# Speak your mind



## PhotonGuy (Jun 16, 2014)

I find it very important to speak your mind. I am from the U.S.A. and while not everybody on this board is from the U.S.A. in my country you're allowed to speak your mind because we've got the 1st amendment, and from what I know in most other countries you can speak your mind too. Anyway, people need to say what's on their mind, or at least I do, because that's much better than keeping stuff bottled up. I express myself.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 16, 2014)

It's possible to speak your mind, and still have some tact.  Lots of people I come across don't seem to get this.

Incidentally -- the First Amendment only applies to the government's actions against the citizen.  It doesn't give you an unconditional right to express yourself however you want, wherever you want, in front of whomever you want...


----------



## donald1 (Jun 17, 2014)

Afcoarse speaking your mind is expressing your opinion,  if someone doesn't like it they can get over it.
Jks9199 does have point there,  if someone could do express your self any way you want anywhere you want than it would be very problematic


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 17, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> I find it very important to speak your mind. I am from the U.S.A. and while not everybody on this board is from the U.S.A. in my country you're allowed to speak your mind because we've got the 1st amendment, and from what I know in most other countries you can speak your mind too. Anyway, people need to say what's on their mind, or at least I do, because that's much better than keeping stuff bottled up. I express myself.


As long as you keep it within limits, you get to speak your mind; however, if you happen to have a "Manson" mind we throw you in jail, and you might never see the light of day. Now, good day.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 17, 2014)

I believe in this too, although I think there is such a thing as having tact about it too. Your rights end when you infringe upon the rights of others. One of those rights is "the pursuit of happiness," so if your words make someone unhappy...

Example: I know this guy (he is a friend of a friend) who turned out to be a racist. My daughters have a black mother. He started spewing some racial comments around me (without knowing about my daughters). I took him aside and said, "Hey, you want to talk about that stuff? Fine, talk about it with people who share your views. I'm not trying to change anyone's way of life, because I know I can't. But while you're around me, change the subject. There are plenty of other things to talk about."

Naturally he INCREASED the amount of racial slurs in his conversation, so I left.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 17, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Incidentally -- the First Amendment only applies to the government's actions against the citizen.  It doesn't give you an unconditional right to express yourself however you want, wherever you want, in front of whomever you want...



People can censor what they want in their own homes or on their property but the government cannot censor stuff. So the First Amendment might not apply to privately owned places but it does apply to public places. An example would be movies. Contrary to what some people think, it is not against the law for people under 17 to watch R movies or NC17 movies and to make such a law would be unconstitutional since the government cannot censor. Theaters as privately owned businesses however can censor and for that reason some theaters wont let people under 17 in to such movies.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 17, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> As long as you keep it within limits, you get to speak your mind; however, if you happen to have a "Manson" mind we throw you in jail, and you might never see the light of day. Now, good day.



And what do you mean by a "Manson" mind?


----------



## ks - learning to fly (Jun 17, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> I believe in this too, although I think there is such a thing as having tact about it too. Your rights end when you infringe upon the rights of others. One of those rights is "the pursuit of happiness," so if your words make someone unhappy...
> 
> Example: I know this guy (he is a friend of a friend) who turned out to be a racist. My daughters have a black mother. He started spewing some racial comments around me (without knowing about my daughters). I took him aside and said, "Hey, you want to talk about that stuff? Fine, talk about it with people who share your views. I'm not trying to change anyone's way of life, because I know I can't. But while you're around me, change the subject. There are plenty of other things to talk about."
> 
> Naturally he INCREASED the amount of racial slurs in his conversation, so I left.



...he obviously never heard the phrase, 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all'..  I found this quote that expresses how I feel and I hope you know
'this guy's' views would not be welcome in my presence nor in my family's..



"In a society in which equality is  a fact, not merely a word, words of racial or sexual assault and humiliation  will be nonsense syllables."


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 17, 2014)

ks - learning to fly said:


> ...he obviously never heard the phrase, 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all'..  I found this quote that expresses how I feel and I hope you know
> 'this guy's' views would not be welcome in my presence nor in my family's..
> 
> 
> "In a society in which equality is  a fact, not merely a word, words of racial or sexual assault and humiliation  will be nonsense syllables."




Sadly, there are a LOT of people who don't follow that saying.

And  what is this pop-up I just got about my message being too short?  Sometimes on the Meet and Greet board, I will say nothing more than  "Welcome to MT" and I have NEVER gotten that warning before.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 17, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> I believe in this too, although I think there is such a thing as having tact about it too. Your rights end when you infringe upon the rights of others. One of those rights is "the pursuit of happiness," so if your words make someone unhappy...
> 
> Example: I know this guy (he is a friend of a friend) who turned out to be a racist. My daughters have a black mother. He started spewing some racial comments around me (without knowing about my daughters). I took him aside and said, "Hey, you want to talk about that stuff? Fine, talk about it with people who share your views. I'm not trying to change anyone's way of life, because I know I can't. But while you're around me, change the subject. There are plenty of other things to talk about."
> 
> Naturally he INCREASED the amount of racial slurs in his conversation, so I left.



You had the right to leave. If this occurred in your house or on your property than you would have the right to tell him to stop or to throw him out. As much as I am against racism the fact of the matter is that in public places people do have freedom of speech. There are of course things that make other people unhappy that you can't do but using certain kinds of talk is not one of them, at least not in public places. Also, in the USA we've got laws just like all other countries, but if you disagree with a law you're allowed to say so and you're allowed to say how and why you disagree with it and you're allowed to protest against it. That's how our system works and that's how our country evolves.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 17, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> You had the right to leave. If this occurred in your house or on your property than you would have the right to tell him to stop or to throw him out. As much as I am against racism the fact of the matter is that in public places people do have freedom of speech. There are of course things that make other people unhappy that you can't do but using certain kinds of talk is not one of them, at least not in public places. Also, in the USA we've got laws just like all other countries, but if you disagree with a law you're allowed to say so and you're allowed to say how and why you disagree with it and you're allowed to protest against it. That's how our system works and that's how our country evolves.



Believe me, if I had been home, he would have been gone...and I would have been suspicious of my friend for bringing him to my house because this friend KNOWS about my daughters. But I was at my friend's house, therefore no power to throw anyone out.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 17, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> And what do you mean by a "Manson" mind?


Well, this guy got a bunch of kids together to tell them his plan to start a race war, and they tried it.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 17, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> Well, this guy got a bunch of kids together to tell them his plan to start a race war, and they tried it.



Well, I guess according to the Constitution he had the right to TALK about that nonsense...but not the right to ACT on it.


----------



## Buka (Jun 17, 2014)

I love the rights we have. One of them is the right to remain silent.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 17, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Well, I guess according to the Constitution he had the right to TALK about that nonsense...but not the right to ACT on it.


I'm sorry but you are mistaken. He didn't act on it. His followers did, and now he is in Jail forever.  If your words insight other people to do violence, you are going to jail. If the people deem you too dangerous to be on the streets, you will be taken off that street. I don't care which country. LOL


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 17, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Believe me, if I had been home, he would have been gone...and I would have been suspicious of my friend for bringing him to my house because this friend KNOWS about my daughters. But I was at my friend's house, therefore no power to throw anyone out.



In that case your friend would be the one who could throw him out. You obviously don't tolerate such racist talk and I would hope your friend wouldn't either. However, if it was on the street that guy could say whatever he wanted and you would have no power to make him stop or to make him leave, not in a public place. If I was in that position, depending on the situation I might leave.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 17, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Well, I guess according to the Constitution he had the right to TALK about that nonsense...but not the right to ACT on it.


Yes he did. In this country you have the right to state your opinion but whether or not you can act on it would depend. Obviously Manson didn't have the right to act on his opinion and he was partially responsible but the kids who acted under him were also responsible for following what he said.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 17, 2014)

Buka said:


> I love the rights we have. One of them is the right to remain silent.



If you want to exercise that right that's your choice but from my experience, if you feel really strong about something its better to get it out and express yourself rather than keeping it bottled up inside, that's just not healthy.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 17, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> In that case your friend would be the one who could throw him out. You obviously don't tolerate such racist talk and I would hope your friend wouldn't either. However, if it was on the street that guy could say whatever he wanted and you would have no power to make him stop or to make him leave, not in a public place. If I was in that position, depending on the situation I might leave.



And that is what I am saying: I was highly disappointed in this "friend" who knowingly had me around such a person AND did not get my back when he started saying such things. Apparently his loyalty is stronger toward the racist than toward me, therefore I haven't spoken to him since the event.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 17, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Yes he did. In this country you have the right to state your opinion but whether or not you can act on it would depend. Obviously Manson didn't have the right to act on his opinion and he was partially responsible but the kids who acted under him were also responsible for following what he said.



Oh exactly, they are ALL responsible. After all, it isn't like any of them could even argue the "brainwash" defense that Patty Hearst used.


----------



## wimwag (Jun 17, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> And that is what I am saying: I was highly disappointed in this "friend" who knowingly had me around such a person AND did not get my back when he started saying such things. Apparently his loyalty is stronger toward the racist than toward me, therefore I haven't spoken to him since the event.




You're a better man than me.  I've put people on the ground for saying things like "sand ****er" to me on the first offense.  And for repeatedly mocking my religion.  I wasn't bashing Lutherans.  Never have actually.  People are still people, regardless of their beliefs and deserve respect.  Those that choose to belittle others and constantly do it deserve to be thumped.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 17, 2014)

wimwag said:


> You're a better man than me.  I've put people on the ground for saying things like "sand ****er" to me on the first offense.  And for repeatedly mocking my religion.  I wasn't bashing Lutherans.  Never have actually.  People are still people, regardless of their beliefs and deserve respect.  Those that choose to belittle others and constantly do it deserve to be thumped.


You see if he goes out and thumps people, you now have some responsibility for the incident.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 17, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Oh exactly, they are ALL responsible. After all, it isn't like any of them could even argue the "brainwash" defense that Patty Hearst used.



People are responsible for the choices they make, it doesn't matter what somebody else says you should do or convinces you to do. If you see an advertisement for a product and it makes the product look really good and so you go out and buy it and the product is not all its made out to be than its your fault for choosing to spend your money on it. You can't blame the company that made the add. In the same way, both Harold Camping and the late Fred Phelps have duped multitudes of people into following what they say and some people have even spent their life savings on these figures, particularly Harold Camping who duped lots of people twice in a row. And while I do think Camping is a douche, he does have the right to say what he believes, and if somebody is going to spend their life savings on him, that's their fault.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 17, 2014)

wimwag said:


> You're a better man than me.  I've put people on the ground for saying things like "sand ****er" to me on the first offense.  And for repeatedly mocking my religion.  I wasn't bashing Lutherans.  Never have actually.  People are still people, regardless of their beliefs and deserve respect.  Those that choose to belittle others and constantly do it deserve to be thumped.



If you mean that you've physically put them on the ground that can get you in big trouble. That is called assault and its against the law and not only in the criminal court, but in the civil court too you can be completely wiped out. In this day and age everybody is suing everyone else and if you knock somebody down because of something they say, no matter how messed up or racist it is, they can have a field day taking you to court and you can be sued out of everything you own.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 17, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> If you mean that you've physically put them on the ground that can get you in big trouble. That is called assault and its against the law and not only in the criminal court, but in the civil court too you can be completely wiped out. In this day and age everybody is suing everyone else and if you knock somebody down because of something they say, no matter how messed up or racist it is, they can have a field day taking you to court and you can be sued out of everything you own.


Um... well, if I were to do that, I would add, "I felt my life was threatened" when the cops show up.


----------



## Steve (Jun 17, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> Um... well, if I were to do that, I would add, "I felt my life was threatened" when the cops show up.


I think of the episode of south park where the kids are being taught to hunt.  before shooting anything that is endangered, they're told to say, "it's coming right for us!"

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 17, 2014)

That was one of the first episodes ever. Actually it may have been number one LOL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Jun 17, 2014)

The pilot was anal probe.  Also a classic.  The first season of that show was genius.  I laughed so hard my sides hurt.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 18, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> Um... well, if I were to do that, I would add, "I felt my life was threatened" when the cops show up.



The courts might not see it like that. And even if you get off with the criminal trial, the civil trial can wipe you out.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 18, 2014)

Steve said:


> The pilot was anal probe.  Also a classic.  The first season of that show was genius.  I laughed so hard my sides hurt.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Yeah. I felt they lost momentum almost immediately. I didn't find SP funny again until they released the movie.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 18, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> I'm sorry but you are mistaken. He didn't act on it. His followers did, and now he is in Jail forever.  If your words insight other people to do violence, you are going to jail. If the people deem you too dangerous to be on the streets, you will be taken off that street. I don't care which country. LOL



Um, yes he did. He may not have been in on the Tate-LaBianca murders, but there was proof that he DID kill at least one person himself. I just don't remember all the details at the moment.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 18, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Um, yes he did. He may not have been in on the Tate-LaBianca murders, but there was proof that he DID kill at least one person himself. I just don't remember all the details at the moment.


Touche'; however, that little murder isn't why he is never getting out.


----------



## Transk53 (Jun 19, 2014)

In Britain if you are Irish, Scottish and Welsh you can speak your mind. If you are a non British national you can speak your mind. If you are English born, you have to shut the hell up because being English is offensive.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Jun 19, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> In Britain if you are Irish, Scottish and Welsh you can speak your mind. If you are a non British national you can speak your mind. If you are English born, you have to shut the hell up because being English is offensive.



What a load of nonsense.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 19, 2014)

Dinkydoo said:


> What a load of nonsense.



For me (a white heterosexual male like me) what Transk53 said rings true. All three of traits mean I need to carefully censor myself before ANY words come out of my mouth. I mean, God forbid I ever complain about how poor I am. That seems to get an INCREDIBLE backlash in the wrong company.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Jun 19, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> For me (a white heterosexual male like me) what Transk53 said rings true. All three of traits mean I need to carefully censor myself before ANY words come out of my mouth. I mean, God forbid I ever complain about how poor I am. That seems to get an INCREDIBLE backlash in the wrong company.



I can kind of understand that argument but living in the UK I don't think what Transk has said is true at all. If anything, nobody really gives a crap about what Scotland, Ireland and Wales think; they're all there to prop up the English economy - hence the strong feeling amongst a significant number of Scots right now that they'd be better off Independent.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 19, 2014)

Dinkydoo said:


> I can kind of understand that argument but living in the UK I don't think what Transk has said is true at all. If anything, nobody really gives a crap about what Scotland, Ireland and Wales think; they're all there to prop up the English economy - hence the strong feeling amongst a significant number of Scots right now that they'd be better off Independent.



I see. I wouldn't know anything about that. Not only have I never left the country, but I am not well-read on those issues.


----------



## Transk53 (Jun 19, 2014)

Dinkydoo said:


> What a load of nonsense.



I'll remember that when we are allowed to celebrate St Georges day then, and without fear of being told to take down English flags from public buildings etc.. Propping up the English economy, think you will find it is a UK economy dude. Yeah, it centralized towards Westminster I will agree, but the Scottish independence runs deeper than just the economies. Hell, you are entitled to you're opinion, I do not disagree with that, but kind of understand the situation better!


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 19, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> For me (a white heterosexual male like me) what Transk53 said rings true. All three of traits mean I need to carefully censor myself before ANY words come out of my mouth. I mean, God forbid I ever complain about how poor I am. That seems to get an INCREDIBLE backlash in the wrong company.



That's odd. I'm a white heterosexual male living in the US, and I don't find it necessary to censor myself. At least, not with anything remotely resembling regularity.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 19, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> That's odd. I'm a white heterosexual male living in the US, and I don't find it necessary to censor myself. At least, not with anything remotely resembling regularity.



Well, lucky you.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 19, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Well, lucky you.



I don't really think luck has anything to do with it.
What views or opinions do you hold that you find yourself censoring? I think that's the real issue.


----------



## Transk53 (Jun 19, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> For me (a white heterosexual male like me) what Transk53 said rings true. All three of traits mean I need to carefully censor myself before ANY words come out of my mouth. I mean, God forbid I ever complain about how poor I am. That seems to get an INCREDIBLE backlash in the wrong company.



Yes exactly fella, so much of that statement translates to what it is like to live in England these days on so many social and religious grounds. PC gone mad over here. For example a local school was told not to promote the christian version of xmas because it would offend muslims. In reality most of them fell over backwards laughing at the absurdity of it. The school was not allowed to put on a nativity play at xmas. Modern day Britain lol


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 19, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't really think luck has anything to do with it.
> What views or opinions do you hold that you find yourself censoring? I think that's the real issue.



I just said above: if I were to say something about how poor or broke I am, I would get slammed with a comeback of, "Oh shut up. You are white. And whites are still the most privileged people." Yeah, tell it to my family when I have to figure out what I have around my house that I can sell off to buy groceries. How "privileged" can I be if I am in this position?

I'm not saying I get this comeback all the time, but even hearing it once is annoying. Not everyone with my skin color is a rich white devil who has oppressed everyone else.


----------



## Steve (Jun 19, 2014)

Couple of thoughts. 

1:  You can always speak your mind.  But, you are also accountable for your words, and there may be consequences.
2:  Other people are entitled to their opinions of you.  
3:  Context matters, and just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean you SHOULD say that thing.
4:  Courtesy and respect are not Political Correctness.  Conversely, discourtesy and disrespect are just that.  If someone calls you out for being an a-hole, see points 1-3.  
5:  Your perception of the world is the one that is the most flattering to you.  If there's a victim of injustice, it's you.  If there's a problem that matters, it is your problem.  If there is someone who was misunderstood because the other guy should have known better, it's poor you.  And to add some weight to this, you will project to the entire group.  It's not JUST you who is misunderstood.  It's all white/black/asian/Welsh/Irish/Latino guys.  It's not JUST you who is a victim of Political Correctness.  It's every xtian/muslim/hindu.

Ultimately, say what you want to say.  Speak your mind.  But don't be surprised if your words have some consequences.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 19, 2014)

Steve said:


> Couple of thoughts.
> 
> 1:  You can always speak your mind.  But, you are also accountable for your words, and there may be consequences.
> 2:  Other people are entitled to their opinions of you.
> ...



That's just it though: sometimes there are things people say that are DEFINITELY offensive, but then there are occasions where you may say something that you just don't know will make someone mad. It all depends on their values and beliefs. If they vary enough, then it may come off as offensive to them.

I'm trying to think of examples, but can't off-hand. I know they have happened to me though. I've had occasions where someone wound up mad over something I said or the way I said it, and it was NOT my intention.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Jun 19, 2014)

****, didn't mean to thank your post - damn fat thumbs!  



Transk53 said:


> I'll remember that when we are allowed to celebrate St Georges day then, and without fear of being told to take down English flags from public buildings etc.. Propping up the English economy, think you will find it is a UK economy dude. Yeah, it centralized towards Westminster I will agree, but the Scottish independence runs deeper than just the economies. Hell, you are entitled to you're opinion, I do not disagree with that, but kind of understand the situation better!



Not sure where abouts you live but where I am we'd never be asked to take a Scotland Flag down on St Andrews day - in Scotland. There might but trouble from a minority of idiots if tricolours or St George's crosses where on display during the Ireland and England national holidays (in Scotland) but I don't think that's representative of our society in general - nor do I think the Politically Correct brigade are. Both are extreme opposites of the scale and in reality I'd say that UK society - out with a select few impoverished areas -generally resides pretty close to the middle. 

I'll not drag this into a Scottish I dependence debate because there is so much more to it but I don't really get your final statement, what is there to understand better?

Really, I think people just like to have something to get outraged about and in some cases - I'm not inferring yours - that is fuelled by a 'hidden' racist/xenophobic/sexist agenda. I don't know how many times I've heard people "disgusted" that we weren't allowed to sing 'bla bla black sheep', put up Christmas decorations at work anymore incase it offended any non-white non-Christian UK citizens and that women are still paid less than men in comparable  positions of employment, simply because they are female....... Then when challenged, people can't provide a non-misinterpreted, credible source that supports their claim. Go figure.


----------



## Steve (Jun 19, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> That's just it though: sometimes there are things people say that are DEFINITELY offensive, but then there are occasions where you may say something that you just don't know will make someone mad. It all depends on their values and beliefs. If they vary enough, then it may come off as offensive to them.
> 
> I'm trying to think of examples, but can't off-hand. I know they have happened to me though. I've had occasions where someone wound up mad over something I said or the way I said it, and it was NOT my intention.


We all step in it through ignorance.  I have a friend whose son is autistic.  I was doing something and made a stupid mistake.  I said something like, "I must have taken the short bus to work today."  My friend was offended.  Now he has a choice.  He can tell me or not.  He's offended.  That's done.  My friend fortunately felt comfortable enough to say to me quietly, "Hey Steve.  My son rides the short bus."  

That's it.  I get it now.  I said something that offended my friend and now I KNOW it.  I'm aware of it and so I have a choice.  I can choose to disregard him, which is where ignorance becomes (IMO) willful disrespect.  I could choose to continue using the joke, knowing that it's offensive to my friend.  It's really that simple.

The other side of the issue are those times when you've been offended.  People say things that are offensive to me sometimes.  I have a choice.  I can choose to tell them or choose not to tell them.  

Bottom line is that you can only control you.  You can say what you want to whomever you like.  But your words have consequences and you are not entitled to say what you want without repercussion.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Jun 19, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Yes exactly fella, so much of that statement translates to what it is like to live in England these days on so many social and religious grounds. PC gone mad over here. For example a local school was told not to promote the christian version of xmas because it would offend muslims. In reality most of them fell over backwards laughing at the absurdity of it. The school was not allowed to put on a nativity play at xmas. Modern day Britain lol



Haha, I honestly cannot believe you have posted this in light of my above response - I didn't read it first, honest! 

Source please.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 19, 2014)

Steve said:


> We all step in it through ignorance.  I have a friend whose son is autistic.  I was doing something and made a stupid mistake.  I said something like, "I must have taken the short bus to work today."  My friend was offended.  Now he has a choice.  He can tell me or not.  He's offended.  That's done.  My friend fortunately felt comfortable enough to say to me quietly, "Hey Steve.  My son rides the short bus."
> 
> That's it.  I get it now.  I said something that offended my friend and now I KNOW it.  I'm aware of it and so I have a choice.  I can choose to disregard him, which is where ignorance becomes (IMO) willful disrespect.  I could choose to continue using the joke, knowing that it's offensive to my friend.  It's really that simple.
> 
> ...



Yes, but did you ever get the feeling that sometimes people aren't offended by what you said, but they know what you said COULD be offensive to others, and use it as a means to cause trouble for you? 

EXAMPLE: I worked at a job with this guy Dave. One of the supervisors (let's call her Sue) did NOT like this guy from day one, and I could never figure out why because he was all right with me. Anyway, she overhears Dave having a conversation with another employee where he jokingly says, "Sucks to be you." The other coworker took no offense...even laughed about it. Later on, Sue has a conversation with Dave's supervisor (which they didn't realize I could overhear) in which she said, "Dave said 'sucks to be you' to that person, and I found it offensive."

Next thing you know, Dave is pulled into a tribunal-like meeting with all the administrators in the place about what he said. He tried saying that the person he was talking to was not offended, but they said, "Doesn't matter. Sue overheard you and was offended." Well, that was when the lightbulb went off in Dave's head. He said, "She has had something in for me since day one. She was NOT truly offended. This is just another way for her to bust my balls." They told him, "Too bad. You owe Sue an apology." But my man didn't buckle; he basically told them it'd be a cold day in hell first. Fortunately, one of the other admins took his side and the whole thing got dropped.

But you see, sneaky crap like this makes me wonder when a person is TRULY offended, or is pretending to be so they can stick it to someone else like that.


----------



## Steve (Jun 19, 2014)

A little off topic, but I've always thought it would be cool to have the nativity play done.  And also act out the hanukkah story of the sacking of the 2nd Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus and the origin of the Festival of Lights.  And then maybe also the origin story of Kwanzaa...  which could be a little political.   Heck, let's get some of the kids dressed up as druids and have them bless the yule log, for crying out loud.  I don't know how popular that move would be, but I'd get a real kick out of it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 19, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Yes, but did you ever get the feeling that sometimes people aren't offended by what you said, but they know what you said COULD be offensive to others, and use it as a means to cause trouble for you?
> 
> EXAMPLE: I worked at a job with this guy Dave. One of the supervisors (let's call her Sue) did NOT like this guy from day one, and I could never figure out why because he was all right with me. Anyway, she overhears Dave having a conversation with another employee where he jokingly says, "Sucks to be you." The other coworker took no offense...even laughed about it. Later on, Sue has a conversation with Dave's supervisor (which they didn't realize I could overhear) in which she said, "Dave said 'sucks to be you' to that person, and I found it offensive."
> 
> ...



The problem is, at least in government offices, that it does not matter if you or the person you are talking to found anything  are talking to or a person that overheard your conversation perceives if.

Dave was lucky because in the current climate in state offices he would have been sent to training and likely had something put on his permanent record, and no I do not think that would be fair in the case of "Dave" if in fact "Sue" had a personal vendetta against him. The Unions would definitely be part of that issue either way


----------



## Steve (Jun 19, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Yes, but did you ever get the feeling that sometimes people aren't offended by what you said, but they know what you said COULD be offensive to others, and use it as a means to cause trouble for you?
> 
> EXAMPLE: I worked at a job with this guy Dave. One of the supervisors (let's call her Sue) did NOT like this guy from day one, and I could never figure out why because he was all right with me. Anyway, she overhears Dave having a conversation with another employee where he jokingly says, "Sucks to be you." The other coworker took no offense...even laughed about it. Later on, Sue has a conversation with Dave's supervisor (which they didn't realize I could overhear) in which she said, "Dave said 'sucks to be you' to that person, and I found it offensive."
> 
> ...


Words have consequences, right or wrong.  That's the point.  Is it always just?  No.  

First, the situation sounds like it's full of fail.  Dave and his supervisor are at odds.  That's not good, and Dave should know that he's on shaky ground from the get go.  You don't always get to choose your boss.  The unanswered questions have to do with the contentious relationship your buddy has with his supervisor.  It's likely there is a lot going on you are not aware of.  Your friend is going to tell you the version most flattering to himself and least flattering to his nemesis.  I would bet money that there is far more going on here than just her trying to bust his balls.

But, that said, look at the story you just told.  Your dude had choices and he made them.  It was more important for him to be "right" than to just suck it up and apologize.  He could have done, but as you said, Dave "didn't buckle; he basically told them it'd be a cold day in hell first."  He's damned lucky he didn't get fired, because at that point, were it me, I'd have a very serious discussion with Dave about his own misconduct.  

It's important to distinguish between personal and professional, as well.  Your friend is at work.  While he may still be "free" to say what's on his mind, the stakes are a little higher with regard to consequences.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 19, 2014)

Steve said:


> Words have consequences, right or wrong.  That's the point.  Is it always just?  No.
> 
> First, the situation sounds like it's full of fail.  Dave and his supervisor are at odds.  That's not good, and Dave should know that he's on shaky ground from the get go.  You don't always get to choose your boss.  The unanswered questions have to do with the contentious relationship your buddy has with his supervisor.  It's likely there is a lot going on you are not aware of.  Your friend is going to tell you the version most flattering to himself and least flattering to his nemesis.  I would bet money that there is far more going on here than just her trying to bust his balls.
> 
> ...



Well, the beauty of being a State worker with a union meant he wouldn't be fired (not off the bat anyway) for telling them he wouldn't apologize. Personally, I hate this whole "third party" crap. I understand it should be used if you hear something truly offensive (for example, overhearing racist remarks), but in instances like this...where one employee was joking with another (and the other TOOK IT as a joke), it was overstepping bounds. 

As for distinguishing between personal and professional, that is something NO supervisor in that place seemed to be able to do.


----------



## Steve (Jun 19, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Well, the beauty of being a State worker with a union meant he wouldn't be fired (not off the bat anyway) for telling them he wouldn't apologize. Personally, I hate this whole "third party" crap. I understand it should be used if you hear something truly offensive (for example, overhearing racist remarks), but in instances like this...where one employee was joking with another (and the other TOOK IT as a joke), it was overstepping bounds.
> 
> As for distinguishing between personal and professional, that is something NO supervisor in that place seemed to be able to do.


A union does add some layers of complexity to the situation, but with a union involved, misconduct is a lot faster route to termination than poor performance.  If your friend is being an asshat at work and his chain of command is at all competent, he's doing them a huge favor.   Insubordination, disrespect and even discourtesy can be grounds for a formal reprimand through whatever progressive discipline has been agreed to under collective bargaining.   The specifics, of course, depend upon the language in the contract.


----------



## Steve (Jun 19, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> As for distinguishing between personal and professional, that is something NO supervisor in that place seemed to be able to do.


I don't think I get this.  Could you explain the personal/professional thing to me?  What are the supervisors supposed to be distinguishing?


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> I don't think I get this.  Could you explain the personal/professional thing to me?  What are the supervisors supposed to be distinguishing?



You're honestly telling me you have never worked in a place where supervisors get a little TOO close to their subordinates? I mean, there's nothing wrong with being friendly but, when it means you start letting those people do whatever they want, that's when a boundary has been crossed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Jun 20, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> You're honestly telling me you have never worked in a place where supervisors get a little TOO close to their subordinates? I mean, there's nothing wrong with being friendly but, when it means you start letting those people do whatever they want, that's when a boundary has been crossed.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm trying to understand what's going on.  Are you saying that "Dave" and "Sue" are too friendly?


----------



## Dinkydoo (Jun 20, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Yes exactly fella, so much of that statement translates to what it is like to live in England these days on so many social and religious grounds. PC gone mad over here. For example a local school was told not to promote the christian version of xmas because it would offend muslims.



I would be really interested to see any evidence of this actually happening because to be frank, I'm a bit sick of hearing this kind of crap without any supporting evidence. Something like this would definitely have made The Daily Mail....can you tell me what the school is called? I'll happily take a look for any newspaper articles myself. 

A public school in a 'Christian country' officially not being allowed to put on a nativity play, in the fear of offending minorities attending the school/living in the local area, is just not going to happen.

Next you'll be telling me that down south, they're not minorities anymore, and they're taking 'all our jobs'.... *rolls eyes*


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> I'm trying to understand what's going on.  Are you saying that "Dave" and "Sue" are too friendly?



I agree; there are at least two different sorts of problems of crossing those lines.  One is the romantic/sexual harassment sort.  The other is the good 'ol boy sort of thing.  While there are some common elements, the two situations are different.  Honestly, I think the buddies type of thing are harder to solve because they're so more deeply insinuted, and also better able to be justified.  If a supervisor and subordinate have crossed the line and are dating, it's only the one pairing that has to be dealt with, and it's often much more blatant when favoritism is going on.  But the buddies?  That can be involve several people, and be much harder to recognize or stop.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> A union does add some layers of complexity to the situation, but with a union involved, misconduct is a lot faster route to termination than poor performance.  If your friend is being an asshat at work and his chain of command is at all competent, he's doing them a huge favor.   Insubordination, disrespect and even discourtesy can be grounds for a formal reprimand through whatever progressive discipline has been agreed to under collective bargaining.   The specifics, of course, depend upon the language in the contract.



It comes down to a couple reprimands a counseling session or 2 and then termination



jks9199 said:


> I agree; there are at least two different sorts of problems of crossing those lines.  One is the romantic/sexual harassment sort.  The other is the good 'ol boy sort of thing.  While there are some common elements, the two situations are different.  Honestly, I think the buddies type of thing are harder to solve because they're so more deeply insinuted, and also better able to be justified.  If a supervisor and subordinate have crossed the line and are dating, it's only the one pairing that has to be dealt with, and it's often much more blatant when favoritism is going on.  But the buddies?  That can be involve several people, and be much harder to recognize or stop.



Worked at an office that had both, luckily I was on the sidelines of it but it all can get really messy. And the buddy thing only lasts as long as the highest guy in the buddy chain remains. As soon as he is replaced it all goes to hell pretty quick. But until then, you're right it is hard to change


----------



## Steve (Jun 20, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> I agree; there are at least two different sorts of problems of crossing those lines.  One is the romantic/sexual harassment sort.  The other is the good 'ol boy sort of thing.  While there are some common elements, the two situations are different.  Honestly, I think the buddies type of thing are harder to solve because they're so more deeply insinuted, and also better able to be justified.  If a supervisor and subordinate have crossed the line and are dating, it's only the one pairing that has to be dealt with, and it's often much more blatant when favoritism is going on.  But the buddies?  That can be involve several people, and be much harder to recognize or stop.


Absolutely.  On the other side, if this boss has crossed the line the other way and is bullying the employee, that can be very destructive as well. 

Either way, being belligerent isn't going to help that employee survive the situation.


----------



## Steve (Jun 20, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> It comes down to a couple reprimands a counseling session or 2 and then termination.


Absolutely.  The details will vary depending upon the specifics of the contract, but the path is short and sweet.  It can be a referral, may involve suspensions, but it's always far easier than documenting the employee to termination through a performance improvement plan of some kind.  

As a manager, a poor performer with a great attitude is a tough nut to crack.  The path to terminating a person for performance, particularly where a union is involved, can be lengthy.  And the documentation can become a full time job.  The poor performer who decides to melt down is actually doing their manager a huge favor and saving them a lot of work.  Either way, it's a manager's job to hold employees accountable, but man, it's so much easier when the employee decides to throw misconduct into the mix.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> Absolutely.  The details will vary depending upon the specifics of the contract, but the path is short and sweet.  It can be a referral, may involve suspensions, but it's always far easier than documenting the employee to termination through a performance improvement plan of some kind.
> 
> As a manager, a poor performer with a great attitude is a tough nut to crack.  The path to terminating a person for performance, particularly where a union is involved, can be lengthy.  And the documentation can become a full time job.  The poor performer who decides to melt down is actually doing their manager a huge favor and saving them a lot of work.  Either way, it's a manager's job to hold employees accountable, but man, it's so much easier when the employee decides to throw misconduct into the mix.



it depends on the misconduct, there are ways to immediately terminate and it happened in an office I worked in, but you are no where near that level of misconduct with this. There are also levels of misconduct that can get you terminated but those can be avoided by "professional" counseling. But the level I saw there was no recourse since it involved law enforcement


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 20, 2014)

Why would Sue have gotten Dave in trouble if they were too friendly? She allows her buddies to do as they please, while micromanaging those she doesn't like such as Dave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 21, 2014)

And One other point : I think Dave was right in not apologizing when he knew damn well Sue wasn't truly offended. It was just one more way for her to mess with him. This was also recognized by the other administrator who took up Dave's cause and said there was no reason for him to apologize.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 21, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> And One other point : I think Dave was right in not apologizing when he knew damn well Sue wasn't truly offended. It was just one more way for her to mess with him. This was also recognized by the other administrator who took up Dave's cause and said there was no reason for him to apologize.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Oh. You neglected to mention that Dave was a telepath. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.


----------



## Steve (Jun 21, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> And One other point : I think Dave was right in not apologizing when he knew damn well Sue wasn't truly offended. It was just one more way for her to mess with him. This was also recognized by the other administrator who took up Dave's cause and said there was no reason for him to apologize.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It sounds to me like Dave is at least a part of a larger problem.  Don't get me wrong.  It sounds like your boss could use some training and coaching to help her be a more effective manager.  And that according to you, if one manager doesn't back up the others, that's a red flag, too.  When you say that one administrator took up Dave's cause, that's like two parents failing to back each other up.  Like good parents, good management is consistent and good managers back each other up.  

It's possible that Dave is a great employee who works for an incompetent.  And it's possible that she just has it in for him, for no reason.  It's possible, but, in my experience, it's very, very unlikely.  

Competent staff + Incompetent management just doesn't tend to look like this.  What tends to happen in situations where the staff is competent and the boss is incompetent is a lot of good employees just keeping their heads down and trying to stay out of the fray.  You don't end up with insubordination.  You end up with disengagement and attrition.  

Going back to the original post and "speaking your mind," your  friend "Dave" is finding out first hand that work isn't really the place for it.  Simply put, you are being paid to be there to do a job,  and part of your job is to listen to your supervisor.  Whether you like  her or not, respect her or not or think she's a complete, bumbling  idiot, "Dave" is being paid a wage to do a job, and that job includes  being accountable to a boss, who was within her purview to call him on some language she considered inappropriate.  

I'd love to hear the supervisor's version of this story.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 21, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> And One other point : I think Dave was right in not apologizing when he knew damn well Sue wasn't truly offended. It was just one more way for her to mess with him. This was also recognized by the other administrator who took up Dave's cause and said there was no reason for him to apologize.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There are times when a "non-apology apology" can work wonders in letting both sides save face and get what they want.  For example, "I'm so sorry that you were offended" never admits that the behavior was actually offense, renders an apology for a factual condition (the recipient WAS offended) and, often, is quite honest because the alleged offender is truly sorry that the offendee was offended , leading to the mess.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 22, 2014)

Right but then the bully feels their bullying was successful, which means they will go on to bully another day. Whether anyone reading my posts wants to admit I have a point or not, there are supervisors out there who enjoy their "power" a little too much. And sometimes the only way to get the bullying to end is to take a stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Jun 22, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Right but then the bully feels their bullying was successful, which means they will go on to bully another day. Whether anyone reading my posts wants to admit I have a point or not, there are supervisors out there who enjoy their "power" a little too much. And sometimes the only way to get the bullying to end is to take a stand.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



You're job isn't to evaluate your supervisor's performance.  That's her supervisor's job.  Your job is to get your work done.  And in return, the company gives you money.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about employment, I think.  She is paid to evaluate your performance and hold you accountable.  She may or may not be good at it, but that's her job.  Your job is to get your work done.  

It is very possible to manage your manager, and you can definitely influence things for the better.  Taking a stand, unless there is something actionable like harassment, seldom works out for you.   

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 22, 2014)

I love how you assume this means neither Dave or I got our work done. And your response just confirms what I said: no one will admit I have a point, so I'm done with this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 22, 2014)

In fact, Dave, one other employee and I (we were on a team of 6) were pretty much the ONLY ones working. The other 3 got to hang out at the supervisor's desk and chat all day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 22, 2014)

This really is not my discussion, and I do not wish to argue, but I have read this and I do not see anywhere that Steve said or even implied the Dave or you was not doing your work


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 22, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Right but then the bully feels their bullying was successful, which means they will go on to bully another day. Whether anyone reading my posts wants to admit I have a point or not, there are supervisors out there who enjoy their "power" a little too much. And sometimes the only way to get the bullying to end is to take a stand.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Simple question: what's the definition of a win in the situation?  Being left alone to work?  Avoiding a serious negative review regarding ability to work with others?  Solving the problem in the first place?

Do you understand what the hostile workplace laws say?  It doesn't have to be behavior directed at the offended employee; it merely has to be a pattern of behavior that causes them to feel uncomfortable or offended which continues after being reported.  In your example -- Sue reported it.  The manager did their job: deal with the problem.  You and Dave have assumed that she was simply using this as an excuse -- and that may well be.  Or she may really have found it offensive.  But once she reported it as being offensive -- Dave's manager had no choice but to address it.  It seems from your account that he did this in a pretty mild way.  I obviously don't know the history with Dave at the company; one factor may have been prior reports or complaints, and also on company policy.  I worked at one company where supervisors were not permitted to address dress code violations of members of the opposite sex; they were required to have a supervisor of the same gender do it, even if that meant someone coming from headquarters or elsewhere to the work site.  I could have had a female employee come in to the office wearing something from Victoria's Secret, high heels, and nothing else -- and I couldn't have said a thing to them other than "wait here."

Are there power mad supervisors out there?  Of course.  Are there people who take advantage of the laws?  Sure.  Absolutely.  Doesn't matter.  There are also people who take advantage others being unwilling to stand up for themselves or to directly address a problem, and use that to get away with all sorts of things.

Oh, and as to the idea that you might have to "take a stand"...  Well, that stand might have consequences.  In your example, if Dave had had a prior history of similar complaints from different people (or the same person), his refusal to apologize could have cost his job.  It may affect his ability to be promoted or go to a different assignment or contract.  If you're going to take a stand -- you also have to accept the consequences.


----------



## Steve (Jun 22, 2014)

Double post.  Sorry.


----------



## Steve (Jun 22, 2014)

Let me try to simplify my position a little.  There are a few right way to address issues with your supervisor, and there are a lot of wrong ways.

It sounds like you and your friends are spending a lot of time judging other people, and I'd bet that doing so isn't anywhere in your job description.  You aren't being paid to appraise her performance or address any issues she may or may not have.

Your supervisor, on the other hand, is paid to address issues and appraise your performance.  In fact, if your supervisor sees something and fails to address it, she is putting the company at risk.

There's a book I would like to recommend to you.  It's called "the 360 degree leader" and gives a lot of very good advice on how to be a leader, and influence your peers and your bosses in ways that are constructive and helpful to them and to you.

http://www.amazon.com/360-Degree-Le...=1403488266&sr=8-1&keywords=360+degree+leader


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve (Jun 22, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> I love how you assume this means neither Dave or I got our work done. And your response just confirms what I said: no one will admit I have a point, so I'm done with this thread.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Maybe I don't understand your point.  What is your point?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Transk53 (Jun 26, 2014)

Dinkydoo said:


> ****, didn't mean to thank your post - damn fat thumbs!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good answer and I concur. You are right to think about nefarious agendas, I do too. I have nothing against the Scots or their heritage. In fact you deserve to be independent. Before you think it, that is no hollow thought. My Grandad was an Aberdonian. He was a hard arsed RSM. I am proud of my Scottish genes moulded into me. I just want to be able to shout my Englishness, but I can't


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 27, 2014)

The point of my thread is this, the way I see it, its much better to speak your mind and state your position on stuff than to keep it bottled up inside. If you've got issues its much better to express your issues and deal with them than to not say anything and keep it closed up inside you. Keeping issues closed up inside you just isn't healthy and in the USA and I believe most other countries that aren't communist you're allowed to express your issues with words and to state your position. 

Lets say for instance that I were to say everybody wearing a purple shirt should be shot. I have a right to my opinion and I have a right to state my opinion. This doesn't mean that I can start shooting people wearing purple shirts but I can state my position and I can take legal actions to change the law so that I can shoot people wearing purple shirts (lobbying, making public speeches, voting for politicians that agree with me ect. not that I would get anywhere of course). As it is, people are allowed to state their positions on stuff. Now, anybody who happens to be wearing a purple shirt while they're reading this don't take it personally and for the record, no, I don't think people wearing purple shirts should be shot I was just using that as an example that people are allowed to and should speak their mind as absurd as it might be. The way I see it, its better to state your mind and embarrass yourself than to keep stuff bottled up. Keeping stuff bottled up just isn't good for you.


----------



## Steve (Jun 27, 2014)

I think that it's often better to keep one's mouth shut, than to speak your mind.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 27, 2014)

Steve said:


> I think that it's often better to keep one's mouth shut, than to speak your mind.


That's usually not healthy.


----------



## Steve (Jun 27, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> That's usually not healthy.



I disagree.  Words have consequences, whether for you or others.  Being careless with them is a bad idea and indicates a lack of maturity and self control.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 27, 2014)

Steve said:


> I disagree.  Words have consequences, whether for you or others.  Being careless with them is a bad idea and indicates a lack of maturity and self control.


In the USA there is the first amendment which states you're allowed to speak your mind. From what I know about most other countries, you're also allowed to speak your mind. A smart person will learn from mistakes. The important thing is if you do say the wrong thing that you learn from it. I do realize that I am not always right. However, if I don't open my mouth even if I do end up saying the wrong thing I will not learn from making mistakes. Sometimes, to learn in life you have to take risks within reason. As I said, within reason. I wouldn't suggest driving down the street at 100 MPH or doing anything else that unnecessarily puts yourself and others at danger, but by risks that can involve taking the chance of saying the wrong thing. You might risk embarrassing yourself but you will learn from that. If you are immature and lack self control with words than you have to see your folly so you can improve. I know this saying that says that wisdom is the booby prize for being unwise, and its true. If you feel strongly about something, and I speak from my own experience, keeping it bottled up just isn't healthy.


----------



## Steve (Jun 27, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> If you feel strongly about something, and I speak from my own experience, keeping it bottled up just isn't healthy.


bottling up emotions can be very self destructive.  It sounds like you're confusing words with emotions.  You have to express your emotions in a constructive way, and sometimes, having a confidant is critical.  Whether that's a professional counselor, a good friend or a spouse.  I tell my wife things I'd never tell my boss. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 28, 2014)

Steve said:


> bottling up emotions can be very self destructive.  It sounds like you're confusing words with emotions.  You have to express your emotions in a constructive way, and sometimes, having a confidant is critical.  Whether that's a professional counselor, a good friend or a spouse.  I tell my wife things I'd never tell my boss.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Emotions are expressed with words. You have to say what's on your mind to release your emotions and not keep them bottled up. You're right though, there is a time and place for speaking your mind. It would be smart to not say some stuff to your boss that you might say to your wife since in doing so you might lose your job. Likewise, there is stuff I would say on the internet and on boards such as this one that in most cases I would not say face to face in public. You do have to weigh the consequences of your words but if the consequences are at worst, that you might embarrass yourself, than I would say its a consequence worth taking.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 28, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> That's usually not healthy.


Sometimes it is healthier. Sometimes you might be compelled to say something, and the person hearing it, not wanting to bottle things up either, knocks all your teeth out.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 30, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> Sometimes it is healthier. Sometimes you might be compelled to say something, and the person hearing it, not wanting to bottle things up either, knocks all your teeth out.



That would depend in the situation of how you're saying what you're saying. If for instance you're saying something on an internet board and somebody reads it and wants to knock your teeth out, they won't be able to unless they can somehow reach through the computer. If you say something in public on the street and somebody knocks your teeth out you can press charges, both criminal and civil. By law, you're allowed to express yourself with words but not always with actions, not if those actions involve knocking somebody's teeth out.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 30, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Emotions are expressed with words.



Not always, they can also be expressed by action and in action as well as other physical issues, no words required.



PhotonGuy said:


> You have to say what's on your mind to release your emotions and not keep them bottled up.



that is a healthy way to deal with them




PhotonGuy said:


> You do have to weigh the consequences of your words but if the consequences are at worst, that you might embarrass yourself, than I would say its a consequence worth taking.



Yup words have meaning and if you cannot deal with those consequences or do not want to deal with or shouldn't deal with those consequences, don't say them

but then that was already said 



Steve said:


> Words have consequences


----------



## Cirdan (Jul 1, 2014)

Action speaks louder than words.
Letting your emotions speak without the benefit of intellect is unwise, acting on them without thought is worse.
Giving emotions free reign is what children do because they havent grown up and mastered themselves yet.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jul 1, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> Action speaks louder than words.
> Letting your emotions speak without the benefit of intellect is unwise, acting on them without thought is worse.
> Giving emotions free reign is what children do because they havent grown up and mastered themselves yet.



Studies have shown we are at our dumbest when we are at our angriest. When emotions run high, it is better to cool off.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 2, 2014)

Well people have a right to state their opinions. While I don't think people should be shot for the color of the shirt they wear, as I used as an example earlier, I do have other points of view that one might say is very absurd, but its better to say my points of view than not to.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 2, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well people have a right to state their opinions. While I don't think people should be shot for the color of the shirt they wear, as I used as an example earlier, I do have other points of view that one might say is very absurd, but its better to say my points of view than not to.



 "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - I believe this is attributed to Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jul 2, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well people have a right to state their opinions. While I don't think people should be shot for the color of the shirt they wear, as I used as an example earlier, I do have other points of view that one might say is very absurd, but its better to say my points of view than not to.



Right but for certain opinions, I believe there is a time and a place. This concept is also know as "know your audience."


----------



## Steve (Jul 2, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - I believe this is attributed to Abraham Lincoln.



Or as my mom used to say, "don't advertise your ignorance." 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## donald1 (Jul 2, 2014)

It's good to be quite,  you learn more that way and if you're wrong than you don't seem like the ignorant one but if you're talk you prove your point or are given an opportunity to learn from your mistake.  Freedom of speech is a privilege not a right there's places where freedom of speech is acceptable and even welcomed but some places think otherwise and if they do that's that 
It's good to say what you think is right or what is the truth but some places will not accept free speech and some of those places may have consequences


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 4, 2014)

Steve said:


> Or as my mom used to say, "don't advertise your ignorance."



Depending on the situation, sometimes its better to advertise your ignorance since you learn from your mistakes. You end up embarrassing yourself but you learn from that. Sometimes I advertise my ignorance so I can be corrected, so that I can learn from correction.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 4, 2014)

donald1 said:


> It's good to be quite,  you learn more that way and if you're wrong than you don't seem like the ignorant one but if you're talk you prove your point or are given an opportunity to learn from your mistake.  Freedom of speech is a privilege not a right there's places where freedom of speech is acceptable and even welcomed but some places think otherwise and if they do that's that
> It's good to say what you think is right or what is the truth but some places will not accept free speech and some of those places may have consequences



In most places in the USA, at least in public places, freedom of speech is a right given by the first amendment of the constitution. It is a privilege only in private places where whoever owns the place has the right to censor certain stuff. And if I do speak my mind and appear ignorant I learn from that, as you said I learn from my mistake.


----------

