Posts from Expedition: general discussions. Auto-translated

Come on, don't be a coward, damn it, I already said... And not "everyone," but specific individuals like that "student" or "shooter-87." Cowards would just inflict "psychological trauma" on the person... Like, "all men are perverts"...

I don't know, in my opinion, if a person doesn't find a joke harmless and gets upset by it, then it's a reason to think about whether the joke is actually that good and if it was worth it.

Basically, I'll soon get rich from AI alt-accounts and will be doing playthroughs just for fun, waiting for it

Everyone fits in with Nebk.

Everyone fits in with Nebk. Read Horizon of Darkness; there was a party of ten there. Ples is a sentient sword, Ment is a time traveler from IRL, Aretz is a sentient piece of slime, I am a blind cave-dwelling succubus, Frag is an undead bard, and so on. I regret that we didn't finish playing...

I don’t know, in my opinion, if a person doesn’t find a joke harmless and gets upset about it, then that’s a reason to think about whether the joke was really that good and whether it was worth it. In our creative process, when working on characters, we joke with each other very carefully and only when we know that the author doesn’t mind. And even then, there are sometimes mistakes. But we have a habit of talking to each other directly about what we don’t like, and we listen to each other.

^ So, from this ignoring of my question, I kind of understood something.
When - well, conditionally, just based on a large sample - the scoundrel and vile Donald Trump jokes on Twitter, and this upsets 20,000 people who leave a comment saying that he is a jerk, then out of the total number of people on Earth, this turns out to be... An online calculator says 0.00025%. Let's assume that a thousand times fewer people read this Twitter, i.e., the percentage is 0.25%.

But this person is still a scoundrel and vile, even if everyone else is annoyed and remains silent.
Let's assume that 10 people read the expedition, and... well, let's say one of them is upset by such super-funny jokes, but he remains silent so as not to diminish either his own dignity or the dignity of the one who made the joke. This is 10% of those who did not unsubscribe.
When recalculated to the number of people upset by Trump, this is 800,000 people.

So, let's say in your creative group, is something like this considered a "yikes" moment, even unintentionally? Or is it acceptable? And if it's more than 10%, how would you feel in the place of the joker? I'm just curious, just in terms of theory. To be honest, I haven't read ten pages of arguing, I just had a thought based on the last comment I read. If only what is said matters, and, for example, the outburst happened outside the text window of the message, then... well, maybe the one who got upset is unbalanced, and not the one who passively showed aggression? Otherwise, it's not bullying or aggression if the victim remained silent. I think many will agree with me.

It's all quite simple in the context of interpersonal relationships within small groups of people. If a joker continues to joke, seeing that the target of his joke is offended and doesn't respond well, then he is unbalanced. If he doesn't notice, then he also has some problems. It's generally unpleasant to deal with such people. In general, if a joke isn't met with a joke or someone tells you to go away, a normal person won't continue to joke.

Well, I was just thinking about it, as a thought experiment. Let's say it's not unpleasant for you to deal with someone on the first day. Let's say it's not unpleasant on the seventh, the thirtieth, even the sixtieth - you don't feel the need to tell them off because of the occasional bullying right here and now.
But sooner or later, it does accumulate, doesn't it? A person can't tolerate it forever - whether they're a man, a woman, in a creative field, or a practical one. So, it seems that you still have to tell them off. Otherwise, the bully won't get the message. But how else can you act?

Imagine yourself in Donald Trump's place, but if it were important for you to hear the opinions of those who read you. At least just to understand that you, you scoundrel and vile creature (Donald Trump, I mean), are still causing displeasure to some people with your jokes, even if they don't express it here and now. Even if these jokes are not active, but passive-aggressive. That is, until you receive feedback - at the very least - you will continue to do it without a shred of empathy, even if you assume that you - the same Donald Trump in this example - were, say, taking antidepressants and were bullied in school. And now, in the moment, you feel some kind of power, or rather, impunity, from the fact that 99.99975% (minus three zeros) of people didn't tell you off for your specific tweets. I am absolutely sure that he thinks like this: "I've been getting crap thrown at me my whole life, and therefore that's how it should be, and I will do the same at this point in my life, that's human nature." Otherwise, he wouldn't have become Donald Trump.
Well... it's fair, of course, but if I were in that Donald's place (which I will never be), I would think about it a little from that perspective. At least a little. In a creative field, in a practical field, in economics, in psychology - it doesn't matter, even in philology. This would be food for thought in any case. And after finishing these reflections, I probably wouldn't consider myself entitled to judge certain events from the point of view of morality or empathy, because I would definitely know that I don't have it, and therefore, I don't have such rights.
Well, luckily I'm not in such positions, and there's no point in me straining myself with something like that. But the thought occurred to me at the moment, yes. I like to philosophize sometimes.