FA+
Shop
I feel the urge to address something.
14 years ago
General
Now that I've eaten, there are a few things I would like to discuss, or at least share some thoughts on.
If you're wondering why I'm posting here instead of on the forum, this probably has nothing to do with you. This has nothing to do with a lot of people that are watching me, and is primarily venting.
Consistancy. How fucking hard is it to keep a consistant stance on something? When one individual performs the same action as another individual, regardless of the action in question, should your reaction to each situation not be similar, if not identical?
Let's set up a hypothetical here:
Person A performs an action. Person B reacts to person A's action. The nature of the action and the nature of the reaction are not the issue here and are irrelevent.
Person C performs the same action that person A did. Person B's reaction to the action that person C did is a polar opposite one from that of person B's reaction when person A performed the original action.
The reasoning behind any of the actions is irrelevent. What is relevent is the inconsistancy of person B in this hypothetical. Should person B not have had the same reaction to both instances, given that it was the same stimuli that each time? Is person B in this example not contradictory?
If I am incorrect in this belief, someone please fucking explain it to me because it makes no damn sense to me otherwise.
Being offended. Let's pretend, for a moment, that we're all mature adults here, and we're able to logically separate a harmless joke from a stab at offending someone.
Does it not stand to reason that if someone claims that they can joke about anything, that anything would go in a joke? Is it not hypocritical for a person to take offense at the subject material of a joke when they, themselves, had claimed that anything placed in a certain context was simply in the name of fun and jest?
One picture is little different from another, is it not? Obviously there are some things that those below a certain age should not be exposed to, but once you've passed that age, whether a picture contains nudity or sexual acts or is cartoony and harmless is all the same when taken in context of an adult viewer.
Now, this isn't be confused with saying that no one has the right to be offended - they certainly do. What I'm attempting to point out here is that being offended at one thing is little different than being offended at something else.
To put it in the context of another hypothetical:
Person A is offended by pornography. Person B is offended by water bottles. If person C is going to respect that person A is offended by pornography, should they not respect that person B is offended by water bottles as well? Is it not hypocritical as well to say that person A being offended by pornography is just fine while person B being offended by water bottles is idiotic and stupid?
Please, let me know if I'm wrong in my hypothesis here.
I'm done with this for now, but there are a couple of other things I would like to mention since I'm fully aware that this journal will be found and passed around:
I do not need your approval. I will not kiss your ass to be your friend. I have people that are more important to me than you will ever be. If you do not like, if you do not like what I have to say, you can go fuck yourself, because I probably am not sorry for any of it.
There are certain people I don't like. Just because I don't like them, that does not mean I have a grudge to hold against them. It means that I do not like them, and little more. I have my reasons for not liking these people that are on my shit list, and whatever you say will probably fail to sway my opinion of them. If you'd like to get off my shit list, you're the one that needs to work at it.
I will not say anything about one person that I would hesitate to say to their face. I failed to remember that lesson once and was reminded of it in a harsh way. It will not be forgotten again.
If you have a problem with me of any variety, come to me and talk about it with some measure of civility, and I will extend the same courtesy. If you take no effort to resolve it and decide to degrade to catty remarks and being snippy, chances are higher that I will tell you to fuck right off than pressure you about it. If you're too immature to handle things properly, I don't need you around me anyway and you will not be missed. I have better things to give my attention to than wondering why anyone doesn't like me.
If you jump on the bandwagon with everyone else about something and don't take the time to research or ask and simply go with the crowd as opposed to forming your own opinions about someothing or someone, I will not respect you in the slightest. This is not a cry against the "mainstream" or the "in crowd." It is a statement that I respect individuality and have no mercy for sheet that play follow the leader.
That's about enough of that for now, I believe I've gotten it all off my chest.
If you're wondering why I'm posting here instead of on the forum, this probably has nothing to do with you. This has nothing to do with a lot of people that are watching me, and is primarily venting.
Consistancy. How fucking hard is it to keep a consistant stance on something? When one individual performs the same action as another individual, regardless of the action in question, should your reaction to each situation not be similar, if not identical?
Let's set up a hypothetical here:
Person A performs an action. Person B reacts to person A's action. The nature of the action and the nature of the reaction are not the issue here and are irrelevent.
Person C performs the same action that person A did. Person B's reaction to the action that person C did is a polar opposite one from that of person B's reaction when person A performed the original action.
The reasoning behind any of the actions is irrelevent. What is relevent is the inconsistancy of person B in this hypothetical. Should person B not have had the same reaction to both instances, given that it was the same stimuli that each time? Is person B in this example not contradictory?
