Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
..no, I'm not.
Published on November 22, 2006 By Draginol In Life Journals

A couple of years ago I wrote this blog about my own personal origins. In various debates on JU I know I come across as a total jerk. And there is a reason for that -- I am a jerk.  I'm not proud of being a jerk, it's just something I've come to realize over the years.  There are worse things than being a jerk though.

But what exactly is a jerk? A jerk, like most epitaphs, is someone who is not conforming to some rule of our society.  As a society, we have an unwritten set of rules of how people are supposed to behave.  I think a lot of people, especially men, are jerks. The difference is that most people have the good grace to at least try not to act like a jerk.

And I do try to not be a jerk most of the time and indeed, I'm not a jerk most of the time. If I'm around people I care about I'm willing to invest the effort to be a better person.  I think many people can relate to that -- more than would care to relate.  I know plenty of men and women that are cranky and impatient but do their best to soldier forth and not bite the heads off people.

But when I deal with strangers, I...just...don't...care. 

Being a jerk isn't about being malicious to strangers. When I play games on-line I never grief. I'll even go out of my way when playing RTSs to make sure the other person is having a good time. Being a jerk doesn't mean I'm not empathic. And I enjoy, for whatever reason, making sure other people, even strangers, have a good time when they're playing a game with me. So I'm not really being nice as a selfless act, I'm not because I like being nice to strangers.  I'm selfish. Self involved.

Being self involved is the essence of being a jerk. Or, I should say, being self involved and not having the good graces to conform to social expectations.

The inner jerk really comes out online.  If someone annoys me on my personal blog, I'll blacklist them.  I see people on JU all the time take holier than thou views about not blacklisting people. To me, those people just seem weak. But whatever. When I'm on my personal blog, it's all about me.  I'll happily debate someone who has very different views. A lot of my good friends are very left-wing and I enjoy their company. It's not about people agreeing with me, it's about having people who can intelligently discuss a subject and show some level of respect.

The older I get and the more I read, the more contempt I have for the average participant in on-line debates.  I understand most people are uninformed on issues and that most people are not very sharp. That's fine. But I have little patience for those same people who then choose to debate on some particular issue, especially politics. Debates on politics require some knowledge on history. And most people who debate politics can't be bothered to read history and that I find incredibly annoying.

And so, as a jerk, I am pretty candid about what I think about people's opinions.  There are a lot of people woh are just plain losers. And nice people don't resort to thinking other people are losers. But the fact is, lots of people are losers. Not most people mind you. If you randomly select someone, odds are you'll find they're a good and decent person. But it seems today we live in a climate in which it is impolite to acknowledge anyone as being a "loser".  To  many people, life is about unearned self-esteem rather than achievement.

Jerks, being self involved, don't tend to have endless compassion for strangers. I certainly don't.  I care not at all for people who don't work. If they're disabled -- truly disabled -- then I support helping them. But other people, no, could care less. They could starve.  Whether that be the third generation welfare mother with 4 out of wedlock children or the 40 year old drunk who can't hold a job.   I don't hold any malice towards these people. I don't want them to starve or be on the streets. No, it's just that I don't care if they are.  The gazelle who runs for its life and still gets killed by the lion I can have compassion for.  The gazelle that just sits there looking at the lion coming at them I don't have compassion for. Natural selection.

I have little patience for class envy either.  Someone being richer than me doesn't hurt me at all. Class envy is a symptom of being a loser. If you are jealous of the possessions other people have, then grow up and get a life and a clue. It's just pathetic when someone sits around moaning about "the rich". It's pretty rare to meet an American who grew up poorer than I did. But I never felt envious of people who had more material things than me. How does their wealth hurt me? Good for them I always felt.

I'm "rich" by any definition of the term but I didn't get there by being ruthless or money grubbing. I got there through the voluntary choices of literally millions of people who exchanged their money for the goods and services I produced.  So when I hear someone say that I should be doing "more" to help those in "need" I tend to have very little compassion.  The reason being that I resent compassion being measured in what PERCENT of my income I hand out rather than the raw total.  But that's a different topic.  The pont is, "rich" people don't become rich in this country at the point of a gun.  And money isn't everything. Too many people get fixated on money and it is ususally to their detriment.

Arrogance is another ingredient of being a jerk. And I'm really arrogant.  But again, the older I get, the more I realize that yea, I really do know a lot more than most people on the topics I participate in. And as a jerk, I just don't have the good grace to be polite or patient with people so I'm arrogant.  That isn't to say that I think I'm particularly intelligent or knowledgeable on all issues. I simply pick and choose what I want to talk about.

Another thing about being an arrogant, uncompassionate, self-involved jerk is that you make conclusions on people and can quickly decide whether what they think matters. And when I say "matters" I mean it in a specific sense (i.e. I believe everyone have the right to speak their opinion so in that sense it matters).

For example, a lot of the equivicators on the war on terror or taxes or whatever topic is being discussed don't matter. Their opinions are worthless. People who don't take a stand or have no firm principles don't matter in the real world. They're either working for the government in some way or they're probably some low level drone somewhere. Not always, but usually (20 years of experience in dealing with these kinds of people talking here). 

Having strong opinions or taking stands on issues or making decisions may not lead to success, but not taking a clear position and not making decisions leads to nowhere.  The world is run by people who make decisions.  You can tell people who don't make decisions because they're the ones who scream out about stereotyping or generalizing. People who make decisions know you have to generalize to get things done (right or wrong). So the instant I see someone screaming about generalizing  I know that that person's opinion is irrelevant and can be discounted.

To conclude this rambling essay. Being a jerk doesn't necessarily involve malice. I can't think of any people here on JU or elsewhere that I "dislike".  Not a single person.

I can't think of anyone or anything in this world that I "hate".  Being a jerk isn't about hating or disliking things. Quite the opposite, it's about apathy for me. I just don't care about things as much as society deems we should care (or more accurately, as much as people are supposed to pretend to care).

I believe the best system is the system in which we help each other by doing what is in our own best interest.  So while I'm not proud that I'm a jerk, I don't think me being a jerk harms anyone and in fact has helped people. I don't spend energy worrying about strangers. I spend energy producing. And by producing, I help people because of the nature of our system.  But I don't really care either way that that is the outcome.


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Nov 23, 2006

Rand said, "When it's a decision between your heart and your mind, always choose your mind."


Very good death-promoting philosophy as usual.

If, for example, female mammals would follow that advise, human such included, there would be no next generation.

The mind would tell them that donating time and resources to carrying another individual is a stupid thing to do, if personal survival is the ultimate goal.

People like Rand can choose their mind because other people do not. But how great is it to depend on the kindness of others, really?

on Nov 23, 2006

Yeah, some of that money may have been taken through the suffering of others (I'm not wholly convinced on that point), but at least it's being redirected fairly rapidly into worthy causes.

Define worthy cause.  

on Nov 23, 2006
little-whip, I left the exact opposite impression with you than I meant. I picked Gates for my example precisely because he's the anti-Michael Milken, the guy who helped people by bringing great products to market and took the money from that and helped the people that markets just don't help. I think of Gates as America's Mother Teresa, so much I didn't think of expanding my sentence to say "he made Windows, but he never would have helped any Africans that way [, the way he will with his foundation.] Sorry for the misunderstanding. I need to be clearer.

In my ideal world, all Americans would behave like Bill Gates as much as they could. In the real world, I'll accept capitalism as the best way to get the jerks to do something helpful to society out of their own self-interest. But in my personal life I make about $30,000 a year and give about $5,000 to charities like WaterAid. I might be doing something useful to society on the supply side by producing goods and services, but that's not my entire moral responsibility. I also interact with capitalism on the demand side, and I can either use my money to send market signals saying, "Entrepreneurs, figure out a way I can give my pets Internet access," or, "Entrepreneurs, figure out a way to build a water pump that Africans will be able to maintain."

That's one thing about Michael Milken, when you only help on the supply side you're really just acting out the moral whims of others. It's like being Jesus if people all only prayed for him to wash their limos instead of feeding the five thousand.
on Nov 23, 2006
If that widow had really expected to get her two mites back tenfold, I don't think she would deserve any praise at all. It's not a moral decision at all then, it's just an investment. Morality is about doing the opposite of what would naturally be better for you.

Which is why any statement of the form, "That's the way it should be. It's natural selection," makes no sense. If there's a should involved, the way things would happen on their own anyway has nothing to do with it.
on Nov 23, 2006
Morality is about doing the opposite of what would naturally be better for you.


Not quite. Morality is doing what's right whether it's what is better for you or not.

Splitting hairs perhaps, but more accurate. Sometimes doing the "right thing" can also be the thing that's best for you personally.
on Nov 23, 2006
Define worthy cause.


'A cause designed to improve the lot of humanity as a whole' would do. The Gates' funding of research into AIDS and literacy makes humanity as a whole better off because it improves the chances of genius being found and fostered to maturity.
on Nov 23, 2006
Sometimes doing the "right thing" can also be the thing that's best for you personally.


But the more it is, the less moral weight your decision gets. Feeding your own children is good, but not as good as feeding the same number of children who aren't related to you. Buying a raffle ticket is good, but not as good as just giving the dollar unasked.

'A cause designed to improve the lot of humanity as a whole'


Windows improved the lot of humanity as a whole, so this definition is really all about the word "designed." Your intent matters, maybe even more than your effectiveness.

I'd restrict the really worthy causes to "things that will relieve suffering, not just make content people better off." Opera and laptops are nice, but they don't really look that worthy when the same dollars could be spent to kill Guinea worm or cancer or something.
on Nov 23, 2006
Windows improved the lot of humanity as a whole, so this definition is really all about the word "designed."


Well yes, but poking a hole in a wall isn't exactly a sophisticated science. I'm not sure we need to fund it. People are fully capable of working it out for themselves.

on Nov 23, 2006
Feeding your own children is good, but not as good as feeding the same number of children who aren't related to you.


I TOTALLY disagree with this, and would further suggest that this kind of thinking leads to even MORE suffering.

People who take care of themselves and their own families are good for society because a) it's one less group of people dependent on others, freeing up resources for other people in need and they create a cycle of independence and productivity by raising children who learn to care and provide for themselves.

How is feeding children who aren't related to you MORE good than feeding your own children? In what way is that better?

Imagine how much poverty and suffering could be done away with if everyone simply chose to take care of themselves and those in their immediate circle of friends/family. Each family dedicated to providing for its own is one less family that will use up resources/charity that are needed by people who are fundamentally unable to provide for their own needs by no fault of their own.

on Nov 23, 2006

Imagine how much poverty and suffering could be done away with if everyone simply chose to take care of themselves and those in their immediate circle of friends/family. Each family dedicated to providing for its own is one less family that will use up resources/charity that are needed by people who are fundamentally unable to provide for their own needs by no fault of their own.


I totally agree. Self-reliance should be the first aim of any charity, and it will always work better if it starts close to home.
on Nov 24, 2006

'A cause designed to improve the lot of humanity as a whole' would do. The Gates' funding of research into AIDS and literacy makes humanity as a whole better off because it improves the chances of genius being found and fostered to maturity.

Bill Gates, running Microsoft has done more to help humanity as a whole than sending money to AIDS and Malaria victims in Africa.  (IMO).

That's why I asked. People doing what they are best at tends to provide more benefits to others than people doing what seems nicest.

It's like the age old throw back "Well if you support the war so much, Draginol, why don't you go join the army?".  Which would help the military more? Having a 35 year old geekling join the army or that same 35 year old generating a couple million dollars a year in tax revenue?

A lot of people really like to just pretend that the money generation of people shouldn't count.  Which is the kinder deed? The son who goes to his mother's house to help repair the roof or the son who contracts professional roof repairmen to repair the roof? Most people fixate on intentions rather than results. I know that from personal experience.

on Nov 24, 2006

NoNoun writes: Windows improved the lot of humanity as a whole, so this definition is really all about the word "designed." Your intent matters, maybe even more than your effectiveness.

This is a great quote because it really does seperate conservatives from liberals. This is, IMO, a valid belief system but it also demonstrates why conservatives and liberals disagree and often think poorly of one another -- they start out with different premises.

For me, results are the key.   Bill Gates got his money from Windows. Had he led a life closer to Mother Theresa, those billions wouldn't be available to give to children.

Living a life of enlightened self interest leads to a better world IMO than a world of selfless sacrifice.

on Nov 24, 2006
Reply #23
But the more it is, the less moral weight your decision gets. Feeding your own children is good, but not as good as feeding the same number of children who aren't related to you. Buying a raffle ticket is good, but not as good as just giving the dollar unasked.


You actually completely missed my point. You stated that "Morality is about doing the opposite of what would naturally be better for you" which is simply untrue. One can do a lot of things that would "be the opposite of what would naturally be better for you" and still not be morally sound, so your statement as you made it is untrue in that sense.

It's also untrue because one can do something based upon a moral decision and it can still be good that person as well. That in no way diminishes the morality of the act itself.

I am not addressing degrees of morality, but rather the statement which you made, which is inaccurate to say the least. I know what you meant to say, but you failed to actually say it. Your statement, as you presented it, is highly inaccurate.

You seem to be confusing morality and charity in your statements. They are two different things. A charitable act may or may not also be a moral one depending upon one's motivation and/or personal gain, but a moral act or decision is a moral act or decision regardless of personal benefit or gain.
on Nov 24, 2006

Which world do you think ends up with more misery?

The world in which people are made to feel like they should sacrifice their own self interest to help strangers.

Or

The world in which people are made to feel good about behaving in theor own self interest.

 

on Nov 24, 2006
Reply #30

Which world do you think ends up with more misery?

The world in which people are made to feel like they should sacrifice their own self interest to help strangers.

Or

The world in which people are made to feel good about behaving in theor own self interest.


If you're speaking in absolutes, both would result in a lot of misery for someone. Nobody should be made to feel that they have to always sacrifice their own interest for someone else's. That will result in guilt over doing anything for self, and misery in general.

Nor should people always act solely in a selfish manner (in their own self interest). That will also result in misery as nobody would ever do anything for anyone else out of the goodness of their hearts.

In the real world, there's a middle ground where people would naturally do both. A truly moral person would act against their own self interest if that was the correct moral choice in a given situation, and a charitable person would sacrifice to give a hungry person something to eat. Both of these people would still generally act in their own interest in most situations as does everyone.

In the real world most things fall somewhere in the middle ground.

4 Pages1 2 3 4