Discussing ideas, not people

I'm not sure. Perhaps we should be clear on what we mean when we talk about discussing people.

Do we mean simply making personal judgements upon a person's character apart from blowing a whistle when they make a foul with the rules, or does it include talking about them making a foul?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: All to often it is the ideas some have of other people that become the subject of discussion. These ideas are hopelessly skewed due to the limiting nature of this medium but that does not stop them from drawing conclusions and then stalking their quarry endlessly in the name of misplaced justice.

I think quite a many of us here fall into the camp of either “holier than thou” or “smug bastard” and cant help taking shots at the people on the other side. I am a smug bastard through and through and theres two things i can say about us: one of our defining attributes is that we really like to win- or at least we have to show everyone how smart or clever we are lol. The other is that no one gets on our nerves more than the holier than thou types who run around... well i wont call out anything specific, lol. No shots fired at the other camp if i can help it. I will only say its a good idea for us all to ask ourselves which we are.

If this makes me a patriarchal chauvinist pig for saying men and women are different then, guilty as charged. As i was typing this i realized that that i really dont see the women around here falling quite so neatly into these categories.

Anyway.
Ive seen people take shots at you Kyrin when it definitely wasnt necessary or appropriate. Its even seemed to me at times that theres people who are practically obsessive about disliking you, often making unspecific points about “disruptive people” lol and how the rules aren't strong enough or arent being enforced properly... rarely do they actually say your name, which i always take as a sign of pettiness. I believe if its worth saying then you shoulsd be clear about what you mean. I dont harp on this often and im not using it to justify any policy changes or castigations against anyone, so i dont feel im contradicting myself by not calling anyone out personally (and anyway, everyone here knows i will call people out, personally, for the simple reason that ve done it so many times)

I see your point and i agree its valid.

However, things are almost never “either/or” and Ive also seen you take shots at people when it wasnt necessary. I dont read every thread so even when i can tell its something carried over from somewhere else, i have no way to know who started it. All i can see is that youve got some back and forths going with any number of people at any given time and some of those back and forths result in hard feelings. Hard feelings carry over into other threads and create new back and forths which create more hard feelings. I dot deny that theres been plenty of holier than thou types who like to point thier fingers at you and say “theres the bad guy” but it appears to me that you can be quick to say things to people without a full appreciation of the impact that your words will have. As a smug bastard, i constantly have to wrestle with the question “do i want to always be in a battle with the people around me?” Realizing that i dont, ive had to put a lot of work into being more thoughtful about the words i use when i disagree with someone. The bummer is that even with the work, i still come across as a smug bastard, more often than not :laugh:

ren wrote: Is it a sign of malice or mental illness? Or something else.

Something else entirely actually, those people are generally discussing the 'talking about a person' rather then the person who might have done the talking about a person :silly:

Unless they are.... LOL

It includes talking about them making a fowl, whether a fowl was found to be made or not by the fowl watchers. Same applies to fouls and referees, crimes and cops, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j13oJajXx0M

Be humble enough a person to know its not you being discussed

To keep it general enough not to offend anyone, people are very sensitive and in my mind a bit to full of themselves or own ideas not necessarily about the topic being discussed that they cannot do anything but make it about them.

I have seen warnings about discussing ideas and not people when it clearly has not happened, but people are too vain to not be the center of attention by being offended.

OB1Shinobi wrote:
I think quite a many of us here fall into the camp of either “holier than thou” or “smug bastard” and cant help taking shots at the people on the other side.

I agree with everything you have said but I think there is also a third option. The Social Justice Warrior who cant keep ideas separate from people. This place touts the idea that attachment is a bad thing and yet I have never seen a truly detached Jedi. They get so wound around their ideas that they become a part of them so much so that they do not have an identity of self without these ideas. I tend to discuss strong subjects because that's what I like to do. But when those strong subjects are the very ego of the person I'm speaking to, it becomes perceived as a personal attack when it never is.

I support a republican Trump, but people are so attached to their democratic ideas that my support of Trump becomes an attack on them personally and I become perceived a fascist, a Nazi and a bigot. I tell them I dont believe in their psychic powers but instead of accepting my skeptical position on a paranormal claim they feel I have attacked their character in some personal way. I tell them they are wrong on a philosophical point and i become a soul crushing masochist that delights in pulling wings off flies instead of maybe facing the fact their idea is malformed. I say if you believe that you are an alien being from another star system sent here to help mankind evolve, that it might be a symptom of schizophrenia and people loose their shit!

People have this idea that everyone should just be accepting of any idea they have without question and when that does not happen it becomes an attack on their ego instead of a critique of an idea. I'm sorry but I don't have to accept everyone's ideas just because they said so. The problem is the world does not work this way and people should not have to tip toe around bad ideas just because it might dent a fragile psyche. The only way that psyche will ever get stronger is by exposing it to the truth. It's sometimes a painful process but a necessary one for growth. The first step is to recognize that twinge when you experience it and then evaluate it objectively for what it truly is instead of viscerally reacting and rejecting it out of hand, then doubling down on that attachment by turning it into a personal attack as a means to avoid that pain.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote:
I think quite a many of us here fall into the camp of either “holier than thou” or “smug bastard” and cant help taking shots at the people on the other side.

I agree with everything you have said but I think there is also a third option. The Social Justice Warrior who cant keep ideas separate from people. This place touts the idea that attachment is a bad thing and yet I have never seen a truly detached Jedi. They get so wound around their ideas that they become a part of them so much so that they do not have an identity of self without these ideas. I tend to discuss strong subjects because that's what I like to do. But when those strong subjects are the very ego of the person I'm speaking to, it becomes perceived as a personal attack when it never is.

I support a republican Trump, but people are so attached to their democratic ideas that my support of Trump becomes an attack on them personally and I become perceived a fascist, a Nazi and a bigot. I tell them I dont believe in their psychic powers but instead of accepting my skeptical position on a paranormal claim they feel I have attacked their character in some personal way. I tell them they are wrong on a philosophical point and i become a soul crushing masochist that delights in pulling wings off flies instead of maybe facing the fact their idea is malformed. I say if you believe that you are an alien being from another star system sent here to help mankind evolve, that it might be a symptom of schizophrenia and people loose their shit!

People have this idea that everyone should just be accepting of any idea they have without question and when that does not happen it becomes an attack on their ego instead of a critique of an idea. I'm sorry but I don't have to accept everyone's ideas just because they said so. The problem is the world does not work this way and people should not have to tip toe around bad ideas just because it might dent a fragile psyche. The only way that psyche will ever get stronger is by exposing it to the truth. It's sometimes a painful process but a necessary one for growth. The first step is to recognize that twinge when you experience it and then evaluate it objectively for what it truly is instead of viscerally reacting and rejecting it out of hand, then doubling down on that attachment by turning it into a personal attack as a means to avoid that pain.

And who has the right to say that any given idea is bad for them? Perhaps it's not an issue of requiring one to tip toe but to respect that people can make their own choices and decisions to follow their ideas instead of evangelizing differing views upon them forcefully?

But then you can get into many philosophical discussions about when it's appropriate to intervene or not, usually drawn with a line of physical self harm or physical harm to others but can one try and correct someone else's belief? Or respect it?

Tellahane wrote: And who has the right to say that any given idea is bad for them?

Who has the right not to? "Oh, you're drinking battery acid, are you? Alright then. I respect that." What could possibly be a less empathetic, more selfish than that? People might be in plight or peril or thinking in ways that may lead them or others to it down the line, but heaven forbid we compromise our own feeling of humility by speaking up. Is this really how you feel? Sure, I have every right to withhold this critique from you. I have every right to not talk to anyone. Surely, you cannot be suggesting that this is what we do, can you? That we just abstain from life altogether?

Perhaps it's not an issue of requiring one to tip toe but to respect that people can make their own choices and decisions to follow their ideas instead of evangelizing differing views upon them forcefully?

Discussion is not force. Debate is not force. As long as we can talk still, there is no excuse to resort to more "forceful" means, but once we erase that line, then arguing against the latter becomes equivalent with it and hypocritical thusly. I frankly much rather we kept the distinction between force and dialogue.

But then you can get into many philosophical discussions about when it's appropriate to intervene or not, usually drawn with a line of physical self harm or physical harm to others but can one try and correct someone else's belief? Or respect it?

Yes. No belief is inherent. If we say people are incorrigible, cannot be reasoned with, then indeed force becomes the only way to resolve issues. It is the difference between thinking your opponent is wrong and thinking they are evil. In the former case discourse might promise a solution. In the latter, only battle. I still believe that diplomatic solutions are both possible and preferable, naive though thinking so may be...

Gisteron wrote:

But then you can get into many philosophical discussions about when it's appropriate to intervene or not, usually drawn with a line of physical self harm or physical harm to others but can one try and correct someone else's belief? Or respect it?

Yes. No belief is inherent. If we say people are incorrigible, cannot be reasoned with, then indeed force becomes the only way to resolve issues. It is the difference between thinking your opponent is wrong and thinking they are evil. In the former case discourse might promise a solution. In the latter, only battle. I still believe that diplomatic solutions are both possible and preferable, naive though thinking so may be...

And how would you describe the process of achieving diplomatic solutions? what is your ideal methods between say two people of very opposing views?

I think these kinds of things most often come down to presentation (how you communicate "truth" / "correction" / etc). If the intent is to get through to someone, your best chances of success is often learning more about how the other person(s) socially works and learning how to speak their language. If they are someone who you find is more sensitive to approval acknowledgment for example, then learn how to convey your messaged to them with that consideration (as doing the opposite you find makes them just reinforce their position). If someone is more thick-skinned you find, then obviously no need to sugarcoat your communication to them. It's basic social psychology. The point is, if you find yourself baffled and wondering why you keep getting so much flack when you post, it's rarely about who's got the more correct points, but about if your using the correct method to get a through to your audience.

I remember a quote that paraphrased, said that something along the lines of "people will not remember what you say as much as they will remember how you make them feel." Making someone feel willing to listen to your points, therefore seems like a key prerequisite to convincing them to genuinely consider them.

Trying to nudge the topic away from the problem being discussed to dilute the problem seems disingenuous..... but I'm not discussing the people doing it, rather what they are doing. By the same margin misrepresenting what is being said by someone to pivot more criticality for the sake of argumentative momentum seems to be another way some are trying to marginalize a person who is trying to explore a topic.

I'd say, if they were discussing the ideas and beliefs it would be less of an issue. The problem isn't that people are too sensitive about being questioned, but rather when that creeps over to criticizing the person holding them it just frankly inappropriate in something like a workplace for example. If TotJO just wants to be an internet forum then have at it, but if it ever wanted to be an actual functioning 'organization' then it would have to get past the animal farm level of faux intellectualizing - they are not hard realizations.

Pretending it's the victims fault of abuse for being too sensitive is an old trick. The whole raft of BS thrown around here by some is just run of mill decades old internet trolling. I really doubt anyone is paying that much attention to it, but its a shame its from people in this particular community, for it in particular is vulnerable to being seen as childish to begin with. This doesn't help.

Many here would push for using better manners in conversation.

But manners were meant for saving face in a society where reputation is everything.

I find my best friends are those who skip manners and can tell me straight what they think (“dude, gross, you have brocoli in your teeth” is better than a bunch of people smiling and pretending they didn’t notice).

Manners are ONLY useful in protecting negatively affecting the persona.

But mature individuals know the difference between “wearing the persona” and “being the persona”.

I have always found how a person reacts to being called out in public as a good test of character (of course, what I value as good character: self-responsibility, resiliency, and emotional intelligence).

Reputation is not found in manners. Its found in hard work and in action and in perseverance and the willingness to do things that others are not willing to do, to make the sacrifices others never will. It's an ugly job but it's a necessary job. This is because freedom, either physical, spiritual, mental or psychological will never be found in some socially uniform, politically correct, coddling safe space. Do you know why? Because nature... life itself, does not give a fuck about your wellbeing. That is something each of us has to earn on his or her own and that can only be accomplished by growing a giant rock hard pair and taking extreme responsibility for ourselves.

Not sure anyone is disagreeing with you Kyrin, as its more about how its done not if its done. The whole Temple seems suited to creating an environment of stepwise pressuring for growth; initial contact area, pipeline to engage commitment, then personalized focus through that mode. Failing that process for whatever reason doesn't mean it doesn't work, cannot work, or be a good foundation for making it work. The no rules open slather approach is not really the best way to go IMO.

I always go by the rule of, "It's not what you say, but How you say it". That being said, I'm not saying sugarcoat every single thing, but if you know someone is an emotional person, saying something in, what they will perceive as, a rude or aggressive tone is not gonna win them over. If anything it will simply perpetuate the argument. I support discussions and debates, but the problem is some people do go too far on BOTH sides. Look at the Trump example given earlier. Some people hate Trump just to hate him but it goes both ways. That exact same concept could be applied for all arguments. It takes two to fight.

But is it about winning people over? Or is it about weeding out the weak? Survival of the fittest builds the strongest society and if we can let the weak go the strongest, most capable society will be the one that emerges.

The strongest societies are actually the most diverse ones, if we're talking about human society, AFAIK going by history. At least after moving into agricultural civilizations. It is different for animals IMO, with reduced faculties because the level of interaction is much lower (as far as would seem evident), in relative terms.

At the risk of being insulted again because of sharing my view on things, I'm not into modelling the peak experience of humanity around animals, rather I think animal models serve more usefully as 'compressed' processes. If we're all thinking at the same speed then its an issue of bandwidth, but since we can multi-task we can segment our bandwidth to functional smaller bands of overall width. So in that regard they are convenient simplifications, but much like thinking gods are human like, it seems just like another anthropomorphising to me and therefore inaccurate.

The problem in this becomes in trying to arrogantly believe we are actually not animals. The reality is we are just animals, evolved to a specific niche to be sure, that has allowed us to thrive, but we are still only animals. And we function best in competition with our environment and with others of our species and those outside our species. It's why capitalism is the best form of government ever conceived of and why we have gone to the moon and why the United states has become the most powerful nation on the planet.

These are the things that define us as a species and the losers of these competitions are trying to convince us that this is not the most advantageous system available to us. They dont want equal opportunity but equal outcome and that simply goes against the laws of nature that we all not only must abide by but must realize is required for the species to thrive into the future.

Yeap, which is why I think we can effectively think at different speeds. Not the bioelectricity as much as the information processing. Some reduced models work better when speed is required. Without going all Eight-Circuit Model of Consciousness.