"That offends me." Words that should be taboo.
To be "judgmental" is kinda the opposite of having good judgment. It's seeing the wrong in people and not the right, an imbalance that in its extremes is bias. Still, if someone insults us or lies to us or steals from us or our partner is unfaithful and so on, aren't we justified in having bad thoughts about them? Thing is, bad thoughts achieve nothing and may harm us.
Also, one might try forgiving. It feels good. We can try to find ways to forgive, even without an apology or restitution. Generally our relationships are worth more than anything else, in particular our short-term feelings. Of course that doesn't mean we just forget: we learn, and it may alter our behavior. Learn to not leave money lying around sort of thing.
Maybe talk the event over in private and maybe make changes in the terms of the relationship. Also remember that we don't ever know the whole story of why the thing happened. We are all subject to desires of a short-term nature that may overwhelm our better judgment. That we should control these desires goes without saying, and therefore should not be said in such a conversation.
What in fact brings me to post this is that people sometimes get in the habit of constantly judging others, a habit that can ruin us. Society must "judge" criminals, but not us. It is not our position to mete out punishment either except in limited situations, and then neither we nor society has the right to decide someone is bad, but only to respond appropriately and compassionately to the actual offense. So if someone offends us with their appearance or mode of speech, or is fat or old or an alcoholic or other addict or has sticky fingers or boasts or gossips or is ostentatious or pedantic (like me), and so on, don't be offended, just be wisely ignorant (in other words you know, but you don't know). Remember compassion and that you do not know the whole story.
What you've written is genuinely wise, and the internal tensions you're navigating are the interesting part.
The core insight — that judgment as a habit corrodes the one doing the judging more than its targets — has deep roots. The Stoics made this case, Buddhism centers much of its ethics here, and modern psychology backs it up: chronic negative appraisal of others is associated with worse health outcomes, higher stress, and lower relationship satisfaction. The person stewing in resentment is the one suffering.
But you're honest about the hard cases, and that's where it gets philosophically rich. There's a meaningful distinction worth naming: evaluation versus condemnation. We cannot function without evaluation — it's how we navigate reality, choose trustworthy people, avoid harm. What you're identifying as problematic is condemnation: the totalizing verdict that someone is bad, rather than that they did something harmful. The thief isn't a thief-person, they're a person who stole, probably under pressures we don't fully see.
Your forgiveness point is undersold in popular culture, which tends to frame forgiveness as something you give the offender. It's not — or at least not primarily. It's something you do for yourself, releasing the ongoing cost of carrying the grievance. It requires no apology, no restitution, no continued relationship.
The "wisely ignorant" formulation is particularly sharp. It sidesteps the performance problem — pretending not to notice what you notice is dishonest and exhausting. You notice, you understand what it may mean, and you choose not to make it your business or your burden. That's not naivety; it's a practiced discipline.
The one place I'd gently push back: some expression of being offended, said plainly and once, can be an act of respect — treating the other person as capable of better. Silent forbearance, taken too far, can slide into a kind of condescension.
Your pushback is good, but I would put on my ballet slippers first. Obviously is someone is racist or similarly prejudiced, it may be our responsibility to let them know this is unacceptable. Just keep in mind it won't succeed.
The ballet slippers image is perfect — lightness of touch being the whole point.
And the pessimism about success is probably correct, at least in the short term. Direct confrontation of deeply held prejudice almost never produces the conversion we're hoping for in the moment. The psychology here is pretty well established: people dig in when challenged frontally, especially when identity is wrapped up in the belief. The backfire effect.
But your word "responsibility" is doing interesting work. If the goal isn't conversion, what is it? A few possibilities:
The witness function — saying plainly that this is not acceptable, not for their benefit but because silence implies consent. You speak for the room, not just yourself.
The seed function — which accepts that change, when it happens, usually happens slowly and from multiple directions over time. You may be one small input among many, the effect invisible to you.
The integrity function — you said what was true, regardless of outcome. That has value independent of whether it lands.
So responsibility without expectation of success is a coherent position. You do it because it's right, not because it will work. That actually requires more equanimity than staying quiet — you act, release the outcome, and don't make their response your measure of whether you did the right thing.
Which circles back to your original theme: the lightness of the ballet slipper is not weakness. It may be the only approach that has any chance at all — and even then, you hold that chance loosely.
In those rare cases one is preserving one's personal dignity and integrity, just try not to be holy.
Yes. Exactly that.
The moment you become visibly pleased with your own moral courage, you've lost something — probably the argument, certainly the high ground. Righteousness has a smell, and people can detect it before you've finished the sentence. It closes the very opening you were hoping to create.
There's also something self-undermining about holiness in this context. If the point is that we shouldn't totalize others — shouldn't reduce them to their worst moment or worst belief — then performing outrage does exactly that. It makes them the sinner and you the saint, which is precisely the kind of judgment you've been arguing against.
The most effective version of what you're describing is almost casual. Matter-of-fact. "I don't see it that way" carries more weight than a speech, partly because it doesn't give the other person a role to play in your drama. There's nothing to push against.
Which is hard, because when something genuinely offends us, we want to feel the feeling fully and have it witnessed. Restraining that is a real discipline. But the alternative — the righteous performance — tends to be more about our own feelings than about any actual effect in the world.
So: speak, briefly, without theater, and move on. The ballet slippers again.
No comments:
Post a Comment