# How Do You Feel About "Mean" Words?



## WintersFlame (Nov 18, 2016)

For example, if you're trying to describe a celebrity to jog someone's memory and you use the word fat. 
People react a bit funny. 

It doesn't even have to be you, it could be someone else. 

How do you feel about "mean" words in general? Do you tend to avoid using them, accidentally use them because its not meant to be mean in your head, let loose because a description is a description? 

Do you find these things hard to keep up with?


Also if you have ever had an experience like this, what were your thoughts afterward?


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

At home or with friends I swear a lot, which is something I need to work on because it's easy to accidentally curse or say something rude in public. But I never actually direct these words at anybody and I say it in a non serious way. They can probably tell I don't mean it. 

Other people can swear just as much and it's rude. Words that people might find insulting aren't a problem unless they are actually directed at someone.


----------



## WintersFlame (Nov 18, 2016)

Wisteria said:


> At home or with friends I swear a lot, which is something I need to work on because it's easy to accidentally curse or say something rude in public. But I never actually direct these words at anybody and I say it in a non serious way. They can probably tell I don't mean it.
> 
> Other people can swear just as much and it's rude. Words that people might find insulting aren't a problem unless they are actually directed at someone.


Are you an NT? Just wondering which one since your profile is still stuck on ISFP.


----------



## Chickin_Peck (May 4, 2016)

I couldn't care less about "mean" words, personally I think mean words need to be used more often. To clarify it's not because I like hurting people or I'm mad at the world. It's because these days people think they live in a world where everyone is supposed to protect them from being offended or having their feelings hurt. The matter of fact is there are always going to be mean people, trolls, those who inflict their pain onto others, etc. The real issue is when people get in such a state of pampering that they forget that words are just words and they can't bother you unless you let them. But this realization is increasingly rare and as a result half the population is running around with hot dog thin skin. This escalates to the point where people that don't mean harm are attack because their particular choice in wording was 'offensive' to somebody which, newsflash, anybody could find literally anything to be offensive if they put the right spin on it. And for that reason I think we should just let people say what they want. Because ultimately, even racists, sexists, and bigots have something to say, and if you don't like it (which I'd expect you wouldn't unless you were a sexist racist and/or bigot) then you treat them the way they will inevitably treat you and not listen.

wasn't expecting this to be the rant it became.


----------



## NipNip (Apr 16, 2015)

It depends on my image. You see, these kinds of words are a lot 'lighter' when a person who uses them all the time speaks them. But since my image is rather noble for most of my company, dropping a "f*ck" or "idiot" would hit the room like a nuke because nobody expects it out of me.


----------



## Sir Kanra (Jun 27, 2017)

Couldn't care less. But I won't overuse them as a sailor mouth can be annoying. Sometimes it's more fun to be creative in a different manner.

I do it more when I'm pissed off though ... admittedly. My speech isn't as elegant then.


----------



## martinkunev (Mar 23, 2017)

I avoid using mean words. Such words have negative connotation which I'm usually not trying to convey. I try to instead use a word that carries exactly the intended meaning (e.g. in case it's relevant to the point I'm making, I may use overweight, but I'll not use fat).

I had a debate on this topic with a friend. He uses the equivalents of words like "whore" or "pussy" as memes. He doesn't intend the negative meaning, but very few people know this (he uses such words only when speaking with these people).
His argument was more or less that if he is understood correctly, there is nothing wrong.
My argument is that the mean words still carry the negative connocation and sound disrespectful. There are ways to be misunderstood. There is no reason not to use alternatives. Also, I don't like labeling things in general.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

I have already built immunity towards mean words. Sometimes i use it, sometimes i don't. 

Just don't let words determine your worth.

It's just words spoken by stupid people. 

Don't let them get into you.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

I have no issue with using mean words, though I avoid using them in the company of those people who would take offense since I don't want to have to deal with the hassle. I will use such words freely if I am in the company of people who I am sure will be fine with it.


----------



## Sir Kanra (Jun 27, 2017)

Forgot to mention I don't use such words in attack fashion really. Like "fuck you", or calling someone crude names. Kinda where I usually draw the line, unless I'm really mad and it slips out which is rare. 

