|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 5, 2024 13:53:42 GMT
I had this verbal exchange the weekend before last which left me scratching my head so I've been thinking about this since.
Google says, Judgement is defined as a "critical opinion based on an assessment of merit" or against a standard of comparison "whereas preference is an opinion which specifically relates to a personal 'liking' based on experience."
I got to thinking about this and there are a lot of things that I do in my life that *I* believe I choose based on an assessment of merit. There are also things I do that are simply liking to do them. Now most of the time, I really don't care what others do...or do I? If I am making a determination of what I'm doing based on merit, am I really judging your choice not to or to do something else?
I read something in The Atlantic last week about marriage. That the upper class are openly vocal about support for particular lifestyles yet, they consistently choose different for themselves. The example used in this article was marriage. It was basically stated that they were paying lip service to the idea of not marrying and having children out of wedlock, while continuously choosing for themselves the opposite. The article went on to suggest that the vocalization of acceptance of these practices was actually "hurting" other people because they were not then advocating what was in fact best for children and that is to be raised within the confines of a loving, successful marriage. I don't want to debate the issue of marriage, I'm just using this article as an example because it was making the argument that in our quest to come across as judgment free, we are actually failing other people by not standing up for things that truly are, when evaluating on merit, better for individuals and society.
I mean, is that all it really comes down to? Us afraid of offending people so we pick and choose so carefully our words so as not to be perceived as judgmental, yet all the while knowing that we are making choices for ourselves believing that they are the best options, yet too afraid to actually assert that?
And do some people have the ability to read between the lines? In other words, if I say, I choose to do X, without saying, but you go ahead and do Y, do some people automatically infer that you are choosing X on the basis of what you think is merit and not simply liking? I feel like this whole issue seems to be getting more and more extreme from a cultural, personal and political perspective and the more misunderstandings happen, the more I think it's not cut and dry at all, the area between judgment and preference gets grayer and grayer for me. And while I think I get tougher about what I find offensive, I feel like that is not necessarily everyone else's reaction to this phenomenon.
Am I seeing it all wrong?
P.S. if anyone would like me to try to dig up that article I referenced, I'll look for it. But I wasn't trying to debate the righteousness of marriage.
|
|
pantsonfire
Drama Llama
Take a step back, evaluate what is important, and enjoy your life with those who you love.
Posts: 6,241 
|
Post by pantsonfire on Mar 5, 2024 14:10:34 GMT
How is that any different than people being advocates for same sex marriage but not being in a same sex marriage?
Or advocating for same sex couples to be able to adopt a child?
I can pass judgement for those who dont want LGBTQ+ persons to have equal access but be in a hetero marriage.
Unless I read your post wrong...one can live one way yet be okay for another.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 5, 2024 14:14:00 GMT
How is that any different than people being advocates for same sex marriage but not being in a same sex marriage? Or advocating for same sex couples to be able to adopt a child? I can pass judgement for those who dont want LGBTQ+ persons to have equal access but be in a hetero marriage. Unless I read your post wrong...one can live one way yet be okay for another. I think you are getting hung up on the example of marriage and not the general questions. And the article did *not* specify heterosexual marriage. I think most people would have a hard time debating merits of heterosexual marriage above homosexual marriage without pulling out a bible. So I'm not sure this is a good example. ETA: I want to say that I don't think this is a good example because it has no element of choice. I don't believe homeosexuality is a choice. |
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 5, 2024 14:20:06 GMT
Let me see if I can pull out a different example that not as loaded as heterosexual marriage. You know how I feel, since learning several years ago, about ethically produced and sustainably made fashion. This is something that I believe hands down is important and merit based. I believe it is better for the workers and the environment to choose clothing carefully. I started a thread about consumption and I know you posted there pantsonfire and had a few similar views. Does this mean that I am judging those who don't have the same sets of criteria for purchases that I do? Is it OK if I simply don't say anything? If I do say anything just in general, do you think it is the right reaction for someone to assume judgement and thereby get defensive? Is there just a gray area with some people wanting to believe this is a preference issue and not a judgment issue? Am I not doing my part to advocate for people and the environment by just sitting quietly during a talk about purchasing fast fashion? |
|
|
|
Post by craftedbys on Mar 5, 2024 14:36:58 GMT
The best example I can think of is that I happily eat meat, and love me a good steak. That is MY preference.
But when someone who doesn't eat or use animal products gets all "meat is murder" THAT'S judgment.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,758
Member is Online
|
Post by mich5481 on Mar 5, 2024 14:38:42 GMT
I mean, is that all it really comes down to? Us afraid of offending people so we pick and choose so carefully our words so as not to be perceived as judgmental, yet all the while knowing that we are making choices for ourselves believing that they are the best options, yet too afraid to actually assert that? Yes. Think of how divided our country is and think about the way we treat people who disagree with us- look no further than the thread about why conservatives don't post in political threads here. It's exhausting having to defend yourself when you make the best option, especially with people who refuse to listen to reason/your reasons, so why say anything at all? |
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 5, 2024 14:48:18 GMT
The best example I can think of is that I happily eat meat, and love me a good steak. That is MY preference. But when someone who doesn't eat or use animal products gets all "meat is murder" THAT'S judgment. OK, so going with this example. You believe eating meat is simply a preference. No good or bad attached to it, just a matter of liking. The person who thinks meat is murder believes that there is a merit based argument to not eating meat. Saying meat is murder is inflammatory. Full stop. Gets people bristled. But if the person had 15 other arguments backed by science that they tried to share with you without such an inflammatory lead in, would you feel judged? They've changed the way they've said it, they've come with merit-based receipts, would you walk away thinking they were still a dick? Because this is what I'm getting at. There seems to be a contingent of people who want everyone to tiptoe quietly around pretending like everything is simply a matter of preference. Chastising any kind of definitive statement about anything. They are masters of finding the 0.05% outlier for whom the argument might not hold water. Then there are people on the flip side, who believe so passionately about something that they need to make everything associated with it illegal. Every single thing is an issue of moral and damn their hammer is coming down as hard as it possibly can on anyone and everyone who believes differently. Meat is murder people. But then there are people like me, who hands down do believe a whole food plant based diet is back by science to be the best diet for us. I could hold my own in a discussion, but 1) I don't hold to it myself all the time; 2) know that if I want to change minds about anything, I have to be way more gentle about my approach. But I'm still out here advocating for better government controls on food. So, I do want to see changes in the law. Any way you slice it, I might be kind and tactful, but I do believe there is merit behind a plant based diet. So is that what it comes down to? It is not what we truly believe that is the problem, but the way we say it? |
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,758
Member is Online
|
Post by mich5481 on Mar 5, 2024 14:52:07 GMT
I saw this posted on Facebook:
Getting married young is OKAY.
Getting pregnant young is OKAY.
Not going to college right after high school is OKAY.
Not going to college at all is OKAY.
Being a single parent is OKAY.
WHAT ISN'T OKAY IS JUDGING OTHERS BECAUSE THEIR LIFE ISN'T THE WAY YOU CHOSE TO LIVE YOURS.
I think that sums up a lot of your point. All of these things are "OKAY," but in many cases, the science backs up that they aren't the optimal choices for most people. For the college part, I'd argue any post high school training is needed (such as trade school or college) to be more than okay, as I know college isn't the right choice for everyone.
The person who posted this is a pregnant teenager who hasn't gone to college (I believe she graduated from high school early), doesn't have a job (and apparently, neither does her fiance), and is mad at her parents for them having expectations about what she/the fiance should do to contribute to their household while they live there. She responds to any and all criticism/concern with anger and insults, no matter how well intentioned it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Mar 5, 2024 14:53:14 GMT
I think that the term judge/judgment has been gaining a negative connotation in our society - in that if you are judging someone/someone's choices it tends to imply that you're doing so negatively. Which in itself tends to take away from the merit aspect. To take your fast fashion example. I think it's great that you've looked into this and made a decision that aligns with your morals/ethics and are sticking with it. I also think that not everyone is able (for a variety of reasons - money being a big one) to make the same decision. Some people have chosen instead to shop the used market primarily - whether for financial reasons or for environmental or something else - and I think that's great too. But some people don't have that as a viable option either (distance, lack of availability in their size, lack of time to hunt for the right item). Sometimes fast fashion is the only logical option at this time for some people. And I think that's okay too. People need to wear clothes - our society is not one that encourages nudity - so sometimes they can't make the best decision for the environment/world, they have to make the decision they CAN make. I think we (in general) need to be careful about "judging" people by our criteria/world view/circumstances because we're all in different places and have different abilities and priorities. Does this mean that I am judging those who don't have the same sets of criteria for purchases that I do? I think it's pretty natural for people, in general, to feel that their criteria is the right/best/preferred criteria and to see things as good/bad, right/wrong etc...And while, you might be judging people for their criteria - I personally don't think that's necessarily a good/bad thing - it's more how or if you express that to the person (or about the person) that'll make it good or bad. If I do say anything just in general, do you think it is the right reaction for someone to assume judgement and thereby get defensive? Is there just a gray area with some people wanting to believe this is a preference issue and not a judgment issue? I think the response is going to vary person to person. Someone who agrees with your criteria but hasn't made that leap for whatever reason may feel guilty about that and thus defensive. Someone who isn't in a position to be fussy about where their clothes come from may also feel defensive about that. And yes, people who feel that their criteria is right/good etc...may be defensive about their decisions as it's pretty natural to defend a decision you feel is the right one. Am I not doing my part to advocate for people and the environment by just sitting quietly during a talk about purchasing fast fashion? Personally I think there's a case for 'reading the room'/considering the audience. There are times where it's absolutely appropriate to share your views and educate people on the issues. There are also times where that's not appropriate. I think leading by example often works better than telling people how to do things...and certainly in the area of fast fashion - you're doing an awesome job of walking the talk as far I can tell. And I've learnt a lot from reading your threads about the 100-day challenge and so on. But if I were to post a thread about how excited I was to find (for example) leggings that fit me at Aldi because usually they're too short for my long legs or too tight for my ample belly - my feelings would be hurt if you or someone else came on and shared about how fast fashion at Aldi is bad because x, y, or z...because whether you (or anyone else) intended or not, I would feel very judged for making what then would feel like a bad choice/decision. |
|
purplebee
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,801
|
Post by purplebee on Mar 5, 2024 15:03:22 GMT
I think I understand what you are getting at, but often it IS difficult to isolate a judgement-free preference.
For example, responding to the poster’s comments re the lack of conservative participation on the political threads. For me, choosing to support the Democratic Party is a moral decision, and yes, I am judging a large majority of conservatives who support trump and his MAGA party for their oppression of basic human rights, and for the fact that hate fuels much of their policies.
The same goes for the homosexual vs. heterosexual marriage debate. For me, it is as basic as denying a group of people a basic human right, so of course I am judgemental in my assessment of those fighting for heterosexual marriage only, especially when they are yelling about being Christian.
But I do think that society nowadays does tend to judge even innocent preferences, and that makes it hard to be non-judgemental, at least for me. Sooooo much has become politicized (COVID!), and that complicates the issue far more than it was, say 20 years ago.
So I guess my preference for junk food is a non-judgemental preference (though I know I am judged for it!), and my preference for reading and binge-watching Netflix, and that I love anything purple could be considered non-judgemental.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 5, 2024 15:05:52 GMT
I mean, is that all it really comes down to? Us afraid of offending people so we pick and choose so carefully our words so as not to be perceived as judgmental, yet all the while knowing that we are making choices for ourselves believing that they are the best options, yet too afraid to actually assert that? Yes. Think of how divided our country is and think about the way we treat people who disagree with us- look no further than the thread about why conservatives don't post in political threads here. It's exhausting having to defend yourself when you make the best option, especially with people who refuse to listen to reason/your reasons, so why say anything at all? I only semi-see where you're coming from with this. That's not to say it's bad example, just my brain isn't quite fitting the puzzle piece into the slot. One thing I will agree with you on is that I, too, would like to see some more nuanced political threads. I admit while the interaction that started this was completely non-political (crafting vs. TV), that article in The Atlantic further helped me connect some dots. But I will say that as someone who really rides pretty near the middle on politics, the current state of affairs is very hard for me to swallow. Because there really are so very many constitutional rights issues going on (judgment) vs. a bland discussion of tax rates (preference). At least that's how I see it. It's really hard to discuss the smaller things where there is nuance when there is a fire going on. I don't think that the vast majority of the peas here want to beat anyone to a pulp about not liking Obamacare. But it's hard to get behind 91 felonies and an insurrection. I could be misinterpreting things. I read but often don't post on political threads but I admit to you, too, that if there was much more varied discussion, I'd participate. |
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Mar 5, 2024 15:07:13 GMT
Because this is what I'm getting at. There seems to be a contingent of people who want everyone to tiptoe quietly around pretending like everything is simply a matter of preference. Chastising any kind of definitive statement about anything. They are masters of finding the 0.05% outlier for whom the argument might not hold water. There's also a contingent of people (and there's some overlap there) who see everything as black and white and if someone isn't 100% in agreement with them, they're wrong. There's no discussion with those people -they aren't going to be swayed by any facts or science...they believe what they believe. So is that what it comes down to? It is not what we truly believe that is the problem, but the way we say it? I think HOW we say things is very important. And meeting people where they are is also - not everyone is able/willing to jump whole sale into a new way of doing things/way of thinking. Baby steps is great. Someone who is primarily a meat eater might need to try some non-meat based meals or even just add more vegetables to their plate as a first step - and they're less likely to do that if someone is yelling at them about meat is murder or the like. But sharing a recipe for (or offering to cook) a side dish or even a main dish, that doesn't contain meat meets them where they are and encourages trying something new. |
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Mar 5, 2024 15:09:37 GMT
jeremysgirl - I know we don't always see eye to eye but I always learn from your discussion threads and I appreciate that you post them - they are thoughtprovoking and interesting
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 5, 2024 15:11:27 GMT
I saw this posted on Facebook: Getting married young is OKAY. Getting pregnant young is OKAY. Not going to college right after high school is OKAY. Not going to college at all is OKAY. Being a single parent is OKAY. WHAT ISN'T OKAY IS JUDGING OTHERS BECAUSE THEIR LIFE ISN'T THE WAY YOU CHOSE TO LIVE YOURS. I think that sums up a lot of your point. All of these things are "OKAY," but in many cases, the science backs up that they aren't the optimal choices for most people. For the college part, I'd argue any post high school training is needed (such as trade school or college) to be more than okay, as I know college isn't the right choice for everyone. The person who posted this is a pregnant teenager who hasn't gone to college (I believe she graduated from high school early), doesn't have a job (and apparently, neither does her fiance), and is mad at her parents for them having expectations about what she/the fiance should do to contribute to their household while they live there. She responds to any and all criticism/concern with anger and insults, no matter how well intentioned it is. This is a great example of what I'm talking about. And like Linda said, I would never respond to a post like this and say, "kids are X more likely to go to college if they have a parent who is college educated." Or whatever. I just wouldn't respond. But I wouldn't hesitate to post something on my own facebook wall about an article or study I read or with my own personal experience. And not in response to her because that's just petty but just as a matter of discussion. Then again, I post all sorts of weird and random things on my facebook. You're shocked,right, after reading my threads here? LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 5, 2024 15:21:43 GMT
I think that the term judge/judgment has been gaining a negative connotation in our society - in that if you are judging someone/someone's choices it tends to imply that you're doing so negatively. Which in itself tends to take away from the merit aspect. This is what I'm getting at. I think lines are blurry. Sometimes to the point where one doesn't know what to say that isn't going to be the third rail. But really, you would think that if I'm choosing something on the basis of merit, I'm defacto judging because how can I not be? I think we (in general) need to be careful about "judging" people by our criteria/world view/circumstances because we're all in different places and have different abilities and priorities. The only place this bothers me is when someone brings up something in an attempt to seek opinions. If you ask for an opinion and someone presents something (without giving you a verbal smackdown) that is contrary to what you want to hear, then that's on you (general). I love open ended discussions too because I like to hear a variety of opinions. But I admit to fatigue over the, well what if someone has X, then they are the one outlier to what you've said so we can't possibly draw any conclusions. This is how we get nowhere, personally and policy-wise. If we look hard enough, we will find exceptions to every rule. But we need to craft rules (and laws) to function as a society. But if I were to post a thread about how excited I was to find (for example) leggings that fit me at Aldi because usually they're too short for my long legs or too tight for my ample belly - my feelings would be hurt if you or someone else came on and shared about how fast fashion at Aldi is bad because x, y, or z...because whether you (or anyone else) intended or not, I would feel very judged for making what then would feel like a bad choice/decision. I would never do that. I would never go out of my way to come onto someone else's thread to shit on them that way. I would keep my mouth shut and walk away. But if someone says, what do you think about consumption issues, I won't hesitate to share my opinion. However, I'm fully prepared for someone to meet me with 15 different reasons why someone would patronize fast fashion. This is infuriating to me. But I'm prepared for it to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Mar 5, 2024 15:23:32 GMT
In my experience, people tend to get very defensive in that type of situation and will come up with all kinds of reasons to explain why they do what they do. A similar example in my life is that I prefer to shop locally at smaller stores when I can, especially craft stores, gift shops, etc. even if it means paying a little more. When I would have discussions with people about the wider value to the community of shopping local and shopping small, my family and friends would often say things such as, “I shop at the box stores because I have to watch my own family’s bottom line and I can buy the same things for less there.”
I used to get into it big time with friends when Archiver’s opened up here. At one point I think we had something like 15-20 independent scrapbook and rubber stamp stores in the metro area and all of them had different things, great classes, a unique atmosphere and actual customer service. Then Archiver’s came in with their 3,000-10,000 SF stores and one by one pretty much all of those independent stores closed. Then Archiver’s itself closed up all of their stores too, leaving this bustling metro area with nothing but Michael’s and JoAnn’s. Now we have Hobby Lobby too, but IMO they are even worse than the other box stores.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Mar 5, 2024 15:30:12 GMT
I would never do that. I would never go out of my way to come onto someone else's thread to shit on them that way. I would keep my mouth shut and walk away. But if someone says, what do you think about consumption issues, I won't hesitate to share my opinion. And I very much respect you for how you approach that. I know I tend to be a WHAT-IF and WHAT-ABOUT type of person who likes to see all sides of an argument but I AM trying to confine that to discussions (like this) where looking at different viewpoints is the point of the discussion. And while I might mention on a thread about the 100day challenge for instance, that I think it's really neat and awesome that you're doing it but I don't think it would be for me because x, y, z...I hope I'm open to learning that I'm wrong about x, y, and/or z. But I also know that just because I think I'm coming across one way doesn't mean that everyone reading is reading it the way I meant it - especially online, it can be hard to convey tone and meaning at times. |
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 5, 2024 15:36:41 GMT
I think I understand what you are getting at, but often it IS difficult to isolate a judgement-free preference. YES! But I do think that society nowadays does tend to judge even innocent preferences, and that makes it hard to be non-judgemental, at least for me. Sooooo much has become politicized (COVID!), and that complicates the issue far more than it was, say 20 years ago. AND YES!! ETA: I think the divisiveness of our politics right now is making people so touchy that it's spilling over into completely benign things. |
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,758
Member is Online
|
Post by mich5481 on Mar 5, 2024 16:39:18 GMT
I think we (in general) need to be careful about "judging" people by our criteria/world view/circumstances because we're all in different places and have different abilities and priorities. The only place this bothers me is when someone brings up something in an attempt to seek opinions. If you ask for an opinion and someone presents something (without giving you a verbal smackdown) that is contrary to what you want to hear, then that's on you (general). I love open ended discussions too because I like to hear a variety of opinions. But I admit to fatigue over the, well what if someone has X, then they are the one outlier to what you've said so we can't possibly draw any conclusions. This is how we get nowhere, personally and policy-wise. If we look hard enough, we will find exceptions to every rule. But we need to craft rules (and laws) to function as a society. I have to push back on this a bit. It's important to consider outliers and possible exceptions when crafting rules/legislation. If you don't, you wind up with situations where other perspectives aren't considered/acknowledged and people can fall through the cracks into situations where there is no solution because the powers that be didn't fully ponder the ramifications of their actions. It results in people being stuck in limbo until legislation is passed to remedy the problem/fix the "glitch" in the previous bill. (This is all coming from someone who used to work in a state legislature analyzing proposed bills.) |
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 5, 2024 16:56:47 GMT
The only place this bothers me is when someone brings up something in an attempt to seek opinions. If you ask for an opinion and someone presents something (without giving you a verbal smackdown) that is contrary to what you want to hear, then that's on you (general). I love open ended discussions too because I like to hear a variety of opinions. But I admit to fatigue over the, well what if someone has X, then they are the one outlier to what you've said so we can't possibly draw any conclusions. This is how we get nowhere, personally and policy-wise. If we look hard enough, we will find exceptions to every rule. But we need to craft rules (and laws) to function as a society. I have to push back on this a bit. It's important to consider outliers and possible exceptions when crafting rules/legislation. If you don't, you wind up with situations where other perspectives aren't considered/acknowledged and people can fall through the cracks into situations where there is no solution because the powers that be didn't fully ponder the ramifications of their actions. It results in people being stuck in limbo until legislation is passed to remedy the problem/fix the "glitch" in the previous bill. (This is all coming from someone who used to work in a state legislature analyzing proposed bills.) I'm not saying there isn't value in looking at exceptions to the rule. But there are always going to be exceptions. And if we don't go forth with anything for fear of hurting *somebody*, nothing gets done. My comment was not meant to isolate, but to push back on people who nitpick to death every single thing that anyone is trying to say with what ifs. Otherwise I agree with you that there needs to be big picture thinking on policy issues. But with the way the parties are polarized right now, literally anything that can get a majority behind it is progress, IMO. I'll settle for less than perfect for progress. But that's just my opinion. I fully respect anyone's right to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by silverlining on Mar 5, 2024 18:21:49 GMT
I read the same article you did. I disagree with their conclusion that people of privilege should be expressing their opinions that everyone should make the same decisions they did just because evidence suggests these are wiser decisions.
I know that most people don't have the choices I have had. It was easy for me to support myself and go to college and grad school, delay marriage until I was really ready, use birth control when I was single, etc. etc. I used good judgement in not marrying the guys I was involved with at a younger age and choosing my dh, but I was also very lucky. I have good physical and mental health so far but I can't take credit for that. I have a lot of choices that others don't: to work/not work after I had kids, buy organic food or not, to buy a house in a safe neighborhood with excellent schools, and on and on.
No one is asking my opinion (except here:) and if they did I wouldn't ever assume that everyone has the same freedom to do the "wise" thing that I have had.
|
|
|
|
Post by scrapmaven on Mar 6, 2024 1:16:20 GMT
I see preference and judgement as two very separate things. As an example, I prefer not to drink soda pop, but I don't judge people who do so. I judge people based upon other things. I can tolerate people drinking a Coke. I don't even pay attention. However, I cannot tolerate people who tell me what I should order when I drink a beverage. It's my body and I don't want a lecture from someone who isn't my nutritionist. You don't know it all. If your way of doing things was perfect then everyone would be doing it. KWIM?
This isn't about any one thing. It's about our values and our thoughts about the world around us. It's about having the freedom to express an opinion and stand up for my beliefs and values w/o being insulted or talked to in a condescending manner. I have friends who are aligned w/me politically and friends who are not. A key part of being an adult is discerning who you can talk to about controversial stuff and when to keep quiet. I don't argue w/people who are not aligned w/my political beliefs, because they won't convince me to change and vice versa. However, I am open to listening to your pov and considering it when it's presented in an open manner.
We all live in different homes, apartments, regions and countries and sometimes our differences can be a point of education and positive discussion. This is not a one size fits all world and it would be really boring if that were the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on Mar 6, 2024 2:45:48 GMT
I think part of the "problem" with the word judge is the people who will spout, "We should not judge, so if you are judging anyone you are doing wrong." IMO we judge all the time. It is part of life.
We select what we want to eat, based on our taste--which is a judgment of what tastes good to us.
We select our friends because we have judged who fits us (all sorts of small judgements involved)
We selected a house by judging/evaluating all the + and minus of that living situation.
..it goes on and on......
I think a person's judgement of the various factors then leads to the person's preference.
I also would not spend time worrying about the label assigned to the decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by katiekaty on Mar 6, 2024 3:44:03 GMT
Nah, you are limiting yourself if you only view these two. It’s like saying all there is to fruit is apples and oranges. We. Know there is more to fully integrating how people see, view, express and feel and more about the world that surrounds them. Even if there is just what YOU perceive as what THEY say and do. Fruit consists of so many varieties. Social governances/mores involve self-perception, religion, politics (those of convenience, inner politics as the actually believe, and professed and practiced politics), education, preferences, predjudices (learned, inherent, societal, etc.). And on and on.
I don’t usually give a lot of credence and weight to articles like this. I always ask myself what is the author trying to accomplish?
To me it would seem that they are trying enforce that idea of a wide disconnect that continues between the wealthy of a do as I say, see I am liberal, I believe like the lower income, etc, but underneath I am still not the same.
I also ask: is there hidden bias or is it a freely welcome discussion? This feel like it’s a bit closed and one sided. I looked at a couple of other artles by this author and these were of a similar style.
Look closer at what these article writers are selling. I think sometimes they need to come up with”thought provoking” space fillers.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 6, 2024 12:19:39 GMT
silverlining I understand the place you are coming from. I get that you are wanting to recognize your privilege and distance yourself from the idea that you are judging. But I'm a little blown away by the way you've conveyed it. I understand really well the areas in which I have experienced privilege. I also understand the areas where I don't. I think sometimes in our wanting so badly to distance ourselves from the idea of judging others and wanting to have compassion, we really underestimate the abilities of others. And reading your post, I really get that vibe from you. But I want you to recognize that your post, while I don't think that was your intention, could be seen as condescending. There is an area in my life where I both have privilege and I don't have privilege and that is my mental health. In many ways, I have to work very hard to control my mental health and in some other ways, I am very lucky in that I have access to things like good health care (medicine), therapy, cognitive abilities that are greater in some circumstances than others with similar mental illnesses, and some personality traits which make me more resilient than a lot of other people. In other ways, I am challenged by my mental health in ways that neurotypical people are not and sometimes I do absolutely need compassion for things that are beyond my control. I say this because, IMO, just like economic success is a combination of luck and hard work, managing a mental illness is also a combination of luck and hard work. There is a balance to things, a fine line, gray area. In my experience, on this topic, there are times when I just need someone to extend me compassion and there are other times when I need people to suggest tools and offer encouragement for me to work harder. I think it very much discounts the abilities of others to not try to discern what they truly need on a individual basis. And that is where I think your comment, though well intended, falls short. It is disempowering because it implies that the less privileged don't have any measure of control over some of their outcomes. And maybe I'm seeing it the wrong way, but I feel very much in regard to my mental health, that having a balance between acceptance of what I can't control and a clear distinction on things that I absolutely can control to be empowering. I don't want anyone to take that from me by asserting that the totality of my outcome is based on a lack of privilege.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 6, 2024 12:50:05 GMT
This isn't about any one thing. It's about our values and our thoughts about the world around us. It's about having the freedom to express an opinion and stand up for my beliefs and values w/o being insulted or talked to in a condescending manner. This is what I was trying to get at. If it is a matter of the way we say/approach things that differ from the choices other people make. I also wonder if there is a point where the people we are talking to are too sensitive and take a random comment as a slap to them when it was not intended to be in any way. I'll just share that this topic was inspired by a group conversation I was having in regard to reading and watching TV. Yes, it was not about politics, social issues, mental illness, socioeconomic status, etc. By all rights there was absolutely not a big fish here. I happened to be talking to someone about the recent books I read and another person outside the conversation popped in to make a shitty comment to me. I think I rubbed her the wrong way and I did not intend to initially. I wasn't even talking to her. Her snap back comment, she was judging me. So I made a shitty comment back to her which made me feel bad because I know it was not the right way to handle the situation. But she was judging me, so I made a judgmental comment back at her. It was obvious she felt stung by my initial comment which is why she reacted in such a shitty way and then it was obvious to me that she was stung by the slapback comment I made to her following. When I was evaluating the conversation I realized that the second comment (the only one I made directly to her) was probably unkind and definitely judgmental, but it was actually the way I feel. I stand behind that opinion. But social mores dictate that I probably shouldn't have said it out loud to her. So this is where I am coming from in this discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 6, 2024 13:01:33 GMT
katiekaty, while I will agree with you on this specific article and that specific author, and I also agree he seems to be striking at liberals, I think there is an important point that very few people want to discuss that that is advocacy. There are specific issues where I do believe that I've made a better, maybe not perfect (gray area there) choices and I do want others to understand the issues because I absolutely do want other people to make similar choices. Like with my ethically made and sustainable clothing issue. I use that as an example. I don't want to offend you (general) but I do want people to make better choices. And I do want government to regulate the industry better because I think that is a good tool to get people to make better choices. While I think there is a way to convey discussions about these things, many things need to be discussed. I don't think we make any progress as a society if we can't engage in advocacy. If we are afraid of offending people to the point where we cannot even discuss issues, then I think we have gotten way too sensitive as a society. And as I've said before, I think overall we are too sensitive, but that I think this is fueled by the divisive politics going on. It's so polarized on that front that we bristle at anything that might be interpreted as critical, even if the person talking to us's motive is to enlighten, share, understand people better, not criticize.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 6, 2024 13:26:26 GMT
Yes, my comment does address the example in the OP only. I get that.
There are some studies that show that being unmarried is essentially better for women in that single women are often happier and live longer. But it’s is better for men to be married, as they then tend to live longer & be happier. And the article in the OP suggested that children are better off raised in a successful marriage. ( key being successful I guess ) there are pros & cons for each ‘way’ and who am I to say which is right or which is wrong even though there are studies assigning merit to each in a different way. Therefore, is it right for me to ‘push’ or judge for other people what they choose? There are many situations where there is merit on more than one side and I can’t see other peoples lives thru their lenses so why wouldn’t I vocalize for things I don’t do for myself? This is one thing that has mellowed on me as I age. I can’t cast judgements or hold others to my standards because I do not have their life, experiences & hardships, and sometimes I can’t even truly relate to their challenges. But I can accept them and I can advocate for them even if it’s things I wouldn’t do or choose.
I’m going to do what I’m doing and I’m going to accept what others are choosing to do even if it is not for me.
I’m probably not explaining this well at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 6, 2024 13:35:59 GMT
katiekaty, while I will agree with you on this specific article and that specific author, and I also agree he seems to be striking at liberals, I think there is an important point that very few people want to discuss that that is advocacy. There are specific issues where I do believe that I've made a better, maybe not perfect (gray area there) choices and I do want others to understand the issues because I absolutely do want other people to make similar choices. Like with my ethically made and sustainable clothing issue. I use that as an example. I don't want to offend you (general) but I do want people to make better choices. And I do want government to regulate the industry better because I think that is a good tool to get people to make better choices. While I think there is a way to convey discussions about these things, many things need to be discussed. I don't think we make any progress as a society if we can't engage in advocacy. If we are afraid of offending people to the point where we cannot even discuss issues, then I think we have gotten way too sensitive as a society. And as I've said before, I think overall we are too sensitive, but that I think this is fueled by the divisive politics going on. It's so polarized on that front that we bristle at anything that might be interpreted as critical, even if the person talking to us's motive is to enlighten, share, understand people better, not criticize. Ok, on that subject, there are still issues unaddressed. You’ve heard of the poor man workbook issue? Where it is in the long term cheaper for the worker to buy the more expensive longer lasting workbooks than buy & replace multiple pairs of cheaper workbooks. Buying the better ones has merit. Absolutely. But if the poor man doesn’t have the money for the expensive work boots it is definitely unsafe for him to go to work without any even the cheaper ones. So the work boots are not always actually a choice, the poor man isn’t really choosing to over time spend more on work boots he is choosing to protect his feet now any way he can afford to. What appears to be a choice is not actually a real choice. And wealthy people do look down on people who don’t make the “choice” of the better more sustainable work boots they are choosing for themselves. But they fail to see that it isn’t really a choice for the poor man because it would be worse to go to work without protecting his feet at all. |
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 6, 2024 13:49:16 GMT
katiekaty, while I will agree with you on this specific article and that specific author, and I also agree he seems to be striking at liberals, I think there is an important point that very few people want to discuss that that is advocacy. There are specific issues where I do believe that I've made a better, maybe not perfect (gray area there) choices and I do want others to understand the issues because I absolutely do want other people to make similar choices. Like with my ethically made and sustainable clothing issue. I use that as an example. I don't want to offend you (general) but I do want people to make better choices. And I do want government to regulate the industry better because I think that is a good tool to get people to make better choices. While I think there is a way to convey discussions about these things, many things need to be discussed. I don't think we make any progress as a society if we can't engage in advocacy. If we are afraid of offending people to the point where we cannot even discuss issues, then I think we have gotten way too sensitive as a society. And as I've said before, I think overall we are too sensitive, but that I think this is fueled by the divisive politics going on. It's so polarized on that front that we bristle at anything that might be interpreted as critical, even if the person talking to us's motive is to enlighten, share, understand people better, not criticize. Ok, on that subject, there are still issues unaddressed. You’ve heard of the poor man workbook issue? Where it is in the long term cheaper for the worker to buy the more expensive longer lasting workbooks than buy & replace multiple pairs of cheaper workbooks. Buying the better ones has merit. Absolutely. But if the poor man doesn’t have the money for the expensive work boots it is definitely unsafe for him to go to work without any even the cheaper ones. So the work boots are not always actually a choice, the poor man isn’t really choosing to over time spend more on work boots he is choosing to protect his feet now any way he can afford to. What appears to be a choice is not actually a real choice. And wealthy people do look down on people who don’t make the “choice” of the better more sustainable work boots they are choosing for themselves. But they fail to see that it isn’t really a choice for the poor man because it would be worse to go to work without protecting his feet at all. I would never denigrate the choices of the poor to buy what they can afford. So I get the work boot analogy. With that said, I just read a statistic that the average Shein customer is a middle income, white woman in her 30s that spends an average of $100 a month on clothing. That's the person I want to reach. There is an economy of scale issue too. If enough of us pushed for change in this area and voted with our wallets, economy of scale principle would dictate that prices would also come down on ethically made and sustainable clothing. As I've said above a million times that there are always going to be exceptions. There are people who can't afford electric cars or solar panels, but we are making progress for environmental reasons. Economies of scale are expected to prevail in this area too. |
|
