Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- inane [2026/06/28 00:20] – ultracomfy
+++ inane [2026/06/28 00:22] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
   * Outside of school, or later in life, the justification for most inane rules was typically some kind of authority. "Because I said so" and it's many variations. Trying this on me has a 100% failure rate unless you have the ability to cause me substantial headache. Typically this involves some kind of authority having an idea of how things should run and not having the flexibility to allow for variation. The problem here is that I evaluate authority in the same way. You have to justify your authority to me, and I calculate it accordingly. In most cases, an authority is in place to ensure the smooth operation of a thing, but if something I want to do differently does not jeopardize the smooth operation of the thing, then the limit of their authority is in front of the thing I want to do differently. People like this then typically attempt to reach beyond their authority, which they cannot justify before me. In that case, I evaluate the rule inane and do not follow it (again, unless you can cause me greater pain than what I gain from breaking the rule).
-**This is a problem** because it seems as though a lot of people are relying on their authority to explain rules for them. They often make up weird pseudo-arguments for why a rule is in place to make people stop asking. The problem is that I push these invalid arguments and wouldn't even think of the idea that they're not really trying to actually explain a rule to me. The problem here comes about because, in my mind, the idea of someone making up pseudo-arguments to get someone to shut up doesn't even exist because, in my mind, you as an authority have to justify your rules to me. In my mind, authorities are answerable to those they have authority over. In their mind, however, this exactly is not the case and they seem to assume that - by it being //them// who are declaring a rule - is justification enough and cannot be questioned. Not meaningfully, anyway. As said, they might give you some time to entertain your problems with their rules, but they think that if all else fails, they can always pull the authority card and put that discussion to rest.
+My run-ins with authority actually are a problem. When discussing one of their rules with them, they often make up weird pseudo-arguments for why a rule is in place, primarily to make people stop asking. It seems as though a lot of people are relying on their authority to explain rules for them. The problem is that I push these invalid arguments and wouldn't even think of the idea that they're not actually trying to explain a rule to me. The problem here comes about because, in my mind, the idea of someone making up pseudo-arguments to get someone to shut up doesn't even exist because, in my mind, you as an authority have to justify your rules to me. In my mind, authorities are answerable to those they have authority over. In their mind, however, this exactly is not the case and they seem to assume that - by it being //them// who are declaring a rule - is justification enough and cannot be questioned. Not meaningfully, anyway. As said, they might give you some time to entertain your problems with their rules, but they think that if all else fails, they can always pull the authority card and put that discussion to rest.