As My Returning Post...
Nov. 30th, 2007 06:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magicaddict...after a couple of weeks away, I was going to update with what's been going on. I can do that now.
Bugger all. Ah'thang'you.
Unfortunately, the post I was moved to write instead has been done to death by me and no-one's taken any notice before, so I thought I wouldn't bother and instead shrink my sentiment down into a simple mathematical equation. For those with a diplomacy modifer.
You have given insult + You did not intend to give insult ≠ You have not given insult.
I will repeat that in purely textual form.
You have given insult PLUS You did not intend to give insult DOES NOT EQUAL You have not given insult.
If you are reading this post, and give a flying fuck about those you address when you speak or write, there may be some merit to factoring this in your thinking. Some of you might do so already.
Some of you definitely do not.
Bugger all. Ah'thang'you.
Unfortunately, the post I was moved to write instead has been done to death by me and no-one's taken any notice before, so I thought I wouldn't bother and instead shrink my sentiment down into a simple mathematical equation. For those with a diplomacy modifer.
You have given insult + You did not intend to give insult ≠ You have not given insult.
I will repeat that in purely textual form.
You have given insult PLUS You did not intend to give insult DOES NOT EQUAL You have not given insult.
If you are reading this post, and give a flying fuck about those you address when you speak or write, there may be some merit to factoring this in your thinking. Some of you might do so already.
Some of you definitely do not.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 07:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 08:19 pm (UTC)You have given insult + You did not intend to give insult = You do not deserve to be punished for giving the insult.
It is, after all, the thought that counts.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 08:40 pm (UTC)It's the perception of the thought that counts.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 08:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 01:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 07:42 am (UTC)My own opinion, developed over many years, is that people ar wholly responsible for their own actions, and this includes any reactions they may have to other people's actions.
The person who feels offended has a responsibility to examine their reaction and determine whether by making their feelings the problem of the 'offender' they are imposing their belief system on that person. This, in my mind, is unacceptable. So when people do it to me, I feel no responsibility towards their damaged sensibilities.
It took me a long time to get over my Catholic upbringing (which I now see as a form of child abuse, thanks to Richard Dawkins opening my eyes). Part of that is that feelings of guilt are self-imposed. It is a choice to feel guilty about one's actions (or inactions). So long as you are clear in your own mind about your reasons and motivations for acting the way you do, and are at peace with them, then you never need to feel guilty about anything you do, even if other people mask their own inadequacies by projecting them onto you in the form of 'being offended'.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 02:38 pm (UTC)In this particular case, it's hard to tell whether the initial offence was meant to be given, maliciously or without caring, or if it was just negativity in the process of offering constructive criticism.
I'm inclined to assume the goal was to offer constructive criticism, simply for the sake of blinding myself to reality - in which case, part of achieving the goal is to structure the criticism in such a fashion that it will be heard, listened to, and incorporated into a revised structure. That wasn't successfully done in this case (or even attempted, as far as I can tell), so my base feeling is that they should be partly responsible for the negative reaction.
(am half way through my first encounter with Mr Dawkins actually - very interesting stuff, too early to recommend and I don't like all of his language tone, but I suspect I'm going to be finding more of his work, once I've been through some of the sources)
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 03:27 pm (UTC)What I'm trying to say is that each individual is responsible for the consequences of their actions, including any hurt they cause, but if the hurt was unintentional, and their actions were true to themselves, then they should not feel guilty over said hurt, and nor should they accept any attempt to punish them as if it were intentional. They may, if they so wish, act to alleviate the unintentional hurt.
In the case of intentional hurt, it is widely acceptable (within the society in which it happens) in many situations. For example, for at least 10 years out of the last 100 it was perfectly acceptable for an Englishman to kill or maim a German (and vice versa) in large parts of the world.
At a more parochial level, I am perfectly at ease with calling, say, a person who drives their kids 2 miles to school in a 4x4 when they have perfectly operational legs at their disposal a complete tosser - and will do so to their faces if the occasion arises. I wouldn't feel in the least bit concerned at their hurt feelings.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 04:32 pm (UTC)When someone causes hurt, regardless of whether or not it was intended, they have still caused it. Your suggestion that because they didn't intend it they are exonerated of all blame is wholly wrong in my opinion. I shudder to think of what people could get away with - hey, what they do get away with - because they couldn't express theselves without taking an inadvertant stab at someone, and being free to carry on because it's the injured party's fault if they take offense.
It lays open the door for absent minded or casual cruelty, and gives some semblance of moral high ground. There I few things I dislike more.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 06:36 pm (UTC)But that's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm saying is that they ARE responsible for the effects of their actions. The point I am trying to make is that, just as murder is different from manslaughter, intentional hurt is different from unintentional hurt, and no-one should accept being punished for the former when they are responsible for the latter.
Moreover, those who act as if every hurt they receive is intentional are behaving in a way that is, to my mind, wholly unacceptable.
The Sudanese mobs calling for the death of Ms Gibbons are completely and utterly in the wrong. The Sudanese courts, likewise, who feel they have the right to arrest try and punish Ms Gibbons are also in the wrong, because they are punishing her for deliberately insulting religion when that was clearly not her intention. Her only intention, so far as I can tell, was to allow the children to have their choice of name for the teddy bear. It wasn't even her choice to name the bear Mohammed.
When people make mistakes, as they are bound to do, then the first reaction of a rational person should be to alert them to the situation, and then give them ample opportunity to amend their behaviour, and/or make amends for those previous actions. Assuming that every effect of every action that someone makes was both forseen and intended is effectively expecting people to be godlike in their behaviour. People who do that are acting irrationally, and are in my opinion wholly responsible for any hurt they receive as a result.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 10:27 pm (UTC)I concur that if hurt was caused unintentionally then the causer of that should not feel guilt over it. However, I would have to couple that with an expectation that they see a need to alleviate that hurt, where such is then causing hurt to another, either specifically or in general.
I propose that not feeling such is contrary to their personal good whilst co-existing within society - by alienating the other member of their social context, they're damaging their own position within that society.
(you'll probably gather from that that I will strongly argue against the existence of any action or occurrence that can be covered by the dictionary definition of altruism, and one of my current dislikes of Richard Dawkins is that he seems to be using the word liberally without first redefining it)
Being specific, to the example you give - there is acceptable evidence for the damaging effect of climate change and a case can be made for 4x4s used in such a fashion being an irresponsible act that brings about general hurt, thus there's no need to feel guilt for inadvertent hurt when such occurs. By the standard of personal suffering, whether couched in terms of long term survival or simply in terms of "green" taxes levied to counteract such things that hit you too, there's no compulsion to redress that hurt either. However walking across the street to call them a tosser to their faces isn't appropriate in my assessment.
The deciding factor to the action and whether it should be redressed is to consider the objective: in this instance you want the individual in question to change their behaviour pattern and their thinking on the subject. Do you think a verbal attack will cause that? Or is it more likely to put their backs up and entrench them in the "I can do what I like, it's my car, my money" stance? If you agree with the latter being more likely, perhaps you'd agree that calling them a tosser to their faces is actually an act of self harm, by roundabout means?
Your other example is also interesting - do you support it being acceptable for those 10 years an Englishman to maim or kill a German? If so, why was it acceptable to cause harm to that individual? (I assume you're talking about two periods of war amalgamated - kick me if I'm wrong)
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 11:38 pm (UTC)I admit that my hypothetical course of action might not change behaviour. However the generality of social disapproval, embodied in 'green' taxes and other more indirect methods is what we are all trying to create. Making it socially unacceptable to waste fossil energy is the objective, and every little helps, even if a single incident does not precipitate behavioural change in a single induhvidual.
I certainly support the idea that the overthrow of Hitler was a just cause and necessary, and in that cause certain things that, taken on their own, would be considered atrocities can be justified. I am thinking about the mass bombing raids on german cities here.
The first world war is less clear cut. In the end it was all about intra-european imperialsim between Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and France. England and the rest of the British empire only got involved because Germany decided to invade France through Belgium, whose neutrality we were sworn to uphold. It was, in the final analysis, a completely moronic war, and the only people who came out of it with any merit were the conscientious objectors who got shot for their refusal to take part.
I think the people taking part were mostly wondering why we weren't killing the French like we're supposed to.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-03 01:07 pm (UTC)Does the hypothetical course of action assist or detract from the process of making it socially unacceptable though? By acting as the aggressor and creating insult and offence, are you not cutting out the thinking part of the response and going straight to fight or flight? Flight gains you nothing, as behaviour won't change once they're removed from your presence (and when there's no further room for flight, it becomes fight). Fight won't change anything except to possibly cause damage to one or both sides. Only if fight is adopted as a general solution does fight resolve anything.
I am thinking about the mass bombing raids on german cities here.
More difficult to designate, however the well spring of the particular incident is the fight or flight response to Hitler's attempt to change everyone's stance on the subject of Germany, ie that all countries were in fact Germany, if they thought about it really hard. Lacking evidence, he attempted to carry out tests to establish and for a long time experimentation seemed to support the hypothesis.
Whether or not one side behaved better than the other in the course of the resolution will depend a lot on how backed into a corner one side feels. Have nukes? Running out of your own country? Use 'em. Not like you're going to be around to care if you don't.
The first world war is less clear cut.
From my limited GCSE study, I must applaud the understatement - a lot of what I remember is the semi-childish "I'll stop moving troops if you stop moving troops!" "You stop first!".
My main memory of that education is that in simulations I killed more troops at the Battle of the Somme than the original generals did, and our small corner of rpers playing out the three leaders setting the Treaty of Versailles were still bickering the first point when everyone else in the class had finished the entire treaty.
In both cases though, my stand point would be that the causes could have been prevented by people trying to consider the best method of persuading the other side to their point of view. Oh, I've missed a word. Rationally.
For example, the US is being much more rational about world conquest than 1940's Germany - Ronald McDonald is a more famous figure amongst kids than Jesus, a shining hero to save them from mum's instant meals.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-01 07:43 pm (UTC)Hope you're okay.