[quote1239056912=AlphaMo]
So then I would say the act of him sitting down at your table might be an act of 'social terrorism' more so than his expectation that you buy him a beer after accidentally spilling it.
There's no damage being done by him sitting at your table...but you don't want him there. The (subjectively unfair) social norm says that you should not ask him to leave unless he does something impolite/rude/damaging/etc.
(Hell, a large portion of the act of sarging is based on this norm...)
However, you didn't want him there...you wanted to spend time with your LTR.
So, it is very well within your right to ask him to leave you and your LTR alone (pre beer spillage). That may not be what many weak-willed people would do (they would just put up with his presence)...but there is no reason why you should feel any stress or resistance to politely asking him to leave.
Now, had you asked him to leave BEFORE accidentally spilling his beer, you would be well within all fairness to refuse to buy him a beer. At that point, it is his own mis-conduct that caused him to be where he was at the moment you accidentally knocked into him....and thus all bets are off of your wallet.
[/quote1239056912]
I think of it more as a cumulative process.
Social violation #1: Sitting at the table without being asked. If done correctly it does not have to be a violation.
Social violation #2: He sat at the table, didn't say a word, even after my LTR introduced herself to him. (She was working withing the politeness confines.)
Social violation #3: Being creepy while invading my private property.
Social violation #4: [b]Demanding[/b] I buy him a beer after I spilled it on accident.
Violation after violation. He continued to get his way until I stood up to him and said 'no.' In the presence of repeated, cumulative social violations at what point am I 'free' to engage in a violation as well?
He was simply holding us hostage. I don't think there's any other way to look at this. Then, when I spilled the beer, yes I was at fault, but in the presence of repeated violations and demands from a social terrorist I decided the appropriate thing to do was violate a norm.
Why should I be forced to comply with a protocol such as asking him to leave which then frees me to violate? When you violate, prepare for someone to violate right back. All too often, we allow others to violate us because society, wrongly, says that we cannot violate until we do everything possible to be nice and cordial.
Dallas PUA
The Pickup Artist Playground
Rugged Individualism
41 posts
• Page 4 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
by Guest » Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:56 am
[quote1239084839=Finesse]
Isn't it though? Both are objects of value. Aren't they equal?
[/quote1239084839]
At risk of going off topic, I was implying apples and oranges.
Though they both contain value of some sort, one cannot necessarily be directly exchanged for the other.
To B R:
I think this one may have to conclude with a respectful 'To Each His Own'.
It seems this situation is a little hard to judge given only text and no true context:
- Was the homeless guy there just to do something to get you to buy him a beer? Or was he just being that drunk friendly guy who doesn't realize how annoying he is?
- When he said "I think you owe me another one," did he say it with a shit-eating grin on his face much like a drunk person might (and perhaps you mis-interpreted his light-hearted, sarcastically semi-direct, comment)? Or did he intentionally say it rudely so as to try to pressure you into thinking you had no choice in the matter but to appease him?
I am not one to let confrontations ball up through retaliation...I prefer to keep sight of the bigger picture and do what it takes to move past such an issue.
If this dude was being a blatant asshole from the start, I would dismiss him without paying for the beer. I don't have any interest in wasting my time fighting with him. I'd stop responding to the situation any further (people nearby, comments made by him, etc). I would just sit down, move on and we're done.
However, if all he did was inadvertently invade my space...and I accidentally spilt his beer before asking him to leave, I would remedy the situation by paying for it.
If he just invaded my space, and I didn't like it, I would ask him to leave. Simple solution...
If he doesn't leave, I could try and hold my ground and fight that battle....or I could just move somewhere else and be done with it. What do I gain from fighting that battle, really?
I do, however, agree with what you're saying about being assertive. You shouldn't give in to others' attempts at taking advantage of social situations at your expense to get what they want. This is something people (especially in the south) give in to all too often.
There is, however, a fine line between being assertive and being aggressive.
Isn't it though? Both are objects of value. Aren't they equal?
[/quote1239084839]
At risk of going off topic, I was implying apples and oranges.
Though they both contain value of some sort, one cannot necessarily be directly exchanged for the other.
To B R:
I think this one may have to conclude with a respectful 'To Each His Own'.
It seems this situation is a little hard to judge given only text and no true context:
- Was the homeless guy there just to do something to get you to buy him a beer? Or was he just being that drunk friendly guy who doesn't realize how annoying he is?
- When he said "I think you owe me another one," did he say it with a shit-eating grin on his face much like a drunk person might (and perhaps you mis-interpreted his light-hearted, sarcastically semi-direct, comment)? Or did he intentionally say it rudely so as to try to pressure you into thinking you had no choice in the matter but to appease him?
I am not one to let confrontations ball up through retaliation...I prefer to keep sight of the bigger picture and do what it takes to move past such an issue.
If this dude was being a blatant asshole from the start, I would dismiss him without paying for the beer. I don't have any interest in wasting my time fighting with him. I'd stop responding to the situation any further (people nearby, comments made by him, etc). I would just sit down, move on and we're done.
However, if all he did was inadvertently invade my space...and I accidentally spilt his beer before asking him to leave, I would remedy the situation by paying for it.
If he just invaded my space, and I didn't like it, I would ask him to leave. Simple solution...
If he doesn't leave, I could try and hold my ground and fight that battle....or I could just move somewhere else and be done with it. What do I gain from fighting that battle, really?
I do, however, agree with what you're saying about being assertive. You shouldn't give in to others' attempts at taking advantage of social situations at your expense to get what they want. This is something people (especially in the south) give in to all too often.
There is, however, a fine line between being assertive and being aggressive.
- Guest
by Guest » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:29 am
I disagree, It happens in business all the time. The problem is people have lost their balls and think that it's the only way now.
I.E. I agree to keep my mouth shut on certain issues when at work and not argue (to an extent and among other things the social norm being "customer is always right" mentality), for pay (monetary).
I.E. I agree to keep my mouth shut on certain issues when at work and not argue (to an extent and among other things the social norm being "customer is always right" mentality), for pay (monetary).
- Guest
by Guest » Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:22 am
[quote1239112964=AlphaMo]It seems this situation is a little hard to judge given only text and no true context:[/quote1239112964]
Exactly.
[quote1239112964=AlphaMo]If this dude was being a blatant asshole from the start, I would dismiss him without paying for the beer. I don't have any interest in wasting my time fighting with him. I'd stop responding to the situation any further (people nearby, comments made by him, etc). I would just sit down, move on and we're done.[/quote1239112964]
This is the closest to the reality of the situation. Like I said, if he had not blatantly violated several social norms, which I was the victim of, then I would have responded in the appropriate manner by replacing his beer.
[quote1239112964=AlphaMo]I am not one to let confrontations ball up through retaliation...[/quote1239112964]
I did not retaliate in any way. I simply refused to continue engaging in a social interaction that was clearly 'broken,' as evidenced by his aggressive nature and repeated social violations.
Also keep in mind the additional dynamic of the presence of my LTR. If I sense that she might be in danger I'm going to be less willing to continue to engage a person such as this, and more willing to stand up to him so that he is no longer a potential threat.
[quote1239112964=AlphaMo]I do, however, agree with what you're saying about being assertive. You shouldn't give in to others' attempts at taking advantage of social situations at your expense to get what they want. This is something people (especially in the south) give in to all too often.[/quote1239112964]
In the end, the point of the story is what should be retained. Do not be afraid to refuse to comply with the demands of a social terrorist. Obviously, our definitions of a terrorist will be different, this will always be the case with people. We lost sight of the message by arguing on the appropriate response of the specific situation, which I think was skewed by the fact that the guy was homeless, and only adds to the idea that one should be assertive and not allow others to terrorize them in a social manner despite their lot in life, social standing, or to which class or group they belong.
Exactly.
