Apologies

I typed up a long post about how I felt about the rules of "playing nice" on this website. As many of you know, I'm high energy, hot languaged, and rude some of the time. I don't see much reason to change that, as I don't think it is a problem. However, after thinking about it, I decided to go check the rules of the website.

"TotJO is a place for spiritual enlightenment, self discovery and discussion of many varied and wide ranging topics. Here at TotJO we debate arguments not personalities and ideas instead of people.

Everyone makes mistake and it is not simply a case of one breach of the rules and your account is suspended.The people for whom this rule applies are those who are persistent and do so in a flagrant manner, even after unofficial and official warnings about it.

It demonstrates negative traits in an individual namely disrespect for fellow users and lack of control of oneself. 'Heat of the moment' is not a viable excuse, for as Jedi one must possess more control.

So, please think about what you have typed before sending. Show your respect and consideration for your fellow Temple members by simply maintaining the self-restraint to not swear. As it is much easier to control this behaviour when typing than it is in verbal conversation, there really is no acceptable excuse.

Post what you think is acceptable for an 8 year old to read (be it your own child or another) as this is in fact a family, and public, forum after all. If in doubt, leave it out.

Please note also that swearing is not the only way to offend. One can be just as demeaning and derogatory without resorting to swear words. These cases are as equally inappropriate and are covered under the same regulation on the forum."

*headsmack* So, sorry. I still disagree that playing nice is necessary. In fact, I'd rather people be more like [names removed]. At least they're honest with their human nature. Heck, I've even seen Alex lose it a couple of times over text, and I've really grown to respect him because of that.

But, the website's rules are clear. TOTJO is not the place for that kind of behavior. Maybe someday I'll convince you guys to change the rule.

You won't hear anymore weird emotional outbursts from me.

-Con

“Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength.”

― Eric Hoffer

Connor L. wrote: I still disagree that playing nice is necessary. In fact, I'd rather people be more like [names removed]. At least they're honest with their human nature.

I can definitely understand that, Connor. For some people, however, it is very much in our nature to be kind and play nice. It doesn't feel natural for me to engage with other people rudely, debate or compete with the sole intention of winning or besting someone else, or to approach any type of communication dishonestly (even in a mischievous or playfully malicious manner).

I'm always myself (100%) when online, but oftentimes I think people misinterpret my genuine nature as superficial or as a mask hiding a need for personal gain or control of some sort. If those people truly knew me (especially, I imagine, if we met in person), there's no way my actions or intentions would be misunderstood.

And to be as clear as possible, having a kind nature doesn't make me feel like I'm better or more balanced than anyone else. I am human and have breaking points as well. I don't think of myself as weak in those broken moments, nor do I tend to equate them with human nature.

I know you understand what I've written on some level, but I wanted to share my thoughts on this to emphasize how different certain individuals are from others when it comes to the concept of human nature. You may be rude, energetic, and perhaps a bit mouthy and abrupt... that's your nature. Though that might not be an accurate evaluation of the nature of others in the community.

TotJO's rules and regulations aside, I appreciate it when people are genuine, honest, and true to their natures, but if I find someone frequently disagreeable (here or elsewhere) I make a decision not to nurture those relationships. Personally, I've never thought of you as a petty troublemaker or one who can't play nice when necessary... more like a well-intentioned 'Loki' of the Jedi community.

Connor L. wrote: At least they're honest with their human nature.

I agree. When we can acknowledge the ever present possibility of losing ourselves to emotion, no matter how briefly, it allows for a deeper understanding of the human experience. Genuine and honest expression of one's nature is often an opportunity to shine a light on the very parts of our nature we have come to this temple to address. As a Jedi, I would hope that others here could understand that I may be given to occasional emotional outbursts and not simply dismiss me as being 'rude'. Instead, I would hope that it could be an opportunity for me to reflect on my behavior and be even more motivated to be better the next time around. The day we can be honest with ourselves about our own natures is the day such rules would no longer be needed. Emotion, yet peace.

For sure, Arcade! Humans are not naturally rude or kind. But, in fact, humans are naturally selfish. We are all about self preservation and the preservation of our loved ones.

Some of us find it more natural to explore that through aggressiveness and assertiveness. Others through kindness.

I like to think of myself with a young Mace Windu personality. Very much engrained in my own darkness, but using that for the bad assery of goodness. Or as you say, a Loki of sorts.

John, I don't agree... nice quotation, though!

Thanks, Senan. I'm glad you're seeing where I'm coming from.

I have encountered a rather peculiar phenomenon, mostly unrelated to this, but indeed related in one part. Particularly with rules there is a negative correlation of the extent to which somebody refers back to them and the extent to which that same body has read, much less understood them. Now, by this token, consider this quote:

Here at TotJO we debate arguments not personalities and ideas instead of people.

Just how much unnecessary and counterproductive conflict (as opposed to the positively beneficial, that is) could be avoided, if only everyone understood this simple statement of fact? It specifically says, right there in our rules, that unless someone is directly and unambiguously attacked and insulted, every serious statement made here is only and exclusively about arguments and ideas, not people and not personalities.

Now, it has been a while since I read the rules and I don't invest too much in keeping up with their changes though I probably should. I wouldn't refer back to them, usually, because they aren't specifically counter-intuitive to an extent where mere human decency was rendered insufficient to identify inappropriate behaviour (and I will rather leave that judgement to the fair reader before passing it myself). In fact, the converse case could be made to some extent instead. I am also not above violating them myself, though I try avoiding it and am willing to apologize if accidentally I have.

Now, all this considered, how come that those of us who are accused of setting off arbitrary rudeness-meters, by those who seem to not quite have grasped this part of the same paragraph they claim was violated, unknowingly keep repeating what the rules actually say when the opportunity comes up? And is nobody else mildly amused by this beautiful irony?

I’m a little unclear as to what you are referring to in your last paragraph, and if you’d like you are more than welcome to contact me via PM if you think it would be better. But, if I understand you correctly, I would say that the reason is because a great deal of it is up to personal interpretation. Which is why I “try” to refer to them as the “guidelines” and not rules. Try… I do sometimes mess up.

Br. John wrote: “Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength.”

― Eric Hoffer

I agree unequivocally. Aside from a playful rudeness that is part of humor, actual rudeness is something to be outgrown.

Rudeness is a sign of many things. A lack of awareness, a lack of regard for the people around you, a lack of respect for self and environment, and a lack of control. Everyone succumbs to rudeness. I am by no means immune to it. And of course, we want to lash out and offend people and play at strength. I want all those things from time to time.

But I want other things more. I want the people in my presence to feel safe and respected. I want my current interactions to make relationships stronger. Civility is a sign of respect. Respect is key. It need not be severe, and certainly not authoritarian, but it is key.

There is nothing wrong with being playful, but that has to end somewhere. Being polite is not, for me, to be unnatural. It is a deliberate process of prioritizing my needs and desires. As I said, I am not immune to it. But civility is central to my path. Even in conflict, there should be respect.

Connor L. wrote: For sure, Arcade! Humans are not naturally rude or kind. But, in fact, humans are naturally selfish. We are all about self preservation and the preservation of our loved ones.

I don't mean to be contrarian. Though this statement is in conflict with how certain people's minds work. In Jung's personality theory, there are two distinct types of thinkers... essentially, those who consider themselves before others and those who consider others before themselves. Many of us fit into the latter category.

Ultimately, yes, it does always come down to self preservation, but I disagree with the comment that humans are naturally selfish. I'm not suggesting that being selfish is wrong... simply that it's not a natural state for some people.

Connor L. wrote: I like to think of myself with a young Mace Windu personality. Very much engrained in my own darkness, but using that for the bad assery of goodness. Or as you say, a Loki of sorts.

I have a similar understanding in my own belief system related to the acknowledgment of darkness and its ability to enhance the light, but I think how we approach that idea (as well as how we go about actualizing it) might be different.

Br. John wrote: “Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength.”

― Eric Hoffer

I find quotes like these rude, and dismissive.

I have met plenty of rude people and it was not a sign of weakness.

The weak willed often say things like the above to justify there own inability to be rude when necessary.

Today, people whine about bullying, or kill themselves, rather than stand up and fight for themselves.

The above quote may imply wisdom to some, but to me, it shows a lack of character,at best.

Khaos wrote:

Br. John wrote: “Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength.”

― Eric Hoffer

I find quotes like these rude, and dismissive.

I have met plenty of rude people and it was not a sign of weakness.

The weak willed often say things like the above to justify there own inability to be rude when necessary.

Today, people whine about bullying, or kill themselves, rather than stand up and fight for themselves.

The above quote may imply wisdom to some, but to me, it shows a lack of character,at best.

Being rude and being strong willed or dominant is not the same thing.

I find Khaos' implication that those who err on the side of politeness to have a lack of character, rude.

Is that how this game is played? Who can be irritated the most? If so, I will win.

Khaos wrote:

Br. John wrote: “Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength.”

― Eric Hoffer

I find quotes like these rude, and dismissive.

I have met plenty of rude people and it was not a sign of weakness.

The weak willed often say things like the above to justify there own inability to be rude when necessary.

