Combating Sarcasm with Overt Hostility

Kontra Kommando said:

...one should not have be subjected to verbal assaults with out expressing themselves the way they want in return. It doesn't necessarily have to be a barrage of curing. But rather assertively calling them out on their sarcasm. Basically breaking up the little game of toying with you, and demanding them to stop. But no, i actually dislike confrontation.

Alright, that makes more sense. Breaking up the game and spoiling the mood can actually work, nothing like a good guilt trip. It's just that hitting back with escalated sarcasm only works when you know the other side won't take it to the next level, because then it's better to just walk away. I got beat up by a group of loud braindead idiots in Copenhagen for being too much of a wise-ass with backtalk, heh. Yes, my witty sarcastic repartees stunned them into silence, but my victory was only moral, heh.

dew said:

Alright, that makes more sense. Breaking up the game and spoiling the mood can actually work, nothing like a good guilt trip. It's just that hitting back with escalated sarcasm only works when you know the other side won't take it to the next level, because then it's better to just walk away. I got beat up by a group of loud braindead idiots in Copenhagen for being too much of a wise-ass with backtalk, heh. Yes, my witty sarcastic repartees stunned them into silence, but my victory was only moral, heh.

40oz said:

in that case, yes that seems like a very civil way to go at it. I can find a response like that pretty honorable, because that can be difficult to do in the heat of frustration, but I wouldn't put that under the profile of what your original contention in the OP suggests. Also I don't think that works with kids, as they don't have much credibility against adults or bullies if they are frail, short, and have a high pitched voice, as most of them do. Its a shame but it really helps to be an adult with a deep, forceful and intimidating voice to tell someone something like "Stop it." and for it to actually work.

That's part of the reason why I support concealed carry. But that's a topic for a whole other thread. lol

(not suggesting it for kids)

Yeah, don't even go there. This sort of "stand your ground" bullshit is sickening. In my case, my life was never in danger and everyone involved was drunk, so carrying a gun would be utterly irresponsible. I also find it morally reprehensible to goad people into aggression with backtalk, knowing I can always blast their asses off if fists start flying. That would be murder in most of Europe, btw.

That logic is exactly why I'm against concealed carry. Generally speaking less people murdered on the street is a good thing. Less families and lives torn apart is a good thing. I'd rather be beaten up than shoot and kill someone.

Also worth noting, criminals carrying concealed weapons are exponentially more likely to be trained/fluent with them than commoners, disproving the "armed country is a safe country" postulation entirely.

Sorry, but I just had to pipe up for that one. I mean no disrespect.

I don't mean to be contrary simply for the sake of being contrary, but well, and I realize NYC is probably different from, say, St. Paul, where I've lived most of my adult life, but I've found when dealing with hostile strangers, just not even getting into it has always worked well for me. I mean, if it's someone I'm never going to talk to again, I've got no problem maybe making one snide comment and walking away, if even that. Honestly, it's like, people are too shocked to even do anything - they expect that if they get in your face, or they make nasty comments, that you're going to react, be provoked, etc., so they have no idea how to handle it when you're not provoked. I guess that, too, is the product of living in the city. There's a certain script - you make a verbal jab, you expect that person to jab back, this leads to a showdown, etc., but if the other person is unfazed by your comments in the first place, you're breaking the rules and thus they don't really know how to follow through.

And if it's someone you ran into at the bus stop or walking down the sidewalk, who cares, you're never even going to see that person again, so it's not like they're going to even be able to say, "Well, he walked away, but I'll get him even worse next time!"

Kontra Kommando said:

That's part of the reason why I support concealed carry.

Whoever waves the biggest gun wins?

Getting back to the OP, let's not lose sight of the fact that Tyson's an aggressive semi-articulate thug who's probably stopped a few too many punches with his face. His response to a question he'd rather not answer is fairly predictable, but at least he had the presence of mind not to punch out the interviewer while the cameras were rolling.

I think at the beginning, when he said, "hey, you're being negative, and that's negative"; he probably would have been better off leaving it at that. But I guess he let his emotions run wild, because the interviewer struck a deep nerve. Thus, I understand, and appreciate his reaction. Whether it was the right thing to do or not is a different story. But at the very least, we can understand why he said what he said.

In Tyson's defense, it really was a piece of shit question to ask.

I love sarcasm, so fuck you.

Sarcasm is proof good loves atheists and wants them to be happy.

where the hell do half the people here live where they get randomly insulted randomly all the time? does the USA really resemble Escape from New York more than I remember?

Clonehunter said:

I love sarcasm, so fuck you.

Now that's some sarcasm I can appreciate.

Aliotroph? said:

Sarcasm is proof good loves atheists and wants them to be happy.

where the hell do half the people here live where they get randomly insulted randomly all the time? does the USA really resemble Escape from New York more than I remember?

No, most the the USA is supposedly friendly, (unless you're foreign, or don't fit the bill, ethnically, religiously, or lifestyle-wise, to that particular area). But New Yorkers are sort of like your average forum posters sans than shroud of anonymity.

FYI: Tyson is a New Yorker, from a very rough section of Brooklyn.

EDIT: my description of New Yorkers earlier is more becoming of yuppies, hipsters, and young college-aged liberals; let's call them group A. BUT there are also more people here like Tyson, who will curse you out, and probably want to fight; group B. These are more of the older generations of working-class people, as well as street thugs. As hostile and violent as they are, at least they are genuine. Moreover, they won't bother you with an ass kicking, unless you deserve it. Which is usually what happens when people from group A interact with group B.

Most of these aforementioned people (group A) are usually transplants; thus not real NYers. Further, they are ruining real NYC sensibilities and culture. No more CBGBs, no more Mars Bar, no more Kim's Video, no more gritty NYC :(

Now, its just too expensive, and filled with sarcastic and sanctimonious people who just suck.

I think it goes beyond boxing. It is a fight or flight thing. Mike Tyson is smarter than people give him credit for, has dealt with a lot of people, and isn't the type of person to get sucked into a word game. I don't blame him. The best thing you can do as a man is assert yourself and demand respect. It's not like he beat the guy up. He just wasn't willing to play games with some bozo. I feel the same way a lot.