A discussion on gun control by a great friend of mine kickstarted the gears in my head yesterday. In particular, the topic of compromise between two "sides" came up and I started to think about that.
In an earlier post, I discussed Aristotle's idea of the Golden Mean at some point- the concept that a virtue lies between two opposing extremes.
For example, in the realm of eating, one extreme is self-starvation, while the opposing extreme is over-indulgence, leaving the golden mean to be found in the middle- something akin to "eating as necessary and when appropriate."
Obviously, the Golden Mean leaves for some wiggle room as the mid-point for two extremes is typically kind of subjective.
However, so long as you can agree on the perspective from which to approach an issue, the Golden Mean is a fabulous method of determining a virtue.
So, what's the problem? The beef I have with it isn't actually one of abstract principle, but rather one of practicality.
The Golden Mean is too narrow, being focused on one particular action while failing to account for any complex scenarios that include a multitude of actions or motivations. As such, there is no Golden Mean between being Conservative and being Liberal because those two aren't actions, but are instead, ideologies. Because of this conundrum, we've come to a point in our political discourse where people, from basic learning to higher education and beyond, have mistaken compromise for merely the mid-point between two current opposing views.
It sounds like the Golden Mean and it sounds like it should work... Until you examine it further. Since we're not dealing with a single action or trait, determining actual extremes is incredibly difficult and entirely based on cultural perspective.
To simply this argument (since I know I'm being nebulous right now), let's go back to the action of eating and combine it with the liberal and conservative ideologies.
Look at this line as the continuum for eating as an action where the left-hand extreme is total self-starvation, where the right-hand extreme is eating literally all the time:
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
It's a large continuum to be sure. Now, say in this analogy that "liberals" have made up a group that almost half of the country can get behind- these people want to eat three meals a day with snacks in between for enjoyment. And let's say that "conservatives" have made up a group with almost half the country supporting it as well. They want to keep it down to two meals a day without snacks in between. Now, our continuum looks a little something like this.
|------------------------------!---------------------------------------------?-----------------------------------|
The question mark representing "liberals" and the exclamation mark representing "conservatives. Right now, they're equally spread apart and roughly equidistant from each endpoint. Equally extreme ideologies. However, let's say that over the next ten years, "liberals" remain the same, while "conservatives" seek to cut the number of meals in a day down to one. Our continuum is adjusted accordingly.
|----------!------------------------------------------------------------------?----------------------------------|
Now that one group is skewed further towards the one extreme than the other group towards their extreme, we have a bit of a different issue.
If we try to find a midpoint between both sides- a compromise, if you will, it looks a bit like this:
|----------!------------------------------+------------------------------------?----------------------------------|
Where the plus is the compromise, we see a mid-point between the two groups. However, it's not a midpoint between the two poles. As such, the "compromise" is still not the Golden Mean. This is because either side is capable of artificially pushing or pulling the boundaries of what we consider the two "extremes," and it's what happens when we view groups as extremes rather than traits or actions.
Push this into the political sphere and suddenly, it makes a little more sense.
If conservatives have a massive push for creationism in school and liberals have a push to leave religion and school separate, wouldn't the midpoint between the two- the compromise- be to have some religious-based education in schools?
Obviously, we can see where that argument breaks down.
If we're allowed to artificially push back the goal posts for what is "extreme," then one side is entirely capable of pushing their side further back, not out of actual conviction for their ideology, but solely to make the "midpoint" between the two "extremes" further to their own side.
To bring this back to the food analogy, let's say that "liberals" don't want to eat any more than they previously said. They want three meals and snacks. However, if they're forced to compromise, why not push back their position to "eating all the time constantly"? Then the continuum would look like this.
|----------!-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------?|
The compromise is not slightly to the right of the middle. So, even though "liberals" in this case do not want the position they're advocating for, it benefits them to hold that position regardless since we're working within the confines of this compromise-based political sphere.
As a system, it's clearly unsound. To bring it into reality, I would say that it's become apparent that the Republicans have artificially pushed their position further to the extreme recently. Whether this has been too force the midpoint further in their direction, or if it's actually due to conviction cannot technically be proven, but the end is still the same. In order to compromise with a new radical element, new concessions must be made by Democrats despite their overall positions changing a relatively small amount over the same period of time.
If it feels a little like we're being cheated, that's because we are thanks to this system of compromise.
But what do we do then?
Well, I don't have a good answer, because the only solution I can think of relies on individuals to make an ethical decision to seek the Golden Mean in their lives.
The GM between avarice and total humility lies somewhere near "making what you earn and living at/below your means."
The GM for punishing wrongdoing may be in the middle of "letting them go," and "killing them and their whole family." (or whatever the harshest punishment you can inflict is)
Perhaps- "Community service, rehabilitation, and reparations towards the person(s) you harmed."
The GM for having protection between "no one has any weaponry," and "everyone has every weaponry" might be to have a well-regulated body whose specific duty is overseeing the protection of innocents- and only this body would have weaponry.
However, as I mentioned earlier, the more broad we get, the harder it is to find a Golden Mean, since we're talking about more than just a single action or trait. As such, all three of the examples I just gave are all somewhat subjective and tentative. All three could have extenuating circumstances and the perspective from which you approach each individual issue has an impact on where you see the extremes.
