login info join!
Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > SF2: Ess Effin Two > I'm offensive Search   Reply
first1234
Model
DivaEroticus
Posts: 14,503
Fayetteville, Arkansas, US


Svend wrote:

It's THIN mad

Not cutting it, mister!  mad

Dec 26 12 04:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Svend
Posts: 25,125
Boulder, Colorado, US


Dec 27 12 09:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kincaid Blackwood
Posts: 23,319
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Lumatic wrote:
Thoughts are phantoms.  They're not real.  The only authentic reaction is one when you're faced with a clear and present occurrence - generally what we call instinct.  Everything else is a function of learned behavior and based on our myriad thoughts about the situation, not the situation itself.  That's neither good or bad, but because the behavior is learned, it can be altered if we're disciplined enough to learn to become aware of the sponsoring thought behind the reaction.

It is the result of an irrational state of mind, but that's not the same as being irrational by nature.  Like I said, most of us never attain that level of awareness and rationality, and so we assume that some things we do are the result of an irrational nature.  Which is merely an extension of this same conversation: there's what's so, and then there are our thoughts about what's so, which are two completely separate conditions that we collapse together. 

We typically operate by filtering the reality of circumstances through our thoughts about them, which is why reactions and feelings seem to be so automatic.  Seeing the difference is the point where the choice I'm talking about comes up.  We can have so many thoughts within a short moment and seemingly at the same time, so without seeing that, of course it would seem like the choice doesn't exist.  That's how we're used to behaving.  But it's there.

Our reactions are a function of thoughts and experiences from the past, and typically ones with a significant enough emotional component to anchor the memory and reactivate it later when triggered - hence the word "reaction."  Let's take the Mormon story as an example.  You were passionate about it and identified yourself with it, so you had strong enough feelings tied to the experience that when someone made a joke about it, it affected you personally and you learned to react accordingly.  That became your thought pattern in that situation, understandably, because it made enough sense for your mind to accept it. 

Now you reason about why you shouldn't care and you're probably right, but the reason it was/is difficult to break that pattern is because you now have an emotional charge programmed into your memory in connection with that kind of circumstance.  It triggers you and you react, effectively throwing you into the same state of mind you were in during past episodes like that - you literally are not present to the current moment, so you're not dealing with what's so - not the circumstances, the person in front of you or even yourself, even though it seems like you are.  You see and hear what's happening, but that immediately gets translated into what happened in the past and you behave according to that. 

That's the manifestation of irrationality.

I'm curious as to whether you differentiate between what you describe as the irrational reflex of someone who gets offended (something you consider to be a choice) and the way people got upset over something like the Newtown shooting (despite not knowing anyone who lived there).

Dec 27 12 10:10 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Kincaid Blackwood wrote:

I'm curious as to whether you differentiate between what you describe as the irrational reflex of someone who gets offended (something you consider to be a choice) and the way people got upset over something like the Newtown shooting (despite not knowing anyone who lived there).

I can't speak for him but, in my point-of-view, that is an entirely different situation.  With a joke, you have a choice in how you interpret it.  With insults, you choose whether or not to give that person power.  With some things there is no choice; that includes things ranging from being punched in the face to mass murders of children.  There is no way to think about them in a positive light and the only way to not give the situation power would be to turn off a part of your humanity.  It's possible, but it's not necessarily a better option.

Dec 27 12 04:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kincaid Blackwood
Posts: 23,319
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Sha-Lynne wrote:
I can't speak for him but, in my point-of-view, that is an entirely different situation.  With a joke, you have a choice in how you interpret it.  With insults, you choose whether or not to give that person power.  With some things there is no choice; that includes things ranging from being punched in the face to mass murders of children.  There is no way to think about them in a positive light and the only way to not give the situation power would be to turn off a part of your humanity.  It's possible, but it's not necessarily a better option.

I asked him.  I want to know what he thinks on it based upon the explanation he just laid because he has some very detailed thoughts.  Before some things gets shifted out of context, however, I'll clarify: I didn't specify people getting offended about jokes when I asked him that.  And I didn't specify that because he made some larger statements about being offended. 

Before he responds to what I asked, I don't want it contextualized as if I made a parallel between a joke and a massacre of children as you are now.  It would be easy to dismiss such a thing based on degrees of severity ("How can you compare the two?! One's just an innocent widdle joke and the other is a massacre of children!").  No, I want to know how he views people who don't know a soul in Newtown but are still moved to emotion over it in the context of what he said about people who choose to be offended over things.

There have been times in my life when I've been offended by racial issues and I can tell you that I didn't choose to be offended by any of them.  After being pulled over by police officers who have Confederate flags on the front of their squad cars, receiving less-than-courteous treatment in the context of interracial dating and a myriad of other situations beyond the scope of discussion, I've occasionally been offended by racism and bigotry.  When assholes on the internet refer to the President as a "monkey," that strikes a nerve.  And anyone who thinks I choose that can kindly go…

…well let's just say I have a low opinion of that and leave it there.  Now, generally speaking, people are pretty aware of racial issues in the US and how certain things relating to it can be offensive.  People can generally accept that people completely disconnected from and unaffected by the Newtown shooting can be moved by it emotionally.  Some are enraged and motivated to change legislation.  Despite not having a connection, they are thusly moved.  And we accept and understand.

Yet something as personal as religion, people are supposed to not take offense to it?  I'm not saying you were intentionally trying to offend your friend, I'm not saying I found it offensive myself but you're going to tell me that you cannot even see how she could be offended by it?

Dec 27 12 07:29 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
I asked him.  I want to know what he thinks on it based upon the explanation he just laid because he has some very detailed thoughts.  Before some things gets shifted out of context, however, I'll clarify: I didn't specify people getting offended about jokes when I asked him that.  And I didn't specify that because he made some larger statements about being offended. 

Before he responds to what I asked, I don't want it contextualized as if I made a parallel between a joke and a massacre of children as you are now.  It would be easy to dismiss such a thing based on degrees of severity ("How can you compare the two?! One's just an innocent widdle joke and the other is a massacre of children!").  No, I want to know how he views people who don't know a soul in Newtown but are still moved to emotion over it in the context of what he said about people who choose to be offended over things.

I am aware that you asked him, that's why I started with "I can't speak for him but, in my point-of-view..." because I had agreed with the majority of what he had written.  I am aware that you didn't specify about jokes which is why I included insults in my response.  Maybe that is too broad a term but I was using it as an umbrella term to include all things that are intended to hurt people. 

My point (which I think concurs with his point) was that with insults (using this again as an umbrella term) you have to give the person throwing the insults the power to insult you/your beliefs/etc.  What they are saying is not a fact, it is an opinion, you choose whether or not you believe it or even acknowledge it.  That's why it hurts more when a friend or person you respect says something negative whereas if a stranger or someone who is notoriously negative says the exact same thing, it's no big deal.

With the massacre (or any other catastrophic event) it's not a choice, it happened.  It is a fact, not an opinion.  The only way to ignore it is to turn off part of your humanity.  You can't just say that what the person is telling you is wrong. 

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
There have been times in my life when I've been offended by racial issues and I can tell you that I didn't choose to be offended by any of them.  After being pulled over by police officers who have Confederate flags on the front of their squad cars, receiving less-than-courteous treatment in the context of interracial dating and a myriad of other situations beyond the scope of discussion, I've occasionally been offended by racism and bigotry.  When assholes on the internet refer to the President as a "monkey," that strikes a nerve.  And anyone who thinks I choose that can kindly go…

The issue with being pulled over by police officers who have Confederate flags on their car is beyond an insult and would be in a separate category.  That is something that actually affects your life so it is not ignore-able.  Granted, I'm sure that there are people that can write it off to stupidity but it's a lot harder to do when it is something that is actually affecting you, like getting a ticket based on the color of your skin.  I would say that this isn't something one *should* write off as stupidity and let go, this is a situation that should be upsetting and should not be gotten used to.  The same goes for your other examples.  The latter is slightly different since it doesn't *directly* affect your life but it's a pretty obvious parallel to draw so it would be pretty difficult (though not impossible) to ignore.  As with before, I'm sure that there are people that are able to just say that the offenders are ignorant (which they are) and not get upset.  Again, I'm not sure that this is the better option, since being upset is the catalyst for change.

