Acceptable Contradictions?

[jarandhel]

When did people start getting the idea that other people discussing what does and does not work in forums or even a community and suggesting changes or even rules is a bad thing and Should Not Be Done Ever because it somehow supposedly infringes on the rights of others who do not agree with the suggested changes/rules?

Also... following their own logic to its conclusion, how do they justify this "rule" and their enforcement of it upon others who very obviously do not agree with it?

This isn't really in references to any specific instances, just a trend that has been confusing me for a while that I really don't understand the logical basis of. Could anyone explain it for me? I promise no matter what the answers are I'm not going to turn it into a debate, I just would like to know what they are.

Edit: as long as we're on the subject of apparently acceptable contradictions, why is it that some people can know that they are an asshole and view it as a negative trait but choose to accept it and express it rather than working to fix it and that's just fine, but if someone else has a problem with assholes and expresses that they're automatically the one with a problem that needs to change? Why can't the person who has a problem with assholes be the one to accept and express that side of themself and have that be just fine, and the asshole be the one with a problem that needs to change? I'm **Not Getting This Stuff** in a BIG way, and it's kind of making my head hurt tonight.

Comments

[arhuaine.livejournal.com]

Simple answer - some people on the whole tend to believe that They Are Right, and also in the follow-up theory that therefore anyone who disagrees with them Must Be Wrong. It accounts for both the situations you describe here.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

*shrugs* Maybe... that's sure the way it seems when I'm getting frustrated with them... but for the moment I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and hoping that I'll get some answers from the people who actually subscribe to such beliefs.

[arhuaine.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't bet on it. :/

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

*shrugs* I won't hold my breath, but I can still hope... it would be of immense use in facilitating future communication if I could better understand the mindset they believe they are operating from.

Assholousity

[devcandy.livejournal.com]

Current working theory:

Okay, I may not be of any help here on the other bit, however, there has been, in my opinion, a lot of cultural support of the "honest X" where X is a normally socially undesireable trait. (Asshole, hypocrite, snarkiness, etc)

Media tells us it is acceptable, so it is to many.

The media also shows anyone who seriously makes a judgement call based on the "revelation", as a wet blanket, who takes everything too seriously.

It's all over tons of shows, movies, and adds.

"The media sells it and you fill the role." -- (Ozzy?)

Arashi

Re: Assholousity

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

That makes sense to a point... but I've actually seen individuals take it so far as to say that a person who has problems with assholes OR *axe murderers* is the one with a problem who needs to change, not the asshole OR the *axe murderer* (and not be challenged about this by the other people supporting the asshole=good concept)... so I'm not entirely convinced that it's connected with the media's images of bad boy heroes or stuff.

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

There's a strengthening social trend to accept the negative. It actually makes some sense when looked at a certain way, and I'm interested in where it might eventually go. Let me see if I can explain it.

People die, get sick, get angry, and are sometimes assholes. These are negative things that we don't like, but that we aren't likely to be able to change anytime soon. These things are then placed in the category of "natural badness." Now, like poisonous plants and predators, ignoring natural badness or pretending it doesn't exist could be hazardous to your health. Therefore, it's okay for people to act in these ways, but trying to curb their actions is, in our society which is working hard to get everything out in the public whether that's the point or not, denial and oppression.

Not sure if that applies to the email list thing, but I think there's a real good chance that it does.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Hmm... possibly true, but since the concept gets extended to the point where murderers are covered under the same concept as having nothing wrong with them, and the people who want them to stop are considered wrong and need to change their narrow and restrictive viewpoints, I can't help but think there's more to it...

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

Really? Interesting. From my perspective, that actually reinforces my theory. I just hadn't seen any evidence that it had gotten far enough to support those who aprticipate in physical violence.

It's something my friends and I call "too many rats in the cage" based on an experiment in population pressures. When the rat population got to be too much in a certain cage, even if the cage was well-tended and there awas plenty of food and water, the rats... snapped. They started attacking each other and doing things that endangered themselves. When the population dropped back down to an acceptable level, the remaining rats came back to their senses.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Hmm... that could make sense, but in online forums I don't see how it would work since people are never really crowded together here unless they choose to be.... nobody is forcing them to join largish forums where there are tons of people. *shrugs* I think I'm still not getting it.

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

One of the things I remember about the experiments I mentioned above (which I haven't been able to find an online reference for and haven't really tried to look for offline), is that the population number at which the behavior occured wasn't consistent. because of that, the researchers could never pinpoint, or even postulate, what was causing it. Similar things happen with a great many specie, however.

Basically, one of the things I've wondered about for a while is whether or not the phenomena might not be information related. We know from various studies that animals and people begin to become less and less efficient after a certain threshold of information input is reached. For example, I can read a book, watch TV, listen to two conversations, and make notes about a completely unrelated line of thought with a mild degree of difficulty. Turn on the radio, toss in another conversation, or stimulate a currently unused sense, and I start to rapidly lose my ability to do any of these things. As a result, I tend to get irritable, moody, snappish, and or violent (usually depending on the degree or length of the 'noise').

I don't think it's all that different for any other creatures, but they're more likely to react only to input that has meaning to them and more likely to react sooner to the input that does because it's affecting their instinctive survival drives.

Humans, on the other hand, spend a great deal of time overcoming their instinctive survival drives and stretching their input limits to an amazing degree. I think it would have less to do with how many people are in a specific online forum than with how many of the people on that forum are close to, or beyond, their input threshold. Especially since current social and cultural pressures, practically worldwide, push us toward more information input, regardless of whether or not we can make any sense of it.

It's possible that the internet could actually make the condition worse, causing overload even for someone who has a high threshold but never leaves their house. Of course, everyone's tolerance would be different, and I suspect that dropping to an acceptable level of stimuli would completely reset the nervous system, but it's getting harder and rarer to actually get a break from information input, even by taking a vacation. (I see more and more people returning from vacations claiming to need a vacation from their vacation.)

I don't see it as a contained, isolated phenomenon. It's increasing worldwide, and what you mention is something that I view as only a possible manifestation of it and only one possible manifestation.

[feonixrift.livejournal.com]

In this 'glorious' (read: broken) age of tolerance, the only thing intolerable is intolerance. It must do so to perpetuate itself. Why it exists in the first place would be harder to define. But it has reached the stages of existing for the sake of continuing its own existance, with all the stubborn enforcement of blatent illogics that is implied in that.