1911: Defensive Profile

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

1911: Defensive Profile

Postby markfiend » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:22 pm UTC

Image

Title Text:
NO DRAMA ZONE -> If I've made you sad, you'd better not tell me, because I am TERRIFIED of that situation and have NO IDEA how to handle it.


Randall trolling the deplorables again?
Attoc dna Sublab evol eht teews secoiv fo eht slrug
pronouns: he/him/his

Wooloomooloo
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:05 am UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Wooloomooloo » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:32 pm UTC

I must have a different locale set - my translation reads "I have 99 problems, but you getting offended by something I said is never going to be one of them. Deal with it. Your problem. Not mine."...

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby markfiend » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:41 pm UTC

Wooloomooloo wrote:I must have a different locale set - my translation reads "I have 99 problems, but you getting offended by something I said is never going to be one of them. Deal with it. Your problem. Not mine."...

Which, in turn, translates as Randall's third frame.
Attoc dna Sublab evol eht teews secoiv fo eht slrug
pronouns: he/him/his

User avatar
pkcommando
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:22 pm UTC
Location: Allston, MA

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby pkcommando » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:45 pm UTC

Oddly, I more typically see this sort of thing with people who need you to know about - and congratulate them on - their apparent unwillingness to care what others think of them. It usually translates as: "My sense of self-worth is tied to the praise and approval of others. FEED ME!!!"

I'm not sure if that's better or worse.
"The Universe is for raptors now!" say Raptors, as they take over all of Universe.

FOARP
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:36 am UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby FOARP » Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:30 pm UTC

Stuff like this I usually take as meaning the same thing as "I don't suffer fools gladly", which translates as "People think I'm a colossal asshole and they're probably right".

However:

1) There are people who are easily offended

2) If you spend your life worrying about what easily-offended people think or why they get offended, you are going to be very frustrated and angry a lot of the time because you will have continually deal with BS from people who take offence for no logical reason.

3) Therefore, there is a minimum level of offense that everyone has to be capable of dismissing.

This is especially the case as the internet allows people to gravitate towards others who are similarly-minded, so there exist groups (however loosely defined) that are more easily offended than others, and if you attract the attention of one of these groups then you'll be inundated with people taking offence at everything you say.

Apeiron
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:34 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby Apeiron » Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:35 pm UTC

Randall Monroe is better than you.

Offense is only offered, it's up to you to take it or reject it. You don't have to be offended.
People are usually most offended by things they fear are true... or that are true.


Would you like this fresh squeezed turd?
a) Yes. I must seize it and keep it forever!
b) No.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:37 pm UTC

Apeiron wrote:Randall Monroe is better than you.

Well, he's better than assholes who think that lack of empathy is a virtue.

FOARP
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:36 am UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby FOARP » Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:05 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:
Apeiron wrote:Randall Monroe is better than you.

Well, he's better than assholes who think that lack of empathy is a virtue.


But clearly having too much empathy would be debilitating.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:22 pm UTC

Of course. I certainly wouldn't object to the idea that there are time where it's not only ok but necessary to not care if you offend a specific person or group of people. But a generalized, blanket lack of care? That's quite toxic.

Kit.
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Kit. » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:02 pm UTC

I don't understand a lot of things, but I don't need to convince myself that's OK, so I don't put such silly stuff in my profiles.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Flumble » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:05 pm UTC

How come Randall ends up on that side of the internet? I'm not a facebook or google person, yet I'm in a happy little internet bubble where this type of writing doesn't exist.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3913
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:06 pm UTC

Given that it doesn't seem so controversial here (so far) to admit that there exist some people who are too easily offended, it doesn't seem a far stretch to imagine that people who are too-frequently in the company of such people might reasonably adopt a defensive posture of no longer caring about offending people. Sort of a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. Cry too often and people stop listening.
Last edited by Pfhorrest on Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2695
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby orthogon » Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:16 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Given that it doesn't seem so uncontroversial here (so far) to admit that there exist some people who are too easily offended [...]

I'm having trouble parsing that - do you mean that we broadly agree that such people exist? If so, I think there might be an extra negative, but it's Friday evening and my brain is a bit frazzled! :wink:
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3913
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

You are correct, the ‘un’ was in error. Will edit.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Zinho
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:23 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Zinho » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:12 pm UTC

Apeiron wrote:Offense is only offered, it's up to you to take it or reject it.
I try not to take a fence if I don't have to; the one around my yard is already long enough.

Silliness aside, my favorite quote on this subject goes:
Brigham Young wrote:He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.
People who aren't intending to offend me are easy to deal with. The ones intentionally pushing my buttons to provoke a reaction are the ones that really try my patience. I've found that calmly pointing out that the person is being offensive and asking if they're doing it on purpose is a good way to tell the two groups apart. [1] Not that someone being intentionally offensive will admit it, but the unintentional ones generally apologize and/or stop. If they don't stop, I know it's time to shift gears in how I deal with them.


[1] I'm not the most socially adept guy around, so I favor the direct approach.

gormster
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:43 am UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby gormster » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:14 pm UTC

Apeiron wrote:Offense is only offered, it's up to you to take it or reject it. You don't have to be offended.


Why do people think this? Why on earth would anyone choose to be offended by something? It's a bad feeling. It's like those people who tell depressed people to "just cheer up" and "you're choosing to be miserable". Motherfucker I cannot control how I feel, that's almost the definition of a feeling.
Eddie Izzard wrote:And poetry! Poetry is a lot like music, only less notes and more words.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3913
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:40 pm UTC

Zinho wrote:Not that someone being intentionally offensive will admit it,

I obviously can't speak for anyone but myself, but on the odd occasion that I intentionally try to offend someone, I have no qualms about admitting it either, because in that case they have done something to anger me and I am intentionally trying to hurt them so as to dissuade that behavior in the future. Coyly pretending to have only accidentally offended would defeat the purpose of that, like punishing someone and telling them that you are not punishing them, so they don't know even what it is to not do to avoid punishment in the future.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Steve the Pocket » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:17 am UTC

One of my favorite quotes from a random internet conversation, and I wish I'd saved the exact quote and source like the others, went something like this: "There's a word for people who genuinely don't care what anyone else thinks about them: they're called sociopaths."
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

Kit.
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby Kit. » Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:11 am UTC

gormster wrote:Why do people think this? Why on earth would anyone choose to be offended by something? It's a bad feeling. It's like those people who tell depressed people to "just cheer up" and "you're choosing to be miserable". Motherfucker I cannot control how I feel, that's almost the definition of a feeling.

You can control how you feel; that's what your prefrontal cortex is for.

And it's trainable.

FOARP
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:36 am UTC

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby FOARP » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:11 pm UTC

gormster wrote:
Apeiron wrote:Offense is only offered, it's up to you to take it or reject it. You don't have to be offended.


Why do people think this? Why on earth would anyone choose to be offended by something? It's a bad feeling. It's like those people who tell depressed people to "just cheer up" and "you're choosing to be miserable". Motherfucker I cannot control how I feel, that's almost the definition of a feeling.


1) Being angry isn't necessarily a bad feeling for everyone.

2) Indeed, there are people who enjoy being angry.

3) Taking offence is a justification for anger.

Does it really surprise you that there are people who, consciously or not, choose to take offence?

User avatar
jordan
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:41 pm UTC
Location: Coventry

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby jordan » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:37 pm UTC

Apeiron wrote:People are usually most offended by things they fear are true... or that are true.


In my experience, people are usually most offended by things that are really offensive.

User avatar
jordan
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:41 pm UTC
Location: Coventry

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby jordan » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:35 pm UTC

Personally, I appreciate it when people feel the need to declare they are no-drama. It's a good signal that, sans investment, they will be self-interested with respect to interpersonal dynamics and problems. I find them easy to handle: I don't approach them with my personal issues and focus our relationship on mutual goals.

That said, some no-drama people are just selfish, and by "drama" they mean things not going their way. They tend to create drama then refuse to deal with it maturely. I've learned to avoid them; there is no point building bridges that you expect to soon be burned.

(I'm not a no-drama person. I'm generally calm but am too compassionate to dismiss people for being stressed or upset. Something I have learned from my no-drama friends is that I have finite time and emotional energy, and sometimes I have to consider my own needs or be selective about who I can support on an ongoing basis.)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2695
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby orthogon » Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:13 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
gormster wrote:Why do people think this? Why on earth would anyone choose to be offended by something? It's a bad feeling. It's like those people who tell depressed people to "just cheer up" and "you're choosing to be miserable". Motherfucker I cannot control how I feel, that's almost the definition of a feeling.

You can control how you feel; that's what your prefrontal cortex is for.

And it's trainable.

I was going to say something like this - I'm not convinced that you can prevent the instant, instinctive emotional reaction, but you can choose either to let negative emotions dissipate or to encourage them. I can never remember which brain area is which, but there's definitely a positive feedback loop between your conscious thoughts and your emotions. I'm not saying it's easy, and it's more a case of managing or influencing than outright controlling, but as Kit says, it is something that you can get better at. In quite different ways, CBT and meditation are both about doing this.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Draconaes
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:20 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Draconaes » Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:47 pm UTC

Personally, I care a great deal who I offend. I want to be sure I'm offending the right people, after all: better my enemies than my allies.

FOARP
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:36 am UTC

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby FOARP » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:09 pm UTC

jordan wrote:
Apeiron wrote:People are usually most offended by things they fear are true... or that are true.


In my experience, people are usually most offended by things that are really offensive.


Really? Have you taken a look at Twitter or the average tabloid newspaper?

orthogon wrote:
Kit. wrote:
gormster wrote:Why do people think this? Why on earth would anyone choose to be offended by something? It's a bad feeling. It's like those people who tell depressed people to "just cheer up" and "you're choosing to be miserable". Motherfucker I cannot control how I feel, that's almost the definition of a feeling.

You can control how you feel; that's what your prefrontal cortex is for.

And it's trainable.

I was going to say something like this - I'm not convinced that you can prevent the instant, instinctive emotional reaction, but you can choose either to let negative emotions dissipate or to encourage them. I can never remember which brain area is which, but there's definitely a positive feedback loop between your conscious thoughts and your emotions. I'm not saying it's easy, and it's more a case of managing or influencing than outright controlling, but as Kit says, it is something that you can get better at. In quite different ways, CBT and meditation are both about doing this.


And just as you can train yourself to less easily take offence, some people train themselves to take offence.

Mikeski
Posts: 871
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby Mikeski » Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:24 pm UTC

jordan wrote:In my experience, people are usually most offended by things that are really offensive.

On the Devil's Advocate side, I offer the very existence of the term "microaggression".

I further offer the fact that the term "microaggression" has made it into both Merriam-Webster and The Oxford English Dictionary. When the word for "[giving offense] subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally" (M-W) is in your official dictionaries, it's a pretty mainstream concept.

Mutex
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Mutex » Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:42 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
jordan wrote:In my experience, people are usually most offended by things that are really offensive.

On the Devil's Advocate side, I offer the very existence of the term "microaggression".

I further offer the fact that the term "microaggression" has made it into both Merriam-Webster and The Oxford English Dictionary. When the word for "[giving offense] subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally" (M-W) is in your official dictionaries, it's a pretty mainstream concept.

What part of jordan's post is at odds with the fact "microaggression" is in the dictionary?

It seems like the exchange just went:

jordan: "People are usually offended by really offensive things"
Mikeski: "There is evidence people are sometimes offended by more subtle things"

Mikeski
Posts: 871
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Mikeski » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:01 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:What part of jordan's post is at odds with the fact "microaggression" is in the dictionary?

The reading-between-the-lines part.

Mutex wrote:jordan: "People are usually offended by really offensive things"

Unless you think his purpose was to make a pointlessly tautological statement along the lines of "most people consider very heavy things to be heavy"... if so, please read my reply through the same sort of filter and it will make exactly as much sense.

Mutex
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Mutex » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:07 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
Mutex wrote:What part of jordan's post is at odds with the fact "microaggression" is in the dictionary?

The reading-between-the-lines part.

Mutex wrote:jordan: "People are usually offended by really offensive things"

Unless you think his purpose was to make a pointlessly tautological statement along the lines of "most people consider very heavy things to be heavy"... if so, please read my reply through the same sort of filter and it will make exactly as much sense.

I took it to mean the majority of the time someone is offended, it's for good reason than because of some imagined slight. What did you read it to mean?

Also, assuming someone meant what they said isn't a "filter".

Kit.
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby Kit. » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:22 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:On the Devil's Advocate side, I offer the very existence of the term "microaggression".

Is the term "cooties" also the Devil's invention?

User avatar
jordan
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:41 pm UTC
Location: Coventry

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby jordan » Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:46 pm UTC

FOARP/Mikeski—hope you don't mind me replying to you both together. :)

First—my reply was a tad flip. :wink: The post I replied to made an assertion which I consider to be counterfactual and implied rather more besides.

FOARP wrote:Really? Have you taken a look at Twitter or the average tabloid newspaper?


The average person spends comparatively little time on social media or reading tabloids. More of their time is spent around other people—family, friends, coworkers, retail staff, strangers on the subway. Their main sources of offence are other people saying or doing offensive things.

People do get offended by things they read or hear about. Usually, this is other people saying or doing offensive things—at least, based on the narrative they accept and their personal values.

Mikeski wrote:On the Devil's Advocate side, I offer the very existence of the term "microaggression"[…]


The micro is significant: they are small things people do or say. People rarely bite your head off over them, though exceptions exist.

Like… some friends assume I'm interested in "girly" stuff because I'm gay. That's a classic "microaggression". It irks me and I might correct them, but I'm nice about it and don't waste time being annoyed at them! I'd would be upset if they missed me from a social event, though. I'd be angry if I was denied goods or services. I'd be incensed if I were skipped over for a promotion.

I think most people can agree that these are proportionate emotional responses. I'm not exceptional in this respect. Most people get more upset by more offensive things. Actual aggressions are more offensive than microaggressions.
Last edited by jordan on Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:22 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
jordan
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:41 pm UTC
Location: Coventry

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby jordan » Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:20 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
Mutex wrote:What part of jordan's post is at odds with the fact "microaggression" is in the dictionary?

The reading-between-the-lines part.

Mutex wrote:jordan: "People are usually offended by really offensive things"

Unless you think his purpose was to make a pointlessly tautological statement along the lines of "most people consider very heavy things to be heavy"... if so, please read my reply through the same sort of filter and it will make exactly as much sense.


I fully understand and appreciate you reading between-the-lines, but in this instance Mutex's reading is more correct.

My reply disputed the assertion that people are most offended by things they fear or know to be true. I considered it a dubious point that ignores the majority of actual offence people experience. You're right that it's tautological, but hopeful not pointless; evidently someone disagreed, thus my reply. :)

chrisjwmartin
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:01 am UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby chrisjwmartin » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:12 pm UTC

I'm surprised that Randall launched such a direct attack on Obama. "No Drama Obama", as he has often called himself, is surely the most famous person to describe themselves so frequently as being "No Drama". For Randall to say that Obama is "terrified of [making people sad] and has no idea how to handle it" - well, that is a big turnaround.

Mutex
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Mutex » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:19 pm UTC

As far as I can tell from a quick search, Obama was called that because:

Wikipedia wrote:for his cautious and meticulous presidential campaign in 2007–08[121] and for his patient, relaxed demeanor[122]


Rather than because he didn't know how to handle upsetting people.

FOARP
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:36 am UTC

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby FOARP » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:45 pm UTC

jordan wrote:FOARP/Mikeski—hope you don't mind me replying to you both together. :)

First—my reply was a tad flip. :wink: The post I replied to made an assertion which I consider to be counterfactual and implied rather more besides.

FOARP wrote:Really? Have you taken a look at Twitter or the average tabloid newspaper?


The average person spends comparatively little time on social media or reading tabloids. More of their time is spent around other people—family, friends, coworkers, retail staff, strangers on the subway. Their main sources of offence are other people saying or doing offensive things.

People do get offended by things they read or hear about. Usually, this is other people saying or doing offensive things—at least, based on the narrative they accept and their personal values.


Not sure this is really true. Firstly the comic is clearly commenting about personal offence in the context of social media (it clearly shows a social-media profile) and not necessarily generally. Secondly, how often do you or the people you know encounter something offensive whilst walking around the street versus offensive things in the media? See how much "this offends me" commentary there is on social media versus that which one sees in ordinary conversation.

Sure, this is annecdata, but there have actually been studies showing that people are more offended by what they see on social media that even stuff experienced first-hand (looking for a link to the article in which I read this but can't find it).

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:48 pm UTC

Apeiron wrote:Randall Monroe is better than you.

Offense is only offered, it's up to you to take it or reject it. You don't have to be offended.
People are usually most offended by things they fear are true... or that are true.

And your posting history suggests that you're most offended by comics you interpret as "Randall Monroe is better than you".

So it's interesting for you to finally admit explicitly that you (perhaps correctly) fear that this is true...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Mutex
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby Mutex » Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:54 pm UTC

It's certainly interesting seeing the people who were rattled by this comic.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1911: Defensive Profile

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:43 pm UTC

chrisjwmartin wrote:I'm surprised that Randall launched such a direct attack on Obama. "No Drama Obama", as he has often called himself, is surely the most famous person to describe themselves so frequently as being "No Drama". For Randall to say that Obama is "terrified of [making people sad] and has no idea how to handle it" - well, that is a big turnaround.

Mutex wrote:As far as I can tell from a quick search, Obama was called that because:

Wikipedia wrote:for his cautious and meticulous presidential campaign in 2007–08[121] and for his patient, relaxed demeanor[122]


Rather than because he didn't know how to handle upsetting people.

Yeah, and importantly that's what other people called Obama, whereas the comic is about people who declare themselves and their own spaces to allow "no drama".
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Zinho
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:23 pm UTC

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby Zinho » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:32 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
Zinho wrote:Not that someone being intentionally offensive will admit it,
I obviously can't speak for anyone but myself, but on the odd occasion that I intentionally try to offend someone, I have no qualms about admitting it either, because in that case they have done something to anger me and I am intentionally trying to hurt them so as to dissuade that behavior in the future. Coyly pretending to have only accidentally offended would defeat the purpose of that, like punishing someone and telling them that you are not punishing them, so they don't know even what it is to not do to avoid punishment in the future.
Not what I had in mind, but point well taken. The denialists I was describing are typically bullies who know they're being offensive but don't want to get in trouble for it. The typical response to being called out on it is taking a defensive stance, claiming that they did nothing wrong. In grade school this was followed by counter-accusations of "don't be a crybaby".

FOARP wrote:. . . the comic is clearly commenting about personal offence in the context of social media (it clearly shows a social-media profile) and not necessarily generally. Secondly, how often do you or the people you know encounter something offensive whilst walking around the street versus offensive things in the media? See how much "this offends me" commentary there is on social media versus that which one sees in ordinary conversation.

Sure, this is annecdata, but there have actually been studies showing that people are more offended by what they see on social media that even stuff experienced first-hand (looking for a link to the article in which I read this but can't find it).
I think you're right that people are, in general, much less likely to do something overtly offensive in person than they would be with miles of ethernet cable buffering them from the consequences of their statements. On the other hand, I had someone spit at me out their car window this weekend, presumable because I was wearing a Boy Scout uniform at the time. [1]

My personal theory about people who go about offending people on purpose is that it's a power play, an attempt to exert social dominance. Getting the person you offend to lose their cool and make a scene is a "win" for the offender. People who do this are jerks, but can get away with it if they're in good social standing otherwise. I also think the microaggression crowd is attempting to turn the tables on the situation, tearing down the power of the offensive jerks by giving them the label they deserve, and gaining social dominance over the jerks in the process. This becomes a problem when they start turning that weapon on would-be allies instead of the social untouchables that truly need the treatment. It's understandable and unfortunate that the well-meaning allies are both closer and softer targets than the well-placed sociopaths.

[1] kudos to everyone who already pointed out that anger is a choice. I didn't have control over the surprise at being spat at, nor the amusement of realizing that most of his spit landed on his own car (and none on me); anger (and being offended) is a secondary emotion, and I have control over that. I acknowledge the disrespect he intended for me and my uniform, and decided I had better things to spend my energy on than being angry at a jerk spitting on his own car.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3913
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1911: Virtue Signalling Volume 7

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:00 am UTC

Zinho wrote:My personal theory about people who go about offending people on purpose is that it's a power play, an attempt to exert social dominance. Getting the person you offend to lose their cool and make a scene is a "win" for the offender.

Weirdly enough, I sometimes manage to turn that into a defense against offense. On rare occasion, someone I don't know or remember will yell something or make some insulting gesture or something to me, like out of a passing car or something. I usually have pretty bad anger management, but fortunately for me in a situation like that my first response is to think "I must have done something to really piss that person I don't remember off sometime. I'm confident enough that I'm only an asshole to random people who were already being assholes first that this person is probably some random asshole who I gave well-due shit to some time for doing something assholish. And they're still pissed about it. Good. They probably deserve it." And I stay calm, and some asshole is having a bad day just because they remembered I exist.

In general, if the other person in a conflict is upset, it helps me stay calm, because I feel like the deep impetus of anger displays in me is to try to convey the seriousness of a grievance when other, calmer methods have failed. So if they're pissed off too, awesome, now we're communicating and I'm not just falling on deaf ears, and maybe this is the first step toward talking considerately about things.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests