Hayley Williams: Babe of the week #35 (Aug. 2012)

[cultcross]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

Personally, I think that intent is more or less impossible to prove. It's all inside a person's head, so there is no way to know, one way or the other. It's basically unprovable, and as such I don't think it's particularly useful to dwell on it.

The law in most nations relies on the proving of intent. It is the whole difference between murder and manslaughter, after all.

[iguana_tonante]

I know, and I freely admit my half-baked opinion might not be worth much under scrutiny.

On the other hand, one thing is to show evidences that point with reasonable certainty to a specific intent, and another is just saying "but I didn't mean to!" and get away with it. The latter won't certainly fly in an court of law.

(Also, I'm speaking in general terms about the ethics on intent, not specifically about courts of law, something I'm not even barely competent to discuss.)

[the G-man]

All I know is that I find it highly ironic that the people who complain the most bitterly about the BOTW threads are the ones largely responsible for bumping them back up to the top of forum day after day and week after week.

[iguana_tonante]

They were always on the the top of the forum. Also, now they have actual content, instead of just mindless drooling. At least, that's something.

[the G-man]

Repeating the same tired attack over and over isn't exactly 'content.'

[Holdfast]

Cute girl with nice legs from what we can see in the pics, but too tryhard quirky for me; sideways.

[teacake]

Holdfast wrote:

---

Cute girl with nice legs from what we can see in the pics, but too tryhard quirky for me; sideways.

Do you think this new quirky generation is actually trying to be quirky or is it just the way they are?

[Holdfast]

teacake wrote:

---

Do you think this new quirky generation is actually trying to be quirky or is it just the way they are?

In her case, I suspect a synergy between her pre-fame personality and subsequent marketing needs, as the prime driver of the photoshoots. It comes across in the photos as a rather carefully cultivated alternative image, whether it's built upon genuine roots or not. Image and reality feeding off each other, probably. That's always been the case though; not unique to this generation imo.

[teacake]

No one was quirky when I was growing up. It was dull.

[Kestrel]

Quirky is the new square?

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

You know, there is an interesting ethical discussion hidden here.

Personally, I think that intent is more or less impossible to prove. It's all inside a person's head, so there is no way to know, one way or the other. It's basically unprovable, and as such I don't think it's particularly useful to dwell on it.

Now, there might be external signs that can be used as evidence of intent. For example, apologizing after causing offence can be taken as an evidence that the offence wasn't intentional, but still far from a hard fact. So, it would be nice if the offended party took your word at face value that it wasn't your intention, but it doesn't lessen the offensiveness of the words, and it's all up to the offended party if the want to believe the intent was sincere. Moreover, itt might be easier to forgive an offence if it wasn't intentional, but it sure doesn't negate its offensiveness, or the need for forgiveness.

I know it runs contrary to common sense and common mores, but the idea that "I didn't mean to!" can be used as a excuse to behave like an arsehole and never bear the consequence of it, doesn't sit well with me.

Now, as with many ethical stuff, I might have not thought it through, so please feel free to demolish my argument. It won't be the first time!

I agree that intent's very difficult to prove in terms of common morality, so I see your point. But barring an obvious history of transgressions being corrected and not learned from - or of just being an obvious ass - I think it's usually best to take people at their word. Though maybe that's just me of course.

I think at least to some extent there needs to be something more than just one person saying "I'm offended!" over and over. Using another example from the board, we've got an argument going on in TrekLit where multiple people are holding a grudge and claiming legitimate offense over something that others find to be non-offensive (I'm in the latter group, fwiw). Cultural norms about particular words have been invoked as explanation, that what seems rude and offensive to some people is just common parlance to others, so it seems like intent matters there at least to some people and that there's more to it - at least in some cases, though obviously not in all - than one person's interpretation.

Maybe it's just the position I find myself in in society, but I think if somebody offends me but genuinely didn't mean to (to the extent I can believe that), I'm the one that comes across as an ass to continue holding it against them once an explanation has been offered. It would be human behavior but not I think the better angels of our nature so to speak. Assuming, of course, that person doesn't continue the same behavior.

If any of that made sense.

[Professor Zoom]

doubleohfive wrote:

---

Who stirred up a problem? This permutation got kicked up because Captain Craig couldn't handle/process some minor sarcasm.

Why is it that it's acceptable for someone to post objectionable content but it isn't acceptable for someone else to point it out?

If you point it out, then it might make them think what they are doing is bad... and then they have to get defensive and justify what they are doing. That's the "problem"

[Gary Mitchell]

Kestrel wrote:

---

If any of that made sense.

It does.

[RJDiogenes]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

Tell us again that you worked with women and the special insight it gave you, because that's something that never happened to anyone else in the history of mankind.

Reality is reality. Whether you like it or not, this is a harmless expression, devoid of any sinister hidden meanings, that both men and women use every day.

[YellowSubmarine]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

They were always on the the top of the forum. Also, now they have actual content, instead of just mindless drooling. At least, that's something.

Hey, some of us primates are capable of mindless drooling without the “Nice legs, but her nose rubs me the wrong way, I'm going to go with sideways, I'm paying €30 and not a cent more!” Please, don't lump us all mindless apes together. I, as a proud baboon, affirm that I give my laptop more respect than actual people are getting on this planet. It won't work, but it don't matter, I still gave it the thumbs up.

One can't help but wonder, when you get to own your possession with the right kind of nose, legs and tits, would you be shocked when to discover you weren't allowed to do with it as you please? Gosh, I hope someone doesn't end up collapsing in court in bewilderment one day. That would hurt.

[{ Emilia }]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

Reality is reality.

Somebody needs to read up on constructivism. I suggest Paul Watzlawick for a start. It'll do wonders to improve your ability to understand the world, yourself and the actions of others.

It might even solve your sexism issue.