DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bad Manners and Brimstone
HTML https://badmanners.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Life in General
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13418--------------------------------------------------
Re: Whoa!
DIR By: Irked Purist
Date: September 10, 2018, 12:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Aleko link ---
>
> [...]indeed, many of them actually want to startle people[...]
>
--- End Quote ---
On what are you basing this?
#Post#: 13420--------------------------------------------------
Re: Whoa!
DIR By: guest657
Date: September 10, 2018, 1:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I can't speak for Aleko, but it's fairly general knowledge that
a lot of people get enjoyment out of provoking reactions.
Here's an extreme example, where over 300 people voted on which
gory or disturbing cosplay would be most "triggering" to the
general public (or, as the author states, "which one is most
likely to give your grandma a heart attack.")
I wouldn't follow this link if you have a sensitive nature. The
makeup effects are quite realistic and graphic.
HTML https://m.ranker.com/list/disturbing-halloween-cosplay-photos/april-a-taylor
Are *most* people who cultivate offbeat looks or do cosplay
intentionally trying to upset people? No, certainly not. Then
again, the majority aren't doing extreme makeup or body
modifications.
But I think there are enough people in the shock-value
subculture to qualify as "many people."
I would say the majority are like me: I like the way it looks,
and I enjoy the harmless surprise on people's faces when they
try to reconcile my offbeat hair with the rest of my pretty
conventional appearance, or the mundane context in which we
meet.
Humans are social creatures. We have survived this long because
we learn how to cooperate in groups. Awareness of the way other
people perceive you and relate to you, and making choices to
influence those perceptions, are normal and necessary parts of
the adult psyche.
That doesn't mean conformity=maturity. It means that
self-awareness, awareness of others, and intentionality are part
of maturity. People who make unusual choices in order to express
their individuality and deny that anyone can or should notice
the individuality they're expressing, are operating with a large
cognitive dissonance.
#Post#: 13430--------------------------------------------------
Re: Whoa!
DIR By: Irked Purist
Date: September 10, 2018, 3:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, a lot of people do, in all manner of ways. It doesn't
appear to correlate with what they like to wear.
I don't see the relevence of the link; voting on what's the most
disturbing getup doesn't imply any desire to copy it. I could
vote on which I think is the most awwwww-inspiring to the
general public out of dog pictures and it wouldn't mean I wanted
to own a dog.
There may be many people in the 'shock-value subculture',
however that's defined, but that is not synonymous with 'people
who deliberately cultivate a startling appearance', if
'startling' is being used to refer to blue hair too. It's
interesting that the traits under discussion have shifted from
unnaturally-coloured hair, to 'extreme body modification', to
shock-and-gore makeup and grotesquerie. They don't have much
relation to each other.
'A startling appearance' is inherently subjective. If it's
being defined as 'anything which could cause a startled
reaction', then that's going to have to consider so many
individual preferences it may as well be meaningless. Sometimes
I am startled by the extent to which I dislike [article of
clothing], or how someone likes to apply [appearance-altering
substance]. Genuinely, double-take level startled. That's
probably not what is meant but it fits the definition.
No one appears to be arguing that individuality should go
unnoticed, just that leaving it unremarked upon is generally
more polite. Your internal reaction might be reeling but your
external one doesn't have to reflect it. People who have a
non-mainstream style, IME, are not surprised that it might
attract attention, not unless they're embryotically new to
expressing it. And yes, I would say they're within their rights
to be miffed if the reactions are rude, and the issue of 'well
they did it on purpose' is a something of a red herring.
If the reaction is genuinely one of surprise/shock, and
therefore uncontrollable, it's odd that the burden of whether
it's impolite or understandable falls on whether the person who
elicited the reaction chose to look the way they do.
#Post#: 13435--------------------------------------------------
Re: Whoa!
DIR By: guest657
Date: September 10, 2018, 3:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Irked Purist link ---
>
> Yes, a lot of people do, in all manner of ways. It doesn't
appear to correlate with what they like to wear.
> I don't see the relevence of the link; voting on what's the
most disturbing getup doesn't imply any desire to copy it. I
could vote on which I think is the most awwwww-inspiring to the
general public out of dog pictures and it wouldn't mean I wanted
to own a dog.
>
> There may be many people in the 'shock-value subculture',
however that's defined, but that is not synonymous with 'people
who deliberately cultivate a startling appearance', if
'startling' is being used to refer to blue hair too. It's
interesting that the traits under discussion have shifted from
unnaturally-coloured hair, to 'extreme body modification', to
shock-and-gore makeup and grotesquerie. They don't have much
relation to each other.
>
> 'A startling appearance' is inherently subjective. If it's
being defined as 'anything which could cause a startled
reaction', then that's going to have to consider so many
individual preferences it may as well be meaningless. Sometimes
I am startled by the extent to which I dislike [article of
clothing], or how someone likes to apply [appearance-altering
substance]. Genuinely, double-take level startled. That's
probably not what is meant but it fits the definition.
>
> No one appears to be arguing that individuality should go
unnoticed, just that leaving it unremarked upon is generally
more polite. Your internal reaction might be reeling but your
external one doesn't have to reflect it. People who have a
non-mainstream style, IME, are not surprised that it might
attract attention, not unless they're embryotically new to
expressing it. And yes, I would say they're within their rights
to be miffed if the reactions are rude, and the issue of 'well
they did it on purpose' is a something of a red herring.
>
> If the reaction is genuinely one of surprise/shock, and
therefore uncontrollable, it's odd that the burden of whether
it's impolite or understandable falls on whether the person who
elicited the reaction chose to look the way they do.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think your replies here are a far better example of "many
people like to deliberately provoke reactions from others."
Yes, everyone all along has agreed that rudeness is rude,
insults are insulting, and meanness is mean.
If Aleko can clarify what she was referring to, I think there
will be room for a more useful discussion.
#Post#: 13437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Whoa!
DIR By: Irked Purist
Date: September 10, 2018, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I am hoping to deliberately provoke the reaction of having
some questions answered and clarification supplied.
If there is anything in my response which you feel is impolite,
please address that specifically.
#Post#: 13444--------------------------------------------------
Re: Whoa!
DIR By: Amanita
Date: September 10, 2018, 5:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"I'm sure we all agree that commenting on something startling
about a person's appearance over which they have no control is
rude. But when they have chosen to make themselves look unusual,
that's another matter."
"If someone doesn’t want any startled comments like that, she
shouldn’t have the unusual appearance."
These were the comments I was referring to, that rubbed me the
wrong way. As for suggestions that people who look different
want to shock people, or do it for attention, I' respectfully
disagree. I don't embrace normcore fashion, I've got some pretty
striking wardrobe pieces that I've either made or bought. I wear
them because I like them and feel good in them, not because I
want attention or am trying to shock people. Same with the other
people I know who wear things outside the normcore standard.
PS- Normcore isn't an insult, like calling somebody a "mundane"
or a "normie". It refers to a style of clothing that goes out of
its way to be bland and nondescript.
HTML https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Normcore
#Post#: 13458--------------------------------------------------
Re: Whoa!
DIR By: Aleko
Date: September 11, 2018, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I said:
--- Quote ---
> "I'm sure we all agree that commenting on something startling
about a person's appearance over which they have no control is
rude. But when they have chosen to make themselves look unusual,
that's another matter."
>
--- End Quote ---
Well, of course there are degrees of unusual, and so there are
degrees in appropriateness of response. You say you wear
'striking wardrobe pieces' because you like them and feel good
in them, not because you want attention or are trying to shock
people, and I'll take your word for that. But you also, surely,
recognise that if they are really striking - of course I have no
idea just how striking your favourite bits of kit are - your
appearance will, well, strike people. And as a rational person,
you can hardly complain if they fail to disguise this, provided
they don't say anything offensive.
I once went shopping with a friend when both of us happened to
be wearing 18th-century sack gowns with hoop-petticoats and
wigs. (We were taking part in a living history event at the town
museum; our lunch-break was our only chance to visit a
particular shop in that town, and it would have taken far too
long to change.) Actually everyone was wonderfully British about
it and politely took no notice, but heaven knows they had every
right to let their jaws drop and say 'Whaaat?' or ask just why
we were dressed like that, and we certainly wouldn't have
dreamed of taking offence if they had.
