|
|
|
|
|
|
by strontium_90
1996 days ago
|
|
|
I’m not sure I’d agree with your idea of expressing your preference as something that can’t be argued against. Your preference to travel could be understood as imposing a negative externality on those you contact while travelling (in the event you were infectious at the time). If so, I think an argument of why you are taking precautions to make your travel safer (for others) might be more persuasive or thoughtful than a mere statement of your preferences. If your preference approach is applied to other negative externality actions (like smoking in restaurants, driving much faster than others) the argument seems weaker .... your “I just like to do it [impose costs/risks on others]” rationale has the risk of appearing selfish rather than empowering. |
|
|
However, the moment you start to engage in mitigating behavior you are taking on the other persons frame. You give up your own agency.
This forces you into a defensive position and most people aren’t going to change their minds. They are still going to judge you selfish regardless of how you mitigate the situation.
So why waste the energy? It’s easier to take the small “I’m selfish” hit up front than to stretch it out.
That’s my point that if you are going to do something that others think or in fact does impose negative externalities it is better to accept the straight judgment rather than to argue.
Better in this sense to increase the likelihood of keeping your friends.
People tend to remember how they feel and the more they argue and you still do what you want the angrier they get. Because now you’ve hurt them twice once by being a bad person (which is kinda forgivable) and two by not listening to them (not forgivable).