Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[enemyofthestate]

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.

I share your suspicion about the study but I am treating it as if it is true for the sake of discussion.  If it is true that shunning causes a reaction that is indistinguishable from pain then it is a form of agression and must be dealt with as such.  A fact is a fact and the only choice a rational man gets is how he will deal with it.

[libertad]

I guess I am confused about libertarianism.  Let me preface that with the fact that I align with no organized belief and am about as anti-mainstream-agenda as they come, so I am just curious.

I can understand it not being proper to inflict pain on another or infringe on their rights, but neither am I a pacifist, nor overly concerned with the miriad of reactions of other ppl's emotions which I have no control over.  What crushes one person, might be laughable by another.  

Too many ppl use their emotional response as a 'victim', as a form of manipulation and control over another.  passive/aggressive/whatever.  There is cause and reaction.  You do something that someone doesn't like.  You've exercised your freedom of choice.  

Someone doesn't like it and shuns you or gives you a FOAD bridge burner.   You feel pain because your choice caused a reaction that is negative and you don't like it.  Of course it is going to cause you pain!  How is this construed as a form of aggression by the shunner, when your choice caused nothing more than a reaction.  Not necessarily the reaction that was wanted.  

Are you advocating only "acceptable" reactions to anothers action?  I certainly wouldn't want to live in that eutopia, where outwardly ppl say and do the right thing, but inwardly they are spewing.  I prefer to confront the truth.

I guess I look at the issue from the other side, where it is more humane and fruitful to equip those that feel the need to be accepted, with the coping skills req to not feel pain no matter what ppl think of them.   I believe the floodgates were opened in this country to take away our rights, by ppl claiming victimhood to get their rights enforced at the expense of mine.

I'm sorry if I'm clueless and rambling.  As I said, I am curious as to what you guys believe.
 

[Hunter]

<sings loudly> "I'm a libertarian and I'm OK, I sing all night and I work all day...." Oh wait, wrong skit.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm going to repeat myself. Besides which, it gives me an excuse to indulge in some lovely recursive quoting, and we all know how much the Snake LOVES that...

Zero Aggression Principle, and is sometimes referred to by less enlighted souls as the "Non-Aggression Principle". Here is the best definition of it I have ever seen by one of the leading philosophers of the movement, who cleverly disguises himself as a science fiction writer and affable curmudgeon:

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
- L. Neil Smith

I doubt that you will find very many people here who don't agree with that. The thrust of this discussion is whether shunning is an acceptable tactic to use against the "Men Who Would be Kings" busily destroying freedom with gleeful abandon. As somebody observed in a certain writer's books, we have reached the stage where it is moral to shoot the bastards, but we have not yet reached the stage where it is practical. Shunning, however, might be practical *if* it is morally acceptable using the yardstick of the above rule. Does that make things more clear?

[Rabbit]

I don’t believe that shunning someone is a use of force, even if it does activate pain centers in their brain (i.e. hurt their feelings).  Seeing a person attired in plaid has a similar affect on me – should this give me the positive right to demand that everyone doff their plaid gear before coming within my view?

My body is my own to control – and if I don’t feel like using it to acknowledge someone’s existence, that’s my business.
 

[Augustwest]

Oh wait, wrong skit.

Dead parrot's more appropriate here, somehow...

and if I don’t feel like using it to acknowledge someone’s existence, that’s my business.

Yes, but if you're "actively" rejecting someone in order to cause them discomfort when they haven't done anything aggressive (btw and imo, an aggessive act could be something as simple as taking a job with the fedgov) then I think it gets a little sketchy.
 

[Hunter]

Let's keep in mind that it is not JUST initiating an act of aggression that the ZAP declares boldly is wrong, but also delegation of same, or even just advocating initiation of force. that has profound implications, and is why I think shunning at the advanced levels I'm talking about falls into the category of "force". Finding out that it activates pain centres in the brain is not why I came to that conclusion, I had it before. I guess what I am doing t a degree is falling back on another principle that Heinlein mentioned in "Coventry" - the concept of damage. If a conscious act can cause measurable damage to another human being, then he can I should think be able to claim restitution. Hurt feelings are one thing, and engender no claim - but an act capable of drving someone into institutional care would I should hope qualify as force worthy of being controlled by the ZAP. Elsewise potential libertarian societies are in BIG trouble.  

