Sign in to follow this  
Third Hour

Don’t Use “Being Offended Is a Choice!” as a Cop-Out

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Vort said:

It's a facile and ultimately false argument to maintain that those who are less kind online than in person are hypocrites.

If they already know how to be kind, why can't they be as kind online as they real life? I understand that some people just aren't nice people. For whatever reason they lack social skills, might just be shy, or might be abrasive and not know it

But if you know how to behave and choose not to, that's much worse. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, we all have our moments where we say things we probably shouldn't. Goodness knows I have. I'm talking about trolls who make fun of Sarah Palins son with Downs Syndrome, people who insult others they disagree with,  brutish, nasty people saying truly horrible things. In fact, we can include those who spout off about our religion under the cloak of anonymity here. All of us remember posters like that. 

To repeat myself (because I do not wish to be misunderstood) I'm not accusing anyone here of that behavior, certainly not @Vort, who I can't imagine saying or even thinking the things I described in the above paragraph. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vort said:

It's a facile and ultimately false argument to maintain that those who are less kind online than in person are hypocrites.

I understand what you're saying, but I think if someone in person professes to believe in Christ's teachings of kindness and respect toward others — or, to use Christ's example, they claim to refrain from calling their brother a fool — but then is belligerent online, that's hypocrisy. They're claiming to believe one thing, but living another. 

The argument MG was making, as I understood it, wasn't that someone is maybe a little less kind online than they are in person — something that doesn't necessarily constitute hypocrisy; the argument is that they are a totally different person online than they are in person. Claiming to be one way, then acting in a totally different manner in another setting, is hypocrisy. 

(To be fair, we're all hypocrites in our own way; we profess to believe in Christ's teachings, but we sin.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, amykeim said:

I understand what you're saying, but I think if someone in person professes to believe in Christ's teachings of kindness and respect toward others — or, to use Christ's example, they claim to refrain from calling their brother a fool — but then is belligerent online, that's hypocrisy. They're claiming to believe one thing, but living another. 

The argument MG was making, as I understood it, wasn't that someone is maybe a little less kind online than they are in person —

You're still trying to defend a position that was never stated.  He never say "be the same".  He never said "be consistent".  He only compared two conditions of being lopsided.  And he favored one over the other.

Quote

something that doesn't necessarily constitute hypocrisy; the argument is that they are a totally different person online than they are in person. Claiming to be one way, then acting in a totally different manner in another setting, is hypocrisy. 

(To be fair, we're all hypocrites in our own way; we profess to believe in Christ's teachings, but we sin.)

We are not hypocrites simply because we sin.  We are hypocrites because we fake it with an insistence that others respect us for our faking it.

The following is the definition of hypocrisy that I've always understood.

Quote

Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in a general sense, hypocrisy may involve dissimulation, pretense, or a sham

 -- Wikipedia

So, which is a more likely culprit?  The one who is rude in private, but polite in public?  Or polite in private and rude in public?

You're still trying to defend a position he never stated.  Nowhere did he say "be the same".  Nowhere did he say "be consistent."  He gave two options and preferred one over the other.  Even when I asked for clarification, he simply chose to repeat the same words without any clarification or exposition. 

You're trying to give him an out that didn't exist.

What kind of statement is that?  Of course we all agree that being nice all the time would be best.  And we (hopefully) agree that being rude all the time is bad.  But being falsely good in public when you're not so much in private is hypocritical and sometimes sinister.  Being good in private and rude in public is only human.

We'd all prefer us all to be angels.  In lieu of that, we can choose to be humans or devils.  I believe my option means we're human.  MG's option often makes us devils.  (I say "often" because I certainly understand @Vort's point about "acting the part").

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, amykeim said:

The argument MG was making, as I understood it, wasn't that someone is maybe a little less kind online than they are in person — something that doesn't necessarily constitute hypocrisy; the argument is that they are a totally different person online than they are in person. Claiming to be one way, then acting in a totally different manner in another setting, is hypocrisy. 

 

I'm honestly not sure where the problem is or how someone could misunderstand what I'm saying. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You were saying that you’re a fascist, right?

