I'm not sure we need more John Waynes, but it's nice to at least talk to someone who knows who John Wayne is. — T Clark

Maybe we do need more John Waynes.

As I said previously, this is the first time I'm trying to articulate these issues, so I haven't got myself together. — T Clark

Take your time, I am just on a train ride travelling between locations for work but I will say that I am proud you are making an effort to peer into the dark and I look forward to reading your posts tonight.

I've been a bully before, one of the things I remember most acutely about it - or rather remember as conspicuous in its absence - is that cruel actions aren't seen as cruel to the target. Their humanity is suspended in the decision to belittle them. The target becomes part of the narrative of jokes surrounding them. Their needs were silenced and the dissatisfaction of those needs is their only voice, spoken in my terms; as hilarious weakness. Formally, they were not excluded by my (and friends') actions because they were already excluded from any empathy as a prerequisite to bully them without cognitive dissonance or bad faith. Truly authentic cruelty. If it wasn't so funny we wouldn't have all laughed.

We were absolutely playing and infinitely playful - the target had no recourse, anything they did was interpreted as part of the game we made of them. It was play all the way down, only it was indifferent to them all the way down. Really - how funny, to suffer. — fdrake

I appreciate this, fdrake. I have been bullied. I am quiet and small in stature and he was a very big man and profoundly aggressive and because I did not respond to his sexual advances he resorted to true authentic cruelty. It was horrible being a joke to them because my humanity was taken away from me and those who followed him and believed in him appeared as though they were allowed to treat me that way. That laughter at the so-called 'weakness' is pretty shocking. The worst part about it was that I thought he was a good person, I really wanted to believe it.

I think we could give examples for both the bad and the good to humour, so I am unsure how to proceed. Are you suggesting that perhaps humour is too ambiguous because it is an oversimplification?

You qualified your post at the end by saying you were in unfamiliar territory, hedging a bit. It struck me as less than bold is all. — Hanover

Honestly, I'm feeling pretty bold in this discussion. Boldly going where I haven't gone before. Boldly expressing my lack of boldness.

Been going over your post. Thank you for it, gives good background to understand where you're coming from. I made similar use of humor, growing up, for similar (if different) reasons. It does deflate the seriousness of the world around. But.

It gives you power, right? What I get from your post is that you were coming from a position of powerlessness. That's where I came from too. Humor and philosophy, both, provide a sort of power. Words too. They're a kind of mesh, if you can access it, that lets you pull yourself out of whatever you were in. People respond to this as well: If you can can master these tools right, people will take you at your word. This is a weird thing: If you're sufficiently smart, able to do things with language, people will believe what you tell them.

Humour can free you from this defensive mechanism, a type of abstract thinking.

Yes, but...It can itself become a kind of defense mechanism. I'm not trying to knock humor, by any means, but ---maybe you can relate to this: home-life is a bust. Just bad news. However: you find that if you can make people laugh, then they're on your side. If you can make people laugh and also make people think - then you're in the money. That's the positive aspect.

But every good thing tows its shadow behind it. Here's the shadow: If people get too close, then you can use the same tools. Anything perceived as a threat gets automatically linked back to the ur-threat. This is a state of emergency and justifies whatever means. Humor, intellect etc - aimed like a laser. If you've survived something horrible, its natural to fall into this.

The hardest part of all this is that what you do may not fit well with who you think you are.

The same tools of humor and intellect you used to defend yourself against a legitimately horrid world are repurposed in order to represent yourself to yourself. I did this for a long time. I was so good at talking that I could talk to myself about who I was and convince myself, in the same way I convinced others.. The better you are at this, the harder it is to stop doing it.

I mention all of this only because I think I relate to what you're doing. But [cards on the table] I don't always believe the stories you tell about yourself. I think some of your self-summations sit unquietly with the body of posts you're trying to sum up. I'm trying to figure out who I'm talking to here. I don't buy a lot of what you say about yourself. I think you're probably much more interesting than how you self-present (which is, frankly, boring.) I think the qualities that attract people (and posters) are ones you cover up when you talk about who you are.

More triples.

Man, Nature, God <=> Philosophy, Psychology, Religion <=> mind, body, spirit <=>Good, evil, Judgement.

You may not like this much, but I think it is worth going into a bit. Religion is the form of expression that externalises the analyst, the master, and allows the conflicted relation to develop. Adam and Eve is a story told by God, as the story of the bully and the victim is a story told by the therapist.

But you are familiar with the patriarchal trinity. Allow me to introduce the Old Religion.

The triple Goddess has the aspects Maiden, Mother, and Crone, and her colours are white, red and black, respectively. Birth, life, and death, geddit? We males worship her in the aspect of the maiden, The White Goddess, for obvious reasons, and this gives us a limited view. However, there are in the remnants of mythology hints of a genuine second order reflexivity, unlike the cycling we indulge in here whereby each post of analysis is made an object of analysis by the the next.

It would require a high priestess to explicate in the unlikely event of her being willing, so I will simply note that the muses and fates are ninefold, thus there is in the poet's relation to his muse, or a man's relation to his love, though it is but one aspect of three, still the same triple played out within it - attraction, fulfilment, rejection.

Those who are constitutionally unable to use the religious to momentarily dethrone the analyst, might have recourse to poetry, and I suppose it is the patriarchal poet who writes this, expressing something of his sense of loss, and rage against the tyranny of the analyst. But I do commend to you the Robert Graves linked here; at the least, it outlines a better game to play.