I also have a distaste for the words "pussy" and "whore". Unpleasant. 

Other than that. Nah. Don't mind.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

What is a "_mean word_," .... (?) What does that _mean_ (?) I am willing to use or hear _any word_ under distinct contexts.


----------



## clem (Jun 10, 2017)

My communication is generally very low context. Words are generally at face value most of the time. I think many rationals are like that. It gets us in trouble because we don't consider that words may have a connotation or secondary meaning to some people that we do not mean.


----------



## Pifanjr (Aug 19, 2014)

I use the words I think will be sufficient to communicate my thoughts to the other person. It depends on the other person which words are considered 'mean'. I do my best to avoid using words that could be considered 'mean' by the person I'm communicating with.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Chickin_Peck said:


> words are just words and they can't bother you unless you let them


This is a short-sighted opinion. People aren't 100% in control of how they respond; emotions are more or less automatic. Furthermore, it's usually not so much the words that bother people as the sentiment behind the words; words have meaning, so no, they are not "just words."


----------



## zekzar (Jul 9, 2017)

*How do you feel about "mean" words in general?*
I fucking love them.

*Do you tend to avoid using them, accidentally use them because its not meant to be mean in your head, let loose because a description is a description?*
I only avoid them around people I know who don't like them. I will end up unintentionally using them in a "mean" way just to describe someone, yes. A description is a description. If somoene is stupid, they're fucking stupid.

*Do you find these things hard to keep up with?*
Nah.

*Also if you have ever had an experience like this, what were your thoughts afterward?*
I honestly don't care whether I'm using a "mean" word or not. If someone is offended by it and they try to fight me about it, I just say, "offensive things aren't offensive if you're not a little pussy bitch," and walk away.


----------



## Chickin_Peck (May 4, 2016)

Nymphetic Neurosis said:


> This is a short-sighted opinion. People aren't 100% in control of how they respond; emotions are more or less automatic. Furthermore, it's usually not so much the words that bother people as the sentiment behind the words; words have meaning, so no, they are not "just words."


Well to say that emotions are automatic is one thing, but to say people aren't 100% in control of how they respond is to claim no responsibility for your actions. You as a human may register something emotionally without thought, but you are absolutely in control of your response to having felt that emotion.


----------



## Pifanjr (Aug 19, 2014)

Chickin_Peck said:


> Well to say that emotions are automatic is one thing, but to say people aren't 100% in control of how they respond is to claim no responsibility for your actions. You as a human may register something emotionally without thought, but you are absolutely in control of your response to having felt that emotion.


It's to claim limited responsibility for your actions. No one is always fully in control of their actions. Luckily our legal system recognizes this.


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

If they're directed at me, I feel sensitive and defensive.

If they're used in general to describe something...e.g. using the word 'fat'...it depends _who_ is saying it. If I think they're judgemental and closed minded about a lot of things, I'll feel annoyed and angered inside. And if they're just not really considerate with words but aren't intending to be malicious in any way...I'll go along with it but sometimes think 'ugh here we go again, don't they realise how little this is approved of in society?!' Sigh.


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

I really like this question.

I tend to avoid the obvious like:

"what's that irls name?"
"who?"
"the fat one".

I'd say everythin but the obvious and insultin, even thouh it's true and honest, but rude. It's what separates us from the animals. 

I tend to never o for the obvious unless the person has no idea what I'm referin to, I just cut to it hesitantly, after hesitant it's blunt and I call the person I'm talkin to a dope lol.


----------



## SouDesuNyan (Sep 8, 2015)

I'm fairly thick skinned, but I always try to pick neutral words to avoid hurting others. For example, I might use "above-average size" instead of "fat". Actually, avoid hurting others is not entirely correct. It's mostly to protect myself in case the person is physically violent. Who knows, people might even sue me for saying the wrong words, especially in the US, where many people are very sensitive. It's not worth the time to go to court or money to hire the lawyer. My life has been a breeze not because I'm brilliant or wonderful, but because I have no enemies thanks to my conflict avoidance ways.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

Cal said:


> Yesterday my friend got a free cookie from the lunch lady, but I was confused on which lunch lady she was talking about(we have two of them at our school) so I asked if it was the fat one, and she got offended by it. Lol! I asked her how me using the word fat to describe someone who is fat offensive, and she claims that it was just "rude".
> Yet funnily enough she is fine with judging her teachers personalities based upon their race...
> 
> Some people...:mellow:


Is she psychotic?
the more correct p.c. phrase should be ''you mean that fat fucking hog large marge the party barge"


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

vinniebob said:


> Is she psychotic?
> the more correct p.c. phrase should be ''you mean that fat fucking hog large marge the party barge"


Thank you for correcting me, and yes, she is most likely a psycho...


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Cal said:


> I don't really care if someone does something that upsets. It's their choice!
> 
> And yes, I do find it unreasonable that other people wish I wouldn't say insulting things to them. An insult won't kill you.


I'm confused, though. You just said you wish other people wouldn't talk behind your back. However, someone talking behind your back doesn't kill you.

Unless, you're also saying what you want is also unreasonable? In which case, you should probably work on being a more reasonable person, should you not?


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

Antipode said:


> I'm confused, though. You just said you wish other people wouldn't talk behind your back. However, someone talking behind your back doesn't kill you.
> 
> Unless, you're also saying what you want is also unreasonable? In which case, you should probably work on being a more reasonable person, should you not?


Sorry about that. I had was still half asleep while answering your question.

I meant to say that though I don't like it when people talk behind my back without me knowing, it doesn't really make me too upset. Just somewhat annoyed. It's more like a pet peeve of mine.

Yeah, if your still confused don't sweat it! I have been really tired and drained, since school started. I am still getting use to waking up earlier in the morning, so I have been having trouble trying to concentrate and stay consistent in my posts.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Cal said:


> Sorry about that. I had was still half asleep while answering your question.
> 
> I meant to say that though I don't like it when people talk behind my back without me knowing, it doesn't really make me too upset. Just somewhat annoyed. It's more like a pet peeve of mine.
> 
> Yeah, if your still confused don't sweat it! I have been really tired and drained, since school started. I am still getting use to waking up earlier in the morning, so I have been having trouble trying to concentrate and stay consistent in my posts.


And my final question: if something doesn't bother you, does that mean it's unreasonable for it to bother someone else, despite the reason for why it doesn't bother you (IE: it not equating to death, so it shouldn't matter).


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

Antipode said:


> And my final question: if something doesn't bother you, does that mean it's unreasonable for it to bother someone else, despite the reason for why it doesn't bother you (IE: it not equating to death, so it shouldn't matter).


It depends on the severity of what we are talking about here.

For example, if someone is troubled by talking about guns because one of their parents died or had gotten injured from getting shot by a gun, then that's reasonable. Even though I may not understand, because I have never been in your position, does mean it isn't reasonable for you to get uncomfortable when others talk about guns.

But if you get pissed off because I called someone fat, even though they are, then that is simply stupid, and I would probably scream "grow a spine you turd", to them.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Cal said:


> It depends on the severity of what we are talking about here.
> 
> For example, if someone is troubled by talking about guns because one of their parents died or had gotten injured from getting shot by a gun, then that's reasonable. Even though I may not understand, because I have never been in your position, does mean it isn't reasonable for you to get uncomfortable when others talk about guns.
> 
> But if you get pissed off because I called someone fat, even though they are, then that is simply stupid, and I would probably scream "grow a spine you turd", to them.


That is an interesting train of thought. It basically makes you god in deciding what is or isn't reasonable, only based off of your own decided preference--rather than allowing the person who is the one being offended to inform you why it is reasonable for why they are hurt over your words. It also relies on your lack of understanding for variables of life. Meaning, you've no idea why someone is fat, or what trauma they went through with people ridiculing them for being bigger. It also becomes more painfully ironic when you realize some cultures actually find heaviness more attractive--and if you lived in that country, you'd suddenly find it unreasonable for someone to be insulted if their culture called them skinny as an insult.

Which, results in "unreasonableness" becoming purely subjective, and not based in a concrete idea. 

In the end, it's _you_ who decides if someone should or should not feel hurt over _your_ words.

It's akin to _me_ punching someone in the arm, them flinching saying it hurt, and _me_ deciding for them if that pain qualifies as real pain.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

Antipode said:


> That is an interesting train of thought. It basically makes you god in deciding what is or isn't reasonable, only based off of your own decided preference--rather than allowing the person who is the one being offended to inform you why it is reasonable for why they are hurt over your words. It also relies on your lack of understanding for variables of life. Meaning, you've no idea why someone is fat, or what trauma they went through with people ridiculing them for being bigger. It also becomes more painfully ironic when you realize some cultures actually find heaviness more attractive--and if you lived in that country, you'd suddenly find it unreasonable for someone to be insulted if their culture called them skinny as an insult.
> 
> Which, results in "unreasonableness" becoming purely subjective, and not based in a concrete idea.
> 
> ...


Yeash, someone doesn't know how to read. When someone calls the word fat as offensive, it technically unreasonable since A. Fat is a description of how big something looks, and B. Because it me not using the word fat to describe somebody doesn't change anything.


Also, I would prefer for you *not* to make assumptions about me, based upon a few meaningless questions.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Cal said:


> Yeash, someone doesn't know how to read. When someone calls the word fat as offensive, it technically unreasonable since A. Fat is a description of how big something looks, and B. Because it me not using the word fat to describe somebody doesn't change anything.
> 
> 
> Also, I would prefer for you *not* to make assumptions about me, based upon a few meaningless questions.


I wasn't making assumptions, and they weren't meaningless questions. They were questions that you answered truthfully, which I helped provide what that truth ultimately means. 

You provided what counts as reasonable.
You provided who's the one performing the insulting.
And you provided what you find is stupid, regardless of someone's feelings toward the action.

It's the very opposite of an assumption. 

If you determine what is unreasonable, and you are also the one doing the action, then that leaves out any outside perspective. There's no "technically" unreasonable. It's simply you deciding. 

There's no assumption there. Just logic. 

---

And no, fat is not an empty word, nor does it only mean what YOU say it means.

---

But also, more importantly, does it really what you prefer I didn't do? It's unreasonable for you to care--my words aren't killing you.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

Antipode said:


> I wasn't making assumptions, and they weren't meaningless questions. They were questions that you answered truthfully, which I helped provide what that truth ultimately means.
> 
> You provided what counts as reasonable.
> You provided who's the one performing the insulting.
> ...


First off, the questions that you were meaningless, since as humans we tend to have poor judgment of ourselves. Not to forget that you don't know me, and you have no idea if I actually answered fully truthful or not.


And yes, fat is not an empty word. It is a description-an adjective. And a truthful one in some cases.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Cal said:


> First off, the questions that you were meaningless, since as humans we tend to have poor judgment of ourselves. Not to forget that you don't know me, and you have no idea if I actually answered fully truthful or not.
> 
> 
> And yes, fat is not an empty word. It is a description-an adjective. And a truthful one in some cases.


Saying you very well could not have answered truthfully is also a pointless thing to say. If you're having a discussion with someone, and you provide the variables to that discussion, then that person is going to have a discussion with those variables. You can back out and say you were lying, and that you're actually a decent person who cares more about how you're affecting someone's feelings, rather than your perspective on them. But I doubt that's really happening--and yeah, that's my assumption. Based on your--I guess possibly lying logic--I'm fully allowed to make assumptions about you, because it doesn't matter what YOU actually think, it just matters what the one doing the act actually thinks.

And no, my young dictionary, fat is not just an adjective. It's also a noun--it's also a verb. However, more importantly, words do not remain just words when spoken with emotion. They become entangled with that emotion.

For, you see, if a friend tells you that you're getting fat--while I'd argue that's still a poor choice of words--it's coming from a friend who is tying with it an emotion of concern.

However, if you point your finger at someone and say, "That chick is so fat," it's coming from an emotion of ridicule superiority. It's called context, my young dictionary, where words take on meaning what the context tells it to take on.

In those two incidents, the word "fat" comes to mean two different things. However, as someone with your--again, possibly viewpoints that you may have been lying about--I can understand how you can't understand those subtle differences.

If you'd like a better example, "young dictionary," technically only means a dictionary that is young. However, from the context that I'm using, I'm clearly insulting the way you think. But again, on a technicality, I may not insulting you. I guess "you" may never know, because, again, you're a young dictionary.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

Antipode said:


> Saying you very well could not have answered truthfully is also a pointless thing to say. If you're having a discussion with someone, and you provide the variables to that discussion, then that person is going to have a discussion with those variables. You can back out and say you were lying, and that you're actually a decent person who cares more about how you're affecting someone's feelings, rather than your perspective on them. But I doubt that's really happening--and yeah, that's my assumption. Based on your--I guess possibly lying logic--I'm fully allowed to make assumptions about you, because it doesn't matter what YOU actually think, it just matters what the one doing the act actually thinks.


 Yet you call me unreasonable? Also, based upon what I had before, saying that I may not make sense when responding, due to how tired and drained I was should of already been a disclaimer not to take my answers too seriously.



> And no, my young dictionary, fat is not just an adjective. It's also a noun--it's also a verb. However, more importantly, words do not remain just words when spoken with emotion. They become entangled with that emotion.


 Words only become entangled with emotion if you let them.



> For, you see, if a friend tells you that you're getting fat--while I'd argue that's still a poor choice of words--it's coming from a friend who is tying with it an emotion of concern.


 How exactly does that relate to a poor choice of words, if that were to be the truth?



> However, if you point your finger at someone and say, "That chick is so fat," it's coming from an emotion of ridicule superiority.


 Sigh* I'm talking to one of "those" people again...



> In those two incidents, the word "fat" comes to mean two different things. However, as someone with your--again, possibly viewpoints that you may have been lying about--I can understand how you can't understand those subtle differences.


 Wow, another example of hypocrisy guys!


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Cal said:


> Yet you call me unreasonable? Also, based upon what I had before, saying that I may not make sense when responding, due to how tired and drained I was should of already been a disclaimer not to take my answers too seriously.
> 
> Words only become entangled with emotion if you let them.
> 
> ...


I'm purposely trying to be hypocritical, to highlight how my "hypocritical" way of thinking is directly parallel to the things you've been saying.

It's called narrative perspective.

Because you can only see your perspective, and not the perspective of those you're impacting, I try to mimic my narrative to match yours, so you can begin to see the problems with it. And, of course, I'm glad you were able to.

---

Also, disclaimers for why you'd justify being okay about insulting someone else? Really? You're "that kind of person"? Not to mention they aren't viable disclaimers, since you're still defending that way of thinking. "It's not an insult if it's true." 

You have a very flawed way of viewing life. Is that not an insult because it's true? 

Or does it not count because that's my perspective?

However, fat is not a quantifiable word. Is a planet fat? If so, can a person also be considered fat? What if the person who is being called fat doesn't view themselves as fat, and is insulted when you say it? Does that not fall under the same logic?


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

Antipode said:


> I'm purposely trying to be hypocritical, to highlight how my "hypocritical" way of thinking is directly parallel to the things you've been saying.


Sweetie, I already know I can be hypocritical, but you...



> It's called narrative perspective.
> 
> Because you can only see your perspective, and not the perspective of those you're impacting, I try to mimic my narrative to match yours, so you can begin to see the problems with it. And, of course, I'm glad you were able to.


Well, you failed miserably. Because you don't know me, and your technique barely showed how I think.
All that was-was an assumption, or failed imitation, of how you think I think.


If you don't know me, then you don't get to act as if you do.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Cal said:


> Sweetie, I already know I can be hypocritical, but you...
> 
> Well, you failed miserably. Because you don't know me, and your technique barely showed how I think.
> All that was-was an assumption, or failed imitation, of how you think I think.
> ...


I think I know you enough. 

As someone who views "truth," which is largely subjective when coming from the mouth of a person, as something that can't be insulting.

That's more than enough of a foundation to describe your very character as a person. 

The irony of it all--as someone who is an INTP, with "90% logic," your logic seems to be incredibly flawed and circular in nature (you can't be the one who define what is, based on the foundation of what you do--that's circular and frowned upon). You should work on that, _sweetie_. It's bad when an INFJ can dismantle your logic.


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

Antipode said:


> I think I know you enough.
> 
> As someone who views "truth," which is largely subjective when coming from the mouth of a person, as something that can't be insulting.
> 
> ...


As is yours logic, but I am not even going to try and deal with you. You are way too emotional, and you keep on taking what I say out of context, no matter how many times I explain the same thing over and over again.

You want to take a few questions I answered seriously, then fine. I could care less since I don't know you! 

Also, the logical part of NT's goes into designing making, not arguing with the annoying. 
You should probably use "logic" next time INFJ.


----------



## ilovegoodcheese (Oct 28, 2017)

Introvertia said:


> ... Must attract potential mates asap, expiration date coming soon.


Never ever better verbalisation of the sick patriarchy that still parasites our society. 

If you are just a half serious -I hope not!!!- get a dog, or cat, or two dogs, or two cats, or all the same time...
You'll get the same or even more love for better ownership cost !


----------



## Asmodaeus (Feb 15, 2015)

My analytical perspectives are rather impersonal so my mind couldn’t care less about “meanness”. Instead, it’s focused on accuracy!


----------



## Introvertia (Feb 6, 2016)

ilovegoodcheese said:


> Never ever better verbalisation of the sick patriarchy that still parasites our society.
> 
> If you are just a half serious -I hope not!!!- get a dog, or cat, or two dogs, or two cats, or all the same time...
> You'll get the same or even more love for better ownership cost !


Wait a second.. it's as if you're saying the whole purpose of my existence is not to deliver babies for the superior sex we humble lesser-minds recognize as male? Are you saying I'm on these different dating sites, including TLC - AA Society (Tolerant and Loving Christians Against Abortion), Trump 4 God, and Don't Come In My Country, Locals Only-dating for nothing? What have I done.


----------



## ilovegoodcheese (Oct 28, 2017)

Introvertia said:


> Wait a second.. it's as if you're saying the whole purpose of my existence is not to deliver babies for the superior sex we humble lesser-minds recognize as male? Are you saying I'm on these different dating sites, including TLC - AA Society (Tolerant and Loving Christians Against Abortion), Trump 4 God, and Don't Come In My Country, Locals Only-dating for nothing? What have I done.


Dear Introvertia, if you are frequenting these clubs searching for investments that eventually will enable you to retire from job market, let me introduce you a couple of really useful planning tools:

Alimony Calculator, Guidelines For Support Payments After Divorce
Child Support Calculators - By State - AllLaw.com

As you see nowadays it requires a lot of effort for not so good revenue. However, I recommend you to think big and don't limit yourself with US losers, give it a shoot to big game in European casinos!!!! 

Specifically I encourage you the swiss lemanic area: _Montreux_, _Evian_, and eventually, _Geneva_. There I'm positive you can find suitable raw material for an investment with excellent revenues. And maybe you can even combine it with a short visit to Monaco. Is not that exciting?

Plus, if you are into the ski & spa stuff, don't forget the proximity to _Davos_ and _Gstaad_. You don't really need a good ski level, just elegantly parade your personality as elsewhere. Showing around your US passport and incorporating a homeland reference into your image for sure will give you additional edge over the eastern european and Russian competitors. I encourage you to not forget your patriotic red, white and blue lingerie, and for sure bring a cowboy hat for the rides. It is highly appreciated. 

Finally, maybe is there when your membership to Trump4God and TLC-AA might pay back because with that you'll overcome competitors. Actually I'm not sure about that. But please think about getting one of your early acquisitions to invite you into Rotary and Lions club, because these are the conventional standard, specially for Davos and Gstaad. If not, I recommend you Red cross, Unicef or Olympic committee guest membership; not so valued but also a lot easier to get in the lemanic casinos. Anyway, don't be shy, is your personality what it matters.


----------