[quote1239112964=AlphaMo]If this dude was being a blatant asshole from the start, I would dismiss him without paying for the beer. I don't have any interest in wasting my time fighting with him. I'd stop responding to the situation any further (people nearby, comments made by him, etc). I would just sit down, move on and we're done.[/quote1239112964]
This is the closest to the reality of the situation. Like I said, if he had not blatantly violated several social norms, which I was the victim of, then I would have responded in the appropriate manner by replacing his beer.
[quote1239112964=AlphaMo]I am not one to let confrontations ball up through retaliation...[/quote1239112964]
I did not retaliate in any way. I simply refused to continue engaging in a social interaction that was clearly 'broken,' as evidenced by his aggressive nature and repeated social violations.
Also keep in mind the additional dynamic of the presence of my LTR. If I sense that she might be in danger I'm going to be less willing to continue to engage a person such as this, and more willing to stand up to him so that he is no longer a potential threat.
[quote1239112964=AlphaMo]I do, however, agree with what you're saying about being assertive. You shouldn't give in to others' attempts at taking advantage of social situations at your expense to get what they want. This is something people (especially in the south) give in to all too often.[/quote1239112964]
In the end, the point of the story is what should be retained. Do not be afraid to refuse to comply with the demands of a social terrorist. Obviously, our definitions of a terrorist will be different, this will always be the case with people. We lost sight of the message by arguing on the appropriate response of the specific situation, which I think was skewed by the fact that the guy was homeless, and only adds to the idea that one should be assertive and not allow others to terrorize them in a social manner despite their lot in life, social standing, or to which class or group they belong.
- Guest
by Guest » Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:35 am
[quote1239114209=Finesse]
I disagree, It happens in business all the time. The problem is people have lost their balls and think that it's the only way now.
I.E. I agree to keep my mouth shut on certain issues when at work and not argue (to an extent and among other things the social norm being "customer is always right" mentality), for pay (monetary).
[/quote1239114209]
Finesse is right. There is a monetary value to violating social norms. We see it all the time in law, it's called 'pain and suffering.' Putting a value on it it is hard, but there is value.
So, in the case with the homeless guy. If the value I ascribe to enjoying time with my LTR alone, without dealing with the homeless guy is greater than the value of a beer then whom owes whom? And what do they owe?
In my mind, it's simple. Just leave. You invaded my privacy and intimidated my LTR, that had a social cost to me. I spilled your beer, that had a cost to you (a monetary cost). We both committed social faux pauxs. Isn't it best to simply call it even and walk away at this point?
Why is it that I am the only one that has to pay for his violation? Is it because it's easier to do so because his cost is definable? Or is there another dynamic at work here? Maybe because he is a 'protected class' and I am not? Is it because society states that I have to give because I have the means to do so but turn a blind eye to the cost he forces me to pay because he is the downtrodden?
I disagree, It happens in business all the time. The problem is people have lost their balls and think that it's the only way now.
I.E. I agree to keep my mouth shut on certain issues when at work and not argue (to an extent and among other things the social norm being "customer is always right" mentality), for pay (monetary).
[/quote1239114209]
Finesse is right. There is a monetary value to violating social norms. We see it all the time in law, it's called 'pain and suffering.' Putting a value on it it is hard, but there is value.
So, in the case with the homeless guy. If the value I ascribe to enjoying time with my LTR alone, without dealing with the homeless guy is greater than the value of a beer then whom owes whom? And what do they owe?
In my mind, it's simple. Just leave. You invaded my privacy and intimidated my LTR, that had a social cost to me. I spilled your beer, that had a cost to you (a monetary cost). We both committed social faux pauxs. Isn't it best to simply call it even and walk away at this point?
Why is it that I am the only one that has to pay for his violation? Is it because it's easier to do so because his cost is definable? Or is there another dynamic at work here? Maybe because he is a 'protected class' and I am not? Is it because society states that I have to give because I have the means to do so but turn a blind eye to the cost he forces me to pay because he is the downtrodden?
