Ball Busting, it’s a term used to describe when people (typically men) in a group will say particularly ruthless things to one another, often in a jokey way (seriously, it’s even been an Onion punchline). However, this practice isn’t examined very well, if at all. The practice is toxic, one-way and unproductive. So, all of the self-proclaimed ball busters should just start sharpening their pitchforks now (since they don’t take criticism well).
The term ball busting itself is a dubious one anyways. Besides the inherent sexism (women are quite capable of being facetiously one-way with their cruelty), the term-and by extension, the practice itself, has become so commonplace that its acceptable to use in professional contexts. Anecdotal as it may be (a personal anecdote? Gasp!), I’ve heard the term be used on daytime sports radio, as well as at the workplace; that latter example was from a female executive. Personally, there ought to be more of a social stigma applied to the term-and again, the practice-of ball busting.
The worst part of the phenomenon is the one-way hypocritical nature of the activity. Let’s assume a hypothetical meeting of two people; Person A and Person B. Person A will bust balls with Person B as the target of their mean-spirited humor. However, when Person B returns fire, Person A nearly always gets angry and defensive, hotly proclaiming that Person B went too far. Hilariously enough, Peron A frequently goes around pounding their chest, proudly claiming that they can take it. Thus, the only true difference between toxicity (as much as I hate that term) and true cohesion is reciprocity. If you like to bust balls but dislike being critiqued, then you are the problem, full stop (and you’re definitely not The Man). Truthfully, it’s better to cut all ties entirely with those who dish-but-cannot-take-it; Person A is toxic and doesn’t deserve to have Person B in their life (and Person B deserves better). Even Saturday Night Live has turned it into a punchline, in which “Emmanuel Macron” didn’t appreciate receiving jokes made by “Boris Johnson”, despite being the instigator.
Being able to take ball busting is hard, which makes sense considering how truly few people can actually do so. That’s because criticism can activate the amygdala response of our brains. The amygdala is essentially the brain’s 911 dispatcher, quickly sending out hormones in response to stress. In our modern contexts, these responses typically do more harm than good; they can easily cause us to get defensive or lash out in response. But hey, keep proclaiming to be the ball busting champion of your ever-narrowing friend group!
Truthfully, giving criticism is also hard, hence why it’s usually called a hard truth. Because of this, many people prefer to deliver it using humor as a vehicle. As the hottest up-and-coming author in the 603 discussed in his hard-hitting debut book, there is truth behind every joke. After all, that is the source of the humor. However, ball busting doesn’t involve jabs about the economy or healthcare, they are highly personal attacks.
Truthfully, people don’t want to be critiqued at all. When given the option, we’ll prefer our echo chamber over something that challenges our worldview. Humans (broadly speaking) want to fit in, and we want to be liked. After all, forming communities of like-minded compadres is how our caveman ancestors survived. There is strong evolutionary pressure to conform to the group, and that usually comes with agreement rather than challenging status quo. Therefore, the person receiving the ball busting typically doesn’t speak out. The lack of a challenge is complicit acceptance.
Frankly, Person A from my example earlier would be much better served by working through their insecurity, rather than busting the balls of Person B. However, change is hard and uncomfortable, and it’s easier to just attack Person B for their shortcomings, real or perceived (usually the latter). Person A could benefit from the wisdom of Jordan B Peterson; clean your room before criticizing the rest of the world. Perhaps after the metaphorical room of Person A has been cleaned up a bit, they’ll feel less of a need to project their insecurities onto Person B…
“Well Dan, you’ve spilled enough ink pointing out the problem, so what’s your solution?” I’m glad you asked, filthy naysayer. The solution is both simple and profound, so I hope your sitting down with a pen and a yellow legal pad; don’t do it. That’s it, just stop doing it. True friends should be equal parts hype-man and willing to speak truth when necessary, without the fanfare of a joke to ease the blow. If you’re unsure if someone in your inner circle is self-proclaimed ball buster, Robert Greene (yeah, I know, call me a hypocrite) recommends making a joke at their expense, solely as a means of testing their response. If their response is blind fury, then you’ll have your answer (and should cut ties with them, pronto).
Remember, calling me soft doesn’t refute any of my points…
Home Page 