The insults don't serve you well

[SalixIncendium]

Standard?

Look, find me an author who has ideas they want to communicate, but doesn't take audience into account, and we can talk.

Straw man.

Please point out where I stated, or even implied, the speaker or author doesn't take the audience into account. You are intentionally misrepresenting my argument to support your statement.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yup. In RL I'm much ruder to people I like. I work with a lot of overseas people, and that approach does surprise them a little at first.

I accidentally scared a trainee I was supervising once, because she was so young and "innocent." Now she's harsher than I am.
They grow up so fast.

 

[SomeRandom]

Nice excuse.

Excuse for what? I am downright polite on RF compared to what I usually say. And that's to the people I love the most, never mind strangers.

But it's not the person's fault if someone outside of the conversation reacts badly to a mere word. Rudeness is in the eye of the beholder and something innocuous in one culture is akin to blasphemy to another. Again, not the person's fault necessarily.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People don't seem to understand that, when you post, your audience is the whole world, not just the one person. The whole world is seeing you be rude to someone. The whole world is watching you insult someone.

So it's important for us to only use insults appropriately and to be aware of the effect on the whole audience, not just the person we're addressing.

... but this is different from never using insults. There are times when insult is an inappropriate rhetorical tool and it's very possible to use the tool badly, but it's still a tool in the toolbox that has its place in the right circumstances.

 

[Kapalika]

People don't seem to understand that, when you post, your audience is the whole world, not just the one person. The whole world is seeing you be rude to someone. The whole world is watching you insult someone.

Holy crap, if I knew I could get so many ratings like that by making an easy post I would do it more often. I can write a sourced literal 1k word essay just for a single post and barely anyone even reads it.

In truth, it's not insulting people I'm worried about when it comes to my public image. It comes with the subject matter and territory I tread that I'm gonna in some way insult someone occasionally even when I don't mean to, but at least if I can't avoid it I do it preferably in a witty way.

EDIT: What I mean is, sometimes it's hard to not imply an insult without lying. Wit seems to make it more acceptable

 

[Kapalika]

So it's important for us to only use insults appropriately and to be aware of the effect on the whole audience, not just the person we're addressing.

... but this is different from never using insults. There are times when insult is an inappropriate rhetorical tool and it's very possible to use the tool badly, but it's still a tool in the toolbox that has its place in the right circumstances.

The only time I think insults 'work' is when it's used with some other tool... but then that tool alone would do the job. Insults seem to be emotional tools, not logical ones. Even if the insult is technically correct it doesn't really add substance to an argument, it just colors the presentation.

And usually not in a very productive way.

 

[LuisDantas]

Insults are not a good tool. But failing to establish a common level of communication with others is not a good tool, either.

Sometimes people aren't capable of doing anything better than toss their innards towards us, and that makes them unable of understanding anything at a more sophisticated level of expression.

That makes for a choice between wasting whatever attempts of common understanding had already been (not helpful) or lowering one and reacting in kind in the hopes that there will be some learning, expensive and wasteful as it may have been.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only time I think insults 'work' is when it's used with some other tool... but then that tool alone would do the job. Insults seem to be emotional tools, not logical ones.

Which is fine in and of itself. A debate isn't a formal logical proof. A bit of emotion for effect is fine.

Even if the insult is technically correct it doesn't really add substance to an argument, it just colors the presentation.

And usually not in a very productive way.

I'll give an example of what I'm talking about: in debates about Intelligent Design, the ID proponent often makes the argument that ID is a reasonable position that's worthy of respect. If you respond to this in a way that treats the ID proponent's position reasonably and respectfully, then you've conceded his point.

Yes, don't use emotion to cover up your lack of argument. Yes, don't be seen as overly aggressive or bullying. But as long as you back up your emotional appeals with facts and as long as you only "punch up" and don't overuse insult and ridicule, I don't think you should be afraid to use it when it's warranted.

 

[Revoltingest]

And what you gonna do about it, you lilly-livered wannabe French kilt-wearing Kelt!

I gave'r a frubal, ya ear hair collect'n, cracker eat'n, cat yodeler!

 

[Revoltingest]

So? Why should I care exactly? People ought to get a load of me in person. I tone things down for RF.

I read the OP as alerting posters to the fact that when I see insults,
most of the time, it makes the insulter look worse than the insultee.
(It's all about me, you know. Or should I say "aboot" since y'all are Canuckistanian.)
Everyone already has opinions about others, so an insult says nothing new aboot
the recipient. But if the insult is wrongful, erroneous, artless or petulant, then it
reflects poorly on the one who wields it....ya cape wear'n, flea bitten, super sissy!

 

[Kapalika]

Which is fine in and of itself. A debate isn't a formal logical proof. A bit of emotion for effect is fine.


I'll give an example of what I'm talking about: in debates about Intelligent Design, the ID proponent often makes the argument that ID is a reasonable position that's worthy of respect. If you respond to this in a way that treats the ID proponent's position reasonably and respectfully, then you've conceded his point.

Yes, don't use emotion to cover up your lack of argument. Yes, don't be seen as overly aggressive or bullying. But as long as you back up your emotional appeals with facts and as long as you only "punch up" and don't overuse insult and ridicule, I don't think you should be afraid to use it when it's warranted.

You don't have to insult intelligent design though to actually disprove that statement. Something can un-respectable in the sense of the word that it doesn't deserve recognition or consideration of the word. You don't have to call it stupid.

I guess I mostly try to avoid alienating anyone watching who might be on the fence by using less than polite words. So I tend to, if I say something that might be perceived as an insult to an idea particularly if doing so would make that person's identity feel threatened, find a better way to say what I really am thinking removed of the emotional response (which is often still critical). I can't convince anyone by being too brazen.

And why punch up? If insults are deemed okay why can't you punch down? What does that even mean to punch up

I think a debate SHOULD be at least semi-formal and rational with as little emotion as possible if someone wants to have a serious debate. Otherwise it easily becomes just everyday arguing. Many argue to argue but someone like me is a bit more socratic about stuff. You never know you might convince someone watching or even nudge the person you are debating.

At least that is what I think.

 

[idav]

I gave'r a frubal!

Y U sympathizing enablin flisce!

That's right, don't even bother looking it up, I called you a word that doesn't exist.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

So ... fake.

???

 

[BSM1]

Perhaps you underestimate everyone.

Yeah? Well....you're another...

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I gave'r a frubal, ya ear hair collect'n, cracker eat'n, cat yodeler!

Oh, and that makes everything all right? You numbskull of a ninnyhammerin' yokel!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Straw man.

Please point out where I stated, or even implied, the speaker or author doesn't take the audience into account. You are intentionally misrepresenting my argument to support your statement.

I'm not 'intentionally misrepresenting' a damn thing. If there is a gap in our understanding of each other, then fine.

As to my meaning, I was attempting to interpret this;

By artison, I'm guessing you are making an analogy for the speaker.

The speaker is solely responsible for what is said, not what is understood. Reaction is exclusively on the audience.

Preemptively, if room is left for interpretation, it's on the audience to ask for clarification. Their choice to do so or not falls on them.

This reads as if the sole responsibility of a speaker is to speak. That they bare no responsibility for the understanding of their audience. Equally, it suggests that the audience should ask for clarification if they do not find clear meaning.

This is simply wrong, in all sorts of ways.

As a teacher, my audience was paramount in my planning, as was proactive questioning so as to determine whether my words made sense, or required further clarification and contextualisation.
Any assumption that it's to the audience to seek clarification assumes that the audience is capable of determining when and where they have misunderstood intent, and further that they are able to frame effective questions to address this.

I have no idea why you believe this to be true, and allow for the fact that I may be misinterpreting your intent. So...as your 'audience'...could you please clarify what you mean, if I've not got the gist of it.

 

[idav]

That approach makes for terrible communication.

I see what your getting at but I don't think the poster meant the speaker wouldn't give clarification if asked. What the person says is responsible for what they say, that is true whether or not someone misinterpreted or not. I thought they were talking more about lurkers who will never jump on and go "hey what are you guys talking about?" when they may be jumping into a year long debate.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I see what your getting at but I don't think the poster meant the speaker wouldn't give clarification if asked. What the person says is responsible for what they say, that is true whether or not someone misinterpreted or not. I thought they were talking more about lurkers who will never jump on and go "hey what are you guys talking about?" when they may be jumping into a year long debate.

Yep, perhaps. I'll wait for @SalixIncendium to clarify. Perhaps their meaning was more specific to a situation, as you say.

 

[SalixIncendium]

This reads as if the sole responsibility of a speaker is to speak. That they bare no responsibility for the understanding of their audience. Equally, it suggests that the audience should ask for clarification if they do not find clear meaning.

So far, so good.

This is simply wrong, in all sorts of ways.

As a teacher, my audience was paramount in my planning, as was proactive questioning so as to determine whether my words made sense, or required further clarification and contextualisation.
Any assumption that it's to the audience to seek clarification assumes that the audience is capable of determining when and where they have misunderstood intent, and further that they are able to frame effective questions to address this.

I have no idea why you believe this to be true, and allow for the fact that I may be misinterpreting your intent. So...as your 'audience'...could you please clarify what you mean, if I've not got the gist of it.

Where you are going off the track in your assessment that what I said is wrong is in your assumption of the speaker's intent. You are assuming that given the audience's responsibility for understanding that the speaker is not being impeccable with his/her word.

I, too, am a teacher. I speak clearly and concisely. My words are planned before they are delivered. I am impeccable with my word. If I leave something open to interpretation, it is purely intentional and planned. My teaching style may be different than yours. I do not spoon-feed my audience. I speak in a fashion that requires the audience to think and give feedback. On occasion, I will add a bit of shock value to my words, which in my experience, helps the audience better retain the information.

That said, the audience is responsible for understanding the information provided. If something is left to interpretation, it is on the audience to think and give feedback as mentioned above. If someone is unclear about the information provided, it's on them to ask for clarification. It is their choice to give feedback or remain silent. The responsibility for the understanding of the information provided is theirs. I've done my job in the delivery and my response to any feedback or requests for clarification.

 

[England my lionheart]

People don't seem to understand that, when you post, your audience is the whole world, not just the one person. The whole world is seeing you be rude to someone. The whole world is watching you insult someone.

Sadly for some people its all they've got.