Implicit impoliteness and moral correctness

[Azul]

More of a "rant" post

Why do some people think it is perfectly alright to constantly insult someone when it's implicit and indirect, but think it is a scandal to call it out explicitly?

Like, the offender will think of themselves like the pinnacle of civilization, all the while throwing insults to a lower class of people and no one bats an eye. And then, if someone points out their insults explicitly and directly, even though never insulting or showing disdain for the other person, then the caller is known as an abrasive and impolite person.

I'm so sick of it.

It's the moral of appearances. All is fine if the violation is indirect and happens under guises, but being frank and open about something while not making any insult explicit or implicit becomes a social transgression.

And worse, if the last one don't agree or understand why what they said weren't received well and insists on dialoguing, then they are even more at fault.

I understand why this works this way - sort of, but it drives me nuts.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

Well, the linguistic fencing using implicit repartee is far from new. The most famous was the Algonquin Round Table which Dorothy Parker founded.

 

[Luca]

I just don't like people being mean or impolite in general.

 

[Rodafina]

Micro aggressions are a serious social problem. It sounds like much of what you’re describing would fit into this category.

https://www.med.unc.edu/healthscien...ditoolkit/microaggressions-microaffirmations/

Spoiler: Description

Microaggressions are the everyday slights, insults, putdowns, invalidations, and offensive behaviors that people experience in daily interactions with generally well-intentioned individuals who may be unaware that they have engaged in demeaning ways.

• There may be four (or more) psychological dilemmas rooted in experience with microaggressions. It is critical to note that whether an encounter is considered a micro- or macro-aggression is entirely up to the individuals involved.
  • Clash of realities: speaker does not intend harm while listener experiences a reflection of bias. (e.g. use of incorrect pronouns with gender nonconforming people- listener is aggravated that this continually occurs but cisgender speakers view their behaviors as honest mistakes which are common or even accurate.
  • Invisibility of unintentional bias: we are socialized to assimilate biases due to systemic oppression and the related ‘superiority’ of dominant groups (e.g. cisgender people may not see there are no gender-neutral restrooms due to belief ‘only two kinds of restrooms needed: one for men and one for women’).
  • Perceived minimal harm: many people, particularly of privileged groups, may see microaggressions as being unimportant or too minor to warrant discussion because the specific incidents are innocuous or mistakes; but when they occur often it leads to an accumulation which can negatively affect colleagues and the workplace.
  • Catch 22: exemplifies why it is often difficult to respond to microaggressions because
    • Varied perspectives, everyone does not view the incident the same
    • There usually are repercussions for confronting the speaker
    • The listener may not have the energy, time or mental energy to engage

 

[Azul]

@Gerald Wilgus
While witty remarks can be implicit, I was referring to cases when the implicit discourse isn't funny even to the sayer.

@Rodafina is more on point I think. Also on the part where engaging can be more aggravating to the questioner than the commentator.

It's easier to do implicit incivilities, since if you're open you can get called out.

 

[GypsyMoth]

Sorry, I can't help. It drives me nuts, too.

Usually, I get pegged with arguing -- and it is true I like to argue and debate for the fun of it. (I try not to do that here--my IRL experience says that people get pretty tired of it pretty fast--but in person, I can't just read through what I'm about to say and...that kind of gets me in a lot of trouble real fast.)

Asking questions isn't a sin.

Neither is being frank or open.

My socially correct solution would be to 1.) consider your audience, 2.) consider the content of what you have to say, 3.) evaluate the context in which it's going to be said. That is, unless you're looking for pushback, then push. (I have been known to say things just to egg people on. Hey, it's fun, but I keep an eye on it--friendly is ok but too pushy & it's not fun anymore.)

I'm probably not helping here. If you need to call someone out, you need to call someone out.

 

[GypsyMoth]

You don't have to accept the narrative of the other person in such an exchange.

Wrong is wrong. Two wrongs never make a right. Always take the moral high ground and allow that maybe the other person is making the social transgression and not you. Then chalk it up to an unfriendly verbal exchange and move on.

If they don't want to move on, then be firm and direct: "I really don't feel comfortable with your __[doing whatever]_; please stop or I will have to draw this conversation to a close." If they don't stop, then follow through on your threat and leave the conversation. The next time you two talk, they'll remember this and (hopefully) may show you a little more respect.

I hope this helps a bit better.


(See? This is what I get when I sit with something longer. It's a little less cheeky and a whole lot more useful. On that note, you should probably not follow the advice I gave in the preceding post, but the suggestion here is much better grounded as it's assertive, not aggressive.)

 

[Hypnalis]

Do you want to know why people do that, or how to shut them up in a way that makes counterattack difficult?

 

[Mr. Stevens]

More of a "rant" post

Why do some people think it is perfectly alright to constantly insult someone when it's implicit and indirect, but think it is a scandal to call it out explicitly?

Like, the offender will think of themselves like the pinnacle of civilization, all the while throwing insults to a lower class of people and no one bats an eye. And then, if someone points out their insults explicitly and directly, even though never insulting or showing disdain for the other person, then the caller is known as an abrasive and impolite person.

I'm so sick of it.

It's the moral of appearances. All is fine if the violation is indirect and happens under guises, but being frank and open about something while not making any insult explicit or implicit becomes a social transgression.

And worse, if the last one don't agree or understand why what they said weren't received well and insists on dialoguing, then they are even more at fault.

I understand why this works this way - sort of, but it drives me nuts.

I think many (most?) people are very self-image driven. They need to orient their identity against others, while also believing they are fundamentally good. If you call them out on their prejudice they don't like how this makes them look or feel about themselves. They like to believe they aren't the kind of person who is prejudiced, despite the evidence. Therefore their behavior has some other justification and they'll be offended by you.

I guess it's all just a matter of "impression management," with themselves and other people. It is ridiculous, though, how you can be seen as judgmental for calling them out on this kind of pettiness.

Anyway, just throwing in my opinion. I know you said you understand it.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

More of a "rant" post

Why do some people think it is perfectly alright to constantly insult someone when it's implicit and indirect, but think it is a scandal to call it out explicitly?

Like, the offender will think of themselves like the pinnacle of civilization, all the while throwing insults to a lower class of people and no one bats an eye. And then, if someone points out their insults explicitly and directly, even though never insulting or showing disdain for the other person, then the caller is known as an abrasive and impolite person.

I'm so sick of it.

It's the moral of appearances. All is fine if the violation is indirect and happens under guises, but being frank and open about something while not making any insult explicit or implicit becomes a social transgression.

And worse, if the last one don't agree or understand why what they said weren't received well and insists on dialoguing, then they are even more at fault.

I understand why this works this way - sort of, but it drives me nuts.

I agree.

There's a lot going on here.
(1) Most neurotypicals have been taught how to speak using "indirect language",...using language that can be deceptive, but is accepted as polite or non-confrontational. So it is with insults. A rather famous one in the southern states of the US,...you could be direct and honest say someone is stupid,...or,...you could be indirect and deceptive and say, "Bless his/her little heart" when describing this person. The later being the more appropriate language, believe it or not.
(2) Tribalistic behaviors. People living in their little information bubbles. People seeing themselves as the "moral majority",...when, unknowingly,...they actually might be on the "lunatic fringe". People seeing anything "different" as a threat to themselves,...when it really isn't. It's a total lack of perspective, understanding, and empathy. How could a poor person living out in the country understand the life of a poor person living in subsidized housing complexes in the inner city,...and vice-versa? How could a billionaire understand the life of the working classes,...and vice-versa? If we see each other as "something different" as "the enemy" or "something wrong",...and never actually communicate with each other,...divisiveness ensues.
(3) System one thinking vs. System 2 thinking. System one thinking,...all your cognitive biases, your fears, your personal life experience,...combined without a pause to think things through,...the mouth opens before the brain engages. Some people falsely think this is "honest talk", something to be valued,...but it is actually quite the opposite. System 2 thinking,...you pause before opening your mouth, look beyond your fears, look beyond your personal life experience, do your research in an unbiased approach, understanding the pros and cons,...phrase your responses within the context and perspective of the specifics of the conversation, etc.
(4) Egotistical and/or narcissistic personality traits. Calling someone out on their BS is quite a threat to someone with these personality traits,...and they will fire back with an emotional response.

 

[Azul]

Do you want to know why people do that, or how to shut them up in a way that makes counterattack difficult?

The original question were about "why", although I don't mind reading about the "how", too.

I think many (most?) people are very self-image driven. They need to orient their identity against others, while also believing they are fundamentally good. If you call them out on their prejudice they don't like how this makes them look or feel about themselves. They like to believe they aren't the kind of person who is prejudiced, despite the evidence. Therefore their behavior has some other justification and they'll be offended by you.

I guess it's all just a matter of "impression management," with themselves and other people. It is ridiculous, though, how you can be seen as judgmental for calling them out on this kind of pettiness.

Anyway, just throwing in my opinion. I know you said you understand it.

Your opinion is welcome. I think what you said is a huge part, too. Calling someone out makes them feel shame due to their self-image. It makes sense that people will be offended.

 

[GypsyMoth]

(4) Egotistical and/or narcissistic personality traits. Calling someone out on their BS is quite a threat to someone with these personality traits,...and they will fire back with an emotional response.

Not a PC answer here, but sometimes calling someone out helps stem the tide and stop the pattern of abuse. It lets the other person know you're not willing to be walked on. About the emotional response, they're already giving an emotional response when they make such a statement in the first place. It's built into their assumption that the other person won't pick up on the true meaning behind what they're saying--it's a kind of ad hominem abusive. When they retort, I just stick with the facts. This limits the amount of "ammunition" I give them to fire back at me with.

(That illustration is from an old boss. I swear, he used it for months as a 'teaching moment' and I had no idea what he was talking about. I finally had to ask him what he meant by it. Kind of embarrassing. Now I know why!)

 

[Hypnalis]

@Azul

Rather than trying to explain the deep nature of humans (which I can't do, and IMO remains impossible anyway), a heuristic:

* The "monkey brain" (also other creatures, but we are the only one that can speak) seems to be hard-wired to play dominance games. The situation you described is a way some people use to try to climb up the "pecking order"
* The instinct leads some people to get "brain-locked" into a broader us/them mindset. The extreme polarization of US politics over the last 10-20 years contains many good examples.
Intelligence suggests discourse and balanced compromises will produce the best results. The monkey brain likes "head-bashing competitions", which produce both inferior results and headaches (at best)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare-knuckle_boxing#Irish_stand_down* People "think tribally". It's comfortable to be with other people who hold exactly the same opinions. It's uncomfortable to face dissenting opinions. A surprising amount of "social conversation" is essentially just people finding something the agree on, and fine-tuning their agreement. If you directly interfere with this process you'll become an outcast.

* There are a couple of fallacies commonly associated with this way of thinking
** Social Darwinism: "I'm a better human being because I'm more xxx (e.g. richer)". If you follow the logic just a few steps it turns out to have a very bad side to it. See the intro paragraph of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism** Viewing "status" as a hierarchical zero-sum game ... as though "pushing others down" somehow pushes you relatively upwards

Not techniques, but two things to consider regarding addressing this IRL:
* Directly resisting a fanatic cannot achieve anything. Sometimes it's best to walk away. If you have to resist (e.g. due to a genuine moral conviction) you also have to accept the consequences
* Educating ignorant or misguided people is very difficult, but it's not the same as shutting them up on a particular topic.

 

[Azul]

** Viewing "status" as a hierarchical zero-sum game ... as though "pushing others down" somehow pushes you relatively upwards

Lots of interesting things in your message. About pushing people down as a means of achieving status, just as note of curiosity I mention a study where researchers found that people with high perceived social status didn't smile to other high perceived social status people, but smiled to lower status ones, while low status people smiled to everyone regardless of rank. Apparently, that's because higher rank people compete with each other, so they didn't do pleasantries within themselves, but since lower status didn't represent a threat, they were nice with them. And lower status people supposedly showed pleasantries either because it wouldn't make any difference or as a means of survival from the higher others. I can't remember where I read this, but I found interesting and wanted to cite.