Why is there so much lashon hora on here about restaurants (and other things)

[madhocker]

Good thing sarcasm has never caused anyone emotional anguish.

See?

When directed at a specific individual, perhaps. But not in this case.

[Yehuda57]

When directed at a specific individual, perhaps. But not in this case.

This was extremely specific. How many people made the claim that they are mocking?

[Gvann]

This was extremely specific. How many people made the claim that they are mocking?

? everyone on here

[madhocker]

This was extremely specific. How many people made the claim that they are mocking?

You really think that any one of the posters had anguish from @Gvann's post, clearly made in jest?

[Gvann]

My question still applies with the edit. There is no joke without mocking some posts.

Look, I've made as many sarcastic jokes on this forum as anyone. But if you're going to take a hard line on LH, it would be easier to swallow if those posts themselves weren't denigrating (however humorously) other posters.

there is no "mocking" here, the joke is on the comment that I posted on and based off countless comments on here in the general flow of the conversation...

[Yehuda57]

Ok, final post, as I find this quite silly.

There was a conversation in which only one or two posters made the point that OP's comment about LH itself contained harsh wording that perhaps could itself be considered LH about the posters. (I don't necessarily agree, but that's irrelevant)

Then OP made a humorous quip making fun of the above sentiment. Now, I'm somewhat of a sarcasm connoisseur, it used to be in my signature. The joke simply doesn't exist without making fun of a sentiment that had only been expressed by one or two posters.

Do I think anyone was "emotionally anguished" by it? Not by any stretch. But it was jarring to see the very poster who was making a whole to-do about LH, employing sarcasm to make a point, as that is by definition something that is cutting and hurtful, even if it doesn't technically meet the standards of LH.

[imayid2]

CC many times from Rambam.

But in what context? I assume in the context of forbidding the conveying of the information to begin with. In our scenario that’s already permitted. The consumption of someone without ties to the situation, when it isn’t necessary *negative, and will not harm him, isn’t being discussed there.

To say he will be pained more by the guy who didn’t have to read it and read it would seem to be a stretch. He’s already pained by the info being released to those to whom it matters.

[Gvann]

Ok, final post, as I find this quite silly.

There was a conversation in which only one or two posters made the point that OP's comment about LH itself contained harsh wording that perhaps could itself be considered LH about the posters. (I don't necessarily agree, but that's irrelevant)

Then OP made a humorous quip making fun of the above sentiment. Now, I'm somewhat of a sarcasm connoisseur, it used to be in my signature. The joke simply doesn't exist without making fun of a sentiment that had only been expressed by one or two posters.

Do I think anyone was "emotionally anguished" by it? Not by any stretch. But it was jarring to see the very poster who was making a whole to-do about LH, employing sarcasm to make a point, as that is by definition something that is cutting and hurtful, even if it doesn't technically meet the standards of LH.

I guess you can follow that train of thought and think that this is a rebound on someone's specific post, however, that was not at all my train of thought, as "very nice" is not harsh wording by any means, rather just the words that I was sarcastically calling out as LH. not because someone called me out for harsh wording but because I was making light of a conversation that has been discussing what LH is (about 100 posts of it so far) so if someone followed the first train of thought that I am mocking them then I hope they are mochel but that was not at all the train of thought that I was going through in posting that, as I have said a few times already in response

[imayid2]

THIS!!
It’s very nice how the last 100 posts explained why it’s toeles. But even if it is toeles it can only be repeated if it is 100% lesheim shamayim… if someone has even the slightest motive to post a non-flattering review because they feel wronged, then it is 100% assur no matter how much time and money you save for the entire klal yisroel!

Over simplification.

See רכילות ט באר מים חיים ג

ואין כוונותינו בפרט זה דאם אינו מכוין לתועלת הוא פטור ממילא מלספר… דהלא לא תעמוד על דם רעיך כתיב ואף בענין ממון.
עיי״ש

[aygart]

But in what context? I assume in the context of forbidding the conveying of the information to begin with. In our scenario that’s already permitted. The consumption of someone without ties to the situation, when it isn’t necessary *negative, and will not harm him, isn’t being discussed there.

To say he will be pained more by the guy who didn’t have to read it and read it would seem to be a stretch. He’s already pained by the info being released to those to whom it matters.

Of course he is pained more by each additional reader.

[imayid2]

Of course he is pained more by each additional reader.

He does not know about it to be pained by it

[aygart]

He does not know about it to be pained by it

It is always if he would know

[imayid2]

It is always if he would know

What is always?

If you have a specific source in mind please quote in full.

[aygart]

What is always?

If you have a specific source in mind please quote in full.

I am totally clueless where you are coming from with this distinction. Do you have any source for such a thing that his not knowing makes it okay? I honestly can't fathom how saying a food establishment has bad food would not be the epitome of lashon hara if not for a purpose. Shmia is assur even if the speaker intended for a purpose explicitly in BMC

[imayid2]

I am totally clueless where you are coming from with this distinction. Do you have any source for such a thing that his not knowing makes it okay?

I am clueless to where your assertion that in such a scenario where one is causing zero damage by reading something which was posted ltoeles should be prohibited. Do you have a source for such a thing?

[imayid2]

I honestly can't fathom how saying a food establishment has bad food would not be the epitome of lashon hara if not for a purpose. Shmia is assur even if the speaker intended for a purpose explicitly in BMC

It is not at all the epitome of LH. It is only LH because of the damage that it can cause the person.

[imayid2]

Shmia is assur even if the speaker intended for a purpose explicitly in BMC

He talks about a case where it is permitted to say, permitted to listen for those applicable, and of zero implication to others?

[aygart]

He talks about a case where it is permitted to say, permitted to listen for those applicable, and of zero implication to others?

How and why does whether others are permitted to listen change anything?

[imayid2]

How and why does whether others are permitted to listen change anything?

To him it isn’t LH because it’s of zero relevance and consequence. That’s my point. You’re quoting vague M”M and I’m asking if they talk about our case.

[aygart]

To him it isn’t LH because it’s of zero relevance and consequence. That’s my point. You’re quoting vague M”M and I’m asking if they talk about our case.

Do you have any source for this or just svara?