Showing posts with label natural consequences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label natural consequences. Show all posts

Thursday, June 04, 2020

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition XIV

19. If you're giving advice on how to make or fix something, and you say you can do it with "things you have around the house", you are required to provide those things to anyone in your audience who doesn't already have them around the house. You aren't allowed access to those things in your own home until everyone in your audience has them.

Tuesday, December 04, 2018

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition XIII

18. Some people have trouble coping with certain distressing possibilities, so, to get through the day, they delude themselves into thinking that the distressing possibilities can't possibly happen to them, because of their circumstances or because they're sufficiently diligent.

Examples: "I won't get sick because I eat all the right superfoods and do all the right asanas!"  "I won't be raped because I dress modestly!" "I won't ever be a refugee because I'm a regular person living in a developed country!"

This part I don't take issue with.  Life is hard and the world sucks, do what you have to do to get through the day as long as it doesn't do any harm

The problem is when it starts doing harm.  Some people feel the need to reinforce their self-delusion by inflicting it on others assholicly, and sometimes even by advocating for assholic policy.

Examples: "Your mother died? She should have eaten more superfoods!" Which later escalates to "My taxes shouldn't have to pay for health care because people wouldn't need health care if they were responsible enough to just eat the right foods!"  Or "Those people say they're refugees but they have smartphones! They must be frauds - deport them!"

So I propose a natural consequence: if the self-delusion you resort to because you can't cope with distressing possibilities leads you to behave assholicly, you are sentenced to the very distressing possibility you fear.

I do realize this is a very severe sentence, so it's a three strikes rule.  The first two times you do it, you get a very stern warning that makes the offending actions and the future consequences quite clear to you.  (Q: How? A: Through the same omnipotent magic that enforces all of my natural consequences, of course!)  Then, the third time, you're sentenced to the very horror you dread.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition XII

17. If you do something assholic out of ignorance, you have to read a book or article or watch a movie or otherwise consume a piece of media chosen by the victim of your assholicness.

The victim doesn't have to assign you your reading right away. They retain the option of assigning you reading at any point in the future, or not at all.  (The purpose here is to avoid imposing upon the victim the additional burden of figuring out how to educate you, while leaving the door open for if they ever stumble upon the exact thing that would address your ignorance.)

Possible variation: if the total time the victim is affected by your ignorant assholicness exceeds the amount of time it takes you to consume the media, they are permitted to assign you multiple pieces of media to consume, with a total consumption time equal to the amount of time they were affected by your ignorant assholicness.

Another possible variation: the victim can appoint a proxy to assign you your reading.

The reading can, of course, include anything the victim has written. I'm also open to it including a face-to-face conversation, but the interpersonal dynamics of a face-to-face "This is why what you are doing is wrong" conversation can be difficult and put the person whose behaviour needs to change on the defensive.

I know that when I, personally, do something assholic out of ignorance, I want to learn how to do better. And I know that it is a burden to ask people who are already suffering from my ignorance to do the additional work of educating me. If they could just give me something to read, whenever they happen to stumble upon something that would do the job, that would relieve the burden from both of us.

And, as an added bonus, people who are being intentionally assholic but claiming innocent ignorance would come away with homework.

Sunday, July 17, 2016

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition XI

16. Some people seem to be under the impression that people can choose their feelings. They then go and give advice to others on that assumption.

I suppose it might be possible that some people can choose their feelings, but not everyone can. So advice to choose to feel a certain way is completely useless to someone who can't choose their feelings.

Therefore, people who give advice on the assumption that everyone can choose their feelings to people who can't choose their feelings lose the ability to choose their feelings until the issue on which they were giving advice is solved. Sentences to be served consecutively.

Actually, let's extend this: anyone who gives advice that assumes that the advisee has skills or resources that they don't actually have is denied use of those skills or resources (or their own equivalent) until such time as the issue is solved. Sentences to be served consecutively.

If the advisor acknowledges in their advice that the advisee may not actually have the skills or  resources and they're just throwing out ideas until something sticks, that's fine, no consequences necessary. But if the advisor takes as a given that the advisee clearly has those things and doesn't even consider the possibility that they aren't available, the advisor is denied the use of those things or their equivalent in the advisor's own life.

For example: "Does your university have a student health clinic? If they do, that would probably be a good starting point" is acceptable.

But if you say "Just go to the student health clinic!" when the advisee's university doesn't have one, you are not allowed access to your primary medical care until the advisee's health issue is resolved.

Sunday, June 05, 2016

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition X

15. Men who catcall people who don't want to be catcalled are sentenced to losing the ability to get an erection for as long as their target remembers or is negatively affected by the catcall.  The impotence to which they are sentenced is so great that it cannot be overcome by viagra or any other medical technology. Sentences will be served consecutively.

(I'm open to adding a natural consequence for women who catcall people who don't want to be catcalled, but I can't think of one that's equivalent. The obvious choice - losing the ability to become sexually aroused or to perform sexually - doesn't seem like it would have an equivalent emotional/psychological impact.)

Friday, January 15, 2016

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition IX

14. If you complain that someone is doing X instead of Y when X and Y are in no way incompatible or mutually exclusive (e.g. "Instead of wasting your time campaigning for social justice, you should be getting an education"), you are banned for 24 hours from benefiting from multi-tasking (your own or anyone else's).  No watching TV while cooking, no reading on the subway, no listening to music while working out, nothing.

If you complain that X is being done instead of Y when X and Y are the responsibility of completely separate individuals or organizations (e.g. "Why are they putting all these resources into settling refugees instead of getting the traffic lights to sync up properly?"), you are banned for 24 hours from benefiting from the work of more than one individual or organization at once. No texting while you get your hair done, no eating dishes composed of multiple different foods, no enjoying both electricity and running water at once.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition VIII

I was trying to brainstorm this one a while back, but a simple, elegant solution came to me in the shower.

12.  If you lie to someone about their own thoughts, feelings, motives or experiences, you have to shut up for 24 hours. You are not allowed to talk in the presence of the person to whom you lied about themselves during this time. If the lie was communicated by mass media or another non-verbal medium, you're not allowed to use the medium in question in a way that will enter their sphere of awareness for the next 24 hours.  So if you tweeted the lie, you can't tweet for 24 hours. If you mentioned it in a TV interview, you can't talk on TV for 24 hours.  (So if you're a politician campaigning, be careful when you say "Torontonians want X")

For every subsequent offence, this 24-hour period is doubled (e.g. 48 hours for the second offence, 96 hours for the third offence, etc.)

The person to whom you lied about themselves is has the discretion to permit you to respond to a direct query on a case by case basis, but if you lie to them during this time it counts as a subsequent offence, and the punishment for the subsequent offence is doubled.  Sentences are served consecutively. (e.g. If, during the 24-hour period following your first lie, they give you permission to respond to a direct query and you lie to them about themselves in your response, you have to serve another 96 hours after the first 24 hours expires.)


13. Sometimes, people who say assholic things claim that they're the only one brave enough to express that opinion, when in reality no one else is even thinking those assholic thoughts.

People who do this should be treated like they're too cowardly to do every single thing that it has never occurred to them to do, with whatever the attendant social consequences of not being brave are in their circle.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Help write the next New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition

Last week's Carolyn Hax chat mentions in various places parents scolding adult children with variations on "That's not how I raised you!" (They're scattered throughout the chat - easiest way to find them is by doing a Ctrl+F for "raise".)

This statement does a lot of things.  It disregards the adult child's very selfhood by treating their choices like nothing more than the result of the parent's input rather than being a function of their own personality and decisions and humanity.  But then it turns around and, with tone and delivery blames and scolds the adult child for the input not having been adequate to produce the desired output.

If you point out this logical fallacy by pointing out that, within that framework, it's the parents fault that they didn't get the desired outcome and therefore not something to scold the adult child about, you're accepting the parent's premise that the adult child isn't a human being with their own selfhood and is instead merely the result of the parent's input.  If you point out that when you have a human child the result is an autonomous human being, that simply intensifies whatever they're scolding about in the first place.

It's dehumanizing and based on a logical fallacy that feeds upon itself.  I think it needs a natural consequence but can't think of one at the moment.

Ideas?

Saturday, October 17, 2015

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition VII

11. If Driver A honks at Driver B in a situation where moving would cause Driver B to crash into something or someone, Driver A (and their vehicle and their property) instantly sustain the cumulative total of whatever damage would have been sustained by Driver B and innocent bystanders (and any other vehicles or property) if Driver B had moved in the way Driver A wished.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition VI

10. If you don't understand the difference between "required to" and "permitted to", and therefore advocate for policies requiring people to do things when policies permitting people to do those things would be sufficient to achieve your goals, you are henceforth required to do everything that you were previously simply permitted to do.

The penalty for failing to meet these new requirements is commensurate with whatever the penalty for failing to meet the requirements would have been in the policy you were advocating for.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Things They Should Invent Words (and Natural Consequences) For

We need a word and natural consequences for that thing where people assume that the goal/motivation behind a particular action of yours is different from your actual goal/motivation, and then lecture you because that action isn't to achieve the goal that they've unilaterally attributed to you (which you aren't even trying to achieve in the first place).

Examples:

"You shouldn't buy those Cortland apples.  You should buy Gala instead because they're organic."

Except my goal isn't to eat what's most optimally healthy or environmentally friendly, my motivation is to eat what's most yummy to me.

"You shouldn't buy that used widget on ebay.  You can get newer widgets for cheaper at Big Box Store."

Except my goal isn't to get the cheapest widget, it's to get the specific widget that's worked for me in the past when other widgets haven't.

"You shouldn't buy a new condo. The maintenance costs will go way up."  

Except my goal isn't to have maintenance costs that never go up, my goal is to live in a brand new building in a suite that no one else has ever lived in before.

Any ideas for names for this phenomenon or attendant natural consequences?

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition V

9. If you tell someone (or say about someone) that they should just get a job, as though it's that simple, you're required to hire them.  You must hire them to do something they're capable of doing (or that you're willing to train them to do) and pay them enough to make it worth their while.

Oh, what's that?  You don't have any work that needs doing?  Or you couldn't afford to pay them reasonable compensation for the work that does need doing?

Exactly.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Help write the next New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition!

I have a series of posts called New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition, in which I propose natural consequences rules for various behaviours that really should have consequences.

There's one behaviour for which I really would like to introduce natural consequences, but I haven't been able to think of anything yet.  That behaviour is:

Lying to people about their own thoughts, feelings, motivations, or experiences.

This is probably my greatest pet peeve, so I want to give it a really good consequence.  But nothing is coming immediately to mind.  Any ideas?

Sunday, May 05, 2013

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition IV

(Previous editions can be found here.)

Inspired by Sir Anthony Strallan on Downton Abbey and by the boyfriend of the first letter-writer here:

8.  If someone deprives you of something with the excuse "You can do better", (without taking into consideration whether you actually can do better, or whether you want whatever it is they consider to be "better"), you're allowed to deprive them of something.

So if the person you love pulls a Sir Anthony on you and abandons you with the excuse "You deserve better than me", you can say "Okay, you deserve better than cheese.  You aren't ever allowed to eat cheese again."

Sunday, December 09, 2012

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition III

This post is a follow-up to this and this.

7. Anyone who replies to a complaint about life's unfairness with "Well, life isn't fair" will thenceforth only get a restatement of the problem in response to any complaint they make.

"My foot hurts."
"Well, your foot hurts."

"Damn, I spilled my coffee everywhere!"
"Well, you spilled your coffee everywhere."

"This widget I purchased doesn't work properly."
"Well, this widget doesn't work properly."

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition II

As an addendum to this post:

6. Sometimes, when you ask for advice on how to find someone to provide a service you've never dealt with before (real estate agent/therapist/plumber/financial advisor), people tell you "Ask around!" or "Ask your friends!"  Even though if you're having that conversation, you're already asking around.  Therefore, anyone who suggests "ask around" to someone who's already asking around, or who suggests "ask your friends" to someone whose friends don't have an answer is thenceforth personally responsible for finding the asker what they need.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

New Rules: natural consequences edition

1. People who talk about marriage as though it's something a person can do unilaterally should be forced to marry the last person they dumped. If they haven't dumped anyone, they should be forced to marry the last person they rejected, even if it's that homeless guy who shouts crude suggestions at everybody.

2. Everyone who says "can't you take a joke?" is deducted one good laugh from their life for every time they utter that phrase.

3. People who disparage others' preferences with "it's only a phase" are banned from indulging their own equivalent preferences until the alleged phase is over. For example, someone who says that your being childfree is only a phase is banned from having children until you do (or, if they already have children, they're banned from having grandchildren). Someone who says that my being vegetarian is only a phase is banned from eating meat until I do. Someone who disparages their kid's taste in music is prohibited from listening to their own favourite music until their kid's taste changes.

4.  People who state as a given that something exists without providing a suitable concrete example are banned from using their equivalent of the something until their interlocutor gets the promised something.  For example, someone who says "There must be plenty of jobs for someone with your skill set" (or even someone who says "Just get a job" as though you can just get a job) is banned from enjoying the financial and social benefits of having job until their interlocutor finds a job.  Someone who says of their friend's relationship "You can do better" is banned from having any sort of sexual or romantic relationship until someone enters their friend's life who is better (by the friend's definition) and is interested in a relationship with the friend.  The people who criticized It Gets Betters that advised moving to the city are required to live with all the hell of adolescence until the it gets better for the rural kid who's reading It Gets Better.

5. Adults who refer to kids as "little" when the kid doesn't want to be referred to that way are to be treated with exactly as much respect as they have for the child in question for the next 24 hours. (This was inspired by a relative who referred to her children's friends as "their little friends" even when the friends in question were all in their teens.)