"Well, because some misanthrope might misinterpret this as permission to be terrible means it's bad advice".
Dealing with things directly, as close in time to the event as possible, is probably a great idea.
But you'll never get a pure ground-truth on every event in your life... so learning that your narrative of the past can act as a tyrant in your life (if you let it) seems like a good insight to me.
I’m talking about the people who already do the things — and not giving them a Tums and Tylenol for the indigestion and headaches it’s causing them.
Stop doing the thing to stop suffering the consequences.
The people also tend to be really brittle. Once someone points out that they’re running around stabbing people they’ll get all offended: “See! It’s not fair! Everyone I’ve stabbed is out to get me. I’m the victim!”
> The worst people that I’ve ever met would love for that to be true.
It’s worse than that:
> > She said “that little accident” helped her pay more attention to her fitness, lose weight, and since then has been in better health than ever.
Many of them honestly don't care deep down about the damage they do.
Others like Mark Wahlberg just "forgive themselves" for blinding a neighbor as a teen, even if their actual victim doesn't forgive them, so they can feel better about themselves mentally. https://time.com/3623630/mark-wahlberg-pardon/
Sometimes you hurt someone and you should feel bad about that. Deal with it. It's a part of life to be an imperfect human and this should help you keep in mind that EVERYONE IS AN IMPERFECT HUMAN.
I was not intending to argue that he should be pardoned.
This is generally unpopular among liberal and left leaning spaces, and is only marginally popular in right leaning ones.
It's called prison.
> This probably should follow you around forever, but maybe it shouldn't dominate every moment of the rest of your life.
Prison (and convictions generally) shouldn't follow folks forever because it disincentivizes rehabilitation, it incentivizes recidivism, it labels someone based upon behavior 20 years ago but not necessarily since, etc.
The victims are not morally obligated to forgive anyone. As a society, it's more beneficial to legally and morally treat offenders as having paid their sentence.
Please explain how prison enables someone to make amends and get a sense of closure.
The idea that most incarcerated people pled not guilty, were tried and found guilty, and are now incarcerated is not true in the US.
Many of incarcerated are still awaiting trial. The DOJ reports that a quarter of those in US jail and prison are awaiting trial [1]. I suspect most of those cannot afford bail.
In terms of after trial, npr reports, "98% of criminal cases in the federal courts end with a plea bargain" [2].
[1] https://www.ojp.gov/files/archives/pressreleases/2022/us-jai....
[2] https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim....
> It's called prison.
No.
Prison (and the threat of it) accomplishes a few things:
It's punitive, which allows people who enjoy retribution to feel some satisfaction at their idea of justice being carried out.
The threat of prison theoretically prevents some people from inflicting some societal harms on others.
And it keeps dangerous people away from the general public.
It also has the consequence of lining the pockets of the people running for-profit prisons (this is actually really really bad for society though), and also costs taxpayers a ton of money.
And another nice benefit of adversely affecting minorities, poor people, and otherwise marginalized people disproportionately.
It largely is not successful at rehabilitating people. Maybe some people, sometimes, but in the U.S. at least, there are more people who come out of prison more broken than they were going in, and also have fewer options for living an ethical life coming out. They fall in with gangs for protection, and those networks extend back out of the prison. The money spent imprisoning people (especially for things like nonviolent, victimless crimes) could likely do much more good to society if it was used differently.
If someone theoretically did something bad, and was remorseful for their actions, and we could say with a degree of certainty that they were no more likely to commit the same act again than any random person on the street, I think it would be better to not imprison them, and spend that money on, say, social services instead.
If you're looking for models of actually allowing people to atone and work towards improvements in their future behaviour, we'd do better with a restorative justice model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice
I dont think he shows real contrition either. After that Times article he backpedaled on the pardon request and told an interviewer months later that he was “pushed into it.”
If you've wronged someone else, maybe you should live miserably if you can't possibly make up for the wrong.
No one should be punished for the rest of their life because they wronged someone in their childhood. If they’ve grown, feel remorse and regret, then they’ve done their time and need to forgive themselves.
There no point in carrying around such a burden. Very few people deserve to be miserable.
You do not have a right to be free from the burden you have caused someone else.
Actions have consequences and we shouldn't try to hand wave those away because some people seem uninterested in going to therapy and dealing with the guilt they have. You can always do better, but that doesn't invalidate the bad.
People are complex, the world is not black and white, everyone is a huge story with complex rationalizations. Reflect on why you do things, reflect on how you affect those around you.
If you've done something bad, then forgive yourself and be kind to yourself, because you need to do better in the future. This is a better lesson that will do everyone more good.
Forgiveness is a broken concept. Just because you can be a better person later in life should not absolve you of bad things you did before. This isn't a call for everyone to carry grudges, but a call that we should stop trying to play this dumb "just keep pretending everything is always and will always be 'okay' in some way" ideology. People sometimes do bad things because they are bad people or do not care about others, and it's okay to not forgive that. People sometimes do bad things through no real fault of their own and it's okay to still not forgive that.
Now, it might be the case that the people profiting from the string and long punishments are so cynical and greedy that they started campaigning for longer, harsher sentences specifically for their own enrichment, but the people are buying it as purification and penance through pain. The prison industrial complex only works as a business because the people already want what's being sold to them.
The problem, though, with Christianity's take on it (or at least what some Christians take from it), is that they push the idea that all you need to do to achieve salvation is to believe in Jesus as savior, and all is fine and dandy. Doesn't matter what sins you've committed, or if you're even truly repentant. Just believe Jesus died for your sins, and you're good.
On one hand I agree that this could promote acceptance that we are all flawed beings, and will all end up doing bad things here and there, and that it's pretty much unavoidable. But I worry that this also can promote a sense of invulnerability and unaccountability. "Doesn't matter what I do, Jesus will take care of me."
Well yes let's be clear that only a very selective reading of the New Testament allows you to conclude Jesus doesn't think it matters what you do. It's the same kind of logic that leads one to preach the "prosperity gospel". It's very clear that loving Jesus goes hand in hand with loving others and living his commandments as best you can.
Also of course Matthew 22:36-40.
But then again, one could argue that any interpretation of Christianity is legitimate, just as any interpretation of art or literature is legitimate. Prosperity gospel is no more out there than Gnosticism was, and only politics and culture determines what is and isn't canon. It isn't surprising that the prosperity gospel is a product of the capitalist and materialist US.
Still... it seems like a reach.
Prosperity gospel churches are usually Pentecostal, which means they have a few special ways they like to interpret the Bible:
- They tend to take single Bible verses, often out of context, and use them as a foundation for entire novel lines of teaching. (This is opposed to reading and digesting whole stories)
- Those favorite Bible verses are emphasized, and passages that contradict them are downplayed. Once you decide that the Bible is pro-wealth, it can’t tell you it isn’t. (All Bible-believing Christians do this, whether they realize it or not. It’s called choosing a hermeneutic)
- There’s a culture that it’s common for the individual, especially the preacher, to hear directly from God. It’s pretty hard to argue with someone who claims the Holy Spirit told them something was true. (I always saw this as obviously problematic for a bunch of reasons)
When you put these together, you tend to get weird novel theologies. Other examples in the Pentecostal church include the personal prayer language (aka speaking in tongues) and faith healing.
My more general insight is that humans have put a lot of work into trying to seperate themselves from the complications of our obligate social brains. We will always feel bad, but maybe it can be ameliorated.
https://chrismowery.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-life-lesson-from-...
If you've done something bad, then forgive yourself and be kind to yourself, because you need to do better in the future. This is a better lesson that will do everyone more good.
edit: "“My hope is that, if I receive a pardon, troubled youths will see this as an inspiration and motivation that they too can turn their lives around,” he writes." Yeah, I DO NOT believe the world famous multimillionaire needs a governor's pardon to help kids.
edit2: given the wikipedia article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36805073's links to, it seems like Wahlberg himself now doesn't believe he should have tried to obtain a pardon.
If true, this is fitting given the context of the OP.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Wahlberg#Legal_issues.
Still, Wahlberg did some terrible stuff and basically just said "forgiving myself is enough".
https://jezebel.com/mark-wahlberg-beating-victim-says-actor-...
Call me an old cynic but I'd love to see the old fella's bank account around 2014 given he seems to have waited 26 years to clear that up and it happened to coincide with Wahlberg asking for a pardon.
Not needing to be told that they caused harm is one of the things that makes them not among the worst people you (or I) have ever met.
Sivers' parable is about his (and our) interpretations of the past -- Sive.rs publishes parables not facts. Context is relevant, here.
Yes, worst people gonna' worst people. Sociopaths are not Sive.rs audience. His point is that we can't change the past and only act in the present. What the worst people you (or I) ever met did can't be changed. How it affects are behavior can.
Particularly when the worst person you (or I) have ever met is you (or I). Biss-ninny 101 stuff. Which Sive.rs (and I) study.
That lady just had a baby and needs to go home at 5:00 PM says one NPR reporter/podcaster/host early in their career? Sound like she’s not committed, I’ll take on her work as I, for one, am committed. True story. Told on a podcast.
Or how about the kind of person who takes credit for another’s work because they can.
I’m not talking about murderers here, I’m talking about normal people doing shitty things and making the world just a little bit worse for everyone (and a lot worse for some in particular) and use whatever to justify their behavior as part of their personal story.
I will never understand people who seem to lack the ability to see that their actions may have a rippling effect throughout someone's life. One can meaningfully and negatively alter the trajectory of someone's life with one action.
I'm not advocating that we live in neurotic paralysis wrecked with the fear of unknowingly hurting others, but we should accept that whatever hurt we do inflict can have long-lasting implications, and when others shed light on ways we may have hurt them, that we lean in, understand, and make amends if possible.
We are all connected.
I think you might be missing the point of the story. To my understanding it could have easily have turned from a rosy past to a grim presence and it would have worked all the same.
The point of the story is that, supposedly, the difference in perception is the entire difference. Something is not true, just because it's in the past. The act of reinterpreting is the act of reshaping, what is true.
Personally, I don't know how true that is :) But it's a somewhat interesting thought.
Parables are supposed to be stories that teach us something about ourselves, the world, and how we engage with it.
I fundamentally disagree with the moral of this story as written.
Make it about something other than thinking that you paralyzed someone through negligence and it’s a different ballgame.
I think _you_ might be missing the point of the story.
It "could have" but it didn't: the story was about he'd been punishing himself for 18 years but Really It Wasn't My Fault.
If it was about a situation where he found out 18 years ago a benign situation wasn't, that could teach a lesson about misunderstanding history. Here, everything else is overshadowed by the fact that "You can change history", where history is how he paralyzed a women by driving recklessly.
Why didn't you stop them?
I think your comment was well intended, but it actually comes from the same place that causes a lot of the hurt: a lack of reflection. Even right there, you are trying to qualify harm without recognizing it. "Actual harm" as somehow being far greater and more deserving of consequences than regular harm, but there isn't. This is another narrative we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better.
So I hope you do take your own advice seriously. Most of the time, it's not the "worst people that I've ever met" - it's our own image.
Most sad stories do NOT have a healing resolution like this. The few times it does happen, then good for them.
I don't think this is always true. For me and you, yeah. For good people. But, there are a significant percentage of humans (I have no idea what the number is) where this is completely false. They can move forward in time without a scintilla of guilt or negative repercussions. I fact, for some people, it seems to be fuel for them. They enjoy it. The percentage of those folks is much smaller, I believe. Thankfully.
When I say negative equity I’m talking about the compounding opportunity costs of something happening to you. One missed opportunity could lead to another and another.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/evolution-the-self/2...
We have the innate capacity to love and hate, to feel attracted or repulsed etc.
If the capacity to be bitter has survived millions of years of natural selection, perhaps it serves a function, however hard we tell each other to look down on it.
Deterrence being one obvious function.
Clearly natural selection has selected for this capacity.
You pretend to disprove the adaptive nature of a trait by trotting forth "fatal cancer in infants" which clearly natural selection would not systematically select for without good reason. Perhaps artificial human doctrines have the capacity to selectively advantage "fatal cancer in infants" but brutal natural selection wouldn't. Natural selection is the abacus of the grim reaper.
You may call it a dark calculation, but do you know whats worse than a "fatal infant cancer"?
Two or more cases of this "fatal infant cancer"!
I know almost no one who has "fatal infant cancer", yet I have never met a person without the capacity for bitterness.
Your argument is devoid of logic.
Me neither. Perhaps you and I don’t hang out in the same places as those who died in infancy.
the rate of incidence of "fatal cancer in infants" is extremely low compared to the rate of incidence of the capacity to feel bitter.
unlike the statistics for "fatal cancer in infants" the capability to feel bitter is essentially universal, so clearly it serves some purpose.
Your debate approach of declaring my position to be the opposite of what I say is no fun. I'm not going to continue.
See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education for one of many contributing causes.
Regardless of the myriads of contributing causes producing such cancers, natural selection eliminates these cancers, especially fatal childhood cancers.
> Your debate approach of declaring my position to be the opposite of what I say is no fun. I'm not going to continue.
The fact that I deduce a statement from your position which contradicts another of your positions is not a bad debate approach but simply an example of the principle of explosion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
That is what happens if you build a strawman: you pretend my argument relies merely on "the existence of a property" ignoring that occurence rates and probabilities actually span a spectrum, from marginally close to the impossible 0% to marginally close to a 100% certain. If the capability to emote bitterness is nearly universal among a species then it is a trait, not "existence of a property".
The rest doesn’t hold water.
“There’s a small chance that the chaos and ruin I’ve visited upon others may not be as bad as as those people made me think. Thanks, I knew my negligence/malice wasn’t that big a deal.”
The worst people that I’ve ever met would love for that to be true.
They’ll stab people in the back or work to damage people’s careers and when you call them out on it it’s always something like “We’ll if I could damage their career anyone could have.” or “It’s been ten years, why don’t they just get over it?”
Basically: “Yes, I stabbed them. But they didn’t/couldn’t stop me, so it’s their fault that they’re dead, really.”
Negative equity is a real and it compounds over time.
Most people who have been told that they’ve caused actual harm, probably did. Telling yourself that the facts of your story don’t matter won’t mend the people you’ve broken.
Just apologize (for real) and attempt to make amends.