Discussion Why being the "BIGGER" person is a stupid idea.

[TAW122]

It is not uncommon to hear the phrase oftenly espoused by many groups, both secular and religious ones about "being the bigger person" and also to "not stoop down to their (the offending/wrong party) level". I oftenly come across this statement when growing up, be it in a secular institution or religious one. I'm going to discuss why I don't believe this is always a good idea and how "oppressors" and the majority use this as a form of social control and silencing any opposition or dissidence towards the status quo.

Suppose someone has wronged you and the wrong is still there, you are hurt and the other person gets away. Of course, that isn't fair and by being a "bigger" person by letting the person who wronged you or hurt you get away with zero consequences, it is not only enabling their behavior, but also condoning their behavior and allowing them to "hurt you" again in the future. However, by NOT being the BIGGER person and either getting back at them, standing up to them (bullies or wrong party), it shows that one isn't an easy target and that people should not take one for granted.

Also, ironically, sometimes the people who spew to "be the bigger person" and to "not stoop down to their level" are the actual oppressors and wronging party. They use it as a way to deny the party they have wronged and keep them down while they reign over them. This is why this piece of advice is rather detrimental towards the oppressed. As someone who is a believer in the fact that vengeance has a place in this world, I do believe that by not being the bigger person, it gives the wronged the ability and opportunity to right the wrongs and also serves as a deterrence from (some) future harm. It would allow the wronged to either change their ways or think twice between re-offending or causing additional harm.

In secular contexts, it oftenly uses guilt and shame inducing rhetoric, language to influence people to not get back at the person or group that has wronged the individual. The guilt and shame rhetoric is "If you do what they do to you (the wrong), then you are NO better than them." which isn't always objectively true. Or another saying is that "resentment is drinking poison why wishing your enemy dies", which in such a context is another dissuasion of trying to RIGHT THE WRONG.

In religious contexts, it uses guilt and shame along with fear to shut down the aggrieved party by using the threat of punishment and torture for those who try to stand up against the wrongs and get even. In modern Christianity, it is not uncommon to hear to "love your enemies" which means to tolerate and accept the offending party's transgression and do no harm back to them. In such cases, it only enables the wronging party to continue to do harm and get away consequence free. This is one of the reasons why I reject religious teachings but that's another story.

While I'm still on this topic, there are related topics that specifically focus on what I've discussed in more detail, they are about the concept of vengeance and also why people are civilized. Just as a brief mention, I do believe that vengeance at it's most basic form is to right the wrong that has been inflicted on the victim (offended, aggrieved party) by the aggressor (offending, wrong party). Also in regards to why people are civilized it is due to the people trusting the legal system (a system put in place by the powerful) in order to sort out disputes, issues, and by an impartial independent party (the government - whether you think justice is bought or not bought is a whole different topic, that's not the point of this thread though.). Had there not been that or in a place where the legal system is ineffective, non-existent, or corrupt, then vengeance is the only way that the wronged, oppressed, and offended party can get some recourse.

What are your thoughts on the cliche, generic statement spewed by normies and holier-than-thou people?

 

[palatinus]

I've lurked for a long time, and read a lot of your posts. This is the first one that I don't rabidly agree with. It's not that you're wrong, I just happen to personally prefer being placid.

 

[TAW122]

I've lurked for a long time, and read a lot of your posts. This is the first one that I don't rabidly agree with. It's not that you're wrong, I just happen to personally prefer being placid.

Fair enough. Now of course, there are situations where being the "bigger" person, taking the high road or w/e you want to call it would be the better course action. Some situations include but aren't limited to: putting up with disrespect to avoid a worse situation, avoiding escalation, and/or avoiding trouble down the road, etc. Of course, when in other situations, it can help to NOT be the bigger person as that would only enable the aggressor and wrongdoer to get away with things and continue to mistreat, wrong, or hurt you.

 

[Pryras]

It is incredibly hard and unlrealistic for me to stay quiet when someone has wronged me. Ironically my mother is the complete opposite and when she's hurt she will stay quiet since she strongly believes in the universe and it's karma. (I don't)

I'm not perfect, and i will definitely deliver my own consequences if you hurt me. I'm not a bad person for reacting this way. I just don't like being wronged, having that someone walk away without consequences and possibly inflicting the same damage again down the road.

 

[Epsilon0]

I think it's all about chosing your battles. In some situations, "turning the other cheek" goes a long way. In others, it is better to be assertive and fight till the end.

It also depends on who you are dealing with: with some people you just can't win (narcissists for instance) and if they are in a position of power in relation to you, you must turn the other cheek, because the alternative might cost you a price you are not ready to pay.

The problem is when one behaviour dominates your responses. If you never stand your ground, you will be walked all over and regarded as weak. Conversely, if you always have the last word in every argument, you will likely not be considered "a nice" person which is very important in social intetaction.

 

[TAW122]

I think it's all about chosing your battles. In some situations, "turning the other cheek" goes a long way. In others, it is better to be assertive and fight till the end.

It also depends on who you are dealing with: with some people you just can't win (narcissists for instance) and if they are in a position of power in relation to you, you must turn the other cheek, because the alternative might cost you a price you are not ready to pay.

The problem is when one behaviour dominates your responses. If you never stand your ground, you will be walked all over and regarded as weak. Conversely, if you always have the last word in every argument, you will likely not be considered "a nice" person which is very important in social intetaction.

Agreed. As far as "if they are in a position of power in relation to you", well I guess it depends on the consequences. I was (at certain points in life) in situations where I didn't give a shit about consequences because I wanted to die (after all, consequences don't matter if you're dead) because they (people) can't hurt me after I CTB'd. I planned for my death, not for my future. One of the most important reasons why I didn't follow through with my intention that time was due to special turning points that resulted in recovery for me.

As for having one behavior that dominates my responses and actions, yes that is very true too. I do lean more towards the wanting to "have the last word in every argument" type, not by design but by life experiences (getting walked over a lot growing up and more). I do see a problem with it which is why I'm forcing myself to be less argumentative IRL, but of course, when it comes to things I care about a lot, then I'd still stand my ground and fight for it.