06 Oct 2011, 9:44 pm
Janissy wrote:
Australien wrote:
I understand what she's trying to do, but what if the student has social difficulties himself? Why is this "ha ha, he's getting laid and you aren't!" insult acceptable, when, for example, if the student was paraplegic, "ha ha, he can walk and you can't!" probably would not? Consistency, please! 
He waived the right to be treated gently when he implied that an autistic man was ill-matched with an attractive wife.
It was a socially savvy exchange between both parties (excellently diagramed by Callista). But on the outside chance that he had social difficulties unrelated to being socially savvy...he still had it coming because he insulted her husband.
I understand he waived the right to be treated gently.
But, are the gloves totally off for any weakness he might have? If he was paraplegic, would it be ok for the wife to laugh at his inability to walk when her husband could walk?
Personally, I would be fine insulting him with whatever I could, I just want to know where "the line" is in the eyes of others.
07 Oct 2011, 5:43 pm
07 Oct 2011, 6:11 pm
07 Oct 2011, 6:16 pm
Australien wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Australien wrote:
I understand what she's trying to do, but what if the student has social difficulties himself? Why is this "ha ha, he's getting laid and you aren't!" insult acceptable, when, for example, if the student was paraplegic, "ha ha, he can walk and you can't!" probably would not? Consistency, please!
He waived the right to be treated gently when he implied that an autistic man was ill-matched with an attractive wife.
It was a socially savvy exchange between both parties (excellently diagramed by Callista). But on the outside chance that he had social difficulties unrelated to being socially savvy...he still had it coming because he insulted her husband.
I understand he waived the right to be treated gently.
But, are the gloves totally off for any weakness he might have? If he was paraplegic, would it be ok for the wife to laugh at his inability to walk when her husband could walk?
Personally, I would be fine insulting him with whatever I could, I just want to know where "the line" is in the eyes of others.
The line is drawn in a very tight circle around the content of the original insult. The comeback must be directly related to the original insult. The student insulted the professor's suitability as a mate. The appropriate comeback was one that insulted the student's suitability as a mate. Anything outside that boundary would be inappropriate.
This is an unspoken social rule, one of the hundreds that aggravate WP'ers because they are never spoken or written down. Now I have written it down so you may be able to see it in action in comebacks. The comeback must always pertain to the original insult. That is the rule.
07 Oct 2011, 6:18 pm
07 Oct 2011, 6:20 pm
Janissy wrote:
Australien wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Australien wrote:
I understand what she's trying to do, but what if the student has social difficulties himself? Why is this "ha ha, he's getting laid and you aren't!" insult acceptable, when, for example, if the student was paraplegic, "ha ha, he can walk and you can't!" probably would not? Consistency, please!
He waived the right to be treated gently when he implied that an autistic man was ill-matched with an attractive wife.
It was a socially savvy exchange between both parties (excellently diagramed by Callista). But on the outside chance that he had social difficulties unrelated to being socially savvy...he still had it coming because he insulted her husband.
I understand he waived the right to be treated gently.
But, are the gloves totally off for any weakness he might have? If he was paraplegic, would it be ok for the wife to laugh at his inability to walk when her husband could walk?
Personally, I would be fine insulting him with whatever I could, I just want to know where "the line" is in the eyes of others.
The line is drawn in a very tight circle around the content of the original insult. The comeback must be directly related to the original insult. The student insulted the professor's suitability as a mate. The appropriate comeback was one that insulted the student's suitability as a mate. Anything outside that boundary would be inappropriate.
This is an unspoken social rule, one of the hundreds that aggravate WP'ers because they are never spoken or written down. Now I have written it down so you may be able to see it in action in comebacks. The comeback must always pertain to the original insult. That is the rule.
What if it was unintentional?
What if the person A knew the insult person B did was unintentional?
07 Oct 2011, 6:38 pm
League_Girl wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Australien wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Australien wrote:
I understand what she's trying to do, but what if the student has social difficulties himself? Why is this "ha ha, he's getting laid and you aren't!" insult acceptable, when, for example, if the student was paraplegic, "ha ha, he can walk and you can't!" probably would not? Consistency, please!
He waived the right to be treated gently when he implied that an autistic man was ill-matched with an attractive wife.
It was a socially savvy exchange between both parties (excellently diagramed by Callista). But on the outside chance that he had social difficulties unrelated to being socially savvy...he still had it coming because he insulted her husband.
I understand he waived the right to be treated gently.
But, are the gloves totally off for any weakness he might have? If he was paraplegic, would it be ok for the wife to laugh at his inability to walk when her husband could walk?
Personally, I would be fine insulting him with whatever I could, I just want to know where "the line" is in the eyes of others.
The line is drawn in a very tight circle around the content of the original insult. The comeback must be directly related to the original insult. The student insulted the professor's suitability as a mate. The appropriate comeback was one that insulted the student's suitability as a mate. Anything outside that boundary would be inappropriate.
This is an unspoken social rule, one of the hundreds that aggravate WP'ers because they are never spoken or written down. Now I have written it down so you may be able to see it in action in comebacks. The comeback must always pertain to the original insult. That is the rule.
What if it was unintentional?
What if the person A knew the insult person B did was unintentional?
If he had said it in a very blunt and obvious way instead of an oblique way, she might have seen it as unintentional. For example, if he had said something like, "but he's so awkward and I've never seen an awkward man with a pretty wife" then she might say something not personal to him like "well, now you have". What he said would still be insulting but in a naive way rather than a snotty way. So the reply wouldn't be cuttingly personal and more and meant instead to show the person that the world has things they hadn't considered before, like an awkward man and an attractive woman as a couple.
07 Oct 2011, 8:39 pm
Burzum wrote:
Wait, this actually happened? What kind of moron tries to flirt with his professor's wife?
Woah!! !! !! Either you're picking up on something there I'm not (ToM!
), or you're making a huge assumption that the student was either male or a lesbian.
Any chance, if there is something there I'm missing, you could share how you picked that up from what's written there?
That was an awesome way to handle it. If I were the professor, I'd have loved it. AND....
I wouldn't let the little twerp live it down. Pity the poor student!
08 Oct 2011, 3:24 am
MrXxx wrote:
Woah!! !! !! Either you're picking up on something there I'm not (ToM! ), or you're making a huge assumption that the student was either male or a lesbian.
Any chance, if there is something there I'm missing, you could share how you picked that up from what's written there?
), or you're making a huge assumption that the student was either male or a lesbian.Any chance, if there is something there I'm missing, you could share how you picked that up from what's written there?
Why would a heterosexual female flirt with another female?
08 Oct 2011, 9:30 am
Janissy wrote:
Australien wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Australien wrote:
I understand what she's trying to do, but what if the student has social difficulties himself? Why is this "ha ha, he's getting laid and you aren't!" insult acceptable, when, for example, if the student was paraplegic, "ha ha, he can walk and you can't!" probably would not? Consistency, please!
He waived the right to be treated gently when he implied that an autistic man was ill-matched with an attractive wife.
It was a socially savvy exchange between both parties (excellently diagramed by Callista). But on the outside chance that he had social difficulties unrelated to being socially savvy...he still had it coming because he insulted her husband.
I understand he waived the right to be treated gently.
But, are the gloves totally off for any weakness he might have? If he was paraplegic, would it be ok for the wife to laugh at his inability to walk when her husband could walk?
Personally, I would be fine insulting him with whatever I could, I just want to know where "the line" is in the eyes of others.
The line is drawn in a very tight circle around the content of the original insult. The comeback must be directly related to the original insult. The student insulted the professor's suitability as a mate. The appropriate comeback was one that insulted the student's suitability as a mate. Anything outside that boundary would be inappropriate.
This is an unspoken social rule, one of the hundreds that aggravate WP'ers because they are never spoken or written down. Now I have written it down so you may be able to see it in action in comebacks. The comeback must always pertain to the original insult. That is the rule.
I see
Insult in-kind. That makes sense