It's complicated.
-
Wad
Friday, January 18, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
Shaming some Shamers
Short post tonight because feel like poop (that's how you craft a coherent sentence, yes?).
I feel I need to call out some behavior that I've seen recently from friends and acquaintances of mine who I thought were more in touch with gender issues.
Alcohol.
I know plenty of people, myself included, who are completely willing to call out sexism as it happens in most situations.
So why is it, then, that a healthy percentage of these same people will adhere to and even invoke sexism in the realm of alcohol?
Chuggin' Milwaukee's best makes you a man now? You're tough because you do shots instead of of mixed drinks? He's a girl because he likes Smirnoff Ice? You're somehow better than someone in a weird primordial strength scale because your body holds alcohol better than someone else?
What the fuck is this shit?
Come on, people. I know some of you who flip out when someone says something misogynistic, but you're willing to perpetuate these shitty gendered ideas that what you choose to drink to get hammered with has any impact on how studly you are? It's a matter of taste, opinion, and sensory desire. It's subjective- 100% different based on the person, regardless of how tough or cool they are.
You know what you sound like when you brag about how you can do shots?
You sound like this. More specifically, you sound like the entire scene (no good full scene on youtube) including Spongebob bragging that he stubbed his toe while watering his spice garden- and he only cried for 20 minutes.
It's subjective. You're perpetuating something stupid and it makes you look like an idiot while you're doing it.
[Short and angry. I'll get better one of these days]
-
Wad
I feel I need to call out some behavior that I've seen recently from friends and acquaintances of mine who I thought were more in touch with gender issues.
Alcohol.
I know plenty of people, myself included, who are completely willing to call out sexism as it happens in most situations.
So why is it, then, that a healthy percentage of these same people will adhere to and even invoke sexism in the realm of alcohol?
Chuggin' Milwaukee's best makes you a man now? You're tough because you do shots instead of of mixed drinks? He's a girl because he likes Smirnoff Ice? You're somehow better than someone in a weird primordial strength scale because your body holds alcohol better than someone else?
What the fuck is this shit?
Come on, people. I know some of you who flip out when someone says something misogynistic, but you're willing to perpetuate these shitty gendered ideas that what you choose to drink to get hammered with has any impact on how studly you are? It's a matter of taste, opinion, and sensory desire. It's subjective- 100% different based on the person, regardless of how tough or cool they are.
You know what you sound like when you brag about how you can do shots?
You sound like this. More specifically, you sound like the entire scene (no good full scene on youtube) including Spongebob bragging that he stubbed his toe while watering his spice garden- and he only cried for 20 minutes.
It's subjective. You're perpetuating something stupid and it makes you look like an idiot while you're doing it.
[Short and angry. I'll get better one of these days]
-
Wad
Saturday, January 12, 2013
I'm bad about updating
It's been a week of stress, so I've been particularly lousy about updating the blog.
I'm also slowing down on rants these days, since I've covered many of the basic topics that I actually know something about.
This means if I want to keep it up, I'll need to do research prior to each blog post, which leads me to a question for all three of my viewers--
Would you rather see me continue my stream-of-consciousness style posts that are thrice a week, or would you rather see one a week that is probably longer and better written with maybe a citation or two?
Both seem like viable options, but it's also 4:50 in the morning, so that might just be my sleep-addled mind jumping to dumb conclusions again...
Either way, throw a post on my Facebook wall if you have a strong opinion either way.
Sorry again for the lack of content for the week!
(Funny story though, I was caught with my foot totally in my mouth on Facebook today. Find my post where I share a link on the "science behind the friendzone" or whatever.
I stand by a point or two, but for the most part, my academic background had leaked out of my head and I agreed with something that wasn't nearly as well-written as I'd originally thought)
-
Waddles
I'm also slowing down on rants these days, since I've covered many of the basic topics that I actually know something about.
This means if I want to keep it up, I'll need to do research prior to each blog post, which leads me to a question for all three of my viewers--
Would you rather see me continue my stream-of-consciousness style posts that are thrice a week, or would you rather see one a week that is probably longer and better written with maybe a citation or two?
Both seem like viable options, but it's also 4:50 in the morning, so that might just be my sleep-addled mind jumping to dumb conclusions again...
Either way, throw a post on my Facebook wall if you have a strong opinion either way.
Sorry again for the lack of content for the week!
(Funny story though, I was caught with my foot totally in my mouth on Facebook today. Find my post where I share a link on the "science behind the friendzone" or whatever.
I stand by a point or two, but for the most part, my academic background had leaked out of my head and I agreed with something that wasn't nearly as well-written as I'd originally thought)
-
Waddles
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
I'm mad about the fiscal cliff
....
Yeah, that about wraps up my feelings on the topic.
(Sorry, I'm dead tired.)
I'll try to get something more substantial out on the topic tomorrow.
The super brief version:
Our congress artificially manufactured a crisis and then spent the last few months trying desperately to "solve it," which really meant that congressional Republicans wanted an excuse to enact more austerity measures targeting people who are already in need in lieu of raising taxes on the wealthy.
And instead of compromising, they collectively shoved their heads back up Grover Norquist's ass.
Being the pushover he is, Obama opted to compromise despite having basically all the power in the situation. If the crisis hadn't been averted, all blame would have rest squarely on the Republican members of congress, effectively ensuring even more bad publicity behind them (not that that seems to be doing any good). So, it was in the Republicans' best interest to do whatever the Democrats wanted.
This continued war over taxation on the wealthy is dumb.
It's already been proven most of these people are not small business owners (as speaker Boehner likes to claim), so the claim that they need the money is drowned out by the sound of number of yachts owned by these few rich folks.
If you take money out of social security and safety net programs, you're taking away the very necessary food and medicine that many people desperately need to help get them out of poverty.
If you tax the wealthy more, they can only take six family vacations instead of five each year (WARNING: Totally made-up consequence. In reality, wealthy people being targeted are not often at risk of running out of money, so they can still do whatever the hell they want because that's how being wealthy works).
I'm tired and I know I'm being exceedingly critical of wealthy people (intentionally geared towards the top .1% rather than simply the top 1%), but they have more than they will ever need or ever use.
The ultimate argument ends up being thus:
Should people have the freedom to be greedy jerks or not?
I'm all for the freedom to pursue happiness within reasonable bounds. If you're happiest murdering people, I have a problem with you.
If you're happiest amassing wealth solely to safeguard it and you have no plans on lubricating the economy by actually spending it, then I have a problem with you.
It's like sitting down to play a board game and creating your own win condition that makes everyone else miserable.
[I'm making a million bad arguments, and I realize this. I'm sorry, I just don't have the mental capacity right now...]
-
Wad
Yeah, that about wraps up my feelings on the topic.
(Sorry, I'm dead tired.)
I'll try to get something more substantial out on the topic tomorrow.
The super brief version:
Our congress artificially manufactured a crisis and then spent the last few months trying desperately to "solve it," which really meant that congressional Republicans wanted an excuse to enact more austerity measures targeting people who are already in need in lieu of raising taxes on the wealthy.
And instead of compromising, they collectively shoved their heads back up Grover Norquist's ass.
Being the pushover he is, Obama opted to compromise despite having basically all the power in the situation. If the crisis hadn't been averted, all blame would have rest squarely on the Republican members of congress, effectively ensuring even more bad publicity behind them (not that that seems to be doing any good). So, it was in the Republicans' best interest to do whatever the Democrats wanted.
This continued war over taxation on the wealthy is dumb.
It's already been proven most of these people are not small business owners (as speaker Boehner likes to claim), so the claim that they need the money is drowned out by the sound of number of yachts owned by these few rich folks.
If you take money out of social security and safety net programs, you're taking away the very necessary food and medicine that many people desperately need to help get them out of poverty.
If you tax the wealthy more, they can only take six family vacations instead of five each year (WARNING: Totally made-up consequence. In reality, wealthy people being targeted are not often at risk of running out of money, so they can still do whatever the hell they want because that's how being wealthy works).
I'm tired and I know I'm being exceedingly critical of wealthy people (intentionally geared towards the top .1% rather than simply the top 1%), but they have more than they will ever need or ever use.
The ultimate argument ends up being thus:
Should people have the freedom to be greedy jerks or not?
I'm all for the freedom to pursue happiness within reasonable bounds. If you're happiest murdering people, I have a problem with you.
If you're happiest amassing wealth solely to safeguard it and you have no plans on lubricating the economy by actually spending it, then I have a problem with you.
It's like sitting down to play a board game and creating your own win condition that makes everyone else miserable.
[I'm making a million bad arguments, and I realize this. I'm sorry, I just don't have the mental capacity right now...]
-
Wad
Monday, January 7, 2013
Steubenville
No.
No, no, no, no, nope.
Nope.
Have we learned nothing from Penn State?
Human rights scandals are not worth it to save your local sports team.
I don't care who you are, who they are, or how great at football anyone is, if you rape someone, you deserve to go to jail. For a long time.
And if you're dumb enough to photograph or videotape any of it, you deserve to be ruthlessly mocked for your brazen lack of foresight.
*breath*
Okay, for those who haven't followed it, Steubenville is the small town site of a recent incident in which a group of high school football players raped (documenting much of the process as well) a drunk girl at a party. No one stopped them, and despite DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, it was dismissed and swept under the rug in order to protect the integrity of the sports team because that's all that crappy little town has going for it.
Fast forward- Anonymous-- the dubious group of.... I don't really know what to call them. They seem to be just as keen on ruining lives as they are on seeing people brought to justice, so for now, let's just call them on-again-off-again-vigilantes-- released the video and photographic evidence online and generated an enormous amount of viral push to see the high school kids brought to justice.
The response from Steubenville was, originally, to completely ignore the issue, hoping it would go away. Luckily, the general public isn't fond of rape being systematically covered up, so the scandal persisted until the town's higher ups eventually got involved. And that's where we are today.
It's a continually-unfolding story, so there's not much I can report on except to shame the hell out of this town for caring more about their sports team than the violation of the basic human integrity of someone who did no wrong (beyond being an intoxicated minor).
I really don't have the heart to touch on the ethical implications of a unified decision like this by such a town. Really, I can only stumble and place the two things at stake in glaring juxtaposition to each other.
A FOOTBALL TEAM
or
JUSTICE BEING SERVED TO UNREPENTANT RAPISTS.
I don't.... I.... WHAT IS THIS?!
Anyone who knows me in-person has, at some point, heard my opinion on sports. I'm not a fan of them existing within institutions for which the purpose is education. I think the two should be separate and there should be no excuses given to someone who does poorly in education just because they excel in sports. Legal leniency should not be applied to the "star quarterback," and I don't think a school should use any of its endowment towards giving sports scholarships to anyone when there are plenty of financially disadvantaged academics yearning for the chance to obtain quality higher education.
If you like sports, that's fine. It's a totally acceptable hobby just like any other. However, I don't expect a college to pay for my education just because I'm good at Smash Brothers, and likewise, you shouldn't expect a college to pay for your education just because you can throw a ball in a hoop.
This "sports > all" mentality that drives our country leads us to be apologists for behavior like this-- totally intolerable behavior that traumatizes and destroys lives. Years of emotional damage and you don't even have the decency to punish the people responsible just because they're good at a game?!
I think you get where I'm going with this...
-
Waddles
No, no, no, no, nope.
Nope.
Have we learned nothing from Penn State?
Human rights scandals are not worth it to save your local sports team.
I don't care who you are, who they are, or how great at football anyone is, if you rape someone, you deserve to go to jail. For a long time.
And if you're dumb enough to photograph or videotape any of it, you deserve to be ruthlessly mocked for your brazen lack of foresight.
*breath*
Okay, for those who haven't followed it, Steubenville is the small town site of a recent incident in which a group of high school football players raped (documenting much of the process as well) a drunk girl at a party. No one stopped them, and despite DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, it was dismissed and swept under the rug in order to protect the integrity of the sports team because that's all that crappy little town has going for it.
Fast forward- Anonymous-- the dubious group of.... I don't really know what to call them. They seem to be just as keen on ruining lives as they are on seeing people brought to justice, so for now, let's just call them on-again-off-again-vigilantes-- released the video and photographic evidence online and generated an enormous amount of viral push to see the high school kids brought to justice.
The response from Steubenville was, originally, to completely ignore the issue, hoping it would go away. Luckily, the general public isn't fond of rape being systematically covered up, so the scandal persisted until the town's higher ups eventually got involved. And that's where we are today.
It's a continually-unfolding story, so there's not much I can report on except to shame the hell out of this town for caring more about their sports team than the violation of the basic human integrity of someone who did no wrong (beyond being an intoxicated minor).
I really don't have the heart to touch on the ethical implications of a unified decision like this by such a town. Really, I can only stumble and place the two things at stake in glaring juxtaposition to each other.
A FOOTBALL TEAM
or
JUSTICE BEING SERVED TO UNREPENTANT RAPISTS.
I don't.... I.... WHAT IS THIS?!
Anyone who knows me in-person has, at some point, heard my opinion on sports. I'm not a fan of them existing within institutions for which the purpose is education. I think the two should be separate and there should be no excuses given to someone who does poorly in education just because they excel in sports. Legal leniency should not be applied to the "star quarterback," and I don't think a school should use any of its endowment towards giving sports scholarships to anyone when there are plenty of financially disadvantaged academics yearning for the chance to obtain quality higher education.
If you like sports, that's fine. It's a totally acceptable hobby just like any other. However, I don't expect a college to pay for my education just because I'm good at Smash Brothers, and likewise, you shouldn't expect a college to pay for your education just because you can throw a ball in a hoop.
This "sports > all" mentality that drives our country leads us to be apologists for behavior like this-- totally intolerable behavior that traumatizes and destroys lives. Years of emotional damage and you don't even have the decency to punish the people responsible just because they're good at a game?!
I think you get where I'm going with this...
-
Waddles
Friday, January 4, 2013
Language and Jokes
In the first real post returning to my beautiful home with my beautiful roommates and my beautiful girlfriend (beautiful), I'm interested in dabbling in a topic that I've had no small number of disagreements about:
The way we use language and jokes.
I'm looking to tackle this due to the existence of a Tumblr gimmick account (Whether or not I should even be taking something like that seriously is another issue...) called "'Nice guys' of OKCupid" found at http://niceguysofokc.tumblr.com
Suffice it to say the blog's intention is to point out a number of males on the dating site, OK Cupid, who claim to be a nice guy, yet have traits or opinions that are inconsistent with being "nice."
The idea spawned from the phrase "nice guy," (quotations included in the actual phrase) which refers to a male who specifically claims that he is a nice guy, yet he blames women for not being romantically or sexually interested in him, while also blaming women for problems in their own lives that involve other men. These males usually have an outward disdain for "bad boys" or jocks or whatever.
Psychologically, it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that a lot of these people may have been bullied growing up, so they reject a culture that they perceive to be problematic, but they haven't grown to forgive the world, so they still blame the people around them for things that go wrong. Many of these people are socially awkward and have a bit of a superiority complex, which explains why they refuse to accept the idea that their ideology is problematic in the first place.
It's a recursive problem- If you don't have anyone in your life to point out your glaring social problems, you won't make any friends, which means you won't have anyone to help you with your social problems.
It's really a cultural creation that I would wager stems from the current discourse on gender roles in our society. We want to reject them, but many of them are so deep-seated that we don't notice when we're still enacting and perpetuating them. Conflicting role ques about masculinity cause these unfortunate souls to want to pry themselves from the culture, despite the fact that they carry many lingering ties to the culture- they're totally unaware and they haven't had anyone to correct them.
Anyway- enough digression.
One common pattern that people like to point out about the "nice guy" culture is that they tend to complain about being "friendzoned," in a negative context. The critique, as I've read it, is that this complaint suggests that these guys expect each potential romantic partner to acquiesce to their manpassion and have the funtimesex.
I'm wary of the previous critique. I don't read it as an expectation usually (although there certainly are times where that seems to be the case)- I usually read it as a pure lamentation of events in their lives.
Let me explain what I mean. In every potential romantic encounter, particularly after a lengthy spell of looking, you (collective) are not going to be happy if you find out that your interest in a partner is not reciprocated. You're left in a state of non-romance where romance was the goal and was a possibility. In lieu of referring to this a "non-reciprocated romance zone," a contemporary word to describe it was brought into existence- the friendzone.
Now personally, I'm not a huge fan of the word. It places a negative connotation on the word "friend," as though having friends is ever a bad thing, though I understand usage of the word, since it spawned from phrases similar to, "let's just be friends." It's not a phrase you want to hear as someone who is seeking a romantic partnership, hence the negative connotation. So, while I don't particularly like the word a whole lot, I understand its usage, particularly in a non-academic situation where people don't have a lot of words they can use to describe their situation.
As I said, however, there are those classy individuals who expect that certain actions ought to result in them being bedded by their romantic pursuit. These people are creeps in the same way that spouses who believe marriage means an obligation to have sex whether you want to or not are creeps. It's nothing about the word "friendzone," but rather the person who uses it.
Which brings us full circle to my intended topic. Language and how we use it.
I've heard the argument that anyone who uses the word "friendzone" seriously is an idiot. I've used it a number of times so far, but I like to think there's value in discussing how we view contemporary language. Now, perhaps the argument would be better stated as, "anyone who uses the word "friendzone" to describe a romantic situation seriously is an idiot." But even then, I'm not buying it. Like I said, I don't like the phrase, and I don't intend to ever use it in its intended context, but I do understand why someone would. I'd say it's a bit of an immature look on a current situation, but not an inaccurate one when used appropriately. Of course, when I say this, it's under the assumption that the word is being used purely descriptively, without any underlying expectation or malice.
It's obviously not someone's fault if they're not attracted to you. Nor should they be expected to do anything for you just because you're polite or whatever. However, whether you're male, female, gay, straight, bi, or any of the fluid, in-between states therein, you're still capable of having your romantic interest place you in a friendzone. And that's something we're all capable of doing. It's how romantic selection works.
If someone comes to you and asks you on a date- you agree, and you come to find that you don't like them, but you might still want to be friends? You are, by definition, placing them into the label of "friendship," that this person is not seeking (at least initially).
And as much as I'm interested in this particular word right now (because controversy, yay), I've got more ground to cover, so we'll head to other words for now-
You often hear cultural relativists tell you that words have no meaning unless you give them meaning. Which is absolutely true. And you may also hear the saying, "You cannot offend me, I can only choose to take offense at what you said." Which is also absolutely true.
However, a lot of people use these arguments poorly to suggest that we should say or do whatever it is we want in public without worrying about the consequences of causing offense. It's a tangled argument, to be sure, but it's not quite as simple as telling a racist joke just because you're not giving it meaning and expecting everyone else to follow suit.
Social interactions follow sets of unwritten rules. One such rule is that people expect you to take into consideration their comfort levels (so long as they're reasonable) in public and in private. Those comfort levels vary between those two situations, so the distinction is important. And I should note that "reasonable" comfort levels are also entirely socially defined usually based on historical context.
For example, it is unreasonable to expect that people around you don't use a common and inoffensive word, like "jerk." Contrarily, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that people around you don't use a word known almost exclusively for its offensive properties, like "nigger," or "faggot."
But, these rules can be tipped a little based on context. For example, You may not like hearing the word, but if you're in an academic setting and the words are being used academically, then it is unreasonable to expect people to avoid using them. (e.g. "The word, 'faggot,' has its etymology in...")
And we can tip these rules again when we consider private, social settings. In settings where you know everyone present closely, the social rules are a lot easier to bend, since you can be certain of who is and is not offended by what words. In social interactions with these people, you're able to determine what is and is not acceptable for them. So, even if a word or idea or joke is totally unacceptable in public or around strangers or mixed company, it's up to individual groups of friends to decide whether or not they're okay with hearing/using them. Sometimes this comes out in people being ironically racist, despite not being white. Or being a sexist gender studies student. Or other similar situations. However, it's important to remember that these rules used within friend groups do not transcend to public domain as well.
There's another caveat that I haven't discussed in the realm of "reasonable" expectations:
If you have a trauma related to a word or idea, and whether the trauma is common enough to warrant taking it into consideration when speaking in public (or private) before knowing about the trauma.
For example- rape is a serious problem in our (and many) country. It's typically a horrifyingly traumatic event for those that it happens to. It's not a terribly uncommon occurrence either. So, it is prudent to avoid making rape jokes in public with the knowledge that someone around you may be struggling with the issue already. (Once again, in private, it's up to you and the group you're with to determine whether or not anyone will be offended by ideas or jokes like that)
However, if someone was beaten as a child while being called a normally innocuous word, like "jerk," and they've internalized the word as traumatic, then it would be impossible to predict causing them stress in public, so there's not much that can be done about that. In private, the terms can be negotiated, but they can't in public.
This unfortunate phenomenon means that outliers to trauma are in a problematic situation.
The options that we have are to:
1. Avoid making any jokes or using any words ever, for fear of causing traumatic stress, or
2. Snub trauma outliers and continue making jokes/using words that aren't offensive to the majority of people.
Obviously, the first option is going to be the more ridiculous to most people, as sad as that is for the people who fit into the other group.
The solution, luckily, is pretty easy.
Be polite when you're in public. If you're unsure about a joke being used in mixed company, tell it through writing, text, or whisper. Or just wait to say it later.
In private, make sure you adhere to the requests of others when it comes to words they're not comfortable with.
And, if you're one of these people who is offended by certain words, remember that the intention of the person using them matters. Don't be angry with them (if it's a first offense) if they're using a word/joke/idea non-seriously.
Of course, this is where the public vs. private thing comes in- You can't know if a stranger is using a word seriously or non-seriously since you don't know their background. So, if you're telling a joke in public, remember that, to a stranger, you could very well actually be that racist, misogynist. Even if you know you're not serious, it's not really good enough to avoid causing problems.
Be mindful of the language you use when you use it. Know that there is a time and place for every single topic, idea, joke, and/or word. Even if you don't like it, there may be other people, more or less educated than you, who are willing to use it.
And that time/place is called Cards Against Humanity.
(But seriously, if you play this game with friends and still believe that some words/phrases/ideas are universally offensive, then I think you're being a wee bit inconsistent with yourself)
-
Waddles
The way we use language and jokes.
I'm looking to tackle this due to the existence of a Tumblr gimmick account (Whether or not I should even be taking something like that seriously is another issue...) called "'Nice guys' of OKCupid" found at http://niceguysofokc.tumblr.com
Suffice it to say the blog's intention is to point out a number of males on the dating site, OK Cupid, who claim to be a nice guy, yet have traits or opinions that are inconsistent with being "nice."
The idea spawned from the phrase "nice guy," (quotations included in the actual phrase) which refers to a male who specifically claims that he is a nice guy, yet he blames women for not being romantically or sexually interested in him, while also blaming women for problems in their own lives that involve other men. These males usually have an outward disdain for "bad boys" or jocks or whatever.
Psychologically, it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that a lot of these people may have been bullied growing up, so they reject a culture that they perceive to be problematic, but they haven't grown to forgive the world, so they still blame the people around them for things that go wrong. Many of these people are socially awkward and have a bit of a superiority complex, which explains why they refuse to accept the idea that their ideology is problematic in the first place.
It's a recursive problem- If you don't have anyone in your life to point out your glaring social problems, you won't make any friends, which means you won't have anyone to help you with your social problems.
It's really a cultural creation that I would wager stems from the current discourse on gender roles in our society. We want to reject them, but many of them are so deep-seated that we don't notice when we're still enacting and perpetuating them. Conflicting role ques about masculinity cause these unfortunate souls to want to pry themselves from the culture, despite the fact that they carry many lingering ties to the culture- they're totally unaware and they haven't had anyone to correct them.
Anyway- enough digression.
One common pattern that people like to point out about the "nice guy" culture is that they tend to complain about being "friendzoned," in a negative context. The critique, as I've read it, is that this complaint suggests that these guys expect each potential romantic partner to acquiesce to their manpassion and have the funtimesex.
I'm wary of the previous critique. I don't read it as an expectation usually (although there certainly are times where that seems to be the case)- I usually read it as a pure lamentation of events in their lives.
Let me explain what I mean. In every potential romantic encounter, particularly after a lengthy spell of looking, you (collective) are not going to be happy if you find out that your interest in a partner is not reciprocated. You're left in a state of non-romance where romance was the goal and was a possibility. In lieu of referring to this a "non-reciprocated romance zone," a contemporary word to describe it was brought into existence- the friendzone.
Now personally, I'm not a huge fan of the word. It places a negative connotation on the word "friend," as though having friends is ever a bad thing, though I understand usage of the word, since it spawned from phrases similar to, "let's just be friends." It's not a phrase you want to hear as someone who is seeking a romantic partnership, hence the negative connotation. So, while I don't particularly like the word a whole lot, I understand its usage, particularly in a non-academic situation where people don't have a lot of words they can use to describe their situation.
As I said, however, there are those classy individuals who expect that certain actions ought to result in them being bedded by their romantic pursuit. These people are creeps in the same way that spouses who believe marriage means an obligation to have sex whether you want to or not are creeps. It's nothing about the word "friendzone," but rather the person who uses it.
Which brings us full circle to my intended topic. Language and how we use it.
I've heard the argument that anyone who uses the word "friendzone" seriously is an idiot. I've used it a number of times so far, but I like to think there's value in discussing how we view contemporary language. Now, perhaps the argument would be better stated as, "anyone who uses the word "friendzone" to describe a romantic situation seriously is an idiot." But even then, I'm not buying it. Like I said, I don't like the phrase, and I don't intend to ever use it in its intended context, but I do understand why someone would. I'd say it's a bit of an immature look on a current situation, but not an inaccurate one when used appropriately. Of course, when I say this, it's under the assumption that the word is being used purely descriptively, without any underlying expectation or malice.
It's obviously not someone's fault if they're not attracted to you. Nor should they be expected to do anything for you just because you're polite or whatever. However, whether you're male, female, gay, straight, bi, or any of the fluid, in-between states therein, you're still capable of having your romantic interest place you in a friendzone. And that's something we're all capable of doing. It's how romantic selection works.
If someone comes to you and asks you on a date- you agree, and you come to find that you don't like them, but you might still want to be friends? You are, by definition, placing them into the label of "friendship," that this person is not seeking (at least initially).
And as much as I'm interested in this particular word right now (because controversy, yay), I've got more ground to cover, so we'll head to other words for now-
You often hear cultural relativists tell you that words have no meaning unless you give them meaning. Which is absolutely true. And you may also hear the saying, "You cannot offend me, I can only choose to take offense at what you said." Which is also absolutely true.
However, a lot of people use these arguments poorly to suggest that we should say or do whatever it is we want in public without worrying about the consequences of causing offense. It's a tangled argument, to be sure, but it's not quite as simple as telling a racist joke just because you're not giving it meaning and expecting everyone else to follow suit.
Social interactions follow sets of unwritten rules. One such rule is that people expect you to take into consideration their comfort levels (so long as they're reasonable) in public and in private. Those comfort levels vary between those two situations, so the distinction is important. And I should note that "reasonable" comfort levels are also entirely socially defined usually based on historical context.
For example, it is unreasonable to expect that people around you don't use a common and inoffensive word, like "jerk." Contrarily, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that people around you don't use a word known almost exclusively for its offensive properties, like "nigger," or "faggot."
But, these rules can be tipped a little based on context. For example, You may not like hearing the word, but if you're in an academic setting and the words are being used academically, then it is unreasonable to expect people to avoid using them. (e.g. "The word, 'faggot,' has its etymology in...")
And we can tip these rules again when we consider private, social settings. In settings where you know everyone present closely, the social rules are a lot easier to bend, since you can be certain of who is and is not offended by what words. In social interactions with these people, you're able to determine what is and is not acceptable for them. So, even if a word or idea or joke is totally unacceptable in public or around strangers or mixed company, it's up to individual groups of friends to decide whether or not they're okay with hearing/using them. Sometimes this comes out in people being ironically racist, despite not being white. Or being a sexist gender studies student. Or other similar situations. However, it's important to remember that these rules used within friend groups do not transcend to public domain as well.
There's another caveat that I haven't discussed in the realm of "reasonable" expectations:
If you have a trauma related to a word or idea, and whether the trauma is common enough to warrant taking it into consideration when speaking in public (or private) before knowing about the trauma.
For example- rape is a serious problem in our (and many) country. It's typically a horrifyingly traumatic event for those that it happens to. It's not a terribly uncommon occurrence either. So, it is prudent to avoid making rape jokes in public with the knowledge that someone around you may be struggling with the issue already. (Once again, in private, it's up to you and the group you're with to determine whether or not anyone will be offended by ideas or jokes like that)
However, if someone was beaten as a child while being called a normally innocuous word, like "jerk," and they've internalized the word as traumatic, then it would be impossible to predict causing them stress in public, so there's not much that can be done about that. In private, the terms can be negotiated, but they can't in public.
This unfortunate phenomenon means that outliers to trauma are in a problematic situation.
The options that we have are to:
1. Avoid making any jokes or using any words ever, for fear of causing traumatic stress, or
2. Snub trauma outliers and continue making jokes/using words that aren't offensive to the majority of people.
Obviously, the first option is going to be the more ridiculous to most people, as sad as that is for the people who fit into the other group.
The solution, luckily, is pretty easy.
Be polite when you're in public. If you're unsure about a joke being used in mixed company, tell it through writing, text, or whisper. Or just wait to say it later.
In private, make sure you adhere to the requests of others when it comes to words they're not comfortable with.
And, if you're one of these people who is offended by certain words, remember that the intention of the person using them matters. Don't be angry with them (if it's a first offense) if they're using a word/joke/idea non-seriously.
Of course, this is where the public vs. private thing comes in- You can't know if a stranger is using a word seriously or non-seriously since you don't know their background. So, if you're telling a joke in public, remember that, to a stranger, you could very well actually be that racist, misogynist. Even if you know you're not serious, it's not really good enough to avoid causing problems.
Be mindful of the language you use when you use it. Know that there is a time and place for every single topic, idea, joke, and/or word. Even if you don't like it, there may be other people, more or less educated than you, who are willing to use it.
And that time/place is called Cards Against Humanity.
(But seriously, if you play this game with friends and still believe that some words/phrases/ideas are universally offensive, then I think you're being a wee bit inconsistent with yourself)
-
Waddles
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Parents and Emotion Lords
I'm almost back home, which means I'll be back into the "regular" swing of blogging.
However, in the meantime, I thought I'd touch on a touch of parental difficulty I went through at home. You know, instead of just talking about it with my dad like a mature adult. Blogging: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
So, I was feeling awful a few days ago while at my dad's house with my two brothers and my brother's roommate. Me feeling bad was from lingering paranoia and depressive thoughts which originated from my self-deprecating view of how I am in relationships.
I was just trying to stay out of everyone's way, since everyone else was mostly watching football- so not an activity I had any wish to engage in- which was fine. Somewhere in the day, I realized how little I wanted to be there, but I wasn't going to say or do anything about it because I know it meant a lot to most of the people there that everyone was together- I get that.
However, after the hour long tribulation that was "what do we eat and how can I pinch as many pennies as possible, Mr. Krabs-style?" I let my depressive mood get the better of me. I didn't want to be involved with any of the ridiculous argumentation going on about saving five dollars worth of food that could be saved at any point in the future (the coupon could literally be used any time, but there we were, trying desperately to print one out for forty minutes). In the end, I opted out of food. Not good, I know. Didn't really care though.
My dad, for all the world trying to be a "nice" guy by helping me with my emotional problems, decided to try confronting me all eight feet away from everyone else in a volume that suggested he didn't seem concerned with matters of privacy. Looking back, I should have made up some really ultra-private issue to be upset about so that he'd realize why it's problematic to confront someone like that.
Regardless, I tried to get him to back away from his insistence that he was the person to help me (due to being my father), even though his best guess as to why I was "cranky" was because I hadn't eaten yet.
Parents who may be reading this- Your child does not owe you emotional exhibition. No one will EVER owe ANYONE else their sense of privacy if they don't wish to give it. It does not make you a good parent to demand it even if you may or may not know how to solve their problem. By the same token, you don't owe your child emotional asylum. It makes you a good parent to offer it in discretion whether or not they seek it, but you cannot demand that they use it, nor should you try to demand it in front of others. That's basically one of the surefire ways to ensure that your child will never seek that emotional asylum.
Emotions are intensely private and individual to each person. Many people go through the same emotions, but often for very different reasons, while simultaneously approaching their emotions in varying ways. Some are okay talking to others by virtue of them asking what's wrong. Others, like me, need to feel like we can trust you completely before we're willing to tell you much. Trust like that is not created by virtue of being a parent. It's earned by being there, being understanding, and knowing that your experience only means so much when it comes to someone else's subjective experience of the world. You don't have all the answers just because you're older or just because you solved your own problems or even just because you've managed to solve other peoples' problems. Your ways may have worked for you or some others, but they may not for someone else. That's the complication with every human being having different chemical balances in their brain.
When in doubt, offer asylum and drop the subject. That's how you build trust.
However, in the meantime, I thought I'd touch on a touch of parental difficulty I went through at home. You know, instead of just talking about it with my dad like a mature adult. Blogging: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
So, I was feeling awful a few days ago while at my dad's house with my two brothers and my brother's roommate. Me feeling bad was from lingering paranoia and depressive thoughts which originated from my self-deprecating view of how I am in relationships.
I was just trying to stay out of everyone's way, since everyone else was mostly watching football- so not an activity I had any wish to engage in- which was fine. Somewhere in the day, I realized how little I wanted to be there, but I wasn't going to say or do anything about it because I know it meant a lot to most of the people there that everyone was together- I get that.
However, after the hour long tribulation that was "what do we eat and how can I pinch as many pennies as possible, Mr. Krabs-style?" I let my depressive mood get the better of me. I didn't want to be involved with any of the ridiculous argumentation going on about saving five dollars worth of food that could be saved at any point in the future (the coupon could literally be used any time, but there we were, trying desperately to print one out for forty minutes). In the end, I opted out of food. Not good, I know. Didn't really care though.
My dad, for all the world trying to be a "nice" guy by helping me with my emotional problems, decided to try confronting me all eight feet away from everyone else in a volume that suggested he didn't seem concerned with matters of privacy. Looking back, I should have made up some really ultra-private issue to be upset about so that he'd realize why it's problematic to confront someone like that.
Regardless, I tried to get him to back away from his insistence that he was the person to help me (due to being my father), even though his best guess as to why I was "cranky" was because I hadn't eaten yet.
Parents who may be reading this- Your child does not owe you emotional exhibition. No one will EVER owe ANYONE else their sense of privacy if they don't wish to give it. It does not make you a good parent to demand it even if you may or may not know how to solve their problem. By the same token, you don't owe your child emotional asylum. It makes you a good parent to offer it in discretion whether or not they seek it, but you cannot demand that they use it, nor should you try to demand it in front of others. That's basically one of the surefire ways to ensure that your child will never seek that emotional asylum.
Emotions are intensely private and individual to each person. Many people go through the same emotions, but often for very different reasons, while simultaneously approaching their emotions in varying ways. Some are okay talking to others by virtue of them asking what's wrong. Others, like me, need to feel like we can trust you completely before we're willing to tell you much. Trust like that is not created by virtue of being a parent. It's earned by being there, being understanding, and knowing that your experience only means so much when it comes to someone else's subjective experience of the world. You don't have all the answers just because you're older or just because you solved your own problems or even just because you've managed to solve other peoples' problems. Your ways may have worked for you or some others, but they may not for someone else. That's the complication with every human being having different chemical balances in their brain.
When in doubt, offer asylum and drop the subject. That's how you build trust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)