Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Taking a stand


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Taking a stand Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Taking a stand - 12/2/2009 2:23:37 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		I am glad you believe in consequences to actions as well. A good rap in the mouth does wonders. Now check the word metaphore and all will be complete.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Loki45)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Taking a stand - 12/2/2009 2:24:01 PM   
stella41b


Posts: 4258
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: SW London (UK)
Status: offline 		Okay, coming back....

Some of you have been objecting to my use of the word 'fascist'. Okay, so let's look at the etymology here. 'Facist' like 'fascism' is derived from the Italian word 'fascio' which means 'bundle' or group, also from the Latin word fasces, which was a bundle of sticks used symbolically for the power through unity.

Bear in mind I'm using the word 'fascist' with regard to those who pick on people with profiles with some element of social stigma, where the stigma is an aspect of their behaviour or appearance or lifestyle which meets with widespread social disapproval. The thinking, or rather the mindset of these 'fascists' is very simple, it's pretty much 'us and them', where the 'us' are the more socially acceptable in society, those with a sense of social privilege, and 'them' are those perceived to carry some sort of stigma, or reason for social disapproval. The content of the opening post is rarely if ever positive, nor are some of the assumptions made by those who post to the thread. This is an early part of the whole social stigmatization process leading to 'status loss' and I'm basing this on studies done by sociologists Bruce Link and Jo Phelan some time back.

The same thing happens among children in schools. Only we don't call these children 'fascists', we call them 'bullies'.

Now bear in mind that all this was taking place on a website, similar to this one, created and set up for people interested in BDSM, kink, fetish, for people to come together and meet, discuss, and take part in a whole wide range of activities many of which also meet with widespread social disapproval. On this site we have many different people, some are sadists, some are masochists, some are interested in, and need to experience things and activities which many others might find unacceptable, and others are here just for a bit of kinky sex. However we are all people.

However the cornerstone for everything which we do here and get involved in requires some degree or form of consent or acceptance or agreement from the other person. Not that an issue as fundamental and basic as this bothers these people.

And this is my thinking which prompted my OP there and here. I wasn't personally affected, so I wasn't that hurt or upset, but was I pissed off? Yes, I admit this. This is something which is individual to me, my experiences, not just my own, but my experiences with other people, both friends and people among the homeless with whom I've worked in the past. My OP isn't going to change anything, it's not going to change the world, or society, or even the behaviour or thinking of these people. The same thing has been happening no doubt somewhere today, it will be the same tomorrow, and the next day, and so on, and so forth. People are people, we are all individuals, we all walk our own individual paths through life, decide for ourselves our own morality, beliefs, opinions.

And I respect this, including the opinions and actions of the fascists. My taking a stand was merely expressing this opinion, openly, honestly, without censoring myself or measuring my words, with a view to bringing it also out into the public forum for discussion and debate. I'm not planning on leaving or going anywhere, but just expressed my opinion, openly for discussion, but also decided to leave that part of the site as I personally find this sort of thing objectionable and don't at all feel comfortable in places where such behaviour is condoned, but that's just me.

I've read through the thread and I'm genuinely interested in all what everyone has had to say, but I'm also curious. I have more questions.

Interesting that one poster feels that my use of the word 'fascist' is ironic, and that these people were merely expressing their freedom of speech and opinions, and furthermore that if such people didn't want such negative attention then maybe they shouldn't have profiles up.

Okay, so why don't we ever see people starting threads commenting on the profiles of their friends and the people they know? Could it not be because they are also part of the 'us' group? And what of the responsibility which goes together with this freedom? And if such people shouldn't have profiles up, where should they have profiles then where people can afford them the same acceptance and treatment as the rest of us take for granted?

Does this also mean that all those also here who maybe engage in activities which meet with widespread disapproval be also excluded from this website? Okay, like who, for example?

Interesting also from those who have expressed the preference for not saying anything, ignoring it and moving on. This to me is a bit more understandable. A month or so back I was waiting for a bus in a district in London when some way away in a busy street a gang of about fifteen or twenty teenage schoolgirls stood and watched whilst two of their number picked on and started attacking physically another school girl, kicking her, punching her, pulling her hair, and tearing her clothes. It was about 4pm in the afternoon, lots of people around, heavy traffic. The girl had to lose her bag and have a bust nose with blood streaming down her face before a woman intervened and escorted her into the shopping centre.

Therefore I can understand why many people just ignore these threads and move on. But why is this, and I include myself here into this group because there have been many times I could have done something in such a situation but didn't, why do we do this?

Even more interesting is the response stating that I am bringing 'drama' from one website to this one. Hmmm, okay. But isn't that one of the reasons you come here and read these threads, to see 'drama'? Or am I wrong?

I look forward to reading the responses, irrespective of whether they agree with me or not. They are all valid.

_____________________________

CM's Resident Lyricist
also Facebook
http://stella.baker.tripod.com/
50NZpoints
Q2
Simply Q

(in reply to CaringandReal)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Taking a stand - 12/2/2009 2:29:01 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Forfaan

Moral, dont think they think at all - if they get in your way - run em over.


Actually this part below is a better moral. If everyone accepted the consequences of their actions, and responded with that advance knowledge, things would be much different.

quote:


If you do just make sure you square it with yourself first.


Yep, and there have been times I have had an icepack on my face saying to myself "you know I am not going to stop pointing out when assholes do X, but this still hurts." I squared it with myself first.

So Freedom of Speech is not as free as many say it is. It comes with responsibility and accountability, just like most any right.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Forfaan)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Taking a stand - 12/2/2009 2:46:38 PM   
Loki45


Posts: 2100
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b
Okay, so why don't we ever see people starting threads commenting on the profiles of their friends and the people they know? Could it not be because they are also part of the 'us' group?


People's reasons for starting threads are their own. I could no more answer why they don't start a particular thread than I could answer why they *do* start a particular thread. I have, however, seen playful banter take place in other threads that included a mass laugh over someone's ridiculous profile or mass swoon over someone else's photo. It happens both ways.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b
And what of the responsibility which goes together with this freedom? And if such people shouldn't have profiles up, where should they have profiles then where people can afford them the same acceptance and treatment as the rest of us take for granted?


Dunno. Not my call. Again, that's up to each individual. The simple fact (and something the local news has tried to get across to people) is that what you freely put online for all to see can and often does come back to haunt you. Why do you think many people are intentionally vague with their profiles? I've seen more "99 year old" people on this site than I ever have in "real life." I would surmise it's a privacy thing. I guarantee you, if someone has something posted in a readily available medium, they will receive as much criticism about it as they do praise. Perhaps more so. The only way to shelter oneself from such criticism is not to be so public with our information.


quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b
Does this also mean that all those also here who maybe engage in activities which meet with widespread disapproval be also excluded from this website? Okay, like who, for example?


They already are. Anyone who has a preference for illegal activities is excluded (if they put such information in their profile).


_____________________________

"'Till the roof comes off, 'till the lights go out
'Till my legs give out, can't shut my mouth."

(in reply to stella41b)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Taking a stand - 12/2/2009 3:27:52 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		I understood what you were saying Stella, but ever since that misunderstanding I had a while back with something you wrote, I have taken more time to read your posts.

Interesting as well, is that in one instance many in society accept that emotional and psychological attacks are acceptable (Freedom of Speech), but a physical retaliation to it is not. What makes it interesting is that there are so many studies, and so many agree, that psychological and emotional attacks usually cause more damage. Once any kind of physicality (even when used as a metaphor at the time) some get all up in arms, those same that support the possibility of emotional and psychological harm. Yes there are instances where some may need a thicker skin, but also we all should realize that we must take responsibility for all of our actions, even when it is words.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Taking a stand - 12/2/2009 3:41:20 PM   
Loki45


Posts: 2100
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Interesting as well, is that in one instance many in society accept that emotional and psychological attacks are acceptable (Freedom of Speech), but a physical retaliation to it is not. What makes it interesting is that there are so many studies, and so many agree, that psychological and emotional attacks usually cause more damage. Once any kind of physicality (even when used as a metaphor at the time) some get all up in arms, those same that support the possibility of emotional and psychological harm. Yes there are instances where some may need a thicker skin, but also we all should realize that we must take responsibility for all of our actions, even when it is words.


The problem with your assertion, is that a punch has only one intent, one outcome. Words, however, are used for a variety of things. What you may take offense to, another may not. Therefore, the psychological and emotional harm is entirely in the mind of the individual.

That is why there is freedom of speech. Because you can't regulate speech based on what one person may or may not find offensive or be harmed by. We all have choices to make whether or not something offends us. To allow words from another to change our emotional or psychological state is not the fault of the speaker, but of ourselves.

That's why I don't care what people say about me. I've had some nasty arguments on this site and at the end, I click the lil' red X and it all goes away. I don't care what you try and insinuate about me here, it is meaningless in my mind. To give someone the power to change *me* simply by what they post here is to give away the majority of the power I hold over myself. And that's something I don't do for anyone.

Your assertions about psychological and emotional harm being "ok" goes with the territory of free speech. If it did not, all of the censorship you see on radio and TV would be far worse, because some sniveling little worm in some quiet little corner of the country would make it so that their views about what should and should not be on TV. And that, friends, is fascism.


_____________________________

"'Till the roof comes off, 'till the lights go out
'Till my legs give out, can't shut my mouth."

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Taking a stand - 12/2/2009 4:12:30 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		Freedom of expression and the right to privacy are both in UK legislation, though for the most part only because those dreadful Europeans forced the issue. At the same time there are laws against harassment and laws which limit freedom of expression so as to curb the potentially illegal and lethal effects that some forms of expression can have.

But although I'm fully in agreement with what I understand Stella was saying, this is the internet, a place where the law is weak and manners are optional, and where, akin to many real life situations, if you poke your head above the parapet you may just get shot at.

E



_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Loki45)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Taking a stand - 12/2/2009 5:05:05 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Interesting as well, is that in one instance many in society accept that emotional and psychological attacks are acceptable (Freedom of Speech), but a physical retaliation to it is not. What makes it interesting is that there are so many studies, and so many agree, that psychological and emotional attacks usually cause more damage. Once any kind of physicality (even when used as a metaphor at the time) some get all up in arms, those same that support the possibility of emotional and psychological harm. Yes there are instances where some may need a thicker skin, but also we all should realize that we must take responsibility for all of our actions, even when it is words.


The problem with your assertion, is that a punch has only one intent, one outcome. Words, however, are used for a variety of things. What you may take offense to, another may not. Therefore, the psychological and emotional harm is entirely in the mind of the individual.


So is some physical contact. Ever watched NCIS? Damn Gibbs assaults his team all the time. If you had grown up in the area and sulture I did, then a few punches, black eye, or what have you is no big deal. To some it is horrible. So physical contact is arbitrary as well.

quote:


That is why there is freedom of speech. Because you can't regulate speech based on what one person may or may not find offensive or be harmed by. We all have choices to make whether or not something offends us. To allow words from another to change our emotional or psychological state is not the fault of the speaker, but of ourselves.


Actually that is incorrect. It allows someone to say the most profane things, without the intervention of the government. It has nothing to do with the social and societal ramifications that may occur. So by your assertion here, anyone that has ever been emotionally and psychologically abused, via words, it is their fault? I doubt you would agree to that, but I am only using your assertion above. Do you see where the hypocricy starts to creep in?

quote:


That's why I don't care what people say about me. I've had some nasty arguments on this site and at the end, I click the lil' red X and it all goes away. I don't care what you try and insinuate about me here, it is meaningless in my mind. To give someone the power to change *me* simply by what they post here is to give away the majority of the power I hold over myself. And that's something I don't do for anyone.


I do not disagree with this, but I also do not expect everyone to be just like me. Even the law does not expect it, and draws a line somewhere. This is why there are defamation, slander and libel laws, not to mention some simple assault covers certain words ina certain context.

quote:


Your assertions about psychological and emotional harm being "ok" goes with the territory of free speech. If it did not, all of the censorship you see on radio and TV would be far worse, because some sniveling little worm in some quiet little corner of the country would make it so that their views about what should and should not be on TV. And that, friends, is fascism.


Yes it is part of the territory, but so is accepting of the consequences of our actions. Also, that is not facism. That word is so misused. If you would like a full essay on what facism is, I could likely recreate an old essay of mine for you. The state (which retains all rights) gives privileges to the citizens, and regulates them without the citizens having any rights. That is not involved here, it is just a catch phrase like calling someone a nazi used to be. Your example above is also very ludicrous and extreme, and you do not seem to be reading what I have written in it's entirety and context. This is not surprising though.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Loki45)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Taking a stand - 12/2/2009 8:25:23 PM   
Loki45


Posts: 2100
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
So is some physical contact. Ever watched NCIS?


Yep, I love that show. It's also fiction. Having been in the military, I can tell you that if anyone did what he did, they would not be in very long.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
If you had grown up in the area and sulture I did, then a few punches, black eye, or what have you is no big deal. To some it is horrible. So physical contact is arbitrary as well.


According to the law, it's not arbitrary. It's assault. Like it or not, no matter how you grew up, physical contact is assault. Hell, according to my school resource officer, spitting is technically considered assault.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Actually that is incorrect. It allows someone to say the most profane things, without the intervention of the government. It has nothing to do with the social and societal ramifications that may occur. So by your assertion here, anyone that has ever been emotionally and psychologically abused, via words, it is their fault? I doubt you would agree to that, but I am only using your assertion above. Do you see where the hypocricy starts to creep in?


That's exactly what I'm saying. If my being honest offends you, that's not my problem. I won't censor my views on the world because I think you might find them offensive. Like the saying goes "sometimes the truth hurts."

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Yes it is part of the territory, but so is accepting of the consequences of our actions. Also, that is not facism. That word is so misused. If you would like a full essay on what facism is, I could likely recreate an old essay of mine for you. The state (which retains all rights) gives privileges to the citizens, and regulates them without the citizens having any rights. That is not involved here, it is just a catch phrase like calling someone a nazi used to be. Your example above is also very ludicrous and extreme, and you do not seem to be reading what I have written in it's entirety and context. This is not surprising though.


Your views of acceptable consequences and my own differ. If I called a guy an asshole, a 'reasonable' consequence of that would be that he would not be my friend. That's his right and that's fully legal. If, however, he chooses to punch me in the face because I called him an asshole, that is a crime and that is not his right. His rights stop where my nose starts.


_____________________________

"'Till the roof comes off, 'till the lights go out
'Till my legs give out, can't shut my mouth."

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 49
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Taking a stand Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094