It gives you power, right? What I get from your post is that you were coming from a position of powerlessness. That's where I came from too. Humor and philosophy, both, provide a sort of power. Words too. They're a kind of mesh, if you can access it, that lets you pull yourself out of whatever you were in. People respond to this as well: If you can can master these tools right, people will take you at your word. This is a weird thing: If you're sufficiently smart, able to do things with language, people will believe what you tell them. — csalisbury

This is interesting, actually, because it explains the dichotomy of how humour can be used as a mechanism to affect both coercive and rewarding feelings of power, however power itself is ambiguous and it also fails to clarify power relations and the sharing of joy. I am still rather determined to believe that humour is not intended as a tool for control and abuse - just as some people think they "love" and yet are violent and abusive to their partners; it is not love, it is something else - feeling empowered does not mean some indulgence of evil or a lack of empathy, but rather to counteract that evil. To say that one is not inferior and that there is a joy and beauty in life. It is like non-violent protesting, a gentle resistance to the cold and almost brutal landscape where efficiency overwhelms our humanity.

Everything, including words, can be used as a tool to exploit the vulnerable and mockery is a type of manipulative tactic that devalues humour itself and disorients the audience and the victim without appearing responsible for the cruelty. "I was just joking!" Humour has a function for joy, but the dimensions of this function are accessed and exploited by a manipulator to coercively influence authority. Essentially, it is all about intent and our individual motives and the culture or social conditions must provide the platform that is conducive to good behaviour as much as it is responsible for the bad. There are bad people making bad jokes, but we do not eliminate jokes to eliminate the bad. We challenge the motives.

I don't buy a lot of what you say about yourself. I think you're probably much more interesting than how you self-present (which is, frankly, boring.) I think the qualities that attract people (and posters) are ones you cover up when you talk about who you are. — csalisbury

You're the first person who has picked up on that. I tell people that you can never really know who a person is when they write online, and to be honest, sometimes it feels like a threat when someone becomes interested without first forming a friendship with me. I like distance. I need to observe. It takes time with me, which is why friendship is paramount. We build walls to protect ourselves and we protect ourselves because we know how terrible it can feel when our trust has been betrayed. I give hints here and there, but the question is what exactly do you want? And why from me? Do you say the same to your male counterparts or are you suggesting that I need to give you more than just the words that I write? In saying that, I am nevertheless brutally honest about my past. It has no power over me because of it.

The hardest part of all this is that what you do may not fit well with who you think you are. — csalisbury

"Unsettled hearts promise what they can't deliver". I was once like this, but not anymore. The clarity of my motives is aligned with my actions because I know who I am. When I had no respect or love for myself, what I did never really reflected the person that I was, torn between pleasing people and doing what I wanted, feeling guilty and feeling angry. I feel none of that now.

I've been finding the discussion disturbing. I find myself wanting to turn away from it. I guess that means I find it stressful. — T Clark

Embracing your vulnerability is a sign of strength. "To be able to bear provocation is an argument of great reason, and to forgive it of a great mind. Ignorance and inconsideration are the two great causes of the ruin of mankind."

What I mean is that sometimes lovers are equal partners dealing with the business of life. At other times one lover wants to show off and be admired by the other ('I'll be the child and you be the impressed parent.') Of course the unpleasant stuff is one partner trying to parent the other oppressive. Or trying to play the child when the partner is in the mood either for adult-adult conversation or are themselves impatient to be the adored child.

I imagine we're making much the same point in different vocabularies. You're emphasising the adaptability of roles, I'm emphasising the adaptability of persons. The only difference is going to be how much people are seen as a series of games. Maybe that's a big difference in worldview, but it's a small difference in conduct here, I think.

Boy. This is hard to read. I'm trying to think of myself in similar situations. The only times I can remember having a reaction similar to what you're describing is the contempt I have sometimes felt for people, usually boys or men, acting, being weak, vulnerable, pitiful. Thinking back, it's probably always boys or men. Not a good feeling. Looking back on it from many years in the future, I came to realize my feelings of contempt happened because I recognized the same weakness in myself. It was shame. Is that what you're describing, or is it something else? Is it purely social behavior - something you do with a group of friends - or would you do it when it was just you?

I don't think the reason I obtained remorse or even stopped is because I saw myself in the target. Some of it was that I couldn't get away with it any more; I did find more socially acceptable cruelties which took a lot longer to stop; some of it was humanising the target. One of the rationalisations - well, it was true at the time for me - I had to vindicate the bullying was that since the target was a member of no social groups, and the social group I was in allowed him a limited amount of autonomy. Remember, only insofar as he was forced to be the unwilling jester, the sad clown. Him being bullied was a social contract of inclusion as much as it was a series excluding and belittling actions. Every skilled bastard fosters codependence and feeds off it.

Maybe the only similar thing I've seen, which isn't usually identified as similar, is that guy at work. That guy hangs around, everyone thinks he's a bit of an asshole, everyone thinks he's annoying. But nevertheless he's formally included in your group because it's impolite to exclude him. The condition that allows the members of your group to keep him there? Continual mockery behind the back, two-facedness, crocodile smiles. A smorgasbord of passive aggression.

I think you nailed it. I know this contempt. It's all their in the word 'pussy,' which in a crude vocabulary serves as both the primary kind of sinner and the officially sanctioned object of desire. A rough theory would be that men repress their vulnerability and find it again at a safe distance in a woman (in the heterosexual case.) He is the shell. She is the shameful but delicious goo inside.

I don't think it's surprising that a self identified male social group would have a derogatory term for women as a mark of exclusion. But, I don't agree with the symbolism - men aren't hollow, women aren't without restraint. Men aren't aligned with cosmic order and women aren't aligned with chaos.

The extent I agree with the symbolism is: insofar as maleness is seen as the regulative ideal of identity, femaleness looks like a shadow cast from that regulative ideal. It's a bunch of tropes; ideological machines; that people struggle against, and I don't think it's helpful to regurgitate their stereotypes. We can all chew.

On a more abstract level, feminine identity shouldn't be aligned with the negative while male identity is aligned with the positive. You end up with gendered dyads like (negative/positive = female/male generates) passive/active; subservient/masterful; non-assertive/assertive; weak/strong; emotional/indifferent; petty/generous. It isn't exactly a metaphysical truth to assert this dyadic opposition, it's a conceptual generality of the tropes we live in.

I appreciate this, fdrake. I have been bullied. I am quiet and small in stature and he was a very big man and profoundly aggressive and because I did not respond to his sexual advances he resorted to true authentic cruelty. It was horrible being a joke to them because my humanity was taken away from me and those who followed him and believed in him appeared as though they were allowed to treat me that way. That laughter at the so-called 'weakness' is pretty shocking.

I find sexual aggressiveness and shaming due to non-consent pretty disgusting. But I can try to bend myself into the role a bit. I very much doubt that your abuser saw himself simply as bad, if he did he probably wouldn't have continued behaving like that. Perhaps he was unreflective and regurgitating things he's seen before, perhaps he knew what he was doing was wrong but continued anyway because, at least, he knew what he was doing was wrong. Perhaps he was frustrated because you'd shown him the limitations of his power; and how humiliating that a simple 'no' suffices to destroy a persona.

The worst part about it was that I thought he was a good person, I really wanted to believe it.

Did you take actions to avoid being bullied or did you allow (he made?) his bullying to become a twisted intimacy between you?

I think we could give examples for both the bad and the good to humour, so I am unsure how to proceed. Are you suggesting that perhaps humour is too ambiguous because it is an oversimplification?

I'm trying to demonstrate that humour isn't aligned with positive or negative, it isn't inherently good or bad, what matters is how it's used.

For better of for worse, this is the most stressful thread I've ever participated in. A conversation about patterns of conversations. Every post is both part of the conversation and also an object to be talked about as example within the conversation....ahhhh

I think this is a function of your stance towards the thread more than anything. It is a very unusual thread, a nauseating psychological hall of mirrors. Is it possible for you to see yourself as one of the reflections? In it rather than beyond it.

I wonder what came to be to make this thread how it is. Very strange.

I don't think the reason I obtained remorse or even stopped is because I saw myself in the target. Some of it was that I couldn't get away with it any more; I did find more socially acceptable cruelties which took a lot longer to stop; some of it was humanising the target. One of the rationalisations - well, it was true at the time for me - I had to vindicate the bullying was that since the target was a member of no social groups, and the social group I was in allowed him a limited amount of autonomy. Remember, only insofar as he was forced to be the unwilling jester, the sad clown. Him being bullied was a social contract of inclusion as much as it was a series excluding and belittling actions. Every skilled bastard fosters codependence and feeds off it. — fdrake

I think we all can agree with the platitude that we should strive towards civility, not bully, be polite, consider the views of others, respectfully disagree, and move about with grace and honor. And should we fail in these lofty goals, we should contemplate our failures and allow our conscience and the ensuing regret and remorse to redirect us.

All of that is very true, but not all too human. We can be rude, crass, obnoxious creatures, quick with a cutting remark, occasionally hitting a nerve and feeling some sense of enjoyment. Knowing that, we must grant allowances to others who fail to be proper diplomatic statesmen. The point being, we cannot be too critical of others who are occasionally too critical of us. People judge, get pissed off, fuck around with each other, ignore one another's emotions, and a necessary coping mechanism is to permit it, accept it, and embrace it as just ordinary and actually meaningful interaction. That is to say, I guess I've been bullied and I've been the bully, but being a victim is sometimes a state of mind. I do believe, as politically incorrect as it is to say, that striving toward political correctness does not make for a better society. There is profound virtue in turning the other cheek, dusting yourself off, and stepping forward for the next round. While I can sympathize with the victim, there's nothing particularly admirable about him. The guy who dusted himself off, yeah, I can admire that guy.

So, no, you shouldn't mock the guy at work who is socially inept, but should you mock him and he overreacts, that much is on him.

@csalisbury A portion of your reply has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution~

Honestly, I'm feeling pretty bold in this discussion. Boldly going where I haven't gone before. Boldly expressing my lack of boldness. — T Clark

There is a boldness in honesty, but now you need to be actually bold. It sounds uncomfortable for you, so I now give you permission to say whatever sarcastic, mean spirited, and awkwardly honest thing you want to say about me. Go ahead. It'll be a growing experience.

This reminded me of this: https://youtu.be/RlTbJZ64sVM . It's really funny if you have a few minutes to watch it.

I don't see anything to disagree with. It doesn't really address the points of difference between ribbing and long term abuse or bullying, or being chronically that guy. The cynic in me says that precisely because your response is so reasonable it positions non-reasonable responses as always unwarranted - implicitly worthy of understandable scorn. I understand why Andy would want to punch through the wall, it probably makes sense in the context of being chronically that guy and a target of institutional bullying. Sure, he over-reacted there, it's pretty understandable why he would. A pox on both their houses.

If you've ever been the target of a sustained campaign of bullying, every single instance becomes reminiscent of the whole thing. The belief that the target's highly emotive responses are over-reactions is as much another condemnation, another reason to permit and retroactively justify your actions towards them, as it is just being sensible.

I think you're missing that the middle ground is always contested territory.

I think you're missing that the middle ground is always contested territory. — fdrake

I think that's probably both of our points, which is that the middle ground is terribly vague, which makes it hard to navigate. The solution then comes from both directions, which is that we ought be more cautious than we currently are because we don't know the sensitivities of others and on the other side of the equation, we should be more tolerant of others because we don't want to be overly sensitive and read malice where there is none. Both are difficult to do because they require a change in personality and interaction, and at some point people are no longer truly connecting. If I watch everything I say to you for fear of your being sensitive and you feign acceptance of me when I annoy you, then there will be a superficiality to our relationship where it will not go beyond being professional to one another.

And maybe that's the real solution, which is just to admit an incompatibility when you realize that your sensitivities don't match up. That is not a "let's all get along" attitude though, but more of an admission you don't get each other, where the sensitive person is always feeling wronged and the less than sensitive guy feels like he's always having to apologize. It'd be tiring for both of them. But, it does abandon the idea that one side is more right than the other, with it being no more correct to yell "bully" as it is to yell "pussy." As long as both have the ability to successfully interact in their own worlds apart from each other without conflict, then maybe that's the safe place to stay.

And maybe that's the real solution, which is just to admit an incompatibility when you realize that your sensitivities don't match up. That is not a "let's all get along" attitude though, but more of an admission you don't get each other, where the sensitive person is always feeling wronged and the less than sensitive guy feels like he's always having to apologize.

I don't think this is always the solution. If it can be the solution, generally the stakes are very low. Like professional tolerance of coworkers, or different opinions of acceptable topic for smalltalk.

Advocating this solution resigns all parties involved to a neutral, non-dependent ground; where their moods and personalities are seen as independent and reactive to their other's actions. This is resigning both parties to a calculated but essentially impossible indifference to the other. We have a problem, let's agree to ignore it. Another wrinkle is only one side of the emotional/rational dyad, the personas in the conflict, will see calculated indifference as a solution; the one who sees the engagement as a triviality to begin with. The world would look a lot different when you see yourself as a problem - the problem in this case.

Linking this back to more philosophical themes, indifference to the other renders ethical conduct towards them impossible. How can something be negotiated when one party puts themselves beyond the bounds of negotiation? The answer is simply; it won't, they refuse.

So when you say:

But, it does abandon the idea that one side is more right than the other, with it being no more correct to yell "bully" as it is to yell "pussy." As long as both have the ability to successfully interact in their own worlds apart from each other without conflict, then maybe that's the safe place to stay.

it engenders a kind of agent-agent ethical decision in which one party is radically indifferent to the other; so much so that 'let's agree to disagree', in all its reasonableness, acts as a principle to ignore yourself as a thorn in another's side. When they can't, by assumption, see it like the triviality it is. Gentle ribbing is usually done precisely by people who have a broad sense of triviality in interaction, and we shouldn't let ourselves seize the middle ground purely out of our own sense of reasonableness; the tyrant (edit: or the bureaucrat) is the model of such self justification.

Actual ethical decisions are opportunities for self transformation - a leap of faith into a new sense of what is reasonable and what isn't. Which isn't to say reasoning frameworks should be jettisoned in making ethical decisions, on the contrary, it echoes the etymological root of reason - ratiocination, to consider rather than to impose as already decided.

We have a problem, let's agree to ignore it. — fdrake

You point out here that I've advocated conflict avoidance.

it engenders a kind of agent-agent ethical decision in which one party is radically indifferent to the other; so much so that 'let's agree to disagree', in all its reasonableness, acts as a principle to ignore yourself as a thorn in another's side. When they can't, by assumption, see it like the triviality it is. Gentle ribbing is usually done precisely by people who have a broad sense of triviality in interaction, and we shouldn't let ourselves seize the middle ground purely out of our own sense of reasonableness; the tyrant (edit: or the bureaucrat) is the model of such self justification. — fdrake

A description of what it means to avoid conflict. One area where I'd disagree is that the conflict that is avoided is not wiped away as trivial, but it is avoided precisely because it's seen as critical and unresolvable. I appreciate this description might be my own neurosis, but it's nonetheless personally truthful. That is to say, if you are very leftist and I'm not, we could get along quite well as long as we made our dispute a trivial part of our relationship. That is, we must declare not to personally care about that difference because it isn't trivial. It's critical, and if we allow it to remain in the forefront of our interaction, we are not be able to get along.

I dated a very liberal woman once, and I told her that nothing she believed offended me, that she was entitled to all she believed, and I even truthfully stated to her that I liked it that she held passionate views, despite I disagreed with her in very large part. And she had trouble with me, saying she had trouble divorcing her personal opinions from our relationship, although she finally came to terms with it. The challenge was hers far more than mine because I have no problem avoiding conflict. She did. God did she (but that's another story).

The point being that there are unresolvable differences and they have to dealt with somehow. Either you're going to enjoy sparring over your differences (where all the world is The Philosophy Forum), you're going to compromise to find middle ground, or you're going to have to watch in different rooms when your favorite team plays their favorite team.

Everything, including words, can be used as a tool to exploit the vulnerable and mockery is a type of manipulative tactic that devalues humour itself and disorients the audience and the victim without appearing responsible for the cruelty. "I was just joking!" Humour has a function for joy, but the dimensions of this function are accessed and exploited by a manipulator to coercively influence authority. Essentially, it is all about intent and our individual motives and the culture or social conditions must provide the platform that is conducive to good behaviour as much as it is responsible for the bad. There are bad people making bad jokes, but we do not eliminate jokes to eliminate the bad. We challenge the motives. — TimeLine

Perhaps, but this is over generalized and non-contextualized. It is possible the person was just joking. In The Office video posted above, those in the office were truly joking, and the real response they were looking for was for Andy to have played along, to have thrown back a figurative punch at them (not a literal punch into the wall). It was playful, non-malicious wrestling to them. To Andy, it wasn't. I'm not declaring who gets to decide the truth here, as both confidently have their perspectives, but mean humor is a thing, but it's not meant to truly be mean. It's meant to be funny. Know your audience I guess.

A description of what it means to avoid conflict. One area where I'd disagree is that the conflict that is avoided is not wiped away as trivial, but it is avoided precisely because it's seen as critical and unresolvable. I appreciate this description might be my own neurosis, but it's nonetheless personally truthful. That is to say, if you are very leftist and I'm not, we could get along quite well as long as we made our dispute a trivial part of our relationship. That is, we must declare not to personally care about that difference because it isn't trivial. It's critical, and if we allow it to remain in the forefront of our interaction, we are not be able to get along. — Hanover

If agreeing to disagree becomes the middle ground mutually and easily, it's definitely a way of dealing with the conflict that preserves both people with little effort. If a calculated, mutually, indifference like that isn't able to solve the conflict clearly the mutual recognition that it is irreconcilable is one outcome with its own consequences, lots of other strategies of reconciliation are another.

I dated a very liberal woman once, and I told her that nothing she believed offended me, that she was entitled to all she believed, and I even truthfully stated to her that I liked it that she held passionate views, despite I disagreed with her in very large part. And she had trouble with me, saying she had trouble divorcing her personal opinions from our relationship, although she finally came to terms with it. The challenge was hers far more than mine because I have no problem avoiding conflict. She did. God did she (but that's another story). — Hanover

I think this warrants an autobiographical response. A lot of the arguments I've got into with partners have been rooted in when I see something as trivial and they do not, or vice versa. These are differences in what is cared about, how that care is expressed, and the intensity of caring. My immediate response to conflict is to understand why it's come about, ask questions etc. This was troubling to one ex who had difficulty putting their feelings into words, so in my view most of our conflicts were suspended until a later date; that is, still ongoing. For her, she'd express herself by being moody or quiet and distant until the conflict had resolved itself in her head, and that was the way of dealing with it. We never came to some compromise on a way of dealing with conflicts and that was one of the reasons, I imagine, that we eventually broke up.

But, contrary to you saying she finally came to terms with it, I had the opposite response and didn't position myself as the one who didn't need to change; I tried very hard to limit introspective conversation, and to meet her at her halfway (middle ground). It was a difficult middle ground for me to occupy, and it showed. For me, self expression and coming to an understanding was a trivial given for any interpersonal conflict. She, however, neither needed nor wanted to develop such an understanding. Just like I neither needed nor wanted to deal with sustained negative expression until she felt better.

The point here is that the means by which to decide who's right and who's wrong in circumstances like that is internal to the decisions made, not an external factor which conditions them. There's no system of forms to register complaints, and no legal framework for evaluating what's right and what's wrong; the schema is the precedents set and lived within by both agents independently. Which, therefore, has to be changed through mutual effort. Otherwise such a resolution is no negotiation or compromise.

This isn't to say that such mental and behavioural gymnastics are required for all decisions regarding others, most decisions regarding others are largely irrelevant so long as they are within usual social and ethical parameters. That is to say, most decisions are already made for us in a reasonable way.

The change in perspective brought on by seeing how you think of things as part of the problem is uncomfortable, and can't (shouldn't?) be sustained long term. It could engender being an extreme doormat as much as a faithful and considerate partner. So it should be contrasted with seeing how they think as part of the problem too.

More succinctly, what is irreconcilable can be bracketed, or used as inspiration for mutual growth and development of intimacy. The latter strategy is costly but worthwhile, the former strategy is cheap but lazy. Most decisions made regarding others are cheap but lazy, and necessarily so, no one can sustain such dizzying chaos as self-negation for interpersonal attunement long term.

Perhaps, but this is over generalized and non-contextualized. It is possible the person was just joking. In The Office video posted above, those in the office were truly joking, and the real response they were looking for was for Andy to have played along, to have thrown back a figurative punch at them (not a literal punch into the wall). It was playful, non-malicious wrestling to them. To Andy, it wasn't. I'm not declaring who gets to decide the truth here, as both confidently have their perspectives, but mean humor is a thing, but it's not meant to truly be mean. It's meant to be funny. Know your audience I guess. — Hanover

These are the dimensions that make it difficult to ascertain what is funny and at what expense; thinking about bux parties and other pranks. A couple of guys that I know posted this black and white picture of themselves at the gym looking all serious and beautiful with a philosophical quote attached to it. The quote was completely unrelated so it was obvious they missed the point about what it meant and I found that Instagram caption thing hilarious and tedious at the same time, so I responded humorously with a quote from Dracula. It was a joke, but underlying it was an intention to explain that I found them funny and to undermine the seriousness of the picture. They were seeking praise and I refused to give it to them but I used humour to articulate that to avoid the sensitiveness and hostility that could arise if I were to explain what Aristotle meant and why it is irrelevant and why on earth do they have this black and white picture of themselves looking all serious and beautiful at the gym, affording me protection so that in the instance they pick up on the fact that I am actually mocking them, I can simply say "I'm just joking!" I actually was, but there was an underlying reason behind it.

