And what is the criteria for just?

I won’t pretend to know the answer to such a question, but I like to think being just means being fair, giving people what is deserved of them.

Is being a mean person a moral flaw, just a personality quirk, or something else? — schopenhauer1

Niceness is far more a moral flaw than meanness. "Niceness" is used by narcissists far more than meanness, it is the gateway to destruction. Because it skillfully remains ingrained in "acts of kindness" we ignore that niceness is deployed by the those with the malicious intents.

Meanness is not attempting to exploit or extract by the means of malicious manipulation and recklessly preying without self-restraint and the expense of others' well-being. SJW's are nice people. Stalin was a nice guy. He wanted nice. He had a nice vision. All destructive leaders do. Hitler had a vision of nice future. Trump is a nice guy; that is why his ruling sucks. He is too nice. We need someone mean now. Not someone that fetishizes niceness. He wants everything to be nice and great. We don't need that vision. It is unrealistic, malicious, and narcissistic. All politicians are ultimately nice people bluntly talking about nice things trying to make everything nice for everyone. It is a flaw and a problem.

Meanness is restrained and an effective tool to suppress "niceness" getting out of hand, especially brainless niceness we see today from the bat-shit ALT right and crazy SJWs. The right wants everyone to be play nice, they fear meanness. It can only go so far before they begin to hurt themselves in the process. Niceness can go on for hours. It can go years, dishonesty, unaddressed and days. If a mean person get's out of hand? Another mean person will handle it.

Many, many, many philosophers and thinkers are mean. There is nothing nice about them. There ideologies are mean. Their thinking is mean. There ideas are mean. Etc., Zizek is an example of meanness. Muir was mean when he shut off great portions of the world from humans to protect wilderness. Revolutionaries are mean. Feminists are mean. Challengers are mean. Policies are mean. Atheists are mean, and very few are running for the main positions. Because they know, they'll have to be nice.

The intelligent person falls back from niceness - questionably and examines, the smart person uses meanness to suppress the malicious intent of niceness. To say meannness is a moral flaw is dangerous. There is not one thing nice about truth, knowledge, or integrity. It is all mean, rude, and invasive. If you don't feel sad or upset yet, you are probably too nice.

Kindness prevails above both niceness and meanness. It is necessary for survival because you cannot not be kind. Kind is morality. Yes, you can be kind and mean.

Well, sure. But I want to be able to trust people. — Coben

Sure, we want to be able to trust people, but we often can not, and there's no way to enforce that everyone is going to be trustworthy.

Keep in mind, by the way, that re some stuff you're bringing up, I would still have contractual law much as it is now. People could still be liable for contractual fraud/breech of contract.

Many situations of a doctor misleading you are going to be contractual fraud, because there's an implied contract in that scenario that they're not going to give you intentional misdiagnoses, and especially not intentionally contraindicated prescriptions and so on.

Other than that, sure, I might say someone is being an asshole, too, but to me, "immoral" is stronger than just "he's being an asshole."

So emotional pain is not a real thing? — schopenhauer1

I think emotional pain is a real thing, sure.

But, there's no need to be offended by anything anyone says. I see being offended as a flaw with the person who is offended. Not a flaw with the offendee.

I'm sure you are familiar with concepts like the cycle of abuse and the cycle of violence. It benefits no one. — Tzeentch

Trolling research lists contagion as one of the problematic results of online nastiness. Everyone acting out their PTSD, thereby triggering someone else's PTSD, and so on. Meanness metastasizes, like cancer.

Trolling research lists contagion as one of the problematic results of online nastiness. Everyone acting out their PTSD, thereby triggering someone else's PTSD, and so on. Meanness metastasizes, like cancer. — uncanni

On the other hand, trolling research is trolling.

trolling research is trolling. — Terrapin Station

That's meaningless...

I usually prefer to not explain jokes, but in other words, if we read "trolling research" as saying "research that is trolling" rather than "research into trolling"

The intelligent person falls back from niceness - questionably and examines, the smart person uses meanness to suppress the malicious intent of niceness. To say meannness is a moral flaw is dangerous. There is not one thing nice about truth, knowledge, or integrity. It is all mean, rude, and invasive. If you don't feel sad or upset yet, you are probably too nice.

Kindness prevails above both niceness and meanness. It is necessary for survival because you cannot not be kind. Kind is morality. Yes, you can be kind and mean. — Swan

This just seems like mincing words and meanings- up is down, down is up.. A bit too Nietzscheanesque for me. So being nice is immoral because it hides some sort of truth statements that are somehow associated with meanness. I'm not sure that necessarily correlates. You can call someone a fuckn moron who doesn't know his own ass from his head.. or you can say that someone is misinformed. I don't know, one seems a bit meaner than the other and unnecessary, both convey the same message. Also, it just seems like you are stretching the meaning of "kind" too much beyond its meaning.

If you are trying to say that "the truth hurts" then that is something to explore. For example, the idea that you aren't force recruiting new people into a labor force by abstaining from procreation. You aren't force causing the conditions for a lifetime of various negative experiences by abstaining from procreation. That to me is a truth, and often times it is an odious idea to people and perhaps hurts their sensibilities. However, I don't intend to hurt with it. It I believe to be the truth of the matter, but I don't think anyone would construe that as being "mean". Now, if I went up to a pregnant lady and started harassing her about how awful she is for having kids, that would be mean and I wouldn't condone it. So this bit of wordplay between kind and mean and truth and mean doesn't pass muster with how I see it.

Personally, I think withdrawing kindness has no positive effect in any exchange, and there is no call or justification for it under any circumstances. But I wouldn’t call it immoral - I tend not to evaluate behaviour in this way.

If you tell me that I’m being ‘mean’, I would interpret it as a call to consider that my behaviour has fallen below the minimum level of kindness and civility that you expect in the exchange. Of course, I may not agree with your assessment or that the exchange requires that level of kindness - but if I wish to continue the exchange, then we need to reach some level of agreement.

I think mean-ness also relates to humility, so the association with ‘arrogance’ mentioned earlier is another good point. When we call a behaviour out as ‘mean’, we consider our own behaviour in the exchange (or as a rule) to be kinder in comparison. That may not be accurate, but withdrawing kindness as a response to ‘mean’ behaviour is only stooping to their level. If I build someone's self esteem, I am not extracting it from my own or tipping a balance in their favour. When both parties withdraw kindness, then nothing positive will result, and any suggestion otherwise is a matter of ignorance, IMO.

I think continuing to demonstrate the level of kindness we expect from others is the most effective way to eliminate mean-ness in an exchange. — Possibility

Yes, it is hard to not ask for retribution from the mean person. Usually that means being mean back, a retaliation. But as you explained, no one wins when both people "withdraw kindness". I think the idea that being mean is withdrawing a base level of kindness is not a bad way to look at meanness. It is evaluating the other person as not worthy of a certain kind of respect or civility. Something about that other person has triggered in the mean person a response or a way of relating that involves ridiculing, demeaning, isolating, or acting with condescension towards another person. The intent is to probably hurt, and the hope is that the meanness is received negatively the target of the meanness. What is the appropriate response to the mean person then? Is it pointing out that meanness is taking place? Is it just ignoring it? Is it getting an apology? Silently just know that the other person is being an asshole but not letting them know? What would be the just way to handle this sort of asymmetry of attacks?

This is of course keeping in mind that there actually is someone being mean, and not in the "victim's" head. The epistemology of this is something to take into account. How does one tell if one is just oversensitive or misperceiving what is the case?

Being mean would be to callously speak or behave in a way that disregards the negative feelings your action trigger in another person. It's a moral flaw because it perpetuates unjustified, unnecessary suffering.

Being mean would be to callously speak or behave in a way that disregards the negative feelings your action trigger in another person. It's a moral flaw because it perpetuates unjustified, unnecessary suffering. — aporiap

Very good definition there. Being that suffering is one of the most important things to consider in morality, I can very much get on board with the idea that it is one of many things that leads to suffering in others. Of course, the next question is why would morality be based on whether one causes suffering or not in others? But this is then metaethics.

Something about that other person has triggered in the mean person a response or a way of relating that involves ridiculing, demeaning, isolating, or acting with condescension towards another person. The intent is to probably hurt, and the hope is that the meanness is received negatively the target of the meanness. — schopenhauer1

I don’t believe the intention of meanness is to hurt, though. The feelings of the target are irrelevant, but it is because we expect some level of consideration (kindness) that meanness is perceived as malicious intent. In most situations, I would argue there is no intentional malice. The intent is to win, to avoid humility and reassure themselves of relative superiority at all cost. They are more often than not being led by their own fears - fears they will of course deny.

What is the appropriate response to the mean person then? Is it pointing out that meanness is taking place? Is it just ignoring it? Is it getting an apology? Silently just know that the other person is being an asshole but not letting them know? What would be the just way to handle this sort of asymmetry of attacks? — schopenhauer1

I think the person being mean should be made aware that their behaviour has fallen below an expected level of kindness and civility, without assuming it was done intentionally. The hardest thing about being the one to tell them this is that we must accept a certain amount of humility ourselves in doing so: it feels like we’re acknowledging their power or capacity to harm us, doesn’t it? But isn’t it true? Why do we need to deny that fact? What are we afraid of?

Part of being kind is giving people the benefit of the doubt, with the aim of inspiring kindness in return, regardless of past experience. It’s the whole ‘turn the other cheek’ thing. If we don’t, if we retaliate, then we give in to our own fears, and contribute to anger, hatred, oppression, etc. If we try to pretend it didn’t happen, though, we fail to prevent it from happening to others.

Justice isn’t about punishing those who fail to live up to our expectations. It’s about helping them to understand what those expectations are. We don’t need to withdraw kindness to do this - surely we’re smarter and more creative than to stoop to their level?

I don’t believe the intention of meanness is to hurt, though. The feelings of the target are irrelevant, but it is because we expect some level of consideration (kindness) that meanness is perceived as malicious intent. In most situations, I would argue there is no intentional malice. The intent is to win, to avoid humility and reassure themselves of relative superiority at all cost. They are more often than not being led by their own fears - fears they will of course deny. — Possibility

You don't think there is at least some intentional malice going on with certain incidences of meanness? Though, I would agree that there are other factors that may weigh more heavily- win at all costs, avoid humility, relative superiority, etc. It may be simply stress. When one is stressed, and has too much going on, one tends to lash out. So there are many causes here, and many of them are not from malicious intent.

I think the person being mean should be made aware that their behaviour has fallen below an expected level of kindness and civility, without assuming it was done intentionally. The hardest thing about being the one to tell them this is that we must accept a certain amount of humility ourselves in doing so: it feels like we’re acknowledging their power or capacity to harm us, doesn’t it? But isn’t it true? Why do we need to deny that fact? What are we afraid of? — Possibility

Yes, I think there is a certain discomfort confronting in general. But depending on the situation, it may be a waste of time, or just unpleasant to deal with. The mean person is hoping this will override any admonitions.

Sure, we want to be able to trust people, but we often can not, and there's no way to enforce that everyone is going to be trustworthy. — Terrapin Station

Who said anything about enforcing?

Keep in mind, by the way, that re some stuff you're bringing up, I would still have contractual law much as it is now. People could still be liable for contractual fraud/breech of contract. — Terrapin Station

Funny because that's bringing in force. I was talking about people making a moral judgment.

Other than that, sure , I might say someone is being an asshole, too, but to me, "immoral" is stronger than just "he's being an asshole." — Terrapin Station

In what sense. That seems like a moral judgment via an expressive label. He's an asshole, he does asshole things, but he's not immoral seems odd to me. Unless you don't believe in morals. But then if one doesn't believe in morals, there is no need to distinguish between speech and other behavior.

I'm someone who wants people to express themselves as they feel like expressing themselves, and who thinks that we need to not put too much weight on things that people say/we need to be at least a bit skeptical of things that people say

I don't think that holds. 'a bit' is a vague term. One could be a bit skeptical, but also foolish not to react when lied to about a fire in a building. About a doctor saying your child is going to die. About misinformation in other areas of life. The asshole who is spreading lies to try and hurt people, means that that bit of skepticism has to be a bit more. It leads to us having to be more skeptical, and that is a cost or pain for social mammals. Your vague 'a bit' gets increased for every asshole.

But here you seem to see use of the word immoral as a problem. It doesn't enforce anything. In fact calling someone an asshole is as likely to have effects if not more so than the word immoral describing an act of that person is.

It seems like you have a judgment that 'immoral' as a speech act is more causal of problems than the word 'asshole'. But you don't think words can be causal.

It certainly can't cause any problems. We can all be skeptical about whatever nuances that word has that asshole doesn't when we hear it applied to someone.

It seems implicit in your argument that 'a bit' of skepticism prevents any harm mean, dishonest, assholes create via their use of language. But of course it wouldn't. Unless that bit was huge. And if the bit is huge, that's harm. Because if you have tremendous distrust for what everyone says to you, you lead a hampered existence. Because you must double and triple check things or always be in extra anxiety that you've been lied to, even by those you love.

I happen to have a very hard skull. You punch me in the head, the chances are, unless you are a pro fighter, your hand will get more damage than my head. That doesn't make it less immoral to throw a punch at my head without cause. Just because an act intended to harm me and one that will in some or many cases harm someone does not harm me, it's still immoral. Of if someone else is trained (analogous to 'a bit skeptical'), someone trying to assault them is still being immoral, even if they fail. No physical attack is guaranteed to cause harm. Yet we would still judge, though perhaps not you, attempts of violence as violent and immoral. Guns can jam, bullets can miss, blows can miss or not harm, some people even like to be attacked. Still we judge people as immoral for trying to do bodily harm, despite the lack of some 100 percent causal chain.

Here I am not saying anything about judging it a crime, just as immoral. Doing something intended to hurt other people out of a mean or cruel attitude towards others. Waht is the harm of calling that immoral, that calling them an asshole or mean person somehow manages to avoid? And since whatever harm it causes depends on others believing it and it is not causal in their believing it,w hat's the problem?

You don't think there is at least some intentional malice going on with certain incidences of meanness? Though, I would agree that there are other factors that may weigh more heavily- win at all costs, avoid humility, relative superiority, etc. It may be simply stress. When one is stressed, and has too much going on, one tends to lash out. So there are many causes here, and many of them are not from malicious intent. — schopenhauer1

No, I don’t. Meanness is categorically different from malicious intent. I dare say if you kindly point out the apparent withdrawal of kindness in their behaviour, their subsequent response will usually inform you of their intent. I agree that when one is stressed, they are also focused on their own feelings and tend to be less considerate of others’ feelings.

Yes, I think there is a certain discomfort confronting in general. But depending on the situation, it may be a waste of time, or just unpleasant to deal with. The mean person is hoping this will override any admonitions. — schopenhauer1

That depends on whether you need validation. What can seem from my perspective to be a ‘waste of time’ might be the only kindness that person receives that day. A large number of my posts on this forum appear to be ignored, in that no-one responds to them or a discussion ends there. Some might consider them a waste of time, but I’m not doing it for validation (although it would be nice). I have information and a perspective to be shared.

I still think you’re assuming that kindness on your part will be met with unpleasantness, or else still assuming intent on the part of the mean person in hoping their unpleasantness will somehow prevent unpleasantness in return. You might need to test your assumptions - ask the question.

Here's a question though, if someone thinks they are far superior (as you stated earlier), and that the person they show contempt and meanness to is considered incompetent, ignorant, etc. what is the proper response from this person? — schopenhauer1

I’m not sure here if you mean the proper response from the person who thinks they’re superior, or from the person they’re being mean to. I’ll try to address both.

Let's raise the stakes.. How about a manager at a job who expects a certain level of competency from their employee? Is the manager not entitled to show the worker to see their disapproval so that they can change their habits or competency level? What engenders contempt or conceit? What are the appropriate responses to situations involving competency? Is firing a "mean" event, or just something that should be taken in due course? Most people would say if the worker was not competent that indeed, firing is just an appropriate action to ensure the job is efficiently being carried out. — schopenhauer1

The manager-employee relationship often has a contract to handle entitlement, and any employee should be made aware of the expectations of the job before signing. Beyond that, showing ‘disapproval’ can take many forms, and managers often have defense mechanisms in place to conceal the fear that they may not be sufficiently competent themselves as managers. This often includes maintaining a certain relational distance from their employees that can be construed as a lack of kindness. The employee may not know the manager well enough to distinguish this from a subtle message that they’re not meeting expectations. It takes courage as an employee to ask for clarification. I would say the responsibility of a manager, though, is to make sure their employee is aware of expectations they may not be meeting, and give them the opportunity and perhaps even support to then strive to meet those expectations before taking due course. Firing is only ‘mean’ if the employee was unaware that they weren’t meeting expectations before being fired.

On the other hand, if a person is being made to feel inferior, the natural response is to try to turn the tables - to gain the upper hand. But regardless of whether or not I am inferior to them in every way possible, I need to acknowledge that they know about stuff I don’t. That will ALWAYS be true. So I don’t really need to gain the upper hand unless this is a competition or a formal debate. My aim, then, is to accept a certain inferiority, and then demonstrate what unique competence I can bring to the discussion that complements their own. If they’re no longer fighting to be superior or right, they’re less likely to be mean, and more open to learning a thing or two by accident.

No, I don’t. Meanness is categorically different from malicious intent. I dare say if you kindly point out the apparent withdrawal of kindness in their behaviour, their subsequent response will usually inform you of their intent. — Possibility

Many times that response is pretty mean too ha.

That depends on whether you need validation. What can seem from my perspective to be a ‘waste of time’ might be the only kindness that person receives that day. A large number of my posts on this forum appear to be ignored, in that no-one responds to them or a discussion ends there. Some might consider them a waste of time, but I’m not doing it for validation (although it would be nice). I have information and a perspective to be shared.

I still think you’re assuming that kindness on your part will be met with unpleasantness, or else still assuming intent on the part of the mean person in hoping their unpleasantness will somehow prevent unpleasantness in return. You might need to test your assumptions - ask the question. — Possibility

Ok, but waste of time because the people are known already to respond a certain way. Your posts are probably less confrontational.. People on the forum tend to like conflict, which possibly is why people tend to ignore your posts.

The manager-employee relationship often has a contract to handle entitlement, and any employee should be made aware of the expectations of the job before signing. Beyond that, showing ‘disapproval’ can take many forms, and managers often have defense mechanisms in place to conceal the fear that they may not be sufficiently competent themselves as managers. This often includes maintaining a certain relational distance from their employees that can be construed as a lack of kindness. The employee may not know the manager well enough to distinguish this from a subtle message that they’re not meeting expectations. It takes courage as an employee to ask for clarification. I would say the responsibility of a manager, though, is to make sure their employee is aware of expectations they may not be meeting, and give them the opportunity and perhaps even support to then strive to meet those expectations before taking due course. Firing is only ‘mean’ if the employee was unaware that they weren’t meeting expectations before being fired. — Possibility

This sounds like it makes sense. I can probably have a whole topic on how the workplace changes social relations in general.

On the other hand, if a person is being made to feel inferior, the natural response is to try to turn the tables - to gain the upper hand. But regardless of whether or not I am inferior to them in every way possible, I need to acknowledge that they know about stuff I don’t. That will ALWAYS be true. So I don’t really need to gain the upper hand unless this is a competition or a formal debate. My aim, then, is to accept a certain inferiority, and then demonstrate what unique competence I can bring to the discussion that complements their own. If they’re no longer fighting to be superior or right, they’re less likely to be mean, and more open to learning a thing or two by accident. — Possibility

Makes sense but the natural human tendency is to not be in a lower position, thus retaliation to gain the upper hand. So while this ideal makes sense, it's easier to respond in kind rather than taking the higher road. There's very much a "you first" mentality when meanness is responded to with meanness. Thinking about the bigger picture is lost. In a way, this is how trolls operate. They know human nature is to try to fight back in the same meanness. This is how they trap the victim.

Your taunts are taking a toll on my toil on trolling.

Ok, but waste of time because the people are known already to respond a certain way. Your posts are probably less confrontational.. People on the forum tend to like conflict, which possibly is why people tend to ignore your posts. — schopenhauer1

I have noticed this about forums, yes - ha ha. I make a living in part by removing confrontational language from written communications, so it’s a challenge for me to initiate an argument, I’ll admit.

Makes sense but the natural human tendency is to not be in a lower position, thus retaliation to gain the upper hand. So while this ideal makes sense, it's easier to respond in kind rather than taking the higher road. There's very much a "you first" mentality when meanness is responded to with meanness. Thinking about the bigger picture is lost. — schopenhauer1

Ha - I didn’t say it was easy... humility is suffering, just like pain and loss. It’s a necessary experience of living - especially for humans. Denial of our own humility adds to the suffering of others, so while it may be a ‘natural human tendency’, it is ultimately destructive, and so the ‘you first’ mentality is unjustifiable.

English is not my native language, but I think what @alcontali provided in the first post as the U.K. definition is not accidental. To me, "mean" emphasizes that the person approaches his conflicts with cheap tactics and uses another person's unrelated disadvantages. For example, if a someone's parent dies and you remark that "you have both your parents" in attempt to humble them in a confrontation. (A child would say this sometimes.) Or if a person loses their child, loathing on it in justified anger, because said person was harmful to many, is still mean. Not because of the lack of compassion per se, but because their unfortune has beset them for reasons unrelated to their character, and the incident doesn't produce any morale. On the other hand, if their child dies as direct consequence of their own harmful actions, then a sense of gratification is not mean in my book. It may be wrong, or bad taste, but not mean.

To me, mean is a pejorative in the sense that someone is using their fortune or their opponent's unrelated misfortune when contending (verbally or otherwise) instead of opting for leveled play. This brings shame to the game, so to speak. It is social instinct to ostracize such behavior, whether it can be interpreted as rational or not.

. Meanness is categorically different from malicious intent. — Possibility

When someone is described as being mean or as a mean person, intent to be cruel in pretty much implicit. And it is certainly in no way a contradiction.

He was mean to me, but didn't intend to be seems rather off to me.
He was blunt and it hurt my feelings, but he didn't intend to be makes sense to me.

Who said anything about enforcing? — Coben

It's certainly not going to be the case that everyone's trustworthy of their own accord.

In what sense. That seems like a moral judgment via an expressive label. He's an asshole, he does asshole things, but he's not immoral seems odd to me. — Coben

I don't know how to answer that, because I don't know what "senses of not considering that a moral issue" would be. Maybe it would be helpful to bring up my short definition of morality again: "morality is dispositions about interpersonal behavior that one considers to be more significant than mere etiquette." So morality involves scale or degree. Not all behavior that one makes a judgment about is a moral issue.

I don't think that holds. 'a bit' is a vague term — Coben

Intentionally yes, because (a) it's a subjective issue, and (b) it's also going to vary from situation to situation.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

It's certainly not going to be the case that everyone's trustworthy of their own accord. — Terrapin Station

Of course. But I haven't said anything about some system to make them be trustworthy. I said it was immoral behavior. You brought in the issue of enforcement. Why does judging someone immoral entail enforcement? while judging someone an asshole does not? I don't think these things should be legislated against.

Not all behavior that one makes a judgment about is a moral issue. — Terrapin Station

Of course. I am not sure how this is relevent. I wouldn't use either asshole or immoral around etiquette issues. Or mean, the adjective in question.

And in our first interaction on this, I said certain kinds of lying with the intent to make other people feel bad was immoral.

Your response was you want people to be able to express themselves.

How does my labeling such meanness immoral stop them from expressing themselves?

Of course. But I haven't said anything about some system to make them be trustworthy. I said it was immoral behavior. You brought in the issue of enforcement. Why does judging someone immoral entail enforcement? while judging someone an asshole does not? I don't think these things should be legislated against. — Coben

You had said, "Well, sure. But I want to be able to trust people." So I thought you were saying that our stances or policies on this stuff was going to have something to do with whether you are able to trust people. So that's why I wrote, "Sure, we want to be able to trust people, but we often can not, and there's no way to enforce that everyone is going to be trustworthy." Or in other words, our stances or policies on this stuff aren't going to have anything to do with whether we can trust people; there's no way to make everyone trustrworthy (even via enforcement).

I read many statements like "I want x" as a problem to be solved, if possible. I don't think this is a solvable problem aside from sort of radical bio-engineering which might not be possible.

How does my labeling such meanness immoral stop them from expressing themselves? — Coben

It doesn't. What I was saying is that it's not undesirable to me for people to express themselves. It's rather desirable.

Good point

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time. — Terrapin Station

I'm not going anywhere. Taunt if you must.

It doesn't. What I was saying is that it's not undesirable to me for people to express themselves. It's rather desirable. — Terrapin Station

OK, so now we know that they can still express themselves, even if I or we judge them immoral. So, again, why is it harder for them to express themselves if I call them immoral rather than asshole or mean or bad or say this is someone to avoid.

You had said, "Well, sure. But I want to be able to trust people." — Terrapin Station

<yes, most people want that. Even the people, in most cases, who lie, say, to be cruel. Calling someone immoral, for me, means that I think their behavior is bad or wrong. Calling someone an asshole would mean this too, though it has slightly more, hm, personality connotations for me. Like a cruel liar might present themselves quite pleasantly. Whereas most people I would call assholes would tend to be more openly mean. But each carries a serious judgment of the person. But the word immoral seems to inhibit expression of the people labelled that way, for you, and I don't know how that happens. I say it seems to inhibit their expression, as if this is an objection to the them getting labeled immoral. How does it stop them from expressing themselves?

And, of course, there are lots of ways of expressing themselves.

And further if you pull away from or avoid people who are mean and lie, well, that might be used by some of them as a reason not to express themselves in certain ways.

OK, so now we know that they can still express themselves, even if I or we judge them immoral. So, again, why is it harder for them to express themselves if I call them immoral rather than asshole or mean or bad or say this is someone to avoid. — Coben

I don't think it's harder for them to express themselves if you call them immoral. I had said that I don't consider any speech to be immoral, and said that part of why I don't consider any speech is immoral is that I prefer people to express themselves as they feel like expressing themselves. If I prefer that, then I'm not going to think that someone expressing themselves as they feel is immoral, because "immoral" denotes things that I do not prefer, and to a particular degree of significance.

As a meta comment: sometimes it feels like I have to chase you to deal with an issue.

Other than that, sure, I might say someone is being an asshole, too, but to me, "immoral" is stronger than just "he's being an asshole." — Terrapin Station

Here, you say there is a difference in degree between asshole and immoral. A difference in degree. This is why you would not use the term 'immoral'. But you would use the term asshole. But here you argue that you want them to express themselves, so you wouldn't use immoral since this would imply that you don't prefer them to express themselves. Asshole implies this also, though according to you, to a lesser degree.

Further one could prefer that everyone expresses themselves rather than not expresses themselves. So this would include people who don't lie to hurt people and people who lie intentionally to hurt people. You could prefer that everyone does what they want with language but still judge just some of those people on occasion or in general for having been immoral.

You could prefer that people feel free to make mistakes or to reveal their true nature and personalities over a more inhibited society where people do not do this, but still judge some of them or some acts as being immoral. Or for being assholes or mean.

I like people to be honest/to honestly express themselves/to be existentially authentic. So if being an asshole or a bitch is how they authentically feel, I think they should express that. I'm just not going to be hanging out with them if it's a way they regularly are.

People might think if you think someone is an asshole or a dick you prefer that they do not express themselves. But this isn't the case. It need not be the case with immoral either, especially since the issue is one of degree.

I wouldn't say it's a "moral flaw," no, although I suppose often enough it leads to behavior that I'd classify as immoral. For example, an asshole might be more likely to hire someone to do work for them and basically wind up ripping them off a bit--maybe they'd short them a bit, or push them to do something outside of the context of what they hired them for without additional compensation or something like that, for example.

In fact here you are willing to call the latter behavior immoral. Unless you meant literally 'push', iow use physical force, this would have meant verbal manipulation and pressure. And of course would also potentially be covered by contract law.