Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
How much schadenfreude is appropriate? Someone is coming down...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SuZir" data-source="post: 653032" data-attributes="member: 14557"><p>We do have a word also for what you describe in my other language. In fact a direct translation for the word would lust of revenge. This feeling is considered very negative thing in our culture. It is seemed as a feeling that will morally corrupt someone who lets it foster in them. Schadenfreude is considered more innocent feeling. You do not actually wish bad for the person, you just enjoy of other person's uncomfortableness. There is also acceptable level for that mirth. It is considered totally al right to enjoy it, if the person with misfortune is not seriously harmed (like: it is totally okay to laugh, when too soccer players from the same team collide and fall to their bottoms, that is schadenfreude. If they get hurt when they collide (a bruise doesn't count), laughing or feeling schadenfreude isn't acceptable any more. If the person whose misfortune you are laughing at, has done something bad, the acceptable limit goes up. But still, serious physical damage (violence or serious illness), harm to someone else than person themselves (family etc.)is off limits in common moral code. So for example in case of this person I wrote about. Common moral considers it okay to spam ridiculing messages to his Twitter count or have a ridiculing topic in message board full of mocking messages. However, if someone would say same things to him in person, when his wife or children were there, it would be considered out of limits. Or would send nasty letters to his home address. He has publicly done things people find immoral so public mocking is considered something justified. Intruding his personal space would not be, nor would be mocking for example his wife (who is semi-public figure), nor would be talking nasty things about him when his kids could hear it.</p><p></p><p>By the way, there is one more word for a feeling I have never seen a good word or concept in English. Word is similarly built as our word for compassion, but it is a word for feeling shame with someone or for someone (when they do not seem to understand that they should be ashamed.) That too can produce this perverse sense of cleansing, when you for example watch some extremely bizarre reality tv show and cringe every time when someone in them does something they should be so ashamed of and it didn't seem to bother them at all. </p><p></p><p>Shame is one of the primary feelings in my culture anyway. It's a basic building block for our morals. Fear of shaming ourselves keeps us from taking money from the wallet we found from the street before taking it to the police for lost and found. Or keeps us from taking advantage from social security when we actually could work for living. Concept of face, one's personal reputation are extremely important. Some would say that our society is based on interpersonal trust. Everything works on the premises that the other people are trustworthy, that everyone does what is right and you can trust to strangers. We have locks in our doors more to inform that we are not home than to keep intruders out. In many places broom standing in front the door still works as a lock. Many outsiders do think we are naive, that it would be easy to exploit that trust, in fact some of our immigrants do so, and we are in bit at loss, what to do with them, because we do not want to give up our trust system. For some of them it would feel stupid not to take advantage of us, but at least for now being taken advantage for seems like a small price to pay, so we mostly just try to teach them, how everything would just work so much better if they would just follow our trust system. (And yeah, we are starting to threaten them with deporting them, if they do not want to learn.) </p><p></p><p>We trust people to do a right thing, because if they do not, the consequence is a loss of face, loss of good reputation. And that is about the biggest punishment our society can give. Our judicial system is extremely lax. Let's put it that way: for the murder one or high treason you can get a life sentence in prison. Anything else, maximum sentence is ten years. If you get a life sentence, you have a chance to parole in 12 years, average time you have to do your life sentence before parole is 14 years. Longest life sentence in modern times has been 22 years, currently there is no one in prison who would had served twenty years or more. To end up in prison you basically have to commit rather serious crime to begin with. And our prisons tend to be rather lax places too. Idea is not so much to punish but to rehabilitate. So the shame, the loss of face, reputation and others' trust is a main punitive consequence you get, when you do wrong. With lesser crimes and especially younger offenders we lean to restorative justice that shows step by step how offender can start to work on regaining the good reputation and trust of others. It is a long process, but can be done and it starts with accepting the shame.</p><p></p><p>I have watched that process with my son for four years now. For what he did, if someone would had informed the police, the sentence would had been either about 100-200 bucks as a fine or more likely no sentence after mediation process and amends agreed on that. Instead mediation was done unofficially and my son was left to make amends and was kicked out of team for loss of trust. A real punishment is a loss of reputation, first with smaller circle and later, after someone brought it public, in very wide circles. He has been mostly successful in building back trust and reputation in smaller circles but has still long ways to go with people who do not know him. When he plays, there are still people on the stands shouting comments about his thieving ways for him. He is still mocked in message boards etc. for that. Some people are upset when he is signed to play in their favourite team, if he plays badly, he is still very quickly "the effing thief" by fans. That is the real consequence of breaking the trust code in our society; loss of face, reputation and others' trust. If my son continues to the right things, show regret and accepting his shame, it is totally possible for him to build back most of that trust and reputation. People are already starting to let what happened go. Commenting to others, that it is already an old news, that Ache was young when it happened, that he has come a long way. Other four or five years and he may well have regained a good reputation and trust back.</p><p></p><p>For this person I wrote about, the thing that seems to set him aside of others who have basically done the same, is, that he doesn't seem to feel ashamed. And in our community you can never gain back the good reputation and 'face' if you do not accept the shame you have brought on yourself. Others are neither confessed anything (and really, there is a lot of legally grey area here), but they seem to recognize that they may have done something shameful. Try, or have tried before, to take steps back in areas that are considered most shameful (reminding their followers not to use more money than they can afford, reminding to be careful if it feels that gambling is getting out of control and so on.) Even if actions are very similar, that acceptance of the shame and trying to limit the damages, puts them to totally different place in people's minds even if legally they are in totally same position.</p><p></p><p>The thing that puts a person I wrote about on the block for general ridicule and mocking is, that he appears shameless.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SuZir, post: 653032, member: 14557"] We do have a word also for what you describe in my other language. In fact a direct translation for the word would lust of revenge. This feeling is considered very negative thing in our culture. It is seemed as a feeling that will morally corrupt someone who lets it foster in them. Schadenfreude is considered more innocent feeling. You do not actually wish bad for the person, you just enjoy of other person's uncomfortableness. There is also acceptable level for that mirth. It is considered totally al right to enjoy it, if the person with misfortune is not seriously harmed (like: it is totally okay to laugh, when too soccer players from the same team collide and fall to their bottoms, that is schadenfreude. If they get hurt when they collide (a bruise doesn't count), laughing or feeling schadenfreude isn't acceptable any more. If the person whose misfortune you are laughing at, has done something bad, the acceptable limit goes up. But still, serious physical damage (violence or serious illness), harm to someone else than person themselves (family etc.)is off limits in common moral code. So for example in case of this person I wrote about. Common moral considers it okay to spam ridiculing messages to his Twitter count or have a ridiculing topic in message board full of mocking messages. However, if someone would say same things to him in person, when his wife or children were there, it would be considered out of limits. Or would send nasty letters to his home address. He has publicly done things people find immoral so public mocking is considered something justified. Intruding his personal space would not be, nor would be mocking for example his wife (who is semi-public figure), nor would be talking nasty things about him when his kids could hear it. By the way, there is one more word for a feeling I have never seen a good word or concept in English. Word is similarly built as our word for compassion, but it is a word for feeling shame with someone or for someone (when they do not seem to understand that they should be ashamed.) That too can produce this perverse sense of cleansing, when you for example watch some extremely bizarre reality tv show and cringe every time when someone in them does something they should be so ashamed of and it didn't seem to bother them at all. Shame is one of the primary feelings in my culture anyway. It's a basic building block for our morals. Fear of shaming ourselves keeps us from taking money from the wallet we found from the street before taking it to the police for lost and found. Or keeps us from taking advantage from social security when we actually could work for living. Concept of face, one's personal reputation are extremely important. Some would say that our society is based on interpersonal trust. Everything works on the premises that the other people are trustworthy, that everyone does what is right and you can trust to strangers. We have locks in our doors more to inform that we are not home than to keep intruders out. In many places broom standing in front the door still works as a lock. Many outsiders do think we are naive, that it would be easy to exploit that trust, in fact some of our immigrants do so, and we are in bit at loss, what to do with them, because we do not want to give up our trust system. For some of them it would feel stupid not to take advantage of us, but at least for now being taken advantage for seems like a small price to pay, so we mostly just try to teach them, how everything would just work so much better if they would just follow our trust system. (And yeah, we are starting to threaten them with deporting them, if they do not want to learn.) We trust people to do a right thing, because if they do not, the consequence is a loss of face, loss of good reputation. And that is about the biggest punishment our society can give. Our judicial system is extremely lax. Let's put it that way: for the murder one or high treason you can get a life sentence in prison. Anything else, maximum sentence is ten years. If you get a life sentence, you have a chance to parole in 12 years, average time you have to do your life sentence before parole is 14 years. Longest life sentence in modern times has been 22 years, currently there is no one in prison who would had served twenty years or more. To end up in prison you basically have to commit rather serious crime to begin with. And our prisons tend to be rather lax places too. Idea is not so much to punish but to rehabilitate. So the shame, the loss of face, reputation and others' trust is a main punitive consequence you get, when you do wrong. With lesser crimes and especially younger offenders we lean to restorative justice that shows step by step how offender can start to work on regaining the good reputation and trust of others. It is a long process, but can be done and it starts with accepting the shame. I have watched that process with my son for four years now. For what he did, if someone would had informed the police, the sentence would had been either about 100-200 bucks as a fine or more likely no sentence after mediation process and amends agreed on that. Instead mediation was done unofficially and my son was left to make amends and was kicked out of team for loss of trust. A real punishment is a loss of reputation, first with smaller circle and later, after someone brought it public, in very wide circles. He has been mostly successful in building back trust and reputation in smaller circles but has still long ways to go with people who do not know him. When he plays, there are still people on the stands shouting comments about his thieving ways for him. He is still mocked in message boards etc. for that. Some people are upset when he is signed to play in their favourite team, if he plays badly, he is still very quickly "the effing thief" by fans. That is the real consequence of breaking the trust code in our society; loss of face, reputation and others' trust. If my son continues to the right things, show regret and accepting his shame, it is totally possible for him to build back most of that trust and reputation. People are already starting to let what happened go. Commenting to others, that it is already an old news, that Ache was young when it happened, that he has come a long way. Other four or five years and he may well have regained a good reputation and trust back. For this person I wrote about, the thing that seems to set him aside of others who have basically done the same, is, that he doesn't seem to feel ashamed. And in our community you can never gain back the good reputation and 'face' if you do not accept the shame you have brought on yourself. Others are neither confessed anything (and really, there is a lot of legally grey area here), but they seem to recognize that they may have done something shameful. Try, or have tried before, to take steps back in areas that are considered most shameful (reminding their followers not to use more money than they can afford, reminding to be careful if it feels that gambling is getting out of control and so on.) Even if actions are very similar, that acceptance of the shame and trying to limit the damages, puts them to totally different place in people's minds even if legally they are in totally same position. The thing that puts a person I wrote about on the block for general ridicule and mocking is, that he appears shameless. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
How much schadenfreude is appropriate? Someone is coming down...
Top