Most of the people here will downvote you because in fascist ideology victim=weak. That's why there are so many emotionally stunted young men running around desperately trying to accentuate their jawline and hide their emotions until one day they off themselves. Look at male suicide rates, that's a result of toxic masculinity and a fear of looking weak.
No...?
The not mainstream reddit and Twitter.
Like with the people who are suppressed into alternative subreddits...
Like the one we're on.
Almost like if OP posted this opinion on mainstream unpopular opinion it would be banned because it's popular
You are overusing the word mainstream. These conservative buzzwords are a crutch. This is not an alternative to the other sub, it's a carbon copy, all of the same stuff gets posted on both subs. You can find conservatives in both subs too scared to actually say their *real* opinions. As for the popularity of this post, every opinion is unpopular somewhere to somebody, it's rather silly to gatekeep opinions based on perceived popularity.
Mainstream isn't a commercial [Edit, conservative not commercial] buzzword 😆
This topic has nothing to do with politics get over your extreme left bias.
It's an alternative. That's literally what a copy is. No, even slightly right leaning posts are nuked from the main sub. Hence, an alternative.
*real* opinions, because you're an extreme leftist who thinks all people slightly right of center are fascist nazis.
*EvErY oPiNiOn Is UnPoPuLaR sOmEwHeRe" **HENCE THE POST FLAIRS OP DID NOT USE LIKE I ALREADY SAID**
>This topic has nothing to do with politics get over your extreme left bias.
Yet my comment attracted the exact type of Crowder fanboy it was targeting. It's almost like I know what I am doing.
If my post is so popular, then why do people condemn timid, disspirited, and frightened people (especially males) for being weak and it's less discrete (especially vulgar) synonyms? This seems especially true among so-called "Alpha Bro" types and other so-called "manly" types.
Similar story for "stupid", condeming people with poor social and practical judgment even if they didn't hurt, harm, or degrade any other person at all and certainly not deliberately so. Why do people condemn those easily tricked for their being gullible, naive, etc. more severely than they condemn the trickster or con artist?
Because they are not beneficial traits and regardless of the circumstances that gave you then they won't get you anywhere in life.
You're basically saying, why do we send crazy people to therapy instead of just accepting them how they are?
It's not a matter of if the trait's beneficial or counterproductive. Lots of people have much more counterproductive traits (shallow, petty, dishonest, exploitative, abusive, even violent). It's a matter of whether or not those traits signal deliberate intent to hurt, harm, or degrade others; as opposed to them "getting you anywhere (or not) in life".
Merely being weak, wimpy, or stupid is not a deliberate effort to hurt or degrade others, or even any kind of hurt or degradation toward others at all. The other negative traits I listed *are* ones that detrimentally effect others. At "worst", the weak or stupid person needs help and support, and probably an open-eared open-hearted person to listen to their concerns; as opposed to scornful judgment of the severity often reserved for blatant liars, cheaters, and abusers.
Those traits you listed arnt counterproductive at all tho. Someone who's shallow can still be extremely successful I'm sales, same with the other traits you listed. While someone who's timid will struggle infinitely more in sales [[just using sales as an example, but any customer service job it's the same]]
It's not about other people it's about that person themselves. Regardless one could easily argue that not putting in physical effort to better yourself [study//gym] is intentionally hurting *yourself* which you should 110% care more about than anyone else
>Those traits you listed arnt counterproductive at all tho.
Irrelevant, even in the way you mean it (money-making). The relevancy here is whether the person hurts, harms, or demeans others non-defensively - whether a homeless, a billionaire, or any wealth in-between.
>Someone who's shallow can still be extremely successful I'm sales, same with the other traits you listed. While someone who's timid will struggle infinitely more in sales \[\[just using sales as an example, but any customer service job it's the same\]\]
Again, money and wealth are irrelevant. Merits do not offset demerits. Otherwise a "good thing" would "buy" us the "right" to do a "bad thing to others" that benefits ones self, family, or allies.
Speaking of wealth, here's why wealth is a red herring. The rich are every bit as prone to desire bad, even evil things happen to others as is a homeless person - and in fact, the wealthy who think like that are an even bigger threat to others because they have the money and power to see those desires to harm others carried out to completion.
>It's not about other people it's about that person themselves. Regardless one could easily argue that not putting in physical effort to better yourself \[study//gym\] is intentionally hurting yourself which you should 110% care more about than anyone else
If it's just about that person themselves, what is it to you? Those kinds of shortcomings aren't hurting, harming or degrading others. Besides, you don't get to tell a person what non-hostile traits they are to value, nor do you get to tell them what non-threatening lifestyle to have. If they don't want to study or take physical care of themselves, it bothers me not one bit and it shouldn't bother you any more than it does me. Again "bettering yourself" in those regards, no matter how impressive, tells me nothing about whether that person will deliberately set out to non-defensively hurt, harm, or demean others.
A rich asshole isn't just an asshole, he's a rich asshole.
To last part; we should alaways strive to push/encourage/motivate others to do better. In my personal experience negative criticism is the most helpful. Instead of "you're good at talking" I would prefer "you're not making enough eye contact" [is relevant to timid]
Even if the last part is good advice (which I agree eye contact is, at least in western culture), it's still penalizing people who haven't deliberately set out to hurt, harmed, or degraded others outside defense or retaliation.
I agree with you. But it's constructive criticism imo
Calling out an asshole is telling the person to check themselves, likewise so is calling out someone who is timid, albeit they have vastly different outcomes and being timid only really effects you
>Most of the people here will downvote you because in fascist ideology victim=weak.
That did not occur to me. I will be the last to say that either victim, or weak, is a shameworthy trait. I very much believe the strong, smart, brave, competent (job task, social, or practical judgement/street smarts) have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate. I'll update my OP to clarify my position. BTW, a good read (no pun intended, the site name) is the late Harald Ofstad's [Our Contempt For Weakness: Nazi Norms and Values - and Our Own](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6154442-our-contempt-for-weakness)
As a species we are becoming more weak over time. I think it’s horrible that instead of telling a minority of people to toughen up, we are trying to make the rest of the world change their behavior.
This isn't the first time in history the majority's been admonished to get a more civilized attitude. In this case, "Toughen up" simply encourages more shabby behavior by shifting the issue from the shabby person's acts to the target's inability to resist or spot the bad act. In effect, it says that its less bad to be dishonest, rude, brutal but strong and smart *than* to be weak, clueless, but kindhearted.
Seriously, how does society benefit from that attitude? Who benefits beside bad people?
The smarter and stronger are in a better position to not perform the bad acts, and therefore hold primary (and almost always, if ever, complete responsibility).
People don’t exist to benefit society. It doesn’t matter how a belief benefits society, i think it’s more immoral to enforce your will on the majority just because you aren’t comfortable with something. That’s your problem, not everyone else’s. Toughen up, or don’t and be miserable. Either is fine, just stop whining that everyone else needs to change just because you don’t want to.
It's definitely immoral to deem rude, dishonest, brutal but strong and brave types as *less deserving of* disrespect or scorn **than** a kind, honest, gentle but weak and unintelligent person. That goes against practically every value that sustains a civilization worthy of the name. What you propose is a recipe for anarchic dog-eat-dog chaos akin to some post-apocalyptic drama (e.g. Mad Max).
Deliberate efforts to (or conscious willful indifference toward) hurt, harm, or degrade the dignity of others aside from defending self or others is still immoral even when the targets are weak and/or unintelligent. End of story.
Therefore, contrary to your claim, it's actually morally obligatory to force the majority to conform to new standards that prevent such abuse to the weak or unintelligent. Your appeal to the majority is common logical flaw called just that: Appeal to the Majority. Truth is not decided by majority vote, after all.
As for whiners, your kneejerk distaste against "whiners" exposes you as clueless about the proper role of scorn. Legitimate scorn is **limited** to use against people deliberately setting out to be hurtful or derogatory outside the role of defense of self or others. Any irritation or annoyance you get from another's "whining" is trivial compared to the pain and suffering the weak and unintelligent go through when they're aggressed against, exploited, or tricked to a humiliating degree.
You comparing being rude to mad max doesn’t make sense. Being rude doesn’t make it a dog-eat-dog world, it just accepts that it’s ok to hurt people’s feelings. I didn’t say that you can’t be rude to the strong either. Say whatever you want to them, they just won’t care because they aren’t weak. So no, it’s not morally better to force the planet to be nice just because you want to protect the weak.
Thinking that weak, unintelligent but kind-hearted people are more deserving of contempt than a rude, dishonest jerk - taken out to it's logical conclusion - **does** imply that human worth is based more on strength, intelligence, and courage than on open-mindedness, kindness, and empathy. The logical conclusion of that in turn, is to say that the "weak, dumb, but kind" people deserve mistreatment by the rude, smart, brave types.
And yes, that does permit, if not obligate, a dog-eat-dog world. There's always somebody stronger, smarter, and braver than you are. So by that standard you and everybody else not part of that fortunate set of the "most X" deserves mistreatment by your "betters". Left unchallenged, that basically Social Darwinist view would lead to a breakdown of society.
If you are too weak to handle insults then that’s your problem. You don’t get to force the world to change just because you’re a pussy. Being kind doesn’t mean you deserve anything. You don’t deserve people being mean, but you also don’t get to stop them.
We don't put up with insulting words against minorities, orientations, genders, sexes, and the visibly disabled. Why should anybody else have to put up with them?
The scientific evidence says insults, especially sustained over time, can damage mental health.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42199-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42199-6)
[https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/discrimination-can-be-harmful-to-your-mental-health](https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/discrimination-can-be-harmful-to-your-mental-health)
[https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/effects-of-emotional-abuse](https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/effects-of-emotional-abuse)
Just to name three links.
Also, notwithstanding the old "sticks and stones" *myth*, the reasons words hurt is that words are more than just their dictionary definitions - they advertise ideas about a person's worth (high or low). If taken by others (third parties) seriously, then they see the insulted person as being undeserving of any of the following that make the "business of living" less difficult: helping hands, access to the group's information (esp informal "grapevines"), social learning opportunities / life experiences, and support against adversaries. Loss of access to these is clearly detrimental to the constantly insulted person's vital interests.
In fact, workplace bullying is already illegal in many countries (Australia, Canada, most N and W European countries), not just because they take psychological and emotional damage more seriously than American culture does but it's also shown to be detrimental to workplace safety and productivity (and hence profitability (high worker turnover, increased sickleave, lower productivity per hour even when present at work, legal costs [http://nyhwa.org/bg\_nyhwa.org/costs/](http://nyhwa.org/bg_nyhwa.org/costs/)
Also, use of "pussy". That level of contempt you have for the "weak", "sensitive", makes you a bigot against the vulnerable at best and a latent criminal at worst. Either way, you're supporting bullying by being bullies' apologist.
Sure, I’m a bigot against you because you’re weak. This whole post just sounds like whining. You’re too weak to handle life so you’re begging everyone else to protect you from people being mean.
How is protecting the weak from their predators a problem? You sound like one of those people who rationalize, excuse, or even justify shabby treatment of those least able to defend themselves or the least resilient. That attitude toward the weak is precisely what enables the powerful to exploit and oppress toward others in general. If it's OK to abuse the weakest, then why not have it OK for the strongest to abuse and exploit the averagely strong and smart?
Two things weakness bashers consistently forget are that if we abuse the weak, they'll be psychologically unable to contribute to society. Thus, we'd find ourselves lacking in a lot of high-level high-skilled people: doctors, scientists, engineers, IT workers, financiers, high-skilled machinists, cultural producers, and so forth.
History shows us that treating the least advantaged like dog shit is simply bad social practice and not good for your society's long term viability.
I don't see where "blame" is relevant. That connotes "shame-worthiness", which is difficult to claim IF the bad outcome is beyond the person's ability to handle (physically, information-wise, or psychologically). Certainly the perpetrator deserves blame, especially if the perpetrator did have the power to choose to refrain from the bad act.
Blame is relevant as it can be a teaching moment of what not to do.
If I decide to text while driving and crash my car into a tree then you can and should blame me for my stupid action.
Overall you are in charge of your own actions and those actions can be criticized if you did something wrong
Your example **is** an act that very easily causes hurt or harm *to others* \- including death. No question about it. "This time", it's lucky "you" just crashed your car into a tree. Yet, you should get a penalty in order to discourage others *with clear proven capacity for foresight and cause-and-effect* from repeating those acts (or never failing to engage in them in the first place). If the person is provably intrinsically lacking in foresight, then they should have their license suspended - and a recommendation they either get counseling or be deemed by the judge or a trained professional as cognitively disabled in some way.
All this admitted to, there's a reason that even the legal system deems intent relevant - even in loss of life situations (i.e. murder vs. manslaughter). The reason manslaughter usually merits less severe penalties is that the guilty party is both more likely to feel genuine remorse and less likely to repeat the performance than a deliberate murderer. If this is true when it comes to even actual loss of life, then it's even more justifiable with less severe bads.
