- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 47,436
- Reaction score
- 20,859
You mean you were offended by my joke (maybe true but irrelevant). Or that my joke was mean spirited (definitely true).Context matters.
Doing it in a harmless way, as in a jokingly matter, seems less callous. The definition never changes but in the matter that it’s delivered does make the ultimate difference.
I don’t know if that makes sense to you, but it does to me.
Speaking of TT, that is why I can laugh at that scene but somebody might be offended by it in 2020. Strange world.
If what you are suggesting is true, then everything non-pc has to be interpreted in an objective/same manner, but anything comedy-adjacent the audience usually dismisses the whole notion of semantics and objectivity of your argument.
Your context or your intent was to ridicule. That’s all there is to it.
You were not making a joke with your comments, so it kinda feels different.
But either interpretation would fail to reach the level of persuasive because the post I was responding to was an unprovoked intent to ridicule. So, in the context of that exchange - why is my response considered ridicule by you, as opposed to simply responding to another poster in kind? Or is courteous non-callous commentary only required of me? A turn the other cheek type deal.
Hypothetically, if someone attempts to ridicule me, should I simply accept such behavior, respond in kind, or just card them? What's your idea of best practices here?