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.

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.

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.

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.

From where I stand, this is a beautiful thing to read, from a beautiful soul I am just getting to know. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh stop your touchy feely talk and tell me how much you like my new clock. Pretty sweet, huh?

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.

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.

Don't understand. Is it my response that's non-masculine and non-assertive? Am I the one that's supposed to be nervous and anxious? — T Clark

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.

I'm curious to see what fdrake has to say. I have a feeling there's more to it than that. From previous discussions, I think @TimeLine does too. I'm walking in unfamiliar territory. — T Clark

What's funny is that I read this as a non-assertive, non-masculine response, as in "stop telling me you're nervous and anxious about being in the deep end of the pool, fucking jump in and swim." True story. Ironic I spose

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. — T Clark

If social norms designate certain conduct for anything, whether it be boys not cry, that you applaud at a play, sit silently at a funeral, or whatever, your contempt or disapproval at the violation of the norm is a normed social response in order to reassert compliance. If your contempt is excessive to the point of bullying, your cure was worse than the disease.

And so our norms have changed to where men are no longer expected to be John Wayne and women not expected to faint when offended. My own view might be antiquainted, but I do still think we need John Waynes, and I might not be as accepting of traditional female behavior on a man. I think we lost something when we stopped celebrating masculinity.

My beef was that, when the discussion veered into this area, it immediately started ragging on those wacky men. TimeLine brought out her experiences in the office, which she's discussed before. @csalisbury says "Oh, no, I'm just like that, I feel so guilty." :joke: @syntax chimes in with what his (I think you're a guy, right?) girlfriend says. :razz: . As I said, I like men. It appears to be easy to make them look ridiculous. — T Clark

These were my thoughts. It's sort of male caricature talk, supported by personal anecdote, and sort of off-putting, as I'd imagine a woman might feel if men sat around the cooler talking about how women were this and that. Some insights might be true, but stereotyping doesn't help with individual situations.

It's like men are purely worried about protecting their fragile egos at all costs. I suppose that describes the bahavior of those with fragile egos, male or female.

Speaking of dogs, after a few hours of searching for the problem, the AT&T guy determined that my internet service was disrupted by a chewed up wire, so he had to run a new wire from the street to my house. They'll be by in a week or so to bury it. Fred ate my internet and he now knows everything.

Although the pressure the international community can bring to bear on a particular country depends to a large degree on the relative power of that country so we don't always get fairness in this process. — Baden

That's true, with a good example being Russia's aquisition of Crimea, a modern day crime if there ever were one.

The right to possess land within an established system is determined by the system. My right to own my land is clear under the American system and to deprive me of it would victimize me and unfairly benefit another.

The right of Americans to continued posession of its land and to create their system is based on nothing other than political acceptance of that right by Americans and to some extent the international community. Should Americans begin to question their right to the land and should the international community question it, their claim to the land will be weakened.

The solution to this attack on American legitimacy will be to (1) convince its citizens and the international community of its legitimacy and (2) to be unwavering in its defense of its land. That is, it's got to convince others and be thoroughly self-convinced that the land is its own.

The opposition wanting the land would therefore be required to do what is necessary to delegitimize the American claims to the land if it wanted to reaquire the land.

My new antique clock. It tick tocks and gongs in an otherwise silent room.

Workers in capitalist economies are definitely alienated from production. They may be, and probably are alienated in other ways too, where alienation is a psychological phenomenon. — Bitter Crank

The problem of assembly line production is that it turns man into mindless machine and it deprives man of his most basic human elements: the ability to think, decide, judge, and care. It's dehumanizing, and as society advances, more jobs are reduced to the employee performing mindless algorithmic steps in order to assure consistency, even should it be mediocre consistency. The individual no longer confers unique quality on his product.

This result arises from a need for more products and efficient production. Failure to adhere to these principles means perhaps more fulfilling work conditions but fewer goods and services.

The problem here is not Marx versus capitalism. In either we should expect the same goods and services, just brought about by different means. Whether the employee works the assembly line as co-owner of The People's Communal Motorcars or as a peon Ford Motor Company grunt, in either event, the employee goes equally unfulfilled.

My point being that I don't see communism resolving anything, unless you suggest that under communism we should just get ready to accept much less and lesser overall quality goods as each person is handed a hammer and sickle and asked to forge goods one at a time like an old world craftsman. The alienation, it seems to me arises from being relegated to being a cog, not from lacking joint ownership in the enterprise.

Well thank you. My point was simply that you could have a religion of one, a counter declaration of fact without support.

Transcendent seems to imply something mystical. I think happiness is just a generalized state of contentment, where you're not constantly chasing the next high, you're not filled with anxiety, you don't feel depressed, things like that. The happiest times in my life were those times I thought the least about my emotional well being. Everything clicked, made sense, and worked. And I knew best my times of happiness when they ended, sort of like stepping out of that perfectly heated hot tub into the winter air.

A religion of one is a religion of none. — Thorongil

That's not at all logical. A religion of one would be a religion of one.

I define positive emotions as happiness though. So, if you felt positive emotions, you would be happy for the time being until you become miserable later on. — TranscendedRealms

Then that's an idiosyncratic view of happiness that doesn't comport with the generally accepted notion that happiness entails a certain contentment that lasts longer than the hit of crack in your pipe.

So, this philosophy says that it can only be us having fun, being happy, and enjoying our lives through our positive emotions that makes our lives something beautiful, joyful, and worth living for. — TranscendedRealms

There's a difference between having fun and being happy.

So, the next time you feel a positive emotion such as a feeling of excitement to go to the carnival, sexual arousal, or a feeling of profound beauty and joy, do not ignore and dismiss that emotion as being nothing more than just a feeling. — TranscendedRealms

Satisfying your urges doesn't always lead to happiness.

Hm.

A theory that could not be understood but with denies ineffability. Sweet! You can hear duck-rabbits marching!

And yet, since we understand it to deny ineffability, we understand at least part of it. — Banno

There are all sorts of ineffable theories. There are certainly some students that no amount of discussion is going to explain to them algebra, others are limited at geometry, others calculus, and certainly plenty of people can't begin to understand quantum mechanics. If we can assume that there exists a single person who cannot understand Theory X, I don't see why we can't logically assume there is a Theory X that one person and one person alone can understand.. It is possible that Einstein arrived at his theories by himself and it could have been possible that he alone could understand his conclusions, with no one else being able to comprehend what he said.

The story goes that if it cannot be said, it might be shown. So Mad Mike looks at a duck-rabbit and sees a rabbit. He is told it also looks like a duck, but he can't see it.

Perhaps he might move on by saying that Fred also sees a duck, but that he himself cannot; and thereafter remain silent.

Someone else (Apo?) comes along and says it's not really a duck or a rabbit, but a bunch of curved lines.

But Fred still sometimes sees the duck, sometimes the rabbit; Mike still sees the rabbit, but no duck. — Banno

And what do you see when you look at the duck/rabbit? I'd submit it's none of the things you've presented, but you actually use it as a symbol for the concept of symbol ambiguity and that context and perspective can influence an observer's understanding of meaning. Even should my summary of your thoughts be wrong, it is very clear to me that you aren't simply just trying to show me a cool optical illusion, but you mean to say something by it.

And so I don't see what you mean to invoke by the duck/rabbit in this discussion. It strikes me that if I continued to just say "Wow, that's a cool picture... I see a duck, now a rabbit, wait... now a duck." and I just kept doing that, you'd certainly think that I entirely failed to understand what you were saying. Is it not still the meaning of what you intend to convey (that mental thing in your head) that is what is relevant?

The best I have come up with is that procreation is necessary to maintain civilization. But is civilization an end in itself? I think not. And this rationale might boil down to egotism in the end. — Thorongil

Do you believe that ethical value attach to anything other than people?

Wouldn't common sense vary over time as to what the common man of a particular era might know? Common sense previously was that the world was flat, but not now.

Just ordered The Clock Repair Primer: The Beginner's Handbook by Phillip E. Balcomb. I got my grandfather's old mechanical time clock he used at his store (not to be confused with a grandfather's clock) and have developed this interest in clock repair. Anyone here familiar with that? It seems like an old man sort of thing to do to tinker around with clocks, but I've got this fascination now.

jk.

