![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jul. 19th, 2010 04:10 pm
Random lightbulb
For years, I've always been confused when I get really hostile reactions to some of the things I say or do that are designed (in my head) to be a way to keep a particular situation from devolving. I've never understood why saying something that boils down to, "hey, can we take a step back here and try to discuss this calmly?" makes people go completely off their nut.
I think I just got it: It's projection.
People who are always on the attack will automatically interpret any attempt to keep them from attacking as a counterattack, and not an attempt to disarm. Because their own intentions in these situations are always hostile, they assume hostile intentions in others who oppose them in any way.
It's the same thing, essentially, as people who claim that being asked not to discriminate is in itself a form of discrimination. For instance, anti-gay Christians who think that being prevented from discriminating equals an attack on their religion itself.
( Slightly scary personal example )
Really, this is a keenly libertarian (and childish) worldview: The idea that any attempt to prevent someone from causing harm is an unreasonable curtailment of their "freedom" and therefore an attack. It's really no different than a child deciding that her parents are "mean" because they won't let her throw dirt at her playmates.
Reasonable, mature adults who want to live in a civilized society don't act like that when they're asked to treat other people with respect, or to otherwise consider the needs of others before they act. They don't assume that they're entitled to do anything they want to no matter whom they may hurt, and cry foul when they're faced with consequences for doing so.
I think I just got it: It's projection.
People who are always on the attack will automatically interpret any attempt to keep them from attacking as a counterattack, and not an attempt to disarm. Because their own intentions in these situations are always hostile, they assume hostile intentions in others who oppose them in any way.
It's the same thing, essentially, as people who claim that being asked not to discriminate is in itself a form of discrimination. For instance, anti-gay Christians who think that being prevented from discriminating equals an attack on their religion itself.
( Slightly scary personal example )
Really, this is a keenly libertarian (and childish) worldview: The idea that any attempt to prevent someone from causing harm is an unreasonable curtailment of their "freedom" and therefore an attack. It's really no different than a child deciding that her parents are "mean" because they won't let her throw dirt at her playmates.
Reasonable, mature adults who want to live in a civilized society don't act like that when they're asked to treat other people with respect, or to otherwise consider the needs of others before they act. They don't assume that they're entitled to do anything they want to no matter whom they may hurt, and cry foul when they're faced with consequences for doing so.