Both you and Michael did the same thing when I chimed in about BMI age. It was not meant to be mean in anyway, but the intention is to downplay the seriousness and to expose the ridiculous. The point is what you find ridiculous and whether you have any right to say anything. You're video was not a joke, it was a problematic interaction just like those terrible singers who go onto a singing show and are told they are terrible singers only to flip out and start getting all defensive and attacking the judge for being a fool. It is malicious in the instance where the person does sing well but is told by a bully that they have a shit voice, just as much as it is funny when jokes are said about weirdo princesses singing to magpies. The audience is irrelevant, it is isolating the intent.

You're video was not a joke, it was a problematic interaction just like those terrible singers who go onto a singing show and are told they are terrible singers only to flip out and start getting all defensive and attacking the judge for being a fool. It is malicious in the instance where the person does sing well but is told by a bully that they have a shit voice, just as much as it is funny when jokes are said about weirdo princesses singing to magpies. The audience is irrelevant, it is isolating the intent. — TimeLine

True, but intent is complicated because you're assuming sufficient empathy and understanding of the audience is in the equation when the joke is considered. For example, if I posted what I thought to be a serious quote with a picture of myself at the gym and a friend of mine explained to me how I misunderstood the quote, that I was a dumbass, and carried on about how I was a pompous buffoon, I might think it pretty funny. I'd then respond by insulting his children and making inappropriate comments about his wife and it would degenerate from there, with some of the insults being truly personal and abusive, making it all the more funny. My intent would always be to be funny, but some people who I might expect to get it, won't, and they'll be like "fuck you" and I'll be like "doubly fuck you" and I'll be joking, and they won't, and then no amount of splainin works.

Both you and Michael did the same thing when I chimed in about BMI age. It was not meant to be mean in anyway, but the intention is to downplay the seriousness and to expose the ridiculous. — TimeLine

Of course, because Michael tends to get it, as does Sap and Baden, but others not quite as much. So if I tell @Baden I accidently had sex with his stupid fucking dog last night thinking it was his mom, he'd respond in kind, whereas if I told some other people that, they'd be sort of pissed off, like why is this moderator telling me he fucked my dog and is insulting my mother. I'm proud of that example of a good joke, by the way.

It is malicious in the instance where the person does sing well but is told by a bully that they have a shit voice, just as much as it is funny when jokes are said about weirdo princesses singing to magpies. — TimeLine

Yes, the magpie song. I'm reminded of this:

Perhaps he was unreflective and regurgitating things he's seen before, perhaps he knew what he was doing was wrong but continued anyway because, at least, he knew what he was doing was wrong. Perhaps he was frustrated because you'd shown him the limitations of his power; and how humiliating that a simple 'no' suffices to destroy a persona. — fdrake

I think he was embarrassed at himself or his approach towards intimacy that he resorted to aggression because this feeling emasculated him, so he was on the defensive only because of his ego and he was telling himself that I was worthless to avoid the emotions. Indeed, I am intelligent and you could see he was trying to 'beat' me and you could see him trying to overpower me in a number of ways, but this stemmed from his perceptions that men ought to be better, stronger, authoritative over women and equality defies masculinity. I don't think anyone who does a bad thing is aware that they are doing bad and that is why I wanted to help him see that, to feel remorse and to become friends with me (showing me the respect I deserve).

I think this thread exemplifies just how uncomfortable men are talking about themselves, as though emotions are vulnerabilities that are a weakness and instead post highly articulate and factual ideas that defines perfect intellectual masculinity. It is not weakness, but they tell themselves that it is and so avoid it. Many bullies themselves were bullied and so they became that way to protect themselves from becoming the object of ridicule and are likely more emotionally invested then they attempt to convey and covert the emotion by pretending it is not there. If it was not there, one would not be compelled to act.

Did you take actions to avoid being bullied or did you allow (he made?) his bullying to become a twisted intimacy between you? — fdrake

I think he may have thought that, which is why I continuously articulated that I hate playing games, but I did care for him because I could see the conflict he was experiencing and the emotional mess that he could not contain. I caught him pulling out paper I threw away from my rubbish bin once and in his mind he probably wanted to believe he would find some useful personal information about me, whereas I saw a strange moment where a man was going through my rubbish bin and pulling out an irrelevant piece of garbage. I tried everything I could, from being kind to being dismissive, to helping him and to ignoring him, but such men are one dimensional and as I said to Hanover, think they have a right or some sense of entitlement to behave badly and as such kindness is seen as a weakness or being firm to them gives them entitlement to be aggressive. The problem is the psychology of the bully.

This is no different to Othering, those that dehumanise people based on skin colour or religion or gender that ultimately makes it justifiable to ridicule and hurt. When I was in Israel, I went to the holocaust museum in Jerusalem and obviously there was a lot of disturbing content in there, but one thing that struck me and very deeply too was a before and after image of a Jewish woman standing rather frightened surrounded by German soldiers all of whom were laughing, and then the same Jewish woman after she was raped by them. The person no longer existed, she was just an object of amusement and I think this lack of empathy vis-a-vis the right to be vicious gives immorality a means to act. She deserved it. How is that any different from bullies like yourself that seemingly think you have a right to ridicule? Why is it that if you don't like something or someone - which is normal - that you feel justified to act out as though seeking a social means to enable reasons for behaving badly? There is clearly an ego here but also a sense of entitlement that stems from a lack of empathy.

How is that any different from bullies like yourself that seemingly think you have a right to ridicule?