--- Quote ---
> [...]indeed, many of them actually want to startle people[...]
>
> [quote] On what are you basing this?
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Common knowledge.
#Post#: 13460--------------------------------------------------
Re: Whoa!
DIR By: Irked Purist
Date: September 11, 2018, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Cite, please.
#Post#: 13462--------------------------------------------------
Re: Whoa!
DIR By: Aleko
Date: September 11, 2018, 7:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Cite, please.
--- End Quote ---
OK. As Anon4Now says:
--- Quote ---
> People who make unusual choices in order to express their
individuality and deny that anyone can or should notice the
individuality they're expressing, are operating with a large
cognitive dissonance.
--- End Quote ---
Quite. If rational people choose to dress / style their hair /
paint or tattoo themselves in a way that they know is bound to
attract attention, at the very least they must be people who
don't dislike their appearance attracting attention. It would be
absolutely extraordinary if at least some of those people didn't
positively enjoy attracting attention. The more so, given that -
as a columnist in The Guardian put it - "attention-seeking is
the defining need of our times"
(
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/05/crimes-of-attention-stalkers-killers-jihadists-longing)
Again, I'm not saying for a moment that your clothing or OP's
hair are deliberate choices to get attention: I haven't seen
either. Nor that anyone's appearance justifies rudeness on the
part of onlookers - I made that point right at the beginning.
#Post#: 13476--------------------------------------------------
Re: Whoa!
DIR By: Irked Purist
Date: September 11, 2018, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am asking for evidence of your claim that 'many' such people
'enjoy [being] startling'. It seems to be assigning motives that
you cannot possibly know, and taking what you see as a general
group characteristic- which itself may not be an accurate
assumption- and applying it to individuals. 'Common knowledge'
is a circular argument.
I have already addressed the notion that the
unusually-presenting are denying 'anyone can or should notice'.
It's a strawman, because the standard I am arguing for is not
that it go [I]unnoticed[/I]- an impossible requirement- but that
it go unremarked upon. To not make your reaction someone else's
business, whether their appearance is deliberately-chosen or
not.
Perhaps it is a completely neutral factor. Perhaps they
actually dislike the attention, but the satisfaction they get
from dressing in a manner they enjoy outweighs it. Perhaps there
are practical reasons.
Perhaps it doesn't feature in deciding what to wear (not the
same as being 'surprised' by reactions) because it is so far
down their list of concerns.
re. the link, the actual article appears to be about social
isolation and belonging as it relates to new media and
interpersonal relationships rather than superficial forms of
attention. It's not clear if the columnist wrote the rather
disconnected headline.
Possible analogy: someone likes a particular breed of dog.
They've always loved that breed, but it's recently become
massively popular. They have the opportunity to get a dog and
that breed is their first choice. Should they take into account
the likely public perception when they take the dog for walks?
Should they be suprised that every fifth person wants to
interact with the dog? Have they grounds for miffedness about
having to manage public reactions when they just want to take
their dog a walk?
Why did you get that sort of dog if you didn't want people to
notice it?
The disconnect is in the claim that people who affect an
unusual appearance *must* in some way enjoy, or at least not
dislike, the attention that will draw. It's as much a
non-sequiteur, to me, as claiming that 'at the very least, they
must be people who don't dislike custard creams'.
The other disconnect is that a reaction is acceptable, and
therefore the business of the unusual-looking person *if* it's
in response to something chosen, yet rude or off-limits if it's
something the person can't help. I would prefer the same
standard for both.
My bar for How Much Reaction? would actually be fairly high and
someone going 'whaaat?' probably wouldn't register. (I tend to
anticipate public behaviour as part of general personal safety,
like being aware of surroundings). I'm usually moving pretty
fast in public and have my tunes on so people could gawp or
comment at normal volume, no issue, but once you take up my
time/attention you make it my business.
So for the unusually-dressed: read the room. Ensure you are
comfortable in yourself. Don't scorn the mainstream just
because.
For the onlookers: how someone dresses is nothing to do with
you. Your appraisal of it is not their problem.
For both, assume good faith.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page