You can divide everyone into two types (but here's another way to do it)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Thinking back over stuff that's happened to me lately, and over some of the more depressing ILX threads I've read, I was thinking that there's a fairly obvious distinction between people that cuts deeper than most other political divisions.

On the one hand, you have people who do their best, at least initially, to try to understand other people's points of view, and to try to sympathise with them. These people are Woolly Liberals, for want of a better term.

On the other hand, you have people who can't see the point of trying to understand another person's position. Instead, they'd rather just ignore them, hate them, troll them, or just act amazed that there are people out there who behave and think differently to themselves. The best label I can think of for this group is: Twats.

Any thoughts?

(OK, it would be nice to have a serious thread, but I'm half-expecting 137 "there are 3 types of people - those who can count and those who can't" answers by lunchtime instead)

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Thursday, 20 October 2005 06:31 (twenty years ago)

The trouble with the "Woolly Liberals" meme is that people are usually capable of sympathising but not empathising. Also on ILx the understanding tends to be a bit one-way, i.e. I try to understand other people's points of view but they don't seem to want to reciprocate in kind and understand my point of view. I admit that this sometimes happens vice versa.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 20 October 2005 06:38 (twenty years ago)

Woolly Liberals?

― nathalie, a bum like you (stevie nixed), Thursday, 20 October 2005 06:57 (twenty years ago)

Part of the problem arises from the need to label everybody and everything.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 20 October 2005 06:59 (twenty years ago)

rather than to admit that humans are by nature contradictory and vicarious and compassionate and duplicitous and coming to terms with that.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 20 October 2005 06:59 (twenty years ago)

You've got to label woolly liberals or else they'd shrink in the wash.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 20 October 2005 07:00 (twenty years ago)

Are binary distinctions themselves part of the problem? The whole them/us thing (which of course some anthropologists, especially Structuralists, think is a basic artefact of our brain's wiring)

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Thursday, 20 October 2005 07:07 (twenty years ago)

Yes it's not always a clear division and some shift between the two. It's more of a continuum really than two opposing camps like in the Cold War. That said, some people are just twats with few redeeming qualities. Luckily these are in the minority.

― saleXander / sophie (salexander), Thursday, 20 October 2005 07:07 (twenty years ago)

I may be a deconstructivist.

― saleXander / sophie (salexander), Thursday, 20 October 2005 07:08 (twenty years ago)

I have nothing to add, which makes me an unconstructivist I guess.

― beanz (beanz), Thursday, 20 October 2005 07:22 (twenty years ago)

I've definitely shrunk in the wash :(

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 20 October 2005 07:58 (twenty years ago)

Think yourself lucky. I've stretched in all the wrong places.

― hobart paving (hobart paving), Thursday, 20 October 2005 08:09 (twenty years ago)

"wooly liberal" problem= "i understand your problem, in fact, i understand it better than you"

― terry lennox. (gareth), Thursday, 20 October 2005 08:14 (twenty years ago)

maybe sometimes that is true!

You could argue that you appear to not see the point of trying to understand THEIR position or sympathise with them here though.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:01 (twenty years ago)

Woolly Liberals only understand the other person's problem better because they themselves aren't having to go through it.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:02 (twenty years ago)

is that true?

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:04 (twenty years ago)

whether one is going through a problem is on an entirely seperate axis.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:06 (twenty years ago)

i said "problem" but it doesn't have to be a problem obv (but that's what may be implied if it's said to be "having to go through it")

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:07 (twenty years ago)

Marcello, you aren't trying to understand the Woolly Liberals.

(and for the zillionth time - WHY is it so fucking awful to be a liberal???)

― hobart paving (hobart paving), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:07 (twenty years ago)

i'm ok, you're ok.

― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:07 (twenty years ago)

i understand your gay problem better than you!!

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:07 (twenty years ago)

Does a psychiatrist understand their patient's problem better than the patient?

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:07 (twenty years ago)

i understand your gay problem better than you!!
-- ken c (pykachu10...), October 20th, 2005.

That's because you are an gay. You just don't know it yet.

― hobart paving (hobart paving), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:08 (twenty years ago)

Is the patient a patient?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:08 (twenty years ago)

Customer then.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:09 (twenty years ago)

so i'm currently sympathising rather than empathising?

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:10 (twenty years ago)

If he's a customer, why would he want to buy sympathy?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:11 (twenty years ago)

Is the patient a patient?
-- Marcello Carlin (marcellocarli...), October 20th, 2005.
Customer then.
-- Sociah T Azzahole (stevem7...), October 20th, 2005.

I think "client" is the current PC expression. Although I might have misunderstood what you're on about..

― hobart paving (hobart paving), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:12 (twenty years ago)

because sympathy is cheap

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:12 (twenty years ago)

although one may be ripped off trying to buy it from a psychiatrist

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:13 (twenty years ago)

so i'm currently sympathising rather than empathising?
-- ken c (pykachu10...), October 20th, 2005.

I don't know what you're doing but its making me HOT!

― hobart paving (hobart paving), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:13 (twenty years ago)

i was just rubbing my lefty nipple

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:14 (twenty years ago)

it's wooly and everything

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:15 (twenty years ago)

nice

― Ste (Fuzzy), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:15 (twenty years ago)

Must the problemee by necessity be patient to the problemer?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:16 (twenty years ago)

i was just rubbing my lefty nipple
-- ken c (pykachu10...), October 20th, 2005.

I understand. I empathise.

― hobart paving (hobart paving), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:17 (twenty years ago)

Oh dear

― saleXander / sophie (salexander), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:19 (twenty years ago)

you get people arguing for the literal truth of the bible round these parts sometimes. but hey, let's try to understand them.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:20 (twenty years ago)

That "oh dear" was kind of condescending

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:20 (twenty years ago)

As if there's something wrong with rubbing one's nipples. I'm doing it as we speak.

Actually, I'm not. I'm in an office. How crashingly dull. But I'm THInKING about doing it.

― hobart paving (hobart paving), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:21 (twenty years ago)

stevem's first post was the best so far on this thread.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:23 (twenty years ago)

closely followed by the wooly nips

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:24 (twenty years ago)

If people can be divided into "types," what font would you be? I think I'd be Arial just coz it sounds like a nice name and is like the Little Mermaid.

― saleXander / sophie (salexander), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:26 (twenty years ago)

Verdana

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:27 (twenty years ago)

Why how very bold of you

― saleXander / sophie (salexander), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:29 (twenty years ago)

bembo (sp)

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:29 (twenty years ago)

i was just trying to underline our differences xpost

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 09:30 (twenty years ago)

No this is underlining our differences

― saleXander / sophie (salexander), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:25 (twenty years ago)

Ha ha, I think it's Class Thing. (/deliberate provocation.)

Some people seem to be unable to distinguish between "understanding"/empathising and projection. Not that I'm not guilty of that. How can one ever understand another's PoV without bringing your own into it? It's foolish to pretend.

However, what I have noted is that some people do seem to show a bewhildering lack of forethought of how their actions may affect others. Perhaps insensitivity is an old fashioned word. It's a nebulous line and I don't want to dig up things are being harped on enough on ILX at the moment.

But there has to be some kind of balance between "oh, you need to develop a thicker skin" and "can't you stop and think about others and how they will react to things before you shoot your mouth off like a bull in a china shop?" But it's difficult to know where that divide is. Anyway...

The Categorical Imperative is a good thing to try to remember.

― Paranoid Spice (kate), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:29 (twenty years ago)

I always remember that.

What is it?

― hobart paving (hobart paving), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:33 (twenty years ago)

The importance of making lists.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:33 (twenty years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

The categorical imperative is the philosophical concept central to the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant and to modern deontological ethics. He introduced the concept in his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.

― saleXander / sophie (salexander), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:35 (twenty years ago)

x-post

Sorry, but I'm actually going to try to be serious for once. The Categorical Imperative is the idea that you should act as if your actions were universalised.

A lot of people think that this is the same as the Golden Rule - which says, basically, treat others the way you would want to be treated.

The problem with that is that it fails to account for things like individual foibles and cultural differences etc.

The Categorical Imperative states that every time you do something, you should act as if you are setting a legal precedent. Not just "this is the way that you want others to treat you" but "this is the way every person in your society/the world will treat every other person this way".

You can still act in a bloody selfish way and follow the golden rule. It's a bit harder to be quite so selfish following the Categorical Imperative.

Of course whether selfishness is a basic human condition is another question.

― Paranoid Spice (kate), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:37 (twenty years ago)

i think it's quite a bit harder to act in any way following that rule because I'd imagine the world wouldn't work if everyone behaves in the same manner. and so if one is to follow this imperative, you'll end up doing nothing, except you cannot do nothing, because if everybody does nothing society will collapse.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:48 (twenty years ago)

no two situations are alike. i exaggerate, a bit.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:51 (twenty years ago)

It's specifically with regard to ethics, not with regards to all actions. I suppose all actions should be governed by some kind of ethics. It's really about thinking of the consequences of your actions.

And if you think about it that hard, then really, you'd never take another step for fear of crushing a bug or exploiting someone or something somewhere. But you're right, the world could not survive if everyone did nothing - so it is rather self contradictory. But it's always a good idea to start thinking about the consequences of one's actions with regards to other people.

So perhaps you can divide the world into three groups of people:

-Those who are unaware of the consequences of their actions on others
-Those who are aware that their actions have consequences but choose not to care
-Those who are aware that their actions have consequences, and try to tread a balance between their own interests and those of others. This is called Enlightened Self Interest.

― Paranoid Spice (kate), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:53 (twenty years ago)

I was going to say something about there being a third catergory, the woolly twat, but there's probably websites for that sort of thing

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:53 (twenty years ago)

now come on, that's enough about dissensus...

*ducks*

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:54 (twenty years ago)

"No dear, he didn't say woolly hat... pay attention at the back there... honestly, the audiences you get these days"

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:55 (twenty years ago)

A lot of people think that this is the same as the Golden Rule - which says, basically, treat others the way you would want to be treated.

The problem with that is that it fails to account for things like individual foibles and cultural differences etc.

Not to mention the complications for a self-confessed S/M fan such as FP

― Bob Six (bobbysix), Thursday, 20 October 2005 11:26 (twenty years ago)

You can't divide people into types like this because they will change from one to the next type and the next constantly and without warning.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 20 October 2005 11:35 (twenty years ago)

OK, maybe you can't divide people into types (though some, actually, in context, I think you can) - but you can certain divide behaviours into types.

― Paranoid Spice (kate), Thursday, 20 October 2005 12:06 (twenty years ago)

I certainly haven't seen anyone on Dissensus raving about Badly Drawn Boy, that's for sure.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 20 October 2005 12:12 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.