Perhaps if the mirror had a detailed baroque gold leaf frame instead to bring out the colour. You need to check your teeth after dinner, surely. — TimeLine

How about a simple chrome frame to round out the stark, uncomfortable Scandinavian look you're going for? As long as you stack all your junk at right angles on open shelves, you can convince yourself that it doesn't look cluttered. Keep the little chair, though. It creates a warmth and thoughts of little feet pitter patting around on the uncovered wooden slats around the hard angular tables and chairs.

This "phenomenal state"...

I find myself wondering what it consists of. That's what I cannot seem to get a straight answer to. — creativesoul

You're asking what the "mind" substance is?

The child is not making a knowledge claim. The child is not stating his/her belief. — creativesoul

I deny this. Unless you define "statement" as an utterance in a formal language, I fail to see why crying doesn't count as a symbolic representation of pain, but an utterance of "ouch" does. These theories of language must define language.

One would, of course, want comfy chairs, tables, beds, baths, sinks, kitchens, and so forth but we haven't found a way of using round space that really looks good. Most of our decor is designed to fit into spaces with flat parallel walls, ceilings, and floors — Bitter Crank

An interesting factoid I heard while visiting a colonial village was that the use of barrels was for ease of movement of stored goods prior to there being forklifts and other lifting devices. Maybe they could make furniture that way and you could sort of tip and roll it wherever you wanted to. My understanding is that you have been working on the barrel physique so that you could be moved around if need be.

Love the Scandinavian Farmhouse look ever since living in Denmark, but adding hints of Bohemian and Modern elements. — TimeLine

Not sure about the mirror. The shape fits, but the wood looks too traditional. The little chair definitely doesn't fit, but it creates a storyline, redefines the room, so I'd leave it.

Is not that distinction still dependent on a linguistic structure? Indeed, these connections are learned because what is communicated is always a learning process over time but the problem is not the signifier but the signified, what is understood. Using arbitrary icons misses the point, basically. — TimeLine

Not sure exactly what you mean. Linguistic structure includes my dog scratching at the door, which is no more or less an arbitrary icon as the sounds "let me out." The phenomenal state of the door is also just as much an icon, a representation of something real.

If I could watch your son I would truly lust over his methods and achievements — XTG

Well, thanks, although the odor is a challenge. I keep a can of Axe in the trunk of my car and I make him get out and put his arms out and I spray him down when he comes home. It'd be funnier if I were joking.

As the cost of college rose, they also began stepping off the belt with fairly large college loan debt. — Bitter Crank

We have the Hope scholarship in Georgia funded by the lottery and I pay just over $1,000 in tuition per semester for my son to go to the University of Georgia. He pays $400 a month in rent and like $100 a month for food. He also spends $0 annually on haircuts and clothes and it seems like he has a very small soap budget. He'll emerge tired, hungry, dirty, and cold, but he'll have no debt. I might allow him a hot shower upon graduation if his grades are good enough.

Surely meaning means something else there is no meaning and nothing means anything. If, though, meaning does have meaning, but you can't just put your finger on it, then you're saying it's ineffable. Now that's a problem for some, right?

What does meaning mean?

Is there something self-conscious or self-reflective about intentional communication that's missing from non-intentional? — frank

The difference between intentional and non-intentional is in the former you meant to and the latter you didn't.

I think humans have an innate capacity for language that starts out as the creation of random sounds along with mimicry. Interaction with other people selects and refines communication (a fair amount of which is body language). — frank

The only difference in types of communication you refer to (uttering "I am annoyed" versus looking annoyed) is that one is an intentional communication and the other not. A leaf turning brown is unintentional communication of Autumn coming. A dog bark could well be intentional.

Our intentional communication is more complex but not a distinguishing characteristic of humans. If you wish to call the intentional sort "language," you may, but I see no basis for separating out the intentional from the unintentional when trying to decipher meaning.

The book "Blink" is on the topic of instantaneous understanding without internal deliberation.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink:_The_Power_of_Thinking_Without_Thinking

I've not read it, but I own it. I thought I could blink and immediately know what it said.

When you look at an image, say for instance the swastika, it does not have words but it explains something evil, bad, and thus it is actually speaking but without having to say anything. — TimeLine

I'd say the same for everything, including rocks and sticks. Everything is a representation. The distinction between the rock that you see and the word "rock" is arbitrary. Both are knowable only as symbols.

POW! That was your mind blowing. :fire: