UMBRELLA TOPIC: People determined to be outraged
 

Bits and pieces of this topic have shown up all over the place, so I'd like to see it have its own thread.

There are many, many people out there (and right here on TFP) who firmly believe that if you disagree with something personally, then it is your moral imperative to do battle and stamp it out.

Why?

Why can't you just acknowledge your own disapproval and then drop it? Why are you compelled to eliminate anything you personally disagree with?

If they see a TV program they hate, they are obligated to have it taken off the air.

If they hear an ethnic joke that disgusts them, they are obligated to prevent anyone from ever telling another ethnic joke.

If they see an art exhibit that offends them, they are obligated to remove federal funding from all art exhibits.

If they read a satirical column that insults them, they are obligated to launch a boycott of that publication.

WHY???

I know for a fact that many TFPers feel this way, because I've read your comments in other threads. So, if you are one of these people, PLEASE explain to me what guides your thinking.

Not just TFP, but ppl in life as well.


Ppl don't like things or ppl different from themselves.
Ppl want others to believe the same things as themselves.
Ppl feel like others are wrong by disagreeing with them as they are so sure of their position or beliefs, and so must attempt to change others.

It goes a lot deeper than people just disagreeing with something.

It's more than them just disagreeing. It's when they think that the 'something' (whatever it is) is not just disagreeable, but wrong, and harmful, and that tolerating it would be unethical, or unhealthy to individuals or to society. They think they know 'better' and that it is in everyone's best interests to have that 'something' boycotted, or erased, or destroyed, etc. It's important to remember that they sincerely believe that it is best for that 'something' to not be around and that other people can't quite grasp that (as distinct from not accepting it).

I have a friend who's sister died of AIDS. He's now morally obligagted to do everything that he can in support of AIDS reseach and donation collection.

I have a friend who's father died of lung cancer. He now is morally obligated to do everything he can to make sure people know that smoking is bad for you.

These don't seem so different. I think it's a matter of positive vs. negative energy.

Re: UMBRELLA TOPIC: People determined to be outraged
 

I took a friend of mine home from class once and had a conversation that was something like, "We should reelect Bush." "No we shouldn't." "Fag. Next issue, do you want to go to dairy queen?"

I've found that it's much easier than actual debate, plus everyone doesn't get pissed off at you. They don't really listen anyhow, it's a waste of time to take it beyond that unless you're a politician.

I'll buy that, Cynthetiq.

As everyone must know by now on TFP, I'm the world's biggest Beatles nut. However, when I was growing up, my father never forgave John Lennon for the "more popular than Christ" comment. He despised Lennon for the rest of his life.

Yet, there was never a single time when my father attempted to banish John Lennon from my life or even persuade me into finding a different role model.

Is it all part of the infamous "dumbing down" of culture we've heard so much about? They believe that all things different are necessarily "bad" and therefore must be permanently removed?

All my friends in college were from so many different backgrounds and personal belief systems that we were guaranteed plenty of good arguments at EVERY gathering. Yet, we all loved each other's company and wouldn't have wanted it any other way. Sadly, my generation today simply doesn't seem to have the energy to entertain opposing viewpoints anymore, and we all surround ourselves with like-thinking friends.

Very sad.

Politicalization of the personal has a long and ignoble human history.

It became endemic and institutionalized in the US in the 1960s and continues today.

It is a sign of personal weakness.

Isnt it about imposing ones will on another?

I have a father who had lung cancer of the genetical form, he never smoked a day in his life.

After seeing him go through that during his early 30's, essentially me growing up with a father who couldnt even walk up stairs let alone play baseball with me I make it a personal matter to anyone I know (NOT strangers for then it is just rude) to tell them not to smoke around, near, or by anything I own.

There are some days where I wish all smokers would get lung cancer for a 24 hour period just to see how bad it is, give them a real incentive for stopping.

Where I'm going with this is that, somtimes I feel there is a good time and a bad time to force your opinion of dislikes onto others rather just keeping it to your self like you should.

Some things in life need to be force onto others even when they dont feel its right, or should be stopped for their feel that its a benifit to others.

While the list of them things are very slim, and rarely ever the point of most peoples "voiced opinions", it does happen.

Nope. That's politics in general.

ART, I'm completely with you on this. I think it goes hand in hand with two other malignancies of the 60's; victimization and arrested development.

Just to comment, but, there's a good chance that most on the TFP aren't like that, but you don't notice because they're not the ones who make noise. I wonder if views vs. replies statistic would be a good indicator of the ratio.

That would be interesting to know. Actually, this whole thread got started because of a satire piece written about the death of Weird Al's parents. "The Onion" (I think) published the lyrics to a joke song about the death of his parents that was exactly the kind of stuff Weird Al writes about other people's songs. Many of the folks replying to the thread not only expressed outrage, but voiced the opinion that they would write protest letters/boycott/ect., etc., against "The Onion."

I gathered that the thrust of their arguments was "I think it's in bad taste. I don't like it. Therefore, that publication should cease to exist."

I just don't get that type of thinking.

The better question is why some people who couldn't normally get motivated enough to change an issue themselves get on the band wagon after a movement has started.

There's a fine line between "getting involved to help out your fellow man" and "being a gigantic pain in the ass".

I agree. To many people today live in their own little world, where everything has to be just so.

I say... if you find that TV show offensive...CHANGE THE CHANNEL! DON'T BUY THE PRODUCTS THAT SPONSOR THAT SHOW!

if you don't like that radio show...CHANGE THE STATION! You control the dial. Rise above the mindless state of duh that the media wants you to be!

If you don't like the web site, RESTRICT BY USING YOUR ALLOW LIST!

Then people say that "we're doing it for the kids! we don't want our kids to see and hear this stuff!"
Well, I say forget the kids....where the hell are the parents that are supposed to censor what their kids see and hear?!?
*done venting....steps off soapbox*

I am in favor of removing most restrictions on most things. Is that wrong if the goal is to prevent anyone from imposing their will on anyone else

Re: UMBRELLA TOPIC: People determined to be outraged
 

Depends. If we're talking about people who doesn't agree with my point of view, I'm with you! Sick of them! :D

Every issue is fraught with disagreement. Even the most noble of causes can lead to massive hostilities. Sooo...I don't know. It seems to come with being human.