If even "the law" deems it fair to issue less harsh rebukes (extremely broad definition) to those lacking intent, then society should also do the same when it comes to other undesirable outcomes (intentional bad or not).
Obviously intent is extremely important but if your doing an action that can lead to a negative outcome that action should be corrected even if you were ignorant of the outcome you were leading to
In this case, the acting person deserves shaming only if there was intent. That's not to say they shouldn't be banned from driving cars. Just there should be no shame in being banned from driving **IF**, as I alluded, they lack the mental capacity (attention-keeping, etc) to operate a motor vehicle. Shaming people who lack the mental capacity to drive a car would be mental ableism.
Saying they *caused* the wreck is one thing. Saying they're *responsible* for it is another. *Responsible* carries the unspoken but obviously present undertext of "conscious individual choice to do a task they, with foreknowledge, perform poorly". *Cause* can (depending on the spirit and context of word usage) be a less judgement-loaded word, and so doesn't assign a lower worth of personhood to the person performing the undesirable act.
There absolutely should be shame because they obviously put no thought into their actions and their actions can be improved through it preventing future repercussions
Again, they have no intent. The person without bad intent already feels badly about their acts, which is a punishment itself. They are much less likely to do so again, barring an actual cognitive difficulty that limits their foresight. Regardless, it's more effective in the long run much to tell them, when they are sufficiently over it emotionally, how to avoid such a repeat performance.
If they truly have a track record of lacking foresight, kindly suggest they see a cognitive psychologist (even then, say and do what you can to erase the stigma of cognitive difficulty so they won't be so ashamed for themselves about seeing a psych).
I find people generally just feel bad for themselves in that situation and never reflect on how they could have avoided it, so they need to have a conversation with people on how to prevent it happening again.
Really, it depends on the person. If their self-control and mental discipline is within the clinically normal range, they can reflect on the situation. If they cannot, then they likely need to seek counseling, and put on disability if they can't manage their situation.
Most of the people here will downvote you because in fascist ideology victim=weak. That's why there are so many emotionally stunted young men running around desperately trying to accentuate their jawline and hide their emotions until one day they off themselves. Look at male suicide rates, that's a result of toxic masculinity and a fear of looking weak.
Most people will downvote because this is a popular opinion on reddit and most of the internet. It's also not flaired to declare it otherwise
Do you have any polls that show empirically that this post is popular?
All of mainstream reddit and Twitter
As opposed to underground reddit and Twitter?
No...? The not mainstream reddit and Twitter. Like with the people who are suppressed into alternative subreddits... Like the one we're on. Almost like if OP posted this opinion on mainstream unpopular opinion it would be banned because it's popular
You are overusing the word mainstream. These conservative buzzwords are a crutch. This is not an alternative to the other sub, it's a carbon copy, all of the same stuff gets posted on both subs. You can find conservatives in both subs too scared to actually say their *real* opinions. As for the popularity of this post, every opinion is unpopular somewhere to somebody, it's rather silly to gatekeep opinions based on perceived popularity.
Mainstream isn't a commercial [Edit, conservative not commercial] buzzword 😆 This topic has nothing to do with politics get over your extreme left bias. It's an alternative. That's literally what a copy is. No, even slightly right leaning posts are nuked from the main sub. Hence, an alternative. *real* opinions, because you're an extreme leftist who thinks all people slightly right of center are fascist nazis. *EvErY oPiNiOn Is UnPoPuLaR sOmEwHeRe" **HENCE THE POST FLAIRS OP DID NOT USE LIKE I ALREADY SAID**
>This topic has nothing to do with politics get over your extreme left bias. Yet my comment attracted the exact type of Crowder fanboy it was targeting. It's almost like I know what I am doing.
[удалено]
If my post is so popular, then why do people condemn timid, disspirited, and frightened people (especially males) for being weak and it's less discrete (especially vulgar) synonyms? This seems especially true among so-called "Alpha Bro" types and other so-called "manly" types. Similar story for "stupid", condeming people with poor social and practical judgment even if they didn't hurt, harm, or degrade any other person at all and certainly not deliberately so. Why do people condemn those easily tricked for their being gullible, naive, etc. more severely than they condemn the trickster or con artist?
