As tactless as I tend to be, I've often met with hostility for many suggestions I make in conversation. Not the usual hot button shit like guns, feminism and slut shaming. It's often questions about why things like social institutions function the particular way they do, what better outcome might have been achieved had a different historical action been taken. I'm aware they're stupid questions, but I don't see why they don't merit an intelligent answer. I do not care how stupid I look, or likely am. I have no shame. I just want the answer.
Sometimes, not always, the mere calling into question of a certain custom, standard, or institution will generate hostility. Not necessarily a direct "GTFO dumbfuck," more like laughing at the question itself rather than explaining the logic and facts. Someone always gets defensive. Like an unwillingness to condescend + an insecurity at the questioning of a commonly accepted or relied upon fact of reality.
For one, I never mean to imply any system is wrong or an event certainly shouldn't have happened. My uninformed questions seem like I'm provoking them, but for what? A humorous display of their butthurt for me to feast on, because I've touched their mental soft parts? They're already wary of that, so any attempt at this, barring use ofextreme subtlety, is out of the question. If you explain to me the facts of the matter, will that somehow serve to embarrass you? And if you don't have the facts, why bother crusading for what the world already considers acceptable? The predominant point of view already has and will retain the upper hand, so why is any deviation such an urgent threat? There are experts who actually do know the facts who could handle the situation just as well.
Most importantly, why the indignation at a ludicrous suggestion from an individual who quite clearly has no power to make his suggestions a reality? Why the assumption that every word will amount to an action? Isn't it actions that do most of the damage? The assumption seems to be that if anyone catches wind of an incorrect fact or dangerous idea, they'll believe it immediately because they assume this new "source" is somehow right. As if one can't just suspend judgment when a potential "fact" crosses his ears. How does one get an answer without asking a wuestion? You can't observe the whole world yourself.
For anyone wondering, no, my TypeC action has rarely seen what I described above. I know this sounds euphoric as hell, it's just I don't understand how this should be happening. And I don't see any shame in shitting out correct facts that could easily shut down an opponent's argument as if he's internally laughing because you bothered to take his "ridiculous" question seriously. It's like shame and image are more important than actual facts and knowledge. That's an inherently flawed way for prople to be because we're all gonna be pretending to know everything when nons of us do. If none of us do, why hide it? The lie isn't sustainable.
Anyway....whatever your thoughts are. The answer's probably something painfully obvious I just can't fathom caring about.
Sometimes, not always, the mere calling into question of a certain custom, standard, or institution will generate hostility. Not necessarily a direct "GTFO dumbfuck," more like laughing at the question itself rather than explaining the logic and facts. Someone always gets defensive. Like an unwillingness to condescend + an insecurity at the questioning of a commonly accepted or relied upon fact of reality.
For one, I never mean to imply any system is wrong or an event certainly shouldn't have happened. My uninformed questions seem like I'm provoking them, but for what? A humorous display of their butthurt for me to feast on, because I've touched their mental soft parts? They're already wary of that, so any attempt at this, barring use ofextreme subtlety, is out of the question. If you explain to me the facts of the matter, will that somehow serve to embarrass you? And if you don't have the facts, why bother crusading for what the world already considers acceptable? The predominant point of view already has and will retain the upper hand, so why is any deviation such an urgent threat? There are experts who actually do know the facts who could handle the situation just as well.
Most importantly, why the indignation at a ludicrous suggestion from an individual who quite clearly has no power to make his suggestions a reality? Why the assumption that every word will amount to an action? Isn't it actions that do most of the damage? The assumption seems to be that if anyone catches wind of an incorrect fact or dangerous idea, they'll believe it immediately because they assume this new "source" is somehow right. As if one can't just suspend judgment when a potential "fact" crosses his ears. How does one get an answer without asking a wuestion? You can't observe the whole world yourself.
For anyone wondering, no, my TypeC action has rarely seen what I described above. I know this sounds euphoric as hell, it's just I don't understand how this should be happening. And I don't see any shame in shitting out correct facts that could easily shut down an opponent's argument as if he's internally laughing because you bothered to take his "ridiculous" question seriously. It's like shame and image are more important than actual facts and knowledge. That's an inherently flawed way for prople to be because we're all gonna be pretending to know everything when nons of us do. If none of us do, why hide it? The lie isn't sustainable.
Anyway....whatever your thoughts are. The answer's probably something painfully obvious I just can't fathom caring about.
