I learned the hard way not to post hypotheticals that ick people out. And that’s fine. I have no interests in offending people, so I just don’t do it.
I see now though Skald is getting a few snide remarks in his latest hypothetical about a couple and the lady’s past history with porn.
I just don’t get what it is that pisses people off so much. I mean, do you also get pissed at folks like Stephan King for coming up with some of the twisted stuff he writes?
It doesn’t make sense to me.
The ones that annoy me are ones that are so incongruous as to be a complete waste of brain power. For me, a hypothetical worth investigating is one that could conceivably occur in real life under the proper circumstances.
In the thread about owning slaves the hypothetical asks people to picture themselves as having grown up in a hardcore modern version of the confederacy. People are pretty resistant to picturing themselves as they would be acclimatized to that culture - besides making themselves the bad guy, the fact you’re even considering it is an acknowledgement that you only hate slavery because you were raised to do so, not because of innate shining perfection.
I found it disturbing to read. I am not pissed off about it. I posted to reply to his question. I have not wanted to read anymore about it, so I havn’t. FWIW, I don’t read horror stories either. I read one King book and I was sorry. I dreamed about it for weeks. If you don’t like it don’t read it. Simple.
People pointing out that Skald spends a lot of time thinking about how to denigrate women doesn’t mean that they are pissed at him. Well, except maybe this link.
Hypotheticals are very often stupid. And in my experience the ones that “push people’s comfort zones” are more often so.
They are also rarely posted without some equal stupid agenda that anyone with half a brain can spot right off the bat, and so people get preemptively pissed off rather than invest in arguing against someone who will almost certainly be disingenuous when people aren’t falling into the clever trap they set up and point out why their hypothetical is a dishonest attempt at producing a specific, but irrelevant, response.
Hypotheticals usually don’t say anything about the real world, but they say everything about the mind of the poster. Taking them seriously with their false choices forces the reader to spend time in the mind of a pretty disturbed person. The experience is made even more uncomfortable by the poster trying to hide behind the hypothetical label as if s/he didn’t just type the thing one handed.
The hypotheticals usually posted here aren’t based on intellectual curiosity, but rather on the prurient interest(s) of the poster. Replying to them only plays into that.
Wow! I have always thought hypotheticals, esp. Skald’s but really all of them, were just either fun and funny or not. All this hostility really amazes me. I’m with the OP; I have no idea where it’s coming from.
That one would annoy me because it’s so unrealistic, not because it necessarily pushing my comfort zone (it does, of course, as most people are uncomfortable with the idea of slavery today). It’s also impossible to put yourself into that mindset since it’s so alien to today’s viewpoint. There is just no common ground wrt thought between someone in the 17th or 18th century who was born and bred a slave owner and thought in terms of slaves being sub-human or even a different species, and today where even ‘race’ is considered wrong or at least not backed by science.
As someone who recently posted a weird hypothetical, I feel compelled to defend myself. Weird thoughts pop into my head all the damned time and sometimes I think “what would other people think about this?” I like getting into the heads of people who think differently from me. It gives me the chance to see the world from a different point of view, even if it’s a completely whacked-out bizarre world. We all see things from a different mental reference frame and that fascinates me. It’s why I love listening to stuff like Jason Ellis and Other People’s Lives.
I figure if I push someone out of their comfort zone they’ll return the favor and push me out of mine. Call me crazy, but I like it when I’m forced to re-examine my preconceptions.
I think, for those who indeed are pissed off by such threads, that part of the reason may be their impression of the OP’s morality.
I feel hypothetical thought games can be a fun exercise for a group. I run around with a mixed bag of women and men. We volunteer, have a book club and do lunch dates. We often pose these kinda things to each other, generally based on the books we’re reading or local events. There are certain topics we wouldn’t bring up, in polite society. It’s easier to get real raunchy and explicit on a message board. You don’t have to look the person in the eyes and you’re anonymous for the most part. It can easily become disturbing. You can always steer clear if you need to, for whatever reason.
Ok, so imagine you are forced to respond to a hypothetical or get raped by a racist gorilla…
What is the gorilla’s sex?
Yes.
I have stopped watching TV shows that disturb me, offend me, or just make me angry. I’m too old for that kind of crap. I want to be entertained, not annoyed.
Most hypotheticals and fiction is requesting a kind of empathic involvement of the viewer/reader, so you have to expect an emotional reaction to something bothersome or disturbing. Sometimes I can be objective and cut myself off from it, but it can take effort that I often can’t be bothered expending. The easiest way to avoid that kind of thing is to not participate in things that could potentially piss me off.
People getting pissed off had zero to do with the hypothetical.
It had to do with the gratuitous description of the porn scene. It added nothing to the hypothetical.
He could have written “she had been involved in severely humiliating porn” and left it at that. From the title of the thread, it’s not clear one should expect to find a skeevy porn scene description. I didn’t, but after reading that link, others clearly did.
What I don’t understand is how you think this had to with the hypothetical itself.
The only ones that bug me are the ones with moving goalposts. The OP presents some situation, and only gives a limited set of absurd choices. So you ignore the choices, and give a sensible answer. Then the OP comes up with some other constraint not mentioned before that makes that impossible, so you come up with a new answer, and repeat, until the hypothetical ends up being something like “A psychic alien mind-controls you and forces you to rape someone. What do you do?”, to which the only answer is “Whatever the psychic alien is forcing me to do”.
Although, what might be even worse is when the OP doesn’t provide multiple-choice options at all, but still has one particular answer they’re aiming for (but won’t tell you what it is), and continually moves the goalposts until you get to it on your own (which you probably won’t, because it’s a stupid conclusion, but after a while it becomes pretty clear what the OP is trying to steer you towards anyway).
I hate hypotheticals that are so constrained and over-the-top that it would be impossible for you to know what you would do. If a huge alien space ship suddenly appeared in the sky above my city, I can reasonably guess that I would stay home from work a couple of days, as I would not be able to pull myself away from the news. (I also don’t want to die at the office). But if aliens kidnapped me and turned me into their sex slave, I don’t know what I would do because that’s a crazy scenario.
My thoughts exactly. Playing along with the hypothetical means that you’ve become a participant in the poster’s pervy little world. It doesn’t “piss me off” as the OP describes it, but I have no interest in playing that game.