If Not Me, Who?

[AS1975]

The other day I was involved in a rather heartfelt argument with my soulmate. I was pointing out that I have somewhere between f*-all and no time for arseholes and reserve the right to treat them with the respect I feel they deserve.

My other half asked me "what right I have to decide that someone is an arsehole?"

I was nonplussed, I mean, whose permission do I need to make a determination about what "I" think? To me an arsehole is someone who takes no notice of others, of basic rules that govern interpersonal and communal life and who does nothing for anyone without a reward motive. The absolute lack of basic manners and utter disrespect for anyone they encounter, who seeks to limit their abuse of all and sundry, I mean, what actually ranks?

I mean, if people wish to act like sociopaths, with no regard for, respect for or intent to comply with basic requirements of living within a community, I'm more than happy to meet them there. I have long felt that there are too many laws, have a decidedly anti-social persona of my own and am rather more experienced at forcing others to do things my way, in short, I'm probably a bigger sociopath than anyone they've encountered in their short life (by nature) and if I am forced to ignore conditioning, societal and communal pressures to conform, then I'm quite happy to run free.

Why is it so very wrong to respond to obnoxious little wannabee sociopaths in kind? I mean, these pricks don't even follow the basic rules that govern sociopathic interpersonal communication, they actually seem to believe that they are entitled to be protected from being subjected to the very disrespect they dish out to others?

I recently had one idiot try starting a fight, along with his 2 mates, then when I pushed him back to arms reach, he stated "that I couldn't do that, he had athsma". FFS, mate, if you'd kept going the compressed skull fracture over your temple, in conjunction with the crushed sternum would have made athsma a minor problem.

Is this something others experience with PTSD, or is this more attributable to the truly sociopathic behavior expected of those suffering from BPAD, type II? It's not like I demand respect, or get angry when not shown it, I simply refuse to accept blatant disrespect for my family and my property, how is that so wrong?

 

[Abstract]

AS,

I shall come back when I have time as I do have something to say. In the mean time I wanted to ask you if you are familiar with transactional analyses.

But to answer your question I believe responses like this are more to do with personality than anything else. With our cognitive interpretation of the information that we glean from a situation.

 

[ms spock]

I think if you are clear about the difference between assertiveness and aggressiveness then standing up for yourself is a good idea.

 

[Bilby]

I think there are a couple of things at play here.

I think you are quite entitled to decide who you believe is an a*sehole - whatever fits that criteria for you, is quite simply where it ends. Someone else may have a different interpretation of that, and that's ok too. We're all going to meet people that we dislike (sometimes immensely so) yet we are aware that they fit in a social group, have friends etc... It comes down to basic differences in opinion and that is based on any number of variables, conditions etc.

How you respond/treat to said a*seholes is a different matter. I would suggest that based on some of what you have said, that you may get angry when you don't get the respect you feel you deserve. I'd also suggest that based on this and some of your other posts, that perhaps you tend to be more aggressive, than assertive. It is often the case that far more can be achieved, and people are far more agreeable, if you are assertive, as opposed to being aggressive, threatening, intimidating etc.

 

[AS1975]

I think there are a couple of things at play here.

I think you are quite entitled to decide who you believe is an a*sehole - whatever fits that criteria for you, is quite simply where it ends.

But it isn't where it ends, I have lived and worked in places in Northern Australia where I was not only entitled, I was expected (and indeed paid) to ensure that obeyed simple rules, didn't treat people like shit, and basically pulled there heads in when enough was enough. That isn't respect, it isn't a lack of respect, it is enforcing a lack of disrespect to people, property and the community as a whole. I've also worked as a security patrolman in this same city, where businesses quite reasonably expected me to ensure that their business was not adversely affected by people in low socioeconomic areas (on the whole) by people acting with disrespect to people (ie. customers and staff), property (graffiti & property damage for starters) and the community as a whole (ie. don't let them smash up the neighbours place and make the place look like a warzone or hang around harassing people). I was expected to, paid to and legally entitled to use such force as was necessary to prevent such disrespect.

Now I'm being told that I'm powerless to act in the same way when my property is treated like shit, or the neighboring property looks like a warzone, with scum hanging round smashing things up and doing graffiti, or when my family is treated with utter disrespect by tools who want to use the road beside our window as a skate park at all hours (when there is a municipal skate park 500m away, paid for out of Council rates). The reason for this inability to act as I deem appropriate in other situations, is apparently due to the fact that the people acting with utter, contumelious disrespect for persons, property and the community, are neither socio-economically challenged, nor indigenous.

Can someone please explain to me, how actions that are entirely appropriate if the person is a "bogan" or "black", can be justified as being inappropriate if they are white and middle-class (or their parents are at least)? How is that not discriminatory? How is their behavior made appropriate by the circumstances in which they were born? Why am I forced to accept behavior I would punish elsewhere, simply because the perpetrators are spoiled little rich kids?

 

[Abstract]

Very quickly the other aspect of this (in addition to the other points raised) is not so much how your judgements affect the person who is annoying you but rather how they affect you. Have you done any CBT work about how value judgements affect us? Also then I imagine that how they affect you then has a knock on affect on your family.

Example: My H hates people walking slowly in public places. He sees them as being selfish, unconcerned about others etc. By evaluating their behaviour in this way he increases his stress levels, anger etc. He works himself up into a state.

If he instead evaluated the situation like this then he would feel differently: that they are maybe very relaxed and how wonderful it is that they can relax in the moment and not feel that the world is a race. That's just an example. The way we interpret others intentions greatly affects the way we feel which affects our quality of life. And usually those around us too.

 

[saffy]

You must feel very confused AS179

However, by what I have read, I can only understand that it is not your job or your right now to discipline or try to change people like this. No one is telling you that you cannot protect your property or your rights but doing it in an aggressive, authoritative and arrogant way can make you look like an arsehole yourself. This is where hypocrisy and double standards come in.

You have set ways of thinking about how things should be and how they should be done. That is not every ones way, we know that, and some people can be arseholes, but it is not your job to teach them a lesson or try to change them into what you would like them to be.

(I am reminded of a friend who insists on screaming at her kids telling them not to hit or shout at each other or she will hit them, can you see the hypocrisy and double standards here).

Best wishes
Saffy :)

 

[intothelight]

You have a right to think whatever you want, but you might want to temper your judgement of others. Take the focus off the person and focus on the act that is bothering you or crossing your boundaries. Deal with the action that is offensive in an assertive manner.

JMHO

 

[Hashi]

I'm uncomfortable with the way you're presenting this as being related to class/race/socioeconomic status. I don't see the evidence for this.

From what you say, it sounds like it's about the difference between two things: being employed to enforce a specified standard of behaviour, and feeling frustrated that you can't do the same as an individual according to your own standards in your own home area. It's about not being willing to tolerate restrictions being placed on your behaviour.

I mean, if people wish to act like sociopaths, with no regard for, respect for or intent to comply with basic requirements of living within a community, I'm more than happy to meet them there. I have long felt that there are too many laws, have a decidedly anti-social persona of my own and am rather more experienced at forcing others to do things my way, in short, I'm probably a bigger sociopath than anyone they've encountered in their short life (by nature) and if I am forced to ignore conditioning, societal and communal pressures to conform, then I'm quite happy to run free.

The people you're so angry at are probably acting the way they do because they think in a similar way to you. They probably feel entitled, just as you seem to.

I understand about having problems caused by anti-social behaviour where you live. I have things thrown into my back garden, plants stolen from my front garden, old furniture dumped in the street, have had a window broken, motorbikes racing up and down the road, graffiti written on fences, neighbouring houses falling apart and surrounded by junk, and several times fires have been started in the alley opposite my flat. This doesn't give me the right to take any action against the perpetrators except report them, and when nothing adequate is done as a result that isn't a licence for me to start dishing out compressed skull fractures. I could speak to the perpetrators, but if I did that aggressively it might make me feel better for a few minutes, but the only outcome I'd expect would be for the situation to escalate and worsen.

What I've discovered is that not engaging with the perpetrators is more effective at reducing their behaviour than engaging with them would be. If you respond with aggression, then I think you're only fanning the flames, and should expect the behaviour to continue or get worse.

Some things where I live have resolved themselves. For example after being called to three different alley fires, the fire brigade have revoked their previous decision that the alley couldn't be closed off because this would restrict emergency access, and the alley is now closed and secured.

With other things I just have to do what I can (legally and respecting people's rights) and then leave it. I'd rather not see graffiti outside my window, and I'd rather not go out and paint over it myself, but there are a lot of things I have to accept in life and this is another. I'm not going to ruin my life because other people don't know how to behave.

There might not be anything I or anyone else can say to change your vigilante views, but in response to your question in the title of your post - If not me, who? - I would answer: the proper authorities or no-one, and the challenge is how to accept that.

 

[Bilby]

Can someone please explain to me, how actions that are entirely appropriate if the person is a "bogan" or "black", can be justified as being inappropriate if they are white and middle-class (or their parents are at least)? How is that not discriminatory? How is their behavior made appropriate by the circumstances in which they were born? Why am I forced to accept behavior I would punish elsewhere, simply because the perpetrators are spoiled little rich kids?

Some things are more socially acceptable in certain environments, whilst they are not socially acceptable within other environments. Put simply, there are different ways of life, different ways of 'enforcing' things in different cities, countries etc.

The way we interpret others intentions greatly affects the way we feel which affects our quality of life. And usually those around us too.

I think that's a very important point, Abstract.

No one is telling you that you cannot protect your property or your rights but doing it in an aggressive, authoritative and arrogant way can make you look like an arsehole yourself. This is where hypocrisy and double standards come in. You have set ways of thinking about how things should be and how they should be done. That is not every ones way, we know that, and some people can be arseholes, but it is not your job to teach them a lesson or try to change them into what you would like them to be.

Yes, I believe this to be an important point too and it relates to what Abstract was saying - if you take it on board as being your own personal mission to teach people a lesson, this affects your own quality of life (as it draws out negative feelings within yourself) and then that also affects those directly around you in your home.

What I've discovered is that not engaging with the perpetrators is more effective at reducing their behaviour than engaging with them would be. If you respond with aggression, then I think you're only fanning the flames, and should expect the behaviour to continue or get worse.

This has happened to me personally. Someone who does not live in my home, decided to take it upon themselves to threaten some people around my home who were acting in a manner that he did not like. End result? Huge graffiti on my fence the following day. To say I was pissed off is an understatement - but I was more angry at the person who had lashed out at the offenders, rather than the offenders themselves. To that point, they hadn't done anything to my property at all, THEN, they did.

 

[Abstract]

I really think that Bilby, Saffy and Hashi have said many very important and relevant things to you. They have pretty much said a lot of what I was thinking and was going to say myself.

I also agree with Intothelight that separating someone's behaviour and their actions is always a healthy stance.

As Saffy said I think you may be confusing what is appropriate in a position where one is enforcing the law and what is appropriate as a civilian. This occurred to me when I was reading your assertiveness thread as well.

As Hashi said you are behaving and thinking in very much the same way as those who you are against are probably thinking. And that most often aggression fuels aggression.

And this leads onto another point I was going to make. I have not got around to returning to your assertiveness thread again but I do think that some of the behaviour that you presently think of assertive is not assertive and is aggressive. And I am wondering if that is slightly influenced by this confusion about what is appropriate as a civilian.

These things preclude an interchange being assertive:
Swear words.
Personal comments.
Put downs.
Aggressive body language.
Sarcasm.
Aggressive tone of voice.
Any behaviour or body language that's intention is to intimidate, threaten, shame, induce fear or degrade and no matter how subtle.

Assertive behaviour considers both parties point of view and is non threatening.

You say that assertive behaviour can include consequences and I would agree. Assertive behaviour can progress in stages and lead to consequences but assertive behaviour never leads to threats. There is a huge differences between threats and consequences.

Lastly I think you are mostly wasting a lot of energy and making yourself miserable and angry and unnecessarily. Is it really worth it on a personal level? For you and your family. And considering your PTSD. Sometimes we can choose to view things from a different perspective for the sake of our own well being.

 

[AS1975]

Yeah, I'm interpreting the graffiti all over the back fence, I'm interpreting the broken glass, graffiti and wrecked shit all over the building behind our house, I'm interpreting the obnoxious little toads that ride skateboards on a public road, with no protective equipment, giving way to traffic only when it suits them. All that is interpretation apparently.

Fine, I've also had to live with watching, because one cannot get involved, people getting raped, stabbed and beaten to a pulp. I didn't enjoy it, but I am capable of doing it. No interpretation required.

See I thought I was doing the right thing trying to prevent this from starting in a nice, quiet neighbourhood. Apparently not, which is an issue as I always feel kind of bad not responding when people start screaming for help, just something else I'll have to learn in order to fit in I suppose.