Hm. I suppose this is part of blaming the victim for how they're treated. Responsibility's absolved from me because they deserve it, or are somehow asking for it. I don't actually think there's much reason for it, at least when I've done it. It's like identifying as a cat playing with the baby bird, pushing it around on the ground until its legs buckle, wings snap and it eventually bleeds out. That I could catch someone in a moment of weakness that I created legitimated feasting on the all the horror and inner torment I caused. It was certainly fun.

Really though, I can think of three types of bullies:

(1) ones like the unthinking cat pouncing on weakness out of nothing but childish predatory instincts.
(2)Those who are aware that what they were doing was wrong, but that they didn't care for one reason or another.
(3) And those who are convinced that what they are doing (or did) is justified.

All three have the capacity to be rooted in something deeply psychological or traumatic. Or perhaps they aren't. At times I've been (2) and (3), and oscillated between them depending on how self-righteous I felt. The three have distinct but overlapping means of dehumanisation.

(1) thinks of it as somewhat a-priori, a given right. The target's concerns cannot be relevant no matter what.
(2) thinks of it as permissible, something with extenuating circumstances (at least for the bully). It is permissible since it's a bit of fun, not serious, sustained gentle ribbing of a 'friend' on an exposed ribcage. Disavowing their own actions also disavows the target.
(3) thinks of their actions as a matter of moral necessity or necessary for their identity to persist as is (those two things are usually the same in my experience of people). they're exacting vengeance for some perceived slight, or some personal symbolism the victim has to them.

Your problem person sounds like a particularly nasty mix of (1) and (3), and that's a lost cause. Someone who's right no matter what they do and an asshole at the same time. Their actions are in a continued state of exception and never aggregated into their persistent sense of identity. You are a thorn, they are pulling it out. You are a crawling ant, they will destroy you without a thought.

They're probably never going to integrate a recognition of their cruelty towards you into their identity, just like I'm not going to listen to one of the ants infesting my house when I crush them. The house must be in order, and of all the opinions I'd listen to, why would I listen to the ones I've already decided are whining noises?

That is not the kind of person to martyr yourself to for any apparently philosophical ideal.

Why is it that if you don't like something or someone - which is normal - that you feel justified to act out as though seeking a social means to enable reasons for behaving badly? There is clearly an ego here but also a sense of entitlement that stems from a lack of empathy.

The justifications only arose when passions inspired them to. If I really felt what I was doing was ok, or ok enough I kept doing it without looking at any reasons associated with it. It was its own end, so the victim is just a means.

My intent would always be to be funny, but some people who I might expect to get it, won't, and they'll be like "fuck you" and I'll be like "doubly fuck you" and I'll be joking, and they won't, and then no amount of splainin works. — Hanover

We all can act without knowing why and in this instance you may genuinely believe that you are simply joking back, but what you are really doing is responding or reacting rather vindictively with the intent of hurting their feelings. They hurt you and you are reciprocating, but you think he was joking when he showed that you're a dumb-ass and so you are doing the same, only it is not about tolerance or a threshold to these jokes but rather he was exposing a truth in a way he knew you may least be offended with and you were not. It is just a misunderstanding of the intent. Those guys, by the way, reacted negatively to my joke, deleted it and stopped talking to me for a while; how dare I not tell them they are beautiful, amazing people, two men doing what millions of men do in a machine called the same shit as everyone else. They quickly regretted their reaction because I am awesome and I know a lot of people at the gym and everyone who read it thought it was funny and thought the guys were overreacting jocks, so they're all be like sniffing around me now and saying nice things about my hair and clothes, and I be like whatevs.

Of course, because Michael tends to get it, as does Sap and Baden, but others not quite as much. So if I tell Baden I accidently had sex with his stupid fucking dog last night thinking it was his mom, he'd respond in kind, whereas if I told some other people that, they'd be sort of pissed off, like why is this moderator telling me he fucked my dog and is insulting my mother. I'm proud of that example of a good joke, by the way. — Hanover

They prolly in a bad mood. You're so sensitive. In saying that, I sometimes intentionally disregard your jokes not because I didn't laugh or I didn't find it funny, but because I cant be fucked since my only chance to be on here is late at night when I am sleepy and in bed. You're so exhausting, always 'TL TL, look at me look at me, pick me pick me" I be like whatevs.

However, it also does open potential discussions about power-relations here, too. My dismissal of your jokes, for instance, is a type of power over you, a mode of discourse intended as a rhetorical strategy to control for my own benefit. I transform a joke into a truth and in doing so make you directly responsible; you are now committing bestiality and our children need to stay away from you because you are bad person. Likewise, people use 'serious' attitudes intended to overpower those who have a sense of humour by reducing their intellectual aptitude to a lower class as though their lack of seriousness purports a lack of intelligence. It is only because they seek power.

.

We all can act without knowing why and in this instance you may genuinely believe that you are simply joking back, but what you are really doing is responding or reacting rather vindictively with the intent of hurting their feelings. — TimeLine

See, this is just that you don't get guy humor, having not a Johnson. Good example, I have this friend and he was accused of inappropriate conduct with a subordinate, and he was truly innocent as the facts did show, and you can imagine the stress he went through during the investigation, as he really is an upstanding guy. Let us assume his false accuser's name was Sally, and so it has been a pretty funny joke to ask him if he Sallied any more of his subordinates, and one can certainly be creative in using Sally as a verb as you might imagine. I happen to live in a glass house myself, so stones are thrown right back and me, and it's mean as shit from an outsider's perspective, but it can be crazy funny to hear someone joke about the most sensitive events in another's life. And there really is no vindictiveness. It's actually a display of friendship to have no boundaries, to make light of really heavy burdens, and to let the other person know that there is nothing to hide and be embarrassed about.

