Don't you DARE IGNORE ME!!!
Does One's 'Right to Speak' Trump the Rights of Others to 'Not Listen'?
Melizmatic
2012/05/18 18:13:37
|
|
|||||
|
1 vote
|
|
2% | ||
|
27 votes
|
|
59% | ||
|
18 votes
|
|
39% | ||
So okay...
A friend of mine recently shared a really interesting article online, advising men on the proper way to approach an unknown woman they are attracted to without creeping her out.
A paragraph contained therein caught my attention:
It basically stated that one of the biggest mistakes that many men make is not understanding and/or respecting the feedback, (both verbal and physical) that they receive from women during such an approach.
Even if given a negative response, many times some men will still try to pursue the woman in question anyway, and that's a huge red flag to the woman because such behavior sends a clear message:
His desire to interact with her is more important to him than the woman's right to be left in peace.
This got me to thinking about human interaction in general, and of course as it pertains to this website, specifically.
Let's take gender and sexuality out of the equation; and look at it from the perspective of debate and (much more common, on SH) arguments.
Many people here constantly site their "right to free speech" as justification for saying 'whatever they please to whomever they please, in whatever way they please.'
And while that's not actually what the first amendment guarantees, that's still okay... as long there's also the clear understanding that no one else is 'required' to agree with them.
Nor does anyone have to sit there and listen to them, nor engage them in conversation.
Yet many people here, both male and female alike, seem utterly oblivious to this concept for some odd reason.
Even after being told that further dialog with them is not wanted, many people still try to press forward with the conversation, as if only their desire to engage the other person matters.
Often, these kinds of members will go on to make nuisances of themselves, by constantly continuing to address a person who has made their disinterest clear... then heaven forbid that they find themselves blocked because they wouldn't leave others alone; these people are usually the first ones to start whining about cowardly behavior and complaining about their "rights" being impeded.
So with all that in mind, I ask you now; are folks like this right?
Does their 'right to speak their minds' supersede the rights of everyone else to ignore them?
What say you?
And you all should know 'the rules' of engagement by now; but just in case, here they are, yet again:
This post is in the 'Living' category, not 'News & Politics, (with a side of Religion)' for a reason.
Please keep all discourse of that nature in its appropriate forums, and maintain basic respect for others.
Thanks.
A friend of mine recently shared a really interesting article online, advising men on the proper way to approach an unknown woman they are attracted to without creeping her out.
A paragraph contained therein caught my attention:
It basically stated that one of the biggest mistakes that many men make is not understanding and/or respecting the feedback, (both verbal and physical) that they receive from women during such an approach.
Even if given a negative response, many times some men will still try to pursue the woman in question anyway, and that's a huge red flag to the woman because such behavior sends a clear message:
His desire to interact with her is more important to him than the woman's right to be left in peace.
This got me to thinking about human interaction in general, and of course as it pertains to this website, specifically.
Let's take gender and sexuality out of the equation; and look at it from the perspective of debate and (much more common, on SH) arguments.
Many people here constantly site their "right to free speech" as justification for saying 'whatever they please to whomever they please, in whatever way they please.'
And while that's not actually what the first amendment guarantees, that's still okay... as long there's also the clear understanding that no one else is 'required' to agree with them.
Nor does anyone have to sit there and listen to them, nor engage them in conversation.
Yet many people here, both male and female alike, seem utterly oblivious to this concept for some odd reason.
Even after being told that further dialog with them is not wanted, many people still try to press forward with the conversation, as if only their desire to engage the other person matters.
Often, these kinds of members will go on to make nuisances of themselves, by constantly continuing to address a person who has made their disinterest clear... then heaven forbid that they find themselves blocked because they wouldn't leave others alone; these people are usually the first ones to start whining about cowardly behavior and complaining about their "rights" being impeded.
So with all that in mind, I ask you now; are folks like this right?
Does their 'right to speak their minds' supersede the rights of everyone else to ignore them?
What say you?
And you all should know 'the rules' of engagement by now; but just in case, here they are, yet again:
This post is in the 'Living' category, not 'News & Politics, (with a side of Religion)' for a reason.
Please keep all discourse of that nature in its appropriate forums, and maintain basic respect for others.
Thanks.
Top Opinion
-
Caedus01 Sith Lord of the P... 2012/05/18 18:29:14Yes! MY 'right to be heard' is more important than everything else in existence.
It's like chitterlings. (Hear me out.)
I can't stand the damn things; they look and smell atrocious and so I cant even imagine them tasting good.
That's my opinion.
But does that mean that I'm allowed to ban OTHER people from eating them, just because I personally don't find them appealing?
Nope.
Free will.
Perpetually arguing or tolerating constant verbal abuse doesn't make anyone 'better' than anyone else.
It seems like most people these days act like like the meaning of life is to "prove" how much more important they are than everyone else.
Customer service is one of the most emotionally draining and thankless fields of work in existence.
cue that she would be interested,should not
be approached.i was never into the "cold call"
thing.growing up,we always looked for any
positive body language-like extended eye contact-
that let us know if an approach would be wise.
we called it "tippin'," as in the female tipping
a prospective guy off that she was interested.
people that try and force their way into a
conversation are wrong,sad and probably
damn lonely.
Obvious sock-troll is obvious, and your opinion isnt welcome on posts of mine.
Kick rocks.
People constantly talk about their "rights", but rarely about their "responsibilities". You cannot have one without the other, and it isn't a right if it interferes with the rights of others.
So, if I want a nice day in the hammock in my yard, I have the right to expect others to be reasonably quiet, but if I expect complete silence, I am now infringing on their right to get things done. You can drive your motorcycle or sports car down the street, I will hear it and maybe not like it, but you are within your rights. Now if you rev the engine and squeal the tires and have removed the muffler, things have swung the other way, you are now infringing on my right to a reasonably quiet afternoon in my hammock. With my cake.
Women aren't interested in men showing interest in them.
They're interested by men's accomplishments and potential.
As far as blocking, it should only apply to direct contact, such as email.
The right to control one's personal email should certainly exist.
When people here say they want blocking removed, they're not referring to that.
They're referring to the blocking that occurs in the public forum area.
An individual should not have the right to control a public area.
If kids are playing in my yard, I have the right to erect a fence to keep them out.
If they're playing in a public park, I have no right to erect a fence there to section off part of it and keep them out, just because I personally find kids annoying.
If I felt they were becoming particularly unruly in the park, I would summon those with the responsibility as moderators, the police, who would decide whether the kids were truly being a nuisance, or if I were just being too uptight.
The problem is that many people here view their question as their personal yard, when instead their question just represents one of the many benches in a public park.
Don
They're your friends; please use them.
And MY own questions ARE my "yard." Sodahead staff generated questions are 'the park.'
If you don't like it then go start another web site of your own.
(Unless, of course, they taught you such behavior, deliberately.)
Oh right, your question; i have nothing to add except "Well said Melz." It's funny how the rules of basic good manners still apply, and yet they are often forgotten.
You'd think that wouldn't you?
However judging just by how many folks act, it seems that you would be wrong.
Cheers.