Yikes

[cjsmith]

I have recently faced the idea that there may be people I have met and liked who honestly believe that attacking the innocent and the powerless, especially girls or young women, is a good way to get things done.

I do not know if I am misunderstanding the person in question. It seems likely. I could be taking things too literally, a common failing of mine.* I could be misunderstanding in some other way. But even supposing this one is a misunderstanding, I've now faced the idea, and it's not at all pleasant.

Maybe I was in the Army too long. (I honestly believe the vast majority of US soldiers hold this value as strongly as I do.) You don't DO shit like that. You don't even THINK about THREATENING to do shit like that.

_____________
* If I'm starting to get ticked off, it could be nothing more serious than my belief that what you say is what you mean. A useful tactic might be to remind both of us of this pattern. Humans are neither robots nor computers, and I forget that too often.

Comments

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

It is indeed difficult. If I cannot believe a person's words or actions, I'm left with not a whole lot. So I do put a lot of stake in what someone says and does. The only thing I can do, really, is gather more of this kind of data, and build a fuzzy-logic sort of picture over time. "One out of two times, he kicked the cat. One out of a hundred... one out of a thousand... okay, maybe that other one was a mistake."

Gee, I don't know: are you into punishments? ;-)

[jupiter29.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think that's all anyone can do. We (well, really , *I* brought it up) throw around the phrase "benefit of the doubt" but to me that's really something you earn rather than are given. If a random acquaintance at work says something objectionable, that's probably the end of things right there. No matter how off the wall it might seen, it's the only evidence I have and it points in a bad direction.

For someone I've known longer, as you say, I find it easier to chalk things up to a bad day or (more likely) an unfortunate attempt at a joke.

Gee, I don't know: are you into punishments? ;-)

As a general rule, no. :) I am, however, 1) in a very strange mood, 2) not particularly feeling like working, and 3) not very good at casual flirtation. :) So I took the opportunity that presented itself.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Yeah, "benefit of the doubt" is worth something only if there's "doubt". One data point out of a set of one may not be the whole picture, but it's the whole picture I have, so I'd have to make an effort to generate doubt. There are people I'm willing to do that for and people I'm not. :-)

As a general rule, no. :)

Ah; that makes a difference to the approach, of course. Shall you be sentenced to eat a minimum of two chocolate chip cookies today? ;-)

[jupiter29.livejournal.com]

One data point out of a set of one may not be the whole picture, but it's the whole picture I have...

I knew once we hammered this down to a mathematical discussion, it would be much easier to figure out. :)

Well, you know, I'm all about expanding my horizons. What would you suggest if you thought I would enjoy the punishment aspect? ;)




Wow, how sad is this? I knew my cookie willpower was almost nonexistant, to be sure. But I actually sat here and seriously debated accepting two completely imaginary cookies in lieu of flirting further. I am a sick, sick man!