Manipulation and the Force...as Jedi

As Jedi, we have the ability to Express ourselves and our stance very clearly. It is important that we recognize that maintaining our stance and enforcing our stance are two very different things. If you simply tell other people your stance but are unwilling to recognize their path, is that truly Jedi behavior?
If you push others to abandon their stance in order to cater to you, are you not manipulating the other person?
Where is the line between sharing, educating...and manipulating or bullying?
How do you reconcile the difference? What do you do to combat this manipulative behavior?
If you recognize it in others how do you maintain your stance in opposition to the manipulator?

Athena_Undomiel wrote: [As Jedi, we have the ability to Express ourselves and our stance very clearly.

Do we, although?

Although I identify within the gray path, I have also been called out as a "sith" multiple times within forum discussions over the years. My behavior at times has not been the best, and yes I acknowledge I've allowed my anger to get the better of me. The grey code however is neither entirely Jedi, nor entirely Sith; but instead a combination of aspects from both ideologies.

The point of the above being, that there are times when the utilization and expression are appropriate; such as specific membership using smear tactics to push responsibility off themselves or those within their circle.

I think the ability to express one's politics or "stance" has less to do with being a devout Jedi, and more to do with character development. From my experience, most character development comes through a combination of failure, trauma, and struggle; and the lessons gained therein.

It is important that we recognize that maintaining our stance and enforcing our stance are two very different things. If you simply tell other people your stance but are unwilling to recognize their path, is that truly Jedi behavior?

If we limit the forum in such a way that there is an absence of conflict, heated debate, or other conflicting opinion; what we will in turn have is an environment that stifles personal growth and development, despite intentions otherwise.

If you push others to abandon their stance in order to cater to you, are you not manipulating the other person?

It may be just one view of many; but as I understand it, debate is meant for this very purpose. Debate is the process of presenting your argument, counter argument, etc; with the goal to either cause your opponent to abandon their position, or undermine it to a point where their arguments are without merit.

Where is the line between sharing, educating...and manipulating or bullying?

I think this line is crossed when either party does not consent to, or otherwise initiate a request for such education/sharing of information. I think it's additionally crossed when smear tactics (mentioned above) are used to push blame to un-involved parties when those of their inner circle are banned/disciplined or otherwise removed from temple activity.

How do you reconcile the difference? What do you do to combat this manipulative behavior?

I feel the difference should be easy enough to recognize, based on the argument I made above. If moderation reaches out to a conflicted party and requests they take a recess, or otherwise temper their responses within the forum to a less confrontational format; and those members ignore said request and continue their infighting, I believe that is the time when it is appropriate for more "severe" discipline such as suspensions or expulsions to take place.

Thank you for the response! I agree with you on most points here and appreciate that you recognize that there is an implied decorum for basic personal respect as well as personal responsibility.
How many chances must one be given to comply to acceptable (and by this I mean respectful) forms of communication in a public forum? We are all human and I know that I myself have trouble managing my own temper, it happens.
Is anyone beyond redemption? Does there come a point when you simply have to identify someone's behavior as toxic on a consistent basis before you separate yourself from interactions entirely? Does one good interaction negate all previous and insulting behaviors? If someone apologizes for their behavior but then continues to exhibit those toxic behaviors, are they truly sorry or are they just placating the offended parties?

Your opinion of debate makes me wonder if the forum is the proper place a debate then? Maybe we set up a debate ground or hold those heated conversations in private?
Sharing ideas and paths and beliefs here in the Temple is the ground this place is built on, if someone comes in and all they do with their debating is stifle the ideas of others and the communication between other parties or create a hostile environment, is that not also stifling growth?

I enjoy speaking with you.
*side note* I am wondering, with the syncretic principle behind the doctrine here, how do you claim to be " a Grey Jedi"? If the path allows anyone to accept the parts of any faith to make their belief whole then why label yourself more than necessary? Light and Dark exist simultaneously, why label yourself? Feel free to PM me this, if you want. Its personal, I understand.

Kohadre wrote:

Athena_Undomiel wrote: [As Jedi, we have the ability to Express ourselves and our stance very clearly.

Do we, although?

Although I identify within the gray path, I have also been called out as a "sith" multiple times within forum discussions over the years. My behavior at times has not been the best, and yes I acknowledge I've allowed my anger to get the better of me. The grey code however is neither entirely Jedi, nor entirely Sith; but instead a combination of aspects from both ideologies.

The point of the above being, that there are times when the utilization and expression are appropriate; such as specific membership using smear tactics to push responsibility off themselves or those within their circle.

I think the ability to express one's politics or "stance" has less to do with being a devout Jedi, and more to do with character development. From my experience, most character development comes through a combination of failure, trauma, and struggle; and the lessons gained therein.

It is important that we recognize that maintaining our stance and enforcing our stance are two very different things. If you simply tell other people your stance but are unwilling to recognize their path, is that truly Jedi behavior?

If we limit the forum in such a way that there is an absence of conflict, heated debate, or other conflicting opinion; what we will in turn have is an environment that stifles personal growth and development, despite intentions otherwise.

If you push others to abandon their stance in order to cater to you, are you not manipulating the other person?

It may be just one view of many; but as I understand it, debate is meant for this very purpose. Debate is the process of presenting your argument, counter argument, etc; with the goal to either cause your opponent to abandon their position, or undermine it to a point where their arguments are without merit.

Where is the line between sharing, educating...and manipulating or bullying?

I think this line is crossed when either party does not consent to, or otherwise initiate a request for such education/sharing of information. I think it's additionally crossed when smear tactics (mentioned above) are used to push blame to un-involved parties when those of their inner circle are banned/disciplined or otherwise removed from temple activity.

How do you reconcile the difference? What do you do to combat this manipulative behavior?

I feel the difference should be easy enough to recognize, based on the argument I made above. If moderation reaches out to a conflicted party and requests they take a recess, or otherwise temper their responses within the forum to a less confrontational format; and those members ignore said request and continue their infighting, I believe that is the time when it is appropriate for more "severe" discipline such as suspensions or expulsions to take place.

@kohadre - I like it when you post bro. Your posts are like gears that I can’t turn in my own path but not for the lack of trying. Thank you


Do we have the ability to express ourselves as Modern day Jeddist. ? We do. That is a freedom no one talks about and I don’t know why. We as humans can identify as anything we like. There are 3 baby’s born in 3 different parts of the world. By their location their body will be different. Yet the same consciousness lives in each of them and they learn to communicate - differently yes but they begin life the same way. It’s the location that forms them each differently. Same clay - different forms.. same stuff but three different hues. Life is like this every day . Every day ... 350,000 to 400,000 people are born daily on average. every day something different some how some way , some how the same. How we identify is our choice. We - get to fill in the blank. Watch - Kohadre - I’m Carlos I’m a husband father friend and all around great chef and can make ya eggs 1001 different ways - *waves hi!

Hi kohadre ! This is pastor Carlos , good to see you !

Hi kohadre - what’s good brother Knight! Glad to see ya again.

How I identify with you - can - be my choice. It is at times smiley face-
So we can identify any way we want as human beings (Jedi too) any way we choose. What keeps us from doing that? What keeps us from taking that freedom? One of the greatest things about my own modern day jediism is this little secret - equally - in character alone - what I have so can you - and what you have so can I. What we see we can have and what we create we can express. It’s during expression we can create new things. This is a wonderful flow that can be like a river full of life or a stag stinky pond.


On the debate - personally - I don’t think I want to ever share with the intent to undermine any ones positions. I don’t think that’s what I would call it. I’ve come to a place truthfully , and truthfully difficult - where I limit my competition. It’s a old school zen thing but I often remind myself often - there’s no competition.
I have a lesson called “the no contest -contest. “ The idea is pretty simple - removing greed is tough and recognizing it is even tougher - acting on it - is the battle ! I don’t argue - my wife loves and hates it. To do that - you gotta be on your A game ... as the kids call it.
I hope I share to help rather than harm -

Book of Change
58
My fav and frequent for the last part

Take not harm
Turn without disfigurement
Lead without demand
Show not blind.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Clergy/120861-carlos-book-of-change
Shameful shoutout

It’s the hardest thing to have that balance. Every one can have a balance of things if they like or want. We can have balance in anything. Balance is beneficial to everybody. Smiley face ! That’s what I try to bring to the Temple and to my real life. It’s those codes and those ideas that we all hold yet they shine differently when each of us release them and express our own balance and understanding and application of those codes and ideas and ways. That’s where the no competition part come in for me - we shine we don’t blind . To much is too much . If each of us brought our own balances to the table ... and we learned from one another rather than try to harm or undo or judge... what an idea hu? What a day when we can say - May the Force - and the Force of others - because I’ve learned from them what it can be as well... be with you!! What a day hu ? Lol I am being a bit facetious but truthfully - today is a good day to be a Jeddist! I got Knights like you right next to me!


@athena
Thanks for the post

For me - in my practice - balance is a good thing. My uncle told me one time “It takes small attempts first to scale a fence. “ Balance can be had. Don’t let anyone fool ya! There are so many forms of balance and forms and ideas and ways it CAN be had. Any one who says other wise is selling something! Lol

Now , in an environment as this - wouldn’t the anti establishment be obvious in a place of acceptance and what the religion part is built on...
"Our religion is syncretic in nature, meaning it is based in part on existing traditions. " Temple of the Jedi Order

Accepting the existing traditions ...
Believing in the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it... wouldnt that be opposite and be ... obvious? But then who’s to say the sage can enter but the jerk can’t ?? The scholar can but the punk can not? There’s than need for the balance again. Lol funny thing about balance - it’s always moving and changing in real life. Polaris is more than one star and yet it’s very ... consistent. Force be with y’all and thanks again! Good stuff to think on!

Athena_Undomiel wrote: Thank you for the response! I agree with you on most points here and appreciate that you recognize that there is an implied decorum for basic personal respect as well as personal responsibility.

I'm glad to hear you enjoyed my response, I've enjoyed speaking with you on the forum as well. I hope my follow up will be able to answer some of your other questions.

How many chances must one be given to comply to acceptable (and by this I mean respectful) forms of communication in a public forum? We are all human and I know that I myself have trouble managing my own temper, it happens.

I think in public forum, giving individuals chances to adapt and learn should be based not on a numeric basis; but instead on a combination of the individuals ability/willingness to learn from and display growth relating to past offenses, as well as the nature and severity of previous offenses.

In the eyes of the law, justice is blind; and all offenses are equally grievous, or so semantics say...

Society however, whether through culture or inherent emotional investment; has determined that certain crimes are less grievous than others. I.e A shoplift who runs off with a few sodas and a bag of skittles will often be treated somewhat "comically" as far as the law is concerned. It''s a relatively trivial offense and generally nonviolent in nature. On the other hand, I.e a convicted, repeat sex offender (pedophile, rapist, etc) will be treated with far greater severity in both the legal system, as well as the consequences dolled out by the surrounding community.

If there is a pattern where an individual will temper down for a while, and produce more calm and insightful responses within discussion; but then revert to a pattern of hostile and provocative interactions throughout their actions, I think that is when suspension or expulsion from the temple should be considered as a possible disciplinary action.

That would be a bit different from a few specific members repeatedly butting heads, which I'll address below.

Is anyone beyond redemption? Does there come a point when you simply have to identify someone's behavior as toxic on a consistent basis before you separate yourself from interactions entirely? Does one good interaction negate all previous and insulting behaviors? If someone apologizes for their behavior but then continues to exhibit those toxic behaviors, are they truly sorry or are they just placating the offended parties?

Some people don't interact well, whether through personality differences; political investments, upbringing, culture, or other philosophy. There is occasionally a clash of ideas, or ideals which can lead to heated or hostile debate; at times spilling over to personal attacks within or outside of the forum.

Ideally, the membership in question would simply choose to steer clear of topics/responses posted by their "rival" for lack of a better term. Through further development within the temple, and the maturity it brings; hopefully reconciliation would come naturally in the form of more mature discussion where differing beliefs and backgrounds are concerned.

However, there are some members who aren't yet mature enough to let go of their need for vindication. Perhaps they feel that they were wronged, and people either looked the other way; or didn't punish the offending party severe enough. For whatever reason, if there are members which display a consistent pattern of toxic and aggressive behavior; ignoring all attempts to deescalate the situation by moderators, they should be removed from temple membership.

The reason I give for that, is that the temple is not an anger management; or behavioral correction organization. Such individuals are often in need of crisis management, including psychology (counseling), development of social skills, and peer interaction (isolation). Such individuals usually are located in toxic (abusive) environments, and have little to no social interaction outside of an online environment.

While we seek to assist membership here with crisis; this falls outside of the scope of what our clergy is trained (and legally permitted) to do.

I don't believe one good interaction is enough to redeem a member of past behavior, however it provides them a potential foundation for growth and positive development. If a member indicates a willingness to develop positive growth within the forum, it should be encouraged. This kind of growth is usually not instantaneous however, and usually present's itself with hiccups and periods of minor regression along the way.

In those cases, I would again make the argument to look at the nature and severity of said transgressions; and the members willingness to take responsibility for and demonstrate growth relating to that offense.

Your opinion of debate makes me wonder if the forum is the proper place a debate then? Maybe we set up a debate ground or hold those heated conversations in private?

I suppose I would ask the question, whether the temple is meant as a place of worship; or a place of learning. If we are here to worship, I believe that we should be unified in that purpose. I can't think of a church or temple I've been in, where the membership was arguing with and hollering at each other over semantics and varying opinion.

However, if the temple is meant as a place of learning; I believe that debates should be located within their own separate section of the forums. While debate is an important part of a good education, it's not appropriate for every lesson. There should also be clearly established rules and standards for debates, which would in turn also highlight manipulative or otherwise toxic behavior.

I believe that going forward, for it's own long term longevity TOTJO needs to do some reflection and come to a decision on which form of temple it is.

If it is meant as a place of worship, then much of it's current format needs to be revised to that purpose. We have many here who openly ignore the doctrine and foundation of faith which TOTJO has built itself upon. Additionally, for a place of worship, there are far too many elements of TOTJO which do not fit into said purpose.

If it however is a place of learning, I feel there should be less emphasis on faith and more emphasis on creating useful courses of education; outside the scope of faith based learning. By this, I mean to emphasize courses on mathematics, history, business, participation in government, as well as life skills I.e cooking, first aid, and automotive repair.

Presently, TOTJO is trying to be too many things; and not succeeding at any of them.

Sharing ideas and paths and beliefs here in the Temple is the ground this place is built on, if someone comes in and all they do with their debating is stifle the ideas of others and the communication between other parties or create a hostile environment, is that not also stifling growth?

I completely agree with you on this point, and would also reference my responses above. There is a clear difference between joining a group in conversation, and bringing out a megaphone to drown everyone out.

There is also a clear difference between gainful debate, and "Hofbräukeller" which for historical reference was the type of "debate" used by hitler; being rhetorical in nature and meant to create discord and unrest between social groups.

Such individuals would absolutely be creating a hostile environment, in turn stifling the growth and development of other membership here (assuming that wasn't their intended goal from the start).

I enjoy speaking with you.
*side note* I am wondering, with the syncretic principle behind the doctrine here, how do you claim to be " a Grey Jedi"? If the path allows anyone to accept the parts of any faith to make their belief whole then why label yourself more than necessary? Light and Dark exist simultaneously, why label yourself? Feel free to PM me this, if you want. Its personal, I understand.

I'll attempt to answer this to the best of my ability, however if you would like to discuss it further via PM I would be happy to.

An issue I take with the current temple doctrine, is that I see it to encourage non-action and toxic pacifism.

For example:

Intervention: To know when not to act.

A Jedi knows how inaction can have as great an impact as action and how some of the greatest lessons are self-taught. To be a victor is also taking that victory from those you protect. A Jedi intervenes only when a Jedi's intervention is required.

Or:

Discretion: To become invisible.

A Jedi knows there is a time and place for all things. They do not actively interfere in worldly affairs and refrain from overtly supporting or opposing other individuals or organizations.

I've seen several temple members make comments on Jedi refraining from politics, refraining from voting, supporting political candidates, etc. The problem with this is that we then end up with global political environments such as our current POTUS, fringe groups such as ANTIFA / Aryan Knights, uninterrupted Russian election tampering, etc.

Nobody is voting, nobody is getting involved in government, and nobody is pushing for change to address the above problems. Everyone is complaining about it however, as threads such as "MAGA - Racist POTUS" would indicate. I would offer the opinion that Jedi here are still getting involved in politics and worldly affairs (despite thinking otherwise), however in it's current form it has no positive impact on manifest significantly needed political reform.

I've also seen Jedi who state they willingly and intentionally disarm themselves, having no means or intention for self defense. They seem to have a mindset that to be a proper Jedi, they put forth no effort to defend themselves or those close to them in the event of violent attack. Additionally, the risk of such attack continues to rise daily; as indicated by the thus weekly mass shootings, and documentation of terrorist attacks.

This month alone, there have been 23 terrorist attacks reported globally. The annual tally thus far is 1000+ attacks globally. The world is an increasingly violent place, and such a policy of toxic pacifism serves as ignorance of that reality.

Also, if you can't defend yourself; you can't be relied on to defend others if the situation calls for it. It's difficult to break up a fight if you've never learned how to throw a punch.

I've included the grey code below for reference. The reason I identify with the grey path (and code) is because it's a tempered; balanced combination of Jedi and Sith doctrines. It encourages action, but asks for wisdom and discretion within the choices being made. It pushes those who follow it to pursue a balanced approach to their learning and development.

Rather than being a Jedi and meditating all day while listening to spa music (slight exaggeration), or an edge-lord Sith who spends the day listening to hate-breed and popping targets at the shooting range (slight exaggeration); I seek to combine the best and most useful applications of both ideologies.

In a world where labels are becoming increasingly significant, I'd rather choose one that relates to an ideology I respect; than have one assigned to me for a mindset which doesn't apply.



Out of time for now, Happy Saturday!

Athena_Undomiel wrote: As Jedi, we have the ability to Express ourselves and our stance very clearly.
I try but am only human, Jedi or not I am going to be unclear at points. Context will get skewed, and I cant decide how others read what I write.
It is important that we recognize that maintaining our stance and enforcing our stance are two very different things. If you simply tell other people your stance but are unwilling to recognize their path, is that truly Jedi behavior?
IMHO no it is not, but that is my opinion and I won't stomp on others choices to be so.

If you push others to abandon their stance in order to cater to you, are you not manipulating the other person?
Yes, that is manipulation. As a teacher IRL I admit to using it all the time. Is it manipulation when we ask someone to step back and take a look at their own stances from a different lenses? I believe it absolutely is, but then again I think all interaction is in a way manipulation. Does basic communication not effect others emotions. If I tell you a story and you feel happy/sad did I not manipulate your mental state in a way

Where is the line between sharing, educating...and manipulating or bullying?
IMHO the line becomes when you choose to stop trying to learn or actually listen. I would say when you cease being respectful but that's subjective.

How do you reconcile the difference?
I try to truly listen (or read), but I also realize this depends upon my own lenses. So, I may seek council to see if maybe there view I am not seeing

What do you do to combat this manipulative behavior?
Now this is the tricky part. How do you? Well, if you have certain authority put to you it comes to how do you use it, more importantly when.
I remember a time and it's in my journal page 15 I think. Where there was someone shoving someone down because they didn't agree on something It was actually on the aggressors side as I didn't agree but the way in which they were acting was inappropriate IMHO. So, I asked leading questions until they stepped on their own toes then started lashing out. You know what's funny I still feel bad about it and that was at some point last year.

If you recognize it in others how do you maintain your stance in opposition to the manipulator?

In the old days of my youth I would charge in and argue non-stop. Now, I just ask questions if the manipulator is not responding to the questions then I know when to use silence as my weapon. Standing your ground in a debate doesn't mean repeating yourself, if one is not willing to be open to ideas then it is of little use to repeat yourself.

So, when we get into debates on this site I have to say I have seen some whoppers and there is obviously going to be some level of disagreement and a little heat. Sometimes, that isn't a bad thing, shocks can make people listen a little more. But, after a certain discussion where I was literally trying to stop people from yelling at each other (over the interwebs). I had to question myself quite a bit as I acted. Like a lot, I still do a bit, however, I did come to a realization because of this experience. As I look at it now, I won't censor one's message. I disagree with that type of censorship. This said, I will stand up and censor the way you say it, by comparing the way you said it, not what you said, to the TOS. In almost every case I have had to act as a Mod besides spam I have always sent a message asking that said post be reworded or why it should stay worded that way. If that can't or won't be done then their is a sense then that you are not debating or listening you are intent to harm. Now, in almost every case I will normally ask for a second opinion, what I read may not necessarily be right. I also try to take detailed notes so that should it be the case I can be held accountable for acting inappropriately, I have and will make mistakes. After all, I may live as a Jedi but I am a human and I will never be the ideal. If I ever think I am then I have stopped learning and that is more dangerous than anything I can do towards the idea of Jediism. Just my opinions. Kohadre, excellent replies, and Athena_Undomiel excellent thread to start.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Athena_Undomiel wrote: As Jedi, we have the ability to Express [sic] ourselves and our stance very clearly.

That must be why barely any of us can put to words just what "the Jedi stance" - or indeed even their own - is, let alone be consistent with either themselves or with more than at best so few more that one wouldn't need all fingers of one hand to count them.

I beg to differ. No. Most people, Jedi or otherwise are not at all good at expressing themselves or their stance. Enough even go out of their way to be deliberately vague and obtuse in an effort to sound all wise and holy and to no further good, too.

Athena_Undomiel wrote: Where is the line between sharing, educating...and manipulating or bullying?
How do you reconcile the difference?

I have a path so my comments are generally how that path, at that time, relate. The purpose being that it might be useful to the reader on the basis we probably share some similarity due to bing in places of communion like this joint.

So I'm not asserting truth, because I might change my mind, but I do have reasoning of some nature......whether my supporting reasoning is relevant or not is less important to me, because usually its not really possible to go into that level of detail easily. I think peripheral probs develop when people try to assess the weightings of supports in their view and compare it as being more, or less, justified..... which is where some argumentive folk go for room to be bullies, and some vulnerable go when they feel attacked by not being agreed with.

So I usually just reflect on the why of my participation (abv), and assert a monjudgmental curiosity to any new perspectives as potentially part of positive change to my path. Something not doing that is not less valuable, so time is not wasted, for it's at the least given me opportunity to exercise some critical and analytical thinking within myself.

Kohadre wrote: I've seen several temple members make comments on Jedi refraining from politics, refraining from voting, supporting political candidates, etc. The problem with this is that we then end up with global political environments such as our current POTUS, fringe groups such as ANTIFA / Aryan Knights, uninterrupted Russian election tampering, etc.

Nobody is voting, nobody is getting involved in government, and nobody is pushing for change to address the above problems. Everyone is complaining about it however, as threads such as "MAGA - Racist POTUS" would indicate. I would offer the opinion that Jedi here are still getting involved in politics and worldly affairs (despite thinking otherwise), however in it's current form it has no positive impact on manifest significantly needed political reform.

When I've said it in the past about the place of politics, I did not mean ignoring politics, but rather not being caught up in the group identity such that it might distract one from being impartial and fairly able to work with all sides of a situation - skills essential for diplomacy probably. In fact I think it's vital for staying aware of local, national, and international politics, especially for Jedi as these things speak a lot of about going ons, and how societies etc might work. Thoughts being.... politics in common speak usually refers to the allegiances and competition side of it, rather then the bargaining to meet consensus and factors in achieving good governance. Because to me a Jedi is primarily about developing a pragmatic path which integrates the Force as they see it, and not trying to meet some popular image of how a Jedi might act. A subtle difference perhaps, but one which can have big consequences when pressure is applied to processing hidden and competing interests.

All human social interaction is manipulation.

As far as I understand the doctrine, conversion to Jedi beliefs (missionary work, if you will) is not part of our aim. It is possible to be a guardian of peace and pursuer of knowledge/wisdom without imposing your stance on others. Open discussion, the sharing of ideals and values, does not have to equate to debate. If someone is utilizing inherently flawed logic, I believe they can be called out on it. If someone is practicing oppressive or demeaning behavior, we can shed light on it. At the same time, is it not part of our practice to allow others to follow their own path? We can be supportive without enabling toxic behavior or ideologies.
I had an instance this past weekend where I witnessed a myriad of cognitive distortions and flawed logic on full display in my twitter feed, a painful example of SJW extremism, essentially saying "fuck ALL cops, they're all GARBAGE and anyone in support of ANY of them is garbage too!"
I took a moment to address the errors I saw in this individuals thought process, the toxic nature of the rhetoric they were spewing, and the thoughtlessness they were encouraging in their followers. I offered my experience and view in the area of discussion as it was concerning a particular issue I am constantly working with as part of my job. This was a situation and viewpoint I have seen many sides of and managed to develop a fairly detailed understanding of, and this individual offered no personal connection to the matter beyond blind hatred and condemnation. I know for a fact there is corruption and crime WITHIN the system, that it is inherently broken, and there are some seriously twisted individuals within the law enforcement system. I can acknowledge the problem, certainly, but I also know for a fact that there are nuances to this subject. There ARE good cops, with good families. The system IS broken, but not beyond repair, I believe. The sad truth is that there are awful cops in the world, but there are even more awful criminals, and their numbers far exceed the number of officers. The system may be broken, but it is the system we have and in more cases than this person was willing to acknowledge it has saved lives and kept families from gratuitous suffering. There is always a duality, two sides of the coin, and it must be acknowledged. The balance may be tilted, there may be more dark than light, but that can only ever be corrected through honest efforts to make things better. Maybe I am completely off-base, but I don't believe the anger and hatred this person was spreading was that kind of effort; certainly not after reading affirmative comments attached to their post.
I suppose the issue becomes where we draw the line between objective truth and subjective truth. Some people convince themselves their point of view is superior because they feel so passionately about it. This, I believe, is the nature of "dark vs. light" in regards to the Force. I am open and teachable as much as I can be when opportunity presents itself. I invited a response from the individual, hoping they could offer a wider perspective on their anger. I knew by expressing an opposing view based on my experience might invite negativity, and WOW it really did. Quickly, too. I had flare ups of upset inside myself, but I did not feed into it. I was not going to become aggressive or defensive. I wanted to remain in control of my emotions, and I did not want to invalidate or deny others their thoughts or feelings. I wanted to open up discussion, understanding, awareness, because ultimately this person's expression of their feelings was destructive and closed-minded.
Conversation these days, more than ever, needs to be constructive and thoughtful and considerate. People want to be heard, understood, validated, but that process begins when we open ourselves to hearing, understanding, and validating.
Idk, maybe I'm just ranting at this point, lol. My biggest thing is that YES, all feelings are 100% valid, but oppressive, hateful, manipulative EXPRESSION of feelings is never going to be constructive towards solving anything. "...Wise men build bridges, while the foolish raise barriers" (Nigerian proverb, quoted by T'Challa in "Black Panther.")

I love the thoughtfulness in your post here, Tmattos93!

Athena_Undomiel wrote: ...If you push others to abandon their stance in order to cater to you, are you not manipulating the other person?
Where is the line between sharing, educating...and manipulating or bullying?
How do you reconcile the difference? What do you do to combat this manipulative behavior?
If you recognize it in others how do you maintain your stance in opposition to the manipulator?

My take is that the line between educating and manipulating is the gap between the intention to suggest and the intention to demand.

If we are invested in a point of view that differs from another's, a dialogue that highlights the difference while actively supporting the right of the other person to decide upon their own view of things is a healthy way for both people to grow, learn, and remain as friends. When we employ insistence, rage, caginess, or deceit in an attempt to force the other to accept a point of view, that is manipulation and at best diminishes our shared quality of life - and at worst is destructive.

I honestly don't know that we can combat manipulative behavior. A practiced manipulator is probably not fully receptive to reason or supportive suggestion; in all likelihood, the only was to stop a manipulator from manipulating is to manipulate him/her out of the habit. Sometimes, all we can do is walk away. That can be easy, but is also often difficult if we have an emotional attachment to the manipulator.

Tmattos93 wrote: As far as I understand the doctrine, conversion to Jedi beliefs (missionary work, if you will) is not part of our aim. It is possible to be a guardian of peace and pursuer of knowledge/wisdom without imposing your stance on others. Open discussion, the sharing of ideals and values, does not have to equate to debate. If someone is utilizing inherently flawed logic, I believe they can be called out on it. If someone is practicing oppressive or demeaning behavior, we can shed light on it. At the same time, is it not part of our practice to allow others to follow their own path? We can be supportive without enabling toxic behavior or ideologies.
I had an instance this past weekend where I witnessed a myriad of cognitive distortions and flawed logic on full display in my twitter feed, a painful example of SJW extremism, essentially saying "fuck ALL cops, they're all GARBAGE and anyone in support of ANY of them is garbage too!"
I took a moment to address the errors I saw in this individuals thought process, the toxic nature of the rhetoric they were spewing, and the thoughtlessness they were encouraging in their followers. I offered my experience and view in the area of discussion as it was concerning a particular issue I am constantly working with as part of my job. This was a situation and viewpoint I have seen many sides of and managed to develop a fairly detailed understanding of, and this individual offered no personal connection to the matter beyond blind hatred and condemnation. I know for a fact there is corruption and crime WITHIN the system, that it is inherently broken, and there are some seriously twisted individuals within the law enforcement system. I can acknowledge the problem, certainly, but I also know for a fact that there are nuances to this subject. There ARE good cops, with good families. The system IS broken, but not beyond repair, I believe. The sad truth is that there are awful cops in the world, but there are even more awful criminals, and their numbers far exceed the number of officers. The system may be broken, but it is the system we have and in more cases than this person was willing to acknowledge it has saved lives and kept families from gratuitous suffering. There is always a duality, two sides of the coin, and it must be acknowledged. The balance may be tilted, there may be more dark than light, but that can only ever be corrected through honest efforts to make things better. Maybe I am completely off-base, but I don't believe the anger and hatred this person was spreading was that kind of effort; certainly not after reading affirmative comments attached to their post.
I suppose the issue becomes where we draw the line between objective truth and subjective truth. Some people convince themselves their point of view is superior because they feel so passionately about it. This, I believe, is the nature of "dark vs. light" in regards to the Force. I am open and teachable as much as I can be when opportunity presents itself. I invited a response from the individual, hoping they could offer a wider perspective on their anger. I knew by expressing an opposing view based on my experience might invite negativity, and WOW it really did. Quickly, too. I had flare ups of upset inside myself, but I did not feed into it. I was not going to become aggressive or defensive. I wanted to remain in control of my emotions, and I did not want to invalidate or deny others their thoughts or feelings. I wanted to open up discussion, understanding, awareness, because ultimately this person's expression of their feelings was destructive and closed-minded.
Conversation these days, more than ever, needs to be constructive and thoughtful and considerate. People want to be heard, understood, validated, but that process begins when we open ourselves to hearing, understanding, and validating.
Idk, maybe I'm just ranting at this point, lol. My biggest thing is that YES, all feelings are 100% valid, but oppressive, hateful, manipulative EXPRESSION of feelings is never going to be constructive towards solving anything. "...Wise men build bridges, while the foolish raise barriers" (Nigerian proverb, quoted by T'Challa in "Black Panther.")

Beautifully stated! You understood exactly what I was getting at! Thank you for participating!

As Jedi we need to stand by our thoughts and values. Back them up by facts when confronted and if you are proven wrong take it as a life lesson and move forward and Grow. Others should freely do the same thing if your argument is more valid and stop being ILLOGICAL by trying to push something at others when they are wrong

Yes, expression and enforcement are two totally different things. You cannot bend others to your will or position. If they come to it naturally on their own, then that's good for them. The minute you stop caring about what's good for them and rather want them to share your view because its good for you, that's when your motives are impure.

If your motives are impure then whatever you do, from that position becomes corrupt. Sometimes we like to relegate this thing called corruption to the political sphere, but corruption is an everyday thing that starts with a selfish or self-serving agenda. When that agenda bumps heads with the good of others; of the greater community then that is corruption. And what you do to prosecute that agenda is much more likely to be negative push you more towards the dark side because the light doesn't need to go that far or be offensive or bully or be intolerant to the views and perspectives of others. It isn't egocentric. It can be wrong because it doesn't need to be right all the time.

Sometimes people use passion as an excuse. It's not. I go by Zealot X. I have passionately defended positions in hundreds of debates for over two decades. Over time I learned a few things. I learned the value of not letting my ego win over me and thus control the direction and flow of a debate. I learned that I had to defend my position with honor, sincerity, and truth because people were watching. And if I made fun of my opponent someone would probably think I was bullying them and it justified them going too far to attack me even though I was only defending myself after they had already went too far. Sometimes in a debate it doesn't matter who did what first. It's the optics. Passion is not an excuse to manipulate or bully because if you feel like you have to do these things to win you have already LOST. If you can't win through honesty then you haven't won by telling lies. If you haven't one by explaining your logical thought process then you haven't won by losing your temper and spewing obsceneties. Some people take this for strength. I take it as weakness and fear; that person is trying to shut the debate part of the argument down because they believe they can win a battle of words but that is simply argumentum ad hominem. It doesn't make your position right and simply turns the other person off until they don't care what you have to say, don't want to hear you, and see you as lacking credibility in the future.

I have to admit, the grey thing... I fundamentally disagree with; not in theory but in practice. I think some people use it as an excuse to be Jedi when being a Jedi is convenient... when being Jedi is easy... when they're in a good mood. But when it is inconvenient, hard, or they cannot control their emotions which is fundamental to Jediism, they disregard the path and claim to be grey. So for some people I think it is more of a copout, a self-manipulation of sorts, to justify their failure at being fully Jedi and fully embracing and being able to walk a more difficult path in place of one that is simply easier. It takes no skill to lose control. It takes skill to manipulate people successfully (unless they are mentally weak or intoxicated), but it takes no skill to simply vomit a word salad of vulgarity. That is simply behavior unbecoming of any Jedi.

How do you combat the manipulator? Well for me, I have always sought to expose their hidden agenda and bring their true motives into the light. If they don't see the error in their ways I might provoke and test their ego because the ego is more likely to tell the truth when the person loses emotional control and is off balanced. If you look at Trump, when he gets upset is when he's more likely to tell the truth. That's because the ego wants to be known and accepted. Once the truth is revealed that is when I decide what to do with it. I can use it to stop the manipulator's ability to manipulate; maybe if only for a short time. Or can decide whether its worth my time because this person will never come to my position because of their own corrupt intent. At that point you can agree to disagree, knowing that they cannot force you to continue the argument. You got the answer you needed already. If they continue to harass or bully you then that's on them, but their manipulation isn't working on you so they're only wasting their own energy and possibly embarrassing themselves if they're doing it in public. Especially if they are acting childish.

And you maintain your stance until someone disproves it logically. I don't care how much passion someone has, if they cannot make a logical argument backed up by facts and not feelings, then I'm not impressed. A true grey or sith, in my humble opinion, would use passion in their delivery but still attack your position with logic and facts. But someone without these things... should never win an argument because their argument doesn't have enough MERIT. If they cannot separate themselves from their argument and see that it is not them but their argument that is faulty... then that's on them. But you expose their argument and if they manipulate then you expose their agenda and if they make it personal then you expose them. But in each case you should only use the amount of "reasonable force" necessary to bring them down.

A certain person attempted to manipulate me and the rest of the forum because they had a hidden agenda against another person who got banned. Because their intentions were corrupt they eventually got exposed and they turned to harassment and bullying as part of an emotional tantrum. When people do that, just like which children do it, they want you to lose your cool and come down to their level. At that point they just want to feel better by trying to make you feel bad. And so the saying goes "misery loves company". Don't give them that. Don't give in to those negative feelings. Don't get sucked into their vortex of malicious intent. Center yourself. Stay calm. Focus on your ow path. Quiet your thoughts. See through their rage. See the truth they're trying to hide. Maintain control. That is how you win. I was able to do this myself and felt great after the encounter. Why? Because they were never my true enemy. They can only provoke my true enemy which is me. And by keeping my cool I was able to defeat the part of me they were trying to manipulate into becoming like them. But I'm not like them. And the truth is, the more you defeat that part of you the easier it gets until there is no longer any real temptation. In that moment, I had fun with it. I knew what I COULD have said but I didn't say anything that had no strategic value because I wasn't interested in causing that person hurt or injury but rather provoking them to THINK. And often a person is only able to do this effectively once they're back in control of their emotions. I don't think they learned from it, honestly. However, that's okay. Maybe later on they'll come to a deeper realization.

And understand you should not be in that position, interacting with another "Jedi". That's simply not Jedi conduct. I don't care who says otherwise.

ZealotX wrote: Yes, expression and enforcement are two totally different things. You cannot bend others to your will or position. If they come to it naturally on their own, then that's good for them. The minute you stop caring about what's good for them and rather want them to share your view because its good for you, that's when your motives are impure.

If your motives are impure then whatever you do, from that position becomes corrupt. Sometimes we like to relegate this thing called corruption to the political sphere, but corruption is an everyday thing that starts with a selfish or self-serving agenda. When that agenda bumps heads with the good of others; of the greater community then that is corruption. And what you do to prosecute that agenda is much more likely to be negative push you more towards the dark side because the light doesn't need to go that far or be offensive or bully or be intolerant to the views and perspectives of others. It isn't egocentric. It can be wrong because it doesn't need to be right all the time.

Sometimes people use passion as an excuse. It's not. I go by Zealot X. I have passionately defended positions in hundreds of debates for over two decades. Over time I learned a few things. I learned the value of not letting my ego win over me and thus control the direction and flow of a debate. I learned that I had to defend my position with honor, sincerity, and truth because people were watching. And if I made fun of my opponent someone would probably think I was bullying them and it justified them going too far to attack me even though I was only defending myself after they had already went too far. Sometimes in a debate it doesn't matter who did what first. It's the optics. Passion is not an excuse to manipulate or bully because if you feel like you have to do these things to win you have already LOST. If you can't win through honesty then you haven't won by telling lies. If you haven't one by explaining your logical thought process then you haven't won by losing your temper and spewing obsceneties. Some people take this for strength. I take it as weakness and fear; that person is trying to shut the debate part of the argument down because they believe they can win a battle of words but that is simply argumentum ad hominem. It doesn't make your position right and simply turns the other person off until they don't care what you have to say, don't want to hear you, and see you as lacking credibility in the future.

I have to admit, the grey thing... I fundamentally disagree with; not in theory but in practice. I think some people use it as an excuse to be Jedi when being a Jedi is convenient... when being Jedi is easy... when they're in a good mood. But when it is inconvenient, hard, or they cannot control their emotions which is fundamental to Jediism, they disregard the path and claim to be grey. So for some people I think it is more of a copout, a self-manipulation of sorts, to justify their failure at being fully Jedi and fully embracing and being able to walk a more difficult path in place of one that is simply easier. It takes no skill to lose control. It takes skill to manipulate people successfully (unless they are mentally weak or intoxicated), but it takes no skill to simply vomit a word salad of vulgarity. That is simply behavior unbecoming of any Jedi.

How do you combat the manipulator? Well for me, I have always sought to expose their hidden agenda and bring their true motives into the light. If they don't see the error in their ways I might provoke and test their ego because the ego is more likely to tell the truth when the person loses emotional control and is off balanced. If you look at Trump, when he gets upset is when he's more likely to tell the truth. That's because the ego wants to be known and accepted. Once the truth is revealed that is when I decide what to do with it. I can use it to stop the manipulator's ability to manipulate; maybe if only for a short time. Or can decide whether its worth my time because this person will never come to my position because of their own corrupt intent. At that point you can agree to disagree, knowing that they cannot force you to continue the argument. You got the answer you needed already. If they continue to harass or bully you then that's on them, but their manipulation isn't working on you so they're only wasting their own energy and possibly embarrassing themselves if they're doing it in public. Especially if they are acting childish.

And you maintain your stance until someone disproves it logically. I don't care how much passion someone has, if they cannot make a logical argument backed up by facts and not feelings, then I'm not impressed. A true grey or sith, in my humble opinion, would use passion in their delivery but still attack your position with logic and facts. But someone without these things... should never win an argument because their argument doesn't have enough MERIT. If they cannot separate themselves from their argument and see that it is not them but their argument that is faulty... then that's on them. But you expose their argument and if they manipulate then you expose their agenda and if they make it personal then you expose them. But in each case you should only use the amount of "reasonable force" necessary to bring them down.

A certain person attempted to manipulate me and the rest of the forum because they had a hidden agenda against another person who got banned. Because their intentions were corrupt they eventually got exposed and they turned to harassment and bullying as part of an emotional tantrum. When people do that, just like which children do it, they want you to lose your cool and come down to their level. At that point they just want to feel better by trying to make you feel bad. And so the saying goes "misery loves company". Don't give them that. Don't give in to those negative feelings. Don't get sucked into their vortex of malicious intent. Center yourself. Stay calm. Focus on your ow path. Quiet your thoughts. See through their rage. See the truth they're trying to hide. Maintain control. That is how you win. I was able to do this myself and felt great after the encounter. Why? Because they were never my true enemy. They can only provoke my true enemy which is me. And by keeping my cool I was able to defeat the part of me they were trying to manipulate into becoming like them. But I'm not like them. And the truth is, the more you defeat that part of you the easier it gets until there is no longer any real temptation. In that moment, I had fun with it. I knew what I COULD have said but I didn't say anything that had no strategic value because I wasn't interested in causing that person hurt or injury but rather provoking them to THINK. And often a person is only able to do this effectively once they're back in control of their emotions. I don't think they learned from it, honestly. However, that's okay. Maybe later on they'll come to a deeper realization.

And understand you should not be in that position, interacting with another "Jedi". That's simply not Jedi conduct. I don't care who says otherwise.

What does our interaction in a previous thread have to do with the current topic?

Whether or not you agree with my claims to be following a grey path, does not make it any less legitimate.

You seem to have an inability to let go of grudges and need for vindication. Seek help.

Tmattos93 wrote: I had an instance this past weekend where I witnessed a myriad of cognitive distortions and flawed logic on full display in my twitter feed, a painful example of SJW extremism, essentially saying "fuck ALL cops, they're all GARBAGE and anyone in support of ANY of them is garbage too!"

You may never hear it from that person, but I personally appreciate you trying to engage that person in positive conversation. I can tell you where that anger is coming from but you and I could have a different conversation because I already know where you're coming from and so there is more of an understanding and ability to relate that's already in place.

Many time periods have revolutionaries. And revolutionaries tend to be zealots. What they don't understand is why other people are not revolutionaries too. So they jump to conclusions. You have to dodge these conclusions in order to have a successful dialogue.

Think of it this way... if someone kills your sibling and someone who doesn't know you or your sibling says "why you mad, bro?" There's a chance you might get offended. And yes, I'm exaggerating in order to match how it sounds in the hearing of the zealous revolutionary mindset. You're saying this person is an SJW extremist but for them, its a black and white issue and it isn't extreme to them. The grey isn't grey because the grey enables the bad cops to stay bad. The grey keeps Rome occupying Israel (in the case of the zealots during the time of Jesus; like Barabbas). When people say they're for good cops or that "ALL LIVES MATTER" that doesn't necessarily help because they're more likely to do nothing in response. Because usually this is a response to the protest... not a response to bad cops. In other words... where were all the good people who support good cops when the bad corrupt cops are being protected by the system? If, and to be clear I'm mimicking his thought process, the system has a majority of good people then how could the corrupt cops be protected? It's kind of like the way the Catholic church protects pedophile priests and sometimes simply moves them to a different diocese. It is, in some ways, an insult to the intelligence of the protesters to treat them as if they haven't considered that not ALL cops are bad. Do you really not think they know that already? Of course they do. But if their message is wishy washy, watered down, and more palatable for you to digest, it wouldn't make you uncomfortable.

And guess what? It's DESIGNED to make you uncomfortable. And it worked because it made you want to talk to him. If he was being completely reasonable you would not have been provoked.

Do I agree with the tactic? Not really. But I understand it. "NOW they want to talk." I can almost hear them say. Maybe you were talking about it before, but the truth is many others weren't. Many others only entered the conversation to defend the police. So while people were getting murdered by the police everything was okay... no talking. A segment of the population was living in fear (OF ALL COPS) because that segment of the population could never tell which cop was corrupt and/or racist and which wasn't when those lights turned on behind them. You don't know which one you're going to get and to many cops ALL black people are bad (but of course they know its not ALL too). But many cops, tend to presume guilt beyond whatever crime they're investigating, depending on the color of the "suspect's" skin. And if there was a break in or car stolen or whatever, even if no one saw anyone, the suspect may be assumed to be "tall black male". Understand, many people fit that description, even myself. But the fact that we say (to the cops) "Black Lives Matter"... simply as a statement of fact to try and get them to stop and consider that black lives ALSO have value and that shooting black suspects when you don't have to shouldn't be tolerated.... when people contradict that statement by saying "ALL lives matter" its like debating the victim on behalf of the victimizer because that's who benefits. And things are less likely to change as long as people defend them. It's just like in the Matrix.

Everyone is potentially an agent.

And even though some want an honest discussion and to have these things explained to them, others really do not. They just want to be anti. And if one side doesn't see legitimacy in the other, conflict is almost inevitable.

Kohadre wrote: What does our interaction in a previous thread have to do with the current topic?

Whether or not you agree with my claims to be following a grey path, does not make it any less legitimate.

You seem to have an inability to let go of grudges and need for vindication. Seek help.

I purposefully didn't mention any names. So the only person bringing up our previous interaction is you.

What I said about grey may apply to you but only if the shoe fits. I said I agreed with it in theory. If you apply it as a means of self-justification then, as I also stated was my opinion, its not legitimate. Guess what? I never said you were not entitled to your own opinion. You do not get to change mine without an argument that has MERIT. You have presented no such argument. You are simply stating a different opinion and trying to denigrate mine simply because YOU feel convicted. I do NOT, I repeat, do NOT need to share your opinion. I do NOT need to validate your personal views and opinions. That's for you to work out, not me. I'm definitely not going to change my mind because someone else says "hey your opinion makes me look bad"; especially when I did not mention their name and it isn't my job,role,goal, or mission in life to protect them from ever feeling bad.

My opinion should not be important enough for you to care enough to complain about it. My opinion shouldn't matter to you. How do you not see this? You don't need to change it or worry about other people seeing it. And therefore you don't need to respond to it. If you are correct then let truth stand for itself. If you want to respond to an opinion that should mean you want to change it because you think you can educate or enlighten me or others. I'm always open to that but you don't provide it. You simply try to push people to share your view because its your view; not because your view is objectively correct. This is just an example that is fortunately and unfortunately, exactly on topic but could not be given specific example without you volunteering yourself as such. Again... I did not volunteer you.

Like I said in my post, the ego wants to be known and is therefore prone to tell the truth.

As far as letting go of a grudge, feel free to ask anyone in charge if I campaigned to get you banned for your behavior. The fact that, even in this post, which is about the very same thing I experienced, I didn't even bring up your name, should have told you that I wasn't doing that. And who were YOU talking about in your post when you said "such as specific membership using smear tactics". Is that not a reference to "someone" else without using that person's name? Seems like I did exactly the same thing you did and yet it is wrong when someone else does it? Hmmm.... indeed.

So now that you've attacked me as being unable to let go of grudges and in need of help... how should I respond? Exactly, as the advice I gave before. Defend your position unless confronted with facts and logic. Expose intent if necessary. Stay in control. See? I win again.

ZealotX wrote:
I purposefully didn't mention any names. So the only person bringing up our previous interaction is you.

What I said about grey may apply to you but only if the shoe fits. I said I agreed with it in theory. If you apply it as a means of self-justification then, as I also stated was my opinion, its not legitimate. Guess what? I never said you were not entitled to your own opinion. You do not get to change mine without an argument that has MERIT. You have presented no such argument. You are simply stating a different opinion and trying to denigrate mine simply because YOU feel convicted. I do NOT, I repeat, do NOT need to share your opinion. I do NOT need to validate your personal views and opinions. That's for you to work out, not me. I'm definitely not going to change my mind because someone else says "hey your opinion makes me look bad"; especially when I did not mention their name and it isn't my job,role,goal, or mission in life to protect them from ever feeling bad.

To my knowledge, I'm the only person within this thread who has openly identified as within a grey path. So by that logic, I would assume you were directly referring to me; unless of course you were referring to another member who also follows a grey path.

We can keep changing words around, but ultimately the content of the message remains the same.

So now that you've attacked me as being unable to let go of grudges and in need of help... how should I respond? Exactly, as the advice I gave before. Defend your position unless confronted with facts and logic. Expose intent if necessary. Stay in control. See? I win again.

Attachment download.jpeg not found