What does it say if I joke to him about Sallying others? It means I don't for a minute think he ever Sallied anyone, that the prospect of that occurring is absurd, and that he doesn't have to feel there is some hidden doubt in any of our minds that something really did happen. We're all decent folks, so we'd never joke about his having done something terrible.

If I have such support for my friend, why don't I just say it instead of hiding it in jokes, you might ask? Cuz I'm not gay.

Those guys, by the way, reacted negatively to my joke, deleted it and stopped talking to me for a while; how dare I not tell them they are beautiful, amazing people, two men doing what millions of men do in a machine called the same shit as everyone else. — TimeLine

What you don't say dear Princess is that you felt bad about what you did and so here you try to pretend they sort of deserved it. You fretted about it and kind of wished you didn't go there, but you didn't, so you try to justify it. How do I know this? Cuz I know all. What happened see is that guys react differently to girls ragging on them than when a fellow guy does it. A guy punches another guy in the arm, he can hit him back. Not so when a girl throws a punch. They thought you were telling them they were stupid and that you meant it. You prolly did. They sounded stupid. You weren't joking. You were putting them in their place. Damn straight.

They quickly regretted their reaction because I am awesome and I know a lot of people at the gym and everyone who read it thought it was funny and thought the guys were overreacting jocks, so they're all be like sniffing around me now and saying nice things about my hair and clothes, and I be like whatevs. — TimeLine

And dare it is. These jocks thought they could be smart with their philosophy and shit? Hell no. That shit is your fuzzizzle. You needed to let them know who the boss was and maybe get their attention. Now they're looking your way, so you look the other way. One of those boys is gonna catch up to you one day Miss Playa. And btw, I say you got raggedy ass clothes and musty ass clumped up whore hair, so don't think your sass is gonna change my tune.

They prolly in a bad mood. You're so sensitive. In saying that, I sometimes intentionally disregard your jokes not because I didn't laugh or I didn't find it funny, but because I cant be fucked since my only chance to be on here is late at night when I am sleepy and in bed. You're so exhausting, always 'TL TL, look at me look at me, pick me pick me" I be like whatevs. — TimeLine

So if you got this complex play book, why open it for me? Is it because your love now is so deep it's time for the big reveal or perchance you have abandoned it for a new playbook, like maybe if you talk all silly hip and drunk and shit maybe you can get Hanover to do the same. Hellz no you can't. Shit don't work wid me no way.

However, it also does open potential discussions about power-relations here, too. My dismissal of your jokes, for instance, is a type of power over you, a mode of discourse intended as a rhetorical strategy to control for my own benefit — TimeLine

There was this girl at work. I'll call her Megan because that's her name. She tole me this story after we got to know each other later on. She would walk by me in the hall and say hi to me and I'd not say hi back. She then started not saying hi and just staring at me to teach me a lesson. I still didn't respond. She thought we were in this big standoff and that she was getting the best of me. Once she got to know me, she realized I had no earthly idea of the battle that had been waging.

So what we got here apple dumpling is your having ignored me and taught me a lesson in your head, not mine. But what you did reveal is that you were responding to my jokes each and every time, hanging on my every word, but thinking you'd get more a reaction from me by being silent than by say "Oh my sweet Hanover, oh how you spin a story." Now go comb your hair.

.

What you don't say dear Princess is that you felt bad about what you did and so here you try to pretend they sort of deserved it. — Hanover

These are attractive men, they have muscles in places I never knew existed, popping out everywhere like a balloon full of walnuts, the type of guys who iron their shirts while they are wearing it. In our culture here in Australia, these 'jocks' are not visibly nasty because society contains and controls their behaviour; they get tattoos, pretend to care about some charity to make themselves appear moral, paste "the thinker" type photos all over Instagram with some ridiculous quote (some women do this face where one of their drawn-on eyebrows are raised and puff up their lips with a slight nose flare and write some feigned story about self-love), and yet underlying all that remains this hostility, this sense of entitlement and superiority. It is all games that people are playing with each other. There is no substance, they offer nothing that is real. I did not anticipate their reaction and was genuinely surprised because my joke quoting Dracula was hilarious, but in doing so kind of revealed who they were that has thus enabled me to write this. So, no, I did not feel bad at all and they are only really nice to me because I knew more people than they thought I did and that made them look bad (society contains and controls their behaviour).

There was this girl at work. I'll call her Megan because that's her name. She tole me this story after we got to know each other later on. She would walk by me in the hall and say hi to me and I'd not say hi back. She then started not saying hi and just staring at me to teach me a lesson. I still didn't respond. She thought we were in this big standoff and that she was getting the best of me. Once she got to know me, she realized I had no earthly idea of the battle that had been waging. — Hanover

No, I don't think you are bestial and should stay away from children you malignant twat, it was a pretend example to verify my point about humour and power-relations. There was no lesson in my head. Weird, how is it that you write what she was apparently thinking if there is nothing in your head, hmm? Bet you got your kicks into provoking her, the type of guy who tries to make his girlfriend jelly by flirting with other women.

Is it because your love now is so deep it's time for the big reveal or perchance you have abandoned it for a new playbook, like maybe if you talk all silly hip and drunk and shit maybe you can get Hanover to do the same. Hellz no you can't. Shit don't work wid me no way. — Hanover

*Files nails.