learnteach: (helmhead)
learnteach ([personal profile] learnteach) wrote2006-02-02 11:37 am

Unreasonable

It seems to me that in many relationships, that being unreasonable wins and is a good strategy, mathematically speaking.

This comes to me after reading about the threats to all westerners by gun carrying men in the Gaza, who claim that they are insulted because a few European papers printed a charicature of their religous figure. Now it's all over the news, and they're rioting in the streets.

In the matters of the various political moves in America, it seems unreasonable to me to use the rules to get your way--but that's the way the game is now playes.

Reasonable...what does it mean? It means to do the expected thing, the polite thing, the thing you're told to do as a child. Not to throw bottles onto the roller derby arena. Not to scream at people to get your way, or to treat them as your lessors.

But it's a tactic that works, because those who avoid challenge will think thrice before going up against your unreasonable position. And those who think of a chivalrous response--my definition of chivalry being that you respond at the appropriate level to the insult--are horrified.

Armed gunmen in the street being threatening? Arrest them with force and jail them. But they lose nothing (because they have nothing, but their lives, a community that is willing to expend them, and a gun. Also...the knowledge that they will gain respect. And what else?

In my personal life, being reasonable makes me easier to get along with. But not, I think, as much fun, nor as true to myself.

This week, I will be less reasonable.

[identity profile] anthraxia.livejournal.com 2006-02-02 11:52 pm (UTC)(link)
Someitmes, particularly within the SCA, we define "good" as not doing something to upset or challenge another. With the result that bad behaviour that is done through ignorance or lack of boundaries never gets addressed until it is well beyond serious. In other words, because we are all nice, honourable, chivalric people, we won't turn around and challenge another person about their smoking next to the list field, or their uber-modern sunglasses, or their talking on a mobile phone three feet away from the Queen - or their habit of yelling down anyone who challenges their interpretation of their religeous text, or their absolute condemnation of a lifestyle and belief system that is different to their own without knowing very much about it - and so the only time when we do step in to "interfere" is when it is about to blow up (or more sadly, has just blown up, metaphorically or, worse, literally).

My answer is we need to learn that nice does not mean quiet, good does not mean doormat, and education is not the same as confrontation.

Within an SCA context - part of a Peers oath is "to speak and to be silent" - yes, there are times you just bite your tongue and you shut up. There are times you stop the rot and the bad gossip by not passing it on. There are times you do not tell about an issue.
But the first one is to speak - to say "this is wrong", to point out to someone "my lord/lady, thy strange manner may distress the Queen, pray put away thy amulet" or to say "Before you start screaming about X's intentions, what do really know about X?"

I believe that one of the definitions of wisdom is knowing when to speak and when to be slient. And one of the marks of courage is actually doing it.