Are Insults Legal?

[Jennywocky]

That is correct. One would think they are deliberately trying to muff it.

When you can't fly first class, I guess you're stuck taking cooch instead.

 

[Thurlor]

If there is anywhere in the world where insults are illegal they need a serious re-evaluation/over-haul of their legal system.

To pass a law making it illegal to insult would be about as silly as passing a law making it illegal to offend. Wait a minute.

Looks like we're already headed there.

 

[Grayman]

Generally those who insult are also those who are insulted. Also, usually someone insults another first (usually several times) before being mobbed. So is it a bad thing? I'd argue no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO1gpitixCo

What do you mean by bad? The word is hardly definitive and means something different for each person.

I would argue that it is unwise as the negatives outweigh the benefits.

 

[Pyropyro]

If there is anywhere in the world where insults are illegal they need a serious re-evaluation/over-haul of their legal system.

To pass a law making it illegal to insult would be about as silly as passing a law making it illegal to offend. Wait a minute.

Looks like we're already headed there.

I remember the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Butthurt politicians want to pass this SOPA wannabe to prosecute (persecute?) critics under the pretense of libel.

 

[Cavallier]

It's very Fahrenheit 451 in here.

Insults are as much the currency of social exchange as are compliments. We need them to keep functioning. I imagine a sluggish ennui taking over us all if insults were to be outlawed.

Although we would end up with a black market for insults. We could have Swearing Speakeasies. I kind of want this to happen now.

 

[BigApplePi]

It's very Fahrenheit 451 in here.

Insults are as much the currency of social exchange as are compliments. We need them to keep functioning. I imagine a sluggish ennui taking over us all if insults were to be outlawed.

Although we would end up with a black market for insults. We could have Swearing Speakeasies. I kind of want this to happen now.

Compliments are positive. How are insults positive? Insults are always emotional and INTPs are not good with this, let alone those "feelers" who are. What about the use of "critique"?

Insult: You are something other than a clean rat whereby I put a scumbag at a level way above you.
Critique: Can you say why you did/said/feel that? My view is [insert contrary view] ...

 

[RaBind]

The recipient plays as huge a role, in how insults are perceived, as the offender. It's all about context in the end with all human social interactions. It'd be very difficult to set a bar to illegalise certain insults, while keeping others, in certain situations.

I'm pretty sure you can get arrested for repeatedly insulting police officers in the uk.

 

[Minuend]

Compliments are positive.

Not always. Sometimes they can continue upholding an illusion that is denigrative both for the affected and those around it. Sometimes it is used as a means of manipulation.

 

[Grayman]

Not always. Sometimes they can continue upholding an illusion that is denigrative both for the affected and those around it. Sometimes it is used as a means of manipulation.

Technically all forms of communication or manipulative to some degree. I honestly see no moral folly in positive manipulation. Even false statements of encouragement or illusion can manipulate people into positive action. I personally don't need and will deny such illusions but I realize not everyone is that way.

 

[Minuend]

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about cases where, for instance, abusive partners in relationships that will flicker between abusive behavior and compliments/ positive behavior to psychologically trap a person.

 

[BigApplePi]

Not always. Sometimes they can continue upholding an illusion that is denigrative both for the affected and those around it. Sometimes it is used as a means of manipulation.

You are raising a good point (<-- compliment ). If we take compliments as the opposite of insults you're saying what if they are directed serially to the same person? I suppose we could give a rating to each. +N for compliments; -M for insults. If the sum is positive, both actions are okay. If the sum is negative, there is a net negative. It means a lot to have compliments (sincere ones) inserted because it means any threat is tempered. I outta know being married 30 years.

I'm still contemplating why insults can cause fires, thus drawing in moderators and moderation with possible penalties. That doesn't happen in debates no matter how much the sides differ ... as far as I know. So insults must have another ingredient.

 

[Duxwing]

You're mother is a donkey and your father is a french hen.

Go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I would argue that it is unwise as the negatives outweigh the benefits.

1. At which level/s or organization?
2. Prove it.
3. Screw you!

 

[Minuend]

You are raising a good point (<-- compliment ). If we take compliments as the opposite of insults you're saying what if they are directed serially to the same person? I suppose we could give a rating to each. +N for compliments; -M for insults. If the sum is positive, both actions are okay. If the sum is negative, there is a net negative. It means a lot to have compliments (sincere ones) inserted because it means any threat is tempered. I outta know being married 30 years.

I'm still contemplating why insults can cause fires, thus drawing in moderators and moderation with possible penalties. That doesn't happen in debates no matter how much the sides differ ... as far as I know. So insults must have another ingredient.

Generally I don't like the phrase "opposites" when putting one term up against another. Opposite imply that one factor is strictly something and the other strictly something else. I have a bit more intertwining perspective.

Compliments doesn't have to be serially directed at the same person. It's enough for one person to recognize the ego of another and apply compliment to either get that person on their "side" or make them say or do something that would benefit themselves in, for instance , a job situation.

I guess an example of "innocent" destructiveness of compliments arise in situations where a person genuinely are under the impression that his fellow is good at something that person has an over top top ego about. And compliments it. Of course, it doesn't have to dramatic. I merely pointed out that not all compliments are positive. And in some situation insults can be eye opening to others. Sometimes only because it reveals a disappointing feature of the insulter.

It would be kinda interesting to see how long a flame thread could last. : D

I have thrown in insults at points where one force is very dominating and thus I do it to attempt some counter-balance. But in retrospect, I might as well have written something along the lines of "I strongly disagree with the majority of these posts, but they are so massively flawed for me even to bother debate". But I guess that would be an insult anyway, and the outcome and reactions largely the same ._.

 

[BigApplePi]

Go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

-Duxwing

Were those insults that took or would a discussion therein be too insulting?

 

[BigApplePi]

Generally I don't like the phrase "opposites" when putting one term up against another. Opposite imply that one factor is strictly something and the other strictly something else. I have a bit more intertwining perspective.

Compliments doesn't have to be serially directed at the same person. It's enough for one person to recognize the ego of another and apply compliment to either get that person on their "side" or make them say or do something that would benefit themselves in, for instance , a job situation.

I guess an example of "innocent" destructiveness of compliments arise in situations where a person genuinely are under the impression that his fellow is good at something that person has an over top top ego about. And compliments it. Of course, it doesn't have to dramatic. I merely pointed out that not all compliments are positive. And in some situation insults can be eye opening to others. Sometimes only because it reveals a disappointing feature of the insulter.

I suppose the word, "compliment" can be used in all sorts of ways. Functionally, how about this? Suppose we observe a person to have a number of character traits. I select one and site it favorably. My purpose would be to encourage that trait. If the trait is good school grades, fine. But if the trait is pickpocketing skill, not so good.

It would be kinda interesting to see how long a flame thread could last. : D

Consider the feeling of resentment where one wishes to undo damage but can't.

I have thrown in insults at points where one force is very dominating and thus I do it to attempt some counter-balance. But in retrospect, I might as well have written something along the lines of "I strongly disagree with the majority of these posts, but they are so massively flawed for me even to bother debate". But I guess that would be an insult anyway, and the outcome and reactions largely the same ._.

That does have hints of insult, but is complicated.
1. "Massively flawed" is hard to counter intellectually. The result is emotional frustration.
2. "Not bothering" increases frustration.
3. If the person saying that is a well known critic versus a person with a known IQ of 80, the degree of impact would matter.

 

[Polaris]

I think insults and compliments occupy the same vague territory. I don't take heed to the first, and feel uncomfortable with the second. Either can be more or less close to the truth, and/or more or less true about the person administering the insult/compliment. Something about projection.

In any case, I don't think insults even could be associated with the term 'legal'. Something to do with freedom of speech, although, some people may use this freedom to deliberately stir up conflict. That may be beneficial or it could be disastrous. Either way, insults still aren't worth pursuing by some lawful action. That pretty much demonstrates human beings obsessions with what other people think of them. Slander and lies may be different. That could have serious consequences.

I think insults are trivial, for the most and usually says more about the insulter than the insulted. Sometimes the insulter is attempting to provoke a reaction; that is perhaps different.

I find both insults and compliments redundant, personally.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

You're mother is a donkey and your father is a french hen.

Your*

Insults are always more annoying when the person can't spell a four letter word. If that was intentional then I suggest "ur" as it is much worse.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Polaris.

