The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: New study shows that rejection hurts  (Read 17089 times)

Carl

  • Guest
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #15 on: October 10, 2003, 03:58:29 pm »
Quote
Taking an action (or lack thereof) to cause such a reaction can reasonably (uh, oh, there's that word) viewed as an act of aggression. IMO.
There's an unsubtle difference here I think you may be missing: Aggression is the initiation of force. If you simply decide to shun some random person for no particular reason, perhaps you've initiated force (aggressed). But if you shun a person because he initiated force, you have not aggressed.
Logged

Augustwest

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #16 on: October 10, 2003, 04:08:24 pm »
Sorry, thought I'd made that clear above.

Initiators get what they got comin'.

What I was questioning was "shunning" as a tool to bring folks (non-aggressors) around to a better way of thinking.
Logged
\"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.\"  - Capt. Reynolds

ZooT_aLLures

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7956
    • http://www.thepriceofliberty.org
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #17 on: October 10, 2003, 05:10:18 pm »
Hunter,

No.....I think you may have misunderstood my post in that while NAP and ZAP are ideologies, all they are is ideologies.
Ideologies must be blended with "course of action" if indeed anything is ever to come to bear fruit.

This thread pretains to the action of shunning, and it's effect and my thoughts not only promote zero or no aggression, but also shunning..(the refusal to provide aid or comfort of ANY sort)..........

If those in positions that produce "risk" knew darn well that they were completely and utterly alone while commiting their crimes in the name of state, they might just behave a bit differently.......or they might choose a more civilized line of work
Logged
Even some cowboy and indian outlaws in the 1800's eventually stopped sleeping under buffalo skins, and came to town to entertain paying customers. For some I imagine the bruising of their ego never healed.

We all have some scar tissue that never lets us completely forget the intent of the adventure.

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #18 on: October 10, 2003, 05:49:45 pm »
Errr... perhaps I am missing something, but I was advocating precisely what you're proposing all along, and the question of whether it was compatible with the ZAP came up. It seems to me that we're violently agreeing here. Now, if you find that fun, fine, but it seems kinda a bit pointless to me. I don't see the distinction?
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Carl

  • Guest
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #19 on: October 10, 2003, 06:03:10 pm »
Quote
What I was questioning was "shunning" as a tool to bring folks (non-aggressors) around to a better way of thinking.
Speaking only for myself, naturally, but I wasn't looking at shunning as a social engineering tool to generally mold into folks "better way of thinking." Instead, I view at as an inexpensive means of dealing with some aggressors. Even with them, I don't care what they do or think so long as they don't aggress against me.
Logged

enemyofthestate

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1353
  • Banned
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2003, 06:42:00 pm »
C.R.A.P. == Completely Rejecting Aggression Principle.
 
Logged
Mystical man values human life.  Rational man values the ability to value human life.
--Stephen Carville

Atheist   n.   A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others
-- Chaz Bufe, The American Heretics Dictionary

enemyofthestate

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1353
  • Banned
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2003, 06:48:52 pm »
Quote
Quote
Taking an action (or lack thereof) to cause such a reaction can reasonably (uh, oh, there's that word) viewed as an act of aggression. IMO.
There's an unsubtle difference here I think you may be missing: Aggression is the initiation of force. If you simply decide to shun some random person for no particular reason, perhaps you've initiated force (aggressed). But if you shun a person because he initiated force, you have not aggressed.
If shunning is properly interpreted as a use of force than it can only be used in retaliation.  Nowever, it is often propsed by libertarians as a tool for social control of non-agressive but "offensive" behaviors.  Some libertarians would shun a woman who had an abortion.  Other might shun a man who preferred sex with other men or with animals.
Logged
Mystical man values human life.  Rational man values the ability to value human life.
--Stephen Carville

Atheist   n.   A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others
-- Chaz Bufe, The American Heretics Dictionary

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2003, 07:02:29 pm »
Hmmn. I would argue, then, that such people are not libertarians, because they have initiated force against someone. The guy sleeping with other guys, or penguins for that matter, is doing nothing to them.  
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

mantispid

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 588
    • http://www.mantispid.com
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2003, 07:14:47 pm »
Quote
Hmmn. I would argue, then, that such people are not libertarians, because they have initiated force against someone. The guy sleeping with other guys, or penguins for that matter, is doing nothing to them.

Hmm.. would this, then, be a justification for equal opportunity laws?  Would some folks consider discrimination to be shunning?  Would one then be justified in using retaliatory force against those who do not want to associate with certain groups of people?  I.e., Christian schools not allowing a Jewish teacher to teach Judaism?


I'm not willing to accept that line of reasoning.. so I'm sticking to my original belief that shunning is not a use of force.  Of course, I suppose you could create different 'classes' of shunning.. basic shunning is where you don't allow people of a certain type on your property, etc.. and active shunning where you act outwardly rude to them.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2003, 07:15:13 pm by mantispid »
Logged
"The root of all corruption is the willingness to violate the peaceful free will of others." -mantispid

Mantispid's weblog, "The Free Mind".

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2003, 07:50:11 pm »
Yeah, there's certainly levels of shunning. There are plenty of people in the world that I'd just as soon avoid. A lot of folks are just trouble looking for a place to happen. No sense being near 'em when it does. Live and let live in those cases. <shrug>

But that is a considerably different thing from active shunning, the kind that I'd consider morally equivalent to force. That's where you go out of your way to mentally make the person non-existent. You are not just expressing dislike, you are attempting to deny their very presence. It can be DAMNED effective if a bunch of people start doing that to somebody. I've seen several people quit good jobs and move to different towns because of that sort of treatment. And in two extreme cases I've witnessed they tried to tough it out, and cracked under the strain.

I didn't know either of them well, but I'd hazard a guess that they must not have had a very good support network outside the work/social circles this was happening in. We all to a degree deal with similar psychological pressures day-to-day, living among a vast population of statists who either passively or actively disapprove of our ideas. Hell, my family thinks I'm nuts half the time, and we're pretty close-knit. I know people who have pretty much stopped speaking with their family because of their embrace the freedom philosophy. One of the big things the 'net has done for us and a lot of other "splinter" social groups is given us the means to find each other, and gain an extended network to support themselves against those day-to-day pressures.  
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Carl

  • Guest
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2003, 11:18:38 pm »
Quote
If shunning is properly interpreted as a use of force than it can only be used in retaliation.  Nowever, it is often propsed by libertarians as a tool for social control of non-agressive but "offensive" behaviors.  Some libertarians would shun a woman who had an abortion.  Other might shun a man who preferred sex with other men or with animals.
And where did you hear me suggest the use of shunning other than in response to some form of aggression? I really don't care if you prefer copulating with 'possums over humans (though I'd wonder... a lot) so long as you leave me out of it.

I also admit to some curiosity as to who these "libertarians" are who want to engineer others' thoughts. Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. And I guess I frequent the wrong (right) sites, because I haven't encountered this "libertarian" idea yet.
Logged

Jac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2603
  • CPC? I'd tell you, but I'd have to kill you...
    • http://www.russmo.com
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2003, 12:43:23 am »
Quote
Hmm.. would this, then, be a justification for equal opportunity laws? Would some folks consider discrimination to be shunning? Would one then be justified in using retaliatory force against those who do not want to associate with certain groups of people? I.e., Christian schools not allowing a Jewish teacher to teach Judaism?
I think that there is a large difference between refusing to associate with someone (or a group of someones) and shunning them.

As Hunter said, shunning is much more than "omission of interaction" (in the words of mantispid). Not associating with someone because you disagree with them is fine, but acting as if they don't exist is wrong.

I think... I'm pretty tired right now, so I hope that came out right.
Logged
I have never regretted that I chose to "take the red pill." But there are days, just rarely, when the truth is so ugly, so brutal, so unmerciful, so relentless, that even if I wouldn't rip the truth from the wall socket and hurl it out the window to crash on the sidewalk below, I wouldn't mind if it featured a snooze button so we could savor just a few more moments in slumbered pretension and warm, fuzzy lies pulled snugly up over our heads.
--PSM

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2003, 01:09:10 am »
No, I think you got the gist of it. The only point I would add is that, yes, like using force of any kind, shunning is "wrong" in one sense. It can be justified, again like force, only as a retaliatory, defensive measure, applied judiciously and proportionately. The research that Sunni showed us suggesting that the mechanism driving a person's reaction to social ostracization is the pain centers of the brain just reinforces that opinion.
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

libertad

  • Guest
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2003, 09:02:47 pm »
I'm confused.  In today's pc society isn't shunning common place already?   Isn't that what's wrong with this country?  Herd mentality that has created ppl that are impotent out of fear that someone might shun them?  Didn't they used to call that peer pressure?  

Sounds like just another pyschobabble acronym to create a new 'victim disease' so ppl won't take personal responsiblity for having a backbone.
Logged

enemyofthestate

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1353
  • Banned
New study shows that rejection hurts
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2003, 11:18:52 pm »
Quote
And where did you hear me suggest the use of shunning other than in response to some form of aggression? I really don't care if you prefer copulating with 'possums over humans (though I'd wonder... a lot) so long as you leave me out of it.

I don't think I accused you of anything.  However I have heard libertarians advocate shunning as a means for controlling behavior that may be percieved as "anti-social" but is otherwise in accord the the NAP/ZAP.  One example that came up on the Smith2004 list a while back was how best to deal with a store owner who posted a "No Guns Allowed" sign on his property.

Quote
I also admit to some curiosity as to who these "libertarians" are who want to engineer others' thoughts. Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. And I guess I frequent the wrong (right) sites, because I haven't encountered this "libertarian" idea yet.

One example is I can think of offhand is on the above mentioned Smith2004 list where there is a fellow who often tells anyone who will listen that, "Libertartian does not mean non-judgemental."

He is nevertheless accepted as a libertarian and I have no reason to doubt that assessment.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2003, 11:20:45 pm by enemyofthestate »
Logged
Mystical man values human life.  Rational man values the ability to value human life.
--Stephen Carville

Atheist   n.   A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others
-- Chaz Bufe, The American Heretics Dictionary
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
« previous next »