The real point of my post is not to assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways you don't like or don't understand. —Miche, posting on alt.poly
If someone with Tourette's, for example, decides they won't work on that issue and go blithely into social situations with their filters off, to the point of driving people away: that's broken.
If someone utterly destroys their relationships with family, friends, and loved ones by "embracing their multiple personalities" and then blames others for the ensuing fallout: that's broken.
When people are hurt by a repeated behavior and the person who is responsible for that behavior doesn't care: that's broken.
Of course, this is merely my opinion, and not absolute truth, but I always draw the line at whether a behavior hurts other people. Granted, I've been considered "insane" and "irresponsible" for refusing to subordinate my life to fandom, so "broken" or "not broken" (indeed, the concept of sanity itself) is always in the eye of the beholder.
BUT:
To me: what people do consensually without hurting others: that is NEVER "broken".
Which is why, regardless of my own personal choice, I am supportive of polyamory. If folks can make it work, then who am I to be critical of it? :)
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we HAVE to judge who we associate with by how they behave; there will always be interpersonal conflict. But there are differences (race, creed, sexual orientation, relationship orientation, etc) that really shouldn't matter, not nearly as much as basic values and philosophies.
(Because let's face it: it's not like I'm ever going to be able to get along with a person who shoots birds for the hell of it, for example.)
Part of the point (in the context Miche and I were discussing this in) was that there are differences that may mean two people can't be close friends, maybe won't even enjoy spending time together, but that don't mean there's something wrong with one of them. Also that I can be firmly convinced that someone is mistaken on a policy issue where the decision will affect my life and theirs (say, how the government should spend transportation funds) without believing them to be either evil or insane.
Redbird, quoting Miche: The real point of my post is not to assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways you don't like or don't understand.
Assuming someone is broken because you're angry or confused is different from having solid evidence that the person is broken. That's a really important distinction.
miwasatoshi: I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we HAVE to judge who we associate with by how they behave; there will always be interpersonal conflict. But there are differences (race, creed, sexual orientation, relationship orientation, etc) that really shouldn't matter, not nearly as much as basic values and philosophies.
This looks like you're talking about a different kind of distinction than Miche. Judging whether someone is broken is based on what the person says and does, not on skin color or gender. ("Creed" is a different sort of thing, because if a person said, "Someone would have to be really crazy to believe in that fanatic cult," that might be a sensible judgement, if they were talking about Heaven's Gate. Making the same statement about Southern Baptists might be just prejudice.) Some people are crazy, and some people are dangerous, and some people I should try to avoid for my own peace of mind. Those are three different groups. There's some overlap, but they are three different groups.
For instance, someone in my extended family believes the most important thing any intelligent person can do is to marry another smart person and have babies. It troubles her that I'm not even trying to have children. I don't think she's broken, though I have some difficulties dealing with her. I don't like her premises or her conclusions; I have some problems with some of her values and priorities. I don't think it would help anything to take my fundamental disagreement with her, and use that as an excuse to pretend she was broken or insane, or to accuse her of having something essentially wrong with her.
miwasatoshi continued: (Because let's face it: it's not like I'm ever going to be able to get along with a person who shoots birds for the hell of it, for example.)
I think it's important to recognize that people can not get along, even when neither of them are broken.
Is your example of shooting birds something you disapprove of because you think it shows cruelty to animals and thus an evil nature? Cruelty to animals is certainly evidence of being broken (it can be fairly solid evidence. I think it goes well beyond behaving in "ways you don't like.") Sometimes a person can be cruel at a distance without really understanding the consequences of his or her actions, and that seems more like a lack of enlightenment than really being broken...that's easier to fix, in my experience.
Some people are crazy, and some people are dangerous, and some people I should try to avoid for my own peace of mind. Those are three different groups. There's some overlap, but they are three different groups.
Yes, very much so. Someone might have a rational goal, and go about it in a way that makes them dangerous: wanting to reduce disease incidence, they dump pesticides into a lake to reduce mosquitos, without knowing that the lake is a town's drinking water. Or someone can be harmlessly crazy: consider the number of people who believe in astrology.
I think the big thing is that when folks "behave in a way I don't like", they generally are broken, largely because I don't offend easy and it takes something pretty bad to get me truly riled. :)
One non-broken place where people's preferences vary a lot is introversion/extroversion. There are people who find it unpleasant, possibly to the point of seeing it as rude, if someone doesn't want to talk to them. There are others who find it unpleasant and possibly rude if people insist on talking to them. There is obvious potential for discomfort and even dislike if one of each type find themselves in the same place, and the social context neither channels and requires conversation--even if it's as formalized as "Hello, I'm here to see Dr. X" or "That's $3.50"--nor completely forbids conversational approaches from strangers and casual acquaintances. (Friends are more likely to know when the approach is welcome, and it's more likely to be welcome from a friend, especially if the person approached is an introvert.)
There's a difference between "a way I don't like" and "a way I think is unacceptable"; it's worth reminding myself of that sometimes. For that matter, there's a difference between "you really shouldn't do that" and "you shouldn't do that, and knew you shouldn't, and there's something badly wrong that you did it." (There are people who, told a person has medical problem X, will start talking about a friend or relative who had the same problem, and for whom things went very badly, instead of offering sympathy or help, or even saying "I'm sorry, that happened to my great-uncle Maurice, I know it can be difficult." Some of them probably know better and take a sick pleasure in it; some probably know better, but don't stop to think, or are doing so not because they want you to think about bad prognoses but because they tend to talk about themselves; and some have never thought about, or been told, that this is not a suitable response. The last becomes less plausible--and thus the action less forgiveable--as we grow older. But I can conclude "he's unsympathetic, I won't tell him my troubles" without concluding that someone is broken.
Some people are crazy, and some people are dangerous, and some people I should try to avoid for my own peace of mind. Those are three different groups. There's some overlap, but they are three different groups.
May I (a) add this to my list of quotes, and (b) quote this in my journal? If either (a) or (b), how would you like to be attributed? (My default attribution would be "Adrian_Turtle, on LJ, March 13, 2007.")
And, if (b), then, redbird, may I link back here for reference?
Some people are crazy, and some people are dangerous, and some people I should try to avoid for my own peace of mind. Those are three different groups. There's some overlap, but they are three different groups.
Thanks. That about sums everything up pretty well.
Regarding the shooting of birds for fun (as opposed to for survival): it's not just it can be construed as cruel - it's also helpful to know that I'm the co-moderator of birdlovers.
I've also seen way too much of what I call "willful ignorance", and no race, creed, or gender gets the monopoly on that one.
The folks posting in here all seem to have their heads on pretty straight, by the way :)
Yes. And I posted that one more as a reminder for myself than because I felt the need to tell other people. (I don't mind this discussion at all, I just wanted to note that I'm not claiming enlightenment here, unless in a very loose sense such that someone who writes herself a note "floss" is enlightened because she knows that flossing is good for her teeth.)
The only approved treatment for Tourette Syndrome is medication. There is no "work on that issue." I'm a bit tender on this because I'm disabled, too, and people give me inappropriate advice all the time.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
If someone with Tourette's, for example, decides they won't work on that issue and go blithely into social situations with their filters off, to the point of driving people away: that's broken.
If someone utterly destroys their relationships with family, friends, and loved ones by "embracing their multiple personalities" and then blames others for the ensuing fallout: that's broken.
When people are hurt by a repeated behavior and the person who is responsible for that behavior doesn't care: that's broken.
Of course, this is merely my opinion, and not absolute truth, but I always draw the line at whether a behavior hurts other people. Granted, I've been considered "insane" and "irresponsible" for refusing to subordinate my life to fandom, so "broken" or "not broken" (indeed, the concept of sanity itself) is always in the eye of the beholder.
BUT:
To me: what people do consensually without hurting others: that is NEVER "broken".
Which is why, regardless of my own personal choice, I am supportive of polyamory. If folks can make it work, then who am I to be critical of it? :)
no subject
(Because let's face it: it's not like I'm ever going to be able to get along with a person who shoots birds for the hell of it, for example.)
no subject
no subject
The real point of my post is not to assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways you don't like or don't understand.
Assuming someone is broken because you're angry or confused is different from having solid evidence that the person is broken. That's a really important distinction.
miwasatoshi:
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we HAVE to judge who we associate with by how they behave; there will always be interpersonal conflict. But there are differences (race, creed, sexual orientation, relationship orientation, etc) that really shouldn't matter, not nearly as much as basic values and philosophies.
This looks like you're talking about a different kind of distinction than Miche. Judging whether someone is broken is based on what the person says and does, not on skin color or gender. ("Creed" is a different sort of thing, because if a person said, "Someone would have to be really crazy to believe in that fanatic cult," that might be a sensible judgement, if they were talking about Heaven's Gate. Making the same statement about Southern Baptists might be just prejudice.) Some people are crazy, and some people are dangerous, and some people I should try to avoid for my own peace of mind. Those are three different groups. There's some overlap, but they are three different groups.
For instance, someone in my extended family believes the most important thing any intelligent person can do is to marry another smart person and have babies. It troubles her that I'm not even trying to have children. I don't think she's broken, though I have some difficulties dealing with her. I don't like her premises or her conclusions; I have some problems with some of her values and priorities. I don't think it would help anything to take my fundamental disagreement with her, and use that as an excuse to pretend she was broken or insane, or to accuse her of having something essentially wrong with her.
miwasatoshi continued:
(Because let's face it: it's not like I'm ever going to be able to get along with a person who shoots birds for the hell of it, for example.)
I think it's important to recognize that people can not get along, even when neither of them are broken.
Is your example of shooting birds something you disapprove of because you think it shows cruelty to animals and thus an evil nature? Cruelty to animals is certainly evidence of being broken (it can be fairly solid evidence. I think it goes well beyond behaving in "ways you don't like.") Sometimes a person can be cruel at a distance without really understanding the consequences of his or her actions, and that seems more like a lack of enlightenment than really being broken...that's easier to fix, in my experience.
no subject
Yes, very much so. Someone might have a rational goal, and go about it in a way that makes them dangerous: wanting to reduce disease incidence, they dump pesticides into a lake to reduce mosquitos, without knowing that the lake is a town's drinking water. Or someone can be harmlessly crazy: consider the number of people who believe in astrology.
no subject
no subject
There's a difference between "a way I don't like" and "a way I think is unacceptable"; it's worth reminding myself of that sometimes. For that matter, there's a difference between "you really shouldn't do that" and "you shouldn't do that, and knew you shouldn't, and there's something badly wrong that you did it." (There are people who, told a person has medical problem X, will start talking about a friend or relative who had the same problem, and for whom things went very badly, instead of offering sympathy or help, or even saying "I'm sorry, that happened to my great-uncle Maurice, I know it can be difficult." Some of them probably know better and take a sick pleasure in it; some probably know better, but don't stop to think, or are doing so not because they want you to think about bad prognoses but because they tend to talk about themselves; and some have never thought about, or been told, that this is not a suitable response. The last becomes less plausible--and thus the action less forgiveable--as we grow older. But I can conclude "he's unsympathetic, I won't tell him my troubles" without concluding that someone is broken.
no subject
May I (a) add this to my list of quotes, and (b) quote this in my journal? If either (a) or (b), how would you like to be attributed? (My default attribution would be "Adrian_Turtle, on LJ, March 13, 2007.")
And, if (b), then,
no subject
no subject
no subject
Thanks. That about sums everything up pretty well.
Regarding the shooting of birds for fun (as opposed to for survival): it's not just it can be construed as cruel - it's also helpful to know that I'm the co-moderator of
I've also seen way too much of what I call "willful ignorance", and no race, creed, or gender gets the monopoly on that one.
The folks posting in here all seem to have their heads on pretty straight, by the way :)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject