Is anyone so bad that they cannot be forgiven by their society, provided they actually work on changing what's wrong with them? Forgiving someone who hasn't and won't change isn't forgiveness, it's induglence and moral cowardice, after all. But supposing someone does change?
Example: George Wallace. He was a monster, a segregationist eclipsed only by Lester Maddox. However, in his final years, he suffered from enormous pain brought on in part by the attempted assassination in 1972 that left him paralyzed from the waist down. Being stuck in pain in his chair, he apparently did some thinking.
QuoteA 1972 assassination attempt left Wallace paralyzed, and he used a wheelchair for the remainder of his life. He is remembered for his Southern populist and segregationist attitudes during the desegregation period. He eventually renounced segregationism but remained a populist. Wallace said that he did not wish to meet his Maker with unforgiven sin.
So not only did he renounce his personal stand on race and segregation, but in fact referred to it as a sin that endangered one's salvation.
Is forgiveness possible in his case?
If not, then there's an interesting moral implication. If your good deeds don't count when stacked against your bad ones, then your bad deeds don't count when stacked against your good deeds.
Case in point: Julian Assange. By many accounts, he's a bit of a sexual predator. This hasn't been proven, but for the sake of argument let's assume that some of the allegations are true (the ones in America or the ones in Europe, take your pick).
On the other hand, he did what nobody else had the stones to do: He told the truth in the face of the US government's ire, and then ran like hell, laughing like a bastard.
How do the (alleged) two sides of his persona relate to each other? Not in terms of forgiveness (if he's what he's said to be, he certainly hasn't repented it), but in terms of moral judgement?
Lastly, without the concept of forgiveness, there won't BE a lot of change for the better. If you're already doomed, why make the effort to change? On the other hand, if you can by great effort walk back into civilization, some people will make the effort. People won't necessarily take the concept of forgiveness as license, because the people who are going to do shitty things are going to do them regardless. The only question is whether they can be salvaged.
"You can come back, baby, rock n roll never forgets."
- Bob Seger
"You can never go home."
- Thomas Wolfe.
That one is tough.
With Wallace, you'd need to know the sincerity of it - did he truly regret it, or was it one of those calculated things where he decided to be a fuckhead all his life and then let the blood of Jebus wash it all away at the last minute? A lot of people think it really works like that.
No way of knowing. I don't like Wallace, but benefit of doubt given. Maybe he meant it. He didn't live long enough after that to prove anything one way or another. Society's another story. Everybody's just going to remember those photos of him trying to keep those kids out of school.
The Assange thing reminds me a little bit of Lewis Carroll. He was squicky as FUCK, but society seems to have forgiven him.
So how can a society gauge the validity of one's remorse? And to what degree should he be forgiven? I've long held that it's foolish to claim to know another man's intentions, especially those in high social standing. It is safer, and perhaps more accurate, to assume that everybody has an agenda, and will spin their words and actions to better suit their goals.
A business executive caught in a scandal, for example, will deny any wrongdoing to save face, unless confession and apology are seen as his only way to retain his wealth. If deemed insincere, he will lose his wealth, and with it his best shot at redeeming himself; but how can he be allowed a shot at redemption through action if this leaves him capable of repeating the offense?
I suppose that his fate should be decided according to the risk he presents to society if allowed to continue, and forgiveness can only be earned as a result of his actions henceforth.
Bernie Madoff scammed investors for nearly $65 billion. Had he not been sentenced to prison, perhaps he would have repaid them, and used the remainder of his fortune charitably. I would call this adequate grounds for forgiveness. On the other hand, he might have gone on to find new, cleverer ways to rob the masses. Or, perhaps most likely, he'd have cut his losses and gone on to purchase a private beach in Tahiti on which to retire and sip margaritas. As it stands, he will never have the chance to earn any sort of forgiveness, which is moot anyway. Forgiveness won't make his prison cot any softer.
I believe in forgiveness, and I believe that you don't need to see into a person's heart to accept that they've changed, if their actions and their words demonstrate that they've changed.
If Bernie Madoff claimed an awakening, professed remorse, and started speaking out against greed, I would consider him worthy of forgiveness. Although people do often say things that they don't believe, it is surprisingly difficult to maintain the opposite of a position you are arguing for.
Further, if you take, say, a lifelong racist who once preached hatred and separatism, and they renounce their former attitudes and start preaching equality and acceptance, even if they only say it once they have made enemies of everyone who once supported them, and made their only chance of finding friends the forgiveness of those who were formerly their enemies. That's a huge, huge risk and takes true transformation. There is also a huge social impact for people who may have retained pack solidarity but harbored inner doubts, seeing someone leave the fold.
So, yeah. Redemption is possible.
I don't think Madoff can be redeemed, for the simple reason that he's a sociopath. Sociopaths aren't always bad people, contrary to popular belief, but they aren't really capable of having the kinds of emotionally transformative experiences that lead to awakenings of that nature.
I believe Abramoff, after getting caught, recanted, repented, and now is kind of making a career for himself by exposing the scams and backroom bullshit that he was so familiar with.
I'd call that redemption, of a sort.
I think there's a difference between forgiveness and re-integration into normal society. Whether someone is incarcerated for crimes or shunned for being a dickhole, people can determine on an individual basis when and how they want to forgive the wrongdoing, and on what terms. Forgiveness is an individual thing, not systemic. Governments can't forgive, but they can choose not to prosecute or reduce sentences. Those thoughts could have been expressed better but that's kinda the nugget of it.
The running theme is you have to do something to fix what you broke.
Death row is filled with remorseful child-rapists who killed their victims by tearing up their internal organs in their zeal. Forgiving George Wallace because he's sick and sowee is akin to racism and classim and is further enablement of white, rich men in suits doing whatever the hell they want to people because they can always hire a PR guy later and apologize.
Fuck that.
Get off your ass and go help all the people of Alabama you fucked over. I can show you some pictures of people still living in cardboard shacks around the formerly-all-black College that is now Bishop State, if you need a place to start.
Otherwise, GTFO. Damage is done, you racist fuck.
Seems to me that defining anybody by their behavior in any one area is a mistake.
Can Wallace be forgiven for his actions because he later repented? I suppose that might depend on what to undo the harm he caused. Did the fact that he was a situationist mean he was an all-round shitty human being? Quite possible that he was a decent husband, good father, and feed stay dogs.
Same with Assenge, having the balls to do one positive thing doesn't make him a decent human being, particularly if the accusations against him are true.
Humans are human, everyone is a mix of shades of grey. How it balances out can be a master of perspective, especially where things run close to even. Hitler may have been kind to dogs, but, in general, he is usually considered a pretty shitty human.
Of course, what makes him a shitty human in the eyes of many people makes him a hero in the eyes of others. Perspective.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 11, 2013, 06:31:37 PM
The running theme is you have to do something to fix what you broke.
Death row is filled with remorseful child-rapists who killed their victims by tearing up their internal organs in their zeal. Forgiving George Wallace because he's sick and sowee is akin to racism and classim and is further enablement of white, rich men in suits doing whatever the hell they want to people because they can always hire a PR guy later and apologize.
Fuck that.
Get off your ass and go help all the people of Alabama you fucked over. I can show you some pictures of people still living in cardboard shacks around the formerly-all-black College that is now Bishop State, if you need a place to start.
Otherwise, GTFO. Damage is done, you racist fuck.
Was that necessary? Was that REALLY necessary?
I mean, I don't normally object to horrifically graphic verbal descriptions of inutterably terrible sexual violence to kids, because most of the time when people say shit like this there's an actual good reason to be dropping it into conversation. But you do this shit ALL THE TIME and it makes me wonder whether you ever stop to think, hey, do I really need to say something that grotesque to make my point in this case, or might I simply be dropping an incredibly ugly piece of mental imagery with a very high probability of triggering horrible memories in anyone who has ever been abused and simply disturbing the shit out of anyone who hasn't into an otherwise innocuous post where it isn't anticipated?
Basically, keep it up and I'm going to put you on ignore, simply because that's not actually a mental image I need laid on me out of the blue and it isn't by any means the first or second or even third or fourth time you've done it, or that anyone has said something about it.
Fucking hell.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 11, 2013, 04:53:43 PM
I believe in forgiveness, and I believe that you don't need to see into a person's heart to accept that they've changed, if their actions and their words demonstrate that they've changed.
If Bernie Madoff claimed an awakening, professed remorse, and started speaking out against greed, I would consider him worthy of forgiveness. Although people do often say things that they don't believe, it is surprisingly difficult to maintain the opposite of a position you are arguing for.
Further, if you take, say, a lifelong racist who once preached hatred and separatism, and they renounce their former attitudes and start preaching equality and acceptance, even if they only say it once they have made enemies of everyone who once supported them, and made their only chance of finding friends the forgiveness of those who were formerly their enemies. That's a huge, huge risk and takes true transformation. There is also a huge social impact for people who may have retained pack solidarity but harbored inner doubts, seeing someone leave the fold.
The problem with that is that people are naturally suspicious of someone whose beliefs change radically.
If a white supremacist bombed black churches for half of his life, then suddenly offered to start building them, I would wonder if he's just using his turnabout to gain access. It takes very forgiving people to open their arms to the people who have hurt them. I'm not that trusting, and I assume a lot of people who have seen evil aren't, either.
Quote from: Jez on April 11, 2013, 08:58:26 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 11, 2013, 04:53:43 PM
I believe in forgiveness, and I believe that you don't need to see into a person's heart to accept that they've changed, if their actions and their words demonstrate that they've changed.
If Bernie Madoff claimed an awakening, professed remorse, and started speaking out against greed, I would consider him worthy of forgiveness. Although people do often say things that they don't believe, it is surprisingly difficult to maintain the opposite of a position you are arguing for.
Further, if you take, say, a lifelong racist who once preached hatred and separatism, and they renounce their former attitudes and start preaching equality and acceptance, even if they only say it once they have made enemies of everyone who once supported them, and made their only chance of finding friends the forgiveness of those who were formerly their enemies. That's a huge, huge risk and takes true transformation. There is also a huge social impact for people who may have retained pack solidarity but harbored inner doubts, seeing someone leave the fold.
The problem with that is that people are naturally suspicious of someone whose beliefs change radically.
If a white supremacist bombed black churches for half of his life, then suddenly offered to start building them, I would wonder if he's just using his turnabout to gain access. It takes very forgiving people to open their arms to the people who have hurt them. I'm not that trusting, and I assume a lot of people who have seen evil aren't, either.
That's why it's such a risk for someone to switch sides like that... they will definitely alienate their former cronies, and will certainly have a hard time making friends in the community they once preached hate for.
That kind of turnaround takes a lot of commitment, because it will, essentially, buy you the life of a pariah.
Unless there's some long con happening, however, isn't doing something positive for cynical reasons functionally no different than doing something positive for honest reasons?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 12, 2013, 03:04:13 PM
Unless there's some long con happening, however, isn't doing something positive for cynical reasons functionally no different than doing something positive for honest reasons?
Yep, pretty much is. Plus, doing something positive for cynical reasons has this tricky way of turning honest because our behaviors influence our attitudes whether we want them to or not.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 12, 2013, 09:19:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 12, 2013, 03:04:13 PM
Unless there's some long con happening, however, isn't doing something positive for cynical reasons functionally no different than doing something positive for honest reasons?
Yep, pretty much is. Plus, doing something positive for cynical reasons has this tricky way of turning honest because our behaviors influence our attitudes whether we want them to or not.
Yep. Even smiling makes you feel better
1, when you force yourself to do it.
