Sounds pretty intelligent to me.
I’d also suggest that equating meanness with intelligence is a fallacy. At the risk of supplying only “anecdotal evidence”, Schopenhauer was a mean son-of-a-bitch, he hated everybody, everybody hated him, but his 38 strategems for eristic dialectic could edify even our hyper-intelligent, beloved moderators. See how nice I’m being?
I was re-reading this thread tonight and I was complelled to applaud your post, kaylasdad99. You buttonholed the precise mismatch between Scylla’s and my own points being made. I am not so much referring to a decent person (like Scylla) going through what, to someone unfamiliar with the situation, *might be perceived as * being mean to another. This would be more of the case of “Yo estoy [mean]”. Whereas, the subject of the debate involves truly mean people. People who voluntarily do what is easily perceived as mean, as in “Yo soy [mean]”.
[Sidebar: Scylla, just because it made you feel good to have intentionally addressed your relative in what would seem to be an abusive fashion, still doesn’t make you truly mean. Fishing priviliges are akin to a campers obligation to the wilderness. You always try to leave the place looking nicer than when you found it. Endangering your own family with their driving on *your own *property is such a grave offense that I still can’t see where you were so mean as you say you felt.]
I’m talking about knowingly malicious conduct and intentional infraction of agreed upon rules. Much like people who consistently drive in a hazardous fashion. This sort of blatant disregard for human life is synonymous with meanness. It happens on a daily basis and I’m really curious as to how it has become so popular. (The “crowded rats” theory does enjoy some minor appeal at this juncture, but meanness is a rural feature as well.) I’m going to try and post a more complete reply to the most recent comments in this thread, but I first wanted to address this arcane but excellent distinction kaylasdad99 made regarding the subject matter of this debate.
Since I may not make it back to this thread for a while, I’ll leave a hint for everyone. Those of you who have to refered to meanness witnessed online, here and elsewhere may wish to consider what an exclusive minority we are. Much of the world has yet to be wired for electrical power and immature cybersniveling does not compare to the measnness mentioned only once or twice here like that of the African civil wars. For a fast summary of meanness inside our own borders, glance at a cross section of the general prison population. A quick sampling of violent offenders will promptly collate down to a marked reduction in average I.Q. test scores. Intelligence is rarely the strong suit of those that can take by force. The criminal mastermind is a bit more rare than Hollyweird would have us think.
Those who countered my points have yet to post a really coherent theory of how it has become almost fashionable to be mean. The insouciant and disconnected air that characterized some of the recent generations is merely the beginning. There is a fascination with the antihero, (look at the popularity of Darth Vader). All of this is central to the acceptance and almost chique aspect of violence and meanness today, be it worship of the thug life in rap productions or the neonazi skinhead mentality.
I am mean when I am hurt, or when I am angry over not getting, or having things that I want. I mostly am mean to people who do something that makes me think they are in some way responsible for what hurt me, or prevented from having my desires. I am pretty smart, so I generally have very good excuses for being mean, and can make it look like I am being justifiably harsh, or strict, or making a judgment, rather than just being mean.
Since I know being mean is wrong, it usually makes me feel worse, and if people contend with me at that moment, it is very easy to just be meaner than before. Since I am mostly very clever, and able to use words, those are the usual tools for my meanness. I have to work pretty hard after the fact to overcome a very small moment of meanness. I seem to be able to do a lot of damage to other people in a very short time, just saying mean things.
Scorn is pretty mean, and sarcasm makes scorn seem so very clever. It really defines your contempt for someone to be scornful in a very subtly sarcastic way. Contempt is usually mean. Contempt for people that is, rather than contempt for acts. Since a lot of people find verbal ability to be an admirable thing, you can draw them into your meanness by being clever about being mean, and making a sort of game out of it. It can even seem very desirable by some people. If you do it often, pretty soon you will have lots of friends who make clever mean comments about everyone. You can all tell each other how much you admire each others telling wit, and clever sarcasm. Eventually you will be sure that everyone knows you are a complete asshole, and finds that to be your most significant personal attribute. You will have mostly friends who are like that too. It will be so very clever, and smart. And it will be very lonely and cold, too.
Or, you can eat crow, and admit you have been a mean son of bitch, and start trying to be nicer. It takes longer, it gets less attention, is far less obviously admired publicly, and often is used by other assholes like you used to be to make you a target for their meanness. But eventually you will find the company more pleasant and you life a bit less lonely.
But you can’t do anything about other mean people. Like most of life, it is a choice.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” ~ Carl Jung ~
Great post, Tris. I wish that I’d had a chance to meet you when you were out here on the left coast.
Well, I was in a snit over not seeing my granddaughter, so I was being mean, and just cut the trip short. I got over it later, but I managed to miss meeting a lot of nice folks out that way.
It’s a good topic for a thread, really.
“If a person feels he can’t communicate, the least he can do is shut up about it.” ~ Tom Lehrer ~
This minority is illustrative of the point that meanness is not linked exclusively to intelligence. Intelligent people have the same capacity for meanness as unintelligent people.
The degree or scale of meanness is immaterial. Meanness, whether practiced by a few or many is still meanness. I would venture to say that people who are genuinely mean would be that way regardless of war or peace. Furthermore, “the African civil wars” are not significantly different in level of meanness than any other civil wars on this planet.
Being a criminal is not a hallmark of meanness, there are plenty of people who are mean who are highly intelligent and haven’t ever committed a crime. What about white collar criminals? Not all of us get our information from TV or movies.
I posit that meanness is a viable method of conduct, in that it does assist in the obtaining of goals. In a perfect world it would be unnecessary to use this method. If we hope to attain utopia, with people working together to everyone’s benefit, then of course it should be censured.
I’m hard pressed to recall in recent memory a war where infants, children and women have routinely had their limbs hacked off solely for the sake of vengeance.
Please note that I refered to “violent offenders” and not your usual run of the mill thief or crack dealer. And I was refering to how being mean is quite often the hallmark of the violent criminal, not vice versa.
At least you’ve had the stones to take a stand on this topic. Congratulations.
Just because I brought up eristic dialectic is no reason to imply that I have no testicles. (definite sig possibilities)
How is hacking off limbs substantively different from shooting, burning, raping or otherwise maiming an individual? Using the definition of meanness you presented, the intention is still pretty much the same, which is why I say that the level of meanness isn’t that different. The injuries are just more imaginative. (I know that sounds sick and please don’t think that I agree in anyway with physically hurting people.)
I think it shows extremely poor form for you to insult me for responding to your comments and providing an opinion on a topic you offered for discussion. I suppose this doesn’t classify as being mean?
Pardon me, but where is the insult?
My congratulations were sincere and my appreciation of the fact that you were on of the only people to take a significant stand on this issue was genuine. I am extremely curious as to why you have chosen to take offense at this.
I am disappointed by your innocence.
The sad fact that you all refuse to admit, and avoid by looking into dictionary defintions (?) is that aggressiveness (and excuse me for using an additional term) is usually what seperates dominant individuals. If I could just pull you away from your optimistic views of the world to the hard basic one. People who are nice are stepped on, they’re sheep. Aggressive (and I don’t necessarily mean physically) people demand other peoples attention, while nice people are often overlooked. In many every day situations where a nice guy would give up, an aggressive guy will get what he wants.
And that’s why Chicks Dig Jerks (as my buddy Bill would say). Aggressive people get things done, while nice people are at the mercy of other people. Who would you mate?
Excuse my meanness here, boys. I’m usually nice.
Pretty broad brush, there. There have been several different viewpoints expressed.
And why would you immediately categorize aggressiveness as meaning meanness?
I’m not at all sure why Zenster needs to believe that meanness indicates a lack of intelligence. However, associating meanness with an aggressive nature will require a lot more than some dictionary definition. I know a number of individuals with aggressive personalities who never stoop to behaving in ways that I would characterize as mean.
Before you guys get too worked up over this issue, you’re going to have to have a serious round of terms definition.
I just want to chime in here, for the sake of argument, and expand on Myst’s post, above.
Actually, the question posed by Zenster is backwards. The real mystery is nice people. Why be nice? It is, in fact, our nature to be self-centered, self-serving assholes. Even when we’re being nice, we’re only doing it for ourselves, in the hope that we will gain something in the long run. In Freudian terms: we’re putting off immediate instinctive gratification because we’re smart enough to know that we can get even more gratification if we submit our desires to the Reality Principle. Perhaps one could argue that being nice is just being mean in slow-motion.
As for cruelty, meanness and the like, we’re mean because it is our nature. Just ask old Nietzsche:
I mean, after all, aren’t the laws of evolution based on the survival of the fittest? What does being nice have to do with that, when push comes to shove?
As everyone knows well, nice guys always finish last.
I misinterpreted your words. I retract my statement.