6 ms·

It's called out quite a lot, just not literally with the word akrasia. When it is called out, you're being "judgemental" or restricting someone's freedom/autono

It's called out quite a lot, just not literally with the word akrasia. When it is called out, you're being "judgemental" or restricting someone's freedom/autonomy, which is of course sacrosanct to moderns.

phs318u 3y ago
Those responding in such a way are not in fact acting against their better judgement - they lack a judgment better than the one they have, therefore the criticism is moot.
- jdthedisciple 3y ago
  Not true. Often they really do have a better judgement but choose to be offended when called out.
  - komali2 3y ago
    I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, but to me it seems like there's potentially two issues at play here: self control to act in accordance with one's supposed morals, and, the changing of the presumptive morals of a society. For self control, I feel like it's universal human experience to always find this falling short. Throughout history we do things we know we shouldn't, as in, we agree they're bad for our health or unethical, but we're really good at doing it anyway for whatever reason. Reasons like forgetting in the heat of the moment or dreaming up some unreasonable justification. So, to say there's something new in modern society about this, I don't know if I agree. If anything I think each individual's ability to manage this is under direct attack by increasingly effective mechanisms manipulating our cognitive biases and flaws, such as notification bells and other UX dark/whatever patterns. As for the changing of presumptive morals, this I feel is quite noticeable in modern society, and I wonder if when someone appears "offended for being called out," what's really happening is a misinterpretation of their morals. In fact they're acting out their morals just fine, and there's a disagreement. The example of this I most often think about is laziness. I personally feel bad if I spend a day at home watching netflix or whatever. I think I should instead be reading my HUGE backlog of books I want to get through, or work on my personal projects, or go clean the local park, or do literally anything. If you catch me watching netflix, that's a failure to act out my morals. That said, I don't have the strongest argument for my morals. After all, what's all that wrong with spending a lifetime sitting at home watching netflix? Honestly? Do we need to have massive expectations for all the billions of humans? Maybe we do, and maybe the person works really hard during the day, and that's good enough? Or maybe our technology has advanced to the point where perhaps it's just fine for us to relax and float on the river of life. In fact maybe technology has nothing to do with it, maybe it was always ok to do nothing. In Cory Doctorow's "Walkaway," there's a subset of the culture that exclusively do nothing, contribute nothing, so as to lessen the guilt of hardworkers when it's time for them to take a break: "Relax, there's no way you can be lazier than us after all!" What examples of people being offended, for being called out for what, did you have in mind?
    - jdthedisciple 3y ago
      > What examples of people being offended, for being called out for what, did you have in mind? Just very simple things, like if you were to suggest to someone evidently overweight to perhaps move around a little more or watch their diet, they (or other people for that matter) are likely to call you judgemental and be offended.
      - phs318u 3y ago
        Strictly speaking you are being judgemental - assuming of course that like most people that say such things without invitation that you’re acting on a limited set of knowledge about that individual and their circumstances. It’s one thing to state that collectively, people are more obese these days than in the past, and that certain proscriptions (food intake type and quantity, activity type and quantity) are called for. In most cases such statements would be unremarkable and get broad agreement. But you don’t know me or what I’ve been doing/trying etc, so on what basis do you think you can make a comment like that about me and expect me not to be offended? I find that expectation quite remarkable. It’s not that people are more offended these days as much as it is people find it perfectly acceptable to do and say what in the old days would be considered “rude” or “impolite”. Civility has been upended by “truth telling”. Can’t say I’m a huge fan tbh.
      - lynx23 3y ago
        Which is a totally understandable reaction, since you overstepped a line and pretended you have the right to judge others. In my book, you only have the right to do this with your children, until they are 18 or something. After that, you are just being a dick.
        foo-bar-bat 3y ago
        Hey no offense intended, but this comment seems hypocritical and self-contradictory. Are you claiming? 1. Nobody has a right to judge others. 2. I judge everybody who disagrees with me to be dicks. Either your own rulebook applies to everyone except you (hypocrisy) or your premise is false (selfcontradction). If you hold that people should not pretend they have the right to think at others, then you should stop doing so yourself. Or is it not the freedom of thinking but the freedom of speech you dislike? Of course because you yourself enjoy your right to judge others (and have done so here) it follows that your premise is false. Thus, everyone has a right to judge others. QED The opposite claim is less wrong: nobody has a right to be free of judgement from others. To argue otherwise reduces to: I don't like shame, so I deny its validity by blaming others. Being shameless is some kind of behavior disorder predicate, not a virtue! For example here is some random guy in Arkansas who writes about these topics: "when disturbed characters do perceive that someone is judging them in a negative manner, they easily think that it’s the other person who has the problem." Source: https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/shameless-and-guiltless-thinking/ https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/shameless-and-guiltless-thinki... The social implications topic came up centuries ago in the Federalist v Antifederalist debate. Where IIRC there was a line of reasoning that the new USA didn't need certain organs of power (law enforcement?) because the 'coercive force of shame' within communities was sufficient to self regulate. I haven't read this stuff for decades but as I recall the counter argument went like: yeah maybe for you guys up north but that only works in your homogeneous post-puritan monoculture... down here in the south we have slave revolts to suppress, er property rights to enforce. On a lighter note, this whole topic reminds me of:"oh you strenuously object?" from A Few Good Men: https://youtu.be/bOnRHAyXqYY https://youtu.be/bOnRHAyXqYY

phs318u 3y ago

Those responding in such a way are not in fact acting against their better judgement - they lack a judgment better than the one they have, therefore the criticism is moot.

jdthedisciple 3y ago
Not true. Often they really do have a better judgement but choose to be offended when called out.
- komali2 3y ago
  I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, but to me it seems like there's potentially two issues at play here: self control to act in accordance with one's supposed morals, and, the changing of the presumptive morals of a society. For self control, I feel like it's universal human experience to always find this falling short. Throughout history we do things we know we shouldn't, as in, we agree they're bad for our health or unethical, but we're really good at doing it anyway for whatever reason. Reasons like forgetting in the heat of the moment or dreaming up some unreasonable justification. So, to say there's something new in modern society about this, I don't know if I agree. If anything I think each individual's ability to manage this is under direct attack by increasingly effective mechanisms manipulating our cognitive biases and flaws, such as notification bells and other UX dark/whatever patterns. As for the changing of presumptive morals, this I feel is quite noticeable in modern society, and I wonder if when someone appears "offended for being called out," what's really happening is a misinterpretation of their morals. In fact they're acting out their morals just fine, and there's a disagreement. The example of this I most often think about is laziness. I personally feel bad if I spend a day at home watching netflix or whatever. I think I should instead be reading my HUGE backlog of books I want to get through, or work on my personal projects, or go clean the local park, or do literally anything. If you catch me watching netflix, that's a failure to act out my morals. That said, I don't have the strongest argument for my morals. After all, what's all that wrong with spending a lifetime sitting at home watching netflix? Honestly? Do we need to have massive expectations for all the billions of humans? Maybe we do, and maybe the person works really hard during the day, and that's good enough? Or maybe our technology has advanced to the point where perhaps it's just fine for us to relax and float on the river of life. In fact maybe technology has nothing to do with it, maybe it was always ok to do nothing. In Cory Doctorow's "Walkaway," there's a subset of the culture that exclusively do nothing, contribute nothing, so as to lessen the guilt of hardworkers when it's time for them to take a break: "Relax, there's no way you can be lazier than us after all!" What examples of people being offended, for being called out for what, did you have in mind?
  - jdthedisciple 3y ago
    > What examples of people being offended, for being called out for what, did you have in mind? Just very simple things, like if you were to suggest to someone evidently overweight to perhaps move around a little more or watch their diet, they (or other people for that matter) are likely to call you judgemental and be offended.
    - phs318u 3y ago
      Strictly speaking you are being judgemental - assuming of course that like most people that say such things without invitation that you’re acting on a limited set of knowledge about that individual and their circumstances. It’s one thing to state that collectively, people are more obese these days than in the past, and that certain proscriptions (food intake type and quantity, activity type and quantity) are called for. In most cases such statements would be unremarkable and get broad agreement. But you don’t know me or what I’ve been doing/trying etc, so on what basis do you think you can make a comment like that about me and expect me not to be offended? I find that expectation quite remarkable. It’s not that people are more offended these days as much as it is people find it perfectly acceptable to do and say what in the old days would be considered “rude” or “impolite”. Civility has been upended by “truth telling”. Can’t say I’m a huge fan tbh.
    - lynx23 3y ago
      Which is a totally understandable reaction, since you overstepped a line and pretended you have the right to judge others. In my book, you only have the right to do this with your children, until they are 18 or something. After that, you are just being a dick.
      - foo-bar-bat 3y ago
        Hey no offense intended, but this comment seems hypocritical and self-contradictory. Are you claiming? 1. Nobody has a right to judge others. 2. I judge everybody who disagrees with me to be dicks. Either your own rulebook applies to everyone except you (hypocrisy) or your premise is false (selfcontradction). If you hold that people should not pretend they have the right to think at others, then you should stop doing so yourself. Or is it not the freedom of thinking but the freedom of speech you dislike? Of course because you yourself enjoy your right to judge others (and have done so here) it follows that your premise is false. Thus, everyone has a right to judge others. QED The opposite claim is less wrong: nobody has a right to be free of judgement from others. To argue otherwise reduces to: I don't like shame, so I deny its validity by blaming others. Being shameless is some kind of behavior disorder predicate, not a virtue! For example here is some random guy in Arkansas who writes about these topics: "when disturbed characters do perceive that someone is judging them in a negative manner, they easily think that it’s the other person who has the problem." Source: https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/shameless-and-guiltless-thinking/ https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/shameless-and-guiltless-thinki... The social implications topic came up centuries ago in the Federalist v Antifederalist debate. Where IIRC there was a line of reasoning that the new USA didn't need certain organs of power (law enforcement?) because the 'coercive force of shame' within communities was sufficient to self regulate. I haven't read this stuff for decades but as I recall the counter argument went like: yeah maybe for you guys up north but that only works in your homogeneous post-puritan monoculture... down here in the south we have slave revolts to suppress, er property rights to enforce. On a lighter note, this whole topic reminds me of:"oh you strenuously object?" from A Few Good Men: https://youtu.be/bOnRHAyXqYY https://youtu.be/bOnRHAyXqYY