Mob wrangling

[zanfur]

I often do things that anger people.

Yeah, what else is new, right? Everyone does. One of the things that's somewhat different, in my case, is that I often know I'm doing it. I often do it on purpose, knowing that it will anger someone.

Comments

[mjtheanarchist]

And you don't like ethics??

Ok. I'll be very straight and upfront with you next time I intend to slash your tires. ;)

[zanfur]

No, I don't like ethics. I find them fairly useless, beyond the whole "understanding how other people think" bit. It's not like I can predict how someone will act by knowing what they think is ethical. It's just another post-mortem rationalization that people use to feel better about themselves.

Yeah, them's fightin' words. Whatever.

[galith]

This is a very provocative post. I'm kind of curious what triggered it.

At the level of broad strokes I think I agree with you; it's very important to have the people you're close to "play strait" with you, and it's better to be rejected sooner rather than later by the people who you aren't going to mesh well with. It's also important to avoid setting up patterns of behavior where you find it difficult to avoid committing to doing things you really would rather not be doing.

However, I find your argument way to simplistic. You draw a dichotomy between "being somewhat aggressively stubborn" and "being a doormat" and then explain why 'being somewhat aggressively stubborn' is your preferred path. I believe this dichotomy is false, and it is preferably to avoid both ends of the “aggressively stubborn <-> doormat” continuum. At least in most situations

[zanfur]

Of all the people that would read this, I was hoping for your input the most. Thanks

[zanfur]

Gave me a lot to think about, here

[galith]

"If you need some control over me to accept me, well ... I'd rather you reject me."This statement, when taken in isolation and to an extreme (which is of course, unfair, but I’m going to do it anyway), is completely ridiculous. Of course people need some degree of control over others in order to accept them! At the most basic level in order to accept someone I need to know that I am capable of exerting enough control over their actions (however indirectly) to prevent them from becoming a threat to my physical existence. I would also really like the control to prevent them from becoming a threat to anything else I care about, and ideally I want a kind of control that will allow me to guide their actions to work in service of the things I care about

[zanfur]

You know me so well. Yes, "obligate" is the key concept. If people need to be obligated to them in some way before they'll accept me, I'd rather they reject me. I think that's a much clearer way of stating what I was trying to say. I think it's actually that I simply dislike people who use guilt (or whatever you call the driving force behind obligations) or deceit for control. Other types of control I'm fine with -- for instance, convincing me of your views by giving me corroborating data is something I'm fine with, although it's just another way of influencing people

[galith]

There's even the arrogant bit about how if you learn how to deal with me, you'll be more able to play well with others in general -- which I truly believe, arrogant as it is.

I think this is definitely true. You are very good training for playing well with others. My only concern here is that the intensity of the training regime you offer might be a bit too harsh for many people, especially when they don’t feel they have any easy way to turn said training regime off when they feel they need a breather.

Also, I'm pretty sure this is a post would fall within the domain of "ethics", whether you like the label or not. Basically you are explaining (and defending) a particular way of living, and making an implicit argument that there is value in living that way. That’s ethics, or at least ‘descriptive ethics’ (to make up a term), at least in my way of understanding the world.

[zanfur]

Well, this post is, among other things, just another post-mortem rationalization that I use to feel better about myself, but I consider it to be of a different sort than ethics.

I draw a line between "why I act how I act" and "why you should act how you should act". I'm not trying to convince anyone to adopt my view, or my reasons, or my actions, or even that they're moral or right ... just trying to explain what they are, and explain why I find value in them. This, to me, differentiates it from what most people consider "ethics", as it's neither stating anything about the morality of actions nor about what anyone else should do.

If you still feel inclined to call that ethics -- and hey, the word means so many different things to so many different people, who am I to disagree? -- I just want to point out that it's a particularly amoral and non-obligated form of it, that isn't trying to convince anyone how to act. Or how they should act.

[goldfish42]

I once heard the difference between morals and ethics described as "how you think everyone should act" versus "how you think you yourself should act." When people ask if I am a "moral" person, I tend to squirm, because I don't like the implication that there is some "universal" standard, and I think many intelligent people feel the same. But holding yourself to a certain standard and having feelings about what is good behavior for yourself? That is different, no?

[zanfur]

I think it's very similar. If it's merely your own standard, then it's hardly a standard. If it can be labeled "good" then it's being measured against somethingI do think there's a large difference between telling yourself how to think or act and telling others how to think or act