- Guest
by Guest » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:27 am
How can one truly be an individual and still be a part of the society that makes him less of an individual. I agree that people don't question others often enough. They accept the lot they were given wayyy more often then they should, but society can benefit us. It's not the enemy and us individuals need to stand up and fight it. I.E. Fight the cars when crossing a crosswalk. Society says don't cross, but I say fuck society I'm doin it and get hit by a car. I think a true individual learns to use society to their advantage.
The mindsets you put here are very good br. I totally agree that the individual is starting to die off and someone needs to take a stand, but I also agree with smirks that this is a little on the extreme end. You are right though, maybe that's what itll take to make the followers see reality. Your more extreme view may just shock them into that grey area, who knows.
The mindsets you put here are very good br. I totally agree that the individual is starting to die off and someone needs to take a stand, but I also agree with smirks that this is a little on the extreme end. You are right though, maybe that's what itll take to make the followers see reality. Your more extreme view may just shock them into that grey area, who knows.
- Guest
by Guest » Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:32 pm
I actually think this is one of the more middle of the road posts Bull Run has made in a while.
I believe the original idea of social terrorism was to highlight a way to identify and judge for yourself, exactly as you say zine, whether or not to use society to your advantage.
I believe Bull Run's original intent was to make known, or point out, exactly what you said. The only thing was he touched a lot on the terrorism and not enough on the other side because the society doesn't really need to be explained.
Just my perception, Bull Run correct me if you had different intentions, but that's how it came across to me.
At times though it is the enemy. For instance, in my situation with my daughter. Why is the law (society) set up that way? It makes no sense, it's not in the best interest of the child, nor is it fair to the parent on the child support side (usually the fathers).
But this goes beyond my case, and the bum. as B R said, "When do you have to continue to uphold your end of the social contract when others blatantly refuse to uphold their end of the deal, yet still expect everyone else to stay true to their obligations?"
I believe the original idea of social terrorism was to highlight a way to identify and judge for yourself, exactly as you say zine, whether or not to use society to your advantage.
I believe Bull Run's original intent was to make known, or point out, exactly what you said. The only thing was he touched a lot on the terrorism and not enough on the other side because the society doesn't really need to be explained.
Just my perception, Bull Run correct me if you had different intentions, but that's how it came across to me.
At times though it is the enemy. For instance, in my situation with my daughter. Why is the law (society) set up that way? It makes no sense, it's not in the best interest of the child, nor is it fair to the parent on the child support side (usually the fathers).
But this goes beyond my case, and the bum. as B R said, "When do you have to continue to uphold your end of the social contract when others blatantly refuse to uphold their end of the deal, yet still expect everyone else to stay true to their obligations?"
- Guest
by Guest » Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:34 pm
BTW, it takes people standing up and saying something about the way things are to advert disaster. Remember that when everything in this country goes to shit soon.
Everything is tied together, and this is one shit storm that's about to poke it's little turtle head out of Obama's ass.
Everything is tied together, and this is one shit storm that's about to poke it's little turtle head out of Obama's ass.
- Guest
by Guest » Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:58 pm
A true individual questions society and asks why are things this way and is this the right thing to do/way to think?
You see, society holds us accountable all day, everyday. When are we going to begin to do the same?
That's the point.
Society is not the enemy, except when it tries to tell me that I have to do things that are clearly stupid and not healthy for me. If I have to do things that are not in my best interest, then I will question why? Then, I'll determine if everyone else is right. If they are, then I comply. That will just be the cost of living in our society. If they are not right, then I will stand up and fight for my individuality.
You see, society holds us accountable all day, everyday. When are we going to begin to do the same?
That's the point.
Society is not the enemy, except when it tries to tell me that I have to do things that are clearly stupid and not healthy for me. If I have to do things that are not in my best interest, then I will question why? Then, I'll determine if everyone else is right. If they are, then I comply. That will just be the cost of living in our society. If they are not right, then I will stand up and fight for my individuality.
- Guest
41 posts
• Page 4 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests