The next time you see someone romanticizing the aesthetics of some antisocial behavior that you find repulsive, then you'll know how it feels to be on the other side of this discussion.
I hear what you're saying, and I think it's true that some people react with hostility when confronted with some of this stuff, but separate from the actual values, this article describes a destructive and unproductive social dynamic. I think the most interesting bit is that the author describes similar cannibalistic dynamics happening in neo-nazi subcultures. Whether the values here are worthy is beside the point.
Questioning the moral standing of those who would criticize the dynamic itself isn't useful or worthwhile. It conflates interpersonal confrontation (useful, good, corrective, it's how we build each other up) with a zillion passersby hurling invective at a guy who, in this case, found it so troubling to have a mass of people condemn him on a moral spectrum that is very dear to him that he ended up suicidal.
Yeah it’s a blight of origins I cannot comprehend, to be blunt. Upbringing? Harsh parents? Bullying? Whenever I do see it however it’s a self destructive force, and people who have directly expressed these feelings to me before often have another more sinister feeling to go with it, usually in the sphere of arrogance, contempt, malice, or some sort of righteous indignation that the world isn’t fair. Give these people the opportunity to cast others out, I’ve little hope they would hold themselves back from lashing out at those they perceive as “worse, but seen in more positive light” than them.
Seen as such, these articles do little to show the authors attempting to turn the other cheek as much as they try to justify and reframe their negativity.
You can believe that certain actions people do are wrong with demeaning them as subhuman evil beings. In fact, if you want them to stop doing those things you dislike without resorting to physical violence, acknowledging our shared humanity is the first step.
I generally agree with you. My "begrudging" was mostly misdirected anger at the parent poster's attitude of labeling as "flawed personality" the act of very rarely and softly lashing out at society every now and then. Society only gets nasty when we forget its purpose and add too many restrictive rules on top of it and then rationalizations for those rules and so on...
When you're defending malicious attacks on people's characters, for the crime of having the wrong thoughtful opinion, on the basis that "life is rough", you've hit rock bottom.
That's not even a defense of the behavior, just an acknowledgement that people do bad things. You could say the same thing about any bad behavior, up to and including mass murder. Welcome to Earth, where people do such things!
I guess the unfortunate reality is that many of the people who engage in the behaviors that make people feel isolated go on the defensive when the harmfulness of their behavior is highlighted.
This is interesting. Voicing an unpopular opinion is not "agreeable", but if you can't ever act on your truth, you may as well not have ever had it.
My comment, in the context of yours, comes across as childishly excusing/justifying antisocial behaviour. I'm not sure what to thinkn= of that. But I just meant that tendencies tend to transfer.
You're talking about the idea of some one who hurts and abuses other people no longer being allowed to be a part of polite society, and the people that want that to be the case, like its a bad thing.
It is just mind boggling. Do you read your own comments?
I think it balances it out. People have a need to express their 'dark side' because so much of what we would normally say or do is suppressed by fear of what others would think of us or other types of social mores. Often we learn where the lines are by crossing them and either feeling shitty about it or being reprimanded for it. But if things were opposite, if we lived in a world of dark ugliness, there'd be the same longing for an escape into beauty, peace, and politeness.
Have you read about T-Shirt Hell shutting down? ( http://bit.ly/YkX4 ) Is it unfortunate that they existed to begin with, or unfortunate that they're closing? Some of us may have strong opinions about it, but I'd be most of us would say that as a whole, most people would find the issue ambiguous... that the lines aren't clear.
In some cases, the lines are clear. Spitting on someone is unacceptable. Maliciously harming someone is unacceptable. But in other cases, let's say humor, the lines aren't clear at all. And it's because we, as a society, don't make our opinions heard, clearly or even through signals like frown power ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Frown%20Power ). We need to tell people doing something offensive that it's offensive, and why. We need to tell people telling someone that things that _aren't_ offensive are offensive are wrong, and why.
Otherwise, people are going to continue to repress things they'd like to do/say, and it will continue to be spewed forth in concentrated venom.
The underlying motivation is to have assholes take a closer look at themselves instead of continuously blaming those around them for what ultimately is the result of their own actions.
If this struck such a nerve with you, then you may want to take a step back and re-evaluate why you're so deeply triggered by people advocating for introspection instead of deflection.
It's pretty clear from your comment you won't, but that's a separate issue.
You're right, it is hard to do. But a little compassion and empathy goes a long way. Publically calling someone polarizing and creepy might feel good, but it is hurtful and unhelpful.
As someone that spent a couple years incarcerated, I tried to look at people using excrement as a weapon as a consequence of asymmetrical warfare. You have to learn to relate to people like that, so contempt isn't a good option.
Nobody takes an L in the marketplace of ideas anymore. If people don't like something that you do, you can just say they have a type of derangement syndrome, or it's because they have a need to be angry about something, or because they're afraid of change, or so on. The key is to make sure that your accusation is broad and vague.
It allows one to achieve a view where they don't judge others in an attempt to speak for them as you have done here. While you can imagine someone patting themselves on the back for being aesthetic, the reality is that is only occurring vividly in your own mind, and not out here. If someone was indeed patting themselves on the back out here for these things, that is a separate problem created of their own judgement. Speaking for other's actions leading to judgement is itself viral irrationality, as doing so only spreads the behavior and irrationality further into the aggregate.
For the nerds here, I present this as a recursive pattern which spreads by being computationally inefficient. Software bloat, maybe?
As an aside, when I talk about a "dissonance" button for social media sites, your comment would be a perfect example of when to push it. That's not to say your leading question and comment on others future irrational actions shouldn't be allowed, but I think that it's important to call out content that is potentially "messy" in nature due to it's own innate ability to spread to others without your intervention (after saying it, of course). Maybe limiting replies to such "comments" would be one way to increase the overall aesthetic.
reply