Nice essay. I can find myself in it

It can feel rewarding in many ways to feel that one has the "best" preferences, that what I enjoy, I enjoy because of my great taste. Others just don't "get" why what I like is so good, they're the ones missing out. This kind of validation produces feelings of superiority, confidence, pride and success. — Judaka

This reminds me of psychologist George Kelly’s description of punishment as a way to brand others as less than ourselves.

“People are threatened by ‘evildoers'. We have described threat; in this case it is the exemplification of a way of life from which we have only precariously escaped. The ‘evildoer' exemplifies what we might do if we dared, or what we might be if we behaved childishly, or what we would have been if we had not tried so hard to do better. We dare not interact with him on common ground lest we slip back into the unwanted ways. In order to take protective steps against the threat that his presence arouses within us we take symbolic measures called ‘punishment' against him. By such measures we either destroy or symbolize the destruction of the core role relationship of the ‘evildoer' with ourselves. That may make us feel a little safer from the looming shadow of ourselves as ‘evildoers'. We treat the ‘evildoer' as if he were experiencing guilt. That helps us convince ourselves that our own newly won position is secure. He really is not one of us. Even he now knows that he is not one of us. We are therefore not like him—we hope! We picture him as feeling guilty as a result of his being punished by us. From this point of view it is not the guilt which leads inexorably to the punishment, but rather the punishment which symbolically establishes the guilt. Punishment brands the threatening person. It banishes him into psychological exile. It thus protects a feeble society which is only half convinced of its system of morality.”

1) Assuming narratives that condemn, demean, mock or hold in contempt people for their actions, characteristics, skills, beliefs, preferences, views etc — Judaka

As you mentioned, there can be a variety of motivations for alienating other persons or groups, but I think the central motive for harm, violence and rejection of others is feeling the emotion of anger. I include in this emotion category a wide variety of feelings. These include: irritation, annoyance, disapproval, hostility, condemnation, feeling insulted, taking umbrage, resentment, exasperation, impatience, hatred, ire, outrage, contempt, righteous indignation, ‘adaptive' anger, perceiving the other as deliberately thoughtless, lazy, culpable, perverse, inconsiderate, disrespectful, disgraceful, greedy, evil, sinful, criminal.

I believe what these all have in common is a two step
structure. First, someone must have behaved in such a way as to disappoint our expectations of them, causing us emotional pain. If this disappointment were the only feature it would not be anger , only sadness. But in a second step, we generate the possibility of forcing them back to the way we believe they should have acted in the first place.

At the heart of anger is an unanswered question. Why does the perpetrator not feel guilty? According to the indignant person's original axes of construction, the very contemplation of the sort of nasty behavior he or she is presently witnessing should have produced a sufficiently intolerable amount of guilt in the perpetrator as to have prevented the translation of those plans into action. After all, thinks the angered party, "I've been tempted by that sort of thing too, but I've controlled myself." Unable to come up with any workable alternative explanation of the nonconformist's actions, the offended person attempts to validate his or her already failed construction by coercing the other into feeling the guilt that the original construction predicted he or she should feel. So the impulse of anger isn t to destroy. It’s a conformist impulse, to get the other to apologize, show contrition, men’s their ways. This can be achieved through violence or non-violence. In relationships , our anger doesn’t want to destroy the other , only to destroy the impulse in them that caused them to disappoint and reject us. We warm them back the way they used to be , the way they used to appreciate and respect us.

As I read that, one word keeps coming to mind: insecurity.

Insecurity is understandable; relatable; human. I've tried to run this to ground by going to a logical extreme.

Where I believe strong cannot complain about weak, and wise cannot complain about stupid, it raises the question of how the strong and wise are to related to others without violating these principles and therefor exhibiting their own weakness and stupidity (humanity) in doing so.

It seems the strong must necessarily carry the weak, and the wise must necessarily question the stupid with sincere curiosity in the hopes of learning.

But that leaves one confronting the case of a weak person who refuses to be carried, or the stupid person who refuses to be questioned. How then does the strong and the wise relate? One answer is, obviously, they don't. Instead, they demonstrate a humble silence and inaction.

However, the strong and wise may want to explore this relationship anyway, so they adopt theoretical weak and stupid people to engage in hypotheticals that will, in turn, help the strong and wise deal with a real life situation that may one day present it self; a situation where humble silence and inaction is not a strong or wise course of proceeding.

This brings us to the logical extreme referenced above: How does one love his enemy? I've been working on this, and I have some ideas. I actually wrote them down somewhere. I'll have to go try and find them. You got my juices flowing again on that line of inquiry. Thanks.