[Sunni]

Libertad wrote:

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.

Shunning is not nearly as common today as it used to be -- think of the disapproval that unwed mothers-to-be used to face. Now many proudly announce that they're "doing it themselves", actively keeping the father out of the child's life. Those who used welfare back then were also given some measure of social disapproval, especially if they were judged as trying to take advantage of the system (as opposed to really needing a helping hand).

This report is supposedly based on a scientific report. In psychology (as in other sciences, but I'm a psychologist and can speak to it much better than any other field), many common words have more precise definitions than they do to the lay public. I think that is part of what's going on here.

Rabbit wrote:

My body is my own to control – and if I don’t feel like using it to acknowledge someone’s existence, that’s my business.

Exactly. This cuts to the point of the matter.

Hunter replied:

Yes, but if you're "actively" rejecting someone in order to cause them discomfort when they haven't done anything aggressive ... then I think it gets a little sketchy.

Since we're talking about libertarian applications of shunning, I would think that a clear aggression (and yes, there are different opinions on what would qualify) is assumed. The only possibility that, IMO, might qualify as "initiation" is if the individual seeks out the object of the shunning, then engages in it.

Hunter, part of the difficulty I have with what you're saying is that often a claim of damage -- especially psychological or emotional damage -- is highly subjective and difficult to prove. Further, being hurt can also be subject to choice -- I know from my own experience that sometimes a certain comment can cause pain, but other times (and even from the same individual), the response is quite different. I don't see any way to measure that, or to demonstrate it soundly enough to satisfy a Witness or impartial jury. ("Why did the same statement from the defendant cause you pain in Case A, yet not in Case B -- cases that are, by your own admission, very similar?")

[Hunter]

I carefully said measurable damage, with a fair degree of emphasis on the word. If someone says to me "what you did hurt my feelings", depending on how much I like them I might do anything from apologize to shrug. But the results I have seen true shunning achieve go a lot beyond hurt feelings, and I think *can* be measured meaningfully. That's why I think it not unreasonable to consider it a form of force. What am I missing?

[mantispid]

but an act capable of drving someone into institutional care would I should hope qualify as force worthy of being controlled by the ZAP. Elsewise potential libertarian societies are in BIG trouble.

Hmm.. well, wouldn't breaking up with a boyfriend/girlfriend qualify under this too?  If they are emotionally hurt to the point of wanting to commit suicide, etc?

...so if you want to break up with someone and they don't want to break up, you should stay with them for fear of violating the ZAP?
 

[Rabbit]

I guess what I am doing t a degree is falling back on another principle that Heinlein mentioned in "Coventry" - the concept of damage. If a conscious act can cause measurable damage to another human being, then he can I should think be able to claim restitution. Hurt feelings are one thing, and engender no claim - but an act capable of drving someone into institutional care would I should hope qualify as force worthy of being controlled by the ZAP.

Suppose it could be demonstrated that a guy with a Napoleon complex would be driven crazy unless everyone treated him like an emperor.  Would this give him the positive right to insist that everyone do so, and the right to demand restitution if they wouldn’t and he ended up institutionalized as a result?

If so, I may feel such a complex coming on….  

-Rabbit

[Sunni]

Rabbit touches on something I meant to address in my last message, and failed to: that being positive and negative rights. I'm not able to go into it in depth at the moment (children clamoring to go outside & much cleaning to be done), but I trust the good folks here will be able to pick up the ball and run with it, if so desired.

Hunter, I think part of what you may be missing is this: Pain can't be prevented, nor should it: it is an invaluable teacher. So ... measurable or not, is it really the best course for a libertarian (or any other) to consistently treat it as something worth compensating?

[Hunter]

Damned if I know. The Napoleon complex I have an easy answer to; you can't pursue that one without violating the ZAP, so clearly it is not OK. Ditto the romantic breakups - those are strictly internal choices, which cannot be physically pursued by the one party without initiating aggression against the other. I do think that romantic relations would become a lot healthier without the pressures and foolishness of today's world, but that might be wishful thinking - men and women will probably find new and exciting ways to screw up each other's lives.

What I think you're missing here is the *directed* nature of shunning. A romantic breakup does not in most circumstances have as its *object* driving the object of your former affections nuts. Shunning DOES, and I think that counts for something. But, hell, I am a practical sort, I'll leave the theory to the people what cares. For me at least, shunning appears to be a weapon that needs to be used with attention to the moral implications. Others can make whatever choices seem right to them; I can't stop you anyway, and wouldn't care to try if I could.

It occurs to me, Sunni, thinking upon some things L Neil has put in his books, and some discussions I've had with him on other subjects, that I *do* have an answer of sorts for your question. Any time you inflict pain, I think there probably IS a moral debt incurred. Like the alien in "Forge" who caught himself on somebody else's balcony to save his life, and had to trespass as part of that emergency, there may be a vital and over-riding reason for you to do it. That does not of itself erase the debt, though. I am dubious myself just how far one can take that concept, for it has lots of implications that would need exploring.

My point is that you can establish a moral calculus - killing someone is wrong, but if they initiated aggression against you and you did it in self defence, then his greater moral debt cancels yours. Similar arguments could be applied to both the Napoleon example and the romantic breakup I should think. But that may be stretching things beyond the breaking point, I dunno. Never thought about it in those terms before; I *said* when we started this whole discussion that I was wondering how the ZAP applied to shunning. I'm a simple man, and I like to keep things simple - the ZAP is simple, therefore I like to use it when I can. QED.

[libertad]

The thrust of this discussion is whether shunning is an acceptable tactic to use against the "Men Who Would be Kings" busily destroying freedom with gleeful abandon

sorry, with the talk of unwed mothers, etc, I must have missed that.



Rabbit your thoughts and conclusions come closer to mine.  

My body is my own to control – and if I don’t feel like using it to acknowledge someone’s existence, that’s my business.

I couldn't agree more.

Shunning is not nearly as common today as it used to be -- think of the disapproval that unwed mothers-to-be used to face. Now many proudly announce that they're "doing it themselves", actively keeping the father out of the child's life.

I tend to disagree.  Rather than conlude the unwed mother is less shunned today, she has actually broken free from the oppression that shunning caused, by standing up for her beliefs and caring less what society thinks because of individual strength.  The responsiblity for her emotional welfare was ultimately up to her to begin with.

Perhaps today shunning could be equated to society enforcing what is socially and economically acceptable using less perceptible methods.  The result is the same and is totally acceptable in todays society.   Failure to include someone that is different economically, educationally, physically, the list is endless.  

Maybe I am confusing shunning with 'preference', which goes back to personal choice and willingness to stand up for those choices regardless of opposition.  Someone might feel coerced by the more sophisticated form of 'shunnin' in todays world, but they are hopefully better empowered emotionally to cope because the world is more diverse where they can go elsewhere to fit in.  Those that aren't so empowered won't be helped by removing shunning.  Ultimately they have to strengthen their resolve to be happy with the choices that they make.  


Like a bully that steals your lunch money.  Finally standing up for yourself puts an end to it.  Hoping the bully goes away accomplishes nothing.

I do appreciate the dialog though.  Diversity in beliefs is the greatest form of education for me.

[Sunni]

Libertad wrote:

I tend to disagree. Rather than conlude the unwed mother is less shunned today, she has actually broken free from the oppression that shunning caused, by standing up for her beliefs and caring less what society thinks because of individual strength.

I think we're talking about two different things here. Unwed motherhood is less stigmatized today, as American cultural mores have shifted away from doing so, and the economic consequences of having a baby without both parents' presence and support have been thoroughly muddled by the state. As a consequence, many women choose that path, "knowing" the prices will be fewer and less severe -- and choosing not to care what those few who disapprove may think.

The responsiblity for her emotional welfare was ultimately up to her to begin with.

As it always is. Others can have a powerful impact on that welfare, though -- which brings us back to the topic at hand: the use of shunning.

[Peregrine]

My body is my own to control – and if I don’t feel like using it to acknowledge someone’s existence, that’s my business.

Exactly.

I find this discussion a little unsettling because I'm pretty sure Intent becomes a critical factor in determining whether or not aggression has been initiated (I get a little worried about who gets to discern what the "intent" was).

The best example of shunning as aggression I can think of exists at West Point wherein a Cadet can be Silenced (shunned) by the Corp in an attempt to force them to resign without graduating (usually associated with an Honor violation).