1 Except for LMNO. Smiling makes his face ache. :sad:
That's probably true. I'm biased pretty far toward the cynical end of the spectrum on this topic.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 12, 2013, 03:04:13 PM
Unless there's some long con happening, however, isn't doing something positive for cynical reasons functionally no different than doing something positive for honest reasons?
Pretty much sums up my mentality whenever I do charity work whenever I decide to go out and do something. If anyone asks why I'm doing it I tell them Jesus Christ is in Heaven , and I'm here so deal with it. When Jesus comes back he can works twice as hard.
To OP. If they commit the rest of their lives undoing what they did to help others sure. But if they're doing it because I can't get into heaven if I don't repent then they can go fuck themselves. If they've convinced ME that they don't care about "Forgiveness", and still continue to do good even if the victims won't forgive them. Then yes they've redeemed themselves.
How would a rapist, or a murderer redeem themselves I don't know.
Quote from: /b/earman on April 16, 2013, 06:37:02 AM
How would a rapist, or a murderer redeem themselves I don't know.
I personally don't think they can. If you take a human life, you can't give it back. If you rape someone, you can't make it better.
Forgiveness and redemption are things I think about a lot. Partially because I was raised Christian, I am the bringer of RIGHTEOUS JUSTICE AND TRUTH often in my life, and because I have made some serious fuck ups/.
IMO, redemption belongs to the redeemed.
Which is to say, if you seek redemption, it is something that, if achieved, you hold onto only within yourself. Is that okay? Should redemption also belong to those who the redeeming? I guess, if they feel like it.
Here's the thing: You do something unforgivable, with me, I don't give a flying fuck. Good for you. You want to live your life in peace and harmony and share the love you have in your heart or what the fuck ever. Great. Just stay the fuck away from me.
If someone has fucked me over the trust is gone. If someone killed someone close to me there is no way on earth I would forgive them. I am way less forgiving for a host of lesser crimes. But let's say it was murder. Could that person find redemption? Sure. Deep in their heart they could admit that what they did was wrong, they could work their whole live toward making up for the terrible thing they did.
Cool. And what is that to me? Nothing. It not only does not cancel out what they did, it offends me to think that they think there's anything they could do to earn forgiveness. They wish to atone for their crimes with a life "making up for it"? That's the LEAST they should be doing. That's like a parent that actually takes care of their kid, they don't get a medal, it's what they're supposed to do in the first place.
And maybe they'll find some peace in their hearts, maybe because of me they'll never commit that deed ever again.
So? What in the hell does that have to do with me?
Someone may find redemption in the mores and rituals of society, but do they need it from the individuals they've fucked over along the way? If they do, and they're trying to get it from me, they're out of luck, I guess I'm trying to say. I dunno, I had this better thought out in my head the other day and got no sleep last night.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 16, 2013, 04:44:42 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on April 16, 2013, 06:37:02 AM
How would a rapist, or a murderer redeem themselves I don't know.
I personally don't think they can. If you take a human life, you can't give it back. If you rape someone, you can't make it better.
I was conflating "redemption" with "expiation", there.
Question: Who is the judge? If it's society at large then the thing about hitler prolly holds true - some will forgive, some arseholes will probably condone the original bastardism. I'm thinking the only real redemption you can ever have is to forgive yourself. It's possible to change your moral code, your principles and integrity (I know because I've done this) but you can only ever judge yourself by your own standards. Maybe this is redemption. Maybe redemption in the eyes of society is a myth or a numbers game or some arbitrary legislative line in the sand.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 11, 2013, 07:50:50 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 11, 2013, 06:31:37 PM
The running theme is you have to do something to fix what you broke.
Death row is filled with remorseful child-rapists who killed their victims by tearing up their internal organs in their zeal. Forgiving George Wallace because he's sick and sowee is akin to racism and classim and is further enablement of white, rich men in suits doing whatever the hell they want to people because they can always hire a PR guy later and apologize.
Fuck that.
Get off your ass and go help all the people of Alabama you fucked over. I can show you some pictures of people still living in cardboard shacks around the formerly-all-black College that is now Bishop State, if you need a place to start.
Otherwise, GTFO. Damage is done, you racist fuck.
Was that necessary? Was that REALLY necessary?
I mean, I don't normally object to horrifically graphic verbal descriptions of inutterably terrible sexual violence to kids, because most of the time when people say shit like this there's an actual good reason to be dropping it into conversation. But you do this shit ALL THE TIME and it makes me wonder whether you ever stop to think, hey, do I really need to say something that grotesque to make my point in this case, or might I simply be dropping an incredibly ugly piece of mental imagery with a very high probability of triggering horrible memories in anyone who has ever been abused and simply disturbing the shit out of anyone who hasn't into an otherwise innocuous post where it isn't anticipated?
Basically, keep it up and I'm going to put you on ignore, simply because that's not actually a mental image I need laid on me out of the blue and it isn't by any means the first or second or even third or fourth time you've done it, or that anyone has said something about it.
Fucking hell.
Fucking hell, Navkat.
Do some fucking RESEARCH.
Prevalence of sexual assault, PTSD as a result of sexual assault, (not in all cases, but it happens) and pack the graphic shit in.
And apologise to Nigel.
FACT- the UN estimates ONE IN THREE women worldwide will be raped in their lifetimes. I think it's one in 5 in the US.
you say that shit, there's a ONE IN FIVE chance of causing serious emotional distress. I can count 5 rape survivors I know without thinking. A bit more thinking and I can count 8.
Think about that.
Yeah, so my thread got turned into shock porn.
Not sure, really, why I bother anymore.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 18, 2013, 03:01:32 AM
Yeah, so my thread got turned into shock porn.
Not sure, really, why I bother anymore.
Bugs me when people say potentially trigger-y things. I get the urge to educate and yell at them.
I appreciate it, personally. So, thank you to both of you.
On the original subject, I was thinking that someone who has committed rape could redeem themselves by coming out publicly against raping people. It would be incredibly brave and incredibly dangerous, but that is a type of activist who could actually speak to the men who would commit rape, and educate them, and possibly make a change. I have never, ever seen an activist of that nature.
I'm writing an essay this weekend for my psych class, about forgiveness and redemption, and how they figure into roles and attitude change, inspired by this thread.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 07:12:07 AM
I appreciate it, personally. So, thank you to both of you.
On the original subject, I was thinking that someone who has committed rape could redeem themselves by coming out publicly against raping people. It would be incredibly brave and incredibly dangerous, but that is a type of activist who could actually speak to the men who would commit rape, and educate them, and possibly make a change. I have never, ever seen an activist of that nature.
I'm writing an essay this weekend for my psych class, about forgiveness and redemption, and how they figure into roles and attitude change, inspired by this thread.
I'd be inherently cynical about an activist of that nature, myself. I'm not sure if that's a negative or a positive. I'd be more suspicious of a repeat offender in such a case than someone who did it once.
Quote from: Pixie on April 18, 2013, 07:17:17 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 07:12:07 AM
I appreciate it, personally. So, thank you to both of you.
On the original subject, I was thinking that someone who has committed rape could redeem themselves by coming out publicly against raping people. It would be incredibly brave and incredibly dangerous, but that is a type of activist who could actually speak to the men who would commit rape, and educate them, and possibly make a change. I have never, ever seen an activist of that nature.
I'm writing an essay this weekend for my psych class, about forgiveness and redemption, and how they figure into roles and attitude change, inspired by this thread.
I'd be inherently cynical about an activist of that nature, myself. I'm not sure if that's a negative or a positive. I'd be more suspicious of a repeat offender in such a case than someone who did it once.
Sure, I think that's natural. But since you wouldn't be his audience, that might not matter as much as whether the people he was trying to reach were convinced of his sincerity.
And, again, the reality is that actions affect attitudes; the old hack that if you tell a lie often enough you come to believe it is true.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 07:27:16 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 18, 2013, 07:17:17 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 07:12:07 AM
I appreciate it, personally. So, thank you to both of you.
On the original subject, I was thinking that someone who has committed rape could redeem themselves by coming out publicly against raping people. It would be incredibly brave and incredibly dangerous, but that is a type of activist who could actually speak to the men who would commit rape, and educate them, and possibly make a change. I have never, ever seen an activist of that nature.
I'm writing an essay this weekend for my psych class, about forgiveness and redemption, and how they figure into roles and attitude change, inspired by this thread.
I'd be inherently cynical about an activist of that nature, myself. I'm not sure if that's a negative or a positive. I'd be more suspicious of a repeat offender in such a case than someone who did it once.
Sure, I think that's natural. But since you wouldn't be his audience, that might not matter as much as whether the people he was trying to reach were convinced of his sincerity.
And, again, the reality is that actions affect attitudes; the old hack that if you tell a lie often enough you come to believe it is true.
That is the most important point..
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 07:12:07 AM
I appreciate it, personally. So, thank you to both of you.
On the original subject, I was thinking that someone who has committed rape could redeem themselves by coming out publicly against raping people. It would be incredibly brave and incredibly dangerous, but that is a type of activist who could actually speak to the men who would commit rape, and educate them, and possibly make a change. I have never, ever seen an activist of that nature.
I'm writing an essay this weekend for my psych class, about forgiveness and redemption, and how they figure into roles and attitude change, inspired by this thread.
I wonder why that is?
You always see people who did other kinds of crimes doing the talk circuit.
Okay, I'm getting tired of the selective fucking attitudes about FREE SPEECH around here. What do you want me to say? That I promise not to post anything shocking or offensive anymore? That somewhere between the expressing the actual shit rattling around inside my head and just keeping my mouth shut are a whole lot of options borne of good sense and in better taste and that I'll do my best to find one agreeable to everyone without also offending you by referring to it as "compliant self-censorship?"
I'm annoyed. Y'all are wrong. <---That's about the most honest, non-passive-aggressive way I can say it. I hope we can get past this without it turning into pages of vitriol and arguing. Hunter S Thompson, I am not. David Foster Wallace I am NOT but I have to stand up to this and say no. I will not go out of my way to make it pretty when ugly is how it needs to come out.
I hope this doesn't turn you away or hurt feelings. I have triggers too but I try to get above them. As we all should.
Thank you.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 02:44:48 PM
Okay, I'm getting tired of the selective fucking attitudes about FREE SPEECH around here. What do you want me to say? That I promise not to post anything shocking or offensive anymore? That somewhere between the expressing the actual shit rattling around inside my head and just keeping my mouth shut are a whole lot of options borne of good sense and in better taste and that I'll do my best to find one agreeable to everyone without also offending you by referring to it as "compliant self-censorship?"
I'm annoyed. Y'all are wrong. <---That's about the most honest, non-passive-aggressive way I can say it. I hope we can get past this without it turning into pages of vitriol and arguing. Hunter S Thompson, I am not. David Foster Wallace I am NOT but I have to stand up to this and say no. I will not go out of my way to make it pretty when ugly is how it needs to come out.
I hope this doesn't turn you away or hurt feelings. I have triggers too but I try to get above them. As we all should.
Thank you.
You're not getting any selective attitudes on free speech.
You can say
whatever awful or shocking thing you want. You are
entitled to. You will not be moderated for it.
People will however base further interactions with you on what you have said, and how you chose to involve yourself in discussions, as is their entitlement.
I wasn't addressing censorship from a restricted access point of view but rather, from a social pressure/consequences/guilt stance which is no less real. But I think you knew that.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 03:56:02 PM
I wasn't addressing censorship from a restricted access point of view but rather, from a social pressure/consequences/guilt stance which is no less real. But I think you knew that.