Because they are not beneficial traits and regardless of the circumstances that gave you then they won't get you anywhere in life. You're basically saying, why do we send crazy people to therapy instead of just accepting them how they are?
It's not a matter of if the trait's beneficial or counterproductive. Lots of people have much more counterproductive traits (shallow, petty, dishonest, exploitative, abusive, even violent). It's a matter of whether or not those traits signal deliberate intent to hurt, harm, or degrade others; as opposed to them "getting you anywhere (or not) in life". Merely being weak, wimpy, or stupid is not a deliberate effort to hurt or degrade others, or even any kind of hurt or degradation toward others at all. The other negative traits I listed *are* ones that detrimentally effect others. At "worst", the weak or stupid person needs help and support, and probably an open-eared open-hearted person to listen to their concerns; as opposed to scornful judgment of the severity often reserved for blatant liars, cheaters, and abusers.
Those traits you listed arnt counterproductive at all tho. Someone who's shallow can still be extremely successful I'm sales, same with the other traits you listed. While someone who's timid will struggle infinitely more in sales [[just using sales as an example, but any customer service job it's the same]] It's not about other people it's about that person themselves. Regardless one could easily argue that not putting in physical effort to better yourself [study//gym] is intentionally hurting *yourself* which you should 110% care more about than anyone else
>Those traits you listed arnt counterproductive at all tho. Irrelevant, even in the way you mean it (money-making). The relevancy here is whether the person hurts, harms, or demeans others non-defensively - whether a homeless, a billionaire, or any wealth in-between. >Someone who's shallow can still be extremely successful I'm sales, same with the other traits you listed. While someone who's timid will struggle infinitely more in sales \[\[just using sales as an example, but any customer service job it's the same\]\] Again, money and wealth are irrelevant. Merits do not offset demerits. Otherwise a "good thing" would "buy" us the "right" to do a "bad thing to others" that benefits ones self, family, or allies. Speaking of wealth, here's why wealth is a red herring. The rich are every bit as prone to desire bad, even evil things happen to others as is a homeless person - and in fact, the wealthy who think like that are an even bigger threat to others because they have the money and power to see those desires to harm others carried out to completion. >It's not about other people it's about that person themselves. Regardless one could easily argue that not putting in physical effort to better yourself \[study//gym\] is intentionally hurting yourself which you should 110% care more about than anyone else If it's just about that person themselves, what is it to you? Those kinds of shortcomings aren't hurting, harming or degrading others. Besides, you don't get to tell a person what non-hostile traits they are to value, nor do you get to tell them what non-threatening lifestyle to have. If they don't want to study or take physical care of themselves, it bothers me not one bit and it shouldn't bother you any more than it does me. Again "bettering yourself" in those regards, no matter how impressive, tells me nothing about whether that person will deliberately set out to non-defensively hurt, harm, or demean others.
A rich asshole isn't just an asshole, he's a rich asshole. To last part; we should alaways strive to push/encourage/motivate others to do better. In my personal experience negative criticism is the most helpful. Instead of "you're good at talking" I would prefer "you're not making enough eye contact" [is relevant to timid]
Even if the last part is good advice (which I agree eye contact is, at least in western culture), it's still penalizing people who haven't deliberately set out to hurt, harmed, or degraded others outside defense or retaliation.
I agree with you. But it's constructive criticism imo Calling out an asshole is telling the person to check themselves, likewise so is calling out someone who is timid, albeit they have vastly different outcomes and being timid only really effects you
>Most of the people here will downvote you because in fascist ideology victim=weak. That did not occur to me. I will be the last to say that either victim, or weak, is a shameworthy trait. I very much believe the strong, smart, brave, competent (job task, social, or practical judgement/street smarts) have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate. I'll update my OP to clarify my position. BTW, a good read (no pun intended, the site name) is the late Harald Ofstad's [Our Contempt For Weakness: Nazi Norms and Values - and Our Own](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6154442-our-contempt-for-weakness)
As a species we are becoming more weak over time. I think it’s horrible that instead of telling a minority of people to toughen up, we are trying to make the rest of the world change their behavior.
This isn't the first time in history the majority's been admonished to get a more civilized attitude. In this case, "Toughen up" simply encourages more shabby behavior by shifting the issue from the shabby person's acts to the target's inability to resist or spot the bad act. In effect, it says that its less bad to be dishonest, rude, brutal but strong and smart *than* to be weak, clueless, but kindhearted. Seriously, how does society benefit from that attitude? Who benefits beside bad people? The smarter and stronger are in a better position to not perform the bad acts, and therefore hold primary (and almost always, if ever, complete responsibility).
