is a person that 'was awarded a Rhodes scholarship – funded by the estate of coloniser Cecil John Rhodes – in 2014 and has said his ambition is to become a Constitutional Court judge in his native South Africa.'

No, he's just a hypocrite and thoroughly despicable person.

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP06 May 2016 6:55 a.m. PST

He said in a Facebook post …

"we will only engage with white media when we have the land back".

zoneofcontrol Inactive Member06 May 2016 6:59 a.m. PST

I hope the Rhodes "scholar" got a serving of road apples with his dinner. But then again, maybe not. He seems to be full of them already.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian06 May 2016 7:17 a.m. PST

How does "free speech" there differ with free speech in the U.S.?

nazrat06 May 2016 8:08 a.m. PST

Sounds like his hatred of white people in his country is being directed at the wrong folks. What a horrible guy.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP06 May 2016 8:51 a.m. PST

He wouldn't tip her and now he is abusive because she cried?

I think the waitress needs to toughen up a bit. I'm sure he's an asshole and everything but he didn't actually do anything to her. I can't believe this makes the news.

If we kicked everyone out of college for being an asshole we would have a pretty uneducated populace.

eagleteacher2506 May 2016 9:04 a.m. PST

Well said, Scott!

Larry

Zargon Inactive Member06 May 2016 9:10 a.m. PST

The pendulum will swing, and his own kind will devour him, this is the way of Africa and bullies

Gattamalata Inactive Member06 May 2016 9:44 a.m. PST

Why Qwabe was right by Georgina Guedes…

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP06 May 2016 9:58 a.m. PST

If we kicked everyone out of college for being an asshole we would have a pretty uneducated populace.

If we let everyone graduate from college even without them being assholes, we would have a pretty uneducated populace.

And they vote!

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP06 May 2016 10:14 a.m. PST

Gattamalata, that article is crap. The woman is completely wrong in her conclusion. This isn't about race. It is on the surface, but it isn't really. It is about people not being adults. If some white businessman had not tipped a young, black pretty waitress, insulted her about being some sort of societal leach and then bragged about it on Facebook he would lose his job in all likelihood.

People would make a big deal about it. They would donate money to the woman for her tip. The same thing would happen.

People don't like bullies, black, white, corporations or whatever. There are entire news segments dedicated to it at times on various local stations now and again.

The problem isn't that there are bullies or that people are mean, it is that we have it make national news (in this case international news) when someone is and it involves race.

The waitress should have sucked it up, figured he was just a dick and gone on with her day. Everyone else should have though, "What a dick" and gone on with her day. If someone in the restaurant thought he was being a big enough dick to her he or she should have put in extra money in his own tip to offset it if the person could afford it.

It should have ended there. Maybe the manager should have kicked the dick out for being a dick to his employee, whatever. It shouldn't have gone beyond the restaurant or the time of the meal.

But because people are not taught that words can't hurt them, that being offended is a problem within themselves, that no one can say anything mean, we have all this time taken up with this bull Bleeped text

And it is time it stopped.

Instead of listening to this waitress cry and whine and making national news about it, someone should just tell her, " I'm sorry that happened to you. That guy was a dick. There are dicks in the world. Get on with your life."

Gattamalata Inactive Member06 May 2016 11:44 a.m. PST

It's news because the dick in question is an activist…

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP06 May 2016 11:50 a.m. PST

Pictors, words can hurt you, not physically perhaps but
certainly in meaningful ways. Words create an opinion
or perception which, conveyed to the right (or wrong)
person can cost you a job, or an increase in salary
or whatever.

Reverse the roles of the ethnicities involved and see
how much of a firestorm there would be.

The 'N' word is in great disrepute in our country –
but 'cracker,' 'honkey' and 'redneck' can be applied
without societal frowning or any outcry of 'hate speech'.

Words have power. Words got a miserable out of work
painter elected to the German government at one time
and we all know how that ended.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP06 May 2016 12:21 p.m. PST

She's a special snowflake and he is a rude self centered jerk.

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP06 May 2016 1:00 p.m. PST

Abuse.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP06 May 2016 1:14 p.m. PST

Words cannot hurt you.

No word can hurt someone. No one calling you anything to your face can hurt you.

Someone conveying information about you, of course can. That is different from words though, isn't it.

Hindenberg was not an out of work miserable painter.

If you are referring to Hitler it certainly wasn't just words that got him elected. He was appointed, seized power and then used force to ensure that the legality of his seizure was upheld by the vote.

No one word can hurt you. You can hurt yourself by giving words power but the words themselves have no force.

This is stuff people should be over by the time they are 15. This is childish stuff.

Adults do not get insulted and go and cry to the media or their boss or whatever. They ignore it.

This atavistic trend of calling language "violence" is ridiculous.

He didn't do anything to her to make her cry. Short of physical contact there is nothing he can do to "make" her do anything.

He acts. She chooses how she wants to react. She chose to cry.

Words can't force someone to behave in a certain way. They can't. She gave him that power. All she has to do is ignore it and it goes away.

It seems that we would be better off teaching people to ignore this stuff than trying to get people to stop doing it.

Because that would be the best way to get people to stop doing it.

GarrisonMiniatures Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member06 May 2016 1:40 p.m. PST

Her reaction is less important to me than his attitude and behaviour.

This is a hypocrite who goes on about how the whites have all the land but is willing to accept a Rhodes scholarship.

This is a bully who verbally abuses a waitress because it makes him feel good. And yes, verbal abuse can be violence.

This is a bigot who wants to become a judge. Aren't judges meant to be impartial or something?

Furthermore, this is someone who is proud of his bigotry.

altfritz06 May 2016 2:27 p.m. PST

Meh. Dozens of people of all races get the same abuse from morons of all races every day. Today the waitress gave my takeout lunch to a lady who had ordered the same thing after me. Did I berate her? No. The next one was paired with another sit down meal, so I missed out on that as well. I did get the 3rd iteration! Stay Calm and Carry On! :-)

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP06 May 2016 3:05 p.m. PST

Verbal abuse cannot be violence. That is childish thinking. No one can be harmed by your words unless they let themselves be.

It is immature to be so affected by what someone else says that you are going to have some type of uncontrollable emotional response to it.

People are the victims of real violence every day. Please don't belittle that by saying that someone that goes on a rant to someone is committing an act of violence against them.

They simply are not.

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP06 May 2016 4:43 p.m. PST

It is immature to be so affected by what someone else says that you are going to have some type of uncontrollable emotional response to it.

If such things are truly meaningless to you, you wouldn't have a problem dropping the N-bomb in casual conversation frequently, then?

Please don't belittle that by saying that someone that goes on a rant to someone is committing an act of violence against them.

I agree there is a big difference between violence and words. The issue isn't that what he did was violent, and I agree with you that she should toughen up a bit. The problem is the discongruity between being a Rhodes Scholar (and possibly a social justice activist) and espousing an attitude that all white people (whatever that is) are somehow the same and culpable for each others' actions because you have decided that they are.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP06 May 2016 5:26 p.m. PST

"If such things are truly meaningless to you, you wouldn't have a problem dropping the N-bomb in casual conversation frequently, then?"

I wouldn't have a problem using any word casually in conversation. There is no reason why any word, including that one, should provoke any type of emotional response.

As a matter of fact, particularly concerning that word, I can prove that it doesn't. I see people use it all the time, casually, in conversation and the people that they use it around don't react one iota.

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP06 May 2016 10:01 p.m. PST

As a matter of fact, particularly concerning that word, I can prove that it doesn't. I see people use it all the time, casually, in conversation and the people that they use it around don't react one iota.

That's a poorly structured argument. Specific examples do not prove a universal. Under that logical structure, if anyone can drink scorpion venom with no ill effects, it doesn't cause harm.

GarrisonMiniatures Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member06 May 2016 11:21 p.m. PST

Violence: behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

OK, technically not violence, but words can have the same effect, just look at the number of suicides due non-violent verbal bullying. As to the idea that people can,t be affected by words and should toughen up – some people can't, they are affected, if you're not, well, you,re lucky. Others aren't.

But again, this isn't really about her, it's about him.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP07 May 2016 6:47 a.m. PST

Well the argument would be that I can administer scorpion venom to you and it is always harmful and that someone else could administer it to you and it is never harmful.

It is not violence. Everyone should be taught from a very young age to ignore words. Bullying, is different from words. It usually includes exclusion from activities, probably some amount of physical violence, destruction of property and so on, although it doesn't always include these things.

Although, as much as possible, this should be ignored too.

We just need to teach people to stop being victims. Perpetual societal victimhood for the majority of our population just because someone says something is pathetic and dangerous for the functioning of a free society.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP07 May 2016 6:23 p.m. PST

There is no reason why any word,..should provoke any type of emotional response.

