4 ms·

You're thinking of a different quality. Willingness to defend oneself is normal and admirable. "Honor" as defined in Dutch's essay is something else entirely. I

You're thinking of a different quality. Willingness to defend oneself is normal and admirable. "Honor" as defined in Dutch's essay is something else entirely. It's about willingness to kill for an insult. That's despicable in both individuals and nations.

vkou 9y ago
Killing for an insult is self-defense in a society where tolerating an insult broadcasts that you can be taken advantage of, with no repercussions. (Typically because the justice system is absent, toothless or corrupt.) "Honor" is not a cultural failing, it is a failing of legal structures. Where such systems don't exist, our rhetoric is not far off from this line of thinking.
- ben_w 9y ago
  Disagree. Insults are a problem if and only if they cause third parties to have unfairly* diminished regard for you. To give a topical example, there does not appear to be any insult which affects Trump: if you hate him then the insults prove you right, but if you love him then the insults are just fake news. * In some places and some eras, insulting Our Leader was punishable regardless of whether the insult was true. I think this is a bad law, and only falsehood-based defamation should be an offence — but even then there is a problem because humans treat lists of more than seven-ish items as endless and the internet’s perfect memory means you can probably show any given person has said or done more than seven socially unacceptable things.
  - vkou 9y ago
    > Disagree. Insults are a problem if and only if they cause third parties to have unfairly* diminished regard for you. To give a topical example, there does not appear to be any insult which affects Trump: if you hate him then the insults prove you right, but if you love him then the insults are just fake news. In societies where 'honor' killings take place, insults do cause third parties to have an unfairly diminished regard for you. Here's an example closer to home - when a drug dealer gets ripped off for $500, he doesn't care about the money. $500 is nothing to him. What he cares about is appearing like an easy mark, which opens the door to everyone and their brother stealing from him. It's why the correct response to that kind of insult, in that kind of industry, is to go to the offender's house, and break their skull open by dropping an ATM machine on it. He isn't killing someone for $500. He's killing someone to make it clear that he will not be taken advantage of. Trump doesn't need to do that, because me insulting him on Twitter will not result in other people ripping him off. He is protected from that by a working legal system. My insults are not damaging, and even if it were, he would be able to sue me. Drug dealers, and people living in the mountains of Albania have no such recourse (Or do not trust it.)
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      I think people in this thread are talking past each other. I wanted to clarify the other side of the debate: Nothing better illustrates the thar mentality better than the fury directed by Islamic militants against Danish and Norwegian cartoons of Mohammed. Sacrilegious art in other cultures can offend and get people angry but the lunatic response of radical Islamists is in a class by itself. It's the shrieking, out of control petulance of a three-year old throwing a tantrum. People infected with this attitude will be utterly incapable of recognizing wrongdoing by their own society, utterly incapable of taking criticism or recognizing the need for correction. This is remarkably close to the image of Hell painted by C. S. Lewis in his books Perelandra and The Screwtape Letters: a paralyzing self-absorption that imprisons the individual in hate and impotent rage while simultaneously blinding him to any possibility of escape. This doesn't seem like a question of legal systems.
      - blackbagboys 9y ago
        This seems like an utterly dissimilar phenomenon from the personal, tit for tat honor disputes between people who know each on an individual basis and are enmeshed in the same social network or framework
      - ben_w 9y ago
        > I think people in this thread are talking past each other. I am also getting this impression. I think that while I am talking about libel and slander, vkou is talking about the need to be taken seriously?
    - rhizome 9y ago
      You're equating both societies' sense of what an insult is. Sometimes it's just a daughter's choice of boyfriend.
      - vkou 9y ago
        And if we're talking about lunatic radicalism and out-of-control petulance, sometimes it's just a flag being burned, kneeling at a football game, a black man living in a white house, or whatever nonesense about impure blood and 'White Europe' gets fascists marching in the streets these days. All of these things have elicited death threats. Again, the difference is that in our society, the threat of law keeps those people from carrying them out. A few decades ago, the threat of law did not, and lynch mobs were common.
- jhanschoo 9y ago
  I dont think they are correlated. It is not difficult to imagine a totalitarian society where criticism against the establishment is not tolerated; many auch have existed and many such exist today. The characteristic that marks non-thar-ness is a strong desire to deescalate. Willing enough to retaliate, but unwilling to retaliate in greater proportion. Overretaliation leads to a toxic society, but a society that punishes offenders only enough to disincentivize uncooperative behaviors builds a cooperative society which has citizens not living in fear of dumb mistakes.
- reading-at-work 9y ago
  You got downvoted but you're right. That's the whole point. Honor cultures exist in places where there is no strong, central justice system. It is a well-documented phenomenon throughout human history - ancient Japan and viking-age Iceland come to mind as notable examples, and I'm sure there are dozens more.
- cirgue 9y ago
  > a society where tolerating an insult broadcasts that you can be taken advantage of, with no repercussions. Do you not think this is part of the constellation of social ills of honor killings?
  - vkou 9y ago
    Without a legal system, what other form of recourse do you have? Obviously, murder is a very serious form of retaliation, but with no path for de-escalation (a trial, a judgement by a religious, or community elder - or a feudal warlord), eye-for-an-eye will eventually reach that point. Let's not forget that most cultures, including ours, prefer, or at least tolerate revenge over turn-the-other-cheek. It's why it's so easy to treat criminals as subhuman - those that have done wrong have to be punished. Most people see themselves as the heroes in their life story. When I harm Bob, and Bob escalates, and harms me back, I won't see it as just desserts - I see it as Bob harming me, context be damned. I will retaliate. (And so will he.)

