Chit-Chat: The Feels

[Eri]

2 hours ago, Yeah No said:

There is a difference between standing for something or not accepting something on the one hand, and ridiculing, shaming and not being civil to people. If you don't want them doing those things to you, don't do it to them, even if you think they deserve it. You only perpetuate vindictive conflict that way. It comes back to you. Better to work out our anger in therapy or with friends who agree with us rather than perpetuate the cycle of violence and bullying behavior by taking it out on others we don't agree with or find morally repugnant. No matter how offensive they are to us it isn't worth that. Do we really want to live in a world like that? I certainly don't. Better to channel one's energy in changing things for the better, not making them worse.

Unfortunately, I think the world has always been like this - especially in America. I know I've already brought this up but post-Civil War, communities were still being bullied out of opportunities to advance their livelihoods (even as far as under pain of death). During the Civil Rights Movement - churches were being bombed while people were "turning the other cheek." The status quo was being sprayed with hoses, beaten with clubs and sicc'ed on by attack dogs in your best Sunday clothes while you peacefully protested to advocate for your own humanity. You mentioned how many former generations of women of the past had to fight to vote, earn reproductive rights, etc. and even today we're going to be fighting a lot harder for the future (it is exhausting as I'm sure you're aware).

In an ideal situation, I would be delighted to envision a world where healthy children could thrive and grow in environments where everyone is treated equally with compassion rather than hostility. But history severely contradicts this. Where violence hasn't worked is in the state's response. THAT'S what begets more violence. Address peoples' issues/concerns and you won't have any problems.

Enjoy your holiday!

Edited 7 hours ago by Eri

[Palimelon]

Quote

Look, the Cybertruck has been an abomination since it was first announced on multiple levels. The fools who chose to purchase and drive one deserved to be shamed.

Amen.

Quote

Again, it continues to amaze me how Trump supporters go around all, "Fuck your feelings!" but the moment someone insults them or cuts ties with them over their shitty views they have a meltdown. 

This.

[Soapy Goddess]

13 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

 

Error...can't delete. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Soapy Goddess

[anony.miss]

52 minutes ago, Soapy Goddess said:

So mature.

In the face of all the insanity right now -  a sex trafficker having been nominated for AG, Nazis marching in Ohio, tariffs about to destroy the economy - Lantern7 calling out a cybertrucker strikes me as pretty restrained.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone - hope the day lands gently.

Edited 2 hours ago by anony.miss

[Yeah No]

5 hours ago, Makai said:

Morals aren’t universal so the boundaries of what I view to be morally reprehensible is likely to be different than what you view to be the boundaries. Without dealing in more specifics it is difficult to have a conversation about the issue. Are we talking online or in person? Is the response provoked or unprovoked? What kind of names? What do you view to be harassment? 

I don't have time to elaborate but verbal assault can be illegal depending on the type of action, the circumstances and the state. Per Google:

Quote

Yes, verbal assault can be a crime: 

Threatening violence

In every state, it's illegal to threaten violence, and this can lead to criminal charges. The threat must be credible to be considered a crime. 

Hate crime

Verbal assault can be a form of hate crime. 

Stalking

Repeated verbal abuse can be considered stalking, which is a crime in many places. Stalking includes following someone, contacting them, or posting about them in public. 

Intimidation

Verbal abuse can be considered intimidation if it causes fear of physical or mental harm. This includes cyberbullying, harassment, or molestation. 

Verbal abuse can also lead to civil torts, including assault or intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

If you're the victim of verbal assault, you should: 

Report it to the authorities immediately 

Inform them if you're concerned about your safety 

Seek help from a professional solicitor 

The consequences for verbal assault can vary depending on the circumstances and the state.

I've already listed the types of verbal insults and threats I'm talking about. I don't know how it matters where it happens but we were talking about calling someone an "asshole" to their face in person who's just driving a car someone associates with a political position they find offensive. The person has done nothing illegal or wrong to THEM personally and we don't even know that person's actual political affiliations (which shouldn't matter anyway). That to me is not justified. And depending on the severity and duration of the verbal abuse in the eyes of the law there may be legal consequences for that kind of behavior. Just because you think you occupy the moral high ground doesn't give you the right to threaten, intimidate, harass and insult people, especially when they have not done anything similar to you personally. And just doing it on the basis of your assumptions about them is not justified and can be a violation of THEIR rights.

[Yeah No]

5 hours ago, Makai said:

Morals aren’t universal so the boundaries of what I view to be morally reprehensible is likely to be different than what you view to be the boundaries. Without dealing in more specifics it is difficult to have a conversation about the issue. Are we talking online or in person? Is the response provoked or unprovoked? What kind of names? What do you view to be harassment? 

Also, whatever your morals are, the law and the American version of human rights is a thing and if you violate someone else's rights in the process, which can include being able to exist peacefully without being verbally insulted, name called and harassed to their faces, then your morals aren't what will be upheld here in the eyes of the law. Their right to peacefully exist will take precedence depending on how the law views the particular situation. If you hunt down and deny people their right to exist peacefully by calling them names and interfering with their lives in any big way just because you disagree with them, then this can apply. I'll have to save a personal example of this for another time.