Society feels entitled to your participation.

Society feels entitled to your participation, and yet it does not allow you to feel entitled to its consistency.

Moralism is a pretentious power attitude. Morals should be one’s own business. One condemns others’ behaviours and attitudes with the intent of claiming power. Cat-calling is not immoral, just transparent. One condemns what one does not do usually out of fear. Being “morally superior” is just a form of entitlement, the very thing of which the inferior is accused. This is the irony: That when you point the finger, you have three more pointing back at you.

Love is difficult. Love should be un-possessive. Salvation through faith alone, not good works. One’s discipline will follow from one’s faith.

Maturity clears these concerns away.

Dm.A.A.

Kresten condemns cat-calling because of a power attitude. He is insecure in the company of strangers who challenge his machismo. He derives power from being in a group that will be an extension of his self, narcissistically. He can pride his self in being a benevolent person by finding a group so conformist that he can edit his routine to fit in with them.

What he finds at fault with others is at fault with his self. He would naturally support any style of life that perpetuates this ruse, such as Shadow projection and hostility. Watts was right; the subject of any in-group’s conversation is the nastiness of the out-group. It was Kresten his self that taught me about ‘group dynamics’. No wonder that I have never fit in with any group of his friends, but only individuals.

He would condemn any sort of risky deviance, from an adolescent norm, that would threaten this establishment, throwing it into the primordial rapture of true chaos.

Andrew can only condemn cat calling on the grounds that it is offensive. Yet this argument is circular, for it does not ask: WHY is it offensive? OUGHT one to be offended? IS there value in attempting it, if only for a message? CAN one endure the scorn, in reason, for the hope and courage that one will find the person who says Yes? Is the ethic based on the culture? Ought the culture not be based on the ethic?

Of course, his concerns are no less Utilitarian than those of Kresten. Kresten, Mike, and Robbie are only unified in popular disagreement. Andrew’s very tendency to appeal to the group for corroboration rather than appealing to his own thoughts is telling of how most people his age do so. The uniformity of their responses evidences their conformity of mind and nothing more. Kresten, Mike, and Robbie want only a “method that will work”, and they care more for the ends justifying the means than for the means to justify the ends. This is a trap. It is just as circular as Andrew’s argument, for here the future is merely projected from the past, and the Present (like the Ethical grounds upon which Culture ought to be founded) is neglected.

Dm.A.A.

Post-scriptum: They both have rape fantasies, and Kresten has power fantasies.