Current mood:

thoughtful

Unshockable
There are two ways of getting shocked. At least if we don't count those involving electricity. These two are the good, fun way, and the horrible, bad one. When (if) I have claimed I don't shake easily, I guess what I usually mean (Well, compared to some I might be rather blasé about a lot of things) is that I put most circumstances in the first, good, category. (I see this as a positive quality in myself.)

Thus, when the not at all very good but very lesbian band warming up for the better band where my mates friend where singing sung a song about menstruation, I was slightly shocked, but in the good, fun way, and laughed. Same goes for really horrible un-PC jokes, too-detailed accounts of sexual exploits/perversions and so on.

Then there's the other one. The bad way of being shocked (and often outraged): Fucktards. Surprisingly (or perhaps not) the most shocking, outrageous people and statements are often a result of not being able to handle the things I put in the "good" category. People who wants to dictate what other people have a right to do in private because they cannot bear thinking someone might do something they themselves think is disgusting and outrageous. People trying to decide what language is acceptable. People seeing it as a given that they should not have to wash their own floors because they have a good enough income to pay some poor guy to do it for them. People actually judging people from their appearance alone (be it an expensive bimbo-look or a drunkards rags). Racists, of course.

Of course, I'm sure I've shocked people both in ways I myself would characterize as good _and_ bad. And even more obviously, ways they see as bad. I guess the difference is whether we see that the fact that we let ourselves get shaken by something is silly or not. I might not be able to remain completely unshaken if someone went into detail on [whatever], but I'd see that my reaction was silly, and probably find the situation funny enough to laugh. (Of course, you can claim that I'm merely laughing as a defense mechanism to an uncomfortable situation, as a way of not having to deal, but I rally don't think so). Now, the people I characterize as fucktards would get angry. Actually, they'd react the same way I do when confronted with them.


____________



I read an interview with Galtung the other day. He has a model of how societies coexist with each other. There are several levels, from "Intolerance", trough "Tolerance" to  "Dialog" and  "Learning". He says tolerance is only slightly better than intolerance, because it implies that the ones doing the tolerating are better than the ones being tolerated. "Sure. Our way is better than yours, but since we are so damned enlightened, we tolerate your pitiful and morally objectionable ways anyways." Now, for one thing, I'm not sure how applicable his model is on an individual level. Hey, for all I know, I've misunderstood the hole thing, and he was talking about tolerating/not tolerating an entire culture. If so, I have no quarrel. I do not agree however, that tolerance has to be condescending. When faced with a different view than our own, it should be completely legitimate to accept that the views are different, but not necessarily better or worse than each other. (Although, perhaps such a conclusion is impossible without dialog?) Also, there are things that is not learnable that some people manage to be intolerant towards. Race, Sexual orientation, gender... I'm guessing I'm being unnecessaryily difficult, but I really don't see how we can do more than tolerate (if at least, by tolerate we mean accept as equal (aha, I guess Galtung does not in his model. That would explain it.) such differences.

So either we have to define "tolerance" as "we are not trying to stop you, but we see you as less worthy" and put acceptance as a necessity for dialog, or we have to put in acceptance as another level (with the added meaning of  "accept as equal", or we have to realize that the model is meant as a tool for peace-work and not as a means of looking at personal relations.

Hmm, either way. I think it's easier to get someone to keep their damned opinions to themselves and stop letting their moral outrage spill out on whoever outrages them than to actually have them talk to and learn from whoever shocks them so. Then again, the latter might actually teach them to stop being outraged.

Enough thinking. My head is starting to hurt again. If someone can actually follow my thoughts here, I'd be happy to hear from you.