3 ms·

There is defiance and then there is just being an asshole. I think we should appreciate the difference.

by coco87 11y ago

Intermernet 11y ago
They're not on the same spectrum. An asshole being justly defiant is not comparable to a nice person being unjustly compliant. Put it this way: Many people who history currently regards as being "correct" were assholes, and many people who history currently regards as being despots were wonderfully charming and pleasant. Also, the view of these people over the course of history has changed (due to many things, some ranging from societal change of opinion to historical revisionism). As stated in the article: "Cartwright described a related psychiatric disease, dysaesthesia aethiopica, that he said was ‘the natural offspring of negro liberty – the liberty to be idle, to wallow in filth, and to indulge in improper food and drinks’. It’s easy to roll our eyes at such shoddy logic and obvious racism. But to many Southern whites, Cartwright’s explanations made perfect sense. They were used to justify both the murder of slaves and the recapture of runaways." Was Cartwright being an asshole? Or were the slaves trying to escape being assholes? Any person's opinion is unfortunately defined by personal circumstance, society, and interest. I'm pretty sure that James F. Blake thought Rosa Parks was just being "an asshole".
tremon 11y ago
The two are not even in the same league: being an asshole is to demand from other individuals the very liberties that you deny them. Being defiant is to resist how social norms and conventions are applied to you. I am reminded of this quote from G.B. Shaw: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself. All progress therefore depends on the unreasonable man."

3 ms·

There is defiance and then there is just being an asshole. I think we should appreciate the difference.

by coco87 11y ago

There is defiance and then there is just being an asshole. I think we should appreciate the difference.

Intermernet 11y ago
They're not on the same spectrum. An asshole being justly defiant is not comparable to a nice person being unjustly compliant. Put it this way: Many people who history currently regards as being "correct" were assholes, and many people who history currently regards as being despots were wonderfully charming and pleasant. Also, the view of these people over the course of history has changed (due to many things, some ranging from societal change of opinion to historical revisionism). As stated in the article: "Cartwright described a related psychiatric disease, dysaesthesia aethiopica, that he said was ‘the natural offspring of negro liberty – the liberty to be idle, to wallow in filth, and to indulge in improper food and drinks’. It’s easy to roll our eyes at such shoddy logic and obvious racism. But to many Southern whites, Cartwright’s explanations made perfect sense. They were used to justify both the murder of slaves and the recapture of runaways." Was Cartwright being an asshole? Or were the slaves trying to escape being assholes? Any person's opinion is unfortunately defined by personal circumstance, society, and interest. I'm pretty sure that James F. Blake thought Rosa Parks was just being "an asshole".
tremon 11y ago
The two are not even in the same league: being an asshole is to demand from other individuals the very liberties that you deny them. Being defiant is to resist how social norms and conventions are applied to you. I am reminded of this quote from G.B. Shaw: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself. All progress therefore depends on the unreasonable man."