Tweet
Before you shoot me down, I'm not talking about those who actually think they are better than everyone else and demand special treatment. Jerk customers take the entitlement thing to the point where they think that they deserve the best at the expense of others. So no, I'm not condoning people who think that others "owe" them something just because they're the best.
I'm talking about feeling entitled to a decent life and the right to live as you please as long as you're not hurting or affecting anyone else in a way that prevents them from carrying out the same wish. There are a few times on both here and CS where I think the suck falls on the company for implementing such unfair rules or policies and it's not totally the customers fault (they just made an honest mistake). And it's not like they were asking for anything unreasonable either. In instances like those, I fail to see why feeling entitled is such a bad thing. It may be a pain for the employee to deal with it and it's not their fault, but neither is it the customers fault.
I'm going to use an example to demonstrate my point: education.
Sucky student: A student who intentionally disrupts class and then pulls the "I'm paying your salary" card to excuse it. Or a student who demands an A regardless of how much effort he or her put in.
Not sucky student: A student who sees an unfair rule or policy and challenges it. These can range from strict attendance policies, professors or teachers demanding things be done a certain way (when there are other ways that work better for students), or if it's a high school setting, the many many rules that schools implement just to control students. Now I'm sure there are limits as to how far they can go to challenge it, but for this example, let's assume they're just asking for change and using reasons why they think the rules are unfair.
The students in the first example were sucky for demanding special treatment for nothing. There was no injustice and they probably wouldn't be able to make a good arguement why they deserve the grades or should be allowed to disrupt class without anyone challenging them. However, I fail to see the suck in the second example. These people are merely challenging rules that are most likely unfair. They have good reasons for why the school should change the rules. And yes, I believe that because their money is funding the system, they should at least have some say as to whether or not a rule is unfair; especially when you consider who education is supposed to benefit. But apparently, they think the rules don't apply to them. Never mind that THEY THINK THE RULES SHOULD CHANGE FOR EVERYONE NOT JUST THEMSELVES.
Another example to show the difference: Let's assume a law is made that forbids people from swimming on Sunday.
Person A: Gets caught swimming on Sunday, but either tries to excuse, deny it, or even pull the race card, or any other card to make him an exception to the law.
Person B: May or may not be caught swimming on a sunday, but questions why such a law exists in the first place. He speaks out against the law, not just for himself, but for Person A and anyone else affected by the law.
Now I don’t think any person is really in the wrong or right for swimming on Sunday, but there’s a difference between the way Person A handles it and the way Person B handles it. Person A’s method for fighting the law is pretty sucky, but Person B is at least realizing that the law may not be right and is using his democratic right to challenge it. In this case, yes, I would think that everyone is entitled to swim on Sunday. I mean why not? Who is being harmed by someone swimming on Sunday?
I’m probably sounding like a broken record here but just because someone makes a rule or law doesn’t mean they are right. I believe there are good reasons for limiting someone’s freedom of choice. Obviously, we don’t want to live in a society where stealing and killing others is accepted, but when we get people making half ass laws either for religious reasons or to force me to do something “because it’s good for me” (when I should be the judge of that), then I gotta ask why? Does the law really serve it’s purpose (if it even has a purpose?) or maybe that purpose is not really for our benefit. Same thing applies to educational settings. When I really take a look at some of the rules High Schools have, the only purpose I see is unnecessary control. I don’t think it would be much to ask to change the rules under those circumstances.
So to keep this from becoming too long (if it isn’t already), I fail to see why it’s so bad to feel entitled to certain things. Do I feel entitled to a million dollars? No, but I feel entitled to a fair chance to make good money and possibly become a millionaire. I think when you make entitlement sound like this horrible sin, you run into this problem of feeling like everything deserves the worst, and that’s just not healthy. So yeah, too much entitlement can be bad, but there is healthy entitlement.
I'm talking about feeling entitled to a decent life and the right to live as you please as long as you're not hurting or affecting anyone else in a way that prevents them from carrying out the same wish. There are a few times on both here and CS where I think the suck falls on the company for implementing such unfair rules or policies and it's not totally the customers fault (they just made an honest mistake). And it's not like they were asking for anything unreasonable either. In instances like those, I fail to see why feeling entitled is such a bad thing. It may be a pain for the employee to deal with it and it's not their fault, but neither is it the customers fault.
I'm going to use an example to demonstrate my point: education.
Sucky student: A student who intentionally disrupts class and then pulls the "I'm paying your salary" card to excuse it. Or a student who demands an A regardless of how much effort he or her put in.
Not sucky student: A student who sees an unfair rule or policy and challenges it. These can range from strict attendance policies, professors or teachers demanding things be done a certain way (when there are other ways that work better for students), or if it's a high school setting, the many many rules that schools implement just to control students. Now I'm sure there are limits as to how far they can go to challenge it, but for this example, let's assume they're just asking for change and using reasons why they think the rules are unfair.
The students in the first example were sucky for demanding special treatment for nothing. There was no injustice and they probably wouldn't be able to make a good arguement why they deserve the grades or should be allowed to disrupt class without anyone challenging them. However, I fail to see the suck in the second example. These people are merely challenging rules that are most likely unfair. They have good reasons for why the school should change the rules. And yes, I believe that because their money is funding the system, they should at least have some say as to whether or not a rule is unfair; especially when you consider who education is supposed to benefit. But apparently, they think the rules don't apply to them. Never mind that THEY THINK THE RULES SHOULD CHANGE FOR EVERYONE NOT JUST THEMSELVES.
Another example to show the difference: Let's assume a law is made that forbids people from swimming on Sunday.
Person A: Gets caught swimming on Sunday, but either tries to excuse, deny it, or even pull the race card, or any other card to make him an exception to the law.
Person B: May or may not be caught swimming on a sunday, but questions why such a law exists in the first place. He speaks out against the law, not just for himself, but for Person A and anyone else affected by the law.
Now I don’t think any person is really in the wrong or right for swimming on Sunday, but there’s a difference between the way Person A handles it and the way Person B handles it. Person A’s method for fighting the law is pretty sucky, but Person B is at least realizing that the law may not be right and is using his democratic right to challenge it. In this case, yes, I would think that everyone is entitled to swim on Sunday. I mean why not? Who is being harmed by someone swimming on Sunday?
I’m probably sounding like a broken record here but just because someone makes a rule or law doesn’t mean they are right. I believe there are good reasons for limiting someone’s freedom of choice. Obviously, we don’t want to live in a society where stealing and killing others is accepted, but when we get people making half ass laws either for religious reasons or to force me to do something “because it’s good for me” (when I should be the judge of that), then I gotta ask why? Does the law really serve it’s purpose (if it even has a purpose?) or maybe that purpose is not really for our benefit. Same thing applies to educational settings. When I really take a look at some of the rules High Schools have, the only purpose I see is unnecessary control. I don’t think it would be much to ask to change the rules under those circumstances.
So to keep this from becoming too long (if it isn’t already), I fail to see why it’s so bad to feel entitled to certain things. Do I feel entitled to a million dollars? No, but I feel entitled to a fair chance to make good money and possibly become a millionaire. I think when you make entitlement sound like this horrible sin, you run into this problem of feeling like everything deserves the worst, and that’s just not healthy. So yeah, too much entitlement can be bad, but there is healthy entitlement.
Yeahhhh....I try to be. Some of the TA's try to be really professional and professor-like, but I take a much more relaxed stance, generally. Dick around though, and I come down like a tower of fire. (The girls playing on Facebook when we had a *guest speaker* found that out really quick.)
Comment