YOU FOOLISH PSEUDO JEDI

Gisteron wrote:

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: Suicide isn't the fault of the person who tells another to "f*** of and die" on an internet forum... in those words... and I do believe such a phrase should be permitted. What I understand to be malicious is continual harassment of a person, especially after the person has made it clear they can't handle more.

Sure, that person could just hit the ignore button or leave the site but they rarely will. They are already too emotionally drawn in and aren't thinking rationally. Is this the fault of the one harassing?

No, but nor is it the person's fault that the harasser feels compelled to continue on after having been informed clearly and believably that it has been quite enough alread and that no good is to come of a continuation of that harassment. Are they allowed to keep saying the phrase? Yes, technically. Should they be forbidden from so doing? That is a very slippery slope to start on. I think we can agree on both points here. First, that the "legal" non-prohibition against phrase should not be lifted just because someone in particular feels driven to arbitrary measures of self-harm because of it, but secondly, that there is hardly a case to be made as to why morally speaking the harasser should carry on pursuing the harassee, at least without further context to justify or compel such action.

Harassment is specific though, and should be clearly defined on a digital platform. Most forums and chats are ridiculously vague, including this one.

I'll bite: How would you define ban worthy harassment in no uncertain terms?

rugadd wrote: I'll bite: How would you define ban worthy harassment in no uncertain terms?

When it becomes threatening to livelihood, property, or person. In other words, when threats are involved.

I like that. Do you suppose a case can be made that words can harm a person?

rugadd wrote: I like that. Do you suppose a case can be made that words can harm a person?

I'm sure one could but I think that would once again remove personal responsibility. Just as the guy who kills himself is responsible for his suicide, the person who shoots up a school because "internet meanies", likewise is responsible for his actions.

I tend to agree with what you said above, however, I want to go down the rabbit hole here a bit. Could you please define livelihood?

Much Love,
Kobos

Phoenix Vidensia wrote:

rugadd wrote: I'll bite: How would you define ban worthy harassment in no uncertain terms?

When it becomes threatening to livelihood, property, or person. In other words, when threats are involved.

My feelings are just as much a part of me as my toes. This could be interpreted as saying anyone should be banned for the slightest offense to someone else's ideals. Surely this is not what you meant is it (I doubt it is)? Because if so, I feel it might be to extreme.

Warmed_By_Chai wrote:

Phoenix Vidensia wrote:

rugadd wrote: I'll bite: How would you define ban worthy harassment in no uncertain terms?

When it becomes threatening to livelihood, property, or person. In other words, when threats are involved.

My feelings are just as much a part of me as my toes. This could be interpreted as saying anyone should be banned for the slightest offense to someone else's ideals. Surely this is not what you meant is it (I doubt it is)? Because if so, I feel it might be to extreme.

Very awesome Chai. I ask livelihood's definition for this reason. Are feelings not a part of mental health? I would assume that someone with constantly hurt feelings is likely to have declining mental health, or to already have symptoms of mental issue (I.E. depression, anxiety, grief.) I used the term mental issues in order to be certain there is no direction towards mental illness (I.E. Cylincal Depression, GAD, PSTD ect.) Issues can be temporary as an extended response to certain stimuli. Now to have the feelings hurt is occasionally is actually quite natural. So, to are these issues as we pass through life, I have no doubt that almost every person has felt an extended period of each of these issues just as we have possibly felt extended periods of happiness, euphoria, and peace.

Sometimes internally in us we have to ask that why there. So, we may grow stronger or understand that this feeling is right to have (in the purest sense justified if you will), from there though there is some resposnibility to the self to respond accordingly. In some point if someone steps hard on my toes both in accidents and on purpose, I am going to start moving my toes more (this could be considered emotional toughness in these cases) and also begin to try and register why this person (words or idea/topic in this context) is hurting my toes to respond accordingly. When someone continues to stomp my toes repeatedly and I have no way to defend myself. This might be where I lash out, or where I begin to truly feel hate for that person because their actions are now intentional. Now the question becomes where do we make this determination of intention. This is where feelings get tricky, how do we judge this? Everyone has different levels of emotional toughness on different issues, making this issue even more complicated.

I can see where this is hard for a mod as they have to assume this from the third person, IMHO this is where communication between all parties becomes crucial in an online forum as such.

IRL if someone continues to stomp on my toes, eventually I am going to directly tell that person if it happens again while I am trying to avoid it I will respond in defense as I don't see toe smashing as a reason to appeal to authority. Probably through limited non injuring incapacitation (on some level this is intimidation which I dislike), but I will only do that so many times before I finally respond in a way that will ensure it does not happen again via injuring incapacitation (I really dislike hurting people but have seen cases where it becomes a viable option.) Ironically giving the original offender reason to appeal to authority/the automatic appeal to authority via violence. Sorry I went kinda far down the rabbit whole on this one and I'm still chewing on it a bit.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Kobos wrote: I tend to agree with what you said above, however, I want to go down the rabbit hole here a bit. Could you please define livelihood?

Much Love,
Kobos

Ability to support oneself financially.

Phoenix Vidensia wrote:

Kobos wrote: I tend to agree with what you said above, however, I want to go down the rabbit hole here a bit. Could you please define livelihood?

Much Love,
Kobos

Ability to support oneself financially.

Would mental health fall into this? Simply because could one suffer financial hardship due to their mental health? How then do we judge this?

Is finance the only way to measure liveliness?

Much Love,
Kobos