Imagine we have two families, two sets of parents. One of them is supporting and encouraging. The other disparaging, insulting. Do you think that the results on the child would be random, all else being equal? Or if the child is damaged, this is because they allowed themselves to be, and is their own fault?

I know that it is often said that you shouldn't care what people think, but sometimes they're right. The disdain, disgust, and disapproval is fully justified, and accurate, and you should care about it. It is meant to give you pause, and check your behavior, beliefs, or some other aspect of it, and needs to be taken seriously. This is why I both spoke of restraint (even in one's own heart and mind), and better strategies to dissuade one from such things.

I wouldn't endorse just not caring, or worrying that others see you in such lights (I think that it is worrying, and ought to be deeply and seriously considered), but before that generally can happen, one first needs precisely to care about what you think and feel about them, and there are more and less conducive kinds of relationships with respect to this.

I think that it goes without saying that we all know that this restraint is necessary in many relational contexts. For work, friends, dates, or whenever we really want something from someone. That's why we have notions of flattery, buttering up, and whatnot. It is really only the case that one treats others with such disrespect when they don't want anything, or it can't "come back to them".

I'm attempting to continue in this vein within which I think that people fully assent already to the idea, and extend it further.

Imagine we have two families, two sets of parents. One of them is supporting and encouraging. The other disparaging, insulting. Do you think that the results on the child would be random, all else being equal? Or if the child is damaged, this is because they allowed themselves to be, and is their own fault? — All sight

I'm referring to adults, people who have taken responsibility for the emotional state of their own minds. I agree this should not be expected of children. And adults will rarely achieve perfection in this way either. But we can achieve far more control than we typically do. If we CHOOSE to. The problem is that we often CHOOSE not to, because the fantasy victim pose is quite popular.

The disdain, disgust, and disapproval is fully justified, and accurate, and you should care about it. — All sight

Ok, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't pay any attention to criticism, I agree some of it will be useful. I'm arguing that if we experience criticism in an negative emotional manner, we have CHOSEN to do so.

Again, please note that I'm not making a moral statement here. I'm not interested in blaming the person hearing the ugly words. I'm not interested in blaming anybody. I'm interested in solving the problem of emotional distress, to the degree that is possible. I'm making a practical proposal, not a moral claim.

This is why I both spoke of restraint — All sight

I have no argument with a speaker choosing to restrain the range of language they will use. My argument is with third parties who think they will solve the problem of emotional distress via a blame and shame moral crusade. Again, please observe the evidence, 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian moralizing has not ended ugly speech. I'd be for it if it worked. It doesn't work, at least not in very many cases.

And so we live in a world, especially on the Internuts, where some people are going to say ugly things some of the time. Given that there is no known mechanism for preventing this behavior, if there is to be a solution it necessarily resides in the mind of those receiving the speech.

This theory will not be welcomed by those whose primary focus is trying to manage other people's behavior.

This theory will be welcomed by anyone who is serious about relieving the emotional stress that ugly speech can generate, because this theory puts the listener in charge of their own destiny.

As example, do you want your emotional experience to be dictated by what I do or don't say? Or would you prefer that you be in charge of determining your emotional experience. Whose going to be in control of your experience, me and a million other Internet strangers, or you?

I haven't addressed the possible emotional distress except in that example with children. Christianity is perhaps the most successful institution to grace the earth, that it hasn't fully succeeded doesn't mean that it hasn't succeeded better than anything else ever has.

The important point though, is that you're talking past me, imagining that I'm personally hurt by verbal abuse and complaining, when that never occurred, it was in perusing the site that I noticed the prevalence of it, and suggested that it was, indeed, unpleasant (as if it were not intended to be), but the subject was that it is counter productive, and poor strategy.

...but the subject was that it is counter productive, and poor strategy. — All sight

As opposed to the productive and successful strategy that you've employed in this discussion? From where I'm standing, it looks like you've made a mockery of whatever serious point you may have had. You implore love and restraint, yet it didn't take long before the outward image you wish to project unravelled. It has been quite entertaining to watch. Hats off to @Baden.

I have also found it amusing when being rude, blunt, arrogant or aggressive has been contrasted with being analytical and logical, as if the one and the other are mutually exclusive.

Well, if I've been horribly villainous visibly, then I must be way more so on the inside, I guess. I think that the demand for patience has been high. I fully admit to not being a stoic, but being emotionally swayed by the lights I'm painted in by others.

You believe what!? How could you possibly!? Fool, idiot, wicked person!