If I am incorrect in this belief, someone please fucking explain it to me because it makes no damn sense to me otherwise.
Being offended. Let's pretend, for a moment, that we're all mature adults here, and we're able to logically separate a harmless joke from a stab at offending someone.
Does it not stand to reason that if someone claims that they can joke about anything, that anything would go in a joke? Is it not hypocritical for a person to take offense at the subject material of a joke when they, themselves, had claimed that anything placed in a certain context was simply in the name of fun and jest?
One picture is little different from another, is it not? Obviously there are some things that those below a certain age should not be exposed to, but once you've passed that age, whether a picture contains nudity or sexual acts or is cartoony and harmless is all the same when taken in context of an adult viewer.
Now, this isn't be confused with saying that no one has the right to be offended - they certainly do. What I'm attempting to point out here is that being offended at one thing is little different than being offended at something else.
To put it in the context of another hypothetical:
Person A is offended by pornography. Person B is offended by water bottles. If person C is going to respect that person A is offended by pornography, should they not respect that person B is offended by water bottles as well? Is it not hypocritical as well to say that person A being offended by pornography is just fine while person B being offended by water bottles is idiotic and stupid?
Please, let me know if I'm wrong in my hypothesis here.
I'm done with this for now, but there are a couple of other things I would like to mention since I'm fully aware that this journal will be found and passed around:
I do not need your approval. I will not kiss your ass to be your friend. I have people that are more important to me than you will ever be. If you do not like, if you do not like what I have to say, you can go fuck yourself, because I probably am not sorry for any of it.
There are certain people I don't like. Just because I don't like them, that does not mean I have a grudge to hold against them. It means that I do not like them, and little more. I have my reasons for not liking these people that are on my shit list, and whatever you say will probably fail to sway my opinion of them. If you'd like to get off my shit list, you're the one that needs to work at it.
I will not say anything about one person that I would hesitate to say to their face. I failed to remember that lesson once and was reminded of it in a harsh way. It will not be forgotten again.
If you have a problem with me of any variety, come to me and talk about it with some measure of civility, and I will extend the same courtesy. If you take no effort to resolve it and decide to degrade to catty remarks and being snippy, chances are higher that I will tell you to fuck right off than pressure you about it. If you're too immature to handle things properly, I don't need you around me anyway and you will not be missed. I have better things to give my attention to than wondering why anyone doesn't like me.
If you jump on the bandwagon with everyone else about something and don't take the time to research or ask and simply go with the crowd as opposed to forming your own opinions about someothing or someone, I will not respect you in the slightest. This is not a cry against the "mainstream" or the "in crowd." It is a statement that I respect individuality and have no mercy for sheet that play follow the leader.
That's about enough of that for now, I believe I've gotten it all off my chest.
Does that mean people with ginger hair should dye their hair to make sure they don't offend someone? No. Because it is stupid to be offended by that. However, if someone is offended by pornography, which is legitimate, then people should respect that.
Porn vs water bottles as offensive doesn't even stand up.
As for the first hypothetical. Things are never exactly the same. The people involved have different personalities, different posting histories etc. Again, this hypothetical really doesn't stand up.
Don't be surprised if people have a better/different reaction to other people, they are different people.
However, for the second hypothetical, are you saying that being offended at one thing is less valid than being offended at something else? I was using water bottles as a ridiculous example, but my point remains the same. If one person gets offended at something of theirs portrayed in a certain way, how is it any less legitimate than another person being offended that something of theirs is being portrayed in another way? Just because you view something as harmless doesn't mean that I do not, regardless of the subject material.
Portrayal is very different. Yes, people can portray things in an offensive/insulting manner, but, to be honest, it's difficult to stop people poking fun or insulting people. It's part of human nature. Unless it's against the rules, there's nothing really you can do to stop it.
Let me give the specific situation that spurred this thought enough that I felt like writing something about it. For the sake of objectivity, I will omit some irrelevent specifics such as names.
X creates a picture designed to poke fun at Z. The picture isn't necessarily inherently offensive, but it casts Z in a manner that strikes a chord, so Z gets offended, and is belittled for requesting the removal of the material.
Then, Y creates a picture designed to poke fun at Q. The contents are adult in nature but nothing that a person of maturity has seen several times over, and Q becomes offended, demanding that the offending picture be removed, and is claimed to be more justified in this matter than Z was in the previous one.
Is one of them more validly offended than the other? Or are they equal in their claims?
If someone was poking fun at me, then fair enough, as soon as they add an adult nature into it I will be very, very pissed off.
As I don't really know the specifics I can't comment further than that.
Or am I mistaken somewhere?