Something earlier I read got me thinking. Consider this:
Statement1: I would like more civility
The protagonist sees: I'm being dealt with uncivilly and I would like to see more civility
The antagonist sees: I'm being accused of being uncivil and the protaginist would rather not have me here
Statement2: I would like more decency
The protagonist sees: I'm being dealt with indecently and would like more decency
The antagonist sees: I'm being accused of being indecent and the protagonist would rather not have me here
To me the second statement antagnoist stance seems more ridiculous than the first and I got to thinking why that was to me.
I believe it's because whatever stance we're talking about more people have the assumption that others are at least decent people.
This leads me to believe that decency is more of a qualifier for what's considered basic human morality than civility is. Maybe civility isn't a desired trait in every environment but decency is expected. Their only difference being connotation according to some definitions.
This also leads me to believe that people step into the protagonist/antagonist role and personalize words and their meanings. Perhaps this is the root of the phrase "taking it (too) personal". idk, just my thoughts.
The protagonist makes it about them and sees incivility and indecency as personal attacks on them, instead of that being just how that opponent is, or how the environment is.
The antagonist makes the same assertion and sees if as an attack on their character/behavior rather than it being just a desire or unproven stance.
IDK, maybe everyone's just cracra, this is definately the 3 lbs of food talking. I'll have to get back to the other couple of threads after nappynap, just wanted to get this thought down.
Statement1: I would like more civility
The protagonist sees: I'm being dealt with uncivilly and I would like to see more civility
The antagonist sees: I'm being accused of being uncivil and the protaginist would rather not have me here
Statement2: I would like more decency
The protagonist sees: I'm being dealt with indecently and would like more decency
The antagonist sees: I'm being accused of being indecent and the protagonist would rather not have me here
To me the second statement antagnoist stance seems more ridiculous than the first and I got to thinking why that was to me.
I believe it's because whatever stance we're talking about more people have the assumption that others are at least decent people.
This leads me to believe that decency is more of a qualifier for what's considered basic human morality than civility is. Maybe civility isn't a desired trait in every environment but decency is expected. Their only difference being connotation according to some definitions.
This also leads me to believe that people step into the protagonist/antagonist role and personalize words and their meanings. Perhaps this is the root of the phrase "taking it (too) personal". idk, just my thoughts.
The protagonist makes it about them and sees incivility and indecency as personal attacks on them, instead of that being just how that opponent is, or how the environment is.
The antagonist makes the same assertion and sees if as an attack on their character/behavior rather than it being just a desire or unproven stance.
IDK, maybe everyone's just cracra, this is definately the 3 lbs of food talking. I'll have to get back to the other couple of threads after nappynap, just wanted to get this thought down.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
