Eeyore
Regular Member
Many of us have read on this forum about incidents where OCers have dealt with people who claim guns are "offensive", that OCers have no right to scare people, etc. Many of us have asked "how do you deal with someone who..." The online discussions generally exhibit a lot of head-shaking, "I don't understand how a person could think/say that" responses and the consensus is that they can't seem to discuss the issue rationally.
It turns out this is true--they aren't thinking rationally, so rational arguments cannot easily or quickly overcome their emotions. There is a very interesting article that addresses the root of this behavior in this month's Atlantic magazine
FUQ:
The title of this thread is a term they coin in the article to describe a new, aggressive form of political correctness. The old political correctness was "You shouldn't say that." The new PC is "Nobody should have to hear that. It's wrong to say that, and you should be punished for saying it. We're going to engage in a campaign to make you sorry you ever even thought it." Groups like Moms Demand Action are the epitome of vindictive protectiveness. Their attitude is "We shouldn't have to see guns. In fact, nobody should have guns, and anybody that thinks they should is morally wrong, and we'll make a big fuss until we get our way." Further, the article illustrates how colleges are tolerating--if not actively promoting--these behaviors and thus cranking out thousands of emotionally fragile, vindictively protective Millenials who genuinely believe that they have the fundamental right to go through life without ever having to deal with anything unpleasant, and anyone who doesn't believe/comply with that must be punished. So basically, it's only going to get worse.
I would argue the increase in road rage is another example of emotional reasoning--and the belief that no one has the right to inconvenience you--run amok: "I'm a good driver. You somehow interfered with me getting where I want to go at the speed I chose to get there. Therefore you are a bad driver and you should be punished. Since no one else will do it, I will harass/punish you myself."
Although the article's primary focus is on colleges, OCers have experienced many of the same effects of "emotional reasoning" first-hand. In the interest of "knowing thy enemy," I think OCers would find it helpful to understand the concepts discussed in the article (labeling, selection bias, over-generalization, catastrophizing, etc.). It's not difficult to see how Psychologically Fragile Gun Control Dingbats (PFGCDs) are applying emotional reasoning in confronting or complaining about OC. Thus, we have to think more like a therapist and less like a 2A-rights activist when dealing with them. I'll illustrate with a paraphrase of a paragraph from the article:
I've always been a fan of the Socratic tactic of responding with questions as much as possible, and this article reinforces that belief: it's basically the talk-therapy the authors advocate. Rather than bludgeon the PFGCD with facts (which they won't acknowledge), try to patiently guide/trick them into examining their own irrational beliefs. Rather than defending your position, which gives them something to attack, focus on asking questions which force them to defend their assumptions and beliefs. Be patient and don't raise your voice even when they do (Love thine enemies. It will drive them crazy.). This will put the PFGCD on the defensive and they won't be able to get any traction.
P.S. I'm sure the responses here will be full of creative attempts to re-define their term "trigger warning" :smile:
It turns out this is true--they aren't thinking rationally, so rational arguments cannot easily or quickly overcome their emotions. There is a very interesting article that addresses the root of this behavior in this month's Atlantic magazine
FUQ:
The title of this thread is a term they coin in the article to describe a new, aggressive form of political correctness. The old political correctness was "You shouldn't say that." The new PC is "Nobody should have to hear that. It's wrong to say that, and you should be punished for saying it. We're going to engage in a campaign to make you sorry you ever even thought it." Groups like Moms Demand Action are the epitome of vindictive protectiveness. Their attitude is "We shouldn't have to see guns. In fact, nobody should have guns, and anybody that thinks they should is morally wrong, and we'll make a big fuss until we get our way." Further, the article illustrates how colleges are tolerating--if not actively promoting--these behaviors and thus cranking out thousands of emotionally fragile, vindictively protective Millenials who genuinely believe that they have the fundamental right to go through life without ever having to deal with anything unpleasant, and anyone who doesn't believe/comply with that must be punished. So basically, it's only going to get worse.
I would argue the increase in road rage is another example of emotional reasoning--and the belief that no one has the right to inconvenience you--run amok: "I'm a good driver. You somehow interfered with me getting where I want to go at the speed I chose to get there. Therefore you are a bad driver and you should be punished. Since no one else will do it, I will harass/punish you myself."
Although the article's primary focus is on colleges, OCers have experienced many of the same effects of "emotional reasoning" first-hand. In the interest of "knowing thy enemy," I think OCers would find it helpful to understand the concepts discussed in the article (labeling, selection bias, over-generalization, catastrophizing, etc.). It's not difficult to see how Psychologically Fragile Gun Control Dingbats (PFGCDs) are applying emotional reasoning in confronting or complaining about OC. Thus, we have to think more like a therapist and less like a 2A-rights activist when dealing with them. I'll illustrate with a paraphrase of a paragraph from the article:
I've always been a fan of the Socratic tactic of responding with questions as much as possible, and this article reinforces that belief: it's basically the talk-therapy the authors advocate. Rather than bludgeon the PFGCD with facts (which they won't acknowledge), try to patiently guide/trick them into examining their own irrational beliefs. Rather than defending your position, which gives them something to attack, focus on asking questions which force them to defend their assumptions and beliefs. Be patient and don't raise your voice even when they do (Love thine enemies. It will drive them crazy.). This will put the PFGCD on the defensive and they won't be able to get any traction.
P.S. I'm sure the responses here will be full of creative attempts to re-define their term "trigger warning" :smile:
