tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
[personal profile] tim
...that I received today:

"Here's the thing, I don't care if you're convinced.
If you want me to care about you being hurt you have to convince me that you're being reasonable. And if you don't I don't care if you're hurt, and I won't care to convince you that you shouldn't be hurt."

I guess this reflects a fundamental values difference, which is why I'm replying on my blog and not directly to the commenter.

If someone says they feel hurt, I'm going to believe them. They don't need to convince me. That's because as a general rule, I don't want to hurt people. It's important to me to not hurt people. That's more important to me than logic or being right.

So, if someone says "hey, it hurts me when you do that thing", I'm going to stop doing that thing -- assuming, that is, that I don't have a compelling interest in doing that thing. So if "that thing" is breathing, yeah, I'm not going to stop doing it. On the other hand, if "that thing" is using a word that I could easily find alternatives for, then sure, I'll stop using it! Even if I think they're being unreasonable, even if I don't understand why it hurts the person. The important thing is that they're being vulnerable by telling me it hurts (there's no reason for them to lie about it), so why should I keep hurting someone for no good reason?

Here's another example that I've used before. Suppose you are a person who has testicles. If I feel like giving you a swift kick to the crotch, does you have to convince me that it would actually be painful for you if I did that? After all, since my testicles are silicone implants, it doesn't hurt (especially) for someone to kick me in the junk. So why should I believe you when you tell me it hurts for you? If I think you're being unreasonable, does that give me the right to kick you in the junk? (The answer isn't "no, because it's illegal", since that doesn't give us any insight into why it is.)

So if I call you "hypersensitive" because a kick in the crotch hurts you more than it hurts me, when that's really because you were born with testes and I wasn't, what does that really mean? Likewise, if you call me "hypersensitive" and say I need to "grow a thick skin" because I've had experiences that you haven't, and thus am hurt by things that don't hurt you, what does that really mean? Is it different from me telling you that you should "grow a thick skin" by getting your balls removed so that I can kick you more easily?
luinied: This is from the Sega Saturn game, which I haven't played. (dark)
From: [personal profile] luinied
"If you want me to care about you being hurt you have to convince me that you're not hurt bad enough that you're not able to meet whatever standards of behavior I've set. If you don't, I have to not acknowledge that you're hurt, because acknowledging it would conflict my deeply-buried belief that there's some sense of everything being fine as it is to the world, and this possibility disturbs me so much that I have to resist it at all costs. Even if it means being needlessly cruel to strangers because they won't meet my arbitrary standards."

...right?

On the other hand:

if you don't [convince me that you're being reasonable,] [...] I won't care to convince you that you shouldn't be hurt.

So... "I won't care, but at least I won't subject you to the only 'comfort' I ever give, which is trying to convince people they shouldn't be hurt"? If that's actually what was meant, I guess it's not as bad as the alternative.

assuming, that is, that I don't have a compelling interest in doing that thing.

But what if you're underestimating the compelling interest people have for, say, being sexist and horrible on the Internet? After all, it's how they express kinship with other people like them-- possibly the only way they learned to express kinship, and now they're too old to ever learn any new way in which to be a person. And so without it they would be lost and alone in a cruel and uncaring world-- which must be cruel and uncaring because people unlike them complain about problems they don't experience, not because of systematic problems that affect everyone in some way.
redbird: closeup of me drinking tea (Default)
From: [personal profile] redbird
You're right. I don't know what that person meant; it would be nice to think that (as I think Tim did, and I did on first reading) it's that if he believes that our pain is reasonable he will stop hurting us, maybe even try to tell others that the thing they're used to doing hurts some people.

Or maybe he means that if he believes we're being reasonable, he'll say he's sorry and then keep doing whatever he likes.

What he has definitely said is that he doesn't care if Tim is convinced, but he expects Tim to try to convince him of things. That double standard is pretty clear.

(no subject)

Date: 2014-05-07 10:37 pm (UTC)
megpie71: Text: "My grip on reality's not too good at the best of times." (reality)
From: [personal profile] megpie71
Since when has pain been about reason? Why should I have to convince someone that's it's wholly "reasonable" for pain to exist in a certain circumstance? I mean, aside from them being a complete and utter nuisance?

I suppose the next question to be asked is: given the rigmarole you'd have to go through to get sympathy from this person, is their sympathy worth the fuss and bother?

Particularly since all they're going to try to do is convince you the pain you're feeling is something you shouldn't be feeling in the first place, which to me seems somewhat counter-productive. Convince me your pain is real and believable so I can then attempt to convince you the pain shouldn't be occurring in the first place. Sorry, you appear to have missed a fundamental point in the discussion here. Is pain. Pain happens. Whether it should or not.

I suppose at least this can be pointed to as an example of a fool standing up to make themselves known, so they're readily identifiable in future. Hopefully this person isn't someone you're going to have to deal with on a professional basis at any point, or up close and personal. I am suddenly struck with a wave of nostalgia, and a longing for the wonders of Usenet and killfiles.

(no subject)

Date: 2014-05-08 09:17 am (UTC)
naath: (Default)
From: [personal profile] naath
that I don't have a compelling interest in doing that thing

Isn't the the problem though? If I am doing something that it causing you pain, that is bad, I should stop - but what if stopping doing it would cause *me* pain? how do I weigh your pain against my pain? For some things the answer is "do that thing away from that person" but for "things I say on the internet" that's not a good answer. I lack good answers.

In any case calling a person "hypersensitive" for being hurt by something is not the right answer! Perhaps saying "I'm really sorry, but not doing this thing would really hurt me" would be step 1 of a better answer.

(no subject)

Date: 2014-05-08 01:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anemone.livejournal.com
If someone says they feel hurt, I'm going to believe them. They don't need to convince me. That's because as a general rule, I don't want to hurt people. It's important to me to not hurt people. That's more important to me than logic or being right.

Yes. Why do people--even otherwise caring people--try so hard to argue that someone being hurt is being irrational and so can be dismissed? They'd probably say that you can't please everybody, which is true, but this usually comes up over easy-to-change things like using particular words.

Profile

tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
Tim Chevalier

October 2014

S M T W T F S
    1234
56 7891011
1213 1415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags