Tuesday, 7 November 2023

Post No. 2,630 - Telling truth - and the excuses people make to avoid doing so [Content Warning - language, bigotry, challenging flawed thinking/personal hypocrisy]

When I was a kid at a sailing club in central coastal Queensland in the 1970s, the normal practice was that everyone would be briefed late morning, in sufficient time to sail out to the course for their fleet (there were only two: the juniors sailed inside the harbour, the seniors all shared one set of buoys outside), and everyone knew what combination of types of laps they needed to do (or should - in the middle of one national championship, we found out someone didn't know what a windward-return was ... ). 

One day, for a bit of variety, the course for the senior fleet was different - down to and around a buoy near and island well to the south of the harbour. During the briefing, they said quite clearly which way to go round the marker buoy, and were silent about which way to go around the small islands. That seemed fairly clear to me that we could go either way, so it was a test of our ability to work out winds and currents around islands (and shoals).

However, someone asked specifically which way they had to go round the islands, and the reply was “we're not saying anything about that”. 

It was basically a test of how much people were sticklers for listening to and following “the letter of the law” in any instructions - including taking advantage of what wasn’t said. 

I get a bit annoyed by such attitudes - which I basically consider a mild form of entrapment: it hurts no-one to say “you can choose whichever way to go that you want”, and that is clearer, better communication. 

So ... skip ahead a year or two, and the very same briefing officer said, at a briefing, “you can ask us anything you want, and we will answer your question”. 

Well no, that wasn’t the case, because of the race to the south and around islands, and I piped up and said so. 

And that’s when things got a bit awkward - basically because the briefing officer tried to deny, then to downplay that previous event, which was, to my way of thinking, a lie. 

If they had said “yes, there was that one, but that was the one exception to our rule. From here on, all questions will be answered”, they would have kept - in my opinion - their credibility. 

As it was, they just seemed ... inept, or lacking self awareness/honesty (now, I might refer to “cognitive dissonance”). They seemed, to teenage me back then, to be following a formula - as if someone had said “oh! This sort of philosophy sounds good, we should do this”, which is OK, but ... the pretence that they had always been doing that is problematic. 

Being blunt about it, it is an escapist fantasy to replace a less than perfect past with someone that we wish had happened (yes, I am including myself in this flaw). 

This sort of problem also occurs - topically, here in Australia, given recent tragic outcomes from the Voice referendum - with people wanting to avoid acknowledge that their forebears could have been involved in racist abuses (let alone what the person concerned is doing now ... this form of escapism is part of why some people invent fantasies [“excuses”] along the lines of “it’s only racism [or some other form of bigotry/hate] if consciously chosen”, which is BS).

This sort of response is also similar to those who, when challenged on something (e.g., gender stereotypes), have evidently conflated “doing what our parents taught” with “I have thought about that”.

(Needless to say, they haven’t. I am thinking of crafting a “definition” of conflation ... ) 

Now, coming up to the present day, where I am exploring my being an undiagnosed autistic, I can see some people might try to write my perspective off as “oh, that’s just autism”. 

Yes, it is being neurodivergent, but no, that does not mean it can or should be dismissed: this perspective should be treasured, accepted, and used to drive learning (increased awareness/broader perspective) and CHANGE for the better. 

Especially if they are running businesses or organisations ... 


Here’s a few YouTube links that might help with the latter point: 


Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:

  • there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;  
  • I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.

 

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below, and there’s also Instagram. 

Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our Mӕgan, and to acknowledge that all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk.


 


 

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,