"lol, triggered"

Elong

Thunderknuckles wrote: »

Elong wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Elong wrote: »

I had someone hold a knife up to me once. I demand that the Blade Of Woe be taken out of the game.

If you were bothered by knives I doubt you'd be playing a game with simulated melee combat.

I don't like dogs that much either. But they're in the game. They're pixels. It's a game. I'm sorry for what has happened to you, but if you're so sensitive to this, then perhaps you need more help or alternatively a new game to play. If that sounds harsh so be it. You're a good player and a nice person, but the simulated act done by many of us on here really isn't meant to be taken literally.

For cripe's sake, man....he's KIDDING! LOL Did you seriously take them seriously? Goooooood.....griiiiief!

Who's kidding, the OP?

zyk

I have mixed feelings about the topic. I don't consider myself to be a troll at all, but I was taught at a young age that gamesmanship is a core part of competition. Psyops are normal in sports and extend from rink/field/court trash talk into media coverage, interviews, etc... Getting under your opponent's skin is a valid edge.

With that said, I think Men'do's POV is 100% reasonable and we should respect it. He's provided a clear explanation about why he and others are caused harm by this act. The act is not part of the game and is easy to avoid.

Think about it for a second. Tbagging can cause another human being actual harm. This shouldn't be a revelation. Sexual assault is, unfortunately, not uncommon. So to me, it's likely that it's not uncommon for others to be caused harm by a simulation of it.

Men'do is most likely speaking out for a larger segment of the community than many of us may realize. It may be your buddy who is hurt by it. How would you know? Sexual assault isn't usually part of small talk.

This topic seems to relate to hazing. Some hazing rituals are incredibly brutal assaults that are normalized because people blindly accept it as part of culture and go with the flow. That's sort of what we've done with tbagging imo.

antihero727

Recremen wrote: »

antihero727 wrote: »

Honestly I can’t believe this post has taken it this far. Unless you take your RP way to seriously or have some kind of bagging PTSD is it relly worth going on about it for 2 pages? Bagging in a game is the equivalent of giving the middle finger not some sort of sexual thing. Please stop this before you embarrass yourselves anymore.

@antihero727

Why keep coming back to a post you don't care about? And why be silly and insist that there is nothing sexual about teabagging? It's very much intended to be taken sexually. Like what do you think the teabag is, for real.

If they had a middle finger emote 95% of the teabaggers would do that instead.

Texas

antihero727 wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

antihero727 wrote: »

Honestly I can’t believe this post has taken it this far. Unless you take your RP way to seriously or have some kind of bagging PTSD is it relly worth going on about it for 2 pages? Bagging in a game is the equivalent of giving the middle finger not some sort of sexual thing. Please stop this before you embarrass yourselves anymore.

@antihero727

Why keep coming back to a post you don't care about? And why be silly and insist that there is nothing sexual about teabagging? It's very much intended to be taken sexually. Like what do you think the teabag is, for real.

If they had a middle finger emote 95% of the teabaggers would do that instead.

I'd definitely have it hotkeyed! Malacath was that for a while but ZOS had to go and ZOS it.

Vilestride

I approve all forms of tbagging and it enhances my game experience with an element of humor that I appreciate. Please do not remove the tbag mechanic from game.

ZoS please add a section to the nameplate function that displays whether one is willing or unwilling to participate in tbagging So no one becomes offended.

zyk

Actually, people with a military background should have the most empathy for trauma related issues and the powerful impact they can have on a person.

This thread isn't about someone with shellshock playing Call of Duty and complaining about grenades. One expects to have grenades lobbed at them in a COD game. One does not buy an RPG and expect balls to be lobbed in their faces.

If you guys want to get political about it though, when I think of the western society I was born into vs the one I live in today, the biggest difference is a lack of common courtesy.

Recremen

Texas wrote: »

caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »

Texas wrote: »

Hazing......I've got some really good stories about that subject that I received while in the military. Pink bellies, getting a shellback, getting put on the flight deck, frocking ceremonies where they "tack" on your crow/ESWS/EAWS, and other various general shenanigans. Painful but definitely good times that taught valid lessons that I'll never forget.

Shellback, blood stripes hurt like a mother.. I couldn’t walk for a few days. Every promotion being tacked on. Yeaaaa.... memories

And look at us......somehow we survived a cruel, cruel pre-interwebz/special snowflake/SJW world that would chew up todays youngsters. We need to write a survival guide to real life.

Actually you're just complicit in the cycle of abuse and are entrenching legit harmful behavior, but sure, pretend that you somehow have something worth contributing because you were able to withstand a little bit of physical pain. Real toughness isn't just being able to take pain, it's taking the pain, recognizing that it's not acceptable, and standing up to the abusers. You talk about people getting "chewed up" but are protecting the toothy monsters with your complacency.