You used the phrase Free Speech, so I took it as exactly that. No one is interfering in your freedom of speech so don't make your argument out to be tied up with that. So you thought wrong or you wanted to use a smug phrase (see bold) that implies I was in some way being deceitful.
I don't agree with triggers and think they are stupid, when I joined this site there was no need of them, Of course when I joined this site it also had about four posters.
It merely stands to reason, if you post something vile don't act surprised when people react like people who have read something vile.
It's that old saying, "You're free to say what you want, and I'm free to say what I want."
Or, from an old PD joke, "Do what you will shall be the whole of the law; just remember, nobody likes an asshole."
You are perfectly capable and allowed to go goreshock in your posts. And Nigel or Pix is perfectly capable to tell you it makes them uncomfortable.
To try to force other people to accept your posts without criticism is also a form of social pressure.
Back around 2005 or so, one of my troll personas was a slashfic troll. I posted some truly horrid stuff, with the intended purpose to gross out other posters. Then someone politely asked me not to do that, because their 13-year-old kid was on the boards. So I stopped, and deleted the majority of my posts.
(That didn't stop me from writing the Harry Potter trollfics that got put up on a fanfic site, though.)
Quote from: stelz on April 18, 2013, 02:21:28 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 07:12:07 AM
I appreciate it, personally. So, thank you to both of you.
On the original subject, I was thinking that someone who has committed rape could redeem themselves by coming out publicly against raping people. It would be incredibly brave and incredibly dangerous, but that is a type of activist who could actually speak to the men who would commit rape, and educate them, and possibly make a change. I have never, ever seen an activist of that nature.
I'm writing an essay this weekend for my psych class, about forgiveness and redemption, and how they figure into roles and attitude change, inspired by this thread.
I wonder why that is?
You always see people who did other kinds of crimes doing the talk circuit.
I think there are a lot of reasons why that is. It's icky, our society is prone to lynch mobs, most rapists never really accept that what they did was wrong, violent stranger rape is rare is is usually perpetrated by people who are psychologically incapable of repentance and redemption. It would take a pretty major cultural shift for it to happen.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 02:44:48 PM
Okay, I'm getting tired of the selective fucking attitudes about FREE SPEECH around here. What do you want me to say? That I promise not to post anything shocking or offensive anymore? That somewhere between the expressing the actual shit rattling around inside my head and just keeping my mouth shut are a whole lot of options borne of good sense and in better taste and that I'll do my best to find one agreeable to everyone without also offending you by referring to it as "compliant self-censorship?"
I'm annoyed. Y'all are wrong. <---That's about the most honest, non-passive-aggressive way I can say it. I hope we can get past this without it turning into pages of vitriol and arguing. Hunter S Thompson, I am not. David Foster Wallace I am NOT but I have to stand up to this and say no. I will not go out of my way to make it pretty when ugly is how it needs to come out.
I hope this doesn't turn you away or hurt feelings. I have triggers too but I try to get above them. As we all should.
Thank you.
Ya know, you're free to be a socially retarded dick if you want to, and I'm free to stop reading your posts if I want to. Would you rather I do so without a heads-up?
Just so you know, most people DON'T drop gratuitous graphic depictions of grotesque violence into their conversation for no reason, because it's, well, gratuitous and it makes people uncomfortable.
Call it social censoring if you want. Feel oppressed. Go for it.
You can feel free to be forever "that chick who's NSFW because she talks about baby rape".
I mean, seriously Navkat, you taking the victim stance because for some reason you don't understand why that's socially unacceptable is kind of pathetic.
And, I can't help but notice that you didn't bother to respond to my post until someone else chimed in to reinforce what I said, which tells me a lot about how much you give a flying fuck about my feelings.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 02:44:48 PM
Okay, I'm getting tired of the selective fucking attitudes about FREE SPEECH around here. What do you want me to say? That I promise not to post anything shocking or offensive anymore? That somewhere between the expressing the actual shit rattling around inside my head and just keeping my mouth shut are a whole lot of options borne of good sense and in better taste and that I'll do my best to find one agreeable to everyone without also offending you by referring to it as "compliant self-censorship?"
I'm annoyed. Y'all are wrong. <---That's about the most honest, non-passive-aggressive way I can say it. I hope we can get past this without it turning into pages of vitriol and arguing. Hunter S Thompson, I am not. David Foster Wallace I am NOT but I have to stand up to this and say no. I will not go out of my way to make it pretty when ugly is how it needs to come out.
I hope this doesn't turn you away or hurt feelings. I have triggers too but I try to get above them. As we all should.
Thank you.
BACK THE FUCK UP.
My post was about the fact that if you choose to describe things like that in a graphic manner.
YOU CAN AND AT SOME POINT WILL, IF YOU CARRY ON LIKE THAT, RESURFACE OLD FUCKING TRAUMA.
I AM NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T SAY WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT, I AM SAYING THE WAY YOU ARE SAYING IT HURTS PEOPLE.
YOUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH DOES NOT OVERRIDE SOMEONES FUCKIN' ABILITY TO GET TO SLEEP AT NIGHT WITHOUT OLD AND NASTY MEMORIES OF PAST ABUSE FUCKING WITH THEIR HEADS
IF YOU CANNOT GET THAT YOU ARE A WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT
THERE, CLEAR ENOUGH?
Believe me, the first post I made was being nice, asking you to get yo'self better informed, and consider why me and Nigel object to that kind of shit..
:kingmeh:
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 02:44:48 PM
Okay, I'm getting tired of the selective fucking attitudes about FREE SPEECH around here. What do you want me to say? That I promise not to post anything shocking or offensive anymore? That somewhere between the expressing the actual shit rattling around inside my head and just keeping my mouth shut are a whole lot of options borne of good sense and in better taste and that I'll do my best to find one agreeable to everyone without also offending you by referring to it as "compliant self-censorship?"
I'm annoyed. Y'all are wrong. <---That's about the most honest, non-passive-aggressive way I can say it. I hope we can get past this without it turning into pages of vitriol and arguing. Hunter S Thompson, I am not. David Foster Wallace I am NOT but I have to stand up to this and say no. I will not go out of my way to make it pretty when ugly is how it needs to come out.
I hope this doesn't turn you away or hurt feelings. I have triggers too but I try to get above them. As we all should.
Thank you.
Just because YOU have the spoons or whatever to deal with your shit, it doesn't mean everyone does at this point in time.
Hell, I haven't seen Murmur here after the rape culture thread triggered her, and I felt shitty about it at the time and I feel shitty about it now.
Faust may not need triggers, but he can see why others might. (sometimes).
Quote from: Pixie on April 18, 2013, 04:36:29 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 02:44:48 PM
Okay, I'm getting tired of the selective fucking attitudes about FREE SPEECH around here. What do you want me to say? That I promise not to post anything shocking or offensive anymore? That somewhere between the expressing the actual shit rattling around inside my head and just keeping my mouth shut are a whole lot of options borne of good sense and in better taste and that I'll do my best to find one agreeable to everyone without also offending you by referring to it as "compliant self-censorship?"
I'm annoyed. Y'all are wrong. <---That's about the most honest, non-passive-aggressive way I can say it. I hope we can get past this without it turning into pages of vitriol and arguing. Hunter S Thompson, I am not. David Foster Wallace I am NOT but I have to stand up to this and say no. I will not go out of my way to make it pretty when ugly is how it needs to come out.
I hope this doesn't turn you away or hurt feelings. I have triggers too but I try to get above them. As we all should.
Thank you.
BACK THE FUCK UP.
My post was about the fact that if you choose to describe things like that in a graphic manner.
YOU CAN AND AT SOME POINT WILL, IF YOU CARRY ON LIKE THAT, RESURFACE OLD FUCKING TRAUMA.
I AM NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T SAY WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT, I AM SAYING THE WAY YOU ARE SAYING IT HURTS PEOPLE.
YOUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH DOES NOT OVERRIDE SOMEONES FUCKIN' ABILITY TO GET TO SLEEP AT NIGHT WITHOUT OLD AND NASTY MEMORIES OF PAST ABUSE FUCKING WITH THEIR HEADS
IF YOU CANNOT GET THAT YOU ARE A WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT
Biped stuff.
It's not even a trigger thing. I mean, it severely squicks me out and I'm sure my past experiences, as well as being a parent, contribute to that, but also, I think that it's also generally a thing that you don't drop graphic, specific, and gratuitous descriptions of grotesque violence into a conversation because it tends to elicit a negative response from most people.
Navkat, if these things are in your head and you can't keep yourself from saying them, get counseling, because you will alienate people by blurting them out inappropriately.
The more you know.
Not that I expect you to respond to this, or to consider my point.
My guess is that you're going to dismiss it as thought-police dogpiling, and ride off in a righteously oppressed huff.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 04:50:54 PM
It's not even a trigger thing. I mean, it severely squicks me out and I'm sure my past experiences, as well as being a parent, contribute to that, but also, I think that it's also generally a thing that you don't drop graphic, specific, and gratuitous descriptions of grotesque violence into a conversation because it tends to elicit a negative response from most people.
Navkat, if these things are in your head and you can't keep yourself from saying them, get counseling, because you will alienate people by blurting them out inappropriately.
The more you know.
Yea, I mean I have a particular trigger. If I'm wanred about it, I can brush it off. if it's properly foreshadowed in movies or books etc I can cope. Random images of domestic violence will stick in my head for HOURS. Case in point- Watched Alien with my feminist group, absolutely fine. Fried Green Tomatoes without being warned. Nope.
I wasn't sure if Nigel gets triggered by stuff like that, but she definitely gets uncomfortable, and yanno, you cannot tell these things, so it's best if you don't want to cause someone emotional distress of some kind to modify your language if you actually give a shit about other peoples feelings (My personal view, YMMV). And just because you can cope with that shit, doesn't mean that in future you won't, and that what you think about dealing with trauma applies to everyone. It doesn't.
Quote from: Pixie on April 18, 2013, 06:48:35 AM
I get the urge to educate and yell at them.
Those are mutually exclusive activities. Just saying.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 18, 2013, 05:05:33 PM
Quote from: Pixie on April 18, 2013, 06:48:35 AM
I get the urge to educate and yell at them.
Those are mutually exclusive activities. Just saying.
i attempt to educate, and if that fails, well I yelled.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 04:20:38 PM
You can feel free to be forever "that chick who's NSFW because she talks about baby rape".
I mean, seriously Navkat, you taking the victim stance because for some reason you don't understand why that's socially unacceptable is kind of pathetic.
Right. Because that's what I'm notorious for.
And now I'm claiming victimhood and I'm kind of pathetic. Boy, my list of crimes and repugnant traits seem to have no ceiling. I never know what horrible things I'll discover about myself next.
Hey, did you ever think 1. I have my own "dark feelings" about the issue? or 2. There was a reason (aside from some frivolous act of literary dadaism) I made the choice to be specific/graphic?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 04:23:19 PM
And, I can't help but notice that you didn't bother to respond to my post until someone else chimed in to reinforce what I said, which tells me a lot about how much you give a flying fuck about my feelings.
Does it really? Did it occur to you that I may have tried to swallow it, back off and quietly ignore it for several days until it was opened back up for me to be reprimanded a second and a third time?
Nah. Couldn't be that. My response was totally about disrespecting you. How
pathetic.Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 04:50:54 PM
It's not even a trigger thing. I mean, it severely squicks me out and I'm sure my past experiences, as well as being a parent, contribute to that, but also, I think that it's also generally a thing that you don't drop graphic, specific, and gratuitous descriptions of grotesque violence into a conversation because it tends to elicit a negative response from most people.
Navkat, if these things are in your head and you can't keep yourself from saying them, get counseling, because you will alienate people by blurting them out inappropriately.
The more you know.
Funny, I didn't find it gratuitous. The idea touches some pretty dark shit in my head also. There was a very deliberate reason why I chose to let that little monster take a shit on the coffee table.
My only regret is that it was too much for people and therefore, ineffective at communicating my point.I just wanted to make that clear in case someone it tempted to lecture me about how ineffective it was at communicating my point.
You are free to return to calling me a horrible person now.
"Quietly backing off" is pretty much the same thing as "ignoring it until it goes away". Not responding is, in fact, disrespectful, regardless of how you want to spin it. It sends a pretty clear message that you don't give a shit and that my feelings and opinions are not important enough to merit a response. If that's not the message you intended to send, you might reconsider your approach.
The monsters inside your head are not my problem. If you can't control yourself, then I won't read your posts. Thanks for letting me know that's what I need to do.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 05:14:18 PM
And now I'm claiming victimhood and I'm kind of pathetic. Boy, my list of crimes and repugnant traits seem to have no ceiling. I never know what horrible things I'll discover about myself next.
Quote
You are free to return to calling me a horrible person now.
FYI, this is what I was referring to. It's very blown out of proportion to the actual criticism, and it reeks of black-and-white thinking.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 05:14:18 PM
My only regret is that it was too much for people and therefore, ineffective at communicating my point.
Read that to yourself just one more time, please.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 05:26:00 PM
"Quietly backing off" is pretty much the same thing as "ignoring it until it goes away". Not responding is, in fact, disrespectful, regardless of how you want to spin it. It sends a pretty clear message that you don't give a shit and that my feelings and opinions are not important enough to merit a response. If that's not the message you intended to send, you might reconsider your approach.
The monsters inside your head are not my problem. If you can't control yourself, then I won't read your posts. Thanks for letting me know that's what I need to do.
Now I'm spinning shit. I'm a liar too! And no matter what
I say about my thought process,
your perception of my feelings takes precedence.
I'm sorry but I dealt with all that "If you don't chase me to find out what's wrong, it's because you don't respect me! YES IT IS!" hissy fit bullshit from my
mom as a kid. It's a losing battle. Every. Single. Time. If you choose to perceive my letting it drop as an act of disrespect, I'm sorry for your self-induced experience of having been slighted. Can't help ya.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 05:28:37 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 05:14:18 PM
And now I'm claiming victimhood and I'm kind of pathetic. Boy, my list of crimes and repugnant traits seem to have no ceiling. I never know what horrible things I'll discover about myself next.
Quote
You are free to return to calling me a horrible person now.
FYI, this is what I was referring to. It's very blown out of proportion to the actual criticism, and it reeks of black-and-white thinking.
And this smacks of irresponsible psychoanalysis of friends, family and lovers in a biased and self-proclaimed state of having been offended. A cardinal sin and we both know it. I'm taking the same College-level Psych classes as you so...
And another thing (and this goes for everyone) I do not come here to be fucking reminded or scolded about what kind of
treatment I need--mental, medical or otherwise. Everyone on here has put their personal shit out there at some point or another so don't give me that crap about how I "brought it upon myself" because
my shit's uniquely public now. I'm not one to take my ball and go home (in the 6 or so years I've been here, I've only been tempted once and Faust crushed that) but if this becomes a hell where I am poked and prodded and discredited because people are taking liberty and license with regards to my mental diagnoses, (this includes personality disorders, eating disorders, abuse victim mentality, PTSD,stockholm syndrome or whatever other diagnosis
du jour you want to point to something I said as evidence to support) my continuing to post here will be fruitless and unpleasant and possibly even toxic and counterproductive to my
IRL struggle to find harmony and wellness. After you're all done sticking labels on me, I need to go home, peel them off and go about the business of discovering what's
really broken and what's working just fine.
If you think I'm fucking unhinged, feel free to hit that ignore button.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 18, 2013, 05:32:19 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 05:14:18 PM
My only regret is that it was too much for people and therefore, ineffective at communicating my point.
Read that to yourself just one more time, please.
Yeah, got that.
I was just asking for you to consider having some empathy, but hey.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 06:22:24 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 05:26:00 PM
"Quietly backing off" is pretty much the same thing as "ignoring it until it goes away". Not responding is, in fact, disrespectful, regardless of how you want to spin it. It sends a pretty clear message that you don't give a shit and that my feelings and opinions are not important enough to merit a response. If that's not the message you intended to send, you might reconsider your approach.
The monsters inside your head are not my problem. If you can't control yourself, then I won't read your posts. Thanks for letting me know that's what I need to do.
Now I'm spinning shit. I'm a liar too! And no matter what I say about my thought process, your perception of my feelings takes precedence.
I'm sorry but I dealt with all that "If you don't chase me to find out what's wrong, it's because you don't respect me! YES IT IS!" hissy fit bullshit from my mom as a kid. It's a losing battle. Every. Single. Time. If you choose to perceive my letting it drop as an act of disrespect, I'm sorry for your self-induced experience of having been slighted. Can't help ya.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 05:28:37 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 05:14:18 PM
And now I'm claiming victimhood and I'm kind of pathetic. Boy, my list of crimes and repugnant traits seem to have no ceiling. I never know what horrible things I'll discover about myself next.
Quote
You are free to return to calling me a horrible person now.
FYI, this is what I was referring to. It's very blown out of proportion to the actual criticism, and it reeks of black-and-white thinking.
And this smacks of irresponsible psychoanalysis of friends, family and lovers in a biased and self-proclaimed state of having been offended. A cardinal sin and we both know it. I'm taking the same College-level Psych classes as you so...
And another thing (and this goes for everyone) I do not come here to be fucking reminded or scolded about what kind of treatment I need--mental, medical or otherwise. Everyone on here has put their personal shit out there at some point or another so don't give me that crap about how I "brought it upon myself" because my shit's uniquely public now. I'm not one to take my ball and go home (in the 6 or so years I've been here, I've only been tempted once and Faust crushed that) but if this becomes a hell where I am poked and prodded and discredited because people are taking liberty and license with regards to my mental diagnoses, (this includes personality disorders, eating disorders, abuse victim mentality, PTSD,stockholm syndrome or whatever other diagnosis du jour you want to point to something I said as evidence to support) my continuing to post here will be fruitless and unpleasant and possibly even toxic and counterproductive to my IRL struggle to find harmony and wellness. After you're all done sticking labels on me, I need to go home, peel them off and go about the business of discovering what's really broken and what's working just fine.
If you think I'm fucking unhinged, feel free to hit that ignore button.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 18, 2013, 05:32:19 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 05:14:18 PM
My only regret is that it was too much for people and therefore, ineffective at communicating my point.
Read that to yourself just one more time, please.
Yeah, got that.
Done.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 06:22:24 PM
And another thing (and this goes for everyone) I do not come here to be fucking reminded or scolded about what kind of treatment I need--mental, medical or otherwise.
But please consider that other people don't come here to read graphic descriptions of awful shit happening to small children, especially without warning and outside of the general context of the thread.
It's not a free speech issue. Your post has not been erased or edited. Free speech applies to both sides of a conversation, and people expressing dismay and/or disgust at a post that was deliberately written to evoke such feelings is
also free speech.
I don't know what the purpose of the original shock piece was. I don't understand why you're surprised at the reaction. In general terms, you shat in the punchbowl. This got peoples' attention, but getting their attention and getting your point across are two entirely different steps in communication. In this case, getting peoples' attention was done so in a manner that was 169% guaranteed to not allow your point to go across.
If I were to walk into a party and loudly start talking about child rape, I imagine I'd get the same results. In fact, I can't imagine any
other result. And getting pissed off at that result makes no sense at all, because A) you initiated it, and B) no other response was possible.
If you need to shit in the punchbowl, nobody is going to stop you. If you insist on being pissed off by the reaction to that, though, you're in the wrong. It's just that simple. You don't get to be offensive without having people become offended. It's not their fault, it's yours.
It appears that she was trying to set the bar really high as to what constitues forgiveness and redemption. However, the following paragraph was about a politician's acts of contrition, and Nav believed it wasn't enough.
The two are fairly incongruent, and really never made the connection between the two subjects. If there was a valid parallel to make, or if it was part of a cohesive theme, I could easily (well, not easily) make a case for it. But I'm really not seeing the connection.
I'm willing to talk it though further, and in PMs, if you want, Nav.
This thread is now about whether Navkat can be redeemed in the eyes on the PD social community.
How meta.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 18, 2013, 06:50:41 PM
It appears that she was trying to set the bar really high as to what constitues forgiveness and redemption.
Using the term "child rapists" would have sufficed for that. It's not like people don't understand the implications of that in the abstract, and the conversation was abstract in nature.
Quote from: Cain on April 18, 2013, 06:54:28 PM
This thread is now about whether Navkat can be redeemed in the eyes on the PD social community.
How meta.
This thread is pretty much toast.
In fact, I'm going to go ahead and just give the thread to Navkat. She got what she came for, and the fact that I had spent an hour or so writing on a topic that was new and (I had hoped) interesting is a small price to pay for "LOOK AT ME! HEY, LOOK AT ME! WHY ARE YOU ALL LOOKING AT ME? I'M OUTRAGED!"
:|
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 18, 2013, 07:02:12 PM
In fact, I'm going to go ahead and just give the thread to Navkat. She got what she came for, and the fact that I had spent an hour or so writing on a topic that was new and (I had hoped) interesting is a small price to pay for "LOOK AT ME! HEY, LOOK AT ME! WHY ARE YOU ALL LOOKING AT ME? I'M OUTRAGED!"
:|
Maybe have it split? It's a really good topic, waste to let it go.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 07:16:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 18, 2013, 07:02:12 PM
In fact, I'm going to go ahead and just give the thread to Navkat. She got what she came for, and the fact that I had spent an hour or so writing on a topic that was new and (I had hoped) interesting is a small price to pay for "LOOK AT ME! HEY, LOOK AT ME! WHY ARE YOU ALL LOOKING AT ME? I'M OUTRAGED!"
:|
Maybe have it split? It's a really good topic, waste to let it go.
Later, maybe. Right now it's a dead issue. I figure I'll ask Cain to split it later, then write an add on to it to try to relaunch it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 18, 2013, 07:02:12 PM
In fact, I'm going to go ahead and just give the thread to Navkat. She got what she came for, and the fact that I had spent an hour or so writing on a topic that was new and (I had hoped) interesting is a small price to pay for "LOOK AT ME! HEY, LOOK AT ME! WHY ARE YOU ALL LOOKING AT ME? I'M OUTRAGED!"
:|
I'm still thinking about the OP. I get as far as "Well yeah, some people should just burn for the shit they do, no matter what they do or say." Which leads to "Well how is that justice if they genuinely change and can help fix the damage they've caused?"
"The potential for recidivism is too great a risk, in the worst case scenarios."
"What constitutes worst case scenario?"
"Who are you to judge?"
And on and on.
As a rape survivor and an abuse survivor, I spend large amounts of time thinking about this shit.
Forgiveness, more than redemption because I wouldn't want to be exposed to the people involved in the rape and abuse again, even if they're trying to make amends somehow. If they showed up at my work, or a fiber festival, or the county fair, handing out pamphlets for RAINN and the Suicide Hotline, I would probably lose my shit.
So I think my knee-jerk 'burn them all' comes from not wanting to be anywhere near the abusers, I don't want to see their faces, I don't want to hear their voices.
Even if they are 'doing good', just their image is a negative impact on those they hurt. Which maybe would make their acts of redemption less helpful in the whole redeeming thing.
So I think the redemption would need to come from someone else's hands than mine because I'm not biped enough to allow for it yet.
In the case of shit that hasn't actually happened to me . . . the example provided, for instance, I think George Wallace went from having an ideal of what he thought the world should be and seeing the reality of what his ideal wrought. That's a humbling and transformative experience right there. Especially when you realize how much you were involved in ruining what you sought to create.
I think redemption is possible.
Julian Assange . . . if he is a sexual predator then he needs to serve time for that. But it doesn't negate what he did and I don't think it should tarnish the information he released. But I'm basing this on the belief that the sexual predator thing was a smear campaign to invalidate what he'd done in the first place so maybe I'd feel differently if I thought he was actually a predator.
One thing about redemption is that it doesn't necessitate interacting with people who are like your former victims -- or even getting out of prison.
And, I am thinking about a greater social and perhaps historical redemption, not individual forgiveness and redemption.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 07:30:52 PM
One thing about redemption is that it doesn't necessitate interacting with people who are like your former victims -- or even getting out of prison.
Yep. Or even getting out of the harsh glare of negative publicity during your own lifetime.
This guy comes to mind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 18, 2013, 07:30:52 PM
One thing about redemption is that it doesn't necessitate interacting with people who are like your former victims -- or even getting out of prison.
That makes it easier to contemplate. Thanks.
Quote from: Pixie on April 18, 2013, 06:25:07 PM
I was just asking for you to consider having some empathy, but hey.
I do have empathy. That's why I don't take my wording lightly and it's primarily why I hoped it would illustrate my point. It was intended to strike a chord in a spot that causes all of us to wince. It flopped. I don't know how to resolve that in my mind because the last thing I want to do is cause "gratuitous" pain that nets nothing of value but I honestly don't know how to better transmit the message.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 06:22:24 PM
I'm not one to take my ball and go home (in the 6 or so years I've been here, I've only been tempted once and Faust crushed that)
I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 08:27:26 PM
It was intended to strike a chord in a spot that causes all of us to wince. It flopped
No, that part of it succeeded brilliantly. It succeeded so much everything
else flopped.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 08:27:26 PM
Quote from: Pixie on April 18, 2013, 06:25:07 PM
I was just asking for you to consider having some empathy, but hey.
I do have empathy. That's why I don't take my wording lightly and it's primarily why I hoped it would illustrate my point. It was intended to strike a chord in a spot that causes all of us to wince. It flopped. I don't know how to resolve that in my mind because the last thing I want to do is cause "gratuitous" pain that nets nothing of value but I honestly don't know how to better transmit the message.
As someone who has filter issues, may I suggest looking at what your head says . . . and then backing it down a few notches, from seizure to wince. My idea of what will make people wince usually makes them scream and flail, instead.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 18, 2013, 08:31:40 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 18, 2013, 08:27:26 PM
Quote from: Pixie on April 18, 2013, 06:25:07 PM
I was just asking for you to consider having some empathy, but hey.
I do have empathy. That's why I don't take my wording lightly and it's primarily why I hoped it would illustrate my point. It was intended to strike a chord in a spot that causes all of us to wince. It flopped. I don't know how to resolve that in my mind because the last thing I want to do is cause "gratuitous" pain that nets nothing of value but I honestly don't know how to better transmit the message.
As someone who has filter issues, may I suggest looking at what your head says . . . and then backing it down a few notches, from seizure to wince. My idea of what will make people wince usually makes them scream and flail, instead.
Same here. You may have noticed that my head is a filthy & awful place. I tend to tone it down, outside of fiction pieces I write, and even then I usually go back and reword things a bit.
ok, so, people have triggers. people deal with trauma in different ways.
I got told 3 months after my boyfriend (i was 21) died by a colleague to "just fucking get over it"
Too Soon? You betcha.
thing is, it doesn't matter if it was 3 months or 3 years...
You don't get to decide how other people deal with their shit, and I was trying to say that going *that far* in a graphic description or telling people how to cope is something I personally won't do, because I are not the arbiter of all the things and how things should be done. So my giving you figures and facts and asking you to do some reading was about considering the emotional health of others.
I think a spot of moderating my language or whatever is of more worth than "IMA SAY WHAT THE FUCK I WANT" and you know, fucking with someones head.
Okay, so :? sign a pention. If you get enough sigs, I give Faust the thumbs up to rip it down. Hell, get five. Mod the shit out of it. I don't give a rat's ass anymore.
I need to go yell fire in a theater or some shit. Rip wings of of flies. Catch ya ltr.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 19, 2013, 03:38:50 AM
Okay, so :? sign a pention. If you get enough sigs, I give Faust the thumbs up to rip it down. Hell, get five. Mod the shit out of it. I don't give a rat's ass anymore.
I need to go yell fire in a theater or some shit. Rip wings of of flies. Catch ya ltr.
what is so difficult to grasp?
Do you actually care
more about saying whatever the fuck you like than causing pain to others?
it's all it really fucking boils down to.
It's a pretty simple question and you are dancing around it like you're in a fucking conga line.
or am i just pissing in the wind here?
:facepalm:
Quote from: Pixie on April 19, 2013, 03:53:56 AM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 19, 2013, 03:38:50 AM
Okay, so :? sign a pention. If you get enough sigs, I give Faust the thumbs up to rip it down. Hell, get five. Mod the shit out of it. I don't give a rat's ass anymore.
I need to go yell fire in a theater or some shit. Rip wings of of flies. Catch ya ltr.
what is so difficult to grasp?
Do you actually care more about saying whatever the fuck you like than causing pain to others?
it's all it really fucking boils down to.
It's a pretty simple question and you are dancing around it like you're in a fucking conga line.
or am i just pissing in the wind here?
I think we might have an incipient NEW AND IMPROVED drug thread here, Pixie.
you know rather than pulling the "I'll take my boa and go" thing, maybe the defensive attitude isn't helpful.
cos seriously, that's what's making me pissy right now.
we aren't going to fucking well mod you. THIS IS PD.
Just wondering if you will think before you speak?
Quote from: stelz on April 19, 2013, 03:58:17 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 19, 2013, 03:53:56 AM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 19, 2013, 03:38:50 AM
Okay, so :? sign a pention. If you get enough sigs, I give Faust the thumbs up to rip it down. Hell, get five. Mod the shit out of it. I don't give a rat's ass anymore.
I need to go yell fire in a theater or some shit. Rip wings of of flies. Catch ya ltr.
what is so difficult to grasp?
Do you actually care more about saying whatever the fuck you like than causing pain to others?
it's all it really fucking boils down to.
It's a pretty simple question and you are dancing around it like you're in a fucking conga line.
or am i just pissing in the wind here?
I think we might have an incipient NEW AND IMPROVED drug thread here, Pixie.
(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/headbashwall.gif)
Quote from: Pixie on April 19, 2013, 04:03:12 AM
Quote from: stelz on April 19, 2013, 03:58:17 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 19, 2013, 03:53:56 AM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 19, 2013, 03:38:50 AM
Okay, so :? sign a pention. If you get enough sigs, I give Faust the thumbs up to rip it down. Hell, get five. Mod the shit out of it. I don't give a rat's ass anymore.
I need to go yell fire in a theater or some shit. Rip wings of of flies. Catch ya ltr.
what is so difficult to grasp?
Do you actually care more about saying whatever the fuck you like than causing pain to others?
it's all it really fucking boils down to.
It's a pretty simple question and you are dancing around it like you're in a fucking conga line.
or am i just pissing in the wind here?
I think we might have an incipient NEW AND IMPROVED drug thread here, Pixie.
(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/headbashwall.gif)
No, I'm seeing this is a definition of madness kind of thing.. I'f i don't get clarification I'll just file under "bad for blood pressure" and say fuck it.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 19, 2013, 03:38:50 AM
Okay, so :? sign a pention. If you get enough sigs, I give Faust the thumbs up to rip it down. Hell, get five. Mod the shit out of it. I don't give a rat's ass anymore.
I need to go yell fire in a theater or some shit. Rip wings of of flies. Catch ya ltr.
You know, I've had enough. Later.
Pix: I understand your point. And the level of the trigger was pretty big.
But, I have to be honest, and even though I spoke against it, a balance must be struck between words being said as words, and words being received as actions.
At what point does empathy dominate a person's ability to communicate to such a level that content is lost in the strive not to offend?
Roger's post about anti-communication is awesome. And clearly shows that the delivery affects communication. But there really should be some burden put on the listener to recognize their reactions, and maybe think through them.
I am NOT dismissing triggers, because they demonstrably exist and upset people. And an effort must be taken to ensure that the words used are not meant to stop conversation. But when an excess of empathy overwhelms a desire to speak, then we enter the realm of F5. People afraid to post, at the risk of offence, and devolving into inoffensive fluff and seeing what someone else says.
Again, what sparked this is fairly beyond the pale, but I'm speaking to the principle, not the most recent occurrence.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 19, 2013, 05:07:27 AM
Pix: I understand your point. And the level of the trigger was pretty big.
But, I have to be honest, and even though I spoke against it, a balance must be struck between words being said as words, and words being received as actions.
At what point does empathy dominate a person's ability to communicate to such a level that content is lost in the strive not to offend?
Roger's post about anti-communication is awesome. And clearly shows that the delivery affects communication. But there really should be some burden put on the listener to recognize their reactions, and maybe think through them.
I am NOT dismissing triggers, because they demonstrably exist and upset people. And an effort must be taken to ensure that the words used are not meant to stop conversation. But when an excess of empathy overwhelms a desire to speak, then we enter the realm of F5. People afraid to post, at the risk of offence, and devolving into inoffensive fluff and seeing what someone else says.
Again, what sparked this is fairly beyond the pale, but I'm speaking to the principle, not the most recent occurrence.
I think that all my point was, was what I said in my post, ie. "was that really necessary?" and "Saying shit like that when it's not necessary will repulse people". That's pretty much it. It would have been nice to get some acknowledgement of that, as it was primarily intended as a heads-up and not a beatdown or a dismissal, but frankly after the not-entirely-coherent but obviously profoundly hostile and defensive responses I'm not interested in offering reality checks or any other kind of interaction anymore.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 19, 2013, 05:07:27 AM
I am NOT dismissing triggers, because they demonstrably exist and upset people. And an effort must be taken to ensure that the words used are not meant to stop conversation. But when an excess of empathy overwhelms a desire to speak, then we enter the realm of F5. People afraid to post, at the risk of offence, and devolving into inoffensive fluff and seeing what someone else says.
I can see both sides of this rather a lot.
This is a problem I run into. I have a very hard time judging what is appropriate phrasing on PD so I don't talk a lot because I'm convinced I'm going to say what I'm trying to get out the wrong way and then spend the rest of the day with FUCK YOU, ASSHAT!! and then while I'm at work I'll worry about it and come home to YOU DIDN'T REPLY SO YOU ARE A DOUCHECANOE TIMES TWO!! stuff. So I try not to post unless I've either 1.) got something harmless to say or 2.) have thought about it a fair bit. I delete about five times the posts I actually make.
I consider it part of the learning process, working around my brain issues.
I guess I was trying to say I don't know where the line is for empathy vs suck it up, either, but I got lost.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 19, 2013, 05:07:27 AM
Pix: I understand your point. And the level of the trigger was pretty big.
But, I have to be honest, and even though I spoke against it, a balance must be struck between words being said as words, and words being received as actions.
At what point does empathy dominate a person's ability to communicate to such a level that content is lost in the strive not to offend?
Roger's post about anti-communication is awesome. And clearly shows that the delivery affects communication. But there really should be some burden put on the listener to recognize their reactions, and maybe think through them.
I am NOT dismissing triggers, because they demonstrably exist and upset people. And an effort must be taken to ensure that the words used are not meant to stop conversation. But when an excess of empathy overwhelms a desire to speak, then we enter the realm of F5. People afraid to post, at the risk of offence, and devolving into inoffensive fluff and seeing what someone else says.
Again, what sparked this is fairly beyond the pale, but I'm speaking to the principle, not the most recent occurrence.
I think it's context and the space you are in and the people in it, primarily.
Intent IS a factor, of course, and you can tell malice from ignorance a lot of the time in speech, YMMV online, though.
I think that if you do fuck up and push it too far, an apology and a note for "lets not repeat do that in the place you said it or around person that it hurt." is a good enough way to balance self-expression vs potential negative impact. (e.g i have filters for FB that if people are triggered by the content i post, they can message me and I can filter them out of those posts.)
Misjudging these things is easy. We have all done it.
Everyone fucks up. it's how it's dealt with in the aftermath that's more important, and dismissing others experiences / dictating how they should feel after the fact is a dick move.
I'm used to minding what i say around certain people, and I can still get my point across, just takes a more deft use of language and creativity to get to the same point.
I think that's maybe why i don't mind, because for me (again YMMV) it's a challenge to creativity. I'm also used to hanging around with abuse survivors on a regular basis, so for me it's kind of become reflex.
Yep, say what you want. If you fuck up, "sorry, my bad" pretty much makes it go away.
Bipedalism vs. digging in heels, etc.
Quote from: stelz on April 19, 2013, 06:33:56 AM
Yep, say what you want. If you fuck up, "sorry, my bad" pretty much makes it go away.
Bipedalism vs. digging in heels, etc.
Yep, pretty much.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 19, 2013, 03:38:50 AM
Okay, so :? sign a pention. If you get enough sigs, I give Faust the thumbs up to rip it down. Hell, get five. Mod the shit out of it. I don't give a rat's ass anymore.
I need to go yell fire in a theater or some shit. Rip wings of of flies. Catch ya ltr.
I'd rather not, Its been about two years since I have split or modded a thread, I'd prefer not to.
Getting butthurt because people are saying shit you don't like in response to you saying something they didn't like and accusing them of censorship is, IMO, fucking retarded.
What Navcat has been saying for the last couple of pages (or the way I've been reading it at least) is
"Free speech mofos I can say anything I like, tralala..."
followed by
"Waaaahh. Stop responding by saying things I don't like. You have no right"
Often in the same sentence.
:facepalm:
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 19, 2013, 05:33:25 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 19, 2013, 05:07:27 AM
I am NOT dismissing triggers, because they demonstrably exist and upset people. And an effort must be taken to ensure that the words used are not meant to stop conversation. But when an excess of empathy overwhelms a desire to speak, then we enter the realm of F5. People afraid to post, at the risk of offence, and devolving into inoffensive fluff and seeing what someone else says.
I can see both sides of this rather a lot.
This is a problem I run into. I have a very hard time judging what is appropriate phrasing on PD so I don't talk a lot because I'm convinced I'm going to say what I'm trying to get out the wrong way and then spend the rest of the day with FUCK YOU, ASSHAT!! and then while I'm at work I'll worry about it and come home to YOU DIDN'T REPLY SO YOU ARE A DOUCHECANOE TIMES TWO!! stuff. So I try not to post unless I've either 1.) got something harmless to say or 2.) have thought about it a fair bit. I delete about five times the posts I actually make.
I consider it part of the learning process, working around my brain issues.
I guess I was trying to say I don't know where the line is for empathy vs suck it up, either, but I got lost.
This is pretty much me as well.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 19, 2013, 05:33:25 AM
So I try not to post unless I've either 1.) got something harmless to say or 2.) have thought about it a fair bit. I delete about five times the posts I actually make.
This is the incorrect :motorcycle:
I really like your posts, CPD. I would enjoy seeing more of them.
Same with you, Sita.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 19, 2013, 03:22:35 PM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 19, 2013, 05:33:25 AM
So I try not to post unless I've either 1.) got something harmless to say or 2.) have thought about it a fair bit. I delete about five times the posts I actually make.
This is the incorrect :motorcycle:
When something pops into my head I tend to just blurt it the hell out and if it's retarded I get told so. Saves me having to work it out for myself which is much more work and nowhere near as reliable as consensus.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 19, 2013, 04:33:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 19, 2013, 03:22:35 PM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 19, 2013, 05:33:25 AM
So I try not to post unless I've either 1.) got something harmless to say or 2.) have thought about it a fair bit. I delete about five times the posts I actually make.
This is the incorrect :motorcycle:
When something pops into my head I tend to just blurt it the hell out and if it's retarded I get told so. Saves me having to work it out for myself which is much more work and nowhere near as reliable as consensus.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I like your policy.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 19, 2013, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 19, 2013, 04:33:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 19, 2013, 03:22:35 PM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 19, 2013, 05:33:25 AM
So I try not to post unless I've either 1.) got something harmless to say or 2.) have thought about it a fair bit. I delete about five times the posts I actually make.
This is the incorrect :motorcycle:
When something pops into my head I tend to just blurt it the hell out and if it's retarded I get told so. Saves me having to work it out for myself which is much more work and nowhere near as reliable as consensus.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I like your policy.
And it's a lot more entertaining than a bunch of people F5ing. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
That is the only way to PD, or anything else IMO.
You just let it all go. No filters. Eventually, and painfully, you will find your way and it will feel fantastic. There's always a chance you might say The Wrong Thing At The Wrong Time, others even a chance you might say something while your head is neatly shoved up your own ass. But you get better at it, and you feel better, and you're better equipped to stop the stupid, your own or other peoples. Preferably your own.
Um... isn't that what Nav was doing?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 19, 2013, 06:12:09 PM
Um... isn't that what Nav was doing?
Yes, and I am not ignoring her. the consequences of doing that can be ugly, I'm just saying I would personally rather have ugly in my life and learn from it. That's the risk.
Put it this way, no matter what happens here with drama and such I'd rather kick back, drink some beers, and have fun with most of you people as opposed to billions of others because of the propensity for acting just the way Navkat has.
Of course, there's a time to step back and LOOK at what you've said and done to make sure you aren't shitting all over the place, but how do you know until your done? How do you get to anything if you don't try?
Of course, if you DID shit all over the place you may want to, you know, cleaning up.
And anyhow, I don't think there's been a full condemnation of Navkat anywhere.
Nigel said she simply doesn't want to see it and will ignore her if she can't stop herself.
Pixie states that if you start shouting things that hurt people and don't stop when they ask nicely you may not be a very nice person. Generally theres been a feeling of FFS, JUST STFU.
But the harshest words about Navkat have most definitely come from Navkat.
Quote from: Alty on April 19, 2013, 07:31:01 PM
And anyhow, I don't think there's been a full condemnation of Navkat anywhere.
Nigel said she simply doesn't want to see it and will ignore her if she can't stop herself.
Pixie states that if you start shouting things that hurt people and don't stop when they ask nicely you may not be a very nice person. Generally theres been a feeling of FFS, JUST STFU.
But the harshest words about Navkat have most definitely come from Navkat.
Yeah, pretty much. I'm not super-keen on her attributing things I didn't say to me, but that isn't really my problem. I stated my case, giving what I thought was fair warning about my reaction to something that I and others have talked to her about before. Her response, once she did respond, tells me all I need to know, and that's that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 19, 2013, 03:22:35 PM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 19, 2013, 05:33:25 AM
So I try not to post unless I've either 1.) got something harmless to say or 2.) have thought about it a fair bit. I delete about five times the posts I actually make.
This is the incorrect :motorcycle:
I'll work on it.
Quote from: Alty on April 19, 2013, 05:56:54 PM
That is the only way to PD, or anything else IMO.
You just let it all go. No filters. Eventually, and painfully, you will find your way and it will feel fantastic. There's always a chance you might say The Wrong Thing At The Wrong Time, others even a chance you might say something while your head is neatly shoved up your own ass. But you get better at it, and you feel better, and you're better equipped to stop the stupid, your own or other peoples. Preferably your own.
At the 'eventually, painfully' and haven't progressed to 'find your way and feel fantastic'. Thanks for the reply. I will keep this in mind.
Back to OP. How does one redeem themselves for murder. Like I was just walking along, and I was bored, and I stabbed someone and walked away.
How does one try to help someone like this? I liked Nigel's idea of a rapist spending eternity helping rape victims while everyone knowing that said person is rapist. They pretty much live on the edge of someone kicking their ass everyday.
Quote from: /b/earman on April 20, 2013, 11:28:29 AM
Back to OP. How does one redeem themselves for murder. Like I was just walking along, and I was bored, and I stabbed someone and walked away.
How does one try to help someone like this? I liked Nigel's idea of a rapist spending eternity helping rape victims while everyone knowing that said person is rapist. They pretty much live on the edge of someone kicking their ass everyday.
Actually, I think she meant a rapist taking to dudes about consent.
I'm pretty sure any rape survivor I know would tell them to fuck off.
A murderer could be forgiven by the victim's family at any time for any reason.
A murderer could redeem himself in the eyes of society by serving an appropriate amount of time in prison (thereby acting as an object lesson in "not murdering people" for other people who might be considering that idea), making an offer to the victim's family to engage in a dialogue about what could help them return to a state of relative normalcy, and living the rest of his life contritely, within the bounds of the law and good taste. A murderer who forgives himself is unlikely to be seen as "redeemed" in society.
If we go with the BiP metaphor, people behave the way they do, because of their life experience, education, beliefs, etc etc etc. If we think that its possible to change our BiP, then it must be possible to change the ick/squick/bad behavior as well. Forgiveness, however, seems to me like a very personal thing. If someone raped a woman, even if they changed, I don't know if that woman should or even could truly forgive them (probably depends on their own BiP). However, as someone not connected to the rapist or the victim, I may be able to see the change and not judge the rest of their life based on that previous behavior.
I might be able to say "Hey, George Wallace changed, I can have a conversation with him and not presume he's a racist fuck." However, if I was the individual he was blocking from entry in front of everyone, maybe I'd say "Nah, fuck that guy".
I don't think there's anything wrong with either of those positions, and I don't think they're in conflict. The conflict, IMO, wuld be the victim, or the non-connected person, trying to enforce their position on the other person. It pisses me off to no end to hear someone try to convince someone else that they 'must' forgive someone who has done them wrong... or for someone to try to make everyone damn someone, no matter what has changed.
forgiveness isn't done by society, its done by humans.
I think...
Unless there's a giant invisible man with a scorecard then redemption is an opinion. A lot of the time it's talked about as if it's an absolute but it isn't.
Someone might kill an entire village, just for a laugh and the sole survivor might forgive him and they both live happily ever after. Then some other punter accidentally wipes someone out in his car and it's not really even his fault, like the kid ran out between parked cars or some shit but the family hold a grudge against the driver forever.
It's always been my opinion that forgiving someone is something that you do to yourself if that makes any sense.
Stockholm Syndrome: forgiveness as a disorder?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 21, 2013, 02:06:43 PM
It's always been my opinion that forgiving someone is something that you do to yourself if that makes any sense.
Pretty much how it worked for me. I got tired of being a raging ball of psycho crazy screaming "LOOK AT WHAT WAS DONE TO ME!!!" And decided, fuck it. I'm done.
