Kinks to Work Out

[Lord J Esq]

As I prepare to launch a philosophy project over two years in the making, to share a philosophy well over a decade in the making, I find myself with a few pertinent questions that need answering. One of these explains why I would post what follows here in this thread at a place like the Compendium, where I usually do not share many details of my personal affairs and efforts.

I’ve been around the Compendium since the start. I’m User ID No. 3. I’ve seen every era of the Compendium, people come and go, conversations bloom like flowers in the summer, and much else besides. This place has been a backdrop in my life for nearly eight years.

I could very easily talk about all the good the Compendium has done for me. I’ve made meaningful friendships with some folks—several of which continue today. There are new people like Syna whom I would like to get to know better. And, not least, I’m actually in a romantic friendship with someone whom I originally met through the Compendium. (And if you know who she is I’d appreciate you not share it here, since she values her privacy.) Even with people whom I did not befriend, I have had illuminating and enriching discussions, as they have shared with me not only their opinions but their perspective. Such generosity is invaluable in my quest to learn more about this eccentric species to which I happen to belong. It is not just a quest of discovery, but of self-discovery too.

I could also talk about the good I have done for the Compendium, helping to get the series analysis ball rolling in the beginning—not as a charity but because I loved discussing it—or helping various individuals to understand their own selves better, and to better comprehend the world we live in.

But I wouldn’t. The people who ought to know, already know.

Instead I care to dwell on a question raised by the negative encounters I’ve had here. Not so much with the mooks, who are forgettable, but with the people who have some substance to them. You know...the interesting folks. The folks who, even if we can’t be friends, have something meaningful to contribute. That rabble—past and present—has disliked me for a deliciously wide variety of reasons. I’ve been the recipient of some very colorful barbs, the latest of which is tushantin’s judgment that a 13-year-old orphan is “better” than I am. It may very well be true, and either way it made me smile. Some people are at their artistic best when they’re engaged in throwing tomatoes. Daniel Krispin called me many things over the years, but my favorite was “rhetorician.” Coming from him, that was beautiful. I remember the time Ramsus went on his shortlived spree of using foul and angry language to tell off anyone at the forums who rubbed him wrong. He gave me such a shellacking in such a short space! And let’s not forget ZeaLitY, previously a good friend, who later on was ready to ban me from the Compendium because if I so much as looked in his direction he took it personally. Hopefully his urge to do so has passed, else I may not be able to reply to whatever comments follow this!

These sorts of experiences are not as unpleasant as they might seem, because the people on the other end are interesting people, and they had their reasons to think I’m full of horse hokum. I’ve enjoyed my discussions with the lot of them, and I respect each of them. It’s also worth pointing out that I give them their reasons to be pissed off at me. Each of them shares in common the fact that if I would have just shut up and behaved myself and I would be genteelly adored, or at least tacitly ignored.

That’s where the philosophy project comes in, and my pertinent question. It’s a question to myself, but I surely won’t complain if others have interest enough to chime in. The question is: How should I interact with people like that?

A philosophy with integrity must apply to everyone. The philosophy I have been building is not for me to impose. It is for people to choose for themselves because they identify with it. At the very least, it is for people to dismantle and add piecemeal to their own views—chagrining as that thought is to me, and as disrespectful as it is to a philosophy built to encompass everything. This philosophy, ideally I would share it with everyone capable of comprehending it directly. That rules out mooks and the stupid, but my remaining target audience is still very large. And I don’t get along with all of these people.

Part of that is me, myself—my own personal style. I am assertive, forceful, and quick to dismiss those who don’t ooze their human potential. I can turn that off when I need to, and be a good Josh. I usually prefer not. Strangers deserve courtesy and friends have earned respect, but mere acquaintances are in between, and it’s not really appropriate to mollycoddle them. Even when I do, it feels like a loss.

Yet there is a structural problem, too, which transcends my own part in this. My philosophy prescribes many changes for the world. People don’t like change. They react defensively to the prospect of it. But it’s worse than that: The real world is a very brutal place, and most people who are not the victims of that brutality have lulled themselves into a sense of complacency. When confronted with the “claim” that the world is still a brutal place...they think of such a notion as an exaggeration. They don’t understand how it could be.

I posted in Google+ recently about the Tea Party, and I got a reply from a stranger who basically agreed with what I had said, but didn’t like the tone. She thought it was too reminiscent of the political theater that poisons our democratic climate. Why? Because she didn’t understand how the Tea Party could be that bad. Oh, that’s not what she said. But that’s what she meant, even if she didn’t realize it. If I say “the Tea Party is fascist,” there are two possibilities. Either it’s true, which would be extraordinary, or I’m just exaggerating to shock people, which would be much more likely. Except...I know which possibility is actually correct in this case. She didn’t.

There are many people who are amenable to my philosophy because it’s a good philosophy with a lot of self-evident truth to it, right off the bat. But then there’s stuff which requires people to actually change their frame of mind, and all of a sudden it becomes a bridge too far. And then there’s me, the presenter, who doesn’t do a good job of diplomatic relations in the first place. I’ve got an audience in waiting but I don’t know how to best give them the hard truths without repulsing them. I’m still working on that.

And then there’s the other side of the coin. For better or worse, the kind of person I am is one who has little patience for fools. I expect people to aspire to their best, to rise up and pursue their potential. When that doesn’t happen, I lose interest. One important reason I’m not on better terms with some folk around here is that I don’t want to be. There’s not enough “in it” for me. I shouldn’t have to be, and can’t be, everything to everyone, and if a good philosophy has room for me as surely as it does for everyone else, then it’s fair for me to not want to spend much of my time on the people who aren’t willing to do more to better themselves.

What I want to figure out is a way to proceed to resolve these concerns without compromising my philosophy and without compromising myself. Currently I don’t have a coherent answer. It would be dishonest of me to put on a nice, buttery face for everybody. I respect people who honor their human heritage. For others I have hope, but I am clearly not the best person to encourage them along. And of course I still suffer from the usual package of cultural and temperamental biases and blind spots—fewer than most people, but enough yet that it warrants consideration.

Any thoughts?

[tushantin]

...No mooks?  Aww man!  Ah, well, nice knowing ya, pal...

Hah, just a simple response (I'll prepare a better one eventually, just not right now). XD You have no patience for fools, and yet you want them to rise. But do remember that civilians aren't soldiers who have devoted their lives to national security, thus instead like General you approach them like a friend. Forcing someone to understand or rise is basically telling them what to do, and majority of folks hate that because everyone has their own learning pace, derived with their physical and mental capacity, and also levels of curiosity and resolve.

While at the same time, you don't have to throw away your honesty either -- this efficiently breaks the foundation you're trying to build. You're right, you don't owe anyone and nor do you "get" anything from sharing your views. If you're insecure about releasing your philosophy to the public, then take your time to ponder; I can understand. Even today, hardly anyone can accurately point out what exactly are my philosophies and beliefs that I follow, simply because:

1) They're unable to comprehend it, and might start bash me insensibly for it (ZeaLitY did once a couple of years ago when I merely dropped a "hint" of it);
2) If they do like it they'll use it wrongfully, and probably turn it into yet another mindless fan-club.

Even though I never intended on enforcing my views, the sheer fear rendered my incapable of even sharing them with anyone, though they're so strong they empower me each day. So if you feel insecure about yours, feel free to keep them for yourself or share them with people you trust (though that's an advise you can freely toss out the window). I, for one, will implore people to respect someone else's philosophies (unless those philosophies are harmful to someone else in extreme cases, like the Jihad) because it's a person's honest views and no other should have power over it.


P.S.: She is 14 years old! D:

[Thought]

To be blunt, ideally you wouldn't interact with other people at all. That is not your strong point. It would be better if you focused on what you do well and delegate to others that which you do poorly. What you need is someone you trust implicitly, and who is charismatic and has a higher degree of empathy.

It is possible for you to change yourself sufficiently so as to not need this, but as you've said yourself, you have no desire to be that sort of person. Further, even if you muddled on and did so regardless, developing that aspect of yourself would significantly delay the implementation of your project.

Coming up with a solution to your problem is easy. The rub is in figuring out how to implement it. To be blunt again, it would have to be a rather unique individual who could agree with you sufficiently so as to be in sync philosophically while still retaining the ability to relate to others on the necessary level.

[FaustWolf]

Hmm, I don't think J is necessarily wanting in capacity for what he means to achieve.

When it comes to your philosophical stances J, I've always felt the most powerful thing going in your favor is your former conservative worldview -- or at least I'm under the impression that you've come from a far different place than you are now. Forgive me if I'm mistaken on that point. If I am correct, I'm surprised that you haven't let this facet of your history serve you more; there are so many conversations you could start out by saying, "Hey, I used to think that way too..." and thus begin by establishing a human connection. I don't think that's buttering people up -- it signals the depth of your perspective, and that seems a rather important point to establish. The more conservative you were previously, the more powerful an asset this is for you. If your goal is to replicate your own development in others, perhaps it would help to revisit the vector, now that you're satisfied with the end point.

I'd have said the exact same thing to ZeaLitY, had he started such a thread. And since you've brought it up, I am hopeful that both your recent agreements in the social threads hint at a mutual openness to reconciliation. Not that I consider myself in the business of playing matchmaker; whatever's going on there is kind of your own thing. But those moments gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling as an onlooker anyway. How much more efficient is your combined effect when collaborating, compared to when working apart!

[Lord J Esq]

I've always felt the most powerful thing going in your favor is your former conservative worldview -- or at least I'm under the impression that you've come from a far different place than you are now. Forgive me if I'm mistaken on that point.

Your remarks I much appreciate, Faust! But you are indeed mistaken, completely. I know that many of the most passionate ideologues started out on the other side from where they ended up. Not me. I was never religious and never conservative; my ideology coalesced around me naturally in my teenage years, and there was never any traumatic changing of opinions.

I did used to be friendlier to conservatives, though. Unfortunately, coming to appreciate the harm their views cause has made it difficult for me to ethically maintain that air of acceptance. It's something I'm still working on, because the people themselves are often decent folks, and shouldn't necessarily be antagonized because of the consequences of their views (any more than they should be exempt from criticism with regard thereto).

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

To be blunt, ideally you wouldn't interact with other people at all. That is not your strong point. ... What you need is someone you trust implicitly, and who is charismatic and has a higher degree of empathy. ... To be blunt again, it would have to be a rather unique individual who could agree with you sufficiently so as to be in sync philosophically while still retaining the ability to relate to others on the necessary level.

I think I detect in there a criticism of my philosophy itself. Nonetheless, it's an interesting view coming from someone with your perspective, and I appreciate it. I'll be speaking with you at some point in the future, and we can no doubt flesh this out further.

[Lord J Esq]

You have no patience for fools, and yet you want them to rise.

It's a difficult dilemma to resolve, I agree.

Forcing someone to understand or rise is basically telling them what to do, and majority of folks hate that because everyone has their own learning pace, derived with their physical and mental capacity, and also levels of curiosity and resolve.

My philosophy cannot force itself on people. It would be self-contradicting if it did. As for real-world circumstances, there are many venues for the appropriate application of force, but generally they concern destructive people who are harming others, and do not concern the population at large.

If you're insecure about releasing your philosophy to the public...

I am not. I am interested in doing it successfully. Important difference.

Even today, hardly anyone can accurately point out what exactly are my philosophies and beliefs that I follow, simply because ... If they do like it they'll use it wrongfully, and probably turn it into yet another mindless fan-club.

That's a major concern, but fortunately one that I think I have already resolved.

Even though I never intended on enforcing my views, the sheer fear rendered my incapable of even sharing them with anyone, though they're so strong they empower me each day.

You keep putting yourself out there, tushantin, which is admirable. I replied to your comment primarily to say that. Don't be scared here. Indulge in learning and interaction.

P.S.: She is 14 years old! D:

My mistake!

[Shee]

Well as far as the Compendium (and google+ etc) go, don't forget it's the internet, where anything is possible!! 

We don't chat much, which I'm sure you're losing all sorts of sleep over.  You're a ketchup fan, after all.  I certainly find you to be intelligent and driven for more, interesting, entertaining, fully aware of who you are and aren't, but not all that personable, which again I'm sure will make you cry out to the night sky, "NOOOO WHYYYY!?!?!?!"  It also makes your genuine personable moments that much more endearing (to me at least).  It also makes your more haughty moments that much worse, which in my opinion stem from lack of empathy or patience or tolerance or whatever that particular case may be.  Which you've pointed out already.

Basically, in my broad and fairly quick assumption, you already know the answer to your own question.

You said it yourself, you're not the best at "diplomatic relations" and your general intolerance for stupidity (more importantly, what you deem as stupidity/intolerable etc) can make your interactions that much more difficult.  You gave people a reason to be angry/pissed/what have you.  How to deal with that?  Investigate that "why" instead of writing it off as stupid, incorrect or not useful.  And if it has been investigated, and still things do not click with that person or you simply have no desire to deal with them in any capacity, then so be it.  You said it - you don't need to be everyone's friend.  People gotta want to listen or be lead.  Can't force it.  Which you know.  Just investigate.  Gotta get in their dirt, too.

Really it's a flaw (flaw in the sense of mapping out and spreading your philosophy to those who want to listen) that you acknowledge and basically said will likely not change.  Yea, you can be a Good Josh if need be, but it's not ever going to be permanent.  Hope my mookage wasn't too prevalent.






And don't say that you could say something, say it, and then say you wouldn't.  Boo to that.

[Lord J Esq]

And don't say that you could say something, say it, and then say you wouldn't.  Boo to that.

I often think aloud! =)

But it's a fair point.

And if it has been investigated, and still things do not click with that person or you simply have no desire to deal with them in any capacity, then so be it.  You said it - you don't need to be everyone's friend.  People gotta want to listen or be lead.  Can't force it.  Which you know.  Just investigate.  Gotta get in their dirt, too.

It's possible that you're right and I may just have to settle for artificially targeting a smaller audience because I can't be more inclusive on a personal level, or perhaps would strongly enough want not to do it that way. My bent is pretty elitist, and people around me have proven time and again their capacity for dealing with people well when I would rather not do it at all.

For better or worse however this philosophy project is going to require a lot of community-building, and it's well and good to acknowledge that there are many people who don't rub me well (and vice versa of course), but I can't just skip out on the community-building nor can I merely sign it all over to some gregarious lieutenant.

It may be possible that I will have to settle for being a divisive figure in terms of personal popularity--something which makes community-building more difficult in that it encourages factionalism. I'm not particularly concerned about being liked, but I need to avoid becoming a distraction to the work I'm trying to do--not only through my own conduct but in the sense of other people's perceptions of me. I also need to be non-repulsive enough not to undercut my outreach efforts.

Hence this topic seeking input!

Between yourself and Thought, I see the feedback trending in the direction of "Don't do what you can't do well." That may well be correct, but it doesn't really address the issue of how to proceed on this issue, which is still a stumper for the time being.

[tushantin]

*grins smugly* I think I get what's cooking, and it surprisingly seems the same as what I've been planning as the "Part 3" of that "If you ran the world post", and a good prototype for what I've been discussing with my boss the other day. In that case, I have the simplest solution to your dilemma:

OpenSource your philosophy! If you have something to share, then do it. No questions, no musing, no doubts. Just do it! Whatever the consequences, we'll see to it.

Haha, OpenPhilosophy! We could go so far as to call it as OpenEthics or OpenReligion, the first of its kind where people can't be bound by their beliefs, are free thinkers, always seeking out progress. And's not just you who'd be contributing, but also the community. If you believe you can't interact well with the mooks, then don't worry, you got us to do it for you. We already have a well-defined culture here at the Compendium, but now it's time to take things a step further.

I replied to your comment primarily to say that. Don't be scared here. Indulge in learning and interaction.

I do. XDDD Just without sharing my personal views. At the same time I'm intrigued at hearing other people's honest views that don't need to conform with culture or anything. As FaustWolf says, these conversations are precious.

[Thought]

I think I detect in there a criticism of my philosophy itself. Nonetheless, it's an interesting view coming from someone with your perspective, and I appreciate it. I'll be speaking with you at some point in the future, and we can no doubt flesh this out further.

Criticism? That would require that I know more about your philosophy. To my shame, currently I don't know much, since I still have discussions regarding it sitting on my reading desk. From what I do know, there are two points which I disagree, but both are minor to the whole and stem from a singular personality difference between us, I suspect. First, you had commented previously that it is designed for individuals post-religion. I am of the perspective that such a limitation is unnecessary, but from what little else I know about it, that is more of a presentational disagreement than a substantive one. Second, you've noted that your philosophy is not for mooks. While I might agree that the individuals you reference would not be interested in reading a philosophical treaties, or indeed anything heavily intellectual in nature, I am also of the perspective that any philosophy that desires to improve the world much find a way to bring along the mooks as well as the minds.

As for saying that the individual to assist you would have to be fairly unique, such a statement is motivated by the nature of the attributes the individual would be required to have. First, the person would need to be someone that you would trust implicitly. Not only would you be entrusting to this person the presentation of your philosophy, you would also need to be able to trust their judgment as to responding to feedback, questions, and criticisms the project might garner. Further, in all likelihood, you would need to trust them sufficiently to allow them to shape the philosophy itself. I believe that for this project, that requires a very high level of trust indeed. To earn this level of trust from you, I suspect the individual would need to essentially have devised the same philosophy as yours but on their own, apart from you. That in turn would require a very information oriented individual. People who are both very information oriented and also very charismatic are rare enough as is, but add to that the necessity for them to very information-oriented in a very sinistralian way, and, well, you have your white stag.

Between yourself and Thought, I see the feedback trending in the direction of "Don't do what you can't do well." That may well be correct, but it doesn't really address the issue of how to proceed on this issue, which is still a stumper for the time being.

Again, the solution -- the answer to “how to proceed on this issue" -- is to delegate. Really, there are only two options: change yourself to fit the necessary role or find someone else to fill it. In your own words: “I am clearly not the best person to encourage them along.” If you are not the best person (and you said you are not), then find the best person! Surely, your philosophy deserves it.


EDIT: Actually, there is a third option, which is to ignore the need, but that is unbecoming of a desire to change the world.

[FaustWolf]

Ooh! Ooh! I had a thought! Which is quite appropriate, because it came while reading Thought's posts.

If you find delegation to flesh-and-blood people unscrupulous for any reason, what about delegation to fictional people? I'm sure plenty of folks have said Edward Bellamy is nuts, but it is rather difficult to ascribe the same criticism to the affable Doctor Leete.

[Lord J Esq]

Ooh! Ooh! I had a thought! Which is quite appropriate, because it came while reading Thought's posts.

If you find delegation to flesh-and-blood people unscrupulous for any reason, what about delegation to fictional people? I'm sure plenty of folks have said Edward Bellamy is nuts, but it is rather difficult to ascribe the same criticism to the affable Doctor Leete.

Well, it's true that my book, while first and foremost a story, also contains an exploration of my philosophy. (Indeed the book preceded the philosophy project and was my medium of choice for years, together with my journal.) But I'm quite positive that readers don't like to be preached to, and my characters all have their own personalities. None of them is an exact stand-in for my views. A few come close, and, in addition to deviating from my own philosophy in various ways, and being inefficient "preachers" so as to keep the narrative focused on the story, they are not necessarily more likable than I am. (This topic has really made me sound like a grinch. I really am not!)

The written medium brings out a clarity of mind in me that seems to be necessarily confrontational. So many people's lives could be so much better, so quickly, but are not for no better reasons than "It's hard" and "People's opinions are sacrosanct" (i.e., Voltaire).

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

First, you had commented previously that it is designed for individuals post-religion.

That's a distinct initiative. The philosophy project has a number of side-projects, one of which is a website for people who are looking for some thoughts and guidance after leaving religion or simply for having to deal with a world where most others remain heavily religious. My philosophy itself has relatively little good to say about religion, but establishes that most people have a right to practice it if they wish. (With constraints, of course, such as no religion in the public square.)

Second, you've noted that your philosophy is not for mooks. While I might agree that the individuals you reference would not be interested in reading a philosophical treaties, or indeed anything heavily intellectual in nature, I am also of the perspective that any philosophy that desires to improve the world much find a way to bring along the mooks as well as the minds.

I have no intention of leaving behind large swaths of society. It'd be a pretty crummy philosophy otherwise. My point is that mooks--the people who refuse to exercise their power to think--will be unwilling or unable to participate in the target audience, because it's a philosophy that requires a lot of mental exertion. The social changes I propose certainly do include accommodations for all people.

As for saying that the individual to assist you would have to be fairly unique, such a statement is motivated by the nature of the attributes the individual would be required to have. First, the person would need to be someone that you would trust implicitly. Not only would you be entrusting to this person the presentation of your philosophy, you would also need to be able to trust their judgment as to responding to feedback, questions, and criticisms the project might garner. Further, in all likelihood, you would need to trust them sufficiently to allow them to shape the philosophy itself. I believe that for this project, that requires a very high level of trust indeed. To earn this level of trust from you, I suspect the individual would need to essentially have devised the same philosophy as yours but on their own, apart from you. That in turn would require a very information oriented individual. People who are both very information oriented and also very charismatic are rare enough as is, but add to that the necessity for them to very information-oriented in a very sinistralian way, and, well, you have your white stag.

I expected it was something along those lines. My view on the matter is that if no suitable individuals are forthcoming then, in the words of our president, I will need to become the change I want to see--which suggests that I may have to engage more expensively in being tepidly genial to people.

Again, the solution -- the answer to “how to proceed on this issue" -- is to delegate.

In a more limited sense, this is exactly right. While some of my responsibilities will prove indelegable, a larger share of them must be spread across an executive apparatus. No one person can build the world. I've known that for a very long time, and, in time, it will become more clear to me what I should be doing myself versus what I should pass off.

Some of this sounds a bit intercompetitive, even contradictory. It's a sign that I have yet to arrive at a coherent position on the matter.

[rushingwind]

Each of them shares in common the fact that if I would have just shut up and behaved myself and I would be genteelly adored, or at least tacitly ignored.

That’s where the philosophy project comes in, and my pertinent question. It’s a question to myself, but I surely won’t complain if others have interest enough to chime in. The question is: How should I interact with people like that?

You can start by not antagonizing them. It's one thing if you don't get along with them, but it's another to purposely call them out, and appear as if you're daring them to respond. If you think most people to be mooks that you're unwilling/unwanting to engage with, then what is the purpose of your philosophy? It benefits few other than yourself if you're not willing to take on the tedious task of engaging with people you consider mooks. Indeed, if you want to change the world, you will have to learn. It's unlikely (not impossible, though) to find someone passionate enough to do the job for you.

You do have a good philosophy, what small portion I know of it. But there's a serious difference between "mollycoddling" and antagonizing people on purpose, and your initial post is a good example of that. You want to find a way to resolve these concerns without compromising your philosophy, while some people might dismiss your philosophy on account of perceived rudeness alone. You call out ZeaLity, Tushantin, Ramsus, and Daniel Krispin, then turn around and pass out a sort of backhanded compliment. Tushantin seems to have taken it in stride, though I still cringe to read the way you announce your feuds with little concern for others. Antagonizing people is just not constructive. So why would you engage in pointless, non-constructive activity, even if it's just an offhand comment? That's not in keeping with the presence of mind you've claimed to possess in your many posts.

I say all this while knowing you're a perfectly nice person who isn't out to actively cause harm. It's just that I perceive that your "blind spots" are not as narrow as you believe (which is true for a wide swath of people). You do antagonize people here on the Compendium, even if unintentionally. You are rude when it is unnecessary. I suppose you and I may differ on whether or not those things constitute inappropriate behavior, or even on the nature of these things. From my point of view, however, you should make some attempt to relate to people on terms that this world considers appropriate (if you ever want to be heard, that is, and I assume you do). And I imagine that your philosophy project wouldn't be so important to you if you didn't want to share it with the world at large and have it heard by many people, which was the impression I'd always had.

I've never been good at giving criticism and usually feel pretty uncomfortable doing it, and I do have my own blind spots, after all. I think my point still stands, however. If you can't interact genially with common people, your project will never get off the ground. I also disagree with your point that it's proper to be nicer to strangers than acquaintances, as it's your acquaintances who stand the highest chance of helping you with your project, than say... oh, some stranger on the street.

[tushantin]

Tushantin seems to have taken it in stride.... Antagonizing people is just not constructive.

I humbly apologize for my idiocy! ><

[rushingwind]

Tushantin seems to have taken it in stride.... Antagonizing people is just not constructive.

I humbly apologize for my idiocy! ><

When I said that you'd taken it in stride, what I meant was that you've responded calmly and don't appear to be offended. It's a compliment, not an insult. The "antagonizing" bit wasn't directed at you.

I do think antagonizing people is not constructive. Also, I think it's worth noting that criticism shouldn't be confused with antagonism. They are different. To give criticism is to point out flaws, criticize, etc, generally with a level attitude (well, preferably so, anyway). To antagonize is to stir someone to hostility. The former is useful, the latter is rarely so.