Christianity is perhaps the most successful institution to grace the earth, that it hasn't fully succeeded doesn't mean that it hasn't succeeded better than anything else ever has. — All sight

Ok then, let's talk Christianity. Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself", right? This is commonly thought of as a favor one is doing one's neighbor. But let's look closer. Where is that experience of love actually happening? In the lover's mind, right?

So, to translate this out of Jesus lingo in to my lingo....

"If your neighbor says ugly stuff to you, love your neighbor, and you'll feel better. CHOOSE to experience the ugly stuff in a manner that will be a positive experience for you."

The important point though, is that you're talking past me, imagining that I'm personally hurt by verbal abuse and complaining — All sight

My comments have nothing whatsoever to do with you personally. I've been making these same points for years all over the net, long before I met you. They tend to be unpopular points, because humans often prefer to do the judgment dance, a focus on who is to blame etc.

it was in perusing the site that I noticed the prevalence of it, and suggested that it was, indeed, unpleasant (as if it were not intended to be), but the subject was that it is counter productive, and poor strategy. — All sight

The ugly talk on this site is very very modest compared to most sites, and most other philosophy forums, just so you know, something to be thankful for, to the mods mostly.

The ugly talk is unpleasant if we choose to experience it as being unpleasant. Let's do an experiment....

ALL SIGHT - YOU ARE AN ORANGE POTATO!!!

Did you experience that insult as unpleasant? No, you chose not to. You CHOSE.

but the subject was that it is counter productive, and poor strategy. — All sight

Ok, I agree that if we are trying to persuade readers to our position, calling them names is not likely to be productive. The people saying the ugly stuff typically aren't even interested in the subject being discussed, but rather in using the conversation as a vehicle for inflating their ego, making themselves feel bigger, because they actually feel small, etc etc.

have also found it amusing when being rude, blunt, arrogant or aggressive.... — Sapientia

Emotional agenda.

....has been contrasted with being analytical and logical, — Sapientia

Intellectual agenda.

as if the one and the other are mutually exclusive. — Sapientia

They are mutually exclusive. Being rude, blunt, arrogant, aggressive (been there, done that, many times) typically has nothing at all to do with the topic being discussed in a thread, unless perhaps the topic is the nature of the human ego.

Being rude, blunt, arrogant, aggressive (been there, done that, many times) is basically jerking off in public, and labeling it as some great intellectual achievement.

Emotions are felt in the heart, right? Or at least in the body, one makes different facial expressions, takes different postures and positions, and is otherwise animated by the things they feel. I think that the personal benefit to health, well being, and all forms of human interaction from a basis of love are positive, and good. They are not just things we feel, but things that effect every facet of our lives, and interject into all levels of human life.

I really don't understand your point on self control. Is all forms of derogatory and hateful speech always okay, and it is incumbent on the listener in every case, and their own personal flaw, because they chose to take offence? That there is no factual difference between flattery, insult, and neutral and moderate ways of speaking? That this is all in one's head?

As I said in other topics, I do think that when someone's tone changes to mockery, or non-serious, where they've begun to make a joke of the things you've said or you, is indeed ego inflation, and how one acts to inferiors that just don't seem to understand what fools they are -- but getting upset suggests affronting something deeply held or cared about, it is more defensive, and protective. That is why the former makes you out to be a fool, but the latter a monster.

I fully admit to not being a stoic, but being emotionally swayed by the lights I'm painted in by others. — All sight

We all experience this to some degree or another, even Baba Jake. :smile: If we don't wish to be emotionally swayed (sometimes we do) then what is to be done? Here are some options:

1) We can try to control what everybody on the Internuts says.

2) We can try to control how we experience what people on the Internuts say.

This is a philosophy forum. We're supposed to be reasoning. And so I ask you, which of the options above is the most rational? Which is most likely to deliver the results we seek?

Again, please note, none of the above has anything at all to do with morality.

Is all forms of derogatory and hateful speech always okay — All sight

You're looking at this through a moral lens. And thus you ask, "what is ok?" Like I keep saying, I'm not looking at this through a moral lens. I'm looking at it through a rational practical problem solving lens. I'm concerning myself with finding the most effective means of relieving the suffering being experienced by the listener.

If that way of looking at it doesn't interest you, ok, no problem. I'm just trying to add something to the thread that isn't already here, which I see as being the job of posters.

I don't wish to control my emotions, I wish to control the world. Accept the things I cannot change, but change the things I can. Just changing how I feel towards them is easy though, it's called delusion and addiction.

What are the results we seek? To not care that someone is drowning next to us, or for someone not to be drowning next to us. Unless our feelings towards things are arbitrary, and it's perfectly valid and reasonable to feel any which way about anything, then I don't think that it is appropriate, or rational to just change the way we feel. Unless we feel the ways we do for mistaken reasons in the first place.

