XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: absfg_wilson@yahoo.com   
      
   On 7/23/2016 9:45 AM, Tang Huyen wrote:   
   > On 7/23/2016 5:02 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   >   
   >> so many times in the last few years I've seen certain words labeled   
   >> harmful and hateful and toxic when they certainly did not seem that way   
   >> to me.  So there is room for individual interpretation.   
   >>   
   >> My personal experience has been that most of the time such labels are   
   >> used as a gambit to mentally and emotionally maneuver people into a   
   >> place where they can be more easily manipulated.   
   >   
   > If some people can be mentally and emotionally maneuvered   
   > into a place where they can be more easily manipulated,   
   > then they are quite susceptible in the first place.   
   > Mental and emotional lapdogs or doormats, even if they   
   > act biggies and meanies.   
   >   
   > On these boards, only mere words on the screen are used   
   > (I am not talking about people who charge in unasked to   
   > dump hostile missives into others' private e-mail boxes),   
   > and everything is free and everything is voluntary.   
   >   
   > If the harmful and toxic words are harmful and toxic to   
   > their authors, it is also free and voluntary, like when   
   > you walk into a bar and the barista asks you what your   
   > poison is.   
   >   
   > However, when you use people's proclamations in their   
   > own self-stated words and turn them against them, as a   
   > mirror to them, to check whether they can live up to   
   > them, you are not violating anybody's norm and standard,   
   > but only apply people's self-declared norm and standard   
   > back to them. There is nothing immoral or illegal in   
   > such mirroring.   
   >   
   > Of course, people may make any proclamation, and then   
   > add disclaimers to the effect that, say, they are only   
   > made for intellectual curiosity, but not for personal   
   > attainment, then they are free of responsibility for   
   > getting tested on them.   
   >   
   > Tang Huyen   
      
   Those last two paragraphs were fairly opaque, Tang.   
      
   Are you suggesting that some words are immoral or illegal?  Or that some   
   folks deliberately use misdirection in order to make a point or push an   
   agenda, hoping they can hide from taking any responsibility for their   
   words?   
      
   I'm no great intellectual so I'm probably missing your point.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)