DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bad Manners and Brimstone
HTML https://badmanners.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Life in General
*****************************************************
#Post#: 29955--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Victoria
Date: April 26, 2019, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NFPwife link ---
>
> [quote author=Victoria link=topic=1108.msg29952#msg29952
date=1556307320]
> [quote author=Andi_3k link=topic=1108.msg29948#msg29948
date=1556305888]
> Antinatalism is a subset of the more familiar childfree
cohort.
> I am strictly team Fiona here and if everyone at the table is
upset that she told Kimmy she is antinatalist, they need to look
at why they did not put a stop to Kimmy's badgering of Fiona.
It seems to me they were OK with KImmy pushing the idea of
having kids until Fiona snapped. Someone should have told Kimmy
to back the heck off before it got to this point. Even if Kimmy
didn't it would have made Fiona less likely to snap and would
have made the group look less like they backed Kimmy
>
--- End Quote ---
To me it's interesting because natalism is the default state. I
don't mean that everyone wants kids themselves, but we are
taught and tend to "default" to the idea that life and creating
life is valuable and good, or at least that it's not immoral. So
for me it's a question of, should Fiona have just kept her mouth
shut because she knew full well that she had a polarizing
opinion that everyone else disagreed with, and that doesn't go
along with the overwhelming norm.
[/quote]
Fiona did keep her mouth shut -- for several rounds of this. The
dissenting and polarizing opinion finally stopped the Kimmy's
haranguing; I'm not sure what else could have or would have. I
suppose Fiona could have left the gathering, but why should she
be punished by cutting her evening short when Kimmy was the
clod?
I don't use the word bullying often, but this reads to me like
bullying behavior. In every bullying encounter there's the
bully, the bullied, and the bystander(s). If the bystanders
would have stepped in for Fiona (as mentioned above) this could
have gone a different direction. If when Fiona tried to change
the subject someone supported that and said, "Oh yes, I'm quite
interested in your travel plans, tell me more!" and kept that
conversation moving, Kimmy would have been crowded out. Instead
Kimmy was allowed, by their silence, to continue. They are in
the wrong. Not as much as Kimmy, but they are not innocent here.
My hypothesis is that the ones who are now saying Fiona was rude
are doing so to assuage their guilt at allowing Kimmy to
continue. It's easier to victim blame than look at what you
could have done differently.
[/quote]
You raise some good points, and I also think that the person who
states their opinion first/forces it on the other party isn't
blamed as the "bad guy/mood killer" as much as the
victim/dissenter.
#Post#: 29956--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: lowspark
Date: April 26, 2019, 2:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Victoria link ---
>
> [quote author=Andi_3k link=topic=1108.msg29948#msg29948
date=1556305888]
> Antinatalism is a subset of the more familiar childfree
cohort.
> I am strictly team Fiona here and if everyone at the table is
upset that she told Kimmy she is antinatalist, they need to look
at why they did not put a stop to Kimmy's badgering of Fiona.
It seems to me they were OK with KImmy pushing the idea of
having kids until Fiona snapped. Someone should have told Kimmy
to back the heck off before it got to this point. Even if Kimmy
didn't it would have made Fiona less likely to snap and would
have made the group look less like they backed Kimmy
>
--- End Quote ---
To me it's interesting because natalism is the default state. I
don't mean that everyone wants kids themselves, but we are
taught and tend to "default" to the idea that life and creating
life is valuable and good, or at least that it's not immoral. So
for me it's a question of, should Fiona have just kept her mouth
shut because she knew full well that she had a polarizing
opinion that everyone else disagreed with, and that doesn't go
along with the overwhelming norm.
[/quote]
Default state or not, Kimmy was, in effect, pushing her own
point of view onto someone who had already expressed the fact
that they didn't necessarily agree. Once Fiona said she wasn't
going to have children, Kimmy should have moved on.
If this hadn't been about having kids, would it change anything?
What if they'd been talking religion and Kimmy had been going on
and on about her particular denomination, while Fiona had said
that she didn't belong to an organized religion. Would it then
have been ok for Kimmy to continue to go on about how great her
religion is? Even if her religion were the most observed,
thereby making it a sort of default?
What if they'd been talking food and Kimmy was trying to get
Fiona to eat a steak while Fiona declined and said she didn't
eat meat? Would Kimmy have then been ok to go on about how great
meat is, and if you have trouble digesting it she has a great
pill you can take? After all, eating meat is more common than
vegetarianism or veganism, so it could be called the default.
I'm not trying to be combative. Reading what I just wrote makes
it sounds like I might be. :) Sorry!!
Just really trying to say that just because one holds the more
popular opinion that doesn't mean that they are ok to try to
push that opinion others. It's fine to express that opinion, but
not to insist that others agree with you.
And I *know* that's not what you're saying, Victoria. But I
think that when someone does do that, at some point, Fiona is no
longer in the wrong for pushing back, no matter how unpopular or
unmainstream her point of view might be.
#Post#: 29957--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Jem
Date: April 26, 2019, 2:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Victoria link ---
>
> [quote author=Andi_3k link=topic=1108.msg29948#msg29948
date=1556305888]
> Antinatalism is a subset of the more familiar childfree
cohort.
> I am strictly team Fiona here and if everyone at the table is
upset that she told Kimmy she is antinatalist, they need to look
at why they did not put a stop to Kimmy's badgering of Fiona.
It seems to me they were OK with KImmy pushing the idea of
having kids until Fiona snapped. Someone should have told Kimmy
to back the heck off before it got to this point. Even if Kimmy
didn't it would have made Fiona less likely to snap and would
have made the group look less like they backed Kimmy
>
--- End Quote ---
To me it's interesting because natalism is the default state. I
don't mean that everyone wants kids themselves, but we are
taught and tend to "default" to the idea that life and creating
life is valuable and good, or at least that it's not immoral. So
for me it's a question of, should Fiona have just kept her mouth
shut because she knew full well that she had a polarizing
opinion that everyone else disagreed with, and that doesn't go
along with the overwhelming norm.
[/quote]
I think several PPs touched on this already, but Fiona
essentially did keep her mouth shut until she felt she had no
other option to stop Kimmy's harassment of her. I 100% disagree
with Fiona's beliefs on this, and I think you are right that the
vast majority of people would also disagree with Fiona's
beliefs, but I don't think that means Fiona needs to pretend she
does not have those beliefs. Flaunt them? No. But be honest
about her beliefs when specifically prodded over and over? I
think she absolutely should be allowed to share her opinion.
Not the same situation at all, but I had something similar
happen. There was a group of people who assumed that because of
my demographics I would view an issue a particular way. I did
and do NOT share the group's views, and did and do NOT view the
issue how they expected me to. The group made increasingly
aggressive statements and eventually basically demanded I
vocally agree with their perspective. It was only then that I
shared my actual views, and yep, sure enough, several people
were shocked and offended. I basically said, "Why would you have
assumed you know what I think about this issue, and why does it
matter to you whether I personally disagree with you? Who are
you to tell me my views are wrong?" I would have never just
walked up to a group of people and shared my opinions on that
particular topic; they just pushed me to my breaking point so I
finally did, knowing they would not take it well.
#Post#: 29958--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Kimberami
Date: April 26, 2019, 3:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the specific topic of antinatalism is a red herring. The
basic issue is how much polite redirection is someone willing to
do before finally answering with an unpleasant truth. Kimmy
exhausted Fiona's supply of redirection, and she got hit with a
truth by four. I can't really fault Fiona for having a strong,
polarizing stance, but I can fault Kimmy for forcing it out of
her.
#Post#: 29967--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Rose Red
Date: April 26, 2019, 4:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't blame Fiona for letting her have it. You can just be
pushed so far.
Personally, I'm not good with words and debating just makes me
end up frustrated. So after my initial comments, I keep my mouth
shut and stare at them. Let the other person talk to a blank
face. Make them uncomfortable by saying nothing. After all, I
already said my opinion/fact on the topic; what else is there to
say?
#Post#: 29968--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: LurkingGurl
Date: April 26, 2019, 6:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No doubt that Kimmy was the rude one--extremely rude. But,
Fiona made the wrong choice in how to resolve her frustration.
She gave up control.
No one can control you without your permission. When someone
presses you and bean dipping doesn't work, you can then be
direct and simply refuse to engage, say that you are refusing to
engage. You can tell the person "Stop, you're making me
uncomfortable, etc." And if they persist, you freeze them
out--just don't respond at all. Get up and sit somwhere else.
Go use the bathroom.
Other people's bad behavior is not an excuse to lose control.
It's understandable. But, it's not advisable.
She needed to take a step back and make it about being forced to
engage in a conversation she didn't wish to engage in and not
the actual subject of the conversation.
Now, with this group, she is going to have to talk even more
about something she didn't want to talk about at all.
#Post#: 29971--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: mime
Date: April 26, 2019, 6:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I find this very interesting. I myself have some very unpopular
views on what's moral and what isn't, and I keep them to myself
(or just within like-minded circles) the way Fiona did (or at
least, the way she tried to).
I think her final reaction was risky, but understandable.
"Understandable" because she was just pushed. so. far. "Risky"
because expressing an opinion that doesn't go with the flow of
popular culture can be problematic, to say the least. Society in
general nowhere near as open-minded as it likes to believe! It
shouldn't be that way, but there it is. As a result, you have to
be very careful in the message you deliver, and if Fiona was
speaking out of frustration in the moment, there's a good chance
it wasn't the best delivery.
That doesn't let Kimmy off the hook at all, though. She crossed
multiple lines. I'm tempted to say 'grown-ups should know
better' but we just keep finding that isn't the case, don't we?
I'm going to go a little easier on the others at the table.
Someone could have stepped in to bean dip and steer the
conversation elsewhere, but a lot of people just don't have the
presence of mind and initiative to derail this kind of thing. I
hope I would, but I've failed in many cases... This is a case
where I hope some of the others could look back and think "if I
were to do it again, I'd say XYZ..." and maybe they're more
prepared for the next situation.
#Post#: 29976--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Hanna
Date: April 26, 2019, 8:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you believe something I don’t see any reason to hide it,
unpopular though it may be. There might be social repercussions
but really, if she thinks this I’m not sure why she’s hanging
out with people that she believes are behaving in an immoral way
in the first place.
If this were a friend of mine I’d want to know if they had such
a strongly held belief in opposition to mine. I don’t see
anything rude about expressing it, I do see some problems with
silently judging others she calls friends.
Kimmy was rude and obnoxious. But I don’t think Fiona did
anything wrong or rude.
#Post#: 29978--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Kiwipinball
Date: April 26, 2019, 8:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So Kimmy was clearly rude, obnoxious, overbearing, etc. I don't
think anyone here is going to disagree with that. If it had just
been Kimmy and Fiona, I'd say Fiona was fine. Kimmy had it
coming. But if she said she thinks it's immoral to have
children, and several other people there had children, she is in
effect calling them immoral. That does cross a line. Now, as
some others pointed it out, it doesn't sound like anyone was
trying to save Fiona from Kimmy, which they should have, but I
don't think that makes it okay to basically call them immoral.
My mom is a big believer in zero population growth and believes
it's immoral to have more than two biological children. But she
would never in a million years say that to anyone with more than
two biological children. (She doesn't run around judging them,
and she loves the children they have, she just believes it would
be better for the world as a whole to not have the population
grow).
I guess some of this depends on how you define immoral - usually
I think of it as doing really bad things/possibly being a bad
person (I consider stealing immoral, etc). Whereas for my mom
(and possibly Fiona) it's more that she strongly believes that
wasn't the right choice, but not that the people are bad for
making it. If the distinction makes sense. So a lot of how I
feel about it would depend exactly on how Fiona expressed
herself. ("I strongly feel that having children given X
situation is not a good choice" vs. "I believe it's immoral to
have children given X situation" have different flavors). It's
the difference between "I could never vote for Politician X" and
"Anyone who votes for Politician X is ignorant." They may both
cause upset/controversy/whatever, but only in one are you
possibly calling someone a name.
So my vote - Kimmy very rude. Fiona somewhat rude to the other
people at the table (not Kimmy). I think Fiona would have been
better off telling Kimmy to shut up. That's rude, but only rude
to Kimmy.
#Post#: 29981--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Victoria
Date: April 26, 2019, 9:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hanna link ---
>
> If you believe something I don’t see any reason to hide it,
unpopular though it may be. There might be social repercussions
but really, if she thinks this I’m not sure why she’s hanging
out with people that she believes are behaving in an immoral way
in the first place.
>
> If this were a friend of mine I’d want to know if they had
such a strongly held belief in opposition to mine. I don’t see
anything rude about expressing it, I do see some problems with
silently judging others she calls friends.
>
> Kimmy was rude and obnoxious. But I don’t think Fiona did
anything wrong or rude.
>
--- End Quote ---
I have quite a few religious and political beliefs and I believe
that people who don't act in accordance with those are behaving
in an immoral way...but I personally can't say I'd have any
friends left if I required all of them to align with all of my
moral stances.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page