It's foolish to punish A for not socializing with B
There are people who are obsessed, with for example, improving person B's social life, by punishing person A for failing to provide person B with a social life. Such punishments include crusading to have person A denied employment (!).
Such crusades, lead to poor performance in the private and public sectors, because the emphasis on punishing a person for failing to provide others with social good times, leads to a de-emphasis of other, more important matters. Such abuse A for not socializing with B persecutions, involve punishing A because persons B C and D, are shy about socializing with person A, whereas, A should not be blamed for B C and D's mutism and communications disabilities.
These social life promoting crusades, involve punishing A for not wanting to socialize with B. Whereas, all people, want to socialize with whomsoever they want to, without being punished for the choices they make.
Such crusades purport to being rooted in, an interest in promoting healthy, fun good times for people; they atempt to promote good times for people by punishing A for not socializing with B, and punishing F for not socializing with G. Whereas, the proper approach of a party interested in promoting social good times for A B C and D, would be to do things for A that reduce forces that unreasonably/unjustly impair A's ability to socialize in the ways A wants to socialize, and to do things for B that reduce forces that unreasonably impair B's ability to socialize the way B wants to socialize, and so on and so forth.
The whole process of attacking A for not socializing with B, in and of itself constitutes a force unreasonably impairing A's social life, although the professed goal of those attacking A is to promote fun social lives.
Implicit in attacks on A for not socializing with B, is the idea that A is a tool that should be forced to promote B's social life. Whereas, people want to lead social lives based on their own wishes and desires, and do not wish to be forced to socialize with others.
Attacking A for not providing B with social pleasure, involves the playing of favorites, B's pleasures are considered more important than A's pleasures. Whereas, people prefer that nobody be treated as a special person whose pleasures are more important than other people's pleasures.
The people who revel in attacks such as A punished for B not socializing with B, are the type that gain advantage from forced socializations. Thus they are compared to those who enjoy social lives that are not forced, relatively speaking, boring and depressing to socialize with. Promotion of the social lives of boring depressing persons, at the expense of persons who are interesting and produce joy, such as the persons the bores want to be forced to socialize with them, is one might say, a kind of evolutionary and cultural dead end. A society in which people's love is real and voluntary, as opposed to feigned and forced, is the kind of society in which people have fun social lives.
The attacks on persons for not socializing with certain other persons, are attacks that are components in a larger subculture involving the imperialism of obsessions, wherein persons who are obsessed with something, force others to be obsessed with such things also. For example there are those who are obsessed with the cleanliness of clothes; they demand excess attention to cleanliness of clothes from others. Likewise there are those who obsess over cleanliness of body, or of living quarters, who pressure others to devote unreasonable amounts of time energy and money to such matters. Such obsessives can pressure persons into spending many hours of their limited free time on the pet obsessions of the perpetrators; when such obsessive imperialists combine with persons obsessed with the promotion of their own social lives, the net result can be that the victims of the obsessives have no free time, or free energy left at all.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
Such crusades, lead to poor performance in the private and public sectors, because the emphasis on punishing a person for failing to provide others with social good times, leads to a de-emphasis of other, more important matters. Such abuse A for not socializing with B persecutions, involve punishing A because persons B C and D, are shy about socializing with person A, whereas, A should not be blamed for B C and D's mutism and communications disabilities.
These social life promoting crusades, involve punishing A for not wanting to socialize with B. Whereas, all people, want to socialize with whomsoever they want to, without being punished for the choices they make.
Such crusades purport to being rooted in, an interest in promoting healthy, fun good times for people; they atempt to promote good times for people by punishing A for not socializing with B, and punishing F for not socializing with G. Whereas, the proper approach of a party interested in promoting social good times for A B C and D, would be to do things for A that reduce forces that unreasonably/unjustly impair A's ability to socialize in the ways A wants to socialize, and to do things for B that reduce forces that unreasonably impair B's ability to socialize the way B wants to socialize, and so on and so forth.
The whole process of attacking A for not socializing with B, in and of itself constitutes a force unreasonably impairing A's social life, although the professed goal of those attacking A is to promote fun social lives.
Implicit in attacks on A for not socializing with B, is the idea that A is a tool that should be forced to promote B's social life. Whereas, people want to lead social lives based on their own wishes and desires, and do not wish to be forced to socialize with others.
Attacking A for not providing B with social pleasure, involves the playing of favorites, B's pleasures are considered more important than A's pleasures. Whereas, people prefer that nobody be treated as a special person whose pleasures are more important than other people's pleasures.
The people who revel in attacks such as A punished for B not socializing with B, are the type that gain advantage from forced socializations. Thus they are compared to those who enjoy social lives that are not forced, relatively speaking, boring and depressing to socialize with. Promotion of the social lives of boring depressing persons, at the expense of persons who are interesting and produce joy, such as the persons the bores want to be forced to socialize with them, is one might say, a kind of evolutionary and cultural dead end. A society in which people's love is real and voluntary, as opposed to feigned and forced, is the kind of society in which people have fun social lives.
The attacks on persons for not socializing with certain other persons, are attacks that are components in a larger subculture involving the imperialism of obsessions, wherein persons who are obsessed with something, force others to be obsessed with such things also. For example there are those who are obsessed with the cleanliness of clothes; they demand excess attention to cleanliness of clothes from others. Likewise there are those who obsess over cleanliness of body, or of living quarters, who pressure others to devote unreasonable amounts of time energy and money to such matters. Such obsessives can pressure persons into spending many hours of their limited free time on the pet obsessions of the perpetrators; when such obsessive imperialists combine with persons obsessed with the promotion of their own social lives, the net result can be that the victims of the obsessives have no free time, or free energy left at all.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 12:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home