CDZ The Psychology of... Insults

I have been called and accused of just about everything since I joined this board. A slut, a lesbian, a transexual, an asshole, a person whose own family doesn't love or care about her, just a rotten and terrible person in general who is not deserving or any respect or that should have the common courtesy of even having my posts read, a person who should have gotten an abortion, a prostitute, stupid, a dingbat, and worst of all . . . a LEFTIST! :mad:

Damn ... And we don't even look alike.
Whoever said that about you needs to get some glasses ... :21:

.
 
e5c.jpg
The mods should use this. I've always thought that the confidentiality thing is too "sensitive" to our feelings (like anyone with sensitive feelings could stand it here anyway). When threads or posts are pulled or shut down, unless it is so egregiously offensive that it can't continue to be shown, the membership should have the chance to see what the problem was and why it was removed. A learning opportunity. Maybe the mods would have less to do, eventually?
 
The mods should use this. I've always thought that the confidentiality thing is too "sensitive" to our feelings (like anyone with sensitive feelings could stand it here anyway). When threads or posts are pulled or shut down, unless it is so egregiously offensive that it can't continue to be shown, the membership should have the chance to see what the problem was and why it was removed. A learning opportunity. Maybe the mods would have less to do, eventually?

The mods are our government here ... Government is only good for limiting others.

Some people embrace opportunity.
The world can be your oyster ... But it's often better on the half shell with a little hot sauce ... :thup:

.
 
I have been called and accused of just about everything since I joined this board. A slut, a lesbian, a transexual, an asshole, a person whose own family doesn't love or care about her, just a rotten and terrible person in general who is not deserving or any respect or that should have the common courtesy of even having my posts read, a person who should have gotten an abortion, a prostitute, stupid, a dingbat, and worst of all . . . a LEFTIST! :mad:

You're not a prostitute, Chris.
 
The mods should use this. I've always thought that the confidentiality thing is too "sensitive" to our feelings (like anyone with sensitive feelings could stand it here anyway). When threads or posts are pulled or shut down, unless it is so egregiously offensive that it can't continue to be shown, the membership should have the chance to see what the problem was and why it was removed. A learning opportunity. Maybe the mods would have less to do, eventually?


Actually, the confidentiality thing is sensitive to THEM, not us.

If moderation were transparent, everybody would be able to see the patterns in what gets flagged, especially in regards to all the postings a mod removes in order to punish a poster with whom they are engaged in an argument.
 
Actually, the confidentiality thing is sensitive to THEM, not us.

If moderation were transparent, everybody would be able to see the patterns in what gets flagged, especially in regards to all the postings a mod removes in order to punish a poster with whom they are engaged in an argument.

You have to remember that mods often act upon what is reported.
It isn't as transparent because that would suggest it was up for discussion or justification.
That's a process the moderators handle in-house ... And this is not a democracy by any means.

Where you may see their actions as biased or an attempt to punish someone ... It's quite possible they just took action in regards to something that was reported.
It's also quite possible others don't tend to report things as frequently, or attempt to manage their affairs without the assistance of mods.

In a perfect world ... Punishment would probably be closely associated with how well the recipient responded to direction.
But ... What the hell do I know anyway ... :dunno:

.
 
When we convince ourselves that our behaviors are someone else's fault, maybe it's time to look inward.
You sound like a corny, self righteous douche, sorry to say. :D You see? I don't mean to insult you. This is just me being honest with you.
No problem. I've been called worse here!
.

Oh, you mean like "Stormy Mac"? :lol: What is that all about?
That's Mac's porn star name.
 
When we convince ourselves that our behaviors are someone else's fault, maybe it's time to look inward.
You sound like a corny, self righteous douche, sorry to say. :D You see? I don't mean to insult you. This is just me being honest with you.
No problem. I've been called worse here!
.

Oh, you mean like "Stormy Mac"? :lol: What is that all about?
That's Mac's porn star name.
A GUY'S GOTTA MAKE A LIVING OKAY?
.
 
So, I will continue unabatedly and unabashedly calling those who want to restrict or take one or any of my rights from me in the name of their own "feelings of security and safety" stupid morons because they are either stupid morons who do not understand what America was built on which is individual freedoms with as LITTLE restrictions and interference by government as possible (because GOVERNMENTS are more responsible for more death and destruction by force than any individual in the world), or they are evil as fuck and traitors to America and our law abiding citizens.
When you call someone a stupid moron, what is your goal?
.

To get them to see how stupid they are.
But they actually see how stupid YOU are!
 
While reading through one of our many personal insult-laden threads, I began wondering (again) about the actual goals & agendas of those who tend to regularly engage in that behavior (both here and in "real life"). Certainly everyone does it to some degree and frequency, but clearly there are those who appear to have a stronger need.

In today's hyper-partisan environment, what do you suppose is served by this? What is accomplished?

Anyway, I sniffed around a bit and found this:

The Psychology of Insults

=====================

An insult can thus be interpreted as an attempt to reduce the social status of the recipient and raise the relative status of the insulter.

If that logic is correct, we can assume that insults are often motivated by anger surrounding issues of status insecurity. Many insults are reactive: They are responses to real or imagined slights from others, such as a person accidentally cutting in front of someone else in a line.

We live in a period of extreme concern about how we are perceived by others; social psychologists are charting a steady increase in narcissism among college students.1 There is little consensus about why this is happening, but some scholars believe that the more children are measured on evaluative scales—aptitude tests, IQ scores, and GPA—the more sensitive they are to threats to their social rank.

Of course, this narcissism trend is only accentuated by social media, where participants are subject to unrelenting evaluation by other network members who encourage participants to inflate their egos, often at the expense of others.1 Concern with how one is perceived creates social insecurity that may be relieved by lashing out at other chickens (or people) in the area. Social networks are replete with individuals who deliver stinging rebukes because they enjoy doing so, and because they are mostly exempt from the reprisals that one might expect for real-world put-downs.

Content: Status, Competence, Sex, and Hygiene

The purpose of a put down is to reduce someone else in the imaginary status hierarchy. So it is hardly surprising that insults will often refer to a person's social status in terms of ancestry, lack of prestige, or membership in a despised out group; for example, Nazis or vagrants. Otherwise, the content of insults across the ages is monotonously predictable: Many insults feature a sexual component, refer to sexual organs, or bring up shameful or ineffectual sexual behavior. In addition to status and sexuality, insults inflict shame by mentioning unappealing traits—fatness, shortness, baldness, spottiness, and contagious diseases.

Another way of taking a person down is by questioning their intelligence or general mental competence; for insult purposes, recipients are invariably "stupid" or "crazy."

The pecking-order logic of insults means that if the recipient is shamed, then the insulter rises in status relative to the victim: The insulter is the one doing the pecking rather than getting pecked. Not all insults are equal, of course: Some pecks miss their mark and have no impact upon relative status.

.
Insulting only disrobes the insultor as a moron.
 
While reading through one of our many personal insult-laden threads, I began wondering (again) about the actual goals & agendas of those who tend to regularly engage in that behavior (both here and in "real life"). Certainly everyone does it to some degree and frequency, but clearly there are those who appear to have a stronger need.

In today's hyper-partisan environment, what do you suppose is served by this? What is accomplished?

Anyway, I sniffed around a bit and found this:

The Psychology of Insults

=====================

An insult can thus be interpreted as an attempt to reduce the social status of the recipient and raise the relative status of the insulter.

If that logic is correct, we can assume that insults are often motivated by anger surrounding issues of status insecurity. Many insults are reactive: They are responses to real or imagined slights from others, such as a person accidentally cutting in front of someone else in a line.

We live in a period of extreme concern about how we are perceived by others; social psychologists are charting a steady increase in narcissism among college students.1 There is little consensus about why this is happening, but some scholars believe that the more children are measured on evaluative scales—aptitude tests, IQ scores, and GPA—the more sensitive they are to threats to their social rank.

Of course, this narcissism trend is only accentuated by social media, where participants are subject to unrelenting evaluation by other network members who encourage participants to inflate their egos, often at the expense of others.1 Concern with how one is perceived creates social insecurity that may be relieved by lashing out at other chickens (or people) in the area. Social networks are replete with individuals who deliver stinging rebukes because they enjoy doing so, and because they are mostly exempt from the reprisals that one might expect for real-world put-downs.

Content: Status, Competence, Sex, and Hygiene

The purpose of a put down is to reduce someone else in the imaginary status hierarchy. So it is hardly surprising that insults will often refer to a person's social status in terms of ancestry, lack of prestige, or membership in a despised out group; for example, Nazis or vagrants. Otherwise, the content of insults across the ages is monotonously predictable: Many insults feature a sexual component, refer to sexual organs, or bring up shameful or ineffectual sexual behavior. In addition to status and sexuality, insults inflict shame by mentioning unappealing traits—fatness, shortness, baldness, spottiness, and contagious diseases.

Another way of taking a person down is by questioning their intelligence or general mental competence; for insult purposes, recipients are invariably "stupid" or "crazy."

The pecking-order logic of insults means that if the recipient is shamed, then the insulter rises in status relative to the victim: The insulter is the one doing the pecking rather than getting pecked. Not all insults are equal, of course: Some pecks miss their mark and have no impact upon relative status.

.
Insulting only disrobes the insultor as a moron.
I do think it exposes them for what they are.
.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top