All the stupid shitheads telling me to forgive so HE can heal and HE can feel better . . . telling me GOD did this to me for a reason, I need to learn from it . . . telling me I did this to myself before I was reincarnated so I should let it go already . . .
I was at the point where I felt pretty much every other single living person including my abusers could go die in a fucking fire.
And that shit is exhausting.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 22, 2013, 05:16:40 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 21, 2013, 02:06:43 PM
It's always been my opinion that forgiving someone is something that you do to yourself if that makes any sense.
Pretty much how it worked for me. I got tired of being a raging ball of psycho crazy screaming "LOOK AT WHAT WAS DONE TO ME!!!" And decided, fuck it. I'm done.
All the stupid shitheads telling me to forgive so HE can heal and HE can feel better . . . telling me GOD did this to me for a reason, I need to learn from it . . . telling me I did this to myself before I was reincarnated so I should let it go already . . .
I was at the point where I felt pretty much every other single living person including my abusers could go die in a fucking fire.
And that shit is exhausting.
You guys are talking about forgiveness. I'm talking about redemption, which is a totally different thing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 22, 2013, 03:58:10 PM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 22, 2013, 05:16:40 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 21, 2013, 02:06:43 PM
It's always been my opinion that forgiving someone is something that you do to yourself if that makes any sense.
Pretty much how it worked for me. I got tired of being a raging ball of psycho crazy screaming "LOOK AT WHAT WAS DONE TO ME!!!" And decided, fuck it. I'm done.
All the stupid shitheads telling me to forgive so HE can heal and HE can feel better . . . telling me GOD did this to me for a reason, I need to learn from it . . . telling me I did this to myself before I was reincarnated so I should let it go already . . .
I was at the point where I felt pretty much every other single living person including my abusers could go die in a fucking fire.
And that shit is exhausting.
You guys are talking about forgiveness. I'm talking about redemption, which is a totally different thing.
Yeah. You can have forgiveness without redemption, and you can have redemption without forgiveness.
Sort of like how a good deed doesn't require recognition.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 22, 2013, 05:00:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 22, 2013, 03:58:10 PM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 22, 2013, 05:16:40 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 21, 2013, 02:06:43 PM
It's always been my opinion that forgiving someone is something that you do to yourself if that makes any sense.
Pretty much how it worked for me. I got tired of being a raging ball of psycho crazy screaming "LOOK AT WHAT WAS DONE TO ME!!!" And decided, fuck it. I'm done.
All the stupid shitheads telling me to forgive so HE can heal and HE can feel better . . . telling me GOD did this to me for a reason, I need to learn from it . . . telling me I did this to myself before I was reincarnated so I should let it go already . . .
I was at the point where I felt pretty much every other single living person including my abusers could go die in a fucking fire.
And that shit is exhausting.
You guys are talking about forgiveness. I'm talking about redemption, which is a totally different thing.
Yeah. You can have forgiveness without redemption, and you can have redemption without forgiveness.
Yep. Redemption is atonement, and that can't be granted by mere forgiveness.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 22, 2013, 03:58:10 PM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 22, 2013, 05:16:40 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 21, 2013, 02:06:43 PM
It's always been my opinion that forgiving someone is something that you do to yourself if that makes any sense.
Pretty much how it worked for me. I got tired of being a raging ball of psycho crazy screaming "LOOK AT WHAT WAS DONE TO ME!!!" And decided, fuck it. I'm done.
All the stupid shitheads telling me to forgive so HE can heal and HE can feel better . . . telling me GOD did this to me for a reason, I need to learn from it . . . telling me I did this to myself before I was reincarnated so I should let it go already . . .
I was at the point where I felt pretty much every other single living person including my abusers could go die in a fucking fire.
And that shit is exhausting.
You guys are talking about forgiveness. I'm talking about redemption, which is a totally different thing.
In that case I can honestly say that I don't understand redemption. I can't see past it being a supernatural authority thing. Explain redemption pls?
So . . . hmm . . .
Hypothetical Situation.
One kid beats the crap out of another kid, putting him in the hospital. First kid goes to juvie and therapy. Second kid gets lots of medical bills and reconstructive surgery.
Redemption would be the first kid realising he fucked up, genuinely feeling remorseful, and doing something about it. After anger management classes, lots of therapy, and some constructive hobby that allows for a vent, karate or boxing or making paper airplanes . . . he gets his shit together and decides to become a councilor. Once he's out he goes to school and gets a job helping others deal with their emotions in a way that doesn't involve turning other people into punching bags.
Regardless of what happens between Kid 1 and Kid 2 from that point on, Kid 1 has to deal with the mess he made and do what he can to - if not fix it, which is pretty impossible - make amends by paying it forward so to speak, right?
Is that more what we're talking about here?
Hope that makes sense.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 23, 2013, 12:37:51 AM
So . . . hmm . . .
Hypothetical Situation.
One kid beats the crap out of another kid, putting him in the hospital. First kid goes to juvie and therapy. Second kid gets lots of medical bills and reconstructive surgery.
Redemption would be the first kid realising he fucked up, genuinely feeling remorseful, and doing something about it. After anger management classes, lots of therapy, and some constructive hobby that allows for a vent, karate or boxing or making paper airplanes . . . he gets his shit together and decides to become a councilor. Once he's out he goes to school and gets a job helping others deal with their emotions in a way that doesn't involve turning other people into punching bags.
Regardless of what happens between Kid 1 and Kid 2 from that point on, Kid 1 has to deal with the mess he made and do what he can to - if not fix it, which is pretty impossible - make amends by paying it forward so to speak, right?
Is that more what we're talking about here?
Hope that makes sense.
Yes. Something a lot like that.
Sort like how a lot of people who had drug addiction issues become drug and alcohol counselors.
In a way, redemption might be more of an internal process than an external one.
So if it were two men fighting and the first guy killed the second, leaving a widow and kids without their husband and father . . .
The question becomes "What can be done to compensate or atone for this loss of life and the impact it might have had?"
So the first guy goes to jail, guilty on all charges. Life sentence, chance of parole in thirty years. Death penalty off the table. What could he do to come back from his crime? What impact could he have that would balance out a wife without a husband and children without a father? In the killer's eyes.
. . .
I suppose this shouldn't be such an arduous discussion to have with people, but we get so side-tracked by the crime itself and how we respond to that - and the victim and what goes on there - that the other part the story is sort of slapped with stereotypes and locked in a cage.
So what would happen to the murderer after he's locked up and the key is thrown away? What would his process be?
Maybe he joins a gang in prison and beats up people, gets the shit beat out of him.
Maybe he genuinely regrets what he did and wants to do something, anything to fix it. What options does he have? Maybe he starts taking college courses and gets a degree in something. What could he do with it?
Maybe he just does what he can to keep the peace on his cell block. Starts looking out for the little guy and ends up taking a beating that kills him.
. . .
Now I'm just rambling. Sorry. I'm still trying to figure out what he'd have to do that would redeem himself in the eyes of the public and to himself.
redemption is a squaring up. the damage caused must be equaled by good action. benevolence and sacrifice.
but then i think of the hanged man; redemption through suffering. what's that worth?
seems a fundamental aspect of ones personality, the relative weight that one assigns to some given amount of benevolent sacrific vs. some given amount of suffering in its own right.
i'm inclined to say that valuing suffering alone as a means of attaining some balance is barbarous, but something deep inside is pretty firmly rooted to that notion, as if at some level, no amount of benevolence and sacrifice would be enough to balance some acts without some suffering involved as well.
I think part of the death penalty's appeal is that it guarantees peace of mind that THIS criminal won't EVER hurt ANYONE again. But it doesn't really give the dead a chance to redeem themselves, if so inclined. All they can offer is their death and they aren't even offering it, it's being enacted forcefully.
So maybe the death penalty negates the worth of suffering, since that suffering isn't because the criminal understands and wants to atone, it's because another criminal act is being perpetrated against the condemned because that person has ceased to be recognized as a human being.
I know people who would insist that adds to the worth since the criminal's life would be taken forcefully. That makes it better, more just. But somehow I don't think so.
I like where CPD is going with this.
Sorry for derailing your thread, Roger.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 25, 2013, 09:47:05 AM
Sorry for derailing your thread, Roger.
You know he was gone all day yesterday because power outages, right?
I wouldn't like to think that redemption is out of the question for anyone. Redemption I think is a thing that only a person can try to grant themselves, but it's a thing can only be sought by the truly repentant. So, it doesn't matter if other people are like "YUO CANNOT MAKE UP FOR THIS," or " YUO AMS NOT SORRY ENOUGH," it really isn't up to them. It's a personal thing, made of self-transformation searching and regret and whatnot.
the opportunity for redemption is why i am against the death penalty.
Quote from: Pixie on April 26, 2013, 12:57:45 AM
the opportunity for redemption is why i am against the death penalty.
Well, that and all the people who shouldn't have been there in the first place. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row)
RE OP:
Who says those deeds are stacked against one another?
If a person commits a murder, does time, changes, perhaps finds Jesus and becomes afraid of Hell, and does good with their life that's just super.
The act has been committed, the consequences unavoidable and forever etched into history. If that person commits good acts later, for personal atonement or simply because they realize its a better way to live...what does that mean for the victims? That depends on them, but I can tell you now I wouldn't forgive such a person.
Does that mean they shouldnt try to live a better life? No. That's their business, and everyone should try to squeeze out as much good out of life as possible. But why must those deeds be stacked against one another unless forgiveness is a direct and immediate concern?
From an objective perspective there is nothing that should keep people from seeking redemption, if it makes them feel better about it. I certainly try to live my life better then I did before, and I've fucked people over. Nothing big, but there are things that fill me with shame. Does the forgiveness from those people enable me to improve myself? No, I HAVE to do it, with no gratitude, no fanfare, no witnesses to my struggle to redeem myself. I have to because its better to live that way.
From a subjective perspective I don't give a fuck about the people that have fucked me over, I just want then to stay away from me. Should they seek redemption? That is fully, 169% THEIR deal and has got not one thing to do with me. They either will, or they won't. I won't know either way. And if I find out they're doing JUST SWELL and are just chock full of regret I'll think Super and Keep It Away From Me.
Though, to be fair, I only treat people that way in very specific circumstances.
Quote from: stelz on April 26, 2013, 01:09:21 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 26, 2013, 12:57:45 AM
the opportunity for redemption is why i am against the death penalty.
Well, that and all the people who shouldn't have been there in the first place. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row)
Well, thats kind of a given..
Quote from: Alty on April 26, 2013, 02:16:49 AM
RE OP:
Who says those deeds are stacked against one another?
If a person commits a murder, does time, changes, perhaps finds Jesus and becomes afraid of Hell, and does good with their life that's just super.
The act has been committed, the consequences unavoidable and forever etched into history. If that person commits good acts later, for personal atonement or simply because they realize its a better way to live...what does that mean for the victims? That depends on them, but I can tell you now I wouldn't forgive such a person.
Does that mean they shouldnt try to live a better life? No. That's their business, and everyone should try to squeeze out as much good out of life as possible. But why must those deeds be stacked against one another unless forgiveness is a direct and immediate concern?
From an objective perspective there is nothing that should keep people from seeking redemption, if it makes them feel better about it. I certainly try to live my life better then I did before, and I've fucked people over. Nothing big, but there are things that fill me with shame. Does the forgiveness from those people enable me to improve myself? No, I HAVE to do it, with no gratitude, no fanfare, no witnesses to my struggle to redeem myself. I have to because its better to live that way.
From a subjective perspective I don't give a fuck about the people that have fucked me over, I just want then to stay away from me. Should they seek redemption? That is fully, 169% THEIR deal and has got not one thing to do with me. They either will, or they won't. I won't know either way. And if I find out they're doing JUST SWELL and are just chock full of regret I'll think Super and Keep It Away From Me.
Though, to be fair, I only treat people that way in very specific circumstances.
Well, I think that there's kind of the point of the conversation about the difference between redemption and forgiveness. Forgiveness can be given by the injured party, or not, completely independent of redemption, which is more of an internal process IMO, although influenced by social factors.
Further, I think that a person can find redemption without forgiving themselves.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 26, 2013, 02:25:47 AM
Further, I think that a person can find redemption without forgiving themselves.
This. Maybe not really forgiving yourself is what keeps you working at the redemption.
10:40:0?
Bump to link related thread: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34732.msg1266566.html#msg1266566
I'm all about changing my mind.
This one is tough for me. I made the mistake of thinking about it solely from an individual level.
However, I honestly have a hard time doing otherwise. Generally intend to view the world from this tiny, single perspective.
But take those Exodus dicks. That's a subject that's too close for me. I'm not saying I'd set that asshole on fire, but to paraphrase what a wise man once said:
I would not piss down his throat if his heart was on fire.
Those people destroy the minds and brains of children.
How in the fuck do I hold anything but malice in my heart for such a human? Because they're more likely to quit if I don't? Eh...that's not enough for me. They don't need to stop because I don't like it. They need to stop because it is wrong. After they stop they cam write a book about their own struggle and get on Oprah and cry.
And those kids that wanted God's love so bad, but were told they could not have it for their sins...
It's just too close to me for anything but rage.
How do I get past that?
Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2013, 05:49:56 PM
I'm all about changing my mind.
This one is tough for me. I made the mistake of thinking about it solely from an individual level.
However, I honestly have a hard time doing otherwise. Generally intend to view the world from this tiny, single perspective.
But take those Exodus dicks. That's a subject that's too close for me. I'm not saying I'd set that asshole on fire, but to paraphrase what a wise man once said:
I would not piss down his throat if his heart was on fire.
Those people destroy the minds and brains of children.
How in the fuck do I hold anything but malice in my heart for such a human? Because they're more likely to quit if I don't? Eh...that's not enough for me. They don't need to stop because I don't like it. They need to stop because it is wrong. After they stop they cam write a book about their own struggle and get on Oprah and cry.
And those kids that wanted God's love so bad, but were told they could not have it for their sins...
It's just too close to me for anything but rage.
How do I get past that?
In this case, Chambers has repudiated the practice, discrediting it in the eyes of many, which means that not only will HE stop, but that others will, too.
He is in a very rare position; he can't undo what he's done, but he CAN make it much harder for other people to do the same bad acts he committed.
Is anyone asking you to LIKE the guy? No. But if it comes down to winning with some stains on your shirt or losing with a halo, I'm all for winning. And if that means accepting the defeat of my enemies, particularly if they're willing to attack the causes they used to espouse, then so be it.
OK. I will think in that.
This is a big thing with me and people I think. I might just learn something today.
:lol:
I've been thinking a little about this, and I'm curious as to feelings about Corporate/Organisation redemption.(Various thoughts, sorry if unrelated/de-railing) It's easy to name a dozen global companies that are complicit in horrific activities for profit. Coca-Cola would be an easy target, bottling plants worldwide fuck with water supplies and their attitude to unions is somewhat draconian to say the least.
The societal action of condemnation and calls for boycotts have some impact, but the machinery is large enough to effectively silence dissent against the company. This seems to explain the huge value attached to a brand. It's not the name, it's a indication of ability to ignore criticism. In this way it could be seen as an extension of political power.
Another aspect of redemption, is the transgressor must be actively seeking it. Here you get massive outrage due to cognitive dissonance. Think BP. "I'm sorry. Supposed to be on holiday you know" It's insincere, and very insulting.
It is a struggle to name any large company that isn't shitty somewhere in world. Some of the crimes (and many do commit blatant crime) are sure to be seen by those they impact as unforgivable. Bhopal, say? With the corporate structure, you are able to dilute your perceived responsibility in these acts. "Only following orders". In this regard until there are severe financial punishments that are actually enforced across borders, corporations are effectively allowed to choose their own legal restraints.
One reason frequently offered for corporate behaviour is that they are legally obligated to make a profit for shareholders, it would seem that one way to limit risky or negative behaviours would be to play with this somewhat. Limiting the amount of profit a person can make is unlikely to fly with capitalist culture however. Perhaps seriously legal liability for any crime with damage over the value of X and an instant go-to-jail. Make elite positions have elite consequences. There might be fewer accidents and less public ill will if whenever you heard about a disaster, you knew that the board were going to jail. I'm sure after their time is served they'll be treated just as equitably as any other ex-convict with powerful and influential friends. At least there will be a bit of stigma.
Somewhat rambling, just trying to figure out differences if any between individual and group redemption I guess.
I don't, at the moment, believe in corporate redemption, because at the end of the day all corporations have profit as their prime directive. There are no "good" corporations, only "less evil" corporations. They are not capable of DESIRING redemption, only in desiring the APPEARANCE of redemption, and since profit is still their prime directive, it is unlikely that they will do real good; rather, they will do the amount of good that is necessary to promote the appearance of doing good to their customers, in order to convince them to continue to buy their products.
Now, that can effect positive change; for example, McDonald's has absolutely gutted some of Monsanto's GMO products by refusing to buy them. Without McDonald's, the product never even made it to the market. But is that redemption? Not really. It's just a calculated, highly visible reduction in evil. McDonald's concluded that their customers would object to GMO french fries and that there would be protests and that it would cost them market share. That's all. So ultimately, it isn't McDonald's setting the course for corporate change, it's the McDonalds customer base.
I'd fully accept the idea of corporate redemption being impossible, or a least little more than a façade for extra profit. Taking the Mcdonalds example, it seems that direct consumer perceptions or outrage (Microsoft's new Console kinda relates here) can occasionally create a favourable change. I would guess the concern is greater for things you interact with more frequently, which explains why EA/Mcdonalds/Nike and the like get such shit. If you're seeing/using it daily, minor annoyances build up faster.
I think there's a conversation for how to realistically make corporations act in "less evil" ways, but that's probably best for a different thread.
Yeah, that would be a great topic!
I think that the redemption we see when public opinion changes the way corporations do business belongs to the public, rather than to the corporations.
I approve of the corporate death penalty...but that doesn't properly punish the executives, does it?
You steal $1000 in a robbery you go to jail.
You steal 100 million from the country, you aren't even investigated.
...Hey...can we charge the bankers with treason against the United States?
That would be swell.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 24, 2013, 08:29:39 AM
I approve of the corporate death penalty...but that doesn't properly punish the executives, does it?
You steal $1000 in a robbery you go to jail.
You steal 100 million from the country, you aren't even investigated.
...Hey...can we charge the bankers with treason against the United States?
That would be swell.
If only corporate money didn't have such a stranglehold on the US government, we might be able to do something. We really need campaign finding reform and laws that restrict other contributions so that corporations can't simply buy the government they want.
Funny, our founding fathers knew we needed a separation of church and state, but it didn't occur to them that we also needed a separation of commerce and state.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 23, 2013, 07:16:01 PM
Yeah, that would be a great topic!
I think that the redemption we see when public opinion changes the way corporations do business belongs to the public, rather than to the corporations.
Like Facebook backing down on the allowing of misogynistic content after Women's Action Media put pressure on their advertisers?
Quote from: Pixie on June 24, 2013, 03:57:39 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 23, 2013, 07:16:01 PM
Yeah, that would be a great topic!
I think that the redemption we see when public opinion changes the way corporations do business belongs to the public, rather than to the corporations.
Like Facebook backing down on the allowing of misogynistic content after Women's Action Media put pressure on their advertisers?
Yep!
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 23, 2013, 05:06:12 PM
I don't, at the moment, believe in corporate redemption, because at the end of the day all corporations have profit as their prime directive. There are no "good" corporations, only "less evil" corporations. They are not capable of DESIRING redemption, only in desiring the APPEARANCE of redemption, and since profit is still their prime directive, it is unlikely that they will do real good; rather, they will do the amount of good that is necessary to promote the appearance of doing good to their customers, in order to convince them to continue to buy their products.
I think another way to say this is that corporations are by definition amoral, rather than immoral...Which, of course, is WORSE. They're not bad because they made bad choices, they're bad at a fundamental, unchangeable level. The most that can be done is to force them to behave via regulation.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 24, 2013, 03:42:00 PM
Funny, our founding fathers knew we needed a separation of church and state, but it didn't occur to them that we also needed a separation of commerce and state.
The deregulation assholes would have a field day with that.
I'm going to write an opener for this in a while, more here than I considered.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2013, 06:12:38 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 24, 2013, 03:42:00 PM
Funny, our founding fathers knew we needed a separation of church and state, but it didn't occur to them that we also needed a separation of commerce and state.
The deregulation assholes would have a field day with that.
This is true. It needs to be a one-way separation; commerce shall not intrude upon matters of government.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 24, 2013, 07:36:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2013, 06:12:38 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 24, 2013, 03:42:00 PM
Funny, our founding fathers knew we needed a separation of church and state, but it didn't occur to them that we also needed a separation of commerce and state.
The deregulation assholes would have a field day with that.
This is true. It needs to be a one-way separation; commerce shall not intrude upon matters of government.
Public Citizen is trying to get a constitutional amendment passed to declare that corporations are not people.
I think that if change from within the system is still possible, that something like that is needed.
Relevant wingnuttery:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/21/mcconnell-absurd-to-ban-corporations-from-having-same-rights-as-people/
QuoteSenate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Friday said that he opposed a constitutional amendment to ban corporations from having the same rights as people because the idea was "absurd."
QuoteFollowing the remarks, the Washington Free Beacon's Lachlan Markay asked McConnell for his thoughts on a constitutional amendment proposed by Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) to clarify that corporations are not "people" and restore Congress' ability to limit corporate influence in elections."Well you have to give them some points for not hiding it," McConnell quipped. "They are uncomfortable with corporate free speech obviously.""They were not uncomfortable with corporate free speech when corporations that owned newspapers or television stations were engaging in it. They only become uncomfortable with it when the Supreme Court said, why should there be a carve out for corporations that own the media outlet and for no one else?"
The Kentucky Republican concluded: "Its an absurd proposal and it won't go anywhere."[/quote]
Pretty sure you can see the way this one is likely to go.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 24, 2013, 11:19:34 PM
Relevant wingnuttery:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/21/mcconnell-absurd-to-ban-corporations-from-having-same-rights-as-people/
QuoteSenate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Friday said that he opposed a constitutional amendment to ban corporations from having the same rights as people because the idea was "absurd."
QuoteFollowing the remarks, the Washington Free Beacon's Lachlan Markay asked McConnell for his thoughts on a constitutional amendment proposed by Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) to clarify that corporations are not "people" and restore Congress' ability to limit corporate influence in elections."Well you have to give them some points for not hiding it," McConnell quipped. "They are uncomfortable with corporate free speech obviously.""They were not uncomfortable with corporate free speech when corporations that owned newspapers or television stations were engaging in it. They only become uncomfortable with it when the Supreme Court said, why should there be a carve out for corporations that own the media outlet and for no one else?"
The Kentucky Republican concluded: "Its an absurd proposal and it won't go anywhere."[/quote]
Pretty sure you can see the way this one is likely to go.
Wow. :lulz: