Truth, Empathy and Harmful Acceptance

Should we shame fat people? Do we need to accept other cultures?
The bad argument for gay acceptance.

I live in a medium-sized city. My observations may be biased by this fact.

Here is an interesting phenomenon: people change the expression of their opinions, and even their opinions themselves, according to what the societal norm is. Although that is not the subject of this post, it is good to keep in mind. Here is an example of this: a lot of older people went from “being gay is a sin against god / nature, it is a defect and those people are stupid/delusional” to “well, let them do what they want behind closed doors, I don’t like it but its none of my business”. I would say, that the biggest reason for this change, is that being outwordly against gay people, has become a great social transgression, while before it was fine. So because these people cannot express their previous opinions openly anymore, they hide them - or I would say more commonly - tone them down. If their opinion has actually changed, what is really the difference between the first and the second statement? Both statements show disapproval, but the key difference is, that the second statement denotes that those people will keep their disapproving remarks for themselves. They think they come to this stance, because they adopt the view “everyone should do what they want behind closed doors”, but really it’s a survival strategy, since, if they didn’t adopt that stance, and continued their outward disapproval, they would be shunned by their social circle. Essentially, the second stance is just the first stance + “but I know I shouldn’t say it outloud”.

The first stance is better.

Lets generalize first:

• First stance implication: criticizing people based on their behaviour is ok.
• Second stance implication: criticizing people based on their behaviour is not ok, if the behaviour doesn’t affect you/others.

The only difference between these two stances are essentially the implications given above. The underlying opinion doesn’t change between the two. I will attack these implications, particularly the second one. Because of these implications (further imp 1 and imp 2), I argue that it is:

1. Not logically sound to take the second stance.
2. Better for you as an individual not to succumb to societal preassure to be accommodating and take the second stance.

Lets tackle the second point first. Have you ever heard of the “what happens in the family, stays in the family” rhetoric? Practically, it posits that you shouldn’t say bad things about people you care about, to outsiders. Since this would hurt their image, and you don’t want to do that to people you care about. This mantra is most often heard in situations where there is something to hide. It is also commonly heard in religious, sect-like and pyramid scheme environments. Why? Because it’s a manipulation tactic. If you don’t want people to think you are an asshole, don’t be an asshole. If someone really wants to stop truthful information about them propagating, that usually means it’s because they did something wrong. There are exceptions to this of course, but I’m considering the most common case here. This mantra is especially effective, since, the victims start getting accustomed to the bad treatment they are getting. They are aware that it’s somewhat bad, but they start getting used to it, and since they don’t talk about it to anyone else, they continue to be mistreated, without being aware of how severe their mistreatment is. The only way for people to experience consequences for their actions, is if other people know about their actions, and they are confronted about them.

This also works for opinions. If someones opinions aren’t known, they can’t be confronted about them, and if they can’t be confronted about them, their opinions won’t change. If you aren’t open about what you think, but shroud it in euphemisms and roundabouts, you are less likely to be challenged about your opinions, and you are more likely to stay wrong. You should be honest with yourself about what you think, and you should be honest with others about what you think - thats the only way you will learn. Imp 2 is bad, because it allows people with wrong and harmful opinions to go through daily life unphased. If you are vocal about your discontent with the state of society, and someone challenges you on it, your discontent may strenghten or be appeased, but you will end up learning. If you are quiet about your discontent: 1) you may end up being wrong to the grave 2) society won’t change for the better if you were right. It is also obviously worse to take the second stance if we take point 1 for granted, that the first stance is more logically sound. End of argument for point 2.

There are two factors that determine how seriously you take someone who is criticizing you. 1) How they are doing it 2) Who they are. Although these two things have nothing to do with the content of their argument, we usually weigh these two factors very heavily. If we see that someone is trying to “help us” rather than “correct us” we accept what they are saying much more easily. If some random on the street is contradicting what I said, I will instinctually take a much more defensive stance than if a friend was doing the same thing. Since I respect my friends opinions more, and I know they are usually just trying to help me. This is not good, and we should weigh arguments only by their contents, but it is good to be aware of this bias when talking to other people. If you know someone who is outwardly wrong, and you don’t challenge them on it, you are doing them, and society a disservice. You are one of the people with most power (if they respect your opinion) to get through to them. Sometimes people just need one wakeup call.

Lets now handle the first point. There are three possible interpretations of “what they do behind closed doors is none of my business”:

1. I think it’s not detrimental behaviour, but it’s just not for me - I shouldn’t chastise them for it. (under imp 2)
2. I think it is detrimental behaviour, but I shouldn’t chastise them for their behaviour, if its not affecting me / other people. (under imp 2)
3. I think it is detrimental, but I shouldn’t have the power to govern how other people behave.

Reasoning 1) is correct - e.g. we are talking about how some couple likes BDSM, someone is a furry, a kid is making dancing tiktok videos I find cringe. Reasoning 3) is dependant on the behaviour, if someone is out murdering people, we (as a society, through legal procedure etc.) should prevent them from doing that. However, it would be hard to argue that we should legally / criminally pursue people who are fat. Reasoning 2) is simply wrong. It is also the one people claim when taking the second stance. It is the reason why imp 2 falls apart.

You do not need to accept other peoples cultures / identities / understandings of the world - if they are detrimental to others. If enough people believe something is morally justifiable, does that make it so? Of course not. Inequality towards women, black people, all but common just a bit ago, moral? No. To achieve goodness, we need to speak up for the people who can’t. So that case was easy. What about behaviour that is self-detrimental? Obviously a world where noone is fat, everyone showers regularly, and less people commit suicide would be ideal. How do we achieve this? Obviously not through acceptance of the behaviour as personal choice. It SHOULD be condemned! These people have the ability to improve their livelyhood, but they are not doing it, they might even be working actively against it! If they are convinced to change their behaviour, they will be glad they did. (This is of course, banking on the fact that the behaviour is in fact self-detrimental). As already said in the intro: people change the expression of their opinions, and even their opinions themselves, according to what the societal norm is. If the norm is that its disguisting to be fat, less people will be fat! If the norm is thats its stupid to smoke, less people will smoke! And how do norms come about? Enough people agree on them. For this to happen, you need to be loud, you need to have good arguments. Even disregarding society as a whole, you can have a lot of impact on a fat friend, they are your friend - they respect your opinion. To criticize them, is to be kind. Thus it is illogical to accept some behaviour, just because it doesn’t affect anyone other than the person doing it. End of argument for point 1.

Final remarks.

We shouldn’t accept any behaviour based on it “being behind closed doors”, the acceptance needs to be based on arguments about choice, cause, and its consequences. This is as true for fat people, tiktokers and furries as is it for LGBT people, and anyone else.

If B is true, that doesn’t mean that any A, where A => B, is true. Drop the bad arguments, spawned by empathy.

We should criticize those who act on self detriment. Don’t be fooled into accepting some behaviour, just because it’s common or doesn’t affect you, seek the truth, argue about it, make a change.