Today...

[Kalphite]

Now that I'm sober :lol: here's a summation of my thoughts on the matter:

 

1. You don't have to be gay to get called a f*g and you don't have to be gay to get your feelings hurt getting called a f*g. Myself and plenty of people I know have been called that when we were younger and it wasn't pleasant. Therefore, to tell straight white males "Oh you got called a f*g? Deal with it, ya [kitty]!" and then turning to a gay person and saying "Oh you got called a f*g? That's terrible! We should do something about that!" is sort of hypocritical.

 

But the reason why calling a straight white male a f*g is offensive is because it likens them to a gay man, which is seen as a negative. The very use of this word as an insult further strengthens the idea that being a gay man is something to be ashamed of. This is the point that I think champion is trying to make and is why one of those cases is worse than the other - calling a straight person a f*g is saying that they are similar to something that is to be ashamed of, but ultimately they know that they are still straight and not of the targeted identity and can brush it off. Calling a homosexual male a f*g is telling that person that their existence is something to be ashamed of, which reinforces the hierarchy of them being in lower social standing and can thus cause much more psychological damage.

 

And yeah every single "white racial slur" in that list obfuscator posted is laughable at best. None of those words have the power that slurs against minority groups have towards them.

[Hedgehog]

1. You being offended by being called a [bleep] comes from your personal homophobia. A gay person being offended comes from fear of being persecuted. They are not the same.

 

3. If you have somebody's consent, you can call them whatever you want in private, but there is no such thing as consent when there is fear or pressure.

[Veiva]

4. I don't agree with obfuscator.

[obfuscator]

 

Now that I'm sober :lol: here's a summation of my thoughts on the matter:

 

1. You don't have to be gay to get called a f*g and you don't have to be gay to get your feelings hurt getting called a f*g. Myself and plenty of people I know have been called that when we were younger and it wasn't pleasant. Therefore, to tell straight white males "Oh you got called a f*g? Deal with it, ya [kitty]!" and then turning to a gay person and saying "Oh you got called a f*g? That's terrible! We should do something about that!" is sort of hypocritical.

 

But the reason why calling a straight white male a f*g is offensive is because it likens them to a gay man, which is seen as a negative. The very use of this word as an insult further strengthens the idea that being a gay man is something to be ashamed of. This is the point that I think champion is trying to make and is why one of those cases is worse than the other - calling a straight person a f*g is saying that they are similar to something that is to be ashamed of, but ultimately they know that they are still straight and not of the targeted identity and can brush it off. Calling a homosexual male a f*g is telling that person that their existence is something to be ashamed of, which reinforces the hierarchy of them being in lower social standing and can thus cause much more psychological damage.

 

And yeah every single "white racial slur" in that list obfuscator posted is laughable at best. None of those words have the power that slurs against minority groups have towards them.

 

I want to point out that I didn't post that list saying "all of these things offend me", only in response to someone saying "there are no slurs against straight white people".

[muggiwhplar]

 

 

Now that I'm sober :lol: here's a summation of my thoughts on the matter:

 

1. You don't have to be gay to get called a f*g and you don't have to be gay to get your feelings hurt getting called a f*g. Myself and plenty of people I know have been called that when we were younger and it wasn't pleasant. Therefore, to tell straight white males "Oh you got called a f*g? Deal with it, ya [kitty]!" and then turning to a gay person and saying "Oh you got called a f*g? That's terrible! We should do something about that!" is sort of hypocritical.

But the reason why calling a straight white male a f*g is offensive is because it likens them to a gay man, which is seen as a negative.

I disagree. That may be true with some other people, but in my case, I didn't want to be called a f*g simply because I wasn't gay; it was an inaccurate label. More specifically, being called a f*g as a straight dude basically meant you were repulsive to women and couldn't get laid to save your life... which was true back in the day :P It's not like I was thinking, "I'm not one of those people! Don't you dare call me that! I hate those people and don't want to be grouped in as one!" That would be homophobia.

 

If I were gay, I'd be upset for different reasons, as other posters have mentioned.

1. You being offended by being called a [bleep] comes from your personal homophobia. A gay person being offended comes from fear of being persecuted. They are not the same.

 

3. If you have somebody's consent, you can call them whatever you want in private, but there is no such thing as consent when there is fear or pressure.

1. See my response to Kalphite; it's not homophobia. However, to take things a step further, I don't really see why we're splitting hairs here when the end result is the same regardless of their sexual orientation. They still feel bad about themselves either way. With that said, why does one group get sympathy whereas the other doesn't? It's hypocritical. Either tell both groups to grow a pair, or lend your sympathy to both groups since they're both getting their feelings hurt.

 

3. I have no clue what you're trying to say here, can you rephrase that?

4. I don't agree with obfuscator.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you guys' points...

Do you both agree that getting murdered is worse than not going to the bathroom where you desire? If so, you're in agreement.

Do you both agree that the bathroom bill is an issue worth discussing? If so, you're in agreement.

Do you both agree that members of the LGBT are discriminated against in the US? If so, you're in agreement.

[Kalphite]

 

 

Now that I'm sober :lol: here's a summation of my thoughts on the matter:

 

1. You don't have to be gay to get called a f*g and you don't have to be gay to get your feelings hurt getting called a f*g. Myself and plenty of people I know have been called that when we were younger and it wasn't pleasant. Therefore, to tell straight white males "Oh you got called a f*g? Deal with it, ya [kitty]!" and then turning to a gay person and saying "Oh you got called a f*g? That's terrible! We should do something about that!" is sort of hypocritical.

But the reason why calling a straight white male a f*g is offensive is because it likens them to a gay man, which is seen as a negative.

I disagree. That may be true with some other people, but in my case, I didn't want to be called a f*g simply because I wasn't gay; it was an inaccurate label. More specifically, being called a f*g as a straight dude basically meant you were repulsive to women and couldn't get laid to save your life... which was true back in the day :P It's not like I was thinking, "I'm not one of those people! Don't you dare call me that! I hate those people and don't want to be grouped in as one!" That would be homophobia.

 

If I were gay, I'd be upset for different reasons, as other posters have mentioned.

 

If you think about it, you're actually just confirming what I'm saying though. It's inarguable that the word f*g is used to refer to homosexual men. If it was truly inoffensive to be given that word simply because it was an inaccurate label, then it would be equally as offensive as calling you a squid or a strawberry. However, if somebody called you one of these words to your face, you'd probably just laugh, whereas calling you a f*g is a lot more likely to be construed as offensive.

 

In my experience, using the word f*g has mostly been used to attack men for demonstrating traits that conflicted with the typical definition of masculinity - for example, I've seen people use the word against people who dislike sports, or skinny men/men who wear skinny jeans, or people who like things that aren't "cool" for men to like (for a blatant example, bronies, though there is obviously a lot of less extreme examples that also fit). Of course there are exceptions to this, such as friends using it in a joking context, but this accounted for most "serious" uses I've heard of the word. The case you outlined falls under this umbrella too - if you are "repulsive to women" and "couldn't get laid to save your life", then you aren't displaying the masculine trait of being able to attract a woman. By attacking all of these people by using a word used to refer to gay men, you are reinforcing the idea that being gay makes you less of a man and attacking the identities held by gay men. Even if you're not consciously reacting to such an insult with blatant homophobia, subconsciously you are associating being gay with being less masculine and as a derogatory thing. So even if one straight male calls another straight male a f*g, actual gay men are hurt by the reinforcement of their identity as negative.

 

The end point is that, yes, both groups can be offended by use of the slur, but for very different reasons, and use of the word by straight men strengthens systematic discrimination against homosexual men, even if it's purely subconsciously, which is why it's not okay for straight men to use that word (the original point of contention that triggered this argument) if we are truly trying to work towards breaking societal discrimination against minority groups. As members of privileged groups, we can't understand how painful it is to have our identities used in a derogatory nature, so it is best to listen to members of these groups when they say that doing this is not okay.

[Veiva]

 

4. I don't agree with obfuscator.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you guys' points...

Do you both agree that getting murdered is worse than not going to the bathroom where you desire? If so, you're in agreement.

Do you both agree that the bathroom bill is an issue worth discussing? If so, you're in agreement.

Do you both agree that members of the LGBT are discriminated against in the US? If so, you're in agreement.

 

Statements are used to support an argument. Agreeing with independent statements does not mean I agree with a conclusion. Your indication of our agreement in these summarized statements is also wrong (1. is the equivalent of 'a bad outcome is better than the worst possible outcome' so it's no more useful than agreeing that a 100 watt bulb is brighter than a 75 watt bulb and 2. the 'bathroom bill' is a minor issue so I do not agree).

 

Furthermore, I am sick of hearing about the bathroom bill because it is a single issue out of many, and in North Carolina's case, was used as a distraction to cause incredible damage to worker rights.

 

I believe using third-world countries as an example where LGBT have greater grievances to reduce the importance of grievances LGBT face in first-world countries is dishonest and counter-productive. The 'x is worse' argument is more often than not worthless in situations like this.

[RpgGamer]

[Major Dash]

 

 

 

I don't understand your point, but I somehow find it hilarious anyway.

[Hedgehog]

 

1. You being offended by being called a [bleep] comes from your personal homophobia. A gay person being offended comes from fear of being persecuted. They are not the same.

 

3. If you have somebody's consent, you can call them whatever you want in private, but there is no such thing as consent when there is fear or pressure.

1. See my response to Kalphite; it's not homophobia. However, to take things a step further, I don't really see why we're splitting hairs here when the end result is the same regardless of their sexual orientation. They still feel bad about themselves either way. With that said, why does one group get sympathy whereas the other doesn't? It's hypocritical. Either tell both groups to grow a pair, or lend your sympathy to both groups since they're both getting their feelings hurt.

 

3. I have no clue what you're trying to say here, can you rephrase that?

 

1. Honestly, if you can't understand the difference between feeling persecuted and feeling mislabeled, I don't know what to say.

 

3. Your friends might let you call them [bleep] because they're afraid to stand up to you.

[Tesset]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that people not in the group hurt by the slur have to be okay with being called the slur. Just that using a slur in any negative context, and in many positive contexts, reinforces the negativity behind the slur, which is negative for the oppressed group regardless of whether the recipient is part of that group.

 

So, the argument is that the speaker shouldn't use the word in any context that reinforces negative stereotypes, not that the target needs to brush it off if it doesn't apply to them.

 

 

Just to clarify as well, "joking" insults are still insults, and they reinforce that negative stereotype just the same. Maybe worse, because it's often defended as being uncriticizable because it's a joke and no one really meant it. That's why calling your straight friend a f*g as another straight man is skeevy. I just can't imagine a situation where that's positive in any way.

[Kalphite]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that people not in the group hurt by the slur have to be okay with being called the slur. Just that using a slur in any negative context, and in many positive contexts, reinforces the negativity behind the slur, which is negative for the oppressed group regardless of whether the recipient is part of that group.

 

So, the argument is that the speaker shouldn't use the word in any context that reinforces negative stereotypes, not that the target needs to brush it off if it doesn't apply to them.

 

 

Just to clarify as well, "joking" insults are still insults, and they reinforce that negative stereotype just the same. Maybe worse, because it's often defended as being uncriticizable because it's a joke and no one really meant it. That's why calling your straight friend a f*g as another straight man is skeevy. I just can't imagine a situation where that's positive in any way.

 

Thank you for saying in like 5 seconds what took me 3 paragraphs haha.

 

In other news, I managed to patch up a spat I had with a close friend last night and it feels so good not to have to worry about that anymore and to be able to enjoy this gorgeous weekend in peace~

 

Also, it seems like I'll be seeing Modern Baseball, Thrice, and Phish over the course of the next week. Needless to say I'm pretty hyped haha.

[muggiwhplar]

If you think about it, you're actually just confirming what I'm saying though. It's inarguable that the word f*g is used to refer to homosexual men. If it was truly inoffensive to be given that word simply because it was an inaccurate label, then it would be equally as offensive as calling you a squid or a strawberry. However, if somebody called you one of these words to your face, you'd probably just laugh, whereas calling you a f*g is a lot more likely to be construed as offensive.

 

In my experience, using the word f*g has mostly been used to attack men for demonstrating traits that conflicted with the typical definition of masculinity - for example, I've seen people use the word against people who dislike sports, or skinny men/men who wear skinny jeans, or people who like things that aren't "cool" for men to like (for a blatant example, bronies, though there is obviously a lot of less extreme examples that also fit). Of course there are exceptions to this, such as friends using it in a joking context, but this accounted for most "serious" uses I've heard of the word. The case you outlined falls under this umbrella too - if you are "repulsive to women" and "couldn't get laid to save your life", then you aren't displaying the masculine trait of being able to attract a woman. By attacking all of these people by using a word used to refer to gay men, you are reinforcing the idea that being gay makes you less of a man and attacking the identities held by gay men. Even if you're not consciously reacting to such an insult with blatant homophobia, subconsciously you are associating being gay with being less masculine and as a derogatory thing. So even if one straight male calls another straight male a f*g, actual gay men are hurt by the reinforcement of their identity as negative.

 

The end point is that, yes, both groups can be offended by use of the slur, but for very different reasons, and use of the word by straight men strengthens systematic discrimination against homosexual men, even if it's purely subconsciously, which is why it's not okay for straight men to use that word (the original point of contention that triggered this argument) if we are truly trying to work towards breaking societal discrimination against minority groups. As members of privileged groups, we can't understand how painful it is to have our identities used in a derogatory nature, so it is best to listen to members of these groups when they say that doing this is not okay.

 

How do you explain all my gay friends who not only throw around that word constantly, but also tease my politically correct straight friends who are afraid to use that word in their presence? Are my gay friends just masochistic and they're somehow making life harder for themselves and they just don't seem to realize it?

 

Or do they simply not give a shit because words don't hurt their feelings?

 

You need to understand that literally all of my gay friends find the word hilarious, and the only people I know who get offended by that word are, ironically, straight :P

 

Similarly, I have a difficult time understanding parts of your claims because they're really vague and they seem to be unfalsifiable. When you say using the word "strengthens systematic discrimination against homosexual men subconsciously," how do you provide evidence/proof for or against a claim like that? Give me data! Give me specifics! :D

 

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the masculinity discussion, as that's a completely subjective topic

[muggiwhplar]

 

 

1. You being offended by being called a [bleep] comes from your personal homophobia. A gay person being offended comes from fear of being persecuted. They are not the same.

 

3. If you have somebody's consent, you can call them whatever you want in private, but there is no such thing as consent when there is fear or pressure.

1. See my response to Kalphite; it's not homophobia. However, to take things a step further, I don't really see why we're splitting hairs here when the end result is the same regardless of their sexual orientation. They still feel bad about themselves either way. With that said, why does one group get sympathy whereas the other doesn't? It's hypocritical. Either tell both groups to grow a pair, or lend your sympathy to both groups since they're both getting their feelings hurt.

 

3. I have no clue what you're trying to say here, can you rephrase that?

 

1. Honestly, if you can't understand the difference between feeling persecuted and feeling mislabeled, I don't know what to say.

 

3. Your friends might let you call them [bleep] because they're afraid to stand up to you.

 

 

1. For the sake of this discussion, please clearly define both of those terms. Right now it looks like you're trying to opt out of the discussion and that's not doing anyone any favors :P

 

3. Considering they throw that word around constantly, I strongly doubt that. I feel like you guys are grasping for straws trying to argue against my "context matters" argument >_>

[muggiwhplar]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that people not in the group hurt by the slur have to be okay with being called the slur. Just that using a slur in any negative context, and in many positive contexts, reinforces the negativity behind the slur, which is negative for the oppressed group regardless of whether the recipient is part of that group.

 

So, the argument is that the speaker shouldn't use the word in any context that reinforces negative stereotypes, not that the target needs to brush it off if it doesn't apply to them.

 

 

Just to clarify as well, "joking" insults are still insults, and they reinforce that negative stereotype just the same. Maybe worse, because it's often defended as being uncriticizable because it's a joke and no one really meant it. That's why calling your straight friend a f*g as another straight man is skeevy. I just can't imagine a situation where that's positive in any way.

 

If person A is jokingly using the word with person B, and they both "consent" to the term, then who, specifically, is that hurting? Especially if person A and person B never use the term maliciously and exclusively use it "consensually?"

[RpgGamer]

The word is meant to demean a sect of people and as long as people believe it does, it will. Same goes for all slurs.

 

Kalphite that's a pretty solid lineup. I think Phish is coming to Philly soon too

[Tesset]

 

 

I don't think anyone here is arguing that people not in the group hurt by the slur have to be okay with being called the slur. Just that using a slur in any negative context, and in many positive contexts, reinforces the negativity behind the slur, which is negative for the oppressed group regardless of whether the recipient is part of that group.

 

So, the argument is that the speaker shouldn't use the word in any context that reinforces negative stereotypes, not that the target needs to brush it off if it doesn't apply to them.

 

 

Just to clarify as well, "joking" insults are still insults, and they reinforce that negative stereotype just the same. Maybe worse, because it's often defended as being uncriticizable because it's a joke and no one really meant it. That's why calling your straight friend a f*g as another straight man is skeevy. I just can't imagine a situation where that's positive in any way.

If person A is jokingly using the word with person B, and they both "consent" to the term, then who, specifically, is that hurting? Especially if person A and person B never use the term maliciously and exclusively use it "consensually?"

The gay people person A and B meet in the future. Less specifically, the lgbt people affected by policies and laws which hurt them that the two are complicit in.

 

Is it 100% true all the time that person A and B will go on to be in favor of homophobic actions or laws? No. But 1) the desire to use a slur is an indication of internalized prejudices and 2) the association with negativity in a situation where it doesn't matter is just a little bit of a push towards associating the lgbt community with negativity in situations where it does matter. Especially if they don't recognize that as a situation that matters.

[muggiwhplar]

Why do you think that using the word consensually somehow indicates an inclination towards homophobia? Where's your evidence to support that claim? And are all of my gay friends "homophobic" too? Don't you think your argument is a bit of a slippery slope-- arguing that consensually using the word between two friends will somehow lead to them devolving into actual bigots?

 

Am I prejudiced against the mentally handicapped if I say "retarded" instead of "stupid?" Am I misogynistic if I call my friend a "[kitty]" instead of a coward? Am I a misandrist if I call my friend a "dick" instead of a jerk? If not, where do you draw the line?

[jasignhagj]

Context is everything. Walking up to a gay couple and calling them f*ggots isn't the same as Milo referring to himself as a 'Based F*ggot'. Removing 'homophobic slurs' from our vocabulary isn't going to do anything against homophobia, there are a million ways to be anti-gay without ever using a 'slur'. I'd even say a world where people joke about each others sexuality, race, etc. in a non-hateful way is far more tolerant than a world where everyone is constantly on edge because saying the wrong thing regardless of intention has severe social consequences.

[jasignhagj]

.

[Alg]

Context is everything. Walking up to a gay couple and calling them f*ggots isn't the same as Milo referring to himself as a 'Based F*ggot'. Removing 'homophobic slurs' from our vocabulary isn't going to do anything against homophobia, there are a million ways to be anti-gay without ever using a 'slur'. I'd even say a world where people joke about each others sexuality, race, etc. in a non-hateful way is far more tolerant than a world where everyone is constantly on edge because saying the wrong thing regardless of intention has severe social consequences.

This is an easy argument to make when you have no stake in it. It's not your place to decide who gets to be offended by what, or to decide that a slur that still gets actively and casually thrown around as a slur isn't one, especially if it's not one that can be applied to you. It doesn't erase the context, and it doesn't magically make bigotry go away, much as people might think racism and sexism and homophobia are dead. It's basically the equivalent of patting yourself on the back for being progressive when all you've done is not actively gone on a shooting spree or put on a white robe or what-have-you, and buried your head in the sand when other people have.

 

If you and the people you know are using them, that's fine, you're all adults and you can think for yourselves. But that doesn't change the fact that a pretty sizable portion of the population is going to keep using it as a slur, especially if it becomes acceptable to do so. And it definitely doesn't change the fact that it's still pretty much always used in a negative context even as a joke. Especially since we're still very much in a society where those negative messages are pretty strongly ingrained in everything even today. We're just not there yet and it's going to take a lot of self-awareness to get to the point where we can even begin to think about it - and that's painful and hard because it requires the sorts of introspection that makes us all look bad. Which is why we deny there's a problem in the first place, or make excuses, or move the goalposts.

 

Plus, it's just kind of a dick move in general to refer to someone that way if they're not okay with it. It's absolutely your responsibility to know your audience before you tell a joke, that's like the most basic part of comedy. And that's the message here - not "don't say these words" but "know your audience and know what you're talking about". It's like... Fine, you're not using it as a slur. Can you guarantee that the next person won't? Can you guarantee that someone who hears you on the street will be as cautious? Can you guarantee that someone who's had it used as a slur against them is going to know the difference? Can you guarantee that people won't actually use the word hatefully and then try to write it off as a joke and complain that everyone's too easily offended or- wait, that's exactly what's happening today. Imagine that.

 

For people that pride ourselves in personal responsibility, we're very eager to push our own responsibilities on to other people. If there are actual consequences for that sort of carelessness now, maybe things can improve.

 

...I need to make posts here that aren't heavy arguments or shitposts, maybe. Is there any point in making something in the art and media section anymore?

[Melos]

Today I got Level 7 Champion Mastery on Leona.... I had originally planned on getting it right after getting 6... but it took me a week to get it -.-.

[Veiva]

I was reading a piece on NPR ("It's OK for boys to cry, but only if they do it in the right way") and it reminded me of the discussion about negative terms.

 

In particular:

 

Boys who do extracurriculars like music, art and drama tend to get higher grades, they found, but those things are often denigrated as "un-masculine," they write. And they found many examples of boys who strive for good grades being called "[kitties]" or "[bleep]" by their peers.

I thought it was pretty good.

[RpgGamer]

Once upon a time I frequented the Gallery haha

[muggiwhplar]

If you and the people you know are using them, that's fine, you're all adults and you can think for yourselves.

Does that mean you disagree with Champion and Tylerelyt, who seem to be arguing that it isn't fine to use it consensually?

 

But that doesn't change the fact that a pretty sizable portion of the population is going to keep using it as a slur, especially if it becomes acceptable to do so. And it definitely doesn't change the fact that it's still pretty much always used in a negative context even as a joke. Especially since we're still very much in a society where those negative messages are pretty strongly ingrained in everything even today. We're just not there yet and it's going to take a lot of self-awareness to get to the point where we can even begin to think about it - and that's painful and hard because it requires the sorts of introspection that makes us all look bad. Which is why we deny there's a problem in the first place, or make excuses, or move the goalposts.

 

Plus, it's just kind of a dick move in general to refer to someone that way if they're not okay with it.

You're preaching to the choir here. AFAIK nobody here is defending the word's usage in a malicious context.

 

It's absolutely your responsibility to know your audience before you tell a joke, that's like the most basic part of comedy. And that's the message here - not "don't say these words" but "know your audience and know what you're talking about". It's like... Fine, you're not using it as a slur. Can you guarantee that the next person won't? Can you guarantee that someone who hears you on the street will be as cautious? Can you guarantee that someone who's had it used as a slur against them is going to know the difference? Can you guarantee that people won't actually use the word hatefully and then try to write it off as a joke and complain that everyone's too easily offended or- wait, that's exactly what's happening today. Imagine that.

 

For people that pride ourselves in personal responsibility, we're very eager to push our own responsibilities on to other people. If there are actual consequences for that sort of carelessness now, maybe things can improve.

 

Personal responsibility is all relative and even a bit paradoxical, since not everyone believes in it.

 

For example: let's say person A and person B are walking down the street and they use a slur between each other in a friendly manner, not trying to hurt each other's (or anyone else's) feelings. Person C and person D are walking nearby, overhear the conversation, and they get upset.

 

Person C strongly believes in personal responsibility. Person C thinks:

That word bothers me a lot when I hear it, and now I'm upset. Could I have expected to hear it walking down the street like this? Can I expect to hear it again if I come back here? If not, I guess I shouldn't worry about this since it was sort of an unlikely occurrence. If I can expect to hear this again when I come back here, maybe I should put my headphones in and listen to something pleasant so I don't hear that word and get upset again. Or maybe I should stop coming here. Or I could stop them next time and talk to them.

 

Person D avoids personal responsibility. Person D thinks:

That word bothers me a lot when I hear it, and now I'm upset. I can't believe those guys had the audacity to use that word in public. This happened to me because we live in a world where [wagon] like this can get away with saying stuff like that. This isn't fair, I've done nothing wrong to these people and now I'm upset because of their insensitivity.

 

Persons C and D are both upset. But they're both thinking in a completely different way. Person C is focusing on things they can control, so they can prevent this from happening to them again in the future. Person D is focusing on things they can't control, which means they'll feel good about themselves right now since they're absolving themselves from personal responsibility... however they're now much more susceptible to experiencing this same feeling of sadness again in the future since they aren't actually changing their behaviors or anything. In the future, person C is now much less likely to get upset, whereas person D will continue to get upset.

 

In other words, Person C blames himself; person D blames person A and person B. Person C is much less likely to experience this same unhappiness in the future; person D is probably going to keep experiencing this same unhappiness.

 

But what about person A and B? Let's say person A believes in personal responsibility and person B doesn't. And let's say they both notice person C and D getting upset all of a sudden after they said that word, which in turn makes them both feel a bit guilty.

 

Person A thinks, "Those guys are upset because of what I said. I should be mindful of my choice of words if I don't want to feel guilty like this again. Or maybe I should only talk like that in private. Or not talk like that at all. Or maybe most people wouldn't be bothered by what I said; maybe this was such an unlikely occurrence that I can probably keep doing this without feeling guilty."

Person B thinks, "Those guys are upset because they're too sensitive. They shouldn't have been eavesdropping if they didn't want to get upset. If they don't want to hear words like that then they should just stay home."

 

Person A's probably going to reform their behavior and is less likely to experience guilt like that again. Person B's going to keep feeling guilty.

 

It's interesting to note that once person A assumes personal responsibility, suddenly he no longer has to worry about person C and D. But for person B, he's dependent upon the behavior of person's C and D.

 

Similarly, this problem has now resolved itself for person C due to his personal responsibility, whereas person D is still going to remain unhappy until person A and B decide to change. Fortunately for him, person A is no longer an issue. And fortunately for person B, person C is no longer an issue.

 

Person A and Person C are now fine. But person B and D will continue arguing and pointing fingers at each other, and their problems will never go away until they make the transition into accepting personal responsibility. Or maybe they'll get lucky and somehow convince everybody except for themselves to be more like persons A and C, so everyone else accepts responsibility for them :P

 

...I need to make posts here that aren't heavy arguments or shitposts, maybe. Is there any point in making something in the art and media section anymore?

I enjoy the rare heavy argument on here. It's hard to find a place where you can discuss these things calmly with people who have opposing views, who are open to defending their beliefs. Though sometimes I feel like more people on TIF wish this place was more like reddit-- an echo chamber where dissenting views are silenced and pushed out of the discussion, rather than examined and discussed.