A discussion on internet arguments.

Some questions....

What is our reason (your's personally) to feel we have to be an "asshole", or "cold", or "blunt" in the first place?

Is not our choice of how we interact with the world a reflection of our own inner condition toward the world?

Do you ever/often catch flack from people who have to deal with your choice of how you interact with them?

How often have you contributed to somebody's life positively with this attitude? (that is a question not for you but for the people who receive your attitude).

steamboat28 wrote:

Jestor wrote: Is life about balance?

Shouldnt we work on both "not offending others" as well as "not being offended"?

Yes, but the problem with this idea comes with the realization that you can't control whether or not other people are offended. You can only control whether or not you are offended, since the only feelings you have control over are yours.

You can never really control another, unless they allow it...

So, because we can't control this aspect, we should just not worry about offending?

The "balance" I'm talking about is about our personal balance...

Being considerate/empathetic, and not being thin skinned...

I can't control my alcohol when I drink, does that affect whether you drink or not? :lol:...

No, so whether i can handle an insult or not, you [an individual] should still be seeking balance, right?

ren wrote:

Shouldnt we work on both "not offending others" as well as "not being offended"?

When you refuse to feel offence, no-one can offend you, and therefore, they do not need to worry about offending you. Instead of making them submit to your ideas of right/wrong, you make yourself more tolerant of them.

Interesting how I ask about your balance, an individuals balance, and you shift all the work onto them....

In their lives, yes, they should be striving to not be offended, and to not offend....

I think you are not seeking balance, but are one end of the spectrum...

steamboat28 wrote:

Jestor wrote: Is life about balance?

Shouldnt we work on both "not offending others" as well as "not being offended"?

Yes, but the problem with this idea comes with the realization that you can't control whether or not other people are offended. You can only control whether or not you are offended, since the only feelings you have control over are yours.

You can never really control another, unless they allow it...

So, because we can't control this aspect, we should just not worry about offending?

The "balance" I'm talking about is about our personal balance...

Being considerate/empathetic, and not being thin skinned...

I can't control my alcohol when I drink, does that affect whether you drink or not? :lol:...

No, so whether i can handle an insult or not, you [an individual] should still be seeking balance, right?

I don't think I was clear, lol....

Because alcohol is one of my demons, I should expect others to not be offended when I drink, right?

Even if I'm not polite...

Or to not be offended if I am always talking about how bad it is for me, right?

That's their problem...

Proteus wrote: What is our reason (your's personally) to feel we have to be an "asshole", or "cold", or "blunt" in the first place?

Because it's the only way some people will listen long enough to learn.

Is not our choice of how we interact with the world a reflection of our own inner condition toward the world?

this implies my "inner condition" isn't being an asshole.

Do you ever/often catch flack from people who have to deal with your choice of how you interact with them?

Yes. But even if I changed the way I reacted, I would. (I've tried) You can't please all the people all the time. You can't please anybody, most of the time.

How often have you contributed to somebody's life positively with this attitude?

There was a girl in high school I was horrible to. I was a total jerk to her. It wasn't because I didn't like her. It wasn't because I thought she was dumb. It was because I knew she was smarter than she was showing, and it bothered me. She dumbed herself down to fit in with the "in" crowd, wore prim and proper clothing, and kept her blonde hair neatly styled in the girliest popular fashion she could. She tried to pretend she was someone she obviously was not, so I ribbed her about it daily.

Almost ten years later, I notice a stranger stroll into my cybercafe and take a seat at the end of the long row of tables, down by the D&D players. This fuschia-haired goddess is wearing the most ludicrously jacked up sleeveless shirt so she can showcase the Mary Magdelene/Kali tattoo pairing on her biceps, and has enough metal in her face to set off an airport detector from a hundred yards. When she finally comes up to pay for something, we recognize one another, and she literally leaps across the counter to hug me.

Apparently, riding her ass about not being herself every single day in Freshman Algebra made her look at her life choices. She told me that once she realized how stupid she was being, she finished school somewhere else and got her dream job. "I'm bartending in Nashville and meeting music celebs nightly. I'm reading the books I want to read, I'm watching the movies I want to watch, I'm living the life I want to live. And I owe it to you for showing me how much more fun it could be. Thank you for picking on me. It's not something you'll hear often, but it changed my life."

All I'm saying is that no matter how much crap I have to catch for being a well-intentioned jerk the rest of my life, that one experience makes it all worth it. Judge if you want.

steamboat28 wrote:

Is not our choice of how we interact with the world a reflection of our own inner condition toward the world?

this implies my "inner condition" isn't being an asshole.

When one feels they have to be this way toward other people, is it not typically due to issues one has toward themselves and their roles in the world?

You say you've tried to take a more polite approach to people in the past and it didn't work? This sounds a bit generalized - it kind of sounds like, since it doesn't work on everybody, then the "right way to respond to everybody is the other way", without regards to the REAL reasons behind the specific instances where being nice didn't work. Are you sure that you had to change your way of interacting to everybody simply because of those instances where other people were simply having their own issues with themselves? Are you sure that if you hadn't actually come to understand the real reason you couldn't get through to them, you wouldn't have to resort to a more aggressive theme of socialization toward even those who don't need it?

It seems to me that if it were the case that taking the more blunt, aggressive approach were the thing to do, I, myself, and everyone else would require it toward people just as much... and yet, I very rarely ever feel any need to interact in this manner toward anybody, even when they are "not getting it".

Have you ever heard the story of the Sun, the wind, and the man in the coat?

The wind and the sun argued one day over which one was the stronger. Spotting a man traveling on the road, they sported a challenge to see which one could remove the coat from the man's back the quickest.

The wind began. He blew strong gusts of air, so strong that the man could barely walk against them. But the man clutched his coat tight against him. The wind blew harder and longer, and the harder the wind blew, the tighter the man held his coat against him. The wind blew until he was exhausted, but he could not remove the coat from the man's back.

It was now the sun's turn. He gently sent his beams upon the traveler. The sun did very little, but quietly shone upon his head and back until the man became so warm that he took off his coat and headed for the nearest shade tree.

[quote="Proteus" post=146924This sounds a bit general - it kind of sounds like, since it doesn't work on everybody, then the "right way to respond to everybody is the other way", without regards to the REAL reasons behind the specific instances where being nice didn't work.[/quote]
No, it's a good bit simpler than that. It's more of a "I'm tired of the pressure of societal expectations that require me to be something I am not."

I can be nice, or I can be me. You don't get both, and I think it's arrogant to assume that you can.

steamboat28 wrote: No, it's a good bit simpler than that. It's more of a "I'm tired of the pressure of societal expectations that require me to be something I am not."

I can be nice, or I can be me. You don't get both, and I think it's arrogant to assume that you can.

So you are responding to pressures of "expectations of society"? This sounds like an inner issue to me. Many who "don't get it" are also those who "speak their mind" in the same spirit against what they feel are expectations to be nice... it is an interesting chain effect where most of the people participating in it are not even aware of the chain itself.

In any case, are you convinced that not having to be socially aggressive is actually "needed" and "expected" by society more than it is actually a natural personal state of peace where one is simply free from feeling the need impose themselves upon others? Have you come to consider that what you are using to respond to (what you see as) "society's expectations" is actually the same thing you are rebelling against?

Proteus wrote: ...it is actually a natural personal state of peace...

The only things less natural than peace are the ingredients in Chicken McNuggets, my congressman's smile, and the things that Tara Reid used to stuff into her bikini. Humans, like the rest of the animal kingdom, are used to conflict because a necessary ingredient in life is the ability to survive, and we live on a harsh, harsh marble. The nature of society has quelled open conflict by making it both illegal and "uncivilized" in increasing degrees throughout history, which really just makes us more creative with brutality when we manage it.

If you want natural, you'll get survival. If you want enlightened, we can talk "peace". If you want something bungled, look at the current uncivilized state of civilization.

Deja-vu is a real kick in the pants sometimes....

Ren, Steamboat, I hope you both realize this is not attacks on you, but rather discussion...

Although, if your ego identifies with this as 'who you are', it is definitely going to feel like an attack, so I am sorry if it does...

Ren, you and I ahev talked so much, I know you know, and Steamboat, we have exchanged enough PMs, I think you know too...

For others reading this, who might be unfamiliar with those of us in the discussion, this is a discussion, and not two members getting beat up on by any means...

I love both of these guys, and I have never spoke ill of them as people, I think, like us all, they are doing their best...

like the rest of the animal kingdom, are used to conflict because a necessary ingredient in life is the ability to survive

Conflict exists, yes, but it is not a constant state for the animal kingdom, and only comes into play when it is time to eat, or defend territory...

The animal that snaps at everything else around it, is soon left alone, cast out from the group...

I was thinking about this earlier, after responding to Ren's last post...

The human equivelent is 'shunning', it is a non-violent way to say this....

If the rest of the pack stop responding, then the outcast animal moves on to join a new pack, or to live a solitary life... Which is tougher for a pack animal, but seldom impossible...

The problem, I guess, as I see it, is that things like speaking like this needs to be worked up to...

I didnt walk in on day one and tell my boss he was full of crap... I had to wait till he knew me, and I knew he could take a joke before saying such a thing...

And, sometimes, some people, thinking that just because some people know them, and can tolerate their ways, that everyone should...

And I think that is a shame...

Some people will never meet, because of this... :S