I'm not going to link to the article which is the immediate impetus for writing this, because ultimately it doesn't matter in itself. Here's the pattern, which I'm sure you've seen before
( Read more... )
I know some people who find it genuinely helps them feel better to remind themselves, when they are suffering, of the people who have it so much worse, whose crosses are so much bigger than theirs. But then they try to use this as a means of "comfort" for others ... and, well, it doesn't work so good.
And everyone's cross is custom-tailored, I believe. We can't judge others because ultimately we don't KNOW how much they are truly suffering, even and especially if it's from something that wouldn't cause us as much pain.
"We can't judge others because ultimately we don't KNOW how much they are truly suffering, even and especially if it's from something that wouldn't cause us as much pain."
So much this. As an example, some people love the convenience of getting people to do stuff "in the comfort of your own home" - whether it's business, insurance, or health professionals/volunteers (I'm part of a charity that organises trained volunteers who do home visits for new breastfeeding mums if they need it) ... but for me, I would freak out and start panicking if anyone even suggested that because people in my house I generally do not want! But that's me, and it's unusual, but trying to explain can be difficult if someone thinks "but what's the big deal?".
"I know how you feel! [Issue X] can be so tough! [tale of commenter's experience with issue X]"
Not to say that there is anything wrong with empathising or sharing experiences, but when it gets to the stage of "oh yes, that's bad, let me tell you about when I had it so much worse" and kind of changing the focus of the post to the commenter it isn't always helpful.
(Something we did a lot of when doing BfN training was do not talk about your own experiences when helping at clinics - it's not about you.)
What the "starving kids" can do is simply overload the kid with guilt without actually giving them the option of doing anything practical to help, which is really not a good thing. Also they may simply do what I did once which was (completely honestly, no sarcasm intended) had the plate to my dad and say "Give them this!".
I find that at the moment, I see a lot of politicians encouraging the competitive suffering but with the nastier edge of "and therefore they are less worthy of (resources)". For example, instead of making sure that there are enough council houses to go around, encourage the competitive suffering and add some jealousy that means that young people are angry at young families who have a better chance of getting a house, who are angry at the single teenage mums who they think have a better chance, who are angry at the refugees who they think have a better chance (they don't) ... and all of it is setting people with real needs against each other. This lets politicians off the hook.
Another example is "why should public sector workers get good pensions when we've had ours devalued?".. the answer shouldn't be to bring everyone down to the lowest level of pension, but to argue for the raising of the non-public sector allowances.
Another example is "why should public sector workers get good pensions when we've had ours devalued?".. the answer shouldn't be to bring everyone down to the lowest level of pension, but to argue for the raising of the non-public sector allowances.
Ooh, that's an EXCELLENT one. It happens to private employees when they strike in North America too.
It's really down to an almost infantile level of reasoning. "If I can't have a cookie, I don't want my brother to have one either!"
Yep - I don't know what it is that causes it, but it is pretty prevalent.
Have you ever seen the TV show Golden Balls? Basically at the end there is a pot of money that can be won by the two contestants; and they have to choose, without telling the other, whether to split or steal. If they both split, they both get half, if one splits and one steals, the one who chose steal gets it all and the one who split gets nothing, and if they both steal, they both get nothing.
A lot of the time people will steal because "I thought the other was going to steal."
If the other person had stolen, it would make no difference to them what they chose - they would get nothing either way - but they are determined that the other one isn't going to get something if they don't.
That's game theory applied to a real game show. Classic appeal to fear. Might possibly work better with someone trained in logic, such as philosophy, science or math, but still unpredictable.
As for tearing down unions and that crap, it's all about appeal to spite, dustthouart. It's easier to focus on hate and envy rather than sympathy.
Comments 7
I know some people who find it genuinely helps them feel better to remind themselves, when they are suffering, of the people who have it so much worse, whose crosses are so much bigger than theirs. But then they try to use this as a means of "comfort" for others ... and, well, it doesn't work so good.
And everyone's cross is custom-tailored, I believe. We can't judge others because ultimately we don't KNOW how much they are truly suffering, even and especially if it's from something that wouldn't cause us as much pain.
Rosemary
Reply
So much this. As an example, some people love the convenience of getting people to do stuff "in the comfort of your own home" - whether it's business, insurance, or health professionals/volunteers (I'm part of a charity that organises trained volunteers who do home visits for new breastfeeding mums if they need it) ... but for me, I would freak out and start panicking if anyone even suggested that because people in my house I generally do not want! But that's me, and it's unusual, but trying to explain can be difficult if someone thinks "but what's the big deal?".
Reply
"I know how you feel! [Issue X] can be so tough! [tale of commenter's experience with issue X]"
Not to say that there is anything wrong with empathising or sharing experiences, but when it gets to the stage of "oh yes, that's bad, let me tell you about when I had it so much worse" and kind of changing the focus of the post to the commenter it isn't always helpful.
(Something we did a lot of when doing BfN training was do not talk about your own experiences when helping at clinics - it's not about you.)
What the "starving kids" can do is simply overload the kid with guilt without actually giving them the option of doing anything practical to help, which is really not a good thing. Also they may simply do what I did once which was (completely honestly, no sarcasm intended) had the plate to my dad and say "Give them this!".
Reply
I find that at the moment, I see a lot of politicians encouraging the competitive suffering but with the nastier edge of "and therefore they are less worthy of (resources)". For example, instead of making sure that there are enough council houses to go around, encourage the competitive suffering and add some jealousy that means that young people are angry at young families who have a better chance of getting a house, who are angry at the single teenage mums who they think have a better chance, who are angry at the refugees who they think have a better chance (they don't) ... and all of it is setting people with real needs against each other. This lets politicians off the hook.
Another example is "why should public sector workers get good pensions when we've had ours devalued?".. the answer shouldn't be to bring everyone down to the lowest level of pension, but to argue for the raising of the non-public sector allowances.
Meh. My tuppence!
Reply
Ooh, that's an EXCELLENT one. It happens to private employees when they strike in North America too.
It's really down to an almost infantile level of reasoning. "If I can't have a cookie, I don't want my brother to have one either!"
Reply
Have you ever seen the TV show Golden Balls? Basically at the end there is a pot of money that can be won by the two contestants; and they have to choose, without telling the other, whether to split or steal. If they both split, they both get half, if one splits and one steals, the one who chose steal gets it all and the one who split gets nothing, and if they both steal, they both get nothing.
A lot of the time people will steal because "I thought the other was going to steal."
If the other person had stolen, it would make no difference to them what they chose - they would get nothing either way - but they are determined that the other one isn't going to get something if they don't.
Reply
As for tearing down unions and that crap, it's all about appeal to spite, dustthouart. It's easier to focus on hate and envy rather than sympathy.
Reply
Leave a comment