Historically, leaving it up to the comedians, humorists, satirists, and so on to point out deficiencies in humanity was always the most productive approach to pointing out problems and helping people realize whatever exists and it's fucked up. It's all in the delivery. Bitching, moaning, hating, complaining, pointing fingers; breeds more of the same and goes nowhere. Once people can laugh at themselves, then you know they've come to terms with their own malfunctions and would be more susceptible to change.
You make a good point. By making people laugh at themselves or a situation they let their guard down and perhaps are more receptive to looking at things honestly and perhaps seize the opportunity to grow and change by learning.
I am also glad you answered the why. People are not always allowed to ask questions so they can learn from others.
One of the biggest problems today is they we have many more ways of connecting, but we are more isolated due to the lack of civility and opportunity to ask why without being yelled at or made fun of.
Polite human interactions might as well be on the endangered species list.
I've noticed how asking a question is converted into an insult by the one being questioned and the response is rarely a straight answer. Tough questions get ignored. And sometimes when people don't understand or misinterpret, rather than asking questions, they'll simply fill in the blanks, create their own conclusions out of thin air, then run with it. That often creates confusion and disagreements by default since the clarification that should have come first, comes last.
You mentioned politeness but in this day and age, especially online, the simple act of saying something someone doesn't want to hear is seen as impolite. Asking questions is erroneously converted into bullying; and before you know it there's an entire mob beating you with word sticks for being different. And once you're down and out, they go back to pretending to be the saviors of humanity, standing up for the disadvantaged from the comfort of their own devices.
Do you think you could stop me from shoving my dick down your throat?
I don't really want an answer to that question... that is, unless you feel compelled to do so. It's just my unusual way of pointing out that, in all likelihood, most people would agree that there is a line, beyond which a word exchange is of palpable "negative value".
You could argue that majority consensus isn't of value when determining what is of true value, relative to _______ (uncovering truth, positively evolving, etc.), but, if that's the case, you really shouldn't be surprised when you get general backlash, and perhaps a few swift jabs to rib-cage, from the peanut gallery, who happen to be the people that society bends its big, stinky ass to.
The Jesus of Great Holy Bibble-babble, er Holy Bible, if nothing else, is a fairly accurate representation of what happens to people who dare to press on in their questioning of the status quo.
Truly smart people distance themselves from that type of activity, despite their burning desire to rip a stinky truth bomb for humanity to incessantly suffer for, as their collective noses soak up its dank, putrid realness.
I've noticed how asking a question is converted into an insult by the one being questioned
I think that one thing we all would benefit from, is to give people the benefit of the doubt, in terms of assuming, at least initially, that the question was asked in earnest, not in spite.
It's tough I know, with variations in levels of roughness of response based perhaps on regional norms, and various levels of proficiency with the language of discourse.
But if you assume the worst, it colors your perception of all replies. But if you assume the best or at least neutrality, I think it changes the tone of the replies.
Especially online we have to take care to remember tone and body language is missing from the equation. But also, we can't have a bunch of pansies running around trying to figure things out.
That line could be taken harshly, or humorously, seriously. That's kind of a pain in the butt.
Thanks for asking! That's so unusual these days.
Historically, leaving it up to the comedians, humorists, satirists, and so on to point out deficiencies in humanity was always the most productive approach to pointing out problems and helping people realize whatever exists and it's fucked up. It's all in the delivery. Bitching, moaning, hating, complaining, pointing fingers; breeds more of the same and goes nowhere. Once people can laugh at themselves, then you know they've come to terms with their own malfunctions and would be more susceptible to change.
You make a good point. By making people laugh at themselves or a situation they let their guard down and perhaps are more receptive to looking at things honestly and perhaps seize the opportunity to grow and change by learning.
I am also glad you answered the why. People are not always allowed to ask questions so they can learn from others.
One of the biggest problems today is they we have many more ways of connecting, but we are more isolated due to the lack of civility and opportunity to ask why without being yelled at or made fun of.
Polite human interactions might as well be on the endangered species list.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I've noticed how asking a question is converted into an insult by the one being questioned and the response is rarely a straight answer. Tough questions get ignored. And sometimes when people don't understand or misinterpret, rather than asking questions, they'll simply fill in the blanks, create their own conclusions out of thin air, then run with it. That often creates confusion and disagreements by default since the clarification that should have come first, comes last.
You mentioned politeness but in this day and age, especially online, the simple act of saying something someone doesn't want to hear is seen as impolite. Asking questions is erroneously converted into bullying; and before you know it there's an entire mob beating you with word sticks for being different. And once you're down and out, they go back to pretending to be the saviors of humanity, standing up for the disadvantaged from the comfort of their own devices.
Do you think you could stop me from shoving my dick down your throat?
I don't really want an answer to that question... that is, unless you feel compelled to do so. It's just my unusual way of pointing out that, in all likelihood, most people would agree that there is a line, beyond which a word exchange is of palpable "negative value".
You could argue that majority consensus isn't of value when determining what is of true value, relative to _______ (uncovering truth, positively evolving, etc.), but, if that's the case, you really shouldn't be surprised when you get general backlash, and perhaps a few swift jabs to rib-cage, from the peanut gallery, who happen to be the people that society bends its big, stinky ass to.
The Jesus of Great Holy Bibble-babble, er Holy Bible, if nothing else, is a fairly accurate representation of what happens to people who dare to press on in their questioning of the status quo.
Truly smart people distance themselves from that type of activity, despite their burning desire to rip a stinky truth bomb for humanity to incessantly suffer for, as their collective noses soak up its dank, putrid realness.
I wouldn't walk into a Burger King and ask for a Big Mac though. Of course if you play stupid games, you'll win stupid prizes.
But maybe those "stupid prizes" are the key to another, far superior universe. One can never know these things... unless...
No stones unturned.
Everyone was wrong when they made their first assumption about anything, in the grandest game of all.
It's wise to ask questions. But if you think you know the answer before asking, then you may as well just place a period at the end and call it a day.
Nothing wrong with being wrong. That's usually just the most common side effect we all suffer from when believing we're right.
This is important to me:
I think that one thing we all would benefit from, is to give people the benefit of the doubt, in terms of assuming, at least initially, that the question was asked in earnest, not in spite.
It's tough I know, with variations in levels of roughness of response based perhaps on regional norms, and various levels of proficiency with the language of discourse.
But if you assume the worst, it colors your perception of all replies. But if you assume the best or at least neutrality, I think it changes the tone of the replies.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Especially online we have to take care to remember tone and body language is missing from the equation. But also, we can't have a bunch of pansies running around trying to figure things out.
That line could be taken harshly, or humorously, seriously. That's kind of a pain in the butt.
LOL ! 😂
It illustrates your point perfectly.
I tip my hat to you, you are a master linguist.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta