Consensus Gentium Debate: Is it good or bad to be open to influence?

[Seyda]

Everybody is influenced by everyone and everything else around them. I’ve watched people who supposedly hate beer all of a sudden drink it just because I’m in the room with them drinking it. I think the bigger piece of the puzzle is not that people are influenced, but by the perceived value and morality of the influencer.

This city has had people who were morally correct be boycotted and told they’re pieces of shit because they were perceived to be the villain. This city has also had droves of people implement morally reprehensible things that were justified because the influencer was seen as a white knight saving everyone.

Instead of judging the product (actual thing influenced), I think it makes more sense to judge the influencer. Are they using tactics out of Project Monarch to get their influence across? Gaslighting? You may want to consider an alternative product. Is the person influencing you against someone else using the exact same methods they call out? Different product. Are they just saying ‘hey this is what I think but ultimately it’s up to you’? They may be worth listening to...

[Yawa]

Instead of judging the product (actual thing influenced), I think it makes more sense to judge the influencer. Are they using tactics out of Project Monarch to get their influence across? Gaslighting? You may want to consider an alternative product. Is the person influencing you against someone else using the exact same methods they call out? Different product. Are they just saying ‘hey this is what I think but ultimately it’s up to you’? They may be worth listening to...

I actually disagree with this.

Instead of judging the "influencer," judge the idea. "Bad" people often have good ideas. That's the beauty of ideas: they're pure. They're apart from concepts of right and wrong. Each and every war that has ever been fought here in RavenBlack and outside of RavenBlack has been a war of ideas. Ideas are incorruptible and immortal.

And we're, each and every one of us, a hypocrite, a liar, a thief. There are no faultless hierophants among us.

[Joy]

Sacri opted to give us something to chew on: (If I understood Kolhberg) Morality is a ladder in which our views change as we climb higher and achieve a fuller picture. It is my opinion that he likens a person deciding on right and wrong to their developmental maturity beginning with basing it on push back and ending with acting regardless of law or push back. If I am wrong please let me know, but I’m going to put you as against the argument of good or bad entirely and also against influence in the form of performing to dodge consequence.

Magwayen also waves a hand at the terms ‘good and bad’ before giving a case for what makes something right being whether it is right for an individual. In this way it is almost as if she is writing a prescription for influence, “Take as needed for individual wellness”. Arguing that influence can make us better or worse depending on our intake to me still promotes intake and counts as a favorable opinion. Magwayen you’re going down as ‘recommended with reservations’ unless otherwise argued.

smitsmit isn’t mincing words at all. Influence is good, period. He makes some points about influence being a part of being educated and growing which dances around what Sacri’s man Kohlberg believed.

When Vex jumps in you can see why Magwayen gets on with him. That’s another one for ‘recommended with reservations’.

AdaMaS, you seem to be siding with how I think Sacri feels. Not only do you not believe in ‘good or bad’, but you seem to go on to argue influence gets in the way of healthy growth by stunting our ability to see universality vs relativism. Maybe we can call this opinion ‘anti influence, pro universal truths’?

Liander is fancy. If Sacri is reliable as a translator - I’m going to shove him into his own group, ‘everything and nothing matters simultaneously’. That sounds appropriately fancy.

Quade backs up Magwayen and Vex, giving weight to their opinion with clown power, which is truly unsettling to look at even if it is the beautiful Joaquin Phoenix. SO THANKS A LOT. We’ll count ophelia for that as well and go ahead and call her for 'R with R'.

You know what Seyda, I did like looking at the coin of influence from both sides. I don’t think the argument here changes much, just is shown in a new light. I would say this also falls into the slot of ‘recommended with reservations’.

SO. If we’re pulling threads I believe so far we have four opinions represented among those who tossed their hat into this discussion. The question was, “Is it good or bad to be open to influence?” and as it stands the answers appear to be:

• Influence is good, always.
• Influence can be good, but it is recommended with reservations.
• Everything and nothing matters simultaneously, even influence.
• Influence is the bane of living honestly and 'good and bad' is a construct.

I should mention that if I have interpreted your opinions incorrectly I am truly sorry and you should absolutely tell me what for. This summary was intended to organize and categories the opinions into something that could end up being a consensus gentium. I also am really fucking awed at listening to all of this and I learned a bunch of new shit, so (as Malice likes to say) snaps.

[Ezra]

I agree with Vex/Mag/ophelia/Quade. Influence isn’t something people can ever escape from, not should they. We are social creatures, and social systems require a level of interconnectedness that lends itself to influence, good or bad. I think trying to prevent yourself from being influenced AT ALL is a lonely existence, and being open to all influence means you’ll fall for anything. As Mag said, bad people can have good ideas, and good people can have bad. I personally think people put too much weight into judging the mouthpiece over what’s actually being said, and that’s what puts us into situations where good ideas are ignored because it’s said by someone who is disliked for whatever reason.

There can be a balance where you listen to others and allow yourself to be swayed, to change your mind (and I believe positive personal change is the meaning of growth), while still independently grounding yourself in your own personal beliefs (but acknowledging those things can change over time!).

I disagree the most with Liander. Things do matter — people, ideas, families, beliefs. I think nihilism is the death of creativity, growth, and goodness, along with a lazy belief system. No offense to the nihilists among us.

[Seyda]

My point was more, influence is unavoidable therefore be aware of your own bias and account for it so you don’t become a lemming falling off a cliff...

[Ezra]

My point was more, influence is unavoidable therefore be aware of your own bias and account for it so you don’t become a lemming falling off a cliff...

That I can agree with.

[Yawa]

I disagree the most with Liander. Things do matter — people, ideas, families, beliefs. I think nihilism is the death of creativity, growth, and goodness, along with a lazy belief system. No offense to the nihilists among us.

Existentialist here.

Can't speak on what Liander says/what he means but here's my defense of nihilism:

Bartol wrote this phrase ("Nothing is an absolute reality; all is permitted") in "Alamut", and I think people have been taking it out of context ever since.

Yes, Nietszche* predicted the "apocalyptic tenor" and the crisis nihilism has wrought on the 20th century, but he also says, "whether he recovers from it or becomes master of his crisis is a question of his strength." In psychology, a crisis of faith, or an existential crisis (in middle age or teenage years, if you're precocious) is when one goes through the dark night of the soul, and often when one discovers one's shadow self and either masters it or succumbs to it.

Existentialism softens the blow from its older, more angsty sibling, nihilism, by saying, "Yes, this is all inherently meaningless and a collective illusion, but the joy of that is that now we can all decide Meaning for ourselves." But the same main concept stands: nothing is true, and it is up to you (general you, or mankind, or vampirekind) in this crisis of belief to fight the abyss and/or become it.

It's not a lazy belief system. It's looking into the void and saying, "I see you, you are in me, and I don't fear you."

x



(*an asshole)

[Liander]

It's not a lazy belief system. It's looking into the void and saying, "I see you, you are in me, and I don't fear you."

You get me.

[Ezra]

Existentialism softens the blow from its older, more angsty sibling, nihilism, by saying, "Yes, this is all inherently meaningless and a collective illusion, but the joy of that is that now we can all decide Meaning for ourselves." But the same main concept stands: nothing is true, and it is up to you (general you, or mankind, or vampirekind) in this crisis of belief to fight the abyss and/or become it.

It's not a lazy belief system. It's looking into the void and saying, "I see you, you are in me, and I don't fear you."

Okay, that makes more sense. I think I see people using it as an excuse for bad behavior in “becoming the abyss” (whatever “bad” means to people; I have my own definition) more often than not in this city, at least, but I like that definition more. I don’t agree personally, but I suppose that’s the beauty of beliefs. Everyone’s got one, even if that belief is in... nothing.

[xxsacrificexx]

I think my issue here is this

I never think of things in terms of good or bad or right or wrong, anymore. Morality is too subjective and it's too easy to justify things and not hold oneself accountable.

Instead I consider what effect my actions will have and if I'm willing or able to support or endure the results or consequences.

So picking a right or wrong type answer for me is....not realistic.