Skip to main content

The magic of being a lightweight

 On those who dish out what they can't take

In certain cases-- in my own life, for example-- it isn't me being hard to swallow... I'm not. It's my opponent being a lightweight. I'm a lightweight too... That's why I told my opponent first that I respected them as an equally infinitely permanently incrasingly-connectedly sentient being. And I put a trigger warning on whatever I wrote to them. So if they read it and got mad then it's their problem. Not their fault they had a need to read it anyway to make sure of whatever... or in the hopes of benefiting for it somehow or using it to help someone including as evidence for justice... but yes, their doing and problem.

They need and deserves reassurance, but it can't always or mostly or usually come from me at this point. They wouldn't trust me to be the one to deliver it anyway.

But when I can, I promise I always shake hands with whoever I'm debating with before attempting to punch them out. Sometimes in the past, due to my own traumas making me mistrust and feel a need to stay away from some people, I neglected to do this... the humanizing before attacking... the inoculating the person before letting the disease loose on them... for reasons that do NOT include guilt, shame, or fear on my part. Which many of them neglected or refused to do on their ends too for various reasons... often their own personal traumas that are none of my business that make them mistrust-- or, more toxically, resent-- certain  others.

Acknowledging everyone's sentience including that of the opponent you might be dying to punch out is not just "good" or "important" or "nice" or "preferable" or "safe" or "popular" or "smart" or "polite." It's essential. 

It's morally mandatory... not in a bad way, not in a "do it or else" way, not in a shame or guilt or fear or depression way, not in a "force them to do it" way... which is literally the "dehumanize them in order to make them force AKA fake humanizing someone else" way. The fact that it's morally mandatory to humanize one's opponent means we don't dehumanize those who don't think it is or should be seen as morally mandatory. 

So as soon as we can in life without breaking ourselves or sacrificing our loved ones in the process, and first thing in every debate, we need to humanize our opponent... in front of them, to them, to their face, in a way they understand and that actually humanizes them-- AKA doesn't hurt or harm them and isn't "just words."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Roses Are Red, revised (had a lot of mistakes before)

Roberta's voicemail to Elton: Today's protest rally Roses are red, bear spray is for bears, the human you sprayed suffered retinal tears. If you need to defend yourself order some mace. If I see more bear spray I will cut up your face. Elton to Roberta: Moron. Roses are red, You're not as smart as you think. If you don't watch your mouth, you'll end up in the clink. I happen to know several cops and a judge. If you don't show respect I will beat you to sludge. Roberta to Elton: Hypocrite. Roses are red, You threatened me too. If today I'm arrested, tomorrow it's you. I have talked to your friends and I know you are bluffing. Leave me alone or I'll rip out your stuffing. Elton to Roberta: Cease and desist. Roses are red, Jail is boring. There isn't good food or even adequate flooring. If you don't stop now I will call the police. I will get your ass charged with disturbing my peace. Roberta to Elton: Protect yourself. Roses are red and I happe...

I'm back with a brand new rant about an old AND new issue.

The issue is this:  Don't ever call me passive and then expect to remain on good terms with me. "Passive" is not a neutral statement. "Passive" means stupid. "Passive" means incapable. "Passive" means lazy. "Passive" means confused, which basically in this case also means stupid. "Passive" means cowardly. "Passive" means not all there or vegetative. "Passive" can also mean boring, but that's the least of our worries given the other things it means. It is not a neutral term. Use it if you want; I'm not the speech or thought police. But using it on me will cost our friendship. Because just like I can't and would never force you to speak a certain way, you can't ad shouldn't want to force me to take demeaning, degrading treatment. "Passive" is the assumption that I don't have good reasons for being quiet or civil, or that I shouldn't be allowed to choose for myself whe...

You might need a new one. We all do sometimes.

To everyone in the world, myself included sometimes: If dehumanizing anyone is part of your religion, you need a new religion. If dehumanizing others is part of your job, then you need a new job. If dehumanizing people was part of your education, then you need a new education. If dehumanizing you is how your family bonds, then you need a new family. If dehumanizing you brings your friends closer together, then you need new friends. If dehumanizing someone is a release for you, then you need a new release. If dehumanizing anyone is a pastime for you, then you need a new pastime. If dehumanizing anyone at all, any sentient being, or everyone, or a few, or certain types, even sometimes, is your lifestyle, then you need a new lifestyle. I would never tell you WHAT lifestyle to have, just pick any one that doesn't involve or include or encourage dehumanization of anyone!