I hate nice people.

[Razade]

Being a child when I watched him and his neighborhood my only thoughts are:

I usually wished something like batman was on instead, but that'll do.

In seriousness, I don't know much about him personally. Being gratuitously nice on a children's show, or to children doesn't bother me.

Mr. Rodgers was one of the greatest Americans that ever lived. If we even had one more of him in the world it would be a significantly better place.

[A.A.King]

Generally speaking, being nice is a facade, it is not your true self. You are 'nice' to strangers and to the elderly; to the people who require short quick interactions and the people who simply deserve your respect.

When someone is just being 'nice' to you, he or she is either not taking you seriously (treating you like you would a stranger) or out to get something. Nobody is truely nice, and as such it is perfectly acceptable to hate those who pretend to be genuinely nice and optimistic all the time. Because it is just that: pretending.

We all have anger within us, it is our most powerful and potent emotion. It is what drives society; it is what drives progress. Those who hide theirs cannot be trusted, for at best they have clearly no true intention of connecting with you on an honest level or at worst they hold you in content. If nothing else remember this: The 'nice' ones are most likely to stab you in the back.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Generally speaking, being nice is a facade, it is not your true self. You are 'nice' to strangers and to the elderly; to the people who require short quick interactions and the people who simply deserve your respect.

When someone is just being 'nice' to you, he or she is either not taking you seriously (treating you like you would a stranger) or out to get something. Nobody is truely nice, and as such it is perfectly acceptable to hate those who pretend to be genuinely nice and optimistic all the time. Because it is just that: pretending.

We all have anger within us, it is our most powerful and potent emotion. It is what drives society; it is what drives progress. Those who hide theirs cannot be trusted, for at best they have clearly no true intention of connecting with you on an honest level or at worst they hold you in content. If nothing else remember this: The 'nice' ones are most likely to stab you in the back.

The nice ones are the ones who have realized their own potential to have basic decency and use it as much as possible.

The nice ones are the ones who are capable of going through all their thoughts and picking out the ones that are positive and true. Is it everything? Perhaps not. But there are plenty of people out there who don't just act like King Lear's daughters, whose praises are genuine even if they're holding back their own criticisms of the person.

Anger isn't the source of what drives us, by the way. Anger is a byproduct of jealousy, greed, or pride.

If you're speaking from experience, then I can relate to the person that isn't you in this scenario.

[A.A.King]

The nice ones are the ones who have realized their own potential to have basic decency and use it as much as possible.

The nice ones are the ones who are capable of going through all their thoughts and picking out the ones that are positive and true. Is it everything? Perhaps not. But there are plenty of people out there who don't just act like King Lear's daughters, whose praises are genuine even if they're holding back their own criticisms of the person.

Anger isn't the source of what drives us, by the way. Anger is a byproduct of jealousy, greed, or pride.

If you're speaking from experience, then I can relate to the person that isn't you in this scenario.

Anger is what you feel when you see inequality or injustice in the world. To view anger as just the by product of one of the seven deadly sins in a narrow minded view. Anger is Strength, Vitality. it gives you the power to fight the world and fix it for the better, it is honest. The only time you can truly tell what someone is feeling is when they get angry. As a former Actor I can fake cry but only my rage is genuine.

[Lethologica]

It's difficult to state a clear position for most of this thread due to the vagueness of 'nice people'--we haven't worked out the niceties of 'nice', so to speak. That said, I strongly oppose A.A.King's deeply cynical worldview. Our 'true selves' (insofar as anyone has a singular 'true self') can be kind; kindness is integral to our most powerful relationships; our kindness can run as deep as our anger. The idea that being 'nice' amounts to sickly-sweet condescension or polite distance is severely incomplete.

[Ruslan]

I wanted to post something useful here, but I see the thread has deteriorated to the "if he's smiling, he must be hiding immeasurable pain on the inside" cliche, so there's really nothing I can add.

[tensai_oni]

OP, I'll be perfectly honest with you. You sound miserable and unhappy.

It's true that there are people whose niceness is a facade. But there's also a lot of people who are nice because they genuinely believe everyone deserves respect, or more realistically because there are social expectations to display common courtesy (or at least not act like a butt) towards other people. Grouping all of them together into "niceness is fake, only my misanthropy is genuine" is a very immature point of view. But it's also a defense mechanism: because if you rationalize that niceness is fake or stupid, then you have no incentive to act any nicer yourself. Many miserable people have this kind of defense mechanisms because unhappiness is on some level comforting while change requires effort, so they're not willing to change.

Generally speaking, being nice is a facade, it is not your true self. You are 'nice' to strangers and to the elderly; to the people who require short quick interactions and the people who simply deserve your respect.

When someone is just being 'nice' to you, he or she is either not taking you seriously (treating you like you would a stranger) or out to get something. Nobody is truely nice, and as such it is perfectly acceptable to hate those who pretend to be genuinely nice and optimistic all the time. Because it is just that: pretending.

We all have anger within us, it is our most powerful and potent emotion. It is what drives society; it is what drives progress. Those who hide theirs cannot be trusted, for at best they have clearly no true intention of connecting with you on an honest level or at worst they hold you in content. If nothing else remember this: The 'nice' ones are most likely to stab you in the back.

Don't cut yourself on that edge.

[A.A.King]

It's difficult to state a clear position for most of this thread due to the vagueness of 'nice people'--we haven't worked out the niceties of 'nice', so to speak. That said, I strongly oppose A.A.King's deeply cynical worldview. Our 'true selves' (insofar as anyone has a singular 'true self') can be kind; kindness is integral to our most powerful relationships; our kindness can run as deep as our anger. The idea that being 'nice' amounts to sickly-sweet condescension or polite distance is severely incomplete.

Personally I would argue that the deeply cynical world-view is the one that would describe the people who are angry about their inequality as "greedy" but maybe that is just me

But I agree that is difficult to have a clear position because it is unclear what the OP means with Nice

But to come back to my oh-so-cynical world view: Kindness is not telling my friend he is being an idiot when he is being idiot, even though he is being an idiot. Kindness is not telling my friend "I told you so" when reality proved me right: he was being an idiot. The kindness that we extend to our nearest and dearest, the kindness that is integral to our most powerful relationships is intrinsically dishonest. I mean, the reason that it is integral is because most people can only handle so much of reality, they need/require their friends to lie to them. Phrases like: "Sometimes it is more important to be kind than to be right" prove that 'kindness' has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Take for example the phrase "You look lovely tonight". That phrase is something we would consider to be the kind thing to say, the right thing to say no matter what: even when it isn't 'right', when it isn't true, you are expected to say it.

Or to put it more simply: Just because kindness is integral to our most powerful relationship doesn't make it more true or more honest. Kindness more often than not is just another white lie to help smooth social interactions. So anyone who is always kind is either working an angle or has the condescending believe that you can't handle reality.

EDIT:

Don't cut yourself on that edge.

It must be nice, living in a world were anyone who sees the world differently is trying to be edgy. Of course only simple minds believe that the globe has an edge for people to live on.

[tensai_oni]

It must be nice, living in a world were anyone who sees the world differently is trying to be edgy.

As opposed to living in a world where anyone who sees the world differently is simple minded?

[A.A.King]

As opposed to living in a world where anyone who sees the world differently is simple minded?

Not anyone, just the people who talk about the edge but don't mean the guy from U2 ;)

[tensai_oni]

Cute. Welcome to my ignore list.

[pendell]

"Niceness as a facade" serves a very useful social purpose; it's the oil in the gears of the machine known as "human society" that allows it to keep on humming even when people of very disparate viewpoints get together.

In the workplace we call it professionalism. We don't cultivate it because we're especially nice people, we cultivate it because being "nice" to each other allows us to concentrate on the job at hand without a lot of unnecessary drama devoted to the various insults, slings and arrows people throw at each other in the name of "honesty".

Well, if we were totally and brutally honest with each other we could start a LOT of fights, most of them pointless and unnecessary.

Thing about honesty: Honesty is a very important thing. But there's a difference between keeping silent about someone's faults, or being gracious, and deliberately lying to them or enabling bad behavior.

The question to ask in a workplace environment is : Is this "honesty" helping, either to get the mission done, the other person to grow, or to make my work environment better?

If the answer is "no", then it's better to just roll with it.

Humans have such a thing as pride after all, and telling a person a truth can injure it, if done inappropriately.

Some books call truth a sharp sword. Perhaps. But if you aren't a soldier charged with killing people it's best to use it with the same care as a scalpel, lest being too careless cause more problems than it solves.

...

Actually, soldiers I've known who did front line service were often quite nice people when I knew them ; perhaps it's because being nasty and too barbed to people with loaded guns is not a survival strategy.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[enderlord99]

A.A.King, I'm pretty sure that's "politeness" not "kindness." They're different things.

[golentan]

Personally I would argue that the deeply cynical world-view is the one that would describe the people who are angry about their inequality as "greedy" but maybe that is just me

But I agree that is difficult to have a clear position because it is unclear what the OP means with Nice

But to come back to my oh-so-cynical world view: Kindness is not telling my friend he is being an idiot when he is being idiot, even though he is being an idiot. Kindness is not telling my friend "I told you so" when reality proved me right: he was being an idiot. The kindness that we extend to our nearest and dearest, the kindness that is integral to our most powerful relationships is intrinsically dishonest. I mean, the reason that it is integral is because most people can only handle so much of reality, they need/require their friends to lie to them. Phrases like: "Sometimes it is more important to be kind than to be right" prove that 'kindness' has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Take for example the phrase "You look lovely tonight". That phrase is something we would consider to be the kind thing to say, the right thing to say no matter what: even when it isn't 'right', when it isn't true, you are expected to say it.

Or to put it more simply: Just because kindness is integral to our most powerful relationship doesn't make it more true or more honest. Kindness more often than not is just another white lie to help smooth social interactions. So anyone who is always kind is either working an angle or has the condescending believe that you can't handle reality.

EDIT:


It must be nice, living in a world were anyone who sees the world differently is trying to be edgy. Of course only simple minds believe that the globe has an edge for people to live on.

See, this is why they're right when they call you cynical or edgy. You're not saying what's true, you're giving an excuse for seeing other people as liars, frauds, or just morally deficient.

But life is more than pain, tact is different from lying and doesn't necessitate it, and the pursuit of joy, or sadness, or any other part of the spectrum of the emotional rainbow can be used to motivate yourself to do good things, not just anger. Not to say that anger isn't important, but to assert it as the basic building block of human nature or accomplishment tells me more about you than it does about people as a whole.

[8BitNinja]

I'm sorry, maybe I'm a cynical person and nobody else thinks this way, but I hate "nice" people. To clarify that doesn't mean I hate people that do nice things per say, I just hate people that exude niceness. Every time I interact with someone like that, or overhear them it makes me nauseous (not literally).
They just always seem so disingenuous and fake. It irks me, and it is especially bad when two nice people are together. When they interact is just a big ball of self-gratification and it bothers me.

Perhaps I'm just not a great person... Anyway feel free to tell me I'm wrong and a terrible person, or agree with me and join me in the darkness.

If you hate nice people, do you hate me?

This isn't some sort of test to see if your statement is true, I just want to know if I have been a nice person here.

[A.A.King]

A.A.King, I'm pretty sure that's "politeness" not "kindness." They're different things.

I would argue that there is a lot of overlap between the two, so how would you define them? Especially when considering the OP's starting point of not like people who are always just nice.

See, this is why they're right when they call you cynical or edgy. You're not saying what's true, you're giving an excuse for seeing other people as liars, frauds, or just morally deficient.

But life is more than pain, tact is different from lying and doesn't necessitate it, and the pursuit of joy, or sadness, or any other part of the spectrum of the emotional rainbow can be used to motivate yourself to do good things, not just anger. Not to say that anger isn't important, but to assert it as the basic building block of human nature or accomplishment tells me more about you than it does about people as a whole.

I am talking about the truth of emotions. Just as you say that tact is different from lying and doesn't necessitate it I say that Kindness (or even tact) is different from truth. To re-use my own example: Generally speaking, when someone asks you "How do I look?" the kind/tactful answer is "You look great" which is an answer you can give without even looking. To be kind maybe true but it is irregardless of truth. Contrast this with Anger, when someone gets you so angry that you have to show it (even though you know it is not the tactful thing to do) you will always be showing a true emotion. Perhaps even because of it's (unfair) stigma, Anger is more true than any other emotion: because it is the one we generally only show when we can no longer hold it in (unlike kindness which is generally our default position).

Because unlike other emotions it holds a certain level of truth I do believe it is a basic building block of human nature, and because Anger towards Injustice and Inequality has been a driving force for the progress felt in at least the 20th and 21st century I believe it is okay to call it a basic building block for human accomplishments.

Now also keep this entire discussion takes place with regards to the people who the OP hates: The people who exude kindness, the people whose stock reply is: "you deserve everything" regardless of knowing the truth of the situation. Next to that I put the explanation of the white lie, about how we use kindness and tact to smooth and simplify certain social interaction. Next to that I put the truth of Anger, a truth I assume these "always kind" people never show. I never argued that we must aim to be always angry, that there is nothing more to life than pain, that we shouldn't pursuit happiness (in fact I believe none of those things; to me the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain are very high goals indeed), I simply argued that never showing the truth of your anger is something you do with a reason. I argued that that reason is generally one you should distrust and as such that people who are always nice no matter what, who show just the singular emotion of 'kindness' are to be distrusted (or even hated) with good reason.

I don't consider that cynical, I consider that complete.

[Rynjin]

Or do move to the South. Broward County Florida to be exact. That way you never have to meet any. Yeah ... I got a nasty attitude myself. Especially towards the ones that simply can't seem to see that you just DO NOT want to be bothered.

Just moved to Broward County myself. Definitely the least friendly part of Florida I've been to. Drivers especially.

[Lethologica]

Personally I would argue that the deeply cynical world-view is the one that would describe the people who are angry about their inequality as "greedy" but maybe that is just me

I certainly agree that it's an incomplete conceptualization of anger, but that doesn't make your conceptualization of kindness any more complete.

But I agree that is difficult to have a clear position because it is unclear what the OP means with Nice

But to come back to my oh-so-cynical world view: Kindness is not telling my friend he is being an idiot when he is being idiot, even though he is being an idiot. Kindness is not telling my friend "I told you so" when reality proved me right: he was being an idiot. The kindness that we extend to our nearest and dearest, the kindness that is integral to our most powerful relationships is intrinsically dishonest. I mean, the reason that it is integral is because most people can only handle so much of reality, they need/require their friends to lie to them. Phrases like: "Sometimes it is more important to be kind than to be right" prove that 'kindness' has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Take for example the phrase "You look lovely tonight". That phrase is something we would consider to be the kind thing to say, the right thing to say no matter what: even when it isn't 'right', when it isn't true, you are expected to say it.

You're making an argument that "kindness is not the same as truth" and concluding that "kindness is opposed to truth". And because you only consider kindness when it is false, of course you reach the conclusion that kindness is shallow and false. (I wonder how much of that 'kindness' is truly kind.)

In the process, you've concluded that reality is a deeply awful place--it must be, because if kindness happens because people can only accept so much of reality, then nothing about reality is kind.

But there is no lie inherent in making chicken soup for a roommate come down with the flu. There is no lie in the hug you give your child before they set out for school. There is no lie in remembering a former colleague seeking work when you hear of an open position. There is no lie in finding a movie or book or song your friend will enjoy.

I'm sure we can construct scenarios where all of those things are lies, of course. But just because kindness can be a lie does not mean kindness is intrinsically a lie, any more than words are intrinsically dishonest just because they can be used in dishonest ways.

[golentan]

And any emotion can boil over. Shrieks of joy and spontaneous hugs are a thing. Sobbing inconsolably. Freezing or fleeing from panic. Anger is not more real than any of those. And just as not everyone experiences overboil of some kinds of emotions, sometimes people at their root nature lack the sort of anger outburst you hold up as an example of truth, sometimes people are soft and fuzzy all the way down. Not saying those people are common, but I've met a few.

And kindness and truth, as lethologica says, are not opposed. They are distinct axes of human interaction.

[dascarletm]

OP, I'll be perfectly honest with you. You sound miserable and unhappy.

The interesting thing is I'm extremely content with my life. Happily married to a woman that I love, and having that love recipricated. Doing well in my career, and even though I'm applying to medical school, I have good prospects. I wouldn't trade my life for anything.

If you hate nice people, do you hate me?

This isn't some sort of test to see if your statement is true, I just want to know if I have been a nice person here.

I've never interacted with you in real life. To be clear, if someone is "nice" and your interraction with them is minimal, I have nothing against that. That's just being polite. If you and I were to hang out on a regular basis, and you never once acted petty, or mean, or just angry (to me or anyone else) it would rub me the wrong way.

In short, we've not interacted enough, and probably never will, for that to affect me.

[Keltest]

I've never interacted with you in real life. To be clear, if someone is "nice" and your interraction with them is minimal, I have nothing against that. That's just being polite. If you and I were to hang out on a regular basis, and you never once acted petty, or mean, or just angry (to me or anyone else) it would rub me the wrong way.

I think I would probably be leery of somebody who, in private and when asked directly, claimed not to be bothered by things like people standing in their way in the grocery store. Normal people get annoyed, so theyre either lying to me when they have no cause to, or don't think the same way I do and I cant understand them.

But not acting annoyed is not the same thing as not being annoyed. I know plenty of people who will refrain from allowing their annoyance to affect their behavior (given that I work in customer service, that's practically a job requirement) at least visibly. But if you were to ask them about it, they would certainly have a negative opinion.

[veti]

There's some very big generalisation going on here. Is it so hard to believe that people are, in fact, not all the same?

Some are nicer than others. And that doesn't make it an act, or mean they're any less sincere than your cynical edgy misanthrope. Quite likely it means the opposite.

I am talking about the truth of emotions. Just as you say that tact is different from lying and doesn't necessitate it I say that Kindness (or even tact) is different from truth. To re-use my own example: Generally speaking, when someone asks you "How do I look?" the kind/tactful answer is "You look great" which is an answer you can give without even looking. To be kind maybe true but it is irregardless of truth. Contrast this with Anger, when someone gets you so angry that you have to show it (even though you know it is not the tactful thing to do) you will always be showing a true emotion. Perhaps even because of it's (unfair) stigma, Anger is more true than any other emotion: because it is the one we generally only show when we can no longer hold it in (unlike kindness which is generally our default position).

Two points.

One: you are making no allowance for expectations. You can choose what communication you send, and you can of course ensure that what you say is strictly "truthful" (whatever the heck that even means) by your own lights. But if you make no allowance for how the recipient is likely to understand or interpret what you say - even if your actual words wouldn't support the interpretation they are likely to put on them - then you are still being dishonest. For example, when a politician says "when X happens, then we'll be able to do Y, won't that be great?", when they know full well that X is vanishingly unlikely to happen - we call that lying.

People expect tact, it's the default position. To drop it, to tell whatever you see as the unvarnished truth without regard to your interlocutor's feelings, sends a powerful message (of rudeness, callousness, or at best indifference) in its own right. You may not mean to convey that "I don't give a damn how you feel or what you think of me", but that is the message that will be received all the same. And if that is not, in fact, true, then your apparently "blunt, honest" message was anything but.

Two: in elevating Anger (with a capital A, no less) as the "most true" emotion, you are implicitly loading it with virtue. The Romantics of the 19th century taught us that "truth" in feelings was all-important, that "genuine" emotions are inherently better than "less genuine" ones. That belief has only grown stronger with time. But it is far from self-evident that this is the case. Just because Anger, when shown, is probably "genuine", doesn't mean that there is any inherent virtue in showing it.

To be sure, Anger can be channelled into constructive and positive effort - but it can also fuel the opposite. Anger is, always, a divisive emotion - it tends to distance you from the subject - and that is seldom helpful in improving understanding or developing constructive solutions. As society grows ever more interconnected and interdependent, the need to get along with one another grows stronger every year. Anger is a barrier to doing that: it precludes understanding or trust, and ironically it makes it less likely that others will even try to be honest with you.

[Talanic]

I can feel anger - it feels like choking. No lie, my throat constricts when I'm pissed off.

I try to be nice to everyone. That doesn't mean syrupy; that means listening when they're upset and offering what help I can. Acknowledging that the big, beautiful world we live on still has sharp rocks and pitfalls, and doing my feeble part to make things better.

If that means bringing in homemade fudge when we're all stuck working a busy Friday night, I'm on it.

If it means putting in a little more effort to get people to smile - not for the sake of the smile but because I've brought them laughter - that's what I do.

I can't help everyone - and sometimes people I meet just want to be left alone. I respect that, even if I might need to be reminded a couple times before it sinks in.

That doesn't mean I don't get grouchy when the weather's bad, deliveries are hazardous, tips are junk and our shifts are running long - but I try to stay aware of my emotional state and keep from saying or doing harmful things.

Now, I happen to have a bundle of medical abnormalities - so I might just be weird, but it's the way I am and I don't regret it.

[Blue Ghost]

I maybe wrong, but I think I know the kind of people you're talking about; those people who positively exude joy and optimism, who never let life get them down, who see the good in everyone and never have a negative thing to say. And I think I can see how that can be maddening; with the world so broken, it doesn't seem natural that someone could go through life with such a perpetually positive attitude. Maybe some of those people are faking it, and simply hiding their negative emotions. But I suspect that for a lot of them, they're like that because they truly have joy on a level that most of us cannot comprehend. And I really, really admire those people. I think I may have been through a similar state myself in the past; I find it a lot harder to have that attitude now, but I still strive toward it. When I was close to that, it was sincere. I really saw the beauty in everyone and everything, and while I did feel anger or sadness, those wouldn't get me down so much as get channeled into more joy. I don't know if that was normal, or if I could expect to experience that again, but there are people for whom it's a daily reality throughout their lives.

[Knaight]

"Niceness as a facade" serves a very useful social purpose; it's the oil in the gears of the machine known as "human society" that allows it to keep on humming even when people of very disparate viewpoints get together.

It depends on the specifics. Performative niceness can be used for a lot of different things, some of which are better than others. It can be used to keep conflicts from boiling over when they shouldn't, and in that role it's valuable. It can be used to deliver uncomfortable information in a minimally intrusive way. It can be used as part of any of the number of social rituals which have developed to make human interaction that much less strenuous when having to constantly do it, and in that role it's valuable. That doesn't mean there isn't a dark side there. The obvious one is that it can be used as a cloak to be a real jerk to people in the presence of bystanders, while leaving people who aren't as good at performative nice unable to respond without being perceived as the bad guy. It can also be used to shut down conflict that is coming from people legitimately pushing back against being wronged, it can be used as a tool to propagate mandatory forgiveness standards for people who do terrible things (including the forgiveness standards that involve them dodging all consequences), etc. Performative niceness is a powerful technique with a lot of applications, and a certain level of caution in response to people demonstrating that they are really good at it is reasonable.

[A.A.King]

You're making an argument that "kindness is not the same as truth" and concluding that "kindness is opposed to truth". And because you only consider kindness when it is false, of course you reach the conclusion that kindness is shallow and false. (I wonder how much of that 'kindness' is truly kind.)

In the process, you've concluded that reality is a deeply awful place--it must be, because if kindness happens because people can only accept so much of reality, then nothing about reality is kind.

But there is no lie inherent in making chicken soup for a roommate come down with the flu. There is no lie in the hug you give your child before they set out for school. There is no lie in remembering a former colleague seeking work when you hear of an open position. There is no lie in finding a movie or book or song your friend will enjoy.

I'm sure we can construct scenarios where all of those things are lies, of course. But just because kindness can be a lie does not mean kindness is intrinsically a lie, any more than words are intrinsically dishonest just because they can be used in dishonest ways.

First of all: The conclusion that that reality is a deeply awful place is your conclusion not mine. I am perfectly happy with reality as it is (or as you might put it: reality as I see it).

When you quoted me you left out a rather important part.

Or to put it more simply: Just because kindness is integral to our most powerful relationship doesn't make it more true or more honest. Kindness more often than not is just another white lie to help smooth social interactions. So anyone who is always kind is either working an angle or has the condescending believe that you can't handle reality.

We agree that kindness can be a lie. to use (some of) your words: Just because kindness can be true does not mean kindness is intrinsically true. Clearly we disagree on the "more often than not" bit, but we agree that kindness can be used as a white lie (after all, kindness is independant of truth, on a different axis). Now I am taking this knowledge and applying it to the person who is ALWAYS sickeningly kind. I take the fact that kindness sometimes can be used as lie and apply that statistical chance to the 100% record of kindness and conclude: Clearly this person is lying to me at least some of the time. I use his complete lack of any Anger ever, with Anger of course being the truest of emotions (though you can ignore that clause if it makes you happier), and use it as evidence to reinforce the previous conclusion: Clearly this person is being dishonest (some of the time), doing it's absolute best to hide it's true feelings (at least some of the time). This person has chosen 'smooth interaction' over 'true interaction' (and as a result over 'deep personal connection') and so it is perfectly acceptable to be distrustful of this person, to dislike him/her.

That true kindness exists is not something I objected to, I too have actions motivated by true kindness, which part of the reason why I objected to being labelled a cynic or a misanthrope (I used to believe that this site was about accepting others as they are, that this site was above throwing petty labels at others they hadn't asked for. Guess I was wrong). My examples existed to prove dishonest and dis-trustworthy acts of 'kindness', because it are those acts of 'kindness' that makes one dislike the always-nice people (for eventually you run out of examples of true kindness)

One: you are making no allowance for expectations. You can choose what communication you send, and you can of course ensure that what you say is strictly "truthful" (whatever the heck that even means) by your own lights. But if you make no allowance for how the recipient is likely to understand or interpret what you say - even if your actual words wouldn't support the interpretation they are likely to put on them - then you are still being dishonest. For example, when a politician says "when X happens, then we'll be able to do Y, won't that be great?", when they know full well that X is vanishingly unlikely to happen - we call that lying.

People expect tact, it's the default position. To drop it, to tell whatever you see as the unvarnished truth without regard to your interlocutor's feelings, sends a powerful message (of rudeness, callousness, or at best indifference) in its own right. You may not mean to convey that "I don't give a damn how you feel or what you think of me", but that is the message that will be received all the same. And if that is not, in fact, true, then your apparently "blunt, honest" message was anything but.

No, I don't generally have make allowances for expectations. The reason that the politician is lying isn't because his truth was misunderstood by the people, it is because he knew it would be misunderstood. Telling a technically true fact with the hope and expectations that the other person (or in this example 'the people') will interpret what you are saying differently, and to tell that fact in such a way that it is likely that they will misinterpret what you are saying is Intend to Deceive and it that intention that makes the politician a liar (and not just the fact that he was misunderstood).

This means that when I convey a "blunt, honest" message (as you put it) and the other interprets it in a way that I didn't intended, in a way that I didn't want the message to be seen does not put me in the same category as the Politician. My message remains honest, it just wasn't clear to someone.

I mean, to use your only logic: Someone may not mean convey that "I have no intention of ever being honest with you, I realise I just have to deal with you and this is the easiest way to get it over with" but that is the message that is being received. That message may have been intended as "nice, kind" but it wasn't.

Messages can and always will be misunderstood, but unless you intended for it to be misunderstood you can't be blamed for how it got interpreted. Once you allow judgement to be based on how things were perceived rather than how things were intended you go down a very large rabbit hole indeed.

But to use your politicians example some more: generally speaking politicians are always 'nice' (I add the generally because there are some recent examples who are less so, but I think we still remember the kind of politician I did mean). Whenever a politician goes out somewhere he/she is always 100% nice with everyone, they try to show a lot of interest in the lives of the few 'regular' people they meet on this outings. Everyone they meet is important. After a long conversation no politician is ever going to say "well clearly, you are an example of what is wrong with this country" even if just the other day he/she made a speech in the house described pretty much exactly that kind of person as "what is wrong with this country". We all know that they do this, we all know that they fake this level of interest and kindness because they want votes. They might sometimes believe what they are saying, but that is secundary: they would have said it regardless. It is basically that level of kindness, the politicians constant kindness towards the public when in public, that I mean when I talk about the people who are 'always kind'.

Two: in elevating Anger (with a capital A, no less) as the "most true" emotion, you are implicitly loading it with virtue. The Romantics of the 19th century taught us that "truth" in feelings was all-important, that "genuine" emotions are inherently better than "less genuine" ones. That belief has only grown stronger with time. But it is far from self-evident that this is the case. Just because Anger, when shown, is probably "genuine", doesn't mean that there is any inherent virtue in showing it.

To be sure, Anger can be channelled into constructive and positive effort - but it can also fuel the opposite. Anger is, always, a divisive emotion - it tends to distance you from the subject - and that is seldom helpful in improving understanding or developing constructive solutions. As society grows ever more interconnected and interdependent, the need to get along with one another grows stronger every year. Anger is a barrier to doing that: it precludes understanding or trust, and ironically it makes it less likely that others will even try to be honest with you.

You say I am elevating Anger, I say you are downplaying it's potential by describing it as always a divisive emotion that tends to distance you from the subject. What is distancing society is this obsessive need to get along. Don't show how you truly feel, hide your emotions, people may not like it, just be nice it doesn't matter, you won't see these people again, just be nice, build a wall around your heart, don't let people see that you care, don't let see that this is an issue you have strong feelings about, just. be. nice. Anger means that you care, it shows conviction. Sometimes it is not until you get Angry in a fight does the other person understand "wow, he really cares about it" or "wow, I really did something wrong". Anger empowers, it gives you the energy you finally need to do actually start doing something about the thing that has upset you for too long. Anger is one of the easiest to understand emotions there is: This person believes something is wrong. Exactly because kindness is the default position makes it something so incredibly hard to understand: is she being kind because feels what she says, or because she feels she has to be kind? Kindness for the sake of Kindness, or kindness for the sake to just get along with everybody is called appeasement and it is anything but constructive.

And yes, getting Angry at the oppressor is certainly divisive but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do.

[Vinyadan]

Anger is what you feel when you see inequality or injustice in the world. To view anger as just the by product of one of the seven deadly sins in a narrow minded view. Anger is Strength, Vitality. it gives you the power to fight the world and fix it for the better, it is honest. The only time you can truly tell what someone is feeling is when they get angry. As a former Actor I can fake cry but only my rage is genuine.

Nah, anger is what you feel after a long work day, going to the store and finding out that fried chicken is sold out. You can tell that people are being self centred when they get angry over this kind of stuff. Anger is what you use to bully people by making them feel threatened. Anger is what you use to protect your interests, even if unjust.

Anyway, this is a moot point, there already were discussions around 400 bC about the use of anger, with some noticing that it's always bad for the reasons I said and because it stops clear thinking and represents an escalation and a way to create rifts and is a road for hurting and killing, and others justifying it in case of it being an answer to injustice.

Also, how did you not learn to fake anger? It's the easiest thing ever.

About kindness, yea, fake kindness and fake enthusiasm are somewhat hard to bear for me, if they are evidently fake. But there is nothing wrong in making yourself likeable. More importantly, you are seeing kindness in a very narrow way. To me kindness means that, if I see a mother with her child in a pushchair, who needs to catch a train and can only do so by climbing up stairs, I will offer my help. It means that being kind makes a difference for the better. So I'd rather be kind, thank you.

[pendell]

And yes, getting Angry at the oppressor is certainly divisive but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do.

Only if the anger serves a purpose and makes things better.

Also, anger even in the service of a just cause has its limits. Does anyone ever listen to American talk radio? I used to listen to a fellow by the name of Mark Levin on my evening commute on my drive home. He spends three hours a night, every night, being angry, really angry, at all the injustices of the world.

At some point, I just had enough. So I switched to audio books instead. Haven't looked back.

Also, to keep this board-friendly, I will note that Mr. Levin represents one point on the American spectrum. There are other people in America who are his diametric opposite, and they are just as angry at him and everything he stands for.

So the two shout at each other all the time, and what it primarily does is get my blood pressure raised, and I tune them both out.

Anger has its uses. But if you want to actually solve problems, that means you have to actually talk to the other guy, which means you've got to be able to hold a conversation for more than about five minutes on something very important to you without flipping your top.

Of course, that's only if you're actually interested in solving issues. I suspect most American talk radio isn't about solving issues -- it's about throwing red meat and antagonizing people, the better to generate ratings, the better to generate funding. I don't think that's healthy, in the long run.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Cozzer]

Personally, I hate how the Internet manages to logic-twist even "being nice" into apparently being bad.

[Lethologica]

First of all: The conclusion that that reality is a deeply awful place is your conclusion not mine. I am perfectly happy with reality as it is (or as you might put it: reality as I see it).

I think you may have overstated your case against niceness in previous posts, then.

We agree that kindness can be a lie. to use (some of) your words: Just because kindness can be true does not mean kindness is intrinsically true. Clearly we disagree on the "more often than not" bit, but we agree that kindness can be used as a white lie (after all, kindness is independant of truth, on a different axis). Now I am taking this knowledge and applying it to the person who is ALWAYS sickeningly kind. I take the fact that kindness sometimes can be used as lie and apply that statistical chance to the 100% record of kindness and conclude: Clearly this person is lying to me at least some of the time. I use his complete lack of any Anger ever, with Anger of course being the truest of emotions (though you can ignore that clause if it makes you happier), and use it as evidence to reinforce the previous conclusion: Clearly this person is being dishonest (some of the time), doing it's absolute best to hide it's true feelings (at least some of the time). This person has chosen 'smooth interaction' over 'true interaction' (and as a result over 'deep personal connection') and so it is perfectly acceptable to be distrustful of this person, to dislike him/her.

There's a fundamental statistical failure here: true and false kindness aren't randomly distributed.

That true kindness exists is not something I objected to, I too have actions motivated by true kindness, which part of the reason why I objected to being labelled a cynic or a misanthrope (I used to believe that this site was about accepting others as they are, that this site was above throwing petty labels at others they hadn't asked for. Guess I was wrong). My examples existed to prove dishonest and dis-trustworthy acts of 'kindness', because it are those acts of 'kindness' that makes one dislike the always-nice people (for eventually you run out of examples of true kindness)

See earlier comment re: overstating the case against niceness. You may have taken a position you did not intend to take.