A silly little blog for me to drop the excrement of my mind.
-or- So I'm not responsible, right?
Published on August 24, 2004 By BlueDev In Blogging
We see it happen every day.

Someone opens their mouth or sets their fingers to the keys without fully engaging their gray matter. Or perhaps that is just he way they operate, vomiting forth whatever will come. Of course the aftermath usually is more than they were anticipating, but that is most likely because they left out that crucial initial step. You know, thinking.

So the backlash comes. It is inevitable. Even the most well thought out arguments and comments will be offensive to some. But the person who thought before engaging their communicative tools knew that would happen. They had already accepted the possibility, the eventuality, the inevitability. Because of that, they don't feel the need to back-peddle, to cover their tail.

More often than not, though, the thoughtless person eventually realizes their folly. It happens enough you would think they would learn, but they just don't seem to. Instead, the moment the heat is on they whip out their wild card.

"But I was only joking!"

And for some bizarre reason they think this will remedy all. Yep, because they now can claim they were jesting all is right in the world. No one can be offended, because it was just a joke. Right? If someone does take issue, well, it must mean they lack a sense of humor, they are thin skinned, or they take things too seriously. I agree with anyone who says you need to have a thick skin. That is especially important on the internet where subtle nuances and inflections of spoken communication are lost. I generally think I have pretty thick skin, and when I feel offended try to take a step back, examine why I feel that way, and come back a little more composed.

But that doesn't absolve the writer or speaker of their responsibility. If you say something stupid, then come back an insist it was just a joke, you undermine your own credibility. The person who doesn't have the integrity to admit they were being an idiot doesn't have much to offer. I screw up. I have done it here, I have done it in real life, and I will continue to do it. But I hope I never try to convince someone my idiocy was a weak attempt at so-called "humor".

We've seen it before, and we'll see it again. Let the idiots who were "only joking" beware. Some of us are onto you.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 25, 2004
Yet in some instance it really is humour or satire which people just obstinately refuse to accept. Those that walk into a Don Rickles concert and get insulted have only themselves to blame. A lot of people around here love to nurse their offence like a valued friend. There are a few who I am convinced are huddled in a dark corner, stroking their offence and calling it "me precious."

While I agree that in some instances people resort to "I was just joking" as a means to cover their tails, I far more often see people taking offence at genuine jokes and pulling out the "some things aren't funny" card as if their political correctness justifies smashing a person into the ground.

But that doesn't absolve the writer or speaker of their responsibility. If you say something stupid, then come back an insist it was just a joke, you undermine your own credibility.


I would say the exact same thing about those who would persecute someone because they don't like that person's brand of humour. No credibility. No integrity. An idiot.

To them I say, "We're onto you, too."
on Aug 25, 2004
And I agree completely with you Gene. But that isn't what this article was about.

Those who genuinely are attempting to write satire we can either "get" or we can admit that we don't care for their brand of humor and stay away. There are plenty of stand up comedians whose brand of humor I don't care for. So I stay away from them. It is that simple.

But I think you are mistakenly assuming I am directing this article at a certain person here, a writer whose brand of "humor" I don't care for. And if this is so all I can say is no, this article has, and never had, anything to do with a particular figure here. Because I don't care for that person's brand of "humor" I simply stay away and don't waste my time or energy on that particular individual's work.

No, this article stemmed from a series of experiences in which people (both here and in real life) really and truly acted the part of the idiot in the heat of the moment and then tried to cover it by claiming "I was only joking".
on Aug 25, 2004
But I think you are mistakenly assuming I am directing this article at a certain person here,


Actually you are the one assuming, something I've noticed a lot of in your articles.

My thought was it was probably about someone at your work, though I wouldn't assume that.


I got what you were saying but "that wasn't what my comment was about."

While I agree that in some instances people resort to "I was just joking" as a means to cover their tails, I far more often see people taking offence at genuine jokes and pulling out the "some things aren't funny" card as if their political correctness justifies smashing a person into the ground.

See. While I agree that your premise applies in some instances what I see much more often, both here and in real life, is what I referred to. So I brought that up.

I hope you don't assume as much with your patients as you do on here.
on Aug 25, 2004
Actually you are the one assuming, something I've noticed a lot of in your articles.


Really? I would love to see those assumptions. Because to be quite truthful, I generally try to avoid making spurious assumptions, and if I am doing it without even knowing, well, that isn't good and it is something I would like to change.

And if my thoughts as to where you were going were wrong, oops, my fault. Sorry about that.
on Aug 25, 2004
"Just joking" is a really chicken way out of the argument. By claiming it, they think they act like they weren't serious. Last attempt at retrieving any sense of self-worth maybe.

Demo: "I wasn't really serious anyway. I really wasn't. Of course I knew that! I'm not THAT stupid. No way. You thought I was serious? I was just joking. Man you've been had. Ican't believe you all took me seriously. I had you all fooled! I'm therefore smarter that you. I r0x0r heeheeha lol!!1111one11. "

True story btw. The above was adapted from a real post on another forum.
on Aug 25, 2004
Really? I would love to see those assumptions.


Sorry, I'm not quite anal retentive enough to go back through your articles and start calculating.

I'll be happy to play Jimminy Cricket assumption-conscience to your future articles, though. (But I bet that would get really annoying for both of us. )

In fairness, though, I doubt I have read all your articles. It is just something I have noted in the past. It's also something I'm trained to be on the lookout for, so don't take it personally, okay?

on Aug 25, 2004
Sorry, I'm not quite anal retentive enough to go back through your articles and start calculating.


Hah, I am though. So I did, and I can see some assumptions I have made, some of which I would now disagree with myself. But I haven't even really written enough articles that werent about OS customization, my self or family, or PC gaming to find what I would have considered "lots". But I did find some, so thanks for pointing that out.

No need to play assumption-conscience though. Now that you have brought it up I will be more on the lookout for that in the future. Thanks.
on Aug 25, 2004
Thanks.


Your welcome. (And I really have to stop rewriting my comments after I make them. Usually I can mess with them before they get responded to.)

Demo: "I wasn't really serious anyway. I really wasn't. Of course I knew that! I'm not THAT stupid. No way. You thought I was serious? I was just joking. Man you've been had. Ican't believe you all took me seriously. I had you all fooled! I'm therefore smarter that you. I r0x0r heeheeha lol!!1111one11. "


That one gives itself away from the "doth protest too much" character of it.

on Aug 25, 2004
But I think you are mistakenly assuming I am directing this article at a certain person here, a writer whose brand of "humor" I don't care for.


To be fair, bluedev...one of the things I've noticed on this site is that things go in "waves", and conflict often spills over onto other sites...a writer sometimes cannot help but author a blog based on "current events" because it's what's in their mind, and a reader cannot help but call to mind current events which are somehow related, however minimally, to the topic of a thread's vague generalizations.

My answer to this would be: if it hits home, maybe a little self evaluation is in order.

Great blog, by the way.
on Aug 25, 2004

is especially important on the internet where subtle nuances and inflections of spoken communication are lost


it's almost impossible to overvalue the importance of that statement...and equally impossible to keep it in mind at all times.  i used to say there were three circumstances that were sure to cause icq (which was the predominate messenger app at the time) to crash--the first one being: you realize you just typed something that has the slightest possibility of being horribly misconstrued.  worked every time.  

on Aug 25, 2004
a writer sometimes cannot help but author a blog based on "current events" because it's what's in their mind, and a reader cannot help but call to mind current events which are somehow related, however minimally, to the topic of a thread's vague generalizations.


Very true Gideon. And I was wrong to lash out at Gene the way I did in my first response to him because of that very fact. My vague article could easily be applied or inferred to be in reference to a host of things going on both here and in other's own lives.
on Aug 25, 2004
you realize you just typed something that has the slightest possibility of being horribly misconstrued.  worked every time. 


Ahh, the unintentional hit-and-run. I had a woman I used to IM with go off on me after the program crashed once. "Wow. That was not nice," she emailed me. I never did figure out what p.o.'d her so much and she never would tell me and stopped talking to me all together. ??? Oh well.
on Aug 25, 2004

is especially important on the internet where subtle nuances and inflections of spoken communication are lost

it's almost impossible to overvalue the importance of that statement...and equally impossible to keep it in mind at all times.


That is very very true.  I try not to write the way a talk.  Why?  I am *extremely* sarcastic.  People take me seriously all the time then walk away and realize I was just being a dumbass.  I think the only person that I know that can truly tell when I am being serious or not is my husband.  However, i found that hardly anyone can see most of my sarcasm when I write, so I try to keep that in mind when I write.


On the flip side, I have also seen people write in a way that looks like they are being a smartass when they aren't.  That just happened on on of my articles.  If I wouldn't have personally known the person, I would have thought what he wrote was being mean.  But, since I know him, I could imagine *how* he would have said what he wrote and knew that he meant what he said.


A big problem with online chatting is that people read and write things assuming that they know how the person meant it or assuming that they know how the person will react.  Unfortunately, this leads to many overreactions and hurt feelings for no reason.

on Aug 25, 2004
And I was wrong to lash out at Gene the way


Oh. I didn't realize you were lashing out.

Sorry.
on Aug 25, 2004
No problem Gideon. It was a mild lash, more of a spurious assumption really. But I think the air is cleared, so no problems over here.
2 Pages1 2