Aweh dearly beloved fellow ruminants & groupies
Let’s begin today’s blog with a few questions: How polite should one be? Can one be excessively polite? Is politeness a cultural phenomenon? Are there situations where politeness should be set aside?
I self-identify as a grumpy old man with self-diagnosed narcissistic personality disorder with a need to blog. My grumpiness means I can be rude, particularly when confronted with the ever-growing tsunami of bullshit, lies, and ill-considered misinformation that instant communication and social media have enabled.
But politeness is an important aspect of social interaction and can vary depending on cultural norms. I have sometimes been justly accused of being gratuitously rude but more often my bluntness is interpreted as rudeness. This tendency for bluntness may be exacerbated by a couple of glasses of the crimson restorative beverage from the Western Cape of South Africa. This has not necessarily helped me, and others like me.
Being excessively deferential can aid one in climbing the dominance hierarchy. Interestingly, those at the pinnacle of the dominance hierarchy often eschew politeness, and, in many instances, did not employ it to attain their dominant position.
While politeness is a positive trait, excessive politeness can impede meaningful discussions in challenging situations. Conversations may drag on, becoming unclear, and group decisions may stall as people defer to others’ opinions. Politeness should signify respect and consideration for others without hindering one’s ability to express oneself, make decisions, or efficiently interact with others.
When examining the most polite countries globally, Canada consistently ranks near the top, though politeness and friendliness seem conflated in the literature. South Africa also fares reasonably well regarding friendliness. This brings me to the rather impolite and controversial Canadian psychologist, Jordan Peterson, who has expressed very rude opinions about the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau.
Many of my readers question why I even consider Jordan Petersen because he has strange and disturbing views on several topics. He has been labelled as an alt right climate change denier who has rightly received scathing criticism for his misinformed views on climate change. He also has strange religious views that, as an atheist, I don’t share. He is a strange man but then I guess it takes one to know one. But since when should you only listen to people whose views you share in total? That is guaranteed to place you in a narrow echo chamber.
Whether you like Jordan Petersen or not he had this to say about why you should speak your truth or pay the price, “So if you’re going to stand up for something, stand up for your truth. It’ll shape you because people will respond and object and tell you why you’re a fool and a biased moron and why you’re ignorant. And then if you listen to them, you’ll be just that much less like that the next time you say something. And if you do that for five years, you’ll be so damn tough and articulate and able to communicate and withstand pressure that you won’t even recognize yourself. And then you’ll be a force to contend with”. To discuss difficult and complex things like the war in Gaza you may need to move beyond polite conversation. It is the only way to improve your understanding The alternative is to keep quiet or engage in polite banal conversation without being able to deal with difficult issues.
There is this idea that one should never discuss politics or religion in polite company. I prefer to spend my time in impolite company. So, for those of you who like to live your lives within the cocoon of politeness and safe spaces may I request you stop reading.
Jordan Petersen does not like Justin Trudeau and has some rather rude things to say about him. I do not like Cyril Ramaphosa and I have some rather rude things to say about him. He scores very well on politeness, waffling, and bloviating. For those of you who accuse me of using long words to bloviate means to go on and and on and on and then go on some more, usually in a pompous way. A bit like this blog. So confronted with the smoking gun of corruption revealed in the Zondo commission he talks at great length saying very little of substance about being intolerant of corruption, but lengthy processes need to be followed and on a geological timescale prosecution may follow and blah blah blah. Does anything happen? Not much. A couple of expendable people get thrown under the bus. Then months and years pass and perhaps he gives a couple more wordy and verbose speeches, politely and earnestly delivered, mentioning being intolerant of corruption while the corrupt inner circle continues with impunity. He is a waffling useful idiot for the corrupt.
Dear readers tell me why I am ignorant, and a biased moron, and I will listen to you. Who knows if you make your argument convincingly enough, I might recant and suddenly see Cyril as the righteous, ethical, and principled leader that I am failing to see because of my prejudices and biases. I also have some rude things to say about Donald Trump but that is a topic for another day.
I want to express my gratitude for all the ideas and comments received. I genuinely appreciate them, and please continue to share your thoughts.
Regards
Bruce
Ruminant Pink Friday 