NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by this post here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=591674.

The exchange on that thread got me thinking(and here I stop referencing the above thread and it's contributors and branch out on my own).

I wonder: Is there a 'statute of limitations' to outrage? Is there a point where being justifiably pissed off about something turns into just you being bitter and holding a grudge? Is there a point where you should just let it go, regardless of the offense, or are some things so horrible that outrage remains a viable reaction regardless of time passed?

As a corollary, I suppose this leads, in a way, to the concept of collective guilt. Is there such a thing? Should one person be held responsible for or made a representative of, the actions of his group, whatever it may be?

What are your thoughts on the subject?

I can answer this in three words:

Remember The Alamo!

In other words, it depends how stupid people are. :p

I can answer this in three words:

Remember The Alamo!

In other words, it depends how stupid people are. :p

Indeed, some people forget the Alamo, damn them, damn them all to hell!

*iz outraged*

I can answer this in three words:

Remember The Alamo!

In other words, it depends how stupid people are. :p

But that means to remember the Alamo in a good sense.
We remember the Alamo to remember the good, aka the sacrifice of a those defenders of men, for the country and later the state of Texas.

It is not like we go blame Mexicans for it.

I personally tend to let things go after a while, although I can still remember listening to my grandfather(who came from Ireland as a small child)go on and on and friggin' on about the English, to the point where you wanted to stick a sock in his mouth. I didn't, of course, because he was my grandfather, but I thought about it. I can understand why people would hang on to things and keep memories fresh, but I'm not that guy.

As far as collective guilt goes, I'm a big believer in individual responsibility. I think you should be held accountable for your actions alone, for good or bad.

If humanity had the ability to let grudges go, there'd be very little war, and peace in places like the Middle East. We'd have never had The Troubles in Ireland, etc., etc.

Holding a grudge is a human birthright, it seems. Since pettiness is another, it's no wonder that song can still irritate people. I think making hay off of tragedy is awful, and if every song written about that day had a cut of any profits sent to memorials, then I'd feel better. However, I'm not holding my breath.

I can answer this in three words:

Remember The Alamo!

In other words, it depends how stupid people are. :p

sorry, more of a Hurtz or Enterprise customer myself...

sorry, more of a Hurtz or Enterprise customer myself...

Yay! :D

I feel that the statute of limitations applies when it's no longer practical or realistic to accurately determine the victims and the perpetrators. It's basically going to come in to effect when everyone involved is dead and it's impossible to realistically separate the economic costs/benefits. So, except for rare circumstances where this limitation would be exceeded (say if the perpetrators kept good records like in the Holocaust), it's a pretty general rule.

I feel that the statute of limitations applies when it's no longer practical or realistic to accurately determine the victims and the perpetrators. It's basically going to come in to effect when everyone involved is dead and it's impossible to realistically separate the economic costs/benefits. So, except for rare circumstances where this limitation would be exceeded (say if the perpetrators kept good records like in the Holocaust), it's a pretty general rule.

So basically the statute of limitations on Do You Remember? expired the day it was written, because the whole song is about prodding incorrectly remembered and inappropriately applied memories to promote an unjustified course of action.

I wonder: Is there a 'statute of limitations' to outrage? Is there a point where being justifiably pissed off about something turns into just you being bitter and holding a grudge? Is there a point where you should just let it go, regardless of the offense, or are some things so horrible that outrage remains a viable reaction regardless of time passed?No. It would depend on the offense. Some offenses are not worth maintaining a lengthy time of outrage; others are.

As a corollary, I suppose this leads, in a way, to the concept of collective guilt. Is there such a thing? Should one person be held responsible for or made a representative of, the actions of his group, whatever it may be?Possibly. It depends on the group. While it might be true that one member of the group did something, unless the rest of the group (or some people in it) tried to stop it, the group should be held responsible. Silence is complicity.