The price of respect

[wesmorris]

I was with you until this point... unworthy of what?

Respect. That doesn't mean I'd treat you like crap (and of course I don't mean YOU), it only means your objections to my behavior have zero impact.

 

[Jenyar]

I realize that. People don't take offense in order to change the world, but to make it more sensitive about giving offense. At least you feel some reason not to treat people like crap. That's already a sensibility.

 

[water]

That doesn't mean I'd treat you like crap (and of course I don't mean YOU), it only means your objections to my behavior have zero impact.

You know what this means for me, personally, meeting people who say "your objections to my behavior have zero impact"? That no matter what I would do or say, nothing would get to them. Neither positive nor negative. As if I were talking to a wall.

 

[wesmorris]

People don't take offense in order to change the world, but to make it more sensitive about giving offense.

That is an incredibly naive statement. I really think you should reconsider that. People often take offense to gain power because they like power and manipulation. It often has little to do with whether or not "offense has been given".

At least you feel some reason not to treat people like crap.

It's quite simple. It's no benefit to me or them. It's innefficient and cruel. Cruelty pisses me off except under extreme circumstances. I generally see no reason to unduely increase negativity in the world. There is plenty as it is. Besides, my ultimate selfishness decrees that at least initially you deserve the respect I have for myself. It can increase or decrease from there.

That's already a sensibility.

My desire to "be cool to people" is the result of my projection of my own values onto the world. Selfishness. I don't want to be treated like shit. It would be stupid for me to promote that behavior by undertaking it.

 

[wesmorris]

You know what this means for me, personally, meeting people who say "your objections to my behavior have zero impact"? That no matter what I would do or say, nothing would get to them. Neither positive nor negative. As if I were talking to a wall.

I'm with that, that's what I meant. I'm saying that if I deem you incapable of rationally judging behavior, I will remove your status as a judge. You may still think you are, but I will refuse to empower it.

 

[Jenyar]

That is an incredibly naive statement. I really think you should reconsider that. People often take offense to gain power because they like power and manipulation. It often has little to do with whether or not "offense has been given".

I've reconsidered, but I don't see how taking offense can gain you power except by playing on the emotions of others. That kind of power can't last, because someone who is constantly "hurt" can never come across as a strong leader. But manipulation of sensibilities is simply another kind of evil to take offense at. If sensitivity doesn't encourage responsibility, it is irresponsible itself.

 

[wesmorris]

I've reconsidered, but I don't see how taking offense can gain you power except by playing on the emotions of others.

Which most people are susceptable to. See my rant about passive aggression above. Further, people defend the victim and attack the aggressor. All I have to do to gain the favor of the crowd is play the victim, even if they aren't there at the time (if I'm a good actor).

That kind of power can't last, because someone who is constantly "hurt" can never come across as a strong leader.

Very true. Still though... the passive aggressive route of dissapproval? Yeah. You haven't noticed the people who control people just because they like to control people? Whatever the reason, it's easy to control many people through judging them. Ever seen that happen?

Regardless I'm thinking of it as along the lines of competition. Say you and I engage in a conversation like this one. There is a subtext of competition for superiority (to promote your opinion, to seem cool, whatever). It doesn't seem to me that you or I are particularly concerned with "winning". Regardless though, if I were to imagine it there... it would be. For many it exists subconsciously. A subconscious tool to gain advantage in this competition is the power I was referring to. There are so many variations. One of them is like I said before... I can write you off if I deem you unworthy of respect. All I have to do to find you unworthy of respect is wait for you to make a mistake as I see it... like saying fuck. Now I don't have to respect you and can abuse your opinion however I like.

So I suppose I'm just on about the potential for abuse in the concept of "taking offense". The PC movement is a prime example of this disgusting abuse. It's about dishonesty like my example above. I didn't give your context an honest examination before abusing it to dehumanize you. Perhaps the bunny in question did the same but opposite, in that she dehumanized herself by abusing Gendanken's context (though she probably didn't realize that's what she was doing).

But manipulation of sensibilities is simply another kind of evil to take offense at.

That's an interesting try, but I fundamentally disagree. It's the manipulation of their own sensibilities (or lack thereof) that created the situation of offense in the first place. I come up to you and say "how the fuck are you?" and project my gregarious nature to you. If you take offense, I won't be offended. The problem is that you will have created offense where none was offered. I did not attack or invade you. I'm simply NOT you. If you're looking to be offended by that kind of thing regardless of the spirit in which it is offered, you are only offending yourself IMO. I may not engage you further, but your offense will only be shocking to me. I won't be offended unless you turn it into an attack on me.

LOL. Okay now I can't tell if I agreed or disagreed. Something.

I guess I'm just saying that as long as you don't physically attack me or infringe upon my rights (which does not include "not being offended", but does include "not being physically attacked" and "a right to pursue liberty blah blah"), I have no problem with your problem with yourself besides that I may find it annoying when you're directing that problem at me.

If sensitivity doesn't encourage responsibility, it is irresponsible itself.

I'm not sure what you mean, so what do you see as an example of sensitivity encouraging responsibility.

 

[Jenyar]

If you're looking to be offended by that kind of thing regardless of the spirit in which it is offered, you are only offending yourself IMO.

I think that's the crux of it.

What I meant by encouraging responsibility, is taking possession of the spirit in which yuo do things. Bringing it under some kind of control. Then anyting can be forgiven. But we have "free spirits" running amok and trying to win physical wars - inflicting hurt and raping the spirit of freedom. Abusing freedom in order to take possession of it for themselves. Anyway, I'm ranting now.

I think a lot of learning can be done if people would be less quick to be insulted or offended, and give more weight to the spirit of more important things. I'm sure you agree. Sometimes talking to a feminist, for example, is downright exhausting. You're right: PC is an abuse. Although I'm sure it arose in answer to abuse in the first place. Now it's just a vicious circle of taking offense with no point.

 

[wesmorris]

I think that's the crux of it.

I think we mostly agree on the fundamentals, but likely have honest disagreements on some of the details. Regardless, I'll comment because an unavoidable consequence of this analysis came to mind.

What I meant by encouraging responsibility, is taking possession of the spirit in which yuo do things. Bringing it under some kind of control. Then anyting can be forgiven.

What's funny is that you are ultimately responsible for it whether or not you accept that responsibility. Here's the kicker though: To what end? The usefulness of PC and related offense-related abuses occured to me a few minutes ago in the context of politics and power - where it's impersonal and image becomes amplified in importance (because there's no way it could get personal due to the sheer volume of peeps involved).

But we have "free spirits" running amok and trying to win physical wars - inflicting hurt and raping the spirit of freedom. Abusing freedom in order to take possession of it for themselves. Anyway, I'm ranting now.

Indeed. You're right but I'd imagine we'd disagree on who is doing what to whom. Maybe not. Let's put it terms of fundamentalist Islam and Fundamentalist Christians, who are by their faith inherently opposed. The muslim takes offense at capitalism. They take offense at the existence of Israel. They take offense at oppression as they see it. They look at it as a real attack on their existence. They take offense at people who don't follow their beliefs. Similar stuff with fundy christians, thought the details are much different. This scenario is honest (at least those involved think it is due to their faith), but potentially deadly.

Crap I'm all over the place now. It's too big. I was trying to get at the power that can be gained from the dark side, from the abuse... and how when it IS abused for a long time, those who do not abuse it are at a significant disadvantage and will likely burn at the stake for instance, or be blown up by fundamentalists... or be put at the will of the sheepish masses who blindly follow an abuser because he's so damned good at abusing. Sometimes then the only way the honest people can win is by abusing, because it's the only way to match that power... at least it seems that way at the time... man it gets all complicated. Bah!

I think a lot of learning can be done if people would be less quick to be insulted or offended, and give more weight to the spirit of more important things. I'm sure you agree.

Totally.

Sometimes talking to a feminist, for example, is downright exhausting.

Definately.

You're right: PC is an abuse. Although I'm sure it arose in answer to abuse in the first place.

You're right.

Now it's just a vicious circle of taking offense with no point.

Well, one would hope the point is the pendulum swinging until it finds equilibrium, but there's no telling if the bitch will have to be almost completely taken on its hinge in order to find it.

 

[Jenyar]

Sometimes then the only way the honest people can win is by abusing, because it's the only way to match that power... at least it seems that way at the time... man it gets all complicated. Bah!

But that only adds to the problem - not to mention selling out your honesty. Why play the along with the power struggle? That's what's wrong with the fundamentalist mentality: it's people asserting their ego's. Faith and belief has actually been left far behind, as if they justify such a struggle by definition and have no further use beyond that.