You didn't think that argument through at all, did you?

Of course words provoke emotional response! Words do not merely convery factual information, they also convey emotional information, both literally and contextually. For thousands of years writers, speakers, prophets. poets, politicians, playwrights, philosophers, coaches, leaders and provocateurs have used the emotional power of words to promote change, for good or ill, by provoking emotional responses. If words had no inherent emotional power, Shakespeare would be a forgotten nobody. If you don't believe this, turn to your spouse tonight and say "I hate you," and tell me the emotional response you receive will not be caused by those words, or will not be warranted.
Words DO hurt. The pyche can be wounded the same as the body, in very real terms, even terms that can be medically defined and scientifically measured. But the psyche can also be healed by words, encouraged by words, emboldened by words, and roused to positive action, all by words. To think otherwise is to deny the whole scope of human history, and the very power of the language that sets mankind apart from the beasts.

While I agree that people should learn to deal with the emotional abuses inflicted by others, that does not excuse the responsibility of anyone for the harm their abusive words cause. "Freedom of speech" is only the right to express one's opinions— even when those opinions are hurtful, abusive, and stupid. But it is NOT freedom from the consequences of one's expression on a social level. If one's words are vile, one should expect to be vilified.

I will make no comment on any official action against the activist. That may indeed be an issue of freedom of speech. But if he receives public disdain, ridicule, and condemnation for his behavior, he has no one to blame except himself. But I rather expect that's entirely what he wants. He's the sort of fool who adores being insulted, because he sees it as a badge of honor and justification for his position, regardless of the utter lack of logic or understanding in his thought. What truly needs to happen is not that he be spotlighted, but that he be utterly and completely ignored. Nothing frustrates the public bully like complete obscurity.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP07 May 2016 8:54 p.m. PST

"If you don't believe this, turn to your spouse tonight and say "I hate you," and tell me the emotional response you receive will not be caused by those words, or will not be warranted."

See, I just did this. I waited until we were gaming. I waited until a leadership test was passed needing a 4 or less on 2d6. I said "I hate you."

She laughed.

You're wrong. It is proven.

Words do not hurt. By your own example you are wrong.

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP08 May 2016 6:47 a.m. PST

Ridiculous 'test' Proves nothing.

nazrat08 May 2016 7:35 a.m. PST

Yep. Especially the context in which the test was done. I've said that many times during games when my opponent has rolled fabulously over and over. It's said in jest and they know it.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP08 May 2016 7:47 a.m. PST

Yes, absurd test. Which you knew. Doesn't even begin to address the rest of my argument. To do so, one would have to discount the speeches of Winston Churchill, the stories and poems of Edgar Allen Poe, the works of Shakespeare, and virtually anything inspirational, romantic, provocatve or even humorous that anyone every wrote, sang or said.

Personal logo Great War Ace Supporting Member of TMP08 May 2016 8:58 a.m. PST

This argument has entered the absurd.

Words in CONTEXT are totally different from words in and of themselves. Let's leave it there, okay?

Pictors is correct: words cannot injure a person. But context changes the power of words. My daughter broke off a three year relationship, suffering through an increasingly hopeless third year, with a guy who was verbally abusive. He was raised to think that words don't matter; that you can spout whatever you want, even disrespecting your mother, and it shouldn't matter. Now he says, "I will probably never say a mean thing again in my whole life." Trying to win her back. My daughter will have none of it, because she knows that he uses words to get what he wants. His true nature is abusive. And he never laid a finger on her in anger or disrespect: only words….

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP08 May 2016 9:25 a.m. PST

It is not an absurd test. You just didn't like being hoist by your own petard.

I said that words can't hurt someone. They can't. I proved it.

Your argument is absurd. The test isn't ridiculous the idea that words independently can hurt is absurd or that a word is somehow damaging.

It is not.

Stop saying it is.

So, having proven that point, we can look at other things, like context.

The context of this is that a complete stranger was rude to this waitress. This isn't her significant other. This isn't her mom. This isn't her friend.

And she is in tears over it. And it made international news.

It is ridiculous. It has been getting more and more ridiculous since this happened:

link

We need to knock this off. Great War Aces daughter had the correct response to someone being mean to her, she left. He is incorrect about one thing, it wasn't the words that hurt it was the intent and the extent of the relationship. It wasn't only words.

As I've proven, only words can't hurt. Without context they are almost entirely meaningless.

But that context is a very close relationship. Not a waitress and a customer.

nazrat08 May 2016 12:57 p.m. PST

I don't believe there is any such thing as spoken (or written) words without context. You cannot separate the two.

Trev G Inactive Member08 May 2016 4:12 p.m. PST

I said that words can't hurt someone. They can't. I proved it.

Your argument is absurd. The test isn't ridiculous the idea that words independently can hurt is absurd or that a word is somehow damaging.

It is not.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT . I'D COMPARE YOU TO THE Bleeped text LEFT BY DOGS BUT WE BOTH KNOW YOU'D JUST CHOW DOWN ON THAT TASTY MUNCH.

Personal logo Weasel Supporting Member of TMP08 May 2016 5:21 p.m. PST

Easy test to see if words can provoke an emotional response:

Go into a biker bar and yell "bikers suck balls".

Report back when you are out of ER.

GarrisonMiniatures Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member09 May 2016 12:04 a.m. PST

'I said that words can't hurt someone. They can't. I proved it.'

Guns can't hurt you either. Shoot a gun over the empty ocean as often as you like they won't hurt anyone. Proved.

Of course context matters. In the context being discussed, they hurt.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP09 May 2016 5:39 a.m. PST

Guns can hurt you, you don't have to make a choice to allow guns to hurt you. You do have to make a choice to allow words to hurt you.

Words can't make those bikers have an emotional response. They have to choose to act childish and resort to violence in response to them.

Similarly with the example of great war aces daughter. She chose to allow those words to hurt her. Had I said any of those things to her they would not have been harmful. She probably would have ignored them.

You choose to allow some people into your life. There are good reasons to do this. She, after finding out that her boyfriend was mean, made a decisions to not allow his words to hurt her anymore.

"Guns can't hurt you either. Shoot a gun over the empty ocean as often as you like they won't hurt anyone. Proved."

Parzival told me to tell a specific thing to a specific person which I did. They were not harmed. They though it was funny.

Now go take a 9mm handgun, stick it in your wife's stomach with a full clip of live ammunition in it, with a round in the chamber. Take the safety off and pull the trigger.

Your wife doesn't have a choice about whether or not the gun will hurt her.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP09 May 2016 5:43 a.m. PST

"I don't believe there is any such thing as spoken (or written) words without context. You cannot separate the two."

Well this is probably true. However there are things that have unclear contexts. Often people are trying to find out the context of wording and it is difficult.

Either way, the context of this discussion is between a patron and a waitress who know very little about each other.

The context is important. The words themselves cannot hurt independent of context. The waitress needs to decide that things said by random strangers are not going to have an impact on her. That the context of what is going to be damaging to her emotionally is not going to be that of a random stranger.

Behaving like that is childish. It is not different from a 6 year old complaining to the teacher that someone said she was a brat or something.

Ignore it and move on. This isn't news.

GarrisonMiniatures Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member09 May 2016 7:02 a.m. PST

If your mind is wired a certain way you don't have a choice then either.

GarrisonMiniatures Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member09 May 2016 7:14 a.m. PST

An analogy, based on something that almost certainly didn't happen but works for the purpose intended.

Marie Antoinette heard a commotion. When she asked what is was, she was told it was the people. They had no bread to eat. So she said They have no bread? Then let them eat cake.' She simply couldn't understand poverty, or that they couldn't afford to eat cake.

You can't understand that, just because you can ignore insults from ranting bigoted racists, other people aren't so lucky. They don't have the mental armour to cope. It isn't a matter of choice. Another example from history – Patton and his attitude to soldiers with shell shock. He couldn't understand that they weren't cowards.

In this case, you simply can't understand or emphasise with this situation. But it is still very real to the people concerned – they react that way (ie, get upset) because that is how they are. They do not have a choice, nor should they be forced to face that situation. Bullying causes damage, whether physical or mental, whether as a one off or continuous.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP09 May 2016 8:38 a.m. PST

Then I would argue that the bullies can't help the way they are wired either.

If you want to look at it like that, none of us have a choice about anything we do

Our brains are based on chemical reactions and electricity. The chemicals are going to do what they are going to do based on the laws of chemistry and physics. Or rather based on the reality that those laws allow us to understand.

This guy that insulted this waitress has had his brain programmed in a certain way. He has lived in a country where, until 20 some years ago, a racist regime held sway. His view of life is coloured by that.

Things he has grown up seeing and learning things that have made his brain a certain way too.

If we are not going to try to get people to understand that they don't have to behave a certain way to outside stimuli then anyone can get away with anything by your reasoning.

Look at poor Trev G above. He clearly had a very emotional reaction to what I wrote. He gave me power over him. He put me in a position where I can determine what emotions he is going to feel.

Now we could say that he is wired that way. But what we can't say is the the words did it, even in context, by themselves because no one else on this thread had such an obviously emotional response. I'm not Trev G's parent or supervisor at work. I'm a complete stranger on the internet and he is giving me that power over him.

If we are going to say that people are wired a certain way, then we are giving up.

Just as we need to try to teach people not to have loud obnoxious outbursts towards others we need to try to teach people to ignore others when they do.

GarrisonMiniatures Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member09 May 2016 2:31 p.m. PST

'Then I would argue that the bullies can't help the way they are wired either.'

Sometimes true. In this case seems like a cold, calculated, deliberate act that he was proud of, not an emotional response to something.

Also, she was a victim.He was setting out to cause hurt.

galvinm Inactive Member09 May 2016 8:40 p.m. PST

Pictors, how do you feel about Transgender terminology then? Should Biological males be called males? Calling a male who identifies as female seems to injure their feelings. Should they just suck it up? After all it is only a word that cannot hurt unless they allow it to. Yet we seem content to have to let the Supreme court decide for us who is what. Just interested in how you answer this.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP10 May 2016 6:25 a.m. PST

I don't think someone should get bent out of shape by being referred to by the wrong gender. Why would they? Why would they give someone else that power over them.

Why would it be different for transgendered people than non-transgendered people? I'm male, if someone calls me a woman it doesn't hurt my feelings. I don't feel like transgender people are lesser human beings at all. I think they can make adult choices in their lives.

"Also, she was a victim.He was setting out to cause hurt."

She allowed herself to be a victim. She created her victimhood. He may have been setting out to cause hurt but he can't do it unless she lets him. She victimizes herself.

"Sometimes true. In this case seems like a cold, calculated, deliberate act that he was proud of, not an emotional response to something."

Who are you to judge that? The guy has seen people like him, certainly his family, subject to one of the most racist regimes in the last half of the 20th century. It might be something that wired him to hate people. It is clearly an emotional response to something. His glee and pride are emotional responses. His anger is an emotional response to a history of oppression.

I'm not justifying what he said. But by this reasoning he has as much right to be unreasonable as she does.

Ultimately it comes down to how are you going to deal with this? We can put effort into making every single person not be a jerk.

Or we can try to make the vast majority of people not identify themselves as victims.

Either way you are going to fail in 100% compliance with your attempt.

But if you only fail x% of the time you are going to be better off teaching people to toughen up and not paying attention to their whining.

Say you fail 1% of the time. Out of 100 people you get 1 person who can't handle words being thrown at them by random strangers. Then you have 1 hurt person.

If you get 10 out of 100 people who are jerks then they can affect a whole bunch of people.

It is like trying to curtail animal populations by castrating the males and leaving the females alone.

It only takes one male to impregnate all the females. You're better off spaying the females.

Oh Bugger Inactive Member10 May 2016 1:01 p.m. PST

"No word can hurt someone. No one calling you anything to your face can hurt you."

Pictors, You need to think this through.

On another Wargamey site someone recently wrote about Yids and bog trotting Taigs.

Both terms are offensive and hateful not least because those using them might well go on to kill you if the circumstances were in their favour. Those words are intended to hurt, and to inspire fear, as are many others.

It is easy enough to understand this and it underpins all propaganda. I guess you have never been on the receiving end of it.

As to the guy in the restaurant he was abusing someone, with less power than him, on racial grounds.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP10 May 2016 5:00 p.m. PST

I have read this thread with some interest & would find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Pictors Studio except he seems to leave out a few factors.

Any understanding of human nature and a total lack of empathy seem to be absent from his case.

I would respectfully suggest that what may apply to you may not be applicable to 99.99% of the human race.

little o Inactive Member10 May 2016 6:40 p.m. PST

Yeah, serious lack of empathy and poor understanding of human nature, not to mention the arts and the ability of human language to communicate emotion. Then he coldly suggests one of the members fire a 9mm round into a loved one to test his idea…….
M

Goonfighter Inactive Member10 May 2016 11:14 p.m. PST

Words alone can't cause physical injury – if I stared at your nose, Pictors, and repeatedly muttered "bleed", nothing much would happen; it would need a well placed fist or knee to get the old claret flowing…..

So far so good. But words can inflict emotional damage. Let's presume I learnt something about you and that on every occasion – roll call, parade, tea break – I reminded everyone, loudly that "Pictors is a mummy's boy who can't tie his own laces". That would get tiring pretty quickly wouldn't it? Crank up the level of abuse, making it deeply personal, sexual perhaps and it would hurt some people on an emotional level.

That said, it wouldn't hurt you, Pictors, because you seem to have a mind like a steel fortress. On which topic…..I think you need therapy. I've often said that while I don't like torture, if my wife's safety relied on someone being waterboarded, I'd be getting the towels and bucket out. Maybe that makes me a little bit of a psycho. What I've not done is use the example of putting gun to my wife in the way you just did. Take a deep breath mate and try to connect emotionally. Hugs, dude.

Ottoathome11 May 2016 2:27 a.m. PST

If the waitress was black and the customer white, Pictors Studio, you would be screaming that he be lynched. Incivility has no place in every day relationships like that between a waitress and a customer. Apparently you believe that the waitress is your punching bag and because she is "in service" you can do what you will to her. The student is a racist and a thug. He should be treated accordingly.

Goonfighter Inactive Member11 May 2016 5:34 a.m. PST

Thinking this over – and with one DH already…..it seems Pictor, that you cannot be hurt by words, because you can choose not to be hurt.

On that basis, surely, we are free to say what we wish without fear of the DH, providing we direct comment (should we care to make it) at you and not other, weaker minds, in general?

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP11 May 2016 6:38 a.m. PST

I generally wouldn't have any one DH'd. The only forum rule I'd enforce is posting sales stuff in the sales section.

If the waitress was black and the student was white I certainly would not be screaming racism or anything else. I'd tell her to suck it up too.

Ottoathome, I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that the waitress should be a punching bag. When have I said that any of this applies to any race, type of employment, gender or anything else. I challenge you to point out somewhere where I have singled out any type of person as deserving of abuse.

"he student is a racist and a thug. He should be treated accordingly." Yes, he should be ignored. That waitress validated his world view and made him feel good about what he did by reacting the way she did. Now everyone is giving him all this attention for being an asshole. So he'll keep being an asshole. And other people will see that they can get attention by being an asshole. So you've probably created more assholes, or at least created more asshole behaviour. Way to go.

"So far so good. But words can inflict emotional damage. Let's presume I learnt something about you and that on every occasion – roll call, parade, tea break – I reminded everyone, loudly that "Pictors is a mummy's boy who can't tie his own laces". That would get tiring pretty quickly wouldn't it? Crank up the level of abuse, making it deeply personal, sexual perhaps and it would hurt some people on an emotional level."

I'm apparently not good at tying laces. Mine are always coming undone. If you keep pointing it out you're going to look like a moron. Make it as personal, as sexual as you want, I'm going to ignore it, as I was taught from a young age.

What I believe in is people and that people can be strong if we teach them to be strong.

Molly coddling people every time someone says something mean to them is actually causing the problem. Look at little kids. They fall down and hurt themselves. They aren't actually injured. They cry.

The parent that largely ignores these little things has a kid that doesn't cry when it falls down. The parent that runs over and picks the kid up and wipes the tears away every time, is going to have a kid that falls and cries a lot.

This isn't to say that they shouldn't take care of the kid when they are actually injured. They should. But kids cry at the drop of a hat and if you take it seriously it is only going to get worse rather than better.

Bad things are going to happen to people. Someone doesn't have to be a jerk for it to happen to them.

"I would respectfully suggest that what may apply to you may not be applicable to 99.99% of the human race"

So you're saying that I'm some form of super-human? I'm not. I was taught at an early age that comments can be ignored and that bullies should be ignored. I've been ignoring them my whole life.

Similarly with peer pressure. I don't drink alcohol. I don't like it. There were a ton of people that tried to get me to drink over the years, especially in college and high school. I've only done it once, that was when my friend asked me to drink the champagne toast at his wedding after I gave the best man speech.

If you teach kids to toughen up and ignore when others are being mean to them you solve the problem of peer pressure too. Teach them to think for themselves and not pay so much attention to what others think.

I'm not sure why there is so much opposition to this idea.

Pages: 1 2