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
…well let's just say I have a low opinion of that and leave it there.  Now, generally speaking, people are pretty aware of racial issues in the US and how certain things relating to it can be offensive.  People can generally accept that people completely disconnected from and unaffected by the Newtown shooting can be moved by it emotionally.  Some are enraged and motivated to change legislation.  Despite not having a connection, they are thusly moved.  And we accept and understand.

Yet something as personal as religion, people are supposed to not take offense to it?  I'm not saying you were intentionally trying to offend your friend, I'm not saying I found it offensive myself but you're going to tell me that you cannot even see how she could be offended by it?

I guess I'm just hard to offend...I'm not even saying that this is necessarily a good thing I just can't imagine being offended by an internet meme.  Some of them may make me go wtf and I may be amazed that someone would actually make a meme about it...but I don't think that I could get angry over one.

Dec 27 12 08:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Calli Pygian
Posts: 8,092
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Sha-Lynne wrote:
Curious, if you saw a picture of grumpy cat in Garments...would you be offended?

Sorry for the late response.

I can't say whether or not I would feel personally offended, since it doesn't have anything to do with me now, but I would find it to be in very poor taste and it would probably make me a bit angry on some level.  Garments are considered to be very sacred and they're symbolic of the commitment that the wearer has to the LDS religion, so it would be a double whammy to have them shown in the first place, since they're supposed to be covered at all times, and for them to be made fun of.

The way I think of whether a joke is likely to be offensive is to consider how deeply people might feel about the thing that is being made fun of.  If it's something that no one is likely to be passionate about (like going back to work on Monday), then it's something that we're all likely to get a laugh out of and no one gets offended.

But if I know that there is a group of people who do feel deeply about the subject (like Garments or pretty much anything of a heavily religious and normally reverent nature), then I can pretty much count on it being offensive to a good number of people.

Dec 29 12 09:40 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Calli Pygian wrote:

Sorry for the late response.

I can't say whether or not I would feel personally offended, since it doesn't have anything to do with me now, but I would find it to be in very poor taste and it would probably make me a bit angry on some level.  Garments are considered to be very sacred and they're symbolic of the commitment that the wearer has to the LDS religion, so it would be a double whammy to have them shown in the first place, since they're supposed to be covered at all times, and for them to be made fun of.

The way I think of whether a joke is likely to be offensive is to consider how deeply people might feel about the thing that is being made fun of.  If it's something that no one is likely to be passionate about (like going back to work on Monday), then it's something that we're all likely to get a laugh out of and no one gets offended.

But if I know that there is a group of people who do feel deeply about the subject (like Garments or pretty much anything of a heavily religious and normally reverent nature), then I can pretty much count on it being offensive to a good number of people.

No worries.

I guess that wasn't a fair comparison since having the Garments uncovered is a no-no, I wasn't aware of that rule.  I thought they're purpose was to ensure that enough of your body would always be covered.  I thought that people could sleep in just their Garments, etc.

Idk, if I saw Grumpy Cat wearing a yarmulke, I just wouldn't be offended.  Then again, they put them on stuffed animals for the holidays...my mom bought Falcor a chew toy that wore one...LoL 

The thing is, I took it from Jay's page.  I feel like if you, him and Kitty (and presumably his family since none of them bitched about it and they're on his FB) didn't find it offensive enough to flip out...that her reaction was a little over-the-top.

I hope you don't take this as an attack because you know I think you're awesome, I'm just trying to understand...you said that you make religious jokes in a non-religious fora of some sort.  So, if you make all of those jokes and then someone makes an LDS joke, how do you justify getting offended when you just did the same thing to another religion?

Dec 30 12 12:35 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Calli Pygian
Posts: 8,092
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Sha-Lynne wrote:
I hope you don't take this as an attack because you know I think you're awesome, I'm just trying to understand...you said that you make religious jokes in a non-religious fora of some sort.  So, if you make all of those jokes and then someone makes an LDS joke, how do you justify getting offended when you just did the same thing to another religion?

The group that we make the offensive jokes in is private, so all the stuff we post in there can only be seen by the group members.  The group has offensive in the name and one of the rules is no butthurt.  We know that no one will be offended by what we post in there because the whole point is to post offensive stuff.  Sometimes people take issue with something that's said, but they either just let it go because it's the purpose of the group, or if they feel strongly enough against something, they can always leave.

On Facebook in general (outside of that group), I try my best not to post anything that I know would be offensive to more than one or two people.  I have religious friends and I don't want them to feel alienated or rub my non-religiousness in their faces.  I'll post science related things and sometimes maybe something about evolution, but I try to avoid anything that may come across as inflammatory.

Actually, I do this with things that don't involve religion, too.  I haven't been posting anything about gun control and I rarely post anything about politics.  If I wanted to have arguments with my friends and start drama and butthurt, I'd go post in Soapbox, lol.  I like to keep FB drama-free, so that's why I censor what I do and do not post on there.

Dec 30 12 08:23 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Calli Pygian wrote:

The group that we make the offensive jokes in is private, so all the stuff we post in there can only be seen by the group members.  The group has offensive in the name and one of the rules is no butthurt.  We know that no one will be offended by what we post in there because the whole point is to post offensive stuff.  Sometimes people take issue with something that's said, but they either just let it go because it's the purpose of the group, or if they feel strongly enough against something, they can always leave.

On Facebook in general (outside of that group), I try my best not to post anything that I know would be offensive to more than one or two people.  I have religious friends and I don't want them to feel alienated or rub my non-religiousness in their faces.  I'll post science related things and sometimes maybe something about evolution, but I try to avoid anything that may come across as inflammatory.

Actually, I do this with things that don't involve religion, too.  I haven't been posting anything about gun control and I rarely post anything about politics.  If I wanted to have arguments with my friends and start drama and butthurt, I'd go post in Soapbox, lol.  I like to keep FB drama-free, so that's why I censor what I do and do not post on there.

I meant that I don't understand why someone that does get offended would be part of that group.  It doesn't seem right to go Jews HAH, Muslims HAH, Mormons  neutral     unless you just don't get offended because of the structure of the group, in which case it kind of goes with the choice thing.

The meme actually falls in your guidelines of okay.  Only one person was offended between my and Jay's pages (he left his up and no one was offended or at least not enough to say anything...but I'm pretty sure that if Tami was offended, she'd make sure he knew).

I'm the same way about controversial stuff, I never put serious stuff on there (maybe some occasional science stuff but even that, not often)...which you would think would be an indicator that this wasn't intended to be serious.

Dec 30 12 01:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Calli Pygian
Posts: 8,092
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Sha-Lynne wrote:
I meant that I don't understand why someone that does get offended would be part of that group.  It doesn't seem right to go Jews HAH, Muslims HAH, Mormons  neutral     unless you just don't get offended because of the structure of the group, in which case it kind of goes with the choice thing.

The meme actually falls in your guidelines of okay.  Only one person was offended between my and Jay's pages (he left his up and no one was offended or at least not enough to say anything...but I'm pretty sure that if Tami was offended, she'd make sure he knew).

I'm the same way about controversial stuff, I never put serious stuff on there (maybe some occasional science stuff but even that, not often)...which you would think would be an indicator that this wasn't intended to be serious.

If I don't find something funny, I just don't respond, that's why we have the "no butthurt" rule.  Everyone's got something that gets to them, it's not just Mormon jokes that I don't like, but I don't let any of it get to me because it's all just lighthearted.  We have someone in the group who doesn't like when we talk about poop...which we all find hilarious.

Anywho...if she's the only one who ever gets offended about stuff then I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Dec 30 12 02:19 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Calli Pygian wrote:

If I don't find something funny, I just don't respond, that's why we have the "no butthurt" rule.  Everyone's got something that gets to them, it's not just Mormon jokes that I don't like, but I don't let any of it get to me because it's all just lighthearted.  We have someone in the group who doesn't like when we talk about poop...which we all find hilarious.

