5 ms·

You can only control yourself. As such, you will never be able to control whether somebody else gets offended by something you say. You certainly can (and ought

You can only control yourself. As such, you will never be able to control whether somebody else gets offended by something you say. You certainly can (and ought) to try not to offend, but, ultimately, you have no control over it. On the other hand, you always have control over whether you will be offended by what somebody else say, even if they are trolling to an extreme, trying to get a rise out of you. You can decide to let it roll off your shoulders or you can rise to the bait. And the other person may not even be intentionally baiting you.

dllthomas 14y ago
So, my remote is broken, and occasionally turns off the TV when I try to change the channel, but usually the channel changes. Also, the volume goes up or down by a kind of random amount, but usually in the direction I poke. I have no control over my TV?
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  I'm sorry. I read it a couple times, but I'm really not understanding your analogy. Perhaps you can tell me how you would actually control somebody getting offended. Let's take an example: Hypothetical you[1] are in a group at a party, talking about current events. Naturally, same-sex marriage comes up. Not wanting to offend people you don't know, you simply say you hope the Supreme Court makes an intelligent decision. If a member of your group is a member of Westboro Baptist Church, I believe there is a good chance they will get offended, even though you didn't say anything offensive. How could you control that? 1. By hypothetical you, obviously I have no idea what your real beliefs are.
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    In the same way that when I push "volume up" it doesn't always go up, when you adjust your language to minimize offense it doesn't always lead to no offense. Sloppy control is still some control - I fully agree that you don't have perfect control; the comment I replied to said "no control", with the "no" italicized. I don't mean to just be pedantic; it seems central to the larger discussion. If I genuinely have no control over a system, it makes no sense to judge my actions in light of its effect on the system. If I have some control over a system, it makes sense to judge my actions in light of its effect (or expected effect) on the system.
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      There is certainly a symbiotic effect. And I agree, I need to be empathetic to the person I am interacting with, and, as a result of that empathy, change how I present myself. But these are all things I need to do. I'm not sure we are actually saying anything different. I just don't think that, in the end, I have any control over somebody else. I can influence. I can change my behavior. But the way they are ultimately going to react is, effectively, completely out of my control.
      - dllthomas 14y ago
        Hm, how would you differentiate qualitatively between control and influence? I think we're likely just disagreeing about words here, but I'm curious as to how you're using them.
- firefoxman1 14y ago
  1. You as a human have the ability to control your reaction to anything. 2. Any person you deal with is also a human and has the same ability to control their reaction to anything. Therefore, someone's reaction is 100% their choice, just as it is yours. We all have this ability, few of us exercise it. However, it is not my own fault that someone else doesn't exercise this control. > "Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. [...] When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others." - Epictetus
  - kscaldef 14y ago
    > 1. You as a human have the ability to control your reaction to anything. Do you actually have any support for that statement, other than as an article of faith? I am honestly not aware of any scientific evidence for it.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - Domenic_S 14y ago
      There are a few paradigms I can think of off the top of my head that support it: -The idea of 'temporary insanity' or 'diminished capacity' in our legal system. When invoked, it normally asserts that a situation was so overwhelming that the subject couldn't react as they normally would. The 'heat of passion' and all that. This implies that generally, we can control our reactions to most things, and uncontrollable reactions are the exception. -The field of cognitive behavioral therapy, which does has scientific evidence of effectiveness [0], see cites. Perhaps 'control your reaction to anything' is less-than-supported in the case of CBT, but combined with point 1 that should be more than enough to get you started. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Evaluation_of_effectiveness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Ev...
      - 14y ago

dllthomas 14y ago

So, my remote is broken, and occasionally turns off the TV when I try to change the channel, but usually the channel changes. Also, the volume goes up or down by a kind of random amount, but usually in the direction I poke. I have no control over my TV?

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
I'm sorry. I read it a couple times, but I'm really not understanding your analogy. Perhaps you can tell me how you would actually control somebody getting offended. Let's take an example: Hypothetical you[1] are in a group at a party, talking about current events. Naturally, same-sex marriage comes up. Not wanting to offend people you don't know, you simply say you hope the Supreme Court makes an intelligent decision. If a member of your group is a member of Westboro Baptist Church, I believe there is a good chance they will get offended, even though you didn't say anything offensive. How could you control that? 1. By hypothetical you, obviously I have no idea what your real beliefs are.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  In the same way that when I push "volume up" it doesn't always go up, when you adjust your language to minimize offense it doesn't always lead to no offense. Sloppy control is still some control - I fully agree that you don't have perfect control; the comment I replied to said "no control", with the "no" italicized. I don't mean to just be pedantic; it seems central to the larger discussion. If I genuinely have no control over a system, it makes no sense to judge my actions in light of its effect on the system. If I have some control over a system, it makes sense to judge my actions in light of its effect (or expected effect) on the system.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    There is certainly a symbiotic effect. And I agree, I need to be empathetic to the person I am interacting with, and, as a result of that empathy, change how I present myself. But these are all things I need to do. I'm not sure we are actually saying anything different. I just don't think that, in the end, I have any control over somebody else. I can influence. I can change my behavior. But the way they are ultimately going to react is, effectively, completely out of my control.
    - dllthomas 14y ago
      Hm, how would you differentiate qualitatively between control and influence? I think we're likely just disagreeing about words here, but I'm curious as to how you're using them.
firefoxman1 14y ago
1. You as a human have the ability to control your reaction to anything. 2. Any person you deal with is also a human and has the same ability to control their reaction to anything. Therefore, someone's reaction is 100% their choice, just as it is yours. We all have this ability, few of us exercise it. However, it is not my own fault that someone else doesn't exercise this control. > "Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. [...] When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others." - Epictetus
- kscaldef 14y ago
  > 1. You as a human have the ability to control your reaction to anything. Do you actually have any support for that statement, other than as an article of faith? I am honestly not aware of any scientific evidence for it.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - Domenic_S 14y ago
    There are a few paradigms I can think of off the top of my head that support it: -The idea of 'temporary insanity' or 'diminished capacity' in our legal system. When invoked, it normally asserts that a situation was so overwhelming that the subject couldn't react as they normally would. The 'heat of passion' and all that. This implies that generally, we can control our reactions to most things, and uncontrollable reactions are the exception. -The field of cognitive behavioral therapy, which does has scientific evidence of effectiveness [0], see cites. Perhaps 'control your reaction to anything' is less-than-supported in the case of CBT, but combined with point 1 that should be more than enough to get you started. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Evaluation_of_effectiveness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Ev...
    - 14y ago