When did society give up on "sticks and stones will break your bones...."?

Out of curiosity, has that phrase EVER made anyone feel better as a kid about being made fun of?

liah wrote: »

Out of curiosity, has that phrase EVER made anyone feel better as a kid about being made fun of?

I agree, worst saying ever.

I am kind of curious as to what kind of abuse is harder to overcome later in life/has the longest lasting effects on a person's mental well-being - emotional or physical. A lot of the time they're paired together, but separately I can't help but wonder.

How much truth is really in that statement?

If the OP is talking about the school yard - well words have always hurt.

In terms of political offence, there is tendency in the left wing to argue against unconditional free speech: the claim is that "dominant" groups, men, whites etc. are controlling the system so complaints from them are sexist, or racist; but about them are acceptable - hence the rise of gormless men on advertising.

when PC went mad

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

In terms of political offence, there is tendency in the left wing to argue against unconditional free speech: the claim is that "dominant" groups, men, whites etc. are controlling the system so complaints from them are sexist, or racist; but about them are acceptable - hence the rise of gormless men on advertising.

In my opinion, free speech shouldn't be a licence to harass, like e.g. the Westboro Baptist Church - it's not reasonable to rejoice at them being allowed to picket at funerals because of this being a "victory for free speech". What about context? If they want to spread their message of hate online, ok, but doing so at a funeral - well it's just not a decent thing to do.
I disagree though that dominant groups shouldn't be allowed say anything controversial yet that it's ok to attack them. Those ads are atrocious. Never heard of that being brought up in relation to the free speech issue though - it's an issue in and of itself.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

PC brigade

Derp.

Harden the f*ck up

I dont know, maybee its just me and me being weird but did insults ever actually hurt people ? I just got good at throwing back insults or ignoring people at a very young age, I thought it was a laugh

my biggest gripe is cyber bullying - children are definitley getting to be pussies , when I was in school bullying was 4 lads waiting at the green to throw you a few digs and move along , not sending you a text calling you a fag , how people actually listen to that sh*t and are affected by it is beyond me and I will never understand it.

Ok there's allowing yourself to be a doormat, and there's being hypersensitive, but that is completely different to being a victim of bullying. And thankfully more people are compassionate and don't see things in a cut and dry way like you do, nor do they just assume their experience is the same as everyone else's.

There is hypersensitivity out there and people getting offended over nothing, but it's nowhere near as widespread as the no-nonsense "brigade" say it is. Examples of "PC gone mad" are usually myths. Unfortunately there are some folks who think having a bit of humanity is being "PC".

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Physical pain is nothing in comparison to emotional pain.

Ever get repeatedly kicked in the balls?

Dudess wrote: »

I disagree though that dominant groups shouldn't be allowed say anything controversial yet that it's ok to attack them. Those ads are atrocious. Never heard of that being brought up in relation to the free speech issue though - it's an issue in and of itself.

The ads were just the trivial example of the ideology in practice, an ideology from Marxism, though not quite canoconical Marxism. I tend to be a free speech absolutist, because you cant draw the line, but I take some aspects of the left wing to be true - blacking up in 1950's England is more destrucive than a black man whiting up because of how power is disseminated.

Of the ideology itself, there are plenty examples, the prime text of this movement being the essay Repressive Tolerance from Marcuse


Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.

His dominant classes were the Bourgeoisie - which made some sense ( although he was more or less Gramisican in his belief that the majority of us proles were controlled by the minority elites) but since then the left has more or less abandoned class politics for identity politics.

The white male worker between 1970 and 2010 got poorer, lost his job, was outsourced and de-unionised but was condemned for gaining privilege of race and sex, and repressive tolerance tolerated him no more.

Which, probably, to be fair, is not what Marcuse wanted.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but really, theyre just words, just words and words alone, if somebody stabs you your skin is broken, you bleed and your nerves receive that as pain ,

if somebody calls you fat or somebody says that your a bad person ITS YOUR CHOICE to let that hurt or not

Sure, in the case of isolated incidents - but you brought bullying into the discussion. And systematic verbal bullying eventually breaks a person down, erodes their confidence, and makes them feel increasingly isolated and powerless - and there is nothing "pussyish" about that. Even strong people have succumbed to it...
I agree people shouldn't let everything get to them, but knowing the OP, the message is: "You're a whinge-bag if you get upset at all" which isn't fair. Very few people are able to filter out everything.