When someone walking by you casually suggests you can do something you might find more pleasant, that is ‘imposing their beliefs on others.’ I think this is a lot of why such folks don’t see a problem actually imposing their beliefs on others and forcing them to engage in physical actions. They do not see a difference between ‘hey man you’d be better off if you did X’ and ‘do X or else.’
I am curious if there is a way to make such people notice this difference.
This is an interesting point. As a teenager I was invited to parties a few times, and there were very strong social expectations and peer pressure to drink alcohol. Having to consistently resist that stuff was utterly exhausting, and I very quickly lost all interest in the whole concept of parties. A similar dynamic occurs during group meals when some people have dietary restrictions, and these restrictions then become the topic of discussion.
On the one hand, I would absolutely call people in those situations “imposing their beliefs on others”. I utterly detested these experiences, and I responded by becoming more contrarian and disagreeable.
On the other hand, I wonder what would have happened if the peer-pressure positions (“must drink alcohol at this party”, “must eat meat at this restaurant”, “must not eat meat at this family gathering”, whatever) had been not only socially mandated, but also legally mandated. I guess I would’ve had to resist at an earlier point, when being invited to a party, rather than when I was already there?
Anyway, my point here is that what seems like an innocuous comment like ‘hey man you’d be better off if you did X’ for one person, can feel like an attack to another. As if it’s part of a relentless barrage of attempts to make you conform to whatever is the current social consensus. (To give another example, I imagine this may also be a part of how women experience catcalling.)
This is an interesting point. As a teenager I was invited to parties a few times, and there were very strong social expectations and peer pressure to drink alcohol. Having to consistently resist that stuff was utterly exhausting, and I very quickly lost all interest in the whole concept of parties. A similar dynamic occurs during group meals when some people have dietary restrictions, and these restrictions then become the topic of discussion.
On the one hand, I would absolutely call people in those situations “imposing their beliefs on others”. I utterly detested these experiences, and I responded by becoming more contrarian and disagreeable.
On the other hand, I wonder what would have happened if the peer-pressure positions (“must drink alcohol at this party”, “must eat meat at this restaurant”, “must not eat meat at this family gathering”, whatever) had been not only socially mandated, but also legally mandated. I guess I would’ve had to resist at an earlier point, when being invited to a party, rather than when I was already there?
Anyway, my point here is that what seems like an innocuous comment like ‘hey man you’d be better off if you did X’ for one person, can feel like an attack to another. As if it’s part of a relentless barrage of attempts to make you conform to whatever is the current social consensus. (To give another example, I imagine this may also be a part of how women experience catcalling.)