@Elong

To be clear, I'm talking specifically about people who keep going to town after being told to quit it. As I said in the first post

if you know a particular person is fine with it then I don't mean to tell you to change that social dynamic

caeliusstarbreaker

zyk wrote: »

Actually, people with a military background should have the most empathy for trauma related issues and the powerful impact they can have on a person.

This thread isn't about someone with shellshock playing Call of Duty and complaining about grenades. One expects to have grenades lobbed at them in a COD game. One does not buy an RPG and expect balls to be lobbed in their faces.

If you guys want to get political about it though, when I think of the western society I was born into vs the one I live in today, the biggest difference is a lack of common courtesy.

I do have empathy, but I’m not marching around posting “don’t light fireworks around me I’m a vet.” If nothing else the military has taught me to be able endure hardships, face adversity head on and have a thick skin, while understanding the world is an inherently cruel place. You can’t control people’s actions, you can only control how you deal with it.

smacx250

If the intent of teabagging isn't to induce the feeling of victimization in the target like the act that it simulates, why not just use /sweep? It shows the same disrespect, but lacks the victimization aspect of the act. And if you were too obtuse to realize that is what teabagging is intended as, consider yourself schooled.

Morgul667

antihero727 wrote: »

Honestly who really cares about a little bagging? It’s the people that are “too high and mighty” to teabag in a video game that I am worried about. You take it to seriously if it bothers you to a 2 paragraph extent.

Sure let's all support childish behavior cause that is the healthy thing to do.

Anyway I dont care for the tbaggers, I usually find it funny that bad players tend to tbag while good ones usually dont tbag. I find good fighters usually tend to respect each others (not always but still you do see it quite often).

IZZEFlameLash

I'd say just move on. It just reflects their personality and how low they can go. Sucks that it ruins your day because of its context, but as Rhage and other guy said, it is nigh impossible for you to change those people and be ready to move on. Do not let them hold power over you like that. They flourish in these sorts of reactions.

ofSunhold

Was just talking this over with someone in game, another player who took a break and came back again recently. I don't get triggered, but I'm not excited to see this seems a lot more prevalent now than it was a year ago. Taking the PVP way too personally kids. It seems to be harder to send opponents hate whispers (or any whispers) now though so I guess ragey people are down to gestures. Or it's just that hilarious. Or something.

Anyway OP, I'm sorry it's upsetting you. Some of those people are being thoughtless in the literal it has not occurred to them yet to not follow that trend sense, and they'll hear you and think it over. And some have issues of their own. Best to just step around that if you can.

Vilestride

If we wan't to talk about this from a sociological point of view though, not a personal one, is this really a matter of maturity?

I would propose that the inability to detach ones self from the events of an online environment selectively is equally if not more-so immature than the actions of the people we are villainizing here. Let's also not so quickly forget that many of the people playing this game, if not the majority of them, are not even adults. To put that in context I would say that a 50 year old who is, to use your words, triggered by the behaviour of teenagers 'tbagging' them because they think it's funny, is as equally immature as those who are behaving 'undesirably'. The claim that in game 'tbagging' is a form of sexual assault is a pretty radical one and I would argue that the inability to intuitively differentiate the two is also immature. I would want to make sure every aspect of that claim has been thoroughly considered before acting upon it and at no point would I make the claim that maturity, or lack there of, would indicate the need for psychiatric treatment.

Firstly, I'd point out that while the game does not advertise, 'potential exposure to virtual sexual assault' it does warn that there will be simulated violence and variable online content. Key word, Variable. Us, as the consumer, are willingly subjecting ourselves to any of potentiall content that comes with such an environment and unlike potential situations within reality, a consumer can at any time, easily cease their exposure to said environment at the click of a button.

The follow up to this would be a discussion of culture. Does the anonymity of an online environment produce a more disconnected and generally more offensive culture than in reality? of that I have no doubt. But that doesn't mean the answer is added measures of reducing the risk for offence. Again, I would argue that at sociological level the consequences for over-regulating the potential for offence are for more damaging than the occurrence of such offence could ever be.

@zyk
I think there should be some clarification around the idea of what is and isn't reasonable. The request 'please don't tbag me' is completely reasonable, but to be clear, the request 'please don't tbag.' is not so much, and I do acknowledge that the OP has not made that claim, I am just concerned that is where a discussion of this nature has the potential to lead.

My question to those who are against this 'offensive behaviour' would be what do you think is a reasonable measure to be taken against it?

If the answer to that is simply: discuss it openly in the hope of creating a more mindful culture full of people who better regulate their own actions, then I completely agree.

If the answer is forcibly incur any kind of punishment, to any degree, then I strongly disagree. If the answer is to condemn those who partake in the behaviour because you deem it undesirable, then I strongly disagree.

Speaking more broadly about the matter, I think we have to be very careful when determining where the responsibility for offence lies. It is not rational to allow offence to be solely determined by those who claim it and to re-iterate, the danger of over protecting a culture through regulation and policy is as equally dangerous as under-protecting it.

Lastly, I truly do empathise with your position Recremen, and while I do applaud your action of raising the issue in a forum, I would recommend as Izanagi did that if this is genuinely effecting you, seek the advice of a professional. However I do not agree that the action of T'bagging in the context of a video game is objectively anything more than lighthearted playful trolling and that it is, acceptable behaviour.

Morgul667

Vilestride wrote: »

If we wan't to talk about this from a sociological point of view though, not a personal one, is this really a matter of maturity?

I would propose that the inability to detach ones self from the events of an online environment selectively is equally if not more-so immature than the actions of the people we are villainizing here. Let's also not so quickly forget that many of the people playing this game, if not the majority of them, are not even adults. To put that in context I would say that a 50 year old who is, to use your words, triggered by the behaviour of teenagers 'tbagging' them because they think it's funny, is as equally immature as those who are behaving 'undesirably'. The claim that in game 'tbagging' is a form of sexual assault is a pretty radical one and I would argue that the inability to intuitively differentiate the two is also immature. I would want to make sure every aspect of that claim has been thoroughly considered before acting upon it and at no point would I make the claim that maturity, or lack there of, would indicate the need for psychiatric treatment.

Firstly, I'd point out that while the game does not advertise, 'potential exposure to virtual sexual assault' it does warn that there will be simulated violence and variable online content. Key word, Variable. Us, as the consumer, are willingly subjecting ourselves to any of potentiall content that comes with such an environment and unlike potential situations within reality, a consumer can at any time, easily cease their exposure to said environment at the click of a button.

The follow up to this would be a discussion of culture. Does the anonymity of an online environment produce a more disconnected and generally more offensive culture than in reality? of that I have no doubt. But that doesn't mean the answer is added measures of reducing the risk for offence. Again, I would argue that at sociological level the consequences for over-regulating the potential for offence are for more damaging than the occurrence of such offence could ever be.

@zyk
I think there should be some clarification around the idea of what is and isn't reasonable. The request 'please don't tbag me' is completely reasonable, but to be clear, the request 'please don't tbag.' is not so much, and I do acknowledge that the OP has not made that claim, I am just concerned that is where a discussion of this nature has the potential to lead.

My question to those who are against this 'offensive behaviour' would be what do you think is a reasonable measure to be taken against it?

If the answer to that is simply: discuss it openly in the hope of creating a more mindful culture full of people who better regulate their own actions, then I completely agree.

If the answer is forcibly incur any kind of punishment, to any degree, then I strongly disagree. If the answer is to condemn those who partake in the behaviour because you deem it undesirable, then I strongly disagree.

Speaking more broadly about the matter, I think we have to be very careful when determining where the responsibility for offence lies. It is not rational to allow offence to be solely determined by those who claim it and to re-iterate, the danger of over protecting a culture through regulation and policy is as equally dangerous as under-protecting it.

Lastly, I truly do empathise with your position Recremen, and while I do applaud your action of raising the issue in a forum, I would recommend as Izanagi did that if this is genuinely effecting you, seek the advice of a professional. However I do not agree that the action of T'bagging in the context of a video game is objectively anything more than lighthearted playful trolling and that it is, acceptable behaviour.

so a long and fancy (yet constructive) post to say that virtually rubbing ones parts on another dead body, is grown up. If so why do people do it online but not irl ?

Anyway I agree it is not big deal, I usually feel sorry as it is mainly bad players anyway. I just feel they are trying to compensate for something.

zyk

Vilestride wrote: »

I would propose that the inability to detach ones self from the events of an online environment selectively is equally if not more-so immature than the actions of the people we are villainizing here. Let's also not so quickly forget that many of the people playing this game, if not the majority of them, are not even adults. To put that in context I would say that a 50 year old who is, to use your words, triggered by the behaviour of teenagers 'tbagging' them because they think it's funny, is as equally immature as those who are behaving 'undesirably'.

Age is irrelevant. It isn't that it's immature to have fun with the act of tbagging. It's that it can be considered immature to continue to tbag someone after they have explained it is harmful to them. Empathy -- and demonstrating it -- is commonly associated with maturity. A lot of behaviours are considered immature because they are inconsiderate of others. Though, I suppose it may also result from malice.

The claim that in game 'tbagging' is a form of sexual assault is a pretty radical one and I would argue that the inability to intuitively differentiate the two is also immature.

That is not a claim made in this thread. The fact is that in real life, the act of tea bagging is sexual and therefore a non-consensual tea bag would be sexual assault. Simulating it in a video game is simulating sexual assault. The fact it would be such a brutal and humiliating thing to do to someone is what makes it outrageous and funny to simulate in a joking way.

Human memories are associative. We connect dots automatically. Though tbagging is part of the culture of online gaming, it turns out that it can also trigger a very bad experience for others. That's what Men'do is asking us to be considerate of. He's not asking you to stop because it's not his cup of tea. He's asking you to stop because it triggers a bad psychological episode for him.

His personal maturity is in no way a factor in being affected in this way. I think he is demonstrating maturity and leadership by speaking up. I think it took courage to post about it.

The follow up to this would be a discussion of culture. Does the anonymity of an online environment produce a more disconnected and generally more offensive culture than in reality? of that I have no doubt. But that doesn't mean the answer is added measures of reducing the risk for offence. Again, I would argue that at sociological level the consequences for over-regulating the potential for offence are for more damaging than the occurrence of such offence could ever be.

This isn't about personal taste. The problem with teabagging isn't that it's gross or distasteful. It's that a simulated sexual assault can trigger a psychological episode in someone who has experienced a sexual assault in real life. That's probably a significant number of ESO players and gamers. Knowing this, I am going to be more considerate and I think the world is better if we're all considerate of such things.

We all already do this in other ways. I am certain most of us understand and respect that we can't discuss certain topics casually unless we know everyone involved is okay with it. I'm not going to write what they are because they do affect people and this isn't the place to speak so plainly. Today, I realized tbagging should be considered among those things because it can result in a bad experience for potentially a lot of other players. Perhaps someone you're friends with. I didn't realize that before, so I understand why others might not. I may have before read from others what Men'do wrote, but it finally sunk in this time.

I think there should be some clarification around the idea of what is and isn't reasonable. The request 'please don't tbag me' is completely reasonable, but to be clear, the request 'please don't tbag.' is not so much, and I do acknowledge that the OP has not made that claim, I am just concerned that is where a discussion of this nature has the potential to lead.

To me, the answer is to just not to do it unless I know the other player is okay with it. I know it's not acceptable in a lot of communities already. If I were a leader of a guild or group, I would ask my teammates not to do it out of courtesy for others. It is a rule in the last PVP guild I was a member of, Venatus. I think all leaders should expect their teammates to be good citizens.

Where you draw the line is your choice. Culture is a powerful force and takes a long time to change. I'd ask, is the value you derive from tbagging strangers worth potentially harming someone?

Lastly, I truly do empathise with your position Recremen, and while I do applaud your action of raising the issue in a forum, I would recommend as Izanagi did that if this is genuinely effecting you, seek the advice of a professional. However I do not agree that the action of T'bagging in the context of a video game is objectively anything more than lighthearted playful trolling and that it is, acceptable behaviour.

Sexual assault is incredibly common. A quick google search tells me that approximately one in three women will experience sexual assault in their lifetime. There is likely no cure for the long term pain that can follow a trauma. I think people learn to cope -- which is easier when others are willing to accommodate them by limiting triggers. That's actually a common expectation in society.

I'm not trying to preach. Before this thread, my attitude was np. But I don't want to hurt people, so I'll try to be considerate. That's all.

Etaniel

Recremen wrote: »

And it's not like these victims "should have known what they were signing up for" when they bought the game. The game wasn't advertised as an environment where you can simulate sexual assault, it was advertised for the simulated combat.

I don't really agree here, when you sign up for an online game, you sign up for online interactions and usually most games tell you that they're not responsible for those interactions. Not to defend said behaviour, and good luck trying to change it, but it's something you should expect when signing up for an online game.

Vilestride

zyk wrote: »

Age is irrelevant. It isn't that it's immature to have fun with the act of tbagging. It's that it can be considered immature to continue to tbag someone after they have explained it is harmful to them.

Age is 100% a relevant factor in a conversation of maturity. Inconsiderate and immature, are not the same thing, and I understand there is a difference between an isolated indecent and continued harassment. I touched on that in my 5th paragraph.

zyk wrote: »

Human memories are associative. We connect dots automatically. Though tbagging is part of the culture of online gaming, it turns out that it can also trigger a very bad experience for others. That's what Men'do is asking us to be considerate of. He's not asking you to stop because it's not his cup of tea. He's asking you to stop because it triggers a bad psychological episode for him.

Absolutely, emotional response is dependant on associative memory. The point however, is not that it has the potential for negative effect, that much is obvious. The point is to what degree of risk management do we need to go. I noticed the potential for risk argument is not one you addressed in your rebut at all, which is unfortunate because this is the crux of my interest in the conversation.

To be plain, this qualm of tbagging is a minute aspect of the broader debate being at what point are we over-regulating the risk of causing offence, I actually in most part agree with you regarding this specific issue, however less so in a broader spectrum. You yourself just remarked on how carefully you speak to minimise the potential of your words offending other people and while I do agree that being considerate is an important human quality, there are critically imperative dangers to having a society that is so limited in what it can and can't say at the risk of causing offence. By even having an open conversation like this one I am at risk of offending everyone who reads. There are endless potential triggers for endless potential psychological conditions, however it is important to make that distinction where relevant, some conditions are psychological, not sociological.

While we are talking in the context of linguistics, I want to add that I think intent is of equal importance to interpretation. When you consider that language is only a tool for forming and conveying thought, how could the two not be at least equal.

Morgul667 wrote: »

Anyway I agree it is not big deal, I usually feel sorry as it is mainly bad players anyway. I just feel they are trying to compensate for something.

I have weighed this up, and I still strongly doubt the motivation for the majority of 'tbags' is one of compensation. However if we are just looking for a bottom line on the subject I do agree, if someone says stop t'bagging them, the ethical thing to do would be stop t'bagging them.

WuffyCerulei

Unlike other people, I do truly understand where you are coming from. People often try to hide behind the guise that "it's a game", but they forget that the person they're harrassing is another human being. Not everyone is a salty teenager and will laugh at it. It'd be more appropriate to, I don't know, /shovel, /dishonor, /kick, /boo, or even /spit. I admit, I look forward to getting the Flip the Bird emote.

Beardimus

I'm sorry OP, I'm all for good social etiquette etc however people getting offended about pixels going in and out of crouch is just way too sensitive / entitlement to be offended.

Cheaters in PvP offend me. As they are breaking the game, alliance switching, AP farming manipulators passing Emp.about etc. All that is actually unsportsman and detrimental to play.

If someone kills me and becomes indecisive about going in to stealth near me I couldn't care less, I generally message then asking if they are stealthing as they fear the repercussions of my death

LjAnimalchin

Ok so here it is. If it wasn't this, people would find some other way to be *** to each other. So it has been and so it will ALWAYS BE. These naive posts do nothing. You'll never change the actions of people, who as a race are inherently selfish as a survival instinct. Sure some smart people can see this and try to be nice to each other, but most people aren't smart, and that's something you can't do anything about either.

Anazasi

Thunderknuckles wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

....Personally ZOS should just remove the animation entirely and the problem would be solved for about 2 days; until some other mechanic takes it place. The fact is no one appreciates it.....

It's actually just the crouch animation. People are crouching over and over to imitate teabagging. So there's no specific "tea bag" animation to get rid of.

"Crouch" is the animation connected with stealthing which is activated by the use of a specific key binding. The animation can be removed thus removing the crouch from the game and ending this specific symbolic T bagging animation. The specific key binding would remain and activate invisibility but you simply would not crouch anymore.

FrancisCrawford

Lucky28 wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

antihero727 wrote: »

Honestly who really cares about a little bagging? It’s the people that are “too high and mighty” to teabag in a video game that I am worried about. You take it to seriously if it bothers you to a 2 paragraph extent.

@antihero727

Since I apparently was too vague in the post I'll just say it directly here : I care because I have been sexually assaulted in real life. I am one of those victims who gets set off by this sort of thing. Most of the time I can contact the person involved and they apologize and we move on and keep fighting. On a rare occasion I get a response like the post title, which is frankly a horrible response. We are all responsible to each other for our actions.

Unfortunately, I think you find yourself in a situation where the culture runs counter to both empathy and repercussion.

As long as there are not direct, actionable /tells being sent to you, don't expect any support from ZOS either.

It's up to you to figure out what's best for you. You're the one person who knows what's healthiest for your own psyche, and if that means you can tolerate the PVP community then great. If you can't, then consider doing what is healthiest for you.

@Agrippa_Invisus

I've been handling the PvP scene for years now. I've been emperor, have a grand overlord under my belt, and have been (and am currently with) the best large guilds AD has to offer on PC NA. Part of the process of "handling it" is discussing what's going on and trying to advocate for change in the community. I'm not going to leave the game because a minority of people are awful, I am going to get loud about the issue, as here.

you can do that all you like. but nothing is going to change specifically not on the internet.

trying to change the way people act on the internet is a pointless exercise. just saying.

I disagree, even though it's obvious that no ONE person is going to change the behavior of ALL the people s/he wants to influence.

Drdeath20

I could care less about being tea bagged. It means nothing.

Its the whispers that push it overboard.

Guy kills me, then teabags me for a few minutes while im waiting for foward camp.

I finally respawn and End up finding guy and killing him with a side of tbag revenge.

He then spends the next hour whispering me about how im trash

Carbonised

It's funny, whenever this issue about bad social ettiquette in a PvP environment comes up, it's almost always NA server related.

What is it that prevents people across the Atlantic from behaving decent these days? In a game such as ESO, which is not CS, which is not LoL, or any of those other moronic, braindead shooters - why is it that some people still feel the need of spamming derogatory gestures towards someone they just killed in PvP? Not only that, but also sending hate whispers to someone else, sometimes when you die, sometimes even when /I'm/ the one who died.

This once again just confirms my belief that the worst problem with the PvP aspect of this game is actually the PvP crowd. Some of you PvP exclusive die-hards with your shoddy attitudes should really just find a more competitive game to play instead of ruining this one.

VaranisArano

Carbonised wrote: »

It's funny, whenever this issue about bad social ettiquette in a PvP environment comes up, it's almost always NA server related.

What is it that prevents people across the Atlantic from behaving decent these days? In a game such as ESO, which is not CS, which is not LoL, or any of those other moronic, braindead shooters - why is it that some people still feel the need of spamming derogatory gestures towards someone they just killed in PvP? Not only that, but also sending hate whispers to someone else, sometimes when you die, sometimes even when /I'm/ the one who died.

This once again just confirms my belief that the worst problem with the PvP aspect of this game is actually the PvP crowd. Some of you PvP exclusive die-hards with your shoddy attitudes should really just find a more competitive game to play instead of ruining this one.

Online gaming is competitive AND relatively anonymous, lacking the present referees and expectations of good sportsmanship that you see in most face-to-face sports. That's not to say that the sports world can't be pretty toxic in its own right, but most teams understand the value of at least the appearance of good sportsmanship. In online gaming, however, there's not much holding you accountable for good behavior (depending on the severity of the game's mods) and its very easy to act like there's not another human being at the other end you are competing against.

Its very much a "who are you when no one is watching" type scenario, and there's a reason those tests of character come up again and again in morality tales and folklore.

Huh, there's a thought. PVP as a secret test of character. Do you remain a person who values good sportsmanship and decency to your enemies while being competitive for your team or do you act like a jerk?

Biro123

It all brings up the interesting question around simple communication - something which I've seen come up more and more lately..

It all boils down to the question of intent. Did the speaker (lets at speaker - but could easily mean typer/gesturer etc) mean what he said as an nasty insult or light-hearted banter?

Did the listener take it as it was meant?

I mean, I've seen numerous instances where an elderly person has said something (often relating to race/colour/sexuality etc) - not meaning to be insulting in any way, shape or form - but just using the kind of vocabulary that they learned - Terms which are perhaps no longer acceptable..

And the listener (or more often someone on their behalf) has chosen to take it as an insult and kick off over it.

Who is in the wrong here? I honestly don't know, but I do tend to think that society has drifted too far down the 'I chose to be offended!' route as opposed to the 'I'm sure you meant nothing by it' route..

Tolerance is quickly disappearing and it seems that being offended is the go-to response ... Bring back thick skins!!

I remember an old saying... Sticks and stones will break my bones, but calling names won't hurt me. I think that pretty much sums it up.. Its up to the listener to choose whether to be hurt/offended by words - or not to be. And I much prefer an attitude of assuming good intentions in people (even though it may not have came across well).

RinaldoGandolphi

You know....looking at some of these replies...im speechless...honestly speechless...im literally shaking my head right now in disbelief at some of the comments I see here...absolutely unbelievable...its unbelievable!

I can't even comment on this....this is just insane....insane....the excuses being made here to justify this behavior is simply irrational..

VaranisArano

Biro123 wrote: »

It all brings up the interesting question around simple communication - something which I've seen come up more and more lately..

It all boils down to the question of intent. Did the speaker (lets at speaker - but could easily mean typer/gesturer etc) mean what he said as an nasty insult or light-hearted banter?

Did the listener take it as it was meant?

I mean, I've seen numerous instances where an elderly person has said something (often relating to race/colour/sexuality etc) - not meaning to be insulting in any way, shape or form - but just using the kind of vocabulary that they learned - Terms which are perhaps no longer acceptable..

And the listener (or more often someone on their behalf) has chosen to take it as an insult and kick off over it.

Who is in the wrong here? I honestly don't know, but I do tend to think that society has drifted too far down the 'I chose to be offended!' route as opposed to the 'I'm sure you meant nothing by it' route..

Tolerance is quickly disappearing and it seems that being offended is the go-to response ... Bring back thick skins!!

I remember an old saying... Sticks and stones will break my bones, but calling names won't hurt me. I think that pretty much sums it up.. Its up to the listener to choose whether to be hurt/offended by words - or not to be. And I much prefer an attitude of assuming good intentions in people (even though it may not have came across well).

As I say to the kids I teach, "When you accidently hurt someone that you didnt mean to hurt, you should still say you're sorry."

Because honestly, if you didnt mean to hurt someone but you did, that's something to be sorry about. Someone is hurt. Ether you meant to or not, you did/said something that hurt someone else. Its not something to get defenisve about and say "well, you should have magically known I didnt mean to hurt you" or "well, you shouldn't be hurt because I didnt mean to hurt you." There's nothing wrong with saying, "I didnt mean that to be harmful, but I understand that I hurt you. I'm sorry, and I'll do my best to not do that again."

I expect kids too have trouble with understanding how to respond when someone says they hurt them when the kid didn't mean to. I expect adults to understand that their intentions aren't always clear and that sometimes apologizing for actions/words that caused harm despite intentions is necessary to maintaining good relationships with people.

You can have all the good intentions in the world and still hurt people. Someone pointing out that you harmed them is in fact giving you a chance to show that you had good intentions. If you truly have good intentions, respond like a decent person when someone points out that you harmed them by what you did/said. If you respond like a jerk, well, I'm going to doubt those good intentions.

Biro123

VaranisArano wrote: »

Biro123 wrote: »

It all brings up the interesting question around simple communication - something which I've seen come up more and more lately..

It all boils down to the question of intent. Did the speaker (lets at speaker - but could easily mean typer/gesturer etc) mean what he said as an nasty insult or light-hearted banter?

Did the listener take it as it was meant?

I mean, I've seen numerous instances where an elderly person has said something (often relating to race/colour/sexuality etc) - not meaning to be insulting in any way, shape or form - but just using the kind of vocabulary that they learned - Terms which are perhaps no longer acceptable..

And the listener (or more often someone on their behalf) has chosen to take it as an insult and kick off over it.

Who is in the wrong here? I honestly don't know, but I do tend to think that society has drifted too far down the 'I chose to be offended!' route as opposed to the 'I'm sure you meant nothing by it' route..

Tolerance is quickly disappearing and it seems that being offended is the go-to response ... Bring back thick skins!!

I remember an old saying... Sticks and stones will break my bones, but calling names won't hurt me. I think that pretty much sums it up.. Its up to the listener to choose whether to be hurt/offended by words - or not to be. And I much prefer an attitude of assuming good intentions in people (even though it may not have came across well).

As I say to the kids I teach, "When you accidently hurt someone that you didnt mean to hurt, you should still say you're sorry."

Because honestly, if you didnt mean to hurt someone but you did, that's something to be sorry about. Someone is hurt. Ether you meant to or not, you did/said something that hurt someone else. Its not something to get defenisve about and say "well, you should have magically known I didnt mean to hurt you" or "well, you shouldn't be hurt because I didnt mean to hurt you." There's nothing wrong with saying, "I didnt mean that to be harmful, but I understand that I hurt you. I'm sorry, and I'll do my best to not do that again."

I expect kids too have trouble with understanding how to respond when someone says they hurt them when the kid didn't mean to. I expect adults to understand that their intentions aren't always clear and that sometimes apologizing for actions/words that caused harm despite intentions is necessary to maintaining good relationships with people.

You can have all the good intentions in the world and still hurt people. Someone pointing out that you harmed them is in fact giving you a chance to show that you had good intentions. If you truly have good intentions, respond like a decent person when someone points out that you harmed them by what you did/said. If you respond like a jerk, well, I'm going to doubt those good intentions.

That's a nice thought - but the reality is often that the response isn't 'you hurt me' - it is often a deliberate counter-attack and escalation - leaving the first person, who may happily have apologised wondering why this other fella is having a go.

Honestly - back to the topic, I just take T-bagging to be a way to communicate a dislike of your opponents actions and a way of saying 'that'll teach ya'. I don't see any sexual connotations in it, nor to i view it as any kind of deadly insult. It simply happens too often to still mean that anymore...
The same way that many swear-words have lost their potency over time (probably largely from overuse) and been replaced by others.. You Knave, you! :-p

VaranisArano

Biro123 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Biro123 wrote: »

It all brings up the interesting question around simple communication - something which I've seen come up more and more lately..

It all boils down to the question of intent. Did the speaker (lets at speaker - but could easily mean typer/gesturer etc) mean what he said as an nasty insult or light-hearted banter?

Did the listener take it as it was meant?

I mean, I've seen numerous instances where an elderly person has said something (often relating to race/colour/sexuality etc) - not meaning to be insulting in any way, shape or form - but just using the kind of vocabulary that they learned - Terms which are perhaps no longer acceptable..

And the listener (or more often someone on their behalf) has chosen to take it as an insult and kick off over it.

Who is in the wrong here? I honestly don't know, but I do tend to think that society has drifted too far down the 'I chose to be offended!' route as opposed to the 'I'm sure you meant nothing by it' route..

Tolerance is quickly disappearing and it seems that being offended is the go-to response ... Bring back thick skins!!

I remember an old saying... Sticks and stones will break my bones, but calling names won't hurt me. I think that pretty much sums it up.. Its up to the listener to choose whether to be hurt/offended by words - or not to be. And I much prefer an attitude of assuming good intentions in people (even though it may not have came across well).

As I say to the kids I teach, "When you accidently hurt someone that you didnt mean to hurt, you should still say you're sorry."

Because honestly, if you didnt mean to hurt someone but you did, that's something to be sorry about. Someone is hurt. Ether you meant to or not, you did/said something that hurt someone else. Its not something to get defenisve about and say "well, you should have magically known I didnt mean to hurt you" or "well, you shouldn't be hurt because I didnt mean to hurt you." There's nothing wrong with saying, "I didnt mean that to be harmful, but I understand that I hurt you. I'm sorry, and I'll do my best to not do that again."

I expect kids too have trouble with understanding how to respond when someone says they hurt them when the kid didn't mean to. I expect adults to understand that their intentions aren't always clear and that sometimes apologizing for actions/words that caused harm despite intentions is necessary to maintaining good relationships with people.

You can have all the good intentions in the world and still hurt people. Someone pointing out that you harmed them is in fact giving you a chance to show that you had good intentions. If you truly have good intentions, respond like a decent person when someone points out that you harmed them by what you did/said. If you respond like a jerk, well, I'm going to doubt those good intentions.

That's a nice thought - but the reality is often that the response isn't 'you hurt me' - it is often a deliberate counter-attack and escalation - leaving the first person, who may happily have apologised wondering why this other fella is having a go.

Honestly - back to the topic, I just take T-bagging to be a way to communicate a dislike of your opponents actions and a way of saying 'that'll teach ya'. I don't see any sexual connotations in it, nor to i view it as any kind of deadly insult. It simply happens too often to still mean that anymore...
The same way that many swear-words have lost their potency over time (probably largely from overuse) and been replaced by others.. You Knave, you! :-p

I see that with kids too. Half the time they are fighting on the playground, its because "He pushed me first, so I pushed him back!" and the other kid is all "I didn't push him! He pushed me first! So I pushed him back!"

It usually works out that at the root of it, one of the kids did something accidentally and without intending to do it. They know they pushed the other kid by accident, but they didn't say sorry because obviously (to them, anyway) the harm was accidental. The other kid thought they did it on purpose and pushed back without thinking that it might be an accident or even bothering to tell the first kid "hey, you pushed me! That hurt."

As adults, when someone says, "What you said/did hurt me." that's an invitation to fix the problem before it escalates. That's assuming the person who hurt you has enough good intentions so that when confronted with the harm done, they'll apologize at the least and fix the problem.

As adults, when someone jumps straight to escalating the matter by doing or saying something hurtful back, yeah, its as confusing as that kid who did something accidentally and now has no clue why the other kid is mad at them (for something they didn't mean to do but still hurt the other kid.) Its as confusing as a teacher trying to untangle the stories of two kids yelling at each other on the playground and just wishing they'd both play the game politely in the first place. But at its root, someone hurt someone else, unintentionally, but still hurt someone else. Obviously, this isn't ideal behavior for adults, but if you ever find a place where we all get ideal behavior from adults...I'd say "sign me up for that utopia" but I don't think I'd make the cut. "You hurt me so I'll hurt you" is a behavior that's not remotely limited to children or playgrounds.

And that's where we come to teabagging. Because if you want to prioritize not unintentionally hurting someone like the OP, you might choose not to teabag at all. If you aren't willing to prioritize not unintentionally hurting someone like the OP, at some point, you have to decide how you'll respond to people telling you that you hurt them. That might be a reasonable "What you did/said hurt me" or it might be a "You hurt me so I'll hurt you" reaction where we all know people who do that. Its easy to say "I won't be a jerk to someone being reasonable." Its a lot harder to not be the kid on the playground hitting back at someone who hit you and that goes for everyone in this situation.