I think insults and compliments occupy the same vague territory.

Agreed.

I don't take heed to the first, and feel uncomfortable with the second.

This is important but I'm not quite sure what I want to say. I can't be comfortable with either. One must take heed of insults for they mean the giver could be injurious. One must be grateful for compliments for they mean the giver is trying to be supportive ... though earlier in this thread there was a valid critique of this.

Either can be more or less close to the truth, and/or more or less true about the person administering the insult/compliment. Something about projection.

Hard to tell what's going on. Not calling someone on an insult can get one into trouble later ... but that's another topic.

In any case, I don't think insults even could be associated with the term 'legal'. Something to do with freedom of speech, although, some people may use this freedom to deliberately stir up conflict. That may be beneficial or it could be disastrous. Either way, insults still aren't worth pursuing by some lawful action. That pretty much demonstrates human beings obsessions with what other people think of them. Slander and lies may be different. That could have serious consequences.

A broad topic. I meant the word, "legal", to have a loose meaning just to bring out the pros and cons in the thread.

Slander and lies? Don't insults carry that potential especially when made in public? They can be made to speak to not just you but those who aren't sure of you. A veiled insult adds to how others judge you. That can leave one without a defense. Someone once called me "obsessed." I failed to take them up on that which left me defenseless.

I think insults are trivial, for the most and usually says more about the insulter than the insulted. Sometimes the insulter is attempting to provoke a reaction; that is perhaps different.

Definitely says something about the insulter who I'm ready to say is deliberately trying to manipulate. Whether insults are trivial or not could depend on how close they are to hitting home.

I find both insults and compliments redundant, personally.

They are political in the sense of trying to assert some power somehow or at the very least something is trying to be asserted.

 

[Polaris]

This is important but I'm not quite sure what I want to say. I can't be comfortable with either. One must take heed of insults for they mean the giver could be injurious. One must be grateful for compliments for they mean the giver is trying to be supportive ... though earlier in this thread there was a valid critique of this.

While I understand in some way, I am curious as to how the insulter could be injurious. If we are talking about it in a strictly psychological way, I would understand the injury caused by feelings being hurt. But isn't this only hurtful if there is truth in the insult? If it is not true, I would guess the injury sustained would be to that of the ego, which wishes to remain unsoiled in the view of others.

A broad topic. I meant the word, "legal", to have a loose meaning just to bring out the pros and cons in the thread.

Exactly. The nebulous nature of insults and compliments complicates the context further. The political impacts of insults would be a very interesting discussion.

I think there are more cons than pros, personally, but I am viewing it from all the perspectives I can think of in order to reach that conclusion. The word 'legal' had me confused though.

Slander and lies? Don't insults carry that potential especially when made in public? They can be made to speak to not just you but those who aren't sure of you. A veiled insult adds to how others judge you. That can leave one without a defense. Someone once called me "obsessed." I failed to take them up on that which left me defenseless.

When I say slander and lies I am thinking more about carefully executed behaviour in order to manipulate a certain outcome. Insults in my view seem to be more haphazard of nature, and subject to the heat of the moment. But I may be wrong.

A lie, or slander can be insulting. And have dire consequences if the repercussions reaches beyond the individual and onto others, such as family, work, etc.

When I talk about insults, I think more about words uttered in order to provoke an immediate reaction, or provide some sort of revenge/satisfaction for the insulter. Something of the moment. A micro-battle.

There are people who may use insults to provide some sort of balance, but I'm not sure how effective this is looking at the larger picture. What we provide this world with is usually of the same quality of what we receive as a consequence.

I think humility and self-insight is the key to understanding why insults are largely impotent.

Definitely says something about the insulter who I'm ready to say is deliberately trying to manipulate. Whether insults are trivial or not could depend on how close they are to hitting home.

But they are still trivial, because they are just words uttered between people in situations charged with emotion. We are not necessarily truthful when we call someone names. Or we are truthful in that we have a desire to hurt because we somehow feel frustrated by not being understood. I think this is the case in 90% of insult-cases. Very rarely do people insult in a carefully executed fashion unless they are anti-human. Insults are an expression of frustration; words used when other words fail to communicate a strong emotion.

They are political in the sense of trying to assert some power somehow or at the very least something is trying to be asserted.

A momentary illusion of power, yes. It has no significance other than what we make it though.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Polaris

While I understand in some way, I am curious as to how the insulter could be injurious. If we are talking about it in a strictly psychological way, I would understand the injury caused by feelings being hurt. But isn't this only hurtful if there is truth in the insult? If it is not true, I would guess the injury sustained would be to that of the ego, which wishes to remain unsoiled in the view of others.

This may not get across, but if the insulter can get "through" to the insulted, it can be injurious. How? If the insulted is now hampered in some way that they were not before. I don't see that truth would matter much although if the truth was not known prior, this new information could be upsetting.

The nebulous nature of insults and compliments complicates the context further. The political impacts of insults would be a very interesting discussion.

A start on clarification would be to go over different kinds or insults or specific personal experiences with that.

When I say slander and lies I am thinking more about carefully executed behaviour in order to manipulate a certain outcome. Insults in my view seem to be more haphazard of nature, and subject to the heat of the moment. But I may be wrong.

Sure insults can be spontaneous, but in the hands of a skilled manipulator who detects a weakness in you, they can deliberately aim at that weakness.

A lie, or slander can be insulting. And have dire consequences if the repercussions reaches beyond the individual and onto others, such as family, work, etc.

When I talk about insults, I think more about words uttered in order to provoke an immediate reaction, or provide some sort of revenge/satisfaction for the insulter. Something of the moment. A micro-battle.

They are aimed to provoke a reaction though the reaction may be silence where an open response is expected. If someone calls me a rat, says I'm dishonest or a liar I'm expected somehow not to ignore it.

I think humility and self-insight is the key to understanding why insults are largely impotent.

If the insulting party has little power, responding to what others view as an insult could give them more power. But not so if the insulting party is wielding power. What they say means something and could mean an awful lot. If one's physics professor were to say, "You will never amount to anything as a physicist", and one has aspirations, one could feel insulted and even devastated.

You mention humility and self-insight. Both of these are not so simple because they do not stand alone within one. What one is lives in the world as context. It is impossible to know oneself fully because how can one know how one will react to everything the world comes up with? How can one be totally humble without sacrificing one's self-worth in the eyes of others? One can say they don't care what others think, but is this true?

But they are still trivial, because they are just words uttered between people in situations charged with emotion.

I have to disagree as above. Insults need not be trivial. Let's compare insults with another human interaction, "flirting." Both do not standalone. Both are impossible without other people. Both have an emotional characteristic almost because they are relational. In each case the initiator does not know how the recipient will take it; nor does the recipient control what the initiator will do. Emotions means values. If the values are weak one could speculate the actions are trivial, but this is not necessarily the case.

We are not necessarily truthful when we call someone names. Or we are truthful in that we have a desire to hurt because we somehow feel frustrated by not being understood. I think this is the case in 90% of insult-cases. Very rarely do people insult in a carefully executed fashion unless they are anti-human. Insults are an expression of frustration; words used when other words fail to communicate a strong emotion.

A momentary illusion of power, yes. It has no significance other than what we make it though.

I agree with this. It makes sense. If I'm called, "a dirty rat", that is not literally true. But there IS a truth there. Something about me has truly offended the insulter. Maybe I am guilty; maybe I am innocent, but what was inside the insulter that they were offended? To make this real, here is an example from my personal experience on this forum.
___________________

I changed my mind about this personal example. I feel uncertain about posting it and question if anyone is interested. If I post it at all it will be a separate message.

 

[Grayman]

A truth only as the insulter perceived it. Does it really matter if it is true except to the extent that it provides us with a different perspective of how we may be perceived. It is not necessarily objective truth.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Grayman

A truth only as the insulter perceived it. Does it really matter if it is true except to the extent that it provides us with a different perspective of how we may be perceived. It is not necessarily objective truth.

Right. More generally one can say anything about anyone. What I find of interest is there is always SOME kind of truth involved. There is a truth in motivation for the insulter. It is up to the receiver to judge how much truth there is for them and whether they care or not. An insult is information and both the receiver and any audience has to decide what to do with it. Certainly truth and falsity matters. Objective? Not likely.

A comment about truth. Truth matters no matter where it comes from, insults or not. How true and who knows matters. It may matter a lot or very little.