Anywho...if she's the only one who ever gets offended about stuff then I wouldn't worry too much about it.

That wasn't quite what I was getting at.  It just doesn't make sense to me (granted it appears I'm the odd duck in this) that you can joke about some things but then find other things in the same vein to be offensive.  Regardless of how it's received.  It's not a judgment, I just don't understand it. 

LoL do they just get grossed out with the mention of it? LoL that's pretty funny.

Yea, I'm pretty much over that just trying to understand stuff.

Dec 31 12 01:34 am  Link  Quote 
Model
C A K E M I X
Posts: 873
Louth, England, United Kingdom


Paolo Diavolo wrote:
i havent seen grumpy cat before. i will have to educate myself.
if i was religious enough to get pissed about people putting different faces on things, i'd be pissed that some european painter in the 6th century depicted jesus as a white guy with a beard, and everyone else just went with it.
if theyre ok with that being wrong, then a cat head thats clearly a joke shouldnt be something to get pissy over.

This,
I love grumpy cat pictures, and that one is no different.
Some people just like to take offense for the sake of pretending to take a moral high ground.

Dec 31 12 01:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A F
Posts: 8,320
Davenport, Iowa, US


How does this have more bearing on you than an internet meme?

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … st17872235

You can choose not to participate.  You could have just walked away from the thread.  For all you know, you were excluded from the OP in John's mind since you just got married, although that wasn't expressly stated.

You commented anyway, I can only assume because you were offended by John's gesture in some way.

What does his request have to do with you other than it was posted on a site that you frequent, just like you reposted a meme on a site your friend frequents?

Sometimes being offended is just a visceral reaction.  It can't always be explained...it just happens.

Edit:  I read through this entire thread, but it was a while ago.  My basic thought on the whole thing...being offended is a visceral reaction, we can't always explain why certain things upset us.  So if you know something is going to be offensive, and you don't want to offend people, just don't post it...you can't change their response.  If you don't understand why something is offensive, try to understand so you can avoid certain jokes in certain situations, etc.  If you don't care if you offend someone, then go for it.

I have a lot of clients on my personal page, so I make it a point to avoid anything I know will be offensive to more than 1 or 2 people.  (can't please everyone)  I'll still laugh like hell at it, but I won't post it for everyone to see, because my clients pay my bills and I can't avoid to push them away.

All that being said, one potentially offensive meme does not an offensive person make.
Dec 31 12 08:34 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Paolo Diavolo
Posts: 8,295
Martinez, California, US


All that being said, one potentially offensive meme does not an offensive person make.

let me research that advice...

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/c7c/74c/ba1/resized/gangnam-style-meme-generator-shut-up-you-stupid-ass-5038da.jpg

how does that meme make everyone feel?

Dec 31 12 09:17 am  Link  Quote 
Model
P I X I E
Posts: 35,267
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Aw man, I posted that on my timeline and no one was offended.

But hubby and I have very un-PC humour... Especially him.
Dec 31 12 03:00 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Laura Ann - Fashion wrote:
How does this have more bearing on you than an internet meme?

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … st17872235

You can choose not to participate.  You could have just walked away from the thread.  For all you know, you were excluded from the OP in John's mind since you just got married, although that wasn't expressly stated.

You commented anyway, I can only assume because you were offended by John's gesture in some way.

What does his request have to do with you other than it was posted on a site that you frequent, just like you reposted a meme on a site your friend frequents?

Sometimes being offended is just a visceral reaction.  It can't always be explained...it just happens.

Edit:  I read through this entire thread, but it was a while ago.  My basic thought on the whole thing...being offended is a visceral reaction, we can't always explain why certain things upset us.  So if you know something is going to be offensive, and you don't want to offend people, just don't post it...you can't change their response.  If you don't understand why something is offensive, try to understand so you can avoid certain jokes in certain situations, etc.  If you don't care if you offend someone, then go for it.

I have a lot of clients on my personal page, so I make it a point to avoid anything I know will be offensive to more than 1 or 2 people.  (can't please everyone)  I'll still laugh like hell at it, but I won't post it for everyone to see, because my clients pay my bills and I can't avoid to push them away.

All that being said, one potentially offensive meme does not an offensive person make.

Well it is different because he is directly calling every SF2er that doesn't give Laura and Peter money cheap bastards and (it seemed) that he was legit angry and not at all making a joke.  My meme did not involve name calling and, if you read it as I did, did not talk down to anyone.  I can see that people interpret it differently but it's still obvious that it's intended as a joke, I'm not yelling at anyone for their beliefs.

That said, I wasn't actually offended by his thread...it was more of a LoLWut moment.  My response wasn't angry, I didn't join him in the name-calling, didn't get into an argument or even a discussion, just stated an opinion.

Re: "If you don't understand why something is offensive, try to understand so you can avoid certain jokes in certain situations, etc."
That is the point of this thread...it's not particularly working since the majority didn't find it offensive, but that was still the original intent.  I don't think it's something that I will ever understand.  I mean I would never post anything that outright insulted anyone, etc but for jokes *shrug*

My meme falls into your 1 or 2 people category so it seems that it's okay.  Guess you just can't make everyone happy.

Dec 31 12 03:02 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Paolo Diavolo wrote:

let me research that advice...

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/c7c/74c/ba1/resized/gangnam-style-meme-generator-shut-up-you-stupid-ass-5038da.jpg

how does that meme make everyone feel?

It makes me feel like taking a trip to South Korea.

Dec 31 12 03:04 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


P I X I E wrote:
Aw man, I posted that on my timeline and no one was offended.

But hubby and I have very un-PC humour... Especially him.

Yea, Jay has a bunch of strict Mormons on his page and he posted it with no complaints.

Dec 31 12 03:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Weiss
Posts: 7,130
Oshkosh, Wisconsin, US


Zaychik  wrote:
omglol That is one of my favorite grumpy cat memes.

But then again, I'm Jewish and killed Jesus, so what do I know? tongue tongue

You no kill Jesus!  The Romans did!  Everybody should hate on Rome instead!

Dec 31 12 03:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A F
Posts: 8,320
Davenport, Iowa, US


Sha-Lynne wrote:
Well it is different because he is directly calling every SF2er that doesn't give Laura and Peter money cheap bastards and (it seemed) that he was legit angry and not at all making a joke.  My meme did not involve name calling and, if you read it as I did, did not talk down to anyone.  I can see that people interpret it differently but it's still obvious that it's intended as a joke, I'm not yelling at anyone for their beliefs.

That said, I wasn't actually offended by his thread...it was more of a LoLWut moment.  My response wasn't angry, I didn't join him in the name-calling, didn't get into an argument or even a discussion, just stated an opinion.

Re: "If you don't understand why something is offensive, try to understand so you can avoid certain jokes in certain situations, etc."
That is the point of this thread...it's not particularly working since the majority didn't find it offensive, but that was still the original intent.  I don't think it's something that I will ever understand.  I mean I would never post anything that outright insulted anyone, etc but for jokes *shrug*

My meme falls into your 1 or 2 people category so it seems that it's okay.  Guess you just can't make everyone happy.

No, I know you're trying to understand, I'm definitely not trying to attack you or this thread.  I just wanted to point out that sometimes being offended is a reaction that we can't control right away.  Maybe once we have a few minutes to process and all that we decide it's not important and can walk away...but I think there's at least always the first reaction of 'rawr, I'm upset and I don't know why".  Then we get over it.

And I thought John was joking with the bastard thing.  If he's not... yikes

Dec 31 12 03:25 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Laura Ann - Fashion wrote:

No, I know you're trying to understand, I'm definitely not trying to attack you or this thread.  I just wanted to point out that sometimes being offended is a reaction that we can't control right away.  Maybe once we have a few minutes to process and all that we decide it's not important and can walk away...but I think there's at least always the first reaction of 'rawr, I'm upset and I don't know why".  Then we get over it.

And I thought John was joking with the bastard thing.  If he's not... yikes

I know that you weren't trying to attack me, I just come off all srz bznz online LoL

I agree, we do need to take a few seconds to think about it and think about what's going on.  *Then* we choose whether or not to get over it.  I think that it's likely possible to train yourself to not react instantaneously, I think that there are several people that do that naturally. 

Having read previous posts by him, I didn't read it as joking.  I'm fairly sure he was serious.  When I mentioned it all he said was "my bad", I think he would have said if it was joking (maybe)

Dec 31 12 03:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Svend
Posts: 25,125
Boulder, Colorado, US


Sha-Lynne wrote:

I know that you weren't trying to attack me, I just come off all srz bznz online LoL

I agree, we do need to take a few seconds to think about it and think about what's going on.  *Then* we choose whether or not to get over it.  I think that it's likely possible to train yourself to not react instantaneously, I think that there are several people that do that naturally. 

Having read previous posts by him, I didn't read it as joking.  I'm fairly sure he was serious.  When I mentioned it all he said was "my bad", I think he would have said if it was joking (maybe)

Yo DO come off as srz bznz online sometimes! lol

Dec 31 12 05:50 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Svend wrote:

Yo DO come off as srz bznz online sometimes! lol

Yea, that's just how I talk.  People in my Zumba class were saying I'm always so serious and my friend was like whaaaaat???? LoL  It's weird.

Dec 31 12 07:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lumatic
Posts: 13,688
Chicago, Illinois, US


Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
I'm curious as to whether you differentiate between what you describe as the irrational reflex of someone who gets offended (something you consider to be a choice) and the way people got upset over something like the Newtown shooting (despite not knowing anyone who lived there).

Sorry for the bump, but I've been busy and I figure that's a valid question and it deserves an answer.

Let me reiterate that I don't think it's bad or wrong or even abnormal to react without thinking, in and of itself.  Also, this brings up the semantics question of whether or not it's actually a "choice" if one is unaware that there is a choice.

Also also, let's keep in mind that this thread pertains to the act of taking offense, and not to all levels of emotional upset.  Upset over, say, imagining the loss of a child in a shooting strikes me as more immediate and authentic compared to a perceived challenge or insult to one's faith, considering and assuming one's faith is authentic.  Losing a child like that is external and out of your control, while losing your faith is internal and within your control.  So I do make a distinction there.

That said, and semantics aside, I stand by what I've said regarding the fact that there is a point where one can, if they're aware enough, distinguish the reality of any thoughts about an event and the emotions that arise from them, even in the case of those who were upset by the Newtown shooting.  If they were not directly involved in some way, then whatever reactions that came up are the result of imagining themselves being involved - an extrapolation of reality - and not reactions to the reality of the event itself. 

Keep in mind that an irrational state of mind can be extremely temporary, and again, not necessarily bad or abnormal.  It's certainly normal in the case of me in Chicago reacting for a moment to the Newtown shooting.  It's useful if you want to be entertained by a movie.  It just means that you're without reason at the time, however long that lasts.  There's a difference between having thoughts vs. the ability to reason them through.  Emotions tend to have an effect on that!

About your comment on "the irrational reflex of someone who gets offended," I should point out for clarity that I never said that emotions themselves aren't reflexive - only that they are instrumental in anchoring a thought pattern.  An emotional reaction may be reflexive, but taking offense is not an emotion.  It may seem like it, because there are reflexive emotions attached to it like anger, disgust, guilt or what have you.  But while taking offense may also be reflexive (though not always), it is the product of a process of thought and the subsequent emotions in response.  That process is learned and therefore can be interrupted, and that's why I say that it's a decision (such as it is), subconsciously programmed or otherwise. 

Btw, being able to reason at that level doesn't negate your humanity or cut off your ability to feel emotions.  On the contrary, I suggest that it augments those qualities, since you have the ability to make connections and differentiate between what's real or not.  That's a different state of mind from becoming numb or unemotional, which is really just as irrational as the other way.  Cutting off our emotions is not the point - emotions are what give weight to our experiences.  Understanding our thinking is the point. 

But again, that kind of enlightenment isn't so common with most of us (me included).

Jan 07 13 12:32 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lumatic
Posts: 13,688
Chicago, Illinois, US


Sha-Lynne wrote:

Yea, that's just how I talk.  People in my Zumba class were saying I'm always so serious and my friend was like whaaaaat???? LoL  It's weird.

I just can't see anyone being serious in a class named "Zumba."   lol

Jan 07 13 12:40 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Lumatic wrote:

Sorry for the bump, but I've been busy and I figure that's a valid question and it deserves an answer.

Let me reiterate that I don't think it's bad or wrong or even abnormal to react without thinking, in and of itself.  Also, this brings up the semantics question of whether or not it's actually a "choice" if one is unaware that there is a choice.

Also also, let's keep in mind that this thread pertains to the act of taking offense, and not to all levels of emotional upset.  Upset over, say, imagining the loss of a child in a shooting strikes me as more immediate and authentic compared to a perceived challenge or insult to one's faith, considering and assuming one's faith is authentic.  Losing a child like that is external and out of your control, while losing your faith is internal and within your control.  So I do make a distinction there.

That said, and semantics aside, I stand by what I've said regarding the fact that there is a point where one can, if they're aware enough, distinguish the reality of any thoughts about an event and the emotions that arise from them, even in the case of those who were upset by the Newtown shooting.  If they were not directly involved in some way, then whatever reactions that came up are the result of imagining themselves being involved - an extrapolation of reality - and not reactions to the reality of the event itself. 

Keep in mind that an irrational state of mind can be extremely temporary, and again, not necessarily bad or abnormal.  It's certainly normal in the case of me in Chicago reacting for a moment to the Newtown shooting.  It's useful if you want to be entertained by a movie.  It just means that you're without reason at the time, however long that lasts.  There's a difference between having thoughts vs. the ability to reason them through.  Emotions tend to have an effect on that!

About your comment on "the irrational reflex of someone who gets offended," I should point out for clarity that I never said that emotions themselves aren't reflexive - only that they are instrumental in anchoring a thought pattern.  An emotional reaction may be reflexive, but taking offense is not an emotion.  It may seem like it, because there are reflexive emotions attached to it like anger, disgust, guilt or what have you.  But while taking offense may also be reflexive (though not always), it is the product of a process of thought and the subsequent emotions in response.  That process is learned and therefore can be interrupted, and that's why I say that it's a decision (such as it is), subconsciously programmed or otherwise. 

Btw, being able to reason at that level doesn't negate your humanity or cut off your ability to feel emotions.  On the contrary, I suggest that it augments those qualities, since you have the ability to make connections and differentiate between what's real or not.  That's a different state of mind from becoming numb or unemotional, which is really just as irrational as the other way.  Cutting off our emotions is not the point - emotions are what give weight to our experiences.  Understanding our thinking is the point. 

But again, that kind of enlightenment isn't so common with most of us (me included).

I agree, above I wasn't saying that thinking about the emotions would be turning off your humanity...I was just saying that not feeling anything could be.

I do think that most people somewhat develop the ability to think before reacting emotionally throughout their lives.  A teenager is going to react more to something being said than a 70 year-old.  The 70 year-old is more firm in their beliefs and has learned not to give a damn so their thought process is entirely different.  It's not an intentional thing...just seems to happen pretty often.

Jan 07 13 04:10 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Lumatic wrote:

I just can't see anyone being serious in a class named "Zumba."   lol

Heh...my neutral face is just pretty deadpan I guess.  Also, I suck at small talk entirely so unless someone is talking to me or it's someone I actually have something to say to I generally just stand there between songs (other than getting water).  Idk I have no idea what other people that don't know each other talk about.  I need to take small talk 101.  For srs.

Jan 07 13 04:12 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Jojo West
Posts: 972
Silver Spring, Maryland, US


Sha-Lynne wrote:
I guess I have to stick to Jew jokes...Jay and I shared this on fb and a friend got upset:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- … 6220_n.jpg  (linking for the easily offended)

I just can't imagine being offended by a joke...am I alone here?

Ahahahahahahahahahaha awesome. I'm taking that!

Jan 11 13 09:08 am  Link  Quote 
first1234   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers