Difference between flaming and just being honest?

[.Sabre.]

What do you think the difference is? Please post examples and keep it clean.

 

[tulc]

Honest:
"I don't know why anyone would vote for candidate "X"."
flaming:
"Anyone who votes for "X" is a moron!"
tulc(that's how I see it anyway)

 

[mpok1519]

Tough love?

If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all?

which one is better? Being brutally honest with someone to the point it becomes insulting(yet, an insult can still be honest and true, however) or sugar coating the truth so no one's "feelings" get hurt.

Personally, I don't think there is a difference; if you call someone short-sighted, I suppose it can be honest and well-tempered, but at the same time have a malicious motivation behind it.

 

[karisma]

Ooh, good question. I just posted a thread about race that I'm sure will be flagged momentarily , although it's meant as an open, honest question.

There's a fine line between political correctness and actually flaming, and I think sometimes people tend to get those confused and fly off the handle when someone says something that's not very PC even thought it's not actually flaming.

 

[Washington]

I see it as coming down to intent. Is the intent of a remark to get a rise or upset a reader? Then it's flaming. If that isn't the intent, but the reader still gets upset then that's their problem, which should be easily corrected by a simple explanation.

 

[praying]

Tough love?

If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all?

which one is better? Being brutally honest with someone to the point it becomes insulting(yet, an insult can still be honest and true, however) or sugar coating the truth so no one's "feelings" get hurt.

Personally, I don't think there is a difference; if you call someone short-sighted, I suppose it can be honest and well-tempered, but at the same time have a malicious motivation behind it.

There is absolutely no reason to be purposefully insulting even when being brutally honest ever IMO. One can be honest without insulting people.

 

[WatersMoon110]

There is absolutely no reason to be purposefully insulting even when being brutally honest ever IMO. One can be honest without insulting people.

I agree. There are nice and mean ways to tell someone the truth.

I could tell someone that their breath smells, or I could offer them a piece of gum. Both address the issue, but only one makes them feel bad.

 

[NPH]

If it's a christian speaking then it's just being honest.
If it's a non-christian speaking then it's almost certainly flaming.

 

[OllieFranz]

I see it as coming down to intent. Is the intent of a remark to get a rise or upset a reader? Then it's flaming. If that isn't the intent, but the reader still gets upset then that's their problem, which should be easily corrected by a simple explanation.

I completely agree -- in theory.

In practice, however, it is usually the recipient of the remark, not the originator whose opinion the rest of society pays attention to. That is why there are so many editorials and opinion pieces in college newspapers about "political correctness." The school has been bending over backward to accommodate anyone who feels slighted by the perceived attitudes of others on campus.

Or take a woman tending to the injuries of a grandchild who fell out of a tree and asks "What were you doing up there in the first place, you little monkey? Now if in the exact same circumstances except the boy is the son of her (black) next-door neighbors: "monkey" suddenly becomes, not a comment on his climbing the tree, but a racial epithet implying "big black African ape."

In the world we live in, intent is not enough. We have to consider the history behind race relationships (and similar problems concerning religion, gender etc) and how our otherwise innocent words might be taken.

 

[praying]

If it's a christian speaking then it's just being honest.
If it's a non-christian speaking then it's almost certainly flaming.

Except that does not address the OP.

 

[NPH]

Except that does not address the OP.

For the purposes of posting at CF, it's a difference between flaming and just being honest

I tried an honest post up in GA and christians (except one) responded as if it were a flame.

 

[NPH]

I agree. There are nice and mean ways to tell someone the truth.

I could tell someone that their breath smells, or I could offer them a piece of gum. Both address the issue, but only one makes them feel bad.

Depends on the person though. One might appreciate your forthrightness in letting them know they have a problem to take care of and might resent your unasked-for assistance in taking care of a problem they have rather than just telling them.

Personally, I can't chew gum because I have no cartilage in my jaws so I'd respond to the offer with "what's that for?"

But that's kind of the point I'm making above. The difference between a flame and honesty is in the audience more than it is the presenter. Someone could call me gay to try and insult me but I'd just answer "yeah, and ...?". A question asked in honesty at CF by a non-christian is more likely to be viewed as a flame simply because the presenter and audience have a different idea of what the question is really saying.

Two christians talking about homosexuality being an 'abomination' is, to them, honest conversation. But if a gay non-christian heard the conversation they'd see it as an insult.

 

[sk8Joyful]

re flaming, vs. just being honest:

What do you think the difference is?
Please post examples and keep it clean.

It's basically a matter of 4 factors -

1. How, the same language being shared, is understood by either participant.

for instance: Many language have 'Idioms, or Saying' unique to a society's culture.
When another person, whose Foundational-language for instance was not "english" (me, for one) communicates with someone who was raised with the English-language, mis-understandings may result.
and

2. How, the same language being shared, is adversely mis-judged by another, based on both Sender & Receiver BELIEFS, Life-outlook, personality-Strategies, their Mood, & many other factors.
and

3. Most importantly: Are both people Interested... in respectfully resolving any challenges, for *mutual.. success*.
and

4. Does each party recognize the other person may (beyond the internet), actually *Lead a good... life* , & thus be patient with responses.

Annie

 

[Washington]

I completely agree -- in theory.

In practice, however, it is usually the recipient of the remark, not the originator whose opinion the rest of society pays attention to.

If an explanation is offered and rejected then, personally, I would close the door on the issue and let the recipient stew in his own juices. I haven't the time or the inclination to placate people who insist on taking offense. Let them whine. If others want to listen to them that's their choice.
If you think my remark was meant to inflame you, and I take the time to explain why you're mistaken, but you still insist in taking offense, then I wish you a good day. End of issue as far as I'm concerned.

 

[praying]

This:

If it's a christian speaking then it's just being honest.
If it's a non-christian speaking then it's almost certainly flaming.

Does not address this.

What do you think the difference is? Please post examples and keep it clean.

Nor does this address the OP more specifically the thread title "Difference between flaming and just being honest?".

For the purposes of posting at CF, it's a difference between flaming and just being honest

I tried an honest post up in GA and christians (except one) responded as if it were a flame.

Link?


ETA: The question isn't about who is saying it, but what is being said. And yes I agree that some people's biases will cloud their judgement between insulting and truth.

 

[NPH]

ETA: The question isn't about who is saying it, but what is being said.

You can't discuss one without being cognizant of the other. It's a combination of what's being said, who's saying it, who's hearing it, where it's being said and a host of other dynamics that might be at play.

You just can't say that anything is 'honest' or a 'flame' ... every bit is situational to some degree or another.

 

[Caoimhe]

In my opinion, Flaming is a remark, a statement or a label directed at an individual or a group of people for the purpose of provoking their anger. It often elicits a response from the victim(s) as a means to defend themselves against the undeserved statement directed at them.

Ie. "You're X and Z because you said A and B!!!"
Ie. "This is Y and M because it just is, that's why! Take it or leave it!"

An honest, opinion on the other hand, is an unbiased remark or statement which expresses the individual's thoughts without dispatching critical or judgmental words.

Ie. "I think the text Z interprets this issue as C and D. In this light I disagree with B's opinion."


Flaming is quite pointless because it gets nowhere as everyone involved gets hurt and disappointed. I say sharing of opinions is the civil way to go.

 

[quatona]

What do you think the difference is? Please post examples and keep it clean.

"Being honest" and "flaming" are descriptions of intent.
The difference is irrelevant for practical purposes (such as guidelines and rules) since the only one who knows your intents are you.

If the person opposite informs me that she feels insulted, offended (hopefully without jumping to the misconcluding that therefore this was my intent) this is important information for me.

Personally, I am working from the assumption that perceived rudeness is likely to be an expression of putative self-defense.

 

[Beanieboy]

There isn't necessarily a difference between flaming and being honest. Both may contain truths, while the first is to add insult to the honesty, and make the other person look or feel stupid.

However, flaming isn't necessarily honest either.

Often, what I find in flaming is a burning of bridges, rather than building of them, because there is no intent to make the other learn, but make oneself look better.

They are usually like this:
One cannot say that being cruel and rude to a sinner is the most loving thing they can do without contradicting themselves.

Flame: Weak! (Even in an official debate, one must look at the weakness of the argument, not simply say, "Weak" after every point is made.) You want to hand hold people all the way to hell! You are a servant of the devil! REPENT!

I was once angered, offended, or annoyed by such things, but now, I simply think it is pathetic. It's the guy who is screaming on the corner that the end is near, and everyone else should repent to avoid God's wrath, but people just keep walking by, thinking that he is simply a bit off. No one stops. His methods are ineffective, yet he dedicates so much time and energy into it. Whom does he blame for his lack of converts? The sinners themselves.

Jesus didn't walk around, saying, "Hey! Tax Collectors! You are sinners! God is coming with his wrath! And since I am God, prepare for my WRATH!!!!"

Rather, he looked to those who were considered the lowest, such as Zacheus, and asked if he would eat with him, which was an huge honor at that time. He offended the Pharisees, not the sinners, and yet, such people seem unable to understand that, because therein lies a harsher reality that they must admit to themselves.

Everyone looses patience. I have deleted countless responses, because I knew that I would regret it later, and it served no positive purpose. However, one can be honest, even if it is painful, if it is at the very least intended in love and edification, and very importantly, humility.

 

[lawtonfogle]

What do you think the difference is? Please post examples and keep it clean.

Intention.

Everyone who thinks X is wrong is stupid.
Everyone who thinks X is wrong is stupid.

One I said because I honestly felt that way.
One I said because I wanted to point out to an Xer that I thought they were stupid.

The problem? Which is which?

Intent cannot always be seen, and that causes problems.