No, that is not my concern, but you can of course hold and proponent any position that you like.

I don't think it is either, morality is an attempt at discovering a self-consistent ruleset that's objectively conducive to human flourishing (or any of a basket of closely related moral goals). But the co-operative/competitive dynamic is how the ruleset gets enforced and played as a game.

I do agree, that in order for cooperation to get off the ground, it must begin in morality, and one can reasonably extract a common set of moral precepts from the pool of all games. Or to put it another way, cooperation is the foundation of competition in the context of repeatable competitive activities like games.

Yeah, it's a kind of boostrapping process. There are natural Schelling points for co-operation that arise, even with "blind" actors (e.g. at the animal level), and then as reason develops, by means of conscious reflection we start to tease out an implicit consistent structure in what we find ourselves doing, which we then in turn start to think of as an independent structure of rules that has to be pursued or enforced.

"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."

The fact that we're a moderated forum with standards that are enforced, and that you don't have an absolute right to free speech is not going to change. — Baden

There was a lot more to my post, that you cherry-picked, that establishes a different theme than what you seem to have gathered from it.

Nazis limited free speech. That is the similarity that your forum has, yes, but I was also referring to your "extremist" statements. Did you not argue that you should engage in extreme behavior to combat extreme behavior? That is what I was referring to in establishing a similarity between you and Nazis.

Sure, you have the right as a private owner of a website to establish certain rules and you don't throw people that break the rules into a concentration camp. That is obvious. It makes me think that you cherry-picked on purpose and misrepresented my post and me, to avoid having to address the meat of my post, or at least trying to insult my intelligence by thinking that I wouldn't know that difference.

You see, in a free society, where free ideas are allowed to compete and the winners are those that are coherent, reasonable and consistent, Nazism would never be able to gain a foothold. It is only when you allow a certain group or individual to gain a lot of power, that you run that risk. As long as true free speech and ideas are allowed to exist AND compete in the arena of reason (there must be a competition of ideas for progress to happen and to root out emotional ideologies like Nazism), then we don't really need rules for controlling it, do we?

Extreme reactions to extreme actions are not the answer. Reasonable reactions to extreme actions are the answer. You fight racism (hate) with reason, not reciprocal racism (hate). The emotions are not bearers of truth (other than the fact that you have them in certain situations). Reason is - and it is why reason always wins out when determining the truth.

I don't wish to control my emotions, I wish to control the world. — All sight

What I hear you saying is, "I don't wish to control myself, I wish to control everybody else." Ok, go for it, good luck with that, please post again once you've finished changing all the people who say ugly things.

What are the results we seek? To not care that someone is drowning next to us, or for someone not to be drowning next to us. — All sight

It appears to me that you don't care about those drowning in emotional pain because you're clinging tightly to a methodology which can't help them.

then I don't think that it is appropriate, or rational to just change the way we feel. — All sight

Unnecessary suffering is rational??

I'm with you on all but the last bit. Are you suggesting that the last part is a mistaken move? Or that it is descriptive, and it is a mistake to move to the prescriptive? If one is not following the rules to play sports that are taken from the description of successful ways to play sports, and as a result, play inferior spots, or fail to play sports at all, it is then not a description but a prescription in their case?

More than that, what if one could come upon a personal relationship with what appear to be totally rule based, that are not descriptive, as one continues to fail to follow them, but prescriptive in that one is fully aware in pursuing something of ultimate good in its attempt?

The latter part of course is not third person describable, so can be reasonably ignored if you like, but it is the religious claim.

If you can't figure that one out, you're really in trouble, as you are if you can't figure out why the mod team on this site are not the same as Nazis simply because we enforce certain standards, or why in general certain things like Nazism, pedophilia, rape etc. are wrong for obvious reasons that we don't need to go into here because we'd rather spend time on stuff that is actually worth debating. But, yes, feel free to go to other sites to try to figure out why Nazism is wrong. I hope you manage it some day. — Baden

There are things worse than Nazis. How do I know that you aren't a pedophile?

You're not trying to change me? What are you doing then? Having a laugh? Wasting time? Personally I would much prefer it if you were actually trying to change me... but what are you doing?

You're not trying to change me? What are you doing then? Having a laugh? Wasting time? Personally I would much prefer it if you were actually trying to change me... but what are you doing? — All sight

As I've already clearly stated, I'm discussing the topic of ugly speech, and NOT you personally. I'm discussing this topic for the reasons already stated numerous times.

I realize I am a bit late to the party but I will toss in my two cents and be on my way:

I never said that I was particularly kind and loving, wouldn't require confession and redemption if I were. Just that they are really important things to strive for. Not only for personal well being, but because they work better to operate on within human relationships at every level. — All sight

@All sight

Take a deep breath...exhale...and another deep breath...exhale.....lather, rinse and repeat as necessary. :flower:

It's not a poor me act, it's trying to understand where all of these baseless accusations are coming from. I don't think that replying to you further is worth while. I'm not actually worried that I'm going to be interpreted in such lights in general. As this rarely happens, as a matter of fact. — All sight

I personally have been dealing with some of the same labels that are being applied to you and I am still trying to cope with it. I say this because you are new to The Philosophy Forum and might be under a different idea of "courtesy" as I was. I am not sure where it derailed, for labeling hasn't always been so prevalent, in fact I was under the impression that "labels" were something to avoid. So, I am trying in my own contributions, to lead by example in what I wish to see the level of courtesy restored to.

Time will tell you if it is a hill you are willing to climb and all I can tell you is that the pursuit of wisdom is worth the hike.
Just be sure to put on your combat boots because if you wear moccasins, you are going to feel every pebble you step on.

@Jake offers a good deal of advice in that it is only we that can interpret what another person has said and while that is true, it does not excuse an argumentative approach that is abusive.

One thought before I go:
As Aristotle has taught us "It is a mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain the ideas of others, without taking them as our own."

I don't know if "abusive argumentation" is the mark of being able to entertain the ideas of others or if it is a display of the exact opposite.

If I could get my change, I'll be on my way.
Tiff :flower:

I don't wish to control my emotions, I wish to control the world. Accept the things I cannot change, but change the things I can. Just changing how I feel towards them is easy though, it's called delusion and addiction. — All sight

The only thing in this world YOU have control over is YOU. Period. Full stop.
They are YOUR emotions to control.
YOU are not entitled to your wish of controlling the world.
YOU are entitled to accept the things you cannot change and the power to change the things you can AND the WISDOM to know the difference. Which is what Philosophy is in search of: wisdom.

Delusion and addiction are far more complex and this thread is complicated enough that if you wish to start a thread on delusion or addiction, you might be able to explore them more thoroughly on their own.

"Take a deep breath....and another.....lather, rinse and repeat as necessary. "

You know, I believe this to be not only good, but the best advice that can be given in just such a heated moment. There's a kind of elegance in those that know it that still brings me awe. Hearing it repeated, something so simple, and so many times in my life and yet it fell to deaf ears. It's those little, yet so significant things that in my fervor just pasted me right by for so long. What else so important do I not hear people telling me on such a frequent basis?

Maybe I should be able to handle it better as well. I think that both can be true, for sure. Thank you for your comment.

How do you stop feelings ways? There is definitely breathing, and calming techniques, but there is also the numbing of sensation through addiction, and the influence of beliefs over our emotions. To believe something that is terrible, if true, is to feel terrible. To alter this in any massive way, or to change what one feels, requires chemical alterations, physical damage, or believing things.

It's not so much labels are the problem, but labels used deliberately and unfairly as a rhetorical strategy, which we can all be guilty of sometimes. And even then the best way to react is simply to push back. For example, @Harry Hindu has every right to label the mod team Nazis (in whatever sense) if he wants (here in feedback anyway). It's up to us then to argue back if we want. It wouldn't be sensible for either of us to take any of that personally, and I wouldn't even bother calling it "abusive" as that in itself could be deemed just another label. Come to think of it, aren't we in danger of labelling the labelers, "labelers"! But, yes, @Jake gave some good advice which is worth heeding on these internets.

Maybe I should be able to handle it better as well. I think that both can be true, for sure. Thank you for your comment. — All sight

You are most welcome and I myself am working on finding ways to handle it better and still remain the soft loving person that I am.
Throughout my life people have told me that I am too nice for people to take me seriously.
My response? Never mistake my courtesy as weakness, nor my silence as a sign of compliance.
Hang in there, you are paying your dues but your doing well.

It's not so much labels are the problem, but labels used deliberately and unfairly as a rhetorical strategy, which we can all be guilty of sometimes. And even then the best way to react is simply to push back. — Baden

Absolutely. We, myself included, are all guilty of it at times but it seems to me that it is becoming more of the norm. Maybe I am wrong, I might be.

For example, Harry Hindu has every right to label the mod team Nazis if he wants (here in feedback anyway). It's up to us then to argue back if we want. It wouldn't be sensible for either of us to take any of that personally, and I wouldn't even bother calling it "abusive" as that in itself could be deemed just another label. Come to think of it, aren't we in danger of labelling the labelers, "labelers"! — Baden

A known danger, yes.
One that should be expected to avoid on a Philosophy forum?
I think so.