The meme ‘don’t pass judgement on other people’ is, I think, pretty widespread in North America and maybe more so in Canada [...]
Insofar as it actually exists, this is a very context-dependent principle. As someone who grew up in a moderately alien culture, I perceive a strong note of frightfully stern judgmentalism in the Anglo-American culture. (Of course, the exact range of issues on which this judgmentalism is manifested depends on people’s ideological position.)
In fact, the way it is expressed in North America, even the “don’t pass judgment” attitude itself paradoxically often strikes me as sternly judgmental. Admittedly, sometimes I perceive it as an expression of a pleasant and easygoing disposition, but more often, it looks more like a harsh moralistic condemnation of those who differ ideologically and thus express disapproval of different things.
I agree. I also see it strongly as a counter-judgement. If you express your own strong views on a subject (especially when backed up by evidence), North Americans can be quick to shout “we all should be tolerant of each other”. This has happened to me a lot in conversations with the religious… “We shouldn’t judge one another” being used as a thought-stopper.
I apparently really offended someone at a party once by responding to that with “You’re absolutely right, that was wrong of me and I should be ashamed of myself. Thanks for pointing that out.”
That’s the killer judo move on online forums, isn’t it? What was their rationale for offence, and what do you think the underlying nature of the offence was?
Well, they didn’t actually talk to me about it, so I infer from third-party reports. (Hence “apparently.”)
I assume they observed that they’d been trapped: if they accepted my apology, they’d be implicitly accepting not only that they were judging me (and are therefore hypocrites), but also that judging me was a thanksworthy thing to do (and they are therefore wrong). On the other hand, they can’t challenge my apology without essentially arguing with themselves.
Of course, they could have responded by backing away from the strong version of their claim, perhaps in the guise of clarification, and replacing it with a weaker version tailored to avoid that particular trap. (For example “You’re welcome! See: it’s much better to point out when other people are wrong in a friendly and constructive way, rather than judging them. I’m glad we agree.” Except, you know, phrased less ironically than that.)
But most people don’t have enough perspective on the social web they’re embedded in to recognize what’s going on and counter in real time, so I figure he just felt (correctly) like the structure he’d invested in was being challenged, and was therefore offended.
But most people don’t have enough perspective on the social web they’re embedded in to recognize what’s going on and counter in real time, so I figure he just felt (correctly) like the structure he’d invested in was being challenged, and was therefore offended.
Heh. You grabbed a virtual banana and he cried “Morality!”
Did anyone else seem to buy his argument as to why he hadn’t just plain lost?
Beats me… it was a pretty casual exchange at a party; I likely wouldn’t even remember it were it not for the followup.
The people who relayed the fact of his offendedness thought he was being silly (it came back to me in the context of “man, X was still grousing about you an hour after you left the party!”), but of course they would; I have no idea what other people thought.
I assume he has friends who took his side, though… pretty much everybody does.
You grabbed a virtual banana and he cried “Morality!”
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, isn’t that what offense is?
You grabbed a virtual banana and he cried "Morality!"
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, isn’t that what offense is?
Not quite. It is a subset of what offence applies to. There is some difference in nature between taking personal offence at a status transaction that is legitimate in general but you claim should not be applied to you and claiming that something violates the general moral code. This holds somewhat despite the natural inclination to blur the former into the latter.
Agreed that the word is ambiguous, and yes, any violation of a moral code (or a legal code, or a local policy) is an offense against that code… going 60 in a 55-mph zone is an offense against local traffic laws, for example.
The context I had in mind was the emotional state of offense, though.
Which seems to me to be what primates (and I suspect social mammals in general) experience when they perceive a potential infringement of their rights or privileges.
Agreed that this can be a reaction to both a violation of the actual local status hierarchy, and an act that violates an individual’s preference without actually violating the local norms. But I would argue that in the latter case, what that individual is actually trying to do is change their position in the status hierarchy, by invoking an offense-response that would be appropriate were their status different. (Of course, they may not get away with it.)
So I’d say it’s no coincidence that the former blurs into the latter… they are, it seems to me, invoking the same mechanisms.
I also see it strongly as a counter-judgement. If you express your own strong views on a subject (especially when backed up by evidence), North Americans can be quick to shout “we all should be tolerant of each other”.
Agreed. Except that I don’t think everyone uses it as a counter-judgement. There are a significant number of people who take it literally and assume that we really should be tolerant of everyone and not judge people for their lifestyle choices.
Except that I don’t think everyone uses it as a counter-judgement. There are a significant number of people who take it literally and assume that we really should be tolerant of everyone and not judge people for their lifestyle choices.
Even among that group there is a majority for whom ‘tolerant of everyone and not judge people for their lifestyle choices’ in fact applies to a specific set of lifestyle choices that have been legitimised according to their perspective of political correctness. For example many of that group would not be especially tolerant and non-judgemental of a 40 year old and a 14 year old who have an entirely voluntary and evidently satisfying sexual relationship.
(Decrement the second figure if necessary until the example is sufficiently inconvenient.)
Agreed. I’m trying to think what my reaction would be to that situation...if, say, my 14-year-old sister was dating a 40-year-old man. I would worry that she was being exploited, of course, but I think I know my sister well enough to tell if she is comfortable and happy with something, and if she was, then what right do I have to take that away from her? (Although I’m trying to think what long-term prospects such a relationship has. Even 10-year age difference relationships, if one party is 19 and the other is 29, often break up over the members being in different life phases, i.e. the 19-year-old is starting university and wants to be a little bit wild and discover who ey is, and the 29-year-old wants a house and children before ey gets too old… Despite gender-neutral pronouns, it would be a LOT more surprising if the younger member were male.)
Comment on that: it’s not just that relationships between very young girls and much older men are not legitimized according to political correctness, it’s that I think they bring up a strong emotional current of ‘pedophile!’ And I think a lot of (generally open-minded) people might react the way I did, if a friend or family member were in that situation; with discomfort and protectiveness at first, but acceptance if and when they realize the relationship is voluntary and satisfying. (Although they might warn their younger sibling/niece/friend about all the possible consequences to their reputation, etc.)
(Wow that’s weird...now I can’t think why a relationship between a sexually mature 14-year-old and a 40 year old WOULD bother me, as someone’s personal choice. My brain got used to that fast. And there are cultures that did accept those age differences, in marriage at least...Henry VIII and his 5th wife come to mind.)
How old were you when you got together? The 10 year age difference seems to become less relevant if both parties have finished school, have a full-time job, do similar things in their spare time, etc.
Oh yes, absolutely. In fact most people I’ve met use it “correctly” at some times and as a counter argument at others...
I totally agree with the actual phrase, as stated. It’s a useful social heuristic for getting along with others—especially where people are disagreeing over a point of personal taste. (No matter how much I argue that Vegemite is “just better”—the Marmite-lovers won’t agree… so we should indeed learn to just be tolerant of one another ):)
However I can get quite upset if somebody uses this heuristic as a means to shout-down an argument about verifiable fact—or even just force people not to have a discussion about whether or not something is a verifiable fact (which is where I most often see this mis-used).
or even just force people not to have a discussion about whether or not something is a verifiable fact (which is where I most often see this mis-used.
I’ve never seen it used this way, probably because the friends I spend the most time with love discussing anything and the last thing they would want to do would be to shut down a conversation. Agreed that people who don’t like discussing the issues closest to their heart would probably use it for this.
but more often, it looks more like a harsh moralistic condemnation of those who differ ideologically and thus express disapproval of different things.
Really! I have never noticed that...and I’m glad I haven’t, it sounds like a very unpleasant attitude for one’s friends to have! I may have casual acquaintances who do take this attitude, but I wouldn’t know if I’ve never discussed issues that set off their ideological judgements.
Insofar as it actually exists, this is a very context-dependent principle. As someone who grew up in a moderately alien culture, I perceive a strong note of frightfully stern judgmentalism in the Anglo-American culture. (Of course, the exact range of issues on which this judgmentalism is manifested depends on people’s ideological position.)
In fact, the way it is expressed in North America, even the “don’t pass judgment” attitude itself paradoxically often strikes me as sternly judgmental. Admittedly, sometimes I perceive it as an expression of a pleasant and easygoing disposition, but more often, it looks more like a harsh moralistic condemnation of those who differ ideologically and thus express disapproval of different things.
I agree. I also see it strongly as a counter-judgement. If you express your own strong views on a subject (especially when backed up by evidence), North Americans can be quick to shout “we all should be tolerant of each other”. This has happened to me a lot in conversations with the religious… “We shouldn’t judge one another” being used as a thought-stopper.
I apparently really offended someone at a party once by responding to that with “You’re absolutely right, that was wrong of me and I should be ashamed of myself. Thanks for pointing that out.”
That’s the killer judo move on online forums, isn’t it? What was their rationale for offence, and what do you think the underlying nature of the offence was?
Well, they didn’t actually talk to me about it, so I infer from third-party reports. (Hence “apparently.”)
I assume they observed that they’d been trapped: if they accepted my apology, they’d be implicitly accepting not only that they were judging me (and are therefore hypocrites), but also that judging me was a thanksworthy thing to do (and they are therefore wrong). On the other hand, they can’t challenge my apology without essentially arguing with themselves.
Of course, they could have responded by backing away from the strong version of their claim, perhaps in the guise of clarification, and replacing it with a weaker version tailored to avoid that particular trap. (For example “You’re welcome! See: it’s much better to point out when other people are wrong in a friendly and constructive way, rather than judging them. I’m glad we agree.” Except, you know, phrased less ironically than that.)
But most people don’t have enough perspective on the social web they’re embedded in to recognize what’s going on and counter in real time, so I figure he just felt (correctly) like the structure he’d invested in was being challenged, and was therefore offended.
Heh. You grabbed a virtual banana and he cried “Morality!”
Did anyone else seem to buy his argument as to why he hadn’t just plain lost?
Beats me… it was a pretty casual exchange at a party; I likely wouldn’t even remember it were it not for the followup.
The people who relayed the fact of his offendedness thought he was being silly (it came back to me in the context of “man, X was still grousing about you an hour after you left the party!”), but of course they would; I have no idea what other people thought.
I assume he has friends who took his side, though… pretty much everybody does.
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, isn’t that what offense is?
Not quite. It is a subset of what offence applies to. There is some difference in nature between taking personal offence at a status transaction that is legitimate in general but you claim should not be applied to you and claiming that something violates the general moral code. This holds somewhat despite the natural inclination to blur the former into the latter.
Agreed that the word is ambiguous, and yes, any violation of a moral code (or a legal code, or a local policy) is an offense against that code… going 60 in a 55-mph zone is an offense against local traffic laws, for example.
The context I had in mind was the emotional state of offense, though.
Which seems to me to be what primates (and I suspect social mammals in general) experience when they perceive a potential infringement of their rights or privileges.
Agreed that this can be a reaction to both a violation of the actual local status hierarchy, and an act that violates an individual’s preference without actually violating the local norms. But I would argue that in the latter case, what that individual is actually trying to do is change their position in the status hierarchy, by invoking an offense-response that would be appropriate were their status different. (Of course, they may not get away with it.)
So I’d say it’s no coincidence that the former blurs into the latter… they are, it seems to me, invoking the same mechanisms.
Agreed. Except that I don’t think everyone uses it as a counter-judgement. There are a significant number of people who take it literally and assume that we really should be tolerant of everyone and not judge people for their lifestyle choices.
Even among that group there is a majority for whom ‘tolerant of everyone and not judge people for their lifestyle choices’ in fact applies to a specific set of lifestyle choices that have been legitimised according to their perspective of political correctness. For example many of that group would not be especially tolerant and non-judgemental of a 40 year old and a 14 year old who have an entirely voluntary and evidently satisfying sexual relationship.
(Decrement the second figure if necessary until the example is sufficiently inconvenient.)
Agreed. I’m trying to think what my reaction would be to that situation...if, say, my 14-year-old sister was dating a 40-year-old man. I would worry that she was being exploited, of course, but I think I know my sister well enough to tell if she is comfortable and happy with something, and if she was, then what right do I have to take that away from her? (Although I’m trying to think what long-term prospects such a relationship has. Even 10-year age difference relationships, if one party is 19 and the other is 29, often break up over the members being in different life phases, i.e. the 19-year-old is starting university and wants to be a little bit wild and discover who ey is, and the 29-year-old wants a house and children before ey gets too old… Despite gender-neutral pronouns, it would be a LOT more surprising if the younger member were male.)
Comment on that: it’s not just that relationships between very young girls and much older men are not legitimized according to political correctness, it’s that I think they bring up a strong emotional current of ‘pedophile!’ And I think a lot of (generally open-minded) people might react the way I did, if a friend or family member were in that situation; with discomfort and protectiveness at first, but acceptance if and when they realize the relationship is voluntary and satisfying. (Although they might warn their younger sibling/niece/friend about all the possible consequences to their reputation, etc.)
(Wow that’s weird...now I can’t think why a relationship between a sexually mature 14-year-old and a 40 year old WOULD bother me, as someone’s personal choice. My brain got used to that fast. And there are cultures that did accept those age differences, in marriage at least...Henry VIII and his 5th wife come to mind.)
For what it’s worth, my husband is ~10 years older than I am.
Of course, you were probably assuming a heterosexual couple.
How old were you when you got together? The 10 year age difference seems to become less relevant if both parties have finished school, have a full-time job, do similar things in their spare time, etc.
Oh, it absolutely makes a difference, and I was in my early 20s at the time.
Oh yes, absolutely. In fact most people I’ve met use it “correctly” at some times and as a counter argument at others...
I totally agree with the actual phrase, as stated. It’s a useful social heuristic for getting along with others—especially where people are disagreeing over a point of personal taste. (No matter how much I argue that Vegemite is “just better”—the Marmite-lovers won’t agree… so we should indeed learn to just be tolerant of one another ):)
However I can get quite upset if somebody uses this heuristic as a means to shout-down an argument about verifiable fact—or even just force people not to have a discussion about whether or not something is a verifiable fact (which is where I most often see this mis-used).
I’ve never seen it used this way, probably because the friends I spend the most time with love discussing anything and the last thing they would want to do would be to shut down a conversation. Agreed that people who don’t like discussing the issues closest to their heart would probably use it for this.
Really! I have never noticed that...and I’m glad I haven’t, it sounds like a very unpleasant attitude for one’s friends to have! I may have casual acquaintances who do take this attitude, but I wouldn’t know if I’ve never discussed issues that set off their ideological judgements.