I wanted to kill that customer.

[tropicsgoddess]

I wouldn't call somebody broken for being in and staying in an abusive relationship. The abuser manipulates their victim mentally into thinking that it's the victim's fault why the abuse does this to them and/or that the victim is worthless. Some abusers control their victim in any way they can, whether it be cutting them off from their family and friends, financially, etc. just to keep from losing the victim. It's easy to fall back into the abusive relationship when the abuser does something like hitting the victim, then gives the "I'm so sorry baby, I won't do it again" kinda speech. I hate the assholes that treat their women like property and the women that treat their men like the dirt on their shoes too.

[Flyndaran]

Flyn, I also was a wee bit offended, but let me explain why.

When you have been in an abusive relationship (or while you are still in one), a number of people that you talk to about it give you a "why don't/didn't you just leave?" or "If you stay with him after that, I'm not even going to try to help you" attitude. It's part of the reason people find it difficult to break the cycle.
...

Now having said all that, Flyn, I'm not at all saying that that's what you are doing, I'm saying your posts read like someone with "that" attitude, even though you're not. Just thought I'd explain the offended reactions.

I don't see how. I repeatedly said that being mentally ill is no fault of the afflicted and that I consider myself broken in that way from my anxiety.
Did you and others really think that I was insulting myself?
I stand by my claim.

[Kalli]

I don't see how. I repeatedly said that being mentally ill is no fault of the afflicted and that I consider myself broken in that way from my anxiety.
Did you and others really think that I was insulting myself?
I stand by my claim.

But it's the part where you claim victims of abuse are all mentally ill that's mildly insulting. That's like saying hostages are all mentally ill.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Dude, if a bunch of folks are insulted, it doesn't matter what your motives or your intent was. It was obviously insulting.

Just own it. Geeze. People you insulted are being charitable to you here.

[Pedersen]

Dude, if a bunch of folks are insulted, it doesn't matter what your motives or your intent was. It was obviously insulting.

/me checks. I don't see any approaching horses with skeletal riders, but I know they have to be coming. After all, I'm actually defending Flyn here.

Yes, his motivation does matter. It matters a great deal. To put it in a different light: I'm a geek. I don't consider this label to be an insult. I consider it a useful label, as it can help others understand me somewhat more easily. If somebody says that I'm a geek, I will cheerfully agree with that person. Many people use the label geek as an insult (at least, they did when I was in school. I've mostly drifted away from people that use it that way, though I assume that a significant number of these people exist still).

The fact that it is, to them, an insult has no relevance as to whether or not it is an insult. For me, it simply is not offensive.

---<added material, forgotten on first pass>---
I also will call someone a geek when I feel that they are enough like me that the label applies. I don't do it out of malice, I don't do it to insult. I do it to provide a name for the type of person they appear to be. I fully expect to be railed upon for stating that categories and labels are at all useful. After all, we are all more than just a given label. But, like it or not, labels help others deal with us.

Look at how we tend to answer the question "Who are you?" We answer with a set of labels: Name, possibly ancestry, names for the profession(s) we practice, names for the hobbies in which we participate, etc. I'm Pedersen, son of (my parents). I'm a geek, I'm an RPG gamer, I'm a programmer, I'm a systems administrator. All of those are labels. It just so happens that, for some people, some of those labels have negative connotations.

So, if I say that someone matches one of these labels, I'm not insulting, or at least am not intending to. And the most I would say if someone took offense at it is "I'm sorry you took offense. None was intended." And that's the most that Flyn should consider doing.
---<end added material>---

From what I've seen of Flyn, I have to state this about how I believe he perceives things: Mental illness is not an insult. It is a form of a defect, though, in much the same way that pneumonia is a form of defect in the lungs. Things are not working as they should, which can result in misperceptions about the self and the world around the self. Examples of these misperceptions would include the level of worth of the person afflicted by the condition, the level (and types) of help available to the sufferer, and the amount (and type) of emotion felt towards the victimizer (how often do we hear a victim state how much the victim is in love with the abuser, even though the same victim, once free, realizes that what was felt was nothing like love, but instead a form of dependency?).

As you read this next paragraph, please keep this in mind: I know that what I went through was mild, at most. It was nothing like the full on abuse that victims of domestic abuse experience. However, it was enough to teach me that my preconceptions about the victims were quite wrong. I am still ashamed that I thought of them the way I did.

