The value of just walking away

[JohnKSa]

I'm not creating a confrontation if I ask someone to stop doing something that most would consider rude or inconsiderate.

This is only true if your definition of "confrontation" is one that you made up yourself. If you challenge someone's behavior, you have confronted them and therefore have created a confrontation where none existed before.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confront
con·front transitive verb \kən-ˈfrənt\
Definition of CONFRONT
1: to face especially in challenge : oppose <confront an enemy>
2a : to cause to meet : bring face-to-face <confront a reader with statistics> b : to meet face-to-face : encounter <confronted the possibility of failure>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confrontation
con·fron·ta·tion noun \ˌkän-(ˌ)frən-ˈtā-shən\
Definition of CONFRONTATION
: the act of confronting : the state of being confronted: as a : a face-to-face meeting
b : the clashing of forces or ideas : conflict
c : comparison <the flashbacks bring into meaningful confrontation present and past, near and far — R. J. Clements>

Taking your position to the extreme...

Taking any position to the extreme results in nonsensical conclusions. It's not a constructive thing to do.

Being prepared for a low probability event doesn't negate accepting risk when dealing with other humans. Walking out the front door is a risk, hell - taking a bath is a risk.

That's correct. And we prepare for that risk, however low the probability. That's exactly why I'm suggesting that it's a very good idea to keep the risk in mind when we consider creating a confrontation.

Based on the majority of the replies here it is obvious we have already lost the battle and it's just a matter of time before we cower in our homes.

Not at all. If you read my last post, you would have seen this comment.

"I think we all understand that there are thresholds that can be crossed at which point it's no longer possible to turn our backs and ignore something, but generally speaking, when something truly rises to that level, it's possible to summon the authorities to deal with the situation."​

Either way, it's important to understand that we're taking on some risk when we create a confrontation. Just because we determine that we really can't stand by and do nothing in a situation doesn't mean that the risk magically disappears. More importantly, it should guide us in our decision as to whether something is really worth creating a confrontation or if it's merely another opportunity for us to practice tolerance and patience.

I've said it in a slightly different context before, but the chances of being attacked have nothing to do with the amount of firepower I need if attacked.

The point isn't how much firepower you need, the point is that if you admit that you consider low probability events worth considering, then it makes sense for you to be consistent. If you prepare for the low probability event of a violent attacky by carrying a gun, then it doesnt' make sense to ignore the risk of a confrontation escalating to violence because you assess that the probability of that happening is low.

There are risks in everything you do in life. Most sports carry with them an inherent risk. Should I avoid the ocean because I might drown? Should I avoid snowboarding because I might break my leg or neck?

Yes, risks are ever-present. It's one thing to say that you have assessed the risk and taken reasonable precautions and decided to go on in spite of the risk. It's another thing to say that you don't believe the risk should be considered because the chances of a negative outcome are very low. As I said before, sometimes it's a lot more about the magnitude of the penalty/cost than it is about the odds.

The problem with this concept is that the takeaway is to never interract with strangers, because anything you do or don't do can be perceived as disrespect by someone who wants an excuse to fight.

No, the takeway is that we need to keep in mind that confronting people carries risk and that we need to consider if running that risk is worthwhile in light of the potential benefit of creating the confrontation.

The problem is, not knowing what may or may not set someone off, your best option is to not interract with them at all.

The SAFEST option is not to confront them if you don't have to. That may not always be an acceptable option, as I've alluded to. Sometimes you have to take action. But let's not do so under the impression that we can/should ignore the risk because the odds of a negative outcome are small.

Therein lies the trouble. The idea that we have some right to do this in a public context is misguided and flawed in the first place.

I would go so far as to say that we not only have the right, we even have the responsibility to do so, in extreme cases. The problem comes when we pretend that loud music at a gas station rises to the same level as criminal behavior, when we decide that our personal irritation is sufficient to justify appointing ourselves to the positions of legislator, and enforcer.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Loud music is not an imposition of will. Loud music does not control your actions. Loud music is not a directive from someone for you to do something they want. I'm sorry Creature, your claim is just ridiculous.

 

[Fotno]

I am what they call in my neck of the woods, a 'big ol boy'; 6'4" and in my prime 225 pounds of pretty solid muscle. When I was a much younger man, I used to enjoy going to bars/saloons/clubs for a drink or several. After the fifth or sixth fight I was challenged to simply because my head stuck up above most everybody elses' in the joint, I quit going to bars. I wasn't that I enjoyed a drink or live music any less, it's that going to a club became more trouble than it was worth. I knew if I kept going, somebody was going to get seriously hurt, or in legal trouble, or both. I did not want that person to be me. For me it's all about cost/benefit analysis.

Discretion is truly the better part of valor; and there are times when what's being fought over just isn't worth the price that will have to be paid.

 

[Fotno]

Not to mention, that every time some hot-head shoots someone when he had another, better option, it makes it that much easier for the anti-gun folks to win their argument.

 

[Skribs]

The point isn't how much firepower you need, the point is that if you admit that you consider low probability events worth considering, then it makes sense for you to be consistent. If you prepare for the low probability event of a violent attacky by carrying a gun, then it doesnt' make sense to ignore the risk of a confrontation escalating to violence because you assess that the probability of that happening is low.

There's cost/benefit analysis here. There is very little cost to me carrying a gun, aside from monetary. It does not prevent me from doing things, with the exception that I have disarm in certain places. If someone is imposing on me, that is a different situation.

It's like "there's a risk of disease from not washing your hands before you eat" and "there's a risk of disease from hiking in the woods". Are you going to wash your hands before you eat? Are you going to stop hiking in the woods? (Assuming you enjoy the later, of course).

No, the takeway is that we need to keep in mind that confronting people carries risk and that we need to consider if running that risk is worthwhile in light of the potential benefit of creating the confrontation.

This is a better way of saying what maybe some people in this thread mean. The attitude I get, however, is that you shouldn't even confront people because of this risk.

Loud music is not an imposition of will. Loud music does not control your actions. Loud music is not a directive from someone for you to do something they want. I'm sorry Creature, your claim is just ridiculous.

He said we're NOT talking about imposition of will, but rather about things like music so loud it damages ears, etc. That said, while the driver/DJ might have the right to listen to loud music, I have the right to desire peace and quiet. Especially if the music is at eardrum-bursting level, I'm surprised that the gun enthusiasts who thump hearing protection into our skulls (literally and figuratively) don't consider the noise pollution to be a problem.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

It's not whether or not I believe something to be a problem. It's about whether my considerations or desires are any more valid in public than anyone else's. They're not. If the music is loud enough to cause hearing damage, it's probably also in violation of a local ordnance. If not, than I have say in the matter.

I'll say it again. Your standard of behavior, code of ethics, idea of what's proper etc are yours and yours alone. Once in public, your ideas are no more valid than anyone else's. It might be infuriating, it might turn your stomach. It might make you shake your head in disgust at the things other people enjoy.

But that's the price of living in a free society of laws. If something is legal, have at it. Don't like it? Go some place else. If you get enough people to agree with your ideas of what's proper public behavior, go pass a law. If not, suck it up and bear it like an adult.

 

[Fotno]

...The attitude I get, however, is that you shouldn't even confront people because of this risk....

I won't try to speak for anyone else, but 'risk' is the only reason I don't confront people. If I knew ahead of time that every comment and request would be met with instant compliance and a pleasant 'Why thank you sir, I hadn't noticed I was creating a problem', I'd do it all the time. However, the knowledge that confrontations often take a turn for the worst is precisely why I do so little of it.

I confront people when I don't have other options.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: It's really sad that nowadays a polite request for someone to consider the feelings of others is being brought up as a bad idea because the other person might get offended.

That's not the point at all.

The points are two-fold:

1. In public, we have to consider the rights of all; and
2. depending upon the circumstances, it may not be at all prudent to confront someone on the basis of a minor and temporary affront, because of the risk of injury and/or a most unfortunate and drawn out aftermath.

The attitude I get, and its an attitude I detest, is that my feelings and rights are less important than those of a person who is doing something to offend me, because it is tactically viable to elevate his rights above mine. I do not agree with the philosophy behind that position.

You have missed the point again.

Reflect upon the following:

1. One who is doing something that offends someone else may be within his rights; the individual does not make that decision;
2. When it comes to matters of public order and peace disturbance and the like, there are those who may be summoned if necessary to enforce order.
3. Not starting a confrontation is not just "tactically viable'; it may prove to have been essential to maintaining one's safety, clean record, personal fortune, and personal liberty.

In normal relationships with responsible persons, simple, polite requests, properly framed and possibly, clearly explained, are the preferred, civilized way to go about things.

But when the offense, perceived or real, is perpetrated by a stranger, and particularly by a stranger who has already demonstrated a propensity to disregard the feelings of others or who may have done so to make a point, it is unlikely that even the most polite request will engender the desired result. And the result just could be irreversible.

I have every right to so. I have the right to be offended and speak up, and the other guy has the right to appease me, be offended, and/or ignore my request.

Yes. And should you happen choose to exercise that right at the wrong time and in the wrong place, the other guy may do much more than that.

Remember four words: Avoid, De-escalate, Evade, Escape, Monkey, and Dance.

Posted by Creature: The topic is about NOT allowing someone else to impose their desires/will over mine. Loud music damaging my ears...someone cutting in line ahead of me, etc.

It is not up to the individual to decide what is acceptable--what is to be allowed--in a public place.

 

[RustHunter87]

you guys are going in circles

 

[JohnKSa]

ere's cost/benefit analysis here. There is very little cost to me carrying a gun, aside from monetary. It does not prevent me from doing things, with the exception that I have disarm in certain places.

That is an excellent point. Ignoring someone's boorish behavior costs you even less than carrying a gun does. You don't have to learn and abide by any special laws, you don't have to purchase a gun and a holster, it doesn't cause extra wear on your clothing, all it costs you is a little irritation.

If someone is imposing on me, that is a different situation.

It's a different situation for ONLY one reason, and here it is:

Assuming you enjoy the later, of course.

The key is that you want to tell people when they irritate you and so you are willing to dismiss, without proper consideration, the risk doing so entails.

The attitude I get, however, is that you shouldn't even confront people because of this risk.

Well, if your overarching goal is to avoid having to get into a deadly force scenario, then it is true you should stop confronting people because of the risk. As I have pointed out more than once, I think we all understand that in some extreme cases it's not possible to ignore something and it's necessary to take a stand. So risk isn't the only consideration. But it should be the primary consideration in virtually any of the scenarios thrown out as examples on this thread (loud music, cutting in line, etc.).

...music so loud it damages ears...

So you're saying that the logical solution to this is to go closer to the source of ear damaging music to tell them to turn it down? If someone is playing their music so loud that you reasonably fear it's damaging your ears, I recommend you take the following actions.

1. Cover your ears while you retreat to a safe distance.
2. Call the authorities. If it's really loud enough to damage hearing, I have no doubt that a police officer will see the prudence in asking them to turn it down.

The only reason that this is even being debated is that we (humans) like to believe that a little bit of irritation is sufficient to justify appointing ourselves to the positions of legislator, and enforcer.

 

[xXxplosive]

Could someone here demonstrate this "Monkey Dance" so I'll know it when I see it.

 

[mljdeckard]

I agree that his is an undervalued discipline upon which everyone who carries should place maximum discipline.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Could someone here demonstrate this "Monkey Dance" so I'll know it when I see it.

http://nwmartialarts.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/violence-dynamics-the-monkey-dance/

Violence Dynamics: The Monkey Dance
Posted on May 19, 2011

One of the things I like about Rory Miller’s writing is how he describes violence. There are different types of violence, and they require different responses. Just knowing that isn’t sufficient, but it’s a necessary first step.

His new article goes into some detail on one of the more common types of social violence, the Monkey Dance. Everyone has seen it, and if you were a young man at some point, I’m 100% confident you’ve personally been in the middle of it. As common as this may be, it’s still good material to read and understand “academically”. Knowing it helps you recognize it (easy to recognize when you’re outside the situation, less so when you’re in the middle of it), and if you recognize it you can avoid it easily. If you’re a martial artist, just consider this part of your training.

A small excerpt:

This human dominance game, the Monkey Dance, follows specific steps. You have all seen it:

A hard, aggressive stare.
A verbal challenge, e.g., “What you lookin’ at?”
An approach, often with the signs of increased adrenaline: gross motor activity of arm swinging or chest bobbing, a change in color, usually with the skin flushing.
As the two square-off, there may be more verbal exchanges and then one will make contact. It will usually be a two-handed push on the chest or an index finger to the chest. If it is an index finger to the nose it will go immediately to step No. 5. If there is no face contact, this step can be repeated many times until one of the dancers throws
A big, looping over-hand punch.
This description is simplified and shows only one side. It must be emphasized that there have been thousands of generations conditioned to play this game in this way. It is easy to get sucked in and a very difficult thing to walk away. Backing down from a Monkey Dance, unless you take or are given a face-saving out, is extremely difficult and embarrassing, especially for young men.

More:

http://ymaa.com/articles/violence-dynamics

http://laguardianangels.org/fear-pride-monkey-brain-and-not-stepping-on-your-dick/

Etc.

Or buy the book - http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-V..._B002M54CNW_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1354318162&sr=1-2

 

[Sam1911]

The attitude I get, and its an attitude I detest, is that my feelings and rights are less important than those of a person who is doing something to offend me, because it is tactically viable to elevate his rights above mine. I do not agree with the philosophy behind that position.

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." -- Marion Morrison (John Wayne)

"The night of the fight, you may feel a slight sting. That's pride <messing> with you. <Screw> pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps. " -- Marcellus Wallace

Unless you have a medical condition that makes it dangerous for you to be in the presence of loud music, and you have some physical constraint that requires you to be -- and remain -- within a dangerous to you range of the source of that music, then you're deciding that your desire to be without that music at that volume is more important that the other person's desire to enjoy it at that volume. That may be a perfectly legitimate decision, in your eyes, but be honest in understanding that it is the act of elevating yourself above another. (Or "equal to" another in your view, but yours isn't the only view in play.)

So when you say you don't accept the submerging of "my feelings and rights" below someone else's, that's pride, by textbook definition, and pride is a really bad reason to kill, or to die.

(Just for yukks, do a search on questions of "honor." All the same thing.)

Someone once said that a righteous person who carries a weapon becomes the most meek, most mild-mannered of men, willing to suffer indignity and violations of personal "face" far beyond what might be his nature to countenance -- specifically because he understands that he holds the power of death in his hand and will not be tricked or drawn into taking away a life (or threatening to) if it is within his power to avoid doing so.

---

Of course, context is everything here. Walking over to a friendly neighbor's house with a big smile and saying, "Hey, bud! I love the BeeGees as much as you do, but my grandma's sleeping right now -- can you crank it back a little?," is one thing. Yeah, maybe he didn't realize the disturbance he was causing and he's a real sociable guy who would be embarrassed if you didn't come tell him he was getting out of hand. That's great.

On the other hand, the three aggressive looking youths on the subway who are cranking Dead Prez or Reakwon from a ghetto blaster while eyeing down the passengers through half-lidded eyes probably know exactly what they're doing, and why -- and you need to decide if your pride can take the hit of deciding it is "not tactically viable" to go have a word with them.

The question should be -- what actual HARM comes to me or someone I care about if I just walk away? If you can't come up with an equation that balances far on the positive side, Avoid, Disengage, Escape, and Evade.

(And the idea that you're stuck someplace where you cannot leave and someone's playing music SOOOOooooo loud that you're hearing is going to be damaged before you can get away is a more than a little specious. Seriously...that's not a real concern.)

 

[Plan2Live]

Quote:
we have already lost the battle

What exactly are you battling against?

Civility. If we keep going down the current road then the anti-social behavior becomes more aggressive, more overt and more of a direct challenge. If we keep going down the current road then in a few years suggestions of taking the High Road will include more and more compromise on our part until we are merely cowering in our homes. I don't want to see that world become a reality.

Now, before you further blast me on one part of my comment, please read the rest of my post where I said the cops should be doing their part to enforce the existing noise ordinances. It should never have been tolerated this long. And that means against Harley's with straight pipes as well as overtly loud music.

 

[DammitBoy]

Dammitboy, it doesn't matter what you think is confrontational. The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the guy you're addressing. Until you get your head around that concept, you'll always act as if you're the one standing on the unassailable moral high ground. You aren't.

I love it when people read my mind.

I do have my head around that concept and that is why I chose how I interact with the "guy" carefully, after evaluating the situation. I understand the affect of my posture, where my hands are, my facial expression, and more than likely what the guy in front of me is thinking before he does. I've successfully quashed several hundred fights between drunk buffoons before it was too late for them to turn back during the several years I worked the bar as a bouncer. The right words can reach even the most inebriated backwoods roughneck, if you use them at the right time with the right tone.

I don't believe I'm standing on some "unassailable" high ground, moral or otherwise. I just reserve the right to stand my ground until it's no longer worthwhile to do so.

The other aspect to be considered here is that in the mere act of backing down too quickly, you project weakness and fear - which some folks react to like chum in the water. You are not the only one making calculations in these kinds of potential confrontations.

 

[Sky]

It's really sad that nowadays a polite request for someone to consider the feelings of others is being brought up as a bad idea because the other person might get offended. The attitude I get, and its an attitude I detest, is that my feelings and rights are less important than those of a person who is doing something to offend me, because it is tactically viable to elevate his rights above mine. I do not agree with the philosophy behind that position.

I agree with much of what you said...I would just add as others have said; Every bullet that leaves a barrel has a lawyer attached to it like a Vulcan mind meld so for many the option is avoid as much as possible any circumstance that has the potential to escalate and get out of hand quickly.. Everyone has to draw their own line in the sand and hope the line was drawn with the consequences thought out or known before hand.

 

[beatledog7]

I love it when people read my mind.

Not your mind, just the words you typed.

The other aspect to be considered here is that in the mere act of backing down too quickly, you project weakness and fear - which some folks react to like chum in the water.

Backing down requires that I got my back up in the first place and that a confrontation is already underway. It's better to never let it get to the point where anyone has to choose between backing down and saving face. That is never a good place to be. That's why doing anything that could turn what should be a non-event into a confrontation is so unwise.

You are not the only one making calculations in these kinds of potential confrontations.

I've successfully quashed several hundred fights between drunk buffoons before it was too late for them to turn back during the several years I worked the bar as a bouncer.

Ah, now I get it; you're trained as a bouncer. That's why you see every encounter as a potential confrontation. Well, my friend, public places in general are not bars, and the people with whom you chance to come into contact are usually neither drunk nor seeking to impress anyone. If you see the average person on the street and immediately start considering how to manage what might be a confrontation with him or her, that helps me understand your assertions here.

Have you ever considered that others may be reading that in you and simply reacting to it in kind?

 

[JohnKSa]

...in the mere act of backing down too quickly, you project weakness and fear...

There's no need for anyone to back down at all, whether quickly or slowly, until a confrontation is created.

I think what's being advised is that, unless the offense is truly serious enough that it can't reasonably be ignored, that it's best to ignore the cause of the irritation and go about your business as normal without ever creating a situation that requires someone to back down in the first place.

I understand the affect of my posture, where my hands are, my facial expression, and more than likely what the guy in front of me is thinking before he does. I've successfully quashed several hundred fights between drunk buffoons before it was too late for them to turn back during the several years I worked the bar as a bouncer. The right words can reach even the most inebriated backwoods roughneck, if you use them at the right time with the right tone.

Given your experience, I'd say that you're probably much better equipped than most to deal with a confrontation, once you find yourself in such a situation. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea for people, in general, to create confrontations when they don't need to. In fact, even the fact that you have a good deal of experience in dealing with confrontations still doesn't mean it's a great idea for you to create confrontations when you don't have to.

After all, many people have the means and experience necessary to deal with a violent encounter if they are forced to, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to create them when they can be avoided.

 

[DammitBoy]

Not your mind, just the words you typed.

Backing down requires that I got my back up in the first place and that a confrontation is already underway. It's better to never let it get to the point where anyone has to choose between backing down and saving face. That is never a good place to be. That's why doing anything that could turn what should be a non-event into a confrontation is so unwise.

Ah, now I get it; you're trained as a bouncer. That's why you see every encounter as a potential confrontation. Well, my friend, public places in general are not bars, and the people with whom you chance to come into contact are usually neither drunk nor seeking to impress anyone. If you see the average person on the street and immediately start considering how to manage what might be a confrontation with him or her, that helps me understand your assertions here.

Have you ever considered that others may be reading that in you and simply reacting to it in kind?

I see a whole bunch of assumptions, none of them accurate.

 

[beatledog7]

I see a whole bunch of assumptions, none of them accurate.

Would you care to list the assumptions I supposedly made and note how they are wrong?

 

[JN01]

It's not whether or not I believe something to be a problem. It's about whether my considerations or desires are any more valid in public than anyone else's. They're not. If the music is loud enough to cause hearing damage, it's probably also in violation of a local ordnance. If not, than I have say in the matter.

I'll say it again. Your standard of behavior, code of ethics, idea of what's proper etc are yours and yours alone. Once in public, your ideas are no more valid than anyone else's. It might be infuriating, it might turn your stomach. It might make you shake your head in disgust at the things other people enjoy.

But that's the price of living in a free society of laws. If something is legal, have at it. Don't like it? Go some place else. If you get enough people to agree with your ideas of what's proper public behavior, go pass a law. If not, suck it up and bear it like an adult.

Guess moral relativism doesn't allow for common courtesy.

 

[JohnKSa]

So you're saying you see no difference between "allowing for common courtesy" and "allowing others to enforce their particular brand of common courtesy on other members of society at will".

 

[DammitBoy]

Would you care to list the assumptions I supposedly made and note how they are wrong?

No problem.

First, you assumed I'm a "trained bouncer". I'm not, did it for a few years as a favor to a friend who bought a bar. Most situations in a bar are diffused by reasoning with the customers, very few get physical. It's not like you see in the movies.

Second, I do not see every encounter as a confrontation. My entire point has been asking someone in the correct manner is NOT a confrontation at all if you handle yourself and the person in front of you in a non-confrontational manner. The idea that merely asking someone to modify their behavior is creating a confrontation is false.

Third, you assumed I had not considered the other person perspective and I needed to "wrap my head" around that idea. You were incorrect in that assumption and nothing you read that I wrote indicated otherwise.

Fourth, I don't go looking for trouble - but I'd be ignorant not to acess potential threats by people who act confrontational - two different things.

Fifth, I already stated I do consider what others might be reading into my behavior - which affects how I present myself. I'm a big guy and that in and of itself draws attention and creates reactions without me doing anything.

I'm 53 years old and have not been in a fight of any kind, not work related, since I was a teenager in high school. I have had plenty of folks try to start something with me for various reasons, but I've always managed to avoid a physical confrontation.

This includes drunken belligerents approaching me at a bar and saying, "Hey - you're the bouncer that kicked me and my two buddies out of the bar four years ago, ain't cha? Not so tough now without all your pals are you big man?!"

Now, I didn't start that crap, and if I back down or turn away from those drunks, I know I'm getting bum-rushed. So here is where you are wrong for the sixth time in one post. You don't have to start anything to be presented with a option where backing down could be part of the equation.

So I use my words to de-escalate the situation. I don't have to be the smartest guy in the room, just smarter than the three in front of me to avoid a fight.

 

[Apachedriver]

Nevermind.