Fear and Loathing

[andrewducker]

I never used to care.

Back in some mythical golden era of self-absorbed geekery I really didn't care what other people thought of my actions. I'd dress how I liked, do what I wanted, say what I wanted and didn't really think about the consequences. In retrospect the only consequences would have been no friends and I was damn close to that as it was.

I remember reading about scriptwriters, and how they get snared by hollywood. They sell a succeesful script, make a bit of money, move to a nicer house, get a nicer car and suddenly have to sell the scripts that hollywood wants, because otherwise they lose the nice house they bought and the lifestyle they've assumed.

In November of 1991 I started developing emotional attachments to people (and yes, that kind of statement does deserve a longer explanation, but that's another story and will be told another time). This began a process of almost alchemical transformation that lasted several years and turned my life inside out. I'm not the person I was then and I really have no empathy for the person I used to be. I don't even remember what I felt about anything from before the process started.

Anyway, the upshot of the emotional integration was that I (eventually) started caring about what other people thought and felt. I also (eventually) realised that people could get offended at things I said/did. I've (largely) had a lot of personal detachment from things. I can step back and be dispersonal about things. I've got in trouble because I've laughed at things which would have been funny if they'd been in a sit-com but apparently aren't funny if they happen to your friends. I can separate arguments against my ideas from personal arguments (something that many people seem to find impossible). I'm near-impossible to offend (about the only thing that can offend me are people I like who deliberately try to hurt me). Realising that other people weren't like this took quite a long time to get through my thick head.

This upshot of these two events (realising that other people could be offended by my actions and caring what other people thought/felt) was a sudden realisation that I needed to watch my actions or I'd alienate these people I cared about. I began to watch what I said, to avoid saying things that people had a negative reaction to, to even avoid saying things that I thought people might be bored by. I would keep topics of conversation to ones that I knew the person was interested in. On the one hand, this seemed to make me a more popular conversationalist, but on the other hand I'd never stretch conversations to topics that I didn't know peopl were interested in and I'd never discuss some topics at all. I found places online where I could talk about the things my friends didn't seem to be interested in, or I slowly lost any interest in talking about them at all.

In retrospect this seems slightly ridiculous. A certain amount of it seems vital, but to constantly rein myself in to avoid offending people either means that I'm not with people that are really my friends/suited to being around or I don't trust them, to be so.

This came to a head a couple of days ago with this post. I posted something I found amusing, a few others found it similarly so, and then two people complained that it was racist and wrong. I successfully (in my opinion) argued that it wasn't wrong, and stated that I didn't believe it was racist (largely because it specifically says "most" and was factually accurate). The two people argued for a while and then both unsubscribed from my journal when I refused to back down.

It's a shame, because I don't like losing people, but to be honest I'd rather feel free to publish whatever I like, and whatever I feel I can justify according to my own personal morals. I have changed things in the past when people complained I was being offensive and agreed with them. But I won't back off because you're offended by something unless I can see your point.

User garthmyl reminded to me yesterday that "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind", and I'm going to try to follow that I will continue to moderate my direct person to person expression, because I don't want to bore people by talking geek-speak around non-geeks, nor do I want to offend people about things they're personally sensitive about, but my journal is pure me, as much as I can manage.

I'd be sorry to lose people, but if I do then I'll just remind myself that it's for the best - if they don't like the real me they shouldn't be reading me and I shouldn't be caring if they do.

Comments

[aberbotimue.livejournal.com]

sounds fair to me...

I'm sure I'll like the new posts...

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I thought the cartoon was funny.
I thought thepaintedone was being, um, shall we say "overly sensitive"? I don't know what his nationality is, but he came across exactly like a particular type of American who sees all criticism of the US as evil nasty anti-Americanism.

[andrewducker]

He isn't American.

His wife is.

Her comments are all the 'deleted' ones.

[vill.livejournal.com]

I am an American, and I laughed my ass off when I saw that cartoon.

[andrewducker]

Thanks dear.

At one point I was starting to worry. I was tempted to put up a poll asking Americans to say whether they were offended or not.

It's nice to know that most of you weren't :->

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Regarding your post two days ago - I spoke to Si about it, as I figured she'd have a far more interesting way of looking at it than I did.

She didn't take it personally, as the statements made don't apply to her. She thought it was funny, and if anything, only gets exasperated with those people who *do* help to continue stereotypes such as that - ie, the people in the polls you pointed to. However, Si recognises that unless peoples perceptions are challenged by cartoons like that, nothing will change.

As for this post, good for you. While we all need to be individual, and have our own ways and priorities, its nice to fit in with other people too - though it doesn't have to be *all* other people! The fun thing about a world this well populated is, regardless of how individual we are, we tend to find there are always others out there who are similar to us.

As for people unfriending you for disagreeing with your viewpoint on one thing, well, I think that's a little "compulsive", for want of a better word. kimberly_a and I had a disagreement on her LJ a wee while back - I'd hate to think that she'd unfriend me because of it, and I certainly wouldn't unfriend her. We kept it civil, of course.

LJ would get pretty boring pretty quickly if we all had to conform to the same viewpoint, and didn't challenge each other! It's the discussion aspect of LJ I really like - sadly, some people seem to feel they have to disagree *ALL* the time, regardless of subject, and that's where it all falls down. That isn't, BTW, a reference to thepaintedone, who I think in general always discusses things quite constructively.

[kimberly-a.livejournal.com]

Ahh ... I now understand you a tiny bit better. Thank you for telling us more about where you're coming from. You have slightly hurt my feelings once or twice in the past, but nothing that was enough to get me to unsubscribe from your journal. And I'm darn sensitive, so it must have been very very little hurt. I generally only get offended or hurt if I, personally, am being discussed directly: Kimberly is so annoying, etc. You can say most Americans are stupid as often as you like ... oh ... wait ... that's not a good example, because I agree with that statement.

Oh, and for the record, I thought that comic strip was hysterical. (And yet frustratingly sad, because it's so true.)

[worldforger.livejournal.com]

1) Face it; Bush had at one point an approval rating of over 60 percent. This fact alone implies that most Americans are dumb as rocks.

2) I'm an American (though not a typical one, I hope--The typical American is an idiot and the reason bad stereotypes about us exist), and I thought the cartoon was hilarious and right on the money.

3) Knee-jerk patriots are not really patriots. A real patriot admits the flaws of his or her nation and seeks to improve it instead of blindly lashing out at any criticism.

4) Since when did being a U.S. citizen alter one's ethnic heritage? Anyone who can't be bothered to at least define terms is not capable of carrying on an adult conversation. Racist? There's an American RACE now? WEll, maybe so, but they call themselves things like Lakota, Cherokee, etc.

5) As near as I can tell, anyone offended by the joke has serious problems with the reality.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

Well, it's all been said before, but since I'm (unfortunately) an American I feel the need to say it again:

- anti-American comments cannot in any universe be construed as "racist", because Americans do not constitute a racial group (the definition of a racial group is pretty tenuous in the first place, but I think it's fairly obvious that "American" doesn't cut it)

- in America, a country where people hate the French so much that "French fries" were being renamed to "freedom fries" in various locales, it takes a lot of guts to suggest that other people shouldn't say negative things about Americans

- can I move to Canada yet?

[nickys.livejournal.com]

> I began to watch what I said, to avoid saying things that people had a negative reaction to, to even avoid saying things that I thought people might be bored by. I would keep topics of conversation to ones that I knew the person was interested in. On the one hand, this seemed to make me a more popular conversationalist, but on the other hand I'd never stretch conversations to topics that I didn't know peopl were interested in and I'd never discuss some topics at all.

It's important to have a balance between being true to yourself and not upsetting other people. There's no perfect line to take. If you go too far one way you feel false, and if you go too far the other way you lose friends. It's a process of experimentation to find out what works best in a paricular social circle, I guess.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you. Journals, unlike face-to-face conversations, are personal. People choose to read yours or not to. You shouldn't feel like you have to tailor your views to fit the people who may be reading your personal thoughts.

LJ-cuts are a blessing, too, because they make a nice compromise. I get pretty sick of hearing about how stupid Americans are, as an example, so I don't mind passing those posts by.

[darkoshi]

the rock joke didn't offend me at all.

in fact, what my mind was most nitpicking about the joke was, that a rock not-believing things doesn't really make it smarter than people who believe, since it doesn't believe anything at all.

ie., the rock "doesn't believe xyz", but neither does the rock "believe not(xyz)"...

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

I agree, the cartoon was based on a poll result and said so. People can like it, dislike it, hate it, loathe it, but they shouldn't sulk like children when other people disagree.

I also had (and still have) similar problems with people for the same reasons as you describe. I can argue about just about anything both loudly and passionately but I never mean it personally - attacking a person's idea with all the logical weapons at your disposal is fine, is in fact the point, and I expect them to do it back! Attacking the person is not. People take me wrong all the time because they don't think like me or don't notice what I am saying, just the tone (god, I recall trying to get that one across to my dad when I was about 10!).

I still don't back down on some things where I go against societal norms (practices/opinions/whatever)because, in those cases, I strongly believe that those norms are wrong.

I am proud to say that in one case (in 2001) sticking to my principles personally cost me nearly £60,000. (in this case, it was my opinion that a contract once agreed and signed is not open for renegotiation by either party until its agreed term expires - or what is the point of a contract?)

[andrewducker]

Did they pay up in the end?

And I agree wholeheartedly.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

What happened was that Detusche Bank decided to cut the rate that they were paying me 2 weeks into a 6 month contract for them (which was a renewal of the previous 3 month contract). Take the cut or leave. I left. The sum quoted is about what 6 months of money at the new rate would have been had I stayed and taken the cut. (but of course I pretty much assumed that if they had done that once and got away with it they would do it again and again [they did!] so it is no doubt a bit of an overestimate)

Of course, if they had changed the rate at the renewal, I would not have had a problem. They decided to cut the rate becuse they suddenly decided that they were getting tight for cash. I considered it equivalent to me suddenly demanding more money because (for example)I needed a new kitchen because I'd just found out that the old one was infested with woodworm (to quote something unexpected that was true at the time). Either case I considered unreasonable behaviour.

[andrewducker]

Yup. Completely unreasonable.

How long did it take you to find new employment?

And how much notice did the contract stipulate they had to give you?

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

Well I did have a contract lined up with Enron......

It took me about 6 weeks to realise that I was going to have to back to permie to get anything. Then I broke my own job-getting record and got one signed and sorted within 3 days.

[andrewducker]

When you refused to sign the new contract were you out immediately?

Or was there a minimum employment length?

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

I can't recall now. If you didn't agree you were out on a certain date - I think that date was 2 weeks from the announcement, but I woudln't swear to it.

[andrewducker]

So job contracts are meaningless then?

"We hereby hire you for 6 months, unless we don't want to, in which case you're sacked on the spot."

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

Pretty much. At least in any industry (such as ours) where nearly nobody is in a union.

I tried to rouse the rabble at Deutsche, but to absolutely no avail. Not one single other person was willing to stand up for themselves.

In fact, it wasn't as simple as it sounds. As is usual, my contract was with my agency, and their contract was with Deutsche and it was the terms of this contract (which I had never seen) that Deutsche had changed. So the real baddies were buffered from harm and the agency powerless (unless they wanted taken off of Deutsche's approved supplier list).

I doubt I'd have had any luck suing the agents.