I went through a form of the abuse, though it was a very mild form by comparison. My previous boss used all the same tactics short of violence to make me feel that everything that was going wrong was entirely my fault. He dumped things in my lap that had nothing to do with me, and made me take the blame for them. He berated and belittled everything I did. And if ever I tried to actually defend myself or my actions, that just pissed him off more. Frequently he would tell me not to "talk back" to him any time I tried to explain what happened or why. When I finally did leave, I actually was afraid physical violence would occur.

I mention all this because of something else that happened for me when Flyn made his original statement: I was pissed. Here was someone who had never met me, never known me, never known what I went through, and he had the absolute fucking gall to call me broken. I almost ripped him apart on the spot. And then I thought about it, and realized that he was right. If I had been in my right mind, if everything had been working properly, I would have walked out of that job about two years before I did.

If you've ever read me and Flyn going back and forth, you'll understand just how much I absolutely loathe having to say this: He's right. I think there's only one other person on this board that I would hate to say that about more, in fact.

If you are staying with a victimizer, there is something wrong with you. It might not be a recognized mental illness, but something is very wrong. By most usable definitions of the words, you could be called broken and/or mentally ill.

I can only hope I've helped explain Flyn's position better. Have I, Flyn? Let me know one way or the other, please.

[Kalli]

If somebody says that I'm a geek, I will cheerfully agree with that person. Many people use the label geek as an insult (at least, they did when I was in school. I've mostly drifted away from people that use it that way, though I assume that a significant number of these people exist still).

The fact that it is, to them, an insult has no relevance as to whether or not it is an insult. For me, it simply is not offensive.

Uh... I don't see how this is defending Flyn? Because unless I'm misreading, you are proving the OTHER side of the argument here; that whether or not something is insulting is determined by the insulted, not the insulter.

ie: Flyn's comments insulted people, therefore it is insulting. Same way that the "geek" comments DON'T insult you, and are therefore NOT insulting.

[Pedersen]

Uh... I don't see how this is defending Flyn? Because unless I'm misreading, you are proving the OTHER side of the argument here; that whether or not something is insulting is determined by the insulted, not the insulter.

Dammit, I left out a bit I meant to write. I'll note it here, then add it there:

I also will call someone a geek when I feel that they are enough like me that the label applies. I don't do it out of malice, I don't do it to insult. I do it to provide a name for the type of person they appear to be. I fully expect to be railed upon for stating that categories and labels are at all useful. After all, we are all more than just a given label. But, like it or not, labels help others deal with us.

Look at how we tend to answer the question "Who are you?" We answer with a set of labels: Name, possibly ancestry, names for the profession(s) we practice, names for the hobbies in which we participate, etc. I'm Pedersen, son of (my parents). I'm a geek, I'm an RPG gamer, I'm a programmer, I'm a systems administrator. All of those are labels. It just so happens that, for some people, some of those labels have negative connotations.

So, if I say that someone matches one of these labels, I'm not insulting, or at least am not intending to. And the most I would say if someone took offense at it is "I'm sorry you took offense. None was intended." And that's the most that Flyn should consider doing.

[BroomJockey]

Uh... I don't see how this is defending Flyn?

then you misread it. If you're familiar with Flyn's other posts, he has severe social anxiety, maybe something else as well, I cannot remember.

Thus, when Flyn makes a comment about mental illness/something being broken, he's making it as a member of that group. Since Flyn doesn't see it as an insult, it's equivalent to Pedersen using "geek." Just because others use it as an insult, and find it insulting doesn't mean Pedersen means geek as an insult, and it doesn't mean Flyn means broken as an insult.

ETA: Pedersen's post wasn't there when I posted this, but I'm too lazy to delete it now.

[Kalli]

Allow me to clarify further on why I was actually insulted. I did NOT say that being told I was mentally ill is insulting; in fact I agree that most abusers are mentally and emotionally unwell *AS A RESULT OF ABUSE*. However, If you go back and read Flyn's replies, he said:

Seriously though, I wouldn't want a woman that's that screwed up. Nice women date nice guys. Broken women date broken guys.

Now there is no way to spin that comment to say he meant women are broken as a RESULT of abuse. The comment is perfectly clear; only 'broken' women date abusers.

Sometimes, nice women date 'broken' guys, and then become 'broken'.

The fact is, he insinuated that nice women do not get into relationships with abusers, which is not at all true. Come to that, the use of the phrase 'nice women' denotes that 'broken' women are not nice. As a former victim of abuse, I DO take offense to being told I'm not a nice woman, and I don't think there's anything overly sensitive about that reaction.

The bottom line is, I tried to be very friendly and courteous when I pointed out WHY some of us were insulted, just as an explanation of our point of view, and Flyn completely rejected and argued it, even though It was simply an offer of explanation for him, not an argument. But at this point I'm just going to come right out and say what I really thought, which is that Flyn made a shitty comment, insulting abused women, then tried to backpedal.

[Kalli]

The most I would say if someone took offense at it is "I'm sorry you took offense. None was intended." And that's the most that Flyn should consider doing.

See, this is why I've crossed the line into slightly pissed. If he never meant any insult, yes, that's the most he should consider doing. BUT:

1) He refuses to even do that, and

2) His first post WAS insulting, plain and simple. Backpedalling =/= an apology.

[Kalli]

I also will call someone a geek when I feel that they are enough like me that the label applies.

You also have to appreciate that abuse is a sensitive subject, and geekdom is somewhat lighter. You have to approach each topic with language and attitude appropriate for that topic.

Also, I doubt you would say something like "That guy's a nice person, but you're a geek."

[Pedersen]

Now there is no way to spin that comment to say he meant women are broken as a RESULT of abuse. The comment is perfectly clear; only 'broken' women date abusers.

I had forgotten that portion of the comment, and can now quite clearly see why offense would be taken. I'll stand by the rest of what I said, though, since, without the portion that generated the offense, the rest of what I said would still be totally accurate.

You also have to appreciate that abuse is a sensitive subject, and geekdom is somewhat lighter. You have to approach each topic with language and attitude appropriate for that topic.

It is now. Twenty years ago, it was far from it, and had me quite ready to commit suicide. Took a long time to come to peace with being a geek, and manage to set aside what school had done to me. If you'd like, go and search through my posts. I've told some of the stories of what school was like for me. Since I have been a geek for my whole life, those stories came about during and because of my geekdom.

Definitely not a light topic for me.

Also, I doubt you would say something like "That guy's a nice person, but you're a geek."

Actually, I could see myself saying exactly those words, but with the opposite inflection from the way you're intending: I'd mean "nice guy" with scorn, and "geek" as a fairly high compliment. Hell, I call my wife a geek, and it is a compliment. I'm placing her in the same category as I place other people like me. And since I happen to like me, and usually like other people in the same category as me, it is a compliment.

And you have no idea how glad I am that I've managed to see it that way today. Very very different from how I saw it in my teenaged years.

[Kalli]

I'll stand by the rest of what I said, though, since, without the portion that generated the offense, the rest of what I said would still be totally accurate.

Understandable, but I still feel that you are rebutting against something that was never so. You are defending Flyn's use of the label "Mentally ill" or "broken", which I never had an issue with.

It is now. Twenty years ago, it was far from it ... Took a long time to come to peace with being a geek

I apologize and stand corrected, I didn't realise this at all. I guess I sort of just missed that generation. I'm sorry you went through that bullshit.

Actually, I could see myself saying exactly those words, but with the opposite inflection from the way you're intending: I'd mean "nice guy" with scorn, and "geek" as a fairly high compliment.

OK, but do you still see my point? No analogy is perfect.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

To say intent matters when you accidently insult someone is like saying you aren't responsible for an accident you cause as long as you didn't mean to cause it.

If I say or do something to hurt another person, it does not matter if I meant to do it. It does not matter if it was hurtful or insulting to me or not. The onus is on me to fix it and/or apologize.

Flynn, you say you miss a lot of social cues and say things you don't mean to be hurtful. I am sympathetic to that. Here are people making this one impossible to miss, and being charitable and kind about it. Saying that their feelings don't matter because there was no ill intent on your part makes it look like there WAS ill intent on your part.

[Pedersen]

Understandable, but I still feel that you are rebutting against something that was never so. You are defending Flyn's use of the label "Mentally ill" or "broken", which I never had an issue with.

A previous post of yours states differently:

But it's the part where you claim victims of abuse are all mentally ill that's mildly insulting. That's like saying hostages are all mentally ill.

As you can see, your statement here makes it seem very much like your issue was with the "mentally ill" phrasing, not what you have since stated.

OK, but do you still see my point? No analogy is perfect.

Yes, I do see it. I was trying (and not doing so well) to at least inject a little bit of levity.

To say intent matters when you accidently insult someone is like saying you aren't responsible for an accident you cause as long as you didn't mean to cause it.

Let's see, that might be the difference between manslaughter (voluntary vs involuntary). Intent also matters in sentencing of other crimes, and so results in reduced sentences when violations actually were unintentional.

So, yes, intent does matter. It matters in every other aspect of life, why would it not matter in this one?

If I say or do something to hurt another person, it does not matter if I meant to do it. It does not matter if it was hurtful or insulting to me or not. The onus is on me to fix it and/or apologize.

I do agree with this. But intent does still matter.