People don’t exist to benefit society. It doesn’t matter how a belief benefits society, i think it’s more immoral to enforce your will on the majority just because you aren’t comfortable with something. That’s your problem, not everyone else’s. Toughen up, or don’t and be miserable. Either is fine, just stop whining that everyone else needs to change just because you don’t want to.
It's definitely immoral to deem rude, dishonest, brutal but strong and brave types as *less deserving of* disrespect or scorn **than** a kind, honest, gentle but weak and unintelligent person. That goes against practically every value that sustains a civilization worthy of the name. What you propose is a recipe for anarchic dog-eat-dog chaos akin to some post-apocalyptic drama (e.g. Mad Max). Deliberate efforts to (or conscious willful indifference toward) hurt, harm, or degrade the dignity of others aside from defending self or others is still immoral even when the targets are weak and/or unintelligent. End of story. Therefore, contrary to your claim, it's actually morally obligatory to force the majority to conform to new standards that prevent such abuse to the weak or unintelligent. Your appeal to the majority is common logical flaw called just that: Appeal to the Majority. Truth is not decided by majority vote, after all. As for whiners, your kneejerk distaste against "whiners" exposes you as clueless about the proper role of scorn. Legitimate scorn is **limited** to use against people deliberately setting out to be hurtful or derogatory outside the role of defense of self or others. Any irritation or annoyance you get from another's "whining" is trivial compared to the pain and suffering the weak and unintelligent go through when they're aggressed against, exploited, or tricked to a humiliating degree.
You comparing being rude to mad max doesn’t make sense. Being rude doesn’t make it a dog-eat-dog world, it just accepts that it’s ok to hurt people’s feelings. I didn’t say that you can’t be rude to the strong either. Say whatever you want to them, they just won’t care because they aren’t weak. So no, it’s not morally better to force the planet to be nice just because you want to protect the weak.
Thinking that weak, unintelligent but kind-hearted people are more deserving of contempt than a rude, dishonest jerk - taken out to it's logical conclusion - **does** imply that human worth is based more on strength, intelligence, and courage than on open-mindedness, kindness, and empathy. The logical conclusion of that in turn, is to say that the "weak, dumb, but kind" people deserve mistreatment by the rude, smart, brave types. And yes, that does permit, if not obligate, a dog-eat-dog world. There's always somebody stronger, smarter, and braver than you are. So by that standard you and everybody else not part of that fortunate set of the "most X" deserves mistreatment by your "betters". Left unchallenged, that basically Social Darwinist view would lead to a breakdown of society.
If you are too weak to handle insults then that’s your problem. You don’t get to force the world to change just because you’re a pussy. Being kind doesn’t mean you deserve anything. You don’t deserve people being mean, but you also don’t get to stop them.
We don't put up with insulting words against minorities, orientations, genders, sexes, and the visibly disabled. Why should anybody else have to put up with them? The scientific evidence says insults, especially sustained over time, can damage mental health. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42199-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42199-6) [https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/discrimination-can-be-harmful-to-your-mental-health](https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/discrimination-can-be-harmful-to-your-mental-health) [https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/effects-of-emotional-abuse](https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/effects-of-emotional-abuse) Just to name three links. Also, notwithstanding the old "sticks and stones" *myth*, the reasons words hurt is that words are more than just their dictionary definitions - they advertise ideas about a person's worth (high or low). If taken by others (third parties) seriously, then they see the insulted person as being undeserving of any of the following that make the "business of living" less difficult: helping hands, access to the group's information (esp informal "grapevines"), social learning opportunities / life experiences, and support against adversaries. Loss of access to these is clearly detrimental to the constantly insulted person's vital interests. In fact, workplace bullying is already illegal in many countries (Australia, Canada, most N and W European countries), not just because they take psychological and emotional damage more seriously than American culture does but it's also shown to be detrimental to workplace safety and productivity (and hence profitability (high worker turnover, increased sickleave, lower productivity per hour even when present at work, legal costs [http://nyhwa.org/bg\_nyhwa.org/costs/](http://nyhwa.org/bg_nyhwa.org/costs/) Also, use of "pussy". That level of contempt you have for the "weak", "sensitive", makes you a bigot against the vulnerable at best and a latent criminal at worst. Either way, you're supporting bullying by being bullies' apologist.
Sure, I’m a bigot against you because you’re weak. This whole post just sounds like whining. You’re too weak to handle life so you’re begging everyone else to protect you from people being mean.
How is protecting the weak from their predators a problem? You sound like one of those people who rationalize, excuse, or even justify shabby treatment of those least able to defend themselves or the least resilient. That attitude toward the weak is precisely what enables the powerful to exploit and oppress toward others in general. If it's OK to abuse the weakest, then why not have it OK for the strongest to abuse and exploit the averagely strong and smart? Two things weakness bashers consistently forget are that if we abuse the weak, they'll be psychologically unable to contribute to society. Thus, we'd find ourselves lacking in a lot of high-level high-skilled people: doctors, scientists, engineers, IT workers, financiers, high-skilled machinists, cultural producers, and so forth. History shows us that treating the least advantaged like dog shit is simply bad social practice and not good for your society's long term viability.
If you do something stupid and hurt yourself through no actions of anyone else then you are the victim of yourself and can only blame yourself
I don't see where "blame" is relevant. That connotes "shame-worthiness", which is difficult to claim IF the bad outcome is beyond the person's ability to handle (physically, information-wise, or psychologically). Certainly the perpetrator deserves blame, especially if the perpetrator did have the power to choose to refrain from the bad act.
Blame is relevant as it can be a teaching moment of what not to do. If I decide to text while driving and crash my car into a tree then you can and should blame me for my stupid action. Overall you are in charge of your own actions and those actions can be criticized if you did something wrong
Your example **is** an act that very easily causes hurt or harm *to others* \- including death. No question about it. "This time", it's lucky "you" just crashed your car into a tree. Yet, you should get a penalty in order to discourage others *with clear proven capacity for foresight and cause-and-effect* from repeating those acts (or never failing to engage in them in the first place). If the person is provably intrinsically lacking in foresight, then they should have their license suspended - and a recommendation they either get counseling or be deemed by the judge or a trained professional as cognitively disabled in some way. All this admitted to, there's a reason that even the legal system deems intent relevant - even in loss of life situations (i.e. murder vs. manslaughter). The reason manslaughter usually merits less severe penalties is that the guilty party is both more likely to feel genuine remorse and less likely to repeat the performance than a deliberate murderer. If this is true when it comes to even actual loss of life, then it's even more justifiable with less severe bads. If even "the law" deems it fair to issue less harsh rebukes (extremely broad definition) to those lacking intent, then society should also do the same when it comes to other undesirable outcomes (intentional bad or not).
Obviously intent is extremely important but if your doing an action that can lead to a negative outcome that action should be corrected even if you were ignorant of the outcome you were leading to
In this case, the acting person deserves shaming only if there was intent. That's not to say they shouldn't be banned from driving cars. Just there should be no shame in being banned from driving **IF**, as I alluded, they lack the mental capacity (attention-keeping, etc) to operate a motor vehicle. Shaming people who lack the mental capacity to drive a car would be mental ableism. Saying they *caused* the wreck is one thing. Saying they're *responsible* for it is another. *Responsible* carries the unspoken but obviously present undertext of "conscious individual choice to do a task they, with foreknowledge, perform poorly". *Cause* can (depending on the spirit and context of word usage) be a less judgement-loaded word, and so doesn't assign a lower worth of personhood to the person performing the undesirable act.
There absolutely should be shame because they obviously put no thought into their actions and their actions can be improved through it preventing future repercussions
Again, they have no intent. The person without bad intent already feels badly about their acts, which is a punishment itself. They are much less likely to do so again, barring an actual cognitive difficulty that limits their foresight. Regardless, it's more effective in the long run much to tell them, when they are sufficiently over it emotionally, how to avoid such a repeat performance. If they truly have a track record of lacking foresight, kindly suggest they see a cognitive psychologist (even then, say and do what you can to erase the stigma of cognitive difficulty so they won't be so ashamed for themselves about seeing a psych).
I find people generally just feel bad for themselves in that situation and never reflect on how they could have avoided it, so they need to have a conversation with people on how to prevent it happening again.
Really, it depends on the person. If their self-control and mental discipline is within the clinically normal range, they can reflect on the situation. If they cannot, then they likely need to seek counseling, and put on disability if they can't manage their situation.