Insults are just formalized dialectics

and the insanity of baited polemical speeches

An insult, at its core, is an accusation. Of what? Theft!

An accusation is a statement that invokes the right to the absolute and final say in the event of a conflict. An insult accuses someone of robbing an original grounding (original state of being-grounded). The defendant demands a return to their original condition. But an insult, centered under the symbolic and imaginary registers of being, only tug on the ego-ideal and not the real or natural law. Nature unbalanced will violently balance itself out regardless of any moral beliefs or principles. Restoration and return pulls on the notions of being which are the beginnings of political speech; the defendant must use retain right on the grounds of nature and find resolution in one’s convictions. Natural law demands a resolution by ceassing all things under tension. But an insult can be left unsaid and can build up tensions or imbalances among individuals and society.

Any individual who was already primed to insinuate a fight is said to bring partucular injuries to where the individual is said to be too invested thus, disqualified to make an argument. They are seen too removed from society’s order and instead divert attention to their particular issue, violating social norms and contracts. The paradox of initiating an insult only to boomerang it back at its originator makes it so that insult are set up like a trap. This insurance trap is why insults are baited speech set up for the victim to conduct a self-injury operation. This requires a preperation of speech so that the victim can stand trial for his own injury. All circumstances may condemn or aquit a victim from the acausation and not the assailant and not because of any social convention but because of natural law. Now, an insult is not really an insult at all but more like nature’s temptation to win one’s original claim. That original claim being the original state of being. In other words, if you believe that one is deserving of an insult, then you must necessarily accept that it’s his own choosing to be offended or not. This arguemtn, powerfull in the affirmation of one’s free will, doesn’t take into account baited political spaces. If an insult is formalized dialectics, it means that a willfully and precise calculation is required to offend the victim but the victim has no choice but to feel offended acording to natural law. The contradiction occurs at the realm of enjoyment because, unlike an insult where you willfully and willingly inflict pain to humiliate someone, the enjoyment you receive from witnessing emotional anguage as a result of getting offended is involuntary and automatically transfers all tensions relieved in the cessation event of a conflict into pleasure.

There are two contradictions that we will explore in insults. There is an external and internal contradiction,.

Internal contradiction - Dismissing Freud’s unconscious

The internal contradiction begins with the fact that almost nobody refers to the insult back to the originator but instead infers it forward to the victim. It is the victim who is assumed to deserve it. As the collector of violent speech, the victim is one who must do the work to conclude his own insult which is why he remains offended. It’s assumed that the victim is the prosecutor and carries the benefit of the doubt (otherwise he wouldn’t be the receiver of violent speech). The victim has ironically been powered by the common advice held up by society, “you cannot be insulted by the words of others but only if you let those words affect you.” By attempting to empower the victim, one is legitimizing violent speech for him. If one does in fact feel offended, it is because one deserves it. The ball was on his court after all. An insult is not really an insult if one wants it land perfectly because an insult can be legitimately ignored by a victim who has power over his assailant. If it is to land perfectly, the aggressor reveals the victim to the insult and not the other way around. What the aggressor reveals is the ground on which the victim unknowingly stands upon embodies an always already built up of contradictions. These contradictions which is left for the victim to conclude, does the hurting of feelings as he realizes it is he who delivers a self-injury operation. These contradictions that accumulate must be collected somewhere and doesn’t exist in abstract mind (which is the psychological position). In Freudian psychoanalysis, it’s said that the ego functions underneath an unconscious. This hydrological model of the unconscious says that water (or stem) pressure builds and builds until there’s an eruption. But there is no such pressure built up of mental energy but rather, a transition of contradiction transfers from the originator of to the receiver of violent speech. The act of getting one’s opponent to think, then feel the burn is not the physiological trick that is done through grammar (symbolic) or the appeal to one’s dignity/honor (imaginary) but that of the real (natural) register of experience.

What is one to do with an ignored insult? Is the intended target really a target if he ignores it? Or is not mentally capable enough to understand that he is being insulted? What if the intended victim becomes “the bigger person” not because he chooses lose the argument on purpose, but because he learned the right lessons (the exact point of an insult)? In other words, an undelivered message is not only the obstacle, but the reason why the content of the message (insult) exists in the first place. The fact that an insult can cease to be what it is while it’s heading towards an intended victim, or that it vanishes as soon as it is delivered, reveal more about violent speech than merely psychological or political reasons. To further complicate the matter, the obstacle is the source itself. How can an attacker disqualifies himself even to emit verbal violence to begin with? An example is when an insult that gets too personal reveals it’s incapatability. It’s inappropratatly sourced and the bearer of violent speech is unable to hold the claim which favors his right to the absolute. The claim for a return to one’s original state of being is the externalization of speech or to move from the inside (personal) to the outside (meaning).

The common claim that one chooses to be insulted because one allows oneself to be offended fails to take account the original claim (or the intent to insult) which is that one was robbed of their original position and would like to be restored. In other words, one intends to verbally attack someone as retaliation. Ignoring insults or pretending they don’t affect you leads into the argument for imagination. We are asked to imagine the assailant having a bad day or had an argument with his wife or missed the bus or any number of troubling things that resulted him using insults. This reduces the event of a conflict for a call for compassion. A similar argument is made to this claim: the emotional cosmopolitan retcon or the scapegoat hypothesis. This argument says that the assailant was always already primed for an argument through faulty emotional faculties. The randomness of open societies leads to an infinite number of possibilities where this built-up can encounter. This helps the imagination argument because since emotions are chaotic, they allow the imagination to cope by coming up any number of random situations. Thus the emotional retcon argument is ubiquitous and weakens the claims of the defendant since insults are reduced to emotional instability and erroneously make believe that the verbal assailant is unable to hold up his original position. An example is when it’s assumed that the primed attacker doesn’t discriminate his next victim but the unfortunate individual who simply got in his way will be the next scapegoat to his insults. Of course, if asked why did he “went off the rails” he’ll just answer that he was just emotional and had a bad day. There’s no doubt that there are people with strong personalities and “fly of the handle” or bad things happen to good people. But while we can ignore the insult happening (the phenomena), the simple fact is that one can’t ignore the feeling of becoming offended regardless of a strong imagination or emotional maturity. One remains offended as “the bigger man.” Meaning is forced to exists outside of one’s interior life. And people create meaning at the absolute spirit by partializing (interiorizing) dialectical arguments. A failed insult is a mismatch inadequate to complete the absolute spirit of a community that would much rather live in harmony than in contention.