:satanflame:

He said it right here vvv

 

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I’m a fascist, hate babies, hate puppies, love gun control, love socialism, and love KISS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I'm honestly not sure where the problem is or how someone could misunderstand what I'm saying. 

When you write the exact opposite of what you later say what you meant, yeah, it gets confusing.  Let me show you what it sounds like on this side.

MG: I believe Trump is a racist.
Mo: So, you're saying that Trump believes his race is superior to other races and seeks to subjugate all other races besides his own?
Amy: I think what MG is saying is that Trump recognizes that there are multiple races in the world, and it would be better if we were all treated as equals.
MG: Exactly.
Mo: What?  Amy, that's isn't what he said.  "Racist" to me means that one is superior to other races.  MG, if you meant something else, then tell me what on earth you're trying to say. Because I'm having trouble believing you meant that.

Vort mentions something very profound and reasonable that might bridge the gap.  And I begin to consider that this might be what MG was alluding to.  Then...

MG: No, I don't mean that.  I meant that Trump is racist.
Amy: I get what you're saying.  But I think MG meant that we're all equal.

Mo:  My give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mores said:

When you write the exact opposite of what you later say what you meant, yeah, it gets confusing.  Let me show you what it sounds like on this side.

MG: I believe Trump is a racist.
Mo: So, you're saying that Trump believes his race is superior to other races and seeks to subjugate all other races besides his own?
Amy: I think what MG is saying is that Trump recognizes that there are multiple races in the world, and it would be better if we were all treated as equals.
MG: Exactly.
Mo: What?  Amy, that's isn't what he said.  "Racist" to me means that one is superior to other races.  MG, if you meant something else, then tell me what on earth you're trying to say. Because I'm having trouble believing you meant that.

Vort mentions something very profound and reasonable that might bridge the gap.  And I begin to consider that this might be what MG was alluding to.  Then...

MG: No, I don't mean that.  I meant that Trump is racist.
Amy: I get what you're saying.  But I think MG meant that we're all equal.

Mo:  My give up.

You're making this more complicated than it actually should be. Go re-read what @MormonGator actually wrote.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 9:28 AM, MormonGator said:

Eh, be however you want to, it's your life. If you (generic!) want to be abrasive and unpleasant, knock yourself out.

In fact, I have more respect for people who are obnoxious and rude in real life while being obnoxious and rude online. I have no respect for people who are keyboard warriors but meek and humble in their regular lives. 

@Mores From what I gather, you think Gator said he thinks it's better to be "A" in real life and "B" online than "B" in real life and "A" online.  When what he said was he respects people who are "A" online and in real life rather than "A" online and "B" in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 10:47 AM, estradling75 said:

Also note that most of our communication happens non-verbally (aka is more then the words we speak).  People who can't process the non-verbal cues (or struggle with them) are generally considered to have some form of social disorder.

On-line all non-verbal cues are stripped away.. leaving just the words.  Keyboard courage or keyboard warriors may be nothing of the sort.  They might be behaving exactly the same way... but without the non-verbal cues the words sound harsh and stark. 

For example, I was shocked the one time I met @estradling75 and he was actually a nice guy!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 3:46 PM, Vort said:

As a teenager, I complained to my mother about an older sibling's very obvious pretense of being all mature and grown-up. Mom told me something very wise that has stuck with me through my life: "Sometimes people need to fake being some way until they grow into it."

Everyone understands and approves of the idea of genuineness. But a patient man is often an impatient man who holds his tongue. A loving man is often an angry, uncharitable man who holds his temper. This is how we begin to act like Christ. I do not consider such sincere efforts to be hypocrisy; quite the opposite. And I do not believe that there is any virtue in being a jerk in person as well as online instead of only online.

In my experience, personal and otherwise, people who try to be kind in person eventually learn to try to extend that to their online persona. It's a facile and ultimately false argument to maintain that those who are less kind online than in person are hypocrites.

It's such a weird idea, isn't it, to imply that if someone is viewed as harsh (or as "garbage" as it was put) in their online  interactions that they don't deserve respect for trying to be polite in person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

For example, I was shocked the one time I met @estradling75 and he was actually a nice guy!! :D

There are quite a few people on this forum that I would like to meet in person, and estradling is in the top tier of that list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this