"Relax, it's just a joke."

Guys, y'all know part of living is getting hurt, even when the intent is otherwise.
Luckily for most of us sad gits, there's also love and beauty to be found in this world of ours.

You can pin (no pun intended) all the fancy words and theories you want on it, but life has its perks.

Sometimes you need to suck it up, sometimes you can sick it to them. Goes for both the good things, as well as the bad things.


And sometimes there's also the option of thinking "meh", shrug your shoulders or scratch your butt and go on with your life. I think most of us are already quite familiar with that response.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
How do you feel about this idea of 'honour culture', sass? That for individuals socialised within it, their inherent sense of self worth does depend upon their external environment to some extent. That they need to 'earn' such self-worth through actions which instill it; to be 'worthy of self-worth' they need to prove it to themselves.

Would it make you nervous that they might resort to engineering or manipulating situations in order to give themselves this sense of self-worth/honour? Force people to tip-toe around their need for respect perhaps. Or are these simply the traits of an emotionally dysregulated person regardless of culture?


What I'm thinking, too, is that honour cultures are going to do a number on the family patriarchs socialised within them, since they feel an intense responsibility for the safety of their families (the buck stops with them; they are responsible for justice; no reliable state to help them) and this responsibility is directly attached to their personal sense of self-worth, respect and 'honour'.


P.S. Also:
Kuba Krys, Cai Xing, John Michael Zelenski, Colin Capaldi, 'Punches or punchlines? Honor, face, and dignity cultures encourage different reactions to provocation', International Journal of Humour Research 30.3 (2017).
Click to expand...

Notice the quantifier in my original quote is ‘how much do you depend on your external environment to give you inner peace?’ and not ‘if’

We all require some degree of external validation. We evolved as social creatures and thus we depend on one another to inform our emotional and psychological landscapes. We need some degree of vulnerability, some need for the regard of others in order to connect with other humans and order our lives. No one is saying that people wanting to influence their environment and others is a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing when one person's emotional needs and requirements to satisfy their own self-worth almost completely eclipse the emotional needs and identities of those around him/her to the point of consistent disharmony.

You can be embroiled in honor culture or dignity culture, but if your ego is so out of balance that you start start encroaching on people's boundaries, as a healthy socialized person, you should expect to get a push back. If you're balanced and truly have compassion for others and see them as separate from yourself, you intrinsically understand that its simply the social dance and respect that the other person is a human too and has their own needs as well. If you do not, if your ego is your sole priority, you won't see the ways in which your emotional dysregulation is a detriment to others. In a case like that, can you really say you're honorable? Or is it just your world and the rest of us are living in it?

I guess that's what it really boils down to here, doesn't it? How much of your ego is engineered for compassionate co-existence with others vs. exploitation of others for its own gains?
 
sassafras said:
Notice the quantifier in my original quote is ‘how much do you depend on your external environment to give you inner peace?’ and not ‘if’

We all require some degree of external validation. We evolved as social creatures and thus we depend on one another to inform our emotional and psychological landscapes. We need some degree of vulnerability, some need for the regard of others in order to connect with other humans and order our lives. No one is saying that people wanting to influence their environment and others is a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing when one person's emotional needs and requirements to satisfy their own self-worth almost completely eclipse the emotional needs and identities of those around him/her to the point of consistent disharmony.

You can be embroiled in honor culture or dignity culture, but if your ego is so out of balance that you start start encroaching on people's boundaries, as a healthy socialized person, you should expect to get a push back. If you're balanced and truly have compassion for others and see them as separate from yourself, you intrinsically understand that its simply the social dance and respect that the other person is a human too and has their own needs as well. If you do not, if your ego is your sole priority, you won't see the ways in which your emotional dysregulation is a detriment to others. In a case like that, can you really say you're honorable? Or is it just your world and the rest of us are living in it?

I guess that's what it really boils down to here, doesn't it? How much of your ego is engineered for compassionate co-existence with others vs. exploitation of others for its own gains?
Click to expand...
what she said. . yes
 
Ginny said:
Intention matters a lot, but we have seen many different values that matter to different people. It's therefore advisable to know a little more about the individuals' values before expressing yourself in a way that may be perceived inappropriate. It may be a somewhat cautious approach, too cautious and restrictive for some, but with regards to this forum it's what the OP and the general gist of the thread are for. If you're known for behaving or expressing a particular way, there is a lot of leeway that's being granted before perceiving commentary as hurtful, disrespectful or just plain idiotic. If you're new, however, keep barging in everywhere without any regard to either the OP or the kind of posts being made etc., the reception of commentary that is taking whatever comes before completely out of context, for whatever reason, may be taken and regarded as an infringement of group harmony, however it was expressed before. As such, one's role within a community is a deciding factor in perception as well as the intent. Because the intent is unknown when said role is undefined. A lot of you have mentioned inside jokes and how they are both formative and expressive of intimate bonds within a group. Those are roles as well, because the ones inside the group have established their roles towards one another and therefore the intent and context remains clear to everyone involved.


So much this. We have a lot of this going on around here - having sensitive spots, that is. If you walk into a situation without looking around, you're bound to get shot. The "joke" backfires and blows up in your face when you've got the wrong crowd. All comedians have a way of reading the room, some walking the line of what's possible or not - Jimmy Carr is an interesting example of that. But us laymen aren't experts and shouldn't take this lightly. "Reading the room" is just incremental to any social interaction imo, whether you're joking or not, because you might just be in the wrong crowd to want to risk being edgy.
Click to expand...

My intention with this is obvious. Please consider the time portrayed and forgive the racial word, as there is no intention whatsover to use that part of this. If you have watched the movie, there is nothing but praise given the man for his humanity and equality. If fragile, just watch the first 59 seconds.

Intent. Humor. Being ready to take the blowback. It's all here. Purpose. Experience and where to find it. However, it is all positive. I'll need read and think more to find a good negative example. Enjoy.

 
Odyne said:
^ I think @sassafras has the right idea. Everyone should just put their jokes in Spoiler tags. Problem solved!
Click to expand...

But no safety pylons required, right? :wink:

I think that’s a good idea for images in general. Sometimes they screw up the way the thread loads. Something to explore as etiquette.
 
Lady Jolanda said:
Thank you. I really don't have the tact to address all that.
Click to expand...

Haha. Well, that's always what I bring up when someone asserts things like "there are no universal truths".

The onus is really on them to prove this, because it seems counterintuitive to claim that things like mathematical/logical truths are not universal.

But of course they never even try to do that, because they can't. So they rely on sophistry instead.
 
@Aneirin what's your opinion on all of this? I'm really curious to know.


P.S.
sassafras said:
I guess that's what it really boils down to here, doesn't it? How much of your ego is engineered for compassionate co-existence with others vs. exploitation of others for its own gains?
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, sass. Fascinating and clarifying as always, and I agree with your distinction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I said awhile ago. . humor is fine..any kind, as long as it is appropriate to the audience and situation. .The problem begins when it is actually disruption that was the intent. Then it turns ugly when that rabble rouser is called out and gets reminded it is not the place or the time and becomes abusive. I think we all recognize that we are accountable for our our reactions and feelings, but when people are told to fuck off, and derogatory terms are thrown when they try to shape behavior towards a more appropriate community standard, I think a line has been crossed.
 
Aneirin said:
As I said awhile ago. . humor is fine..any kind, as long as it is appropriate to the audience and situation. .The problem begins when it is actually disruption that was the intent. Then it turns ugly when that rabble rouser is called out and gets reminded it is not the place or the time and becomes abusive. I think we all recognize that we are accountable for our our reactions and feelings, but when people are told to fuck off, and derogatory terms are thrown when they try to shape behavior towards a more appropriate community standard, I think a line has been crossed.
Click to expand...
'Intent', yeah... it's a deliberate disruption of a communal process of social-rules making. Good point, A.
 
StanleyBarBaDoS said:
Well if they are actually hurtful jokes then they are being a dick. Otherwise people are just being overly sensitive. Idk why this needs to be further complicated.
Click to expand...


At the end of the day, rapport is king. For someone who is confident they have all the answers, you haven’t really demonstrated that understanding. You just positioned yourself outside of the group by coming into a thread that many people are obviously interested in and dismissed what they care about as being too complicated. Sounds like you might actually benefit a lot from this discussion. Or if you prefer not to, you’ve still made a contribution as an object lesson, so I guess it’s a win-win?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top