vkou 9y ago

Killing for an insult is self-defense in a society where tolerating an insult broadcasts that you can be taken advantage of, with no repercussions. (Typically because the justice system is absent, toothless or corrupt.) "Honor" is not a cultural failing, it is a failing of legal structures. Where such systems don't exist, our rhetoric is not far off from this line of thinking.

ben_w 9y ago
Disagree. Insults are a problem if and only if they cause third parties to have unfairly* diminished regard for you. To give a topical example, there does not appear to be any insult which affects Trump: if you hate him then the insults prove you right, but if you love him then the insults are just fake news. * In some places and some eras, insulting Our Leader was punishable regardless of whether the insult was true. I think this is a bad law, and only falsehood-based defamation should be an offence — but even then there is a problem because humans treat lists of more than seven-ish items as endless and the internet’s perfect memory means you can probably show any given person has said or done more than seven socially unacceptable things.
- vkou 9y ago
  > Disagree. Insults are a problem if and only if they cause third parties to have unfairly* diminished regard for you. To give a topical example, there does not appear to be any insult which affects Trump: if you hate him then the insults prove you right, but if you love him then the insults are just fake news. In societies where 'honor' killings take place, insults do cause third parties to have an unfairly diminished regard for you. Here's an example closer to home - when a drug dealer gets ripped off for $500, he doesn't care about the money. $500 is nothing to him. What he cares about is appearing like an easy mark, which opens the door to everyone and their brother stealing from him. It's why the correct response to that kind of insult, in that kind of industry, is to go to the offender's house, and break their skull open by dropping an ATM machine on it. He isn't killing someone for $500. He's killing someone to make it clear that he will not be taken advantage of. Trump doesn't need to do that, because me insulting him on Twitter will not result in other people ripping him off. He is protected from that by a working legal system. My insults are not damaging, and even if it were, he would be able to sue me. Drug dealers, and people living in the mountains of Albania have no such recourse (Or do not trust it.)
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    I think people in this thread are talking past each other. I wanted to clarify the other side of the debate: Nothing better illustrates the thar mentality better than the fury directed by Islamic militants against Danish and Norwegian cartoons of Mohammed. Sacrilegious art in other cultures can offend and get people angry but the lunatic response of radical Islamists is in a class by itself. It's the shrieking, out of control petulance of a three-year old throwing a tantrum. People infected with this attitude will be utterly incapable of recognizing wrongdoing by their own society, utterly incapable of taking criticism or recognizing the need for correction. This is remarkably close to the image of Hell painted by C. S. Lewis in his books Perelandra and The Screwtape Letters: a paralyzing self-absorption that imprisons the individual in hate and impotent rage while simultaneously blinding him to any possibility of escape. This doesn't seem like a question of legal systems.
    - blackbagboys 9y ago
      This seems like an utterly dissimilar phenomenon from the personal, tit for tat honor disputes between people who know each on an individual basis and are enmeshed in the same social network or framework
    - ben_w 9y ago
      > I think people in this thread are talking past each other. I am also getting this impression. I think that while I am talking about libel and slander, vkou is talking about the need to be taken seriously?
  - rhizome 9y ago
    You're equating both societies' sense of what an insult is. Sometimes it's just a daughter's choice of boyfriend.
    - vkou 9y ago
      And if we're talking about lunatic radicalism and out-of-control petulance, sometimes it's just a flag being burned, kneeling at a football game, a black man living in a white house, or whatever nonesense about impure blood and 'White Europe' gets fascists marching in the streets these days. All of these things have elicited death threats. Again, the difference is that in our society, the threat of law keeps those people from carrying them out. A few decades ago, the threat of law did not, and lynch mobs were common.
jhanschoo 9y ago
I dont think they are correlated. It is not difficult to imagine a totalitarian society where criticism against the establishment is not tolerated; many auch have existed and many such exist today. The characteristic that marks non-thar-ness is a strong desire to deescalate. Willing enough to retaliate, but unwilling to retaliate in greater proportion. Overretaliation leads to a toxic society, but a society that punishes offenders only enough to disincentivize uncooperative behaviors builds a cooperative society which has citizens not living in fear of dumb mistakes.
reading-at-work 9y ago
You got downvoted but you're right. That's the whole point. Honor cultures exist in places where there is no strong, central justice system. It is a well-documented phenomenon throughout human history - ancient Japan and viking-age Iceland come to mind as notable examples, and I'm sure there are dozens more.
cirgue 9y ago
> a society where tolerating an insult broadcasts that you can be taken advantage of, with no repercussions. Do you not think this is part of the constellation of social ills of honor killings?
- vkou 9y ago
  Without a legal system, what other form of recourse do you have? Obviously, murder is a very serious form of retaliation, but with no path for de-escalation (a trial, a judgement by a religious, or community elder - or a feudal warlord), eye-for-an-eye will eventually reach that point. Let's not forget that most cultures, including ours, prefer, or at least tolerate revenge over turn-the-other-cheek. It's why it's so easy to treat criminals as subhuman - those that have done wrong have to be punished. Most people see themselves as the heroes in their life story. When I harm Bob, and Bob escalates, and harms me back, I won't see it as just desserts - I see it as Bob harming me, context be damned. I will retaliate. (And so will he.)