But that leaves one confronting the case of a weak person who refuses to be carried, or the stupid person who refuses to be questioned. — James Riley

‘weak’ and ‘stupid’. It sounds like hostility is embedded in your articulation of the issue. If we could just get people to stopacting so stupid, weak and condemnable we could solve the issue of aggression.

‘weak’ and ‘stupid’. It sounds like hostility is embedded in your articulation of the issue. If we could just get people to stopacting so stupid, weak and condemnable we could solve the issue of aggression. — Joshs

I use weak and stupid as a short hand for the opposite of strong and wise. If there are other, more palatable terms, then sub those in, apply them to me and press on with what every one knows is intended, regardless of the incorrectness of the terms used. Personally, I'm fine we being referred to as weak or stupid when the shoe fits. As a human, it often does. There is no hostility in it. Maybe a weak vocabulary, or a politically incorrect one, but no hostility.

press on with what every one knows is intended, regardless of the incorrectness of the terms used. — James Riley

Its not the correctness or incorrectness of the terms Im
focusing on, it’s that they are terms of hostility masquerading as neutral descriptions. You’re describing what you believe are objective character flaws, but I see our judgements of other people’s ‘character flaws’ as typically forms of hostility. Once you label people in this way , it gives you or others license to gently or not so gently attempt to coerce them in your preferred direction. See my terms for anger in my previous post on this thread.

Its not the correctness or incorrectness of the terms Im
focusing on, it’s that they are terms of hostility masquerading as neutral descriptions. — Joshs

When you use the word "masquerading" you are indeed focusing on the correctness or incorrectness of the terms.

You’re describing what you believe are objective character flaws, but I see our judgements of other people’s ‘character flaws’ as typically forms of hostility. — Joshs

I don't believe weakness or stupidity are character flaws. As stated in my OP, they are understandable, relatable and human.

but I see our judgements of other people’s ‘character flaws’ as typically forms of hostility. — Joshs

I don't.

See my terms for anger in my previous post on this thread. — Joshs

Your terms for anger are not relevant to my post on moving beyond anger in pursuit of a strong and wise response to it, and other human, relatable, understandable characters.

I see our judgements of other people’s ‘character flaws’ as typically forms of hostility.
— Joshs

I don't. — James Riley

If you see character flaws as

understandable, relatable and human. — James Riley

, does this mean that this
represents the best that the person can do at the time , that their efforts and intentions are no less optimal than the effort and intention of someone without that particular flaw? In other words , does a character flaw impact one’s motives and intentions such that we could
call them moral flaws , or do they only describe limits of capability in a non-moral sense?

they only describe limits of capability in a non-moral sense? — Joshs

In the search I'm engaged in, this would be the case.

I don't expect you to go read my post in thread on pronouns, but there I address my disinclination to allow others to set the definitions of debate. However, as previously stated here, I'm willing to make a concession. You pick any terms you want me to use when referring to the opposite of strong and wise. I will try to use them. A quick digression though: If we are to stipulate that weak and stupid are judgements based in hostility, would not strong and wise be judgements based on some other equally irrelevant considerations beyond the scope of my point? That question was rhetorical and does not need an answer. It was only submitted to show how I'm trying to get beyond judgement and get back to how one might choose to relate to another, especially a perceived enemy. How to love an enemy? That is the logical extreme of all the less extreme conditions of man that we might find along the way.

How to love an enemy? — James Riley

How to think the meaning of the word ‘enemy’ that is not already fraught with affects of alienation and threat. What I’m trying to do is tie terms like hostility with a kind of crisis in sense-making. To the extent that we find it necessary to use a word like ‘ enemy’ to desceibe another, we are still in the midst of a kind of crisis of empathy. To then ‘love’ this enemy isn’t to resolve our personal crisis so much as to to put a bandaid on it, to tolerate the one we still don’t fully relate to. Only when we no longer have to label
the other as ‘ enemy’ do we truly find ourselves free of our puzzlement and failure to understand
the other, and therefore free of our hostility.

In a paper on hostility , I wrote this:

“If, rather than getting angry or condemning another who wrongs me, I respond with loving forgiveness, my absolution of the other presupposes my hostility toward them. I can only forgive the other's trespass to the extent that I recognize a sign of contrition or confession on their part. Ideals of so-called unconditional forgiveness, of turning the other cheek, loving one's oppressor, could also be understood as conditional in various ways. In the absence of the other's willingness to atone, I may forgive evil when I believe that there are special or extenuating circumstances which will allow me to view the perpetrator as less culpable (the sinner knows not what he does). I can say the other was blinded or deluded, led astray. My offer of grace is then subtly hostile, both an embrace and a slap. I hold forth the carrot of my love as a lure, hoping thereby to uncloud the other's conscience so as to enable them to discover their culpability. In opening my arms, I hope the prodigal son will return chastised, suddenly aware of a need to be forgiven. Even when there is held little chance that the sinner will openly acknowledge his sin, I may hope that my outrage connects with a seed of regret and contrition buried deep within the other, as if my `unconditional' forgiveness is an acknowledgment of God's or the subliminal conscience of the other's apologizing in the name of the sinner.”

How to think the meaning of the word ‘enemy’ that is not already fraught with affects of alienation and threat. — Joshs

Hence the extreme. The title of the thread is "Aggression motivated by inference." You appear to be starting with aggression, while I am starting with the inference. Whether or not your inference results in aggression, you are making all these inferences based on your understanding of the meaning of terms which are not being used in the sense you apply to them. You infer hostility and aggression to my use of the terms when none is there. Don't infer *if* such is the seat of aggression, opposition or, at least, misunderstanding or disagreement. When I say enemy, I refer to an extreme of opposition. I suppose we could all sing Kumbaya but that is not we are not talking about here. At least I don't think the OP is.

To
the extent that we find it necessary to use a word like ‘ enemy’ to deceive another, we are still in the midst of a kind of crisis of empathy. — Joshs

Again, you infer deceit.

Only when we no longer have to label
the other as ‘ enemy’ do we truly find ourselves free of our puzzlement and failure to understand
the other. — Joshs

Again, give me another label and I'm happy to use it. However, if one can love their enemy, then it seems to me that everything else is a lesser-included situation. The problem starts not with the terms themselves, but the subjective inferences drawn from them. So, to avoid you having an incorrect inference, by all means, I beg you, give me a term satisfactory to you. Otherwise, you will have to return to your fire and sing Kumbaya with those who are in accord. That will not help you with those "others" because we are not all one (at least from a temporal, sense of interhuman relations).

“If, rather than getting angry or condemning another who wrongs me, I respond with loving forgiveness, my absolution of the other presupposes my hostility toward them. I can only forgive the other's trespass to the extent that I recognize a sign of contrition or confession on their part. Ideals of so-called unconditional forgiveness, of turning the other cheek, loving one's oppressor, could also be understood as conditional in various ways. In the absence of the other's willingness to atone, I may forgive evil when I believe that there are special or extenuating circumstances which will allow me to view the perpetrator as less culpable (the sinner knows not what he does). I can say the other was blinded or deluded, led astray. My offer of grace is then subtly hostile, both an embrace and a slap. I hold forth the carrot of my love as a lure, hoping thereby to uncloud the other's conscience so as to enable them to discover their culpability. In opening my arms, I hope the prodigal son will return chastised, suddenly aware of a need to be forgiven. Even when there is held little chance that the sinner will openly acknowledge his sin, I may hope that my outrage connects with a seed of regret and contrition buried deep within the other, as if my `unconditional' forgiveness is an acknowledgment of God's or the subliminal conscience of the other's apologizing in the name of the sinner.” — Joshs

That was all added after my last post. I respond here by simply reiterating what I said in response to the OP: It really brings to mind the term "insecurity." It's natural, it's human, it's understandable that you struggle with these concerns, but it seems to me that it all springs from insecurity; a concern with how you want to be perceived by yourself or by others.

you are making all these inferences based on your understanding of the meaning of terms which are not being used in the sense you apply to them. — James Riley

Before you get bent out of shape , you’re right. I initially didn’t read your first post carefully and assumed
you were making a moral judgement about those weak
and stupid, when you weren’t. Your moral focus was on the weak and stupid who refuse help.

it seems to me that it all springs from insecurity; a concern with how you want to be perceived by yourself or by others. — James Riley

What does insecurity spring from? Is it irreducible, or it it the manifestation of difficulties in making sense of social situations, in relating to the perspectives of others? There is no hostility, aggression, anger, condemnation without insecurity , but there is no insecurity without the experience of failure to relate to the thinking of others, and this includes our understanding of how they regard us and why. This failure to relate isn’t a personality trait or character issue , but an existential, situational issue.

That will not help you with those "others" because we are not all one (at least from a temporal, sense of interhuman relations). — James Riley

What Im getting at is that I believe there are
more satisfying philosophical approaches out there than the ones which support a ‘love your enemy’ narrative. They begin from a better grounding in how to understand human drives, motives, intentions and values and thus what causes individual human values to differ from each other.

To
the extent that we find it necessary to use a word like ‘ enemy’ to deceive another, we are still in the midst of a kind of crisis of empathy.
— Joshs

Again, you infer deceit. — James Riley

That was a typo. I meant describe.

Before you get bent out of shape , you’re right. — Joshs

LOL! I'm not bent out of shape. I'm trying to help. I'm struggling with this shit but I'm most definitely not emotional about it. It's an intellectual exercise for me to try to figure out the wisdom behind loving an enemy, however defined.

What does insecurity spring from? Is it irreducible, or it it the manifestation of difficulties in making sense of social situations, in relating to the perspectives of others? There is no hostility, aggression, anger, condemnation without insecurity , but there is no insecurity without the experience of failure to relate to the thinking of others, and this includes our understanding of how they regard us and why. This failure to relate isn’t a personality trait or character issue , but an existential, situational issue. — Joshs

I agree, wholeheartedly. It's all that humanity, relatability, understandability. No one is exempt. Hence the struggle for the strong and wise to refrain from becoming not strong or not wise.

What Im getting at is that I believe there are
more satisfying philosophical approaches out there than the ones which support a ‘love your enemy’ narrative. They begin from a better grounding in how to understand human drives, motives, intentions and values and thus what causes individual human values to differ from each other. — Joshs

That could very well be true. I speak from my own personal experience. If find the idea loving one's enemy to be the most counter-intuitive, difficult, un-me possible state of affairs. However, I have always been attracted to the counter-intutive (often finding the truth to be counter-intuitive) and I've always liked a challenge to become a better person. So, if some yogi on a hill top, or some Christian says to do X, I say, I'll give that a try. Therefor, I struggle with the notion and I try to find the wisdom in it. My intuition tells me it's a good thing, but I like to make it cognitive and reduce it to writing. As stated in my OP, it's a work in progress.

The only thing I came up with in a search of my writings was this, from about a year ago:

"The ultimate test is the ability to carry a complainer who thinks he’s strong and wise, and who does not perceive himself in need of help. In that case, rather than accord or contest the complaint, it is best to demonstrate silence. If one is to love the enemy, they’d probably start there. That is the heaviest load of all, and calls for the strongest and wisest man, with the broadest shoulders."

and

"Love is truth. It is counterintuitive that loving an enemy is easy. It seems like it would be hard until you do it. Demonstration of silence may be the only way to carry an enemy upon your shoulders. Speaking up is not only and act, but it does not interfere with other action. It can incite action. A demonstration of silence is not only an act, but it does not interfere other action. It can improve action. But complaint! Ah, complaint."

So yeah, clearly not finished. Who knows why my result will be, if any.

Where I believe strong cannot complain about weak, and wise cannot complain about stupid, it raises the question of how the strong and wise are to related to others without violating these principles and therefor exhibiting their own weakness and stupidity (humanity) in doing so. — James Riley

If Y is the quality of being either (strong/wise) and X is (weak/stupid) then consider that Z is the individual who is motivated to aggression by inference. For argument's sake, say we do not know if he is closer to Y or X but what if Z viciously condemns, ridicules and mocks every person with X that he can find, either to his friends, himself or even directly at them. Z believes he is Y and he acts in a way that would only make sense if he was Y. He is validated by his aggression, how can he be what he hates, his condemnation puts distance between himself and X, creating the illusion of his superiority.

If Z actually was Y, he flaunts it, through his aggression towards X, in accordance with his narcissistic tendencies and self-confidence. He emphasises the hierarchical difference between himself and lower than he, constructing a worldview that highlights his superiority. Thus those with Y, enticed by the inferences and perhaps even the real-world consequences of aggression, do not help those with X but abandon them. If Z states Y is absolutely necessary for success, that Y is how we measure a person's value, that Y is what makes a person attractive, then Z further reinforces the significance of his superiority.

We may be left to wonder whether Z actually has anything against X at all - or if he's just doing all this because he's drunk on the feeling of superiority that comes with acting as though he's superior. And as I said Z may not be Y at all, I just think it becomes absolute for Z in his mind that he is Y because of how he treats X. Like it wouldn't make any sense for someone to be aggressive and condescending towards people with X unless you were better than them.

If Z decided to see X as a valid way to be, something which just is and there's nothing wrong with it, each to their own and live and let live - which I think is the opposite of aggression, then Z will probably lose these feelings of superiority. His worldview which comfortably puts him at the top and X at the bottom relies on his aggressive characterisations of X, without them, that falls apart.

"Helping those with X" may actually be quite similar to being aggressive towards X, why? Because it still reinforces the hierarchy, X is still lower on that hierarchy and can be helped by people with Y. Z may or may not have Y but if he tries to help people with X, as though he does have Y, it reinforces the idea that this must be true. I see this as a kind of reinforcement of Z's superiority - where he "helps" those who "need his help" - he has the wisdom, the strength, the knowledge that others need.

I think the old advice of "treat others as you yourself would like to be treated" is pretty close to what the person you're interacting with would prefer. It's less about "loving your enemies" and more about not having enemies, don't let it get to the point that you see people like that. Aggression can create enemies and cause one to see people as enemies but you don't have to be that way. Z cannot choose to "love his enemy" without parting with his worldview, he loses his self-perceived special status, his feelings of superiority and so on.

aggression — Judaka

condemn, demean, mock or hold in contempt people for their actions, characteristics, skills, beliefs, preferences, views etc — Judaka

It looks like there are two things to consider as regards aggression defined as above. There's the person faerself and there are the things that fae's indentified with (actions, characteristics, skills, beliefs, preferences, views, etc.) which I will henceforth refer to as attributes.

I'm not as certain as I'd like to be on this but there seems to be some degree of confusion regarding the identity of a person and the attributes of that person. Sometimes people consider the attribiutes of a person as their identity i.e. a identity (of a person) = (faer) attributes. On this view, to "condemn, demean, mock or hold in contempt" for their attributes is legitimate; after all if the attributes are flawed in any way and if attributes define identity, the aggressor is justified in criticizing the person. I'm working under the assumption that to "condem, demean, mock or hold in contempt" constitute personal attacks.

0ther times, people seem to think that attributes don't define a person at all. To give you some idea of what I mean consider the innumerable instances when we try, successfully or not, to disabuse people of what we ourselves think are harmful/stupid beliefs. As is obvious, this particular fact is predicated on the assumption that a person's identity ain't just faer attributes - there's something more. What this "something more" is is, to my reckoning, is the notion that we're some kind of "vessel/receptacle" which holds attributes and we're at liberty to add/modify/delete our attributes. In this case the "vessel/receptacle" is the identity of a person, the attributes merely contents thereof. From this standpoint, it makes less sense to "condemn, demean, mock or hold in contempt" a person for faer attributes because fae is assuredly not the attributes themselves and to do so would be like thinking e.g. that a cup containing some juice is itself juice.

It bears mentioning though that even under the second interpretation - believing we're vessels/receptacles for attributes - it isn't wholly wrong to "condemn, demean, mock or hold in contempt" a person; after all, people have a choice in what attributes to make their own and that makes us fully accountable for the set of attributes we adopt.

As you mentioned, there can be a variety of motivations for alienating other persons or groups, but I think the central motive for harm, violence and rejection of others is feeling the emotion of anger. — Joshs

I don't know about this, sometimes I question whether the anger demonstrated is a real motivation or part of an act which reinforces a particular way of experiencing the world. Anger raises the stakes, I could have written a thread about "anger motivated by inference" where, we become so angry to emphasise the difference between us and that which we're angry about, to highlight the importance of our feelings. "Why would I be this angry if this wasn't a serious matter? Your offence deserves this kind of anger".

It's the same with much of what we've both listed, it's all exaggerated to maximise the effect of the actual motivation. In this case, the motivation is to demonstrate superiority, to promote oneself, to emphasise one's virtue, to impose one's views, etc. The aggressor is motivated by what their condemnation means for them and their feelings may be exaggerated for this purpose. Such as pretending to be amazed or astonished that people could be so incompetent to emphasise their own supposed competence.

But in a second step, we generate the possibility of forcing them back to the way we believe they should have acted in the first place. — Joshs

I gravitate towards the understanding that the aggressor is enforcing a hierarchical structure, their goal is to act in a way that reinforces its validity. Through their condemnation or disapproval of those determined to be near the bottom of the hierarchy, it is indicated that the aggressor is situated high-up in the hierarchy. This is the primary goal of the aggressor motivated by inference, they are not actually interested in correcting any behaviour, even though they may say they are. Their motivation is the feeling of superiority and validation that comes with this "acting out" of superiority as they condemn, ridicule, etc.

I don't deny that there are contexts, particularly moral contexts, where the perpetrator or target of the aggression is the real focus. That the aggressor is genuinely motivated by the desire to correct. Since this is such a large topic, we are talking in generalisations. I think it comes down to who the aggressor is really talking about, what is their attention focused on. Is the condemnation an opportunity to virtue signal, to demonstrate the aggressor's quality, to show the distance between the aggressor and the target of their criticism, how they could never stoop so low? In that case, it is hard to think they really care whether their target fights back against their claims or admits fault because their feelings are inconsequential to the goal of the aggressor. To demonstrate their superiority and assume the identity of the superior and be validated.

There is no Z. But if we were to insist, then Z=X, regardless of how Z perceives himself. The question is, if Z thinks he is Y, how would Y conduct himself in accord with Y?

If we lead/carry those we might think of as weak and stupid, we confirm our own weakness and stupidity in the process; we seed our own humility. There is nothing more humbling than true leadership, especially by example, and especially when that example calls for silence, empathy and understanding.

There can be no compounding or reinforcing of a hierarchy that does not exist.

In sum, if and when one starts feeling Y, they just need to lead/carry.

My thoughts were penned some time ago in consideration of masculine toxicity. I saw men, who are widely perceived (especially by themselves) as strong; I saw them complaining. At first I was embarrassed for them. Then, when I perceived them as weak, I realized it was not my place to point out how bitching made them a bitch. I resolved to lead by example and not complain. Silence.

I saw the same thing, from an intellectual standpoint, in school. Where a professor, widely perceived as wise, would use questioning to have a student walk him or herself into a corner and slap themselves. The professor, thinking he was using the Socratic method, had no genuine curiosity in his questions. Another form of toxicity. Using logic as a weapon. I resolved to only ask questions that I was sincerely curious about, and in seeking the insight of others on the matter.

Do I perceive myself as Y for having these insights, and for trying to put them into practice? No. If I ever do, I just consider loving my enemy. That brings me down to earth, hard.

The hierarchy exists in the mind of the aggressor, whether it exists in any other form or not. Well, I am not trying to argue that all forms of hostility or aggression are motivated by what it says about the aggressor. You can call a man weak and a "bitch" or say a professor was being toxic without trying to emphasise how you're different - and better. However, isn't this inference basically necessary for your comments to make sense, how can you condemn people if you're no better? Doesn't it only make sense if you're above their behaviour? And isn't it necessary for you to put these "fakes" in their place? Isn't that kind of what you've been doing here in this thread?

Anyway, I understand that the thinking of "Z" in my example is not in line with your ideals, I imagine most people would feel that way.

The hierarchy exists in the mind of the aggressor, whether it exists in any other form or not. — Judaka

Hence, Z=X.

You can call a man weak and a "bitch" or say a professor was being toxic without trying to emphasise how you're different - and better. — Judaka

Indeed. Z=X regardless. Hence silence. Any perceived difference would make me X, which I am.

However, isn't this inference basically necessary for your comments to make sense, how can you condemn people if you're no better? — Judaka

No. To make that assumption infers condemnation.

Doesn't it only make sense if you're above their behaviour? — Judaka

No. It makes sense regardless of me being X.

And isn't it necessary for you to put these "fakes" in their place? — Judaka

No. Hence silence.

Isn't that kind of what you've been doing here in this thread? — Judaka

No. That would infer judgement.

We still agree X = weak/stupid, right? Z = my theoretical aggressor, Y = strong/wise.

On this view, to "condemn, demean, mock or hold in contempt" for their attributes is legitimate; after all if the attributes are flawed in any way and if attributes define identity, the aggressor is justified in criticizing the person. — TheMadFool

I don't really know that you're talking about the same thing as I... I think whether the aggressor is "justified" does not depend on whether an individual is or has attributes. It's about intention, justification and delivery.

If the aggressor's intention is noble, they're justified in their criticism and their criticism is delivered respectfully, that's going to be found agreeable by most. If their intention is to hurt, their criticism is unreasonable and they've spoken rudely then that's going to be found disagreeable by most. In some cases, just being justified might be enough but I guess we really don't care at that point about the feelings of the target.

In OP, the aggressor is motivated by the elevation of their character, status and worth. If the goal is the actual correction of behaviour or a genuine dispute in preferences or ideals then OP doesn't describe people like that. Their delivery is aimed at maximising their display of superiority and so, it's unlikely to be respectful. It's probably something to be judged case-by-case but I think we can assume that a third party would be unlikely to find the aggressor motivated by inference reasonable or justified.

We still agree X = weak/stupid, right? Z = my theoretical aggressor, Y = strong/wise. — Judaka

Yes. Z=X. I think where you may be missing my point is that human beings are sometimes X and sometimes Y. When we see ourselves in this humble light, we find empathy, understanding, and our "humanity" (I hate that latter word, but that's another discussion). It's really hard to be judgmental about X when your efforts toward Y show just how X you are. That is why Z is really just X.

This is an interesting post that a lot of aggressive posters on here might want to look at to self-examine their posting etiquette. They will defend their aggression as justified because the "other poster deserves it".. So it becomes self-righteous aggression. It's an error on top of an error.

**cough** @Isaac**cough**

Mind you, this mention of this particular poster will make them all the more aggressive and self-righteous, but I think that he is beyond help in that department at this point.


Anyways, perhaps this should be pinned somewhere as a reminder about why we may post aggressively and to try to reduce it.

There looks to be a consensus by some of us on this unnecessary aggression.. I see topics like:

Non-violent Communication
Are insults legitimate debate tacitcs? (my OP)
Aggression motivated by Inference (this thread).

I see. I don't dislike your philosophy, humans certainly are both sometimes X and sometimes Y.

Not that aggression necessarily focuses on things like weakness and stupidity, Z could be arguing on the superiority of his traits or views which he certainly has. Everyone has views about what is good or bad, right or wrong, Z does too but Z is motivated by feelings of superiority. He could be arguing for anything, what's important are the feelings he evokes in himself. If we can identify Z when talking to them, I think that could be very helpful in understanding how to deal with or think about this person. Do you agree?

Do you have any advice on how we could identify Z?

Z could be arguing on the superiority — Judaka

Z = X.

what's important are the feelings he evokes in himself — Judaka

I think that what's important is identifying our own Z (X) feelings that we invoke in ourselves when dealing with Z (X). I think that would be so very much more helpful in understanding how to deal with or think about ourselves and Z (X).

Do you have any advice on how we could identify Z? — Judaka

I think that Z (X) generally sticks out like a sore thumb and is thus easy to identify. It is identifying the Z (X) in ourselves that is the hard part. To do that, my advice would be to try to carry/lead Z (X). That would show how Z (X) we are. If we can then lead by example, that might very well be by silence, especially if they don't want to be carried or lead.

A great test for me would be Trump. My Y advice is to try to help him. I don't think he thinks he needs help. And my inability to help him, even if he wanted my help, shows just how weak I am. Thus, I try to remain silent and not judge. That is extremely difficult for me. It's like loving my enemy. Regardless, sometimes silence is the best example.

Silence does not mean one cannot act when called for. If a rabid dog is fixing to attack, you can shoot him, and you can do so without judgement of the poor creature's sickness.

Z is weak and stupid because he is aggressive? Or because he is motivated by the inferences he can make when being aggressive? Can someone really become weak and stupid just because you don't like what they're doing? No, we don't know Z's characteristics, what you're doing is no different than Z, making assertions based on how convenient it'd be if it were true.

Is your weak/stupid, strong/wise dynamic, just a way for you to assert control over your environment? The prerequisites of these terms are defined by your ideals but you retain their conventional meaning? When you call someone weak, what you really mean is some specific, non-standard prerequisites have been met but when you call someone weak, that comes with the cultural power associated with the word. Nobody wants to be called weak, but probably nobody cares about meeting your specific prerequisites, based on ideals they don't follow. Best of both worlds, right?

It's like if I defined intelligence as = the ability to realise the truth of this world and the "truth" is what I understand to be the truth. If you disagree with me then you're unintelligent, right? According to my definition.

You don't need to respond to that if you could just answer, how do you determine whether someone is / is being weak or stupid? Same for strong/wise. I don't see how you can assert Z must be X, I don't understand why you're X if you can't convince a buffoon like Trump, as if Trump hasn't ignored very competent, intelligent and accomplished people at every turn?

Z is weak and stupid because he is aggressive? — Judaka

No.

Or because he is motivated by the inferences he can make when being aggressive? — Judaka

No.

Can someone really become weak and stupid just because you don't like what they're doing? — Judaka

No.

what you're doing is no different than Z, making assertions based on how convenient it'd be if it were true. — Judaka

The only assertion I'm making is that Y cannot complain about X without being X.

Is your weak/stupid, strong/wise dynamic, just a way for you to assert control over your environment? — Judaka

No.

The prerequisites of these terms are defined by your ideals but you retain their conventional meaning? — Judaka

No.

When you call someone weak, what you really mean is some specific, non-standard prerequisites have been met but when you call someone weak, that comes with the cultural power associated with the word. — Judaka

No.

Nobody wants to be called weak, but probably nobody cares about meeting your specific prerequisites, based on ideals they don't follow. Best of both worlds, right? — Judaka

No.

According to my definition. — Judaka

Yes.

how do you determine whether someone is / is being weak or stupid? — Judaka

I ask myself, are they complaining? Are they judging? Are they setting up straw men with inferences about another's argument that were not made?

I don't see how you can assert Z must be X, I don't understand why you're X if you can't convince a buffoon like Trump, as if Trump hasn't ignored very competent, intelligent and accomplished people at every turn? — Judaka

I'm going to try some extracts in aid of my trying to help you understand my thinking. If I fail, it just humbles me. That can be a good thing:

because he is aggressive?
because he is motivated by the inferences
because you don't like
what you're doing is
how convenient
just a way for you to assert
defined by your ideals
you retain
what you really mean
prerequisites have been met
comes with the cultural power
Nobody wants
nobody cares
based on ideals
Best of both worlds, right?
According to my definition.
You don't need to respond to that
you can assert
you can't convince
as if Trump hasn't ignored
intelligent and accomplished

Complaint, I think, can manifest itself in different ways. I used to monitor a conservative echo-chamber safe-space, composed largely of men whose professions are widely seen as the exclusive province of strong men. These men spent a great deal of time complaining about people they perceived as weak. I've already discussed how incongruous that seemed to me. However, when strong men leave the safety of a safe-room echo-chamber full of confirmation bias, and go out into the world, among those they complain about, their complaint often changes from outright bitching to an internal struggle with frustration and the constant inferring of what these "others" must be thinking, or what they must be like, all based upon strong man's perception of these others as weak. If anger is to be checked from expression as aggression, this man must control himself. But once he returns to the safety of his safe room, the lid comes off and he whines like a bitch while his support network comforts him with a bunch of "me too"s.

The same thing can happen with those who are widely viewed as wise. I am not as familiar with this situation, but it's not hard for me to imagine frustration with a student who "just doesn't get it." We can make up all kinds of reasons why we think another must be thinking what they are thinking (or not thinking), especially when that other lacks an ability to clearly articulate their thoughts. The patience of the best teacher can be sorely tested, especially when a student is disrupting the ability of other students to learn. That teacher, like the strong man, can tap down the frustration, save it for later, and unload on his peers in the teachers lounge.

The mistake that is often made by these complainers, and inferrers (new word I just made up), is that, when in the safe-space, they perceive all nodding heads as being in agreement. Closer inspection, though, might reveal that some of the nodding heads are in sympathy with Y as he is being X, and not necessarily in agreement with him on the merits of his complaint. Whenever I am in such a room, I like to look around and see who is being silent, observing. And while I don't know what they are thinking, and I won't infer anything based upon their silence, I certainly cannot toss them in with the others who complain and infer. I'm sure you've heard the old saying (paraphrased) "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." What I'm getting at is something like that.

So, complaint, I think, can manifest itself in different ways. One of those ways is to infer without reason. To set up straw men that are easy to knock down; To find it impossible to understand the thoughts of another without telling them what they must be arguing/meaning/thinking in order for one to make sense of what they don't understand; To formulate questions, no matter how sincere, in a format which infers to the other what the answer must be.

Side bar digression: These guys would often return from the world and tell the group what the limp-wristed, latte-drinking, skinny-jeaned, libtard must have been thinking when he saw him do X that day. I remember the idea that you never know what another person is going through, or what they've done. And I also remember thinking about these tough guys and what character traits they found admirable. And when I'd sum-total those traits and look around for someone I thought came closest to the embodiment of strength and wisdom as they themselves define it, I often came up with a little woman.

Anyway, I've been rambling on this morning. If I have not made myself clear, that's on me.

Not an extensive list but I think it is important to remember that people may be acting in a certain way because it feels good and is emotionally rewarding rather than assuming it is deeper than that. I think this kind of thing is worst in high school and then most people gradually grow out of it as they get older. I see a lot of younger people getting drunk on these feelings but others' treatment of them is not necessarily reflective of this. Instead, they're seen as passionate or immature, which they might be but it may not be the ultimate cause. — Judaka

If only!

When the president (an elderly man, at that) of a major country calls the president of another major country a "killer" and that "he has no soul" -- what is that? What example is it setting?