Back to everyday life: Someone who suspends his impulse to take offense is sacrificing any "benefits" of taking offense. Someone who uses the "benefits" in order to eventually offend (read: exploit) others is similarly abusing the reason for being sensitive to sensitive issues in the first place. It's for other people - that's what responisbility means, isn't it? Keeping yourself in check for the sake of ....

When I ask someone to refrain from being offensive, or inflicting pain (physical or psychological), I'm asking them to sacrifice their desire to, and also whatever they might gain from it. If I do it out of weakness, it's just defensive measure strategically positioned to protect or assert my ego - but if I do it out of concern for the spirit in which people do things, the lack of sensitivity people show each other, I think it might be justified. Real heroism is sacrificing your desires in order to remain honest.

But maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here.

 

[water]

Jenyar, Wes,

You two had quite a talk. I have made some comments, alternately to both of you, so you'll have to please read through the whole post:

If sensitivity doesn't encourage responsibility, it is irresponsible itself.

I think I can understand this very well. I *hear* each time the word "fuck" is uttered. This is my sensitivity. How I respond though, is a matter of consideration to me, and this consideration is tightly bound to the feeling of responsibility.

All I have to do to gain the favor of the crowd is play the victim, even if they aren't there at the time (if I'm a good actor).

One cannot play the victim and still love oneself. -- This is a painful discovery for the passive aggressive.

Whatever the reason, it's easy to control many people through judging them. Ever seen that happen?

True. Blurt out judgements, at noone in particular, and see the insecure shrink into themselves, the self-conscious doubt themselves. The passive aggressive point fingers at others.

I can write you off if I deem you unworthy of respect. All I have to do to find you unworthy of respect is wait for you to make a mistake as I see it... like saying fuck. Now I don't have to respect you and can abuse your opinion however I like.

Note that thereby you'd commit at least a strawman, if not also a slippery slope, hasty generalization and some other logical fallacies. Come to think of "being rational and trying to follow logical thought" ...

That's an interesting try, but I fundamentally disagree. It's the manipulation of their own sensibilities (or lack thereof) that created the situation of offense in the first place. I come up to you and say "how the fuck are you?" and project my gregarious nature to you. If you take offense, I won't be offended. The problem is that you will have created offense where none was offered. I did not attack or invade you. I'm simply NOT you. If you're looking to be offended by that kind of thing regardless of the spirit in which it is offered, you are only offending yourself IMO. I may not engage you further, but your offense will only be shocking to me. I won't be offended unless you turn it into an attack on me.

There are some practical problems with this: Online, the spirit in which things are offered is not always easy to recognize. In fact, it is very easy to misjudge.
Also, if I don't know you, I'll have troubles determining in what spirit you have offered what you've said.

So, when initially meeting new people, depending on what you hope from them, of course, I think that it is good to use some more neutral language.

Alright, hold your horses -- but personally, I have a mind to behave as ladylike as possible. And foul language is just not a part of that. Not that I would feel easily offended by foul language, I just don't deem it ladylike.

What's funny is that you are ultimately responsible for it whether or not you accept that responsibility. Here's the kicker though: To what end? The usefulness of PC and related offense-related abuses occured to me a few minutes ago in the context of politics and power - where it's impersonal and image becomes amplified in importance (because there's no way it could get personal due to the sheer volume of peeps involved).

It has been mentioned before that PC is probably closely connected with seeing a very large group of people as your tribe, a group much much larger than a tribe can be. In such circumstances, certain kinds of behaviour are observable that seem dishonest at the level of a smaller group though.

I.e. If someone considers himself a close friend of mine, yet is PC even in private, I'd consider him dishonest.

Crap I'm all over the place now. It's too big. I was trying to get at the power that can be gained from the dark side, from the abuse... and how when it IS abused for a long time, those who do not abuse it are at a significant disadvantage and will likely burn at the stake for instance, or be blown up by fundamentalists... or be put at the will of the sheepish masses who blindly follow an abuser because he's so damned good at abusing. Sometimes then the only way the honest people can win is by abusing, because it's the only way to match that power

Not necessarily. You can also take the honest -- the slower and in the long run more satisfying way. It will certainly cost you some of your "friends". But you will at least be true to yourself.

As for honest people winning: What if the true human impulse is to be dishonest? And the honest are not to win anyway?

 

[wesmorris]

Rosa and Jenyar:

The end game is unfortunately, survival. I agree with both of you on principle, however the point was that if I gain more power than you through dishonest means, sometimes dishonest means are required to equalize the power; hence wars and such. All it takes is for someone to simply not care about the ethical implicaitons of their actions to put you in a position that might mean fight or flight. If it's hundreds of people against you alone, dishonesty (a charade for instance) might be required to survive. If your ethics are more important than your survival, you will die and the unethical killers will remain. I'm talking about an extreme case of course, but I use it to make the point of reality:

When your survival (or that of your family, or everything in your life you deem as good) is on the line, I'd think that the value of ethics diminishes inversely to the level of impending threat.

I'd say terrorism is a prime example of this. I'd guess in the mind of the average terrorist, their original set of ethics is skewed into vengance and righteousness (as it is perhaps with most militant rebels, unless it's just a testosterone thing or something). Things they value highly are unavailable to them, or have been stripped from them. The resultant tension skews their minds to a bitter focus. They can justify anything (like kidnapping and beheading people, or deliberately killing children) to seek relief to that tension. Our principles, the ethics we deem so universal... they don't much matter in the face of the determined killer.

 

[wesmorris]

One cannot play the victim and still love oneself. -- This is a painful discovery for the passive aggressive.

I agree, but many are not so wise. They invite their bitterness. I was off on a tangent about the fact that some WILL play the victim regardless that it is undesirable from a rational perspective. I've stayed on that tangent for a while and have just realized I'm not sure how it related back to the topic. I am now a rambling schmuck.

True. Blurt out judgements, at noone in particular, and see the insecure shrink into themselves, the self-conscious doubt themselves. The passive aggressive point fingers at others.

... and the healthy ego thinks "what the hell?" ?

Note that thereby you'd commit at least a strawman, if not also a slippery slope, hasty generalization and some other logical fallacies. Come to think of "being rational and trying to follow logical thought" ...

I agree. That's basically what I'm describing. The deal is though, many slip. Their opinion however, do not lose weight... nor do the consequences of their actions. As this slope leads to a bitter valley, the likelihood of an impasse in dealing with that individual increases. Since many cannot avoid the slope, conflict is implicit. As a rational character, all you can do is try to minimize the impact.

How does this relate to respect? Shit I don't know now. Ack.

There are some practical problems with this: Online, the spirit in which things are offered is not always easy to recognize. In fact, it is very easy to misjudge.

Definately. For whatever reason I was talking about the person who doesn't consider that and so to them it doesn't impact their behavior towards you.

So, when initially meeting new people, depending on what you hope from them, of course, I think that it is good to use some more neutral language.

I figure I just act like me and assist if I sense I've hurt someone, then explain what a dork I am and blah blah. I figure if you can't handle that we probably don't have much chemistry anyway.

Ah, so I get it now. I forgot.. "taking offense". Right, I actually had a point that whole time I swear. *clears throat* Okay so what I was trying to do was simply point out that some bastards are going to take offense no matter what and offense begat anger and anger begat war blah blah blah.

Alright, hold your horses -- but personally, I have a mind to behave as ladylike as possible. And foul language is just not a part of that. Not that I would feel easily offended by foul language, I just don't deem it ladylike.

I can appreciate that. Perfectly cool. I just learned to behave "wesleylike" instead. It works okay.

I almost went into a stuart smalley rant there. Ack.

It has been mentioned before that PC is probably closely connected with seeing a very large group of people as your tribe, a group much much larger than a tribe can be.

Where was it mentioned (approximately?)? At least what context? Who mentioned it? Did I subconsciously rip someone off?

In such circumstances, certain kinds of behaviour are observable that seem dishonest at the level of a smaller group though.

Probably not to the person who is engaging in the behavior, but yes of course. Ego unchecked promotes denial. The dishonesty is in the authority I think, er at least that's the only part I could think of right away.

I.e. If someone considers himself a close friend of mine, yet is PC even in private, I'd consider him dishonest.

I'm with that.

Not necessarily. You can also take the honest -- the slower and in the long run more satisfying way.

Even when your child is hanging from a meathook and you've got your laser site on the killer's forehead? I would be quite far beyond offended by that sight. I think I'd be vindictive. I think my ethics would be "pull the trigger" but I don't know for sure of course - thankfully. I don't believe in revenge because I haven't been pushed to it. I can't say that I couldn't be. I suppose we could just say 'ethics are transitional'? Hehe.

I wonder though if that would mean I'd be offended by things I wasn't offended by before.

Either way, this scenario plays itself out all the time in some way or another... people's threshold for skewing their values and ethics are different for everyone in every scenario. If I find myself in screwed over by a clerk, will slash his tires? Will I piss in his soup? I wouldn't, but shit it seems like a lot of people do.

It will certainly cost you some of your "friends". But you will at least be true to yourself.

Well, so far I'm with you but I can imagine circumstances that could drastically change my perspective, and I've been rambling on about it for a long, potentially annoying time. I'm indefinate about the value of this tangent at the moment.

As for honest people winning: What if the true human impulse is to be dishonest? And the honest are not to win anyway?

The always honest are at the biggest disadvantage in many short-term scenarios, some of which may lead down paths that demand dishonesty or death. I don't know if the honest are not to win anyway.. honestly I think it's a wash and we are all players to our own nature. Honesty and dishonesty in the context of social interactions pretty much cancel one another out in the long term it would seem. I suppose it depends on what you mean by winning. If controlling you mercilessly is my goal, I win much easier with dishonesty. If promoting your health and my own is my goal, the honest person wins. If survival is your goal... I dunno I still think dishonesty has the upper hand, but then again honesty is pretty powerful... ack, but really good dishonesty is just as powerful. Yeah it's a damned wash I guess.

 

[water]

The end game is unfortunately, survival. I agree with both of you on principle, however the point was that if I gain more power than you through dishonest means, sometimes dishonest means are required to equalize the power; hence wars and such. All it takes is for someone to simply not care about the ethical implicaitons of their actions to put you in a position that might mean fight or flight. If it's hundreds of people against you alone, dishonesty (a charade for instance) might be required to survive. If your ethics are more important than your survival, you will die and the unethical killers will remain. I'm talking about an extreme case of course, but I use it to make the point of reality:

When your survival (or that of your family, or everything in your life you deem as good) is on the line, I'd think that the value of ethics diminishes inversely to the level of impending threat.

Sure. I can understand how the debate naturally came to this point. This very issue has been discussed in Respect is a modern luxury .


From there:

When it comes to practical real life morality, it is about choices that are usually regarded as "second-best", meaning that if others behave immorally, one could distance oneself both from what others are doing, as well as from the behaviour that would have to be accepted in an ideal situation of a universally moral behaviour.

If one would act blindly on the basis of the ethical rule that is not sensitive to context (go strictly by the Jewish scriptures in this case), that wouldn't be a sign of autonomous behaviour, and it would also be to one's own demise.

To act blindly on the basis of the ethical rule is frequent with persons who need rules and avoid ethical judgements. Even though they may appear to be the paradigms of morality and autonomy, they actually lack both.

A most ethical life means to break the rules that have become too narrow for a certain situation.

And this is what the Jews did when they accepted Schindler's help: It would be to their own demise to blindly follow their scriptorial rules. In that given situation, the ideal option for them was to give in to the Nazis, and come what may, while the second-best option was to hope for salvation from Schindler, at least optically a Nazi himself.​

So if I am being played with, to take a more benign, but very common example of dishonesty, I could simply play back, pretend, be dishonest in return.

Yet this an-eye-for-an-eye-and-a-tooth-for-a-tooth logic will not make the world a better place, it will not solve any problems in the long run.

It is possible that even though others behave immorally, one can distance oneself both from what others are doing, as well as from the behaviour that would have to be accepted in an ideal situation of a universally moral behaviour.

You can see this often at SF when there is a flame war.
Someone starts the flame, and the way the attacked respond is usually one of these:
a) Attack back, flame back.
b) Play the victim.
c) Leave without saying anything.
d) Saying, "It's not worth arguing with you" or "Your attitude is uncalled for, I have been nice to you" and similar context dependent responses.

Option a is the most frequent, followed by b.
Option c tends to be rare (sometimes it is a victim in disguise who will use other means to get his right).
Option d is the rarest, but in my view, best. Of course, if you want to behave that way, then you yourself have to have a history of honest conduct, with clear motives.