Today, people whine about bullying, or kill themselves, rather than stand up and fight for themselves.

The above quote may imply wisdom to some, but to me, it shows a lack of character,at best.

Rudeness will mean different things to different people, that, as we should all know here, is unavoidable.

I do not see, however, how a refusal to be rude is a lack of character. One can be assertive and strong without being rude. It is significantly harder than being rude, which is exactly why, to many people including myself, being rude is the sign of lack of strength.

I say lack of strength rather than lack of character because rude people have character it just isn't very pleasant. LOL

Arcade wrote: Though this statement is in conflict with how certain people's minds work. In Jung's personality theory, there are two distinct types of thinkers... essentially, those who consider themselves before others and those who consider others before themselves. Many of us fit into the latter category.

I disagree with Jung on that one, then. There are three reasons I could see somebody self-sacrificing in a natural way:
1. For the Pack.
This does not apply to humans. It may be that we choose to act in opposition to our self-preservation, but this is not what would happen without environmental influence. Somebody would have to be coerced into choosing the pack over the self.
2. For the Parents/Children.
Many animals have a selflessness for their children/parents. Humans are no different. We have maternal/paternal instincts, and children often feel attached to their parents even if the child is hurt by them. This is beyond choice. However, one can choose to be mean to their children/parents. That's environmental.
3. For the Lover.
Often when we're smitten, and once we made long-term commitments, we sacrifice for our loved ones. This applies to humans.

I am noting there is a difference between our propensity to a kind of behavior and a choice to disregard that propensity. Oftentimes, people choose to go against their instincts. That doesn't mean it's their natural state. Maybe they've just been conditioned (by the self or maybe by others) to ignore this feeling. There is no reason to be selfless (that I can think of).

However, if one is being "selfless" to get in the good graces with somebody, to get something in return, to just be a good person? These are all selfish things, if you ask me. If we are capable of separating our wants and desires from our actions, and we end up being selfless by ignoring selfishness, then we've gone crazy. Something is not connected right in the brain.

Granted, I am not as well-studied as Jung was. Feel free to disregard my ideas since they're unfounded. It's just what I have noticed in my thinking and observing.

Arcade wrote: I have a similar understanding in my own belief system related to the acknowledgment of darkness and its ability to enhance the light, but I think how we approach that idea (as well as how we go about actualizing it) might be different.

Feel free to explain. Maybe start a new topic if you want!

Connor L. wrote:
I disagree with Jung on that one, then. There are three reasons I could see somebody self-sacrificing in a natural way:
1. For the Pack.
This does not apply to humans. It may be that we choose to act in opposition to our self-preservation, but this is not what would happen without environmental influence. Somebody would have to be coerced into choosing the pack over the self.

You clearly need to spend more time getting to know some of your fellow Jedi.

Would you like to explain? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Connor L. wrote: Would you like to explain? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Sure, I mean that I can think off hand of several Jedi who would sacrifice self for the pack without hesitation. Its not coercion, its choice.

And without too much effort you could find countless examples of people both current and historic who sacrificed themselves for the "pack" because they chose to, not because they were forced.

Nobody coerced me into self sacrifice for my pack. I've been paying out the ear for a roomate I love deeply but who hasn't paid a full rent in over a year. Who in this scenario coerced me?

Ack. Sorry, bad word choice on my part, then.

What I mean to say is, you would have a "reason" for choosing to go against yourself and for the pack. It wouldn't just happen without your connection to somebody. Let's take rugadd's example. He was not forced to pay for his roommate. But, the coercion is internal. He's convinced himself that love is more important than his money (neither are objectively more important), so he made the self-sacrificing choice.

But, if he didn't love the person, he wouldn't choose to do it. Love is the coercion there.

The reason I added it was to account for other animals. Some animals are biologically programmed to self-sacrifice for the pack. This is different.

Arcade wrote: In Jung's personality theory, there are two distinct types of thinkers... essentially, those who consider themselves before others and those who consider others before themselves. Many of us fit into the latter category.

Ultimately, yes, it does always come down to self preservation, but I disagree with the comment that humans are naturally selfish. I'm not suggesting that being selfish is wrong... simply that it's not a natural state for some people.

This reminded of a conversation I had with my wife about altruistic philosophy vs objectivist philosophy as presented by Ayn Rand. We concluded that altruism isn't necessary (unless you tally karma) if objectivism is practiced in its purest form. I will explain briefly because I just wanna share, not derail the conversation.

Altruism is defined as is an ethical doctrine that holds that the moral value of an individual's actions depend solely on the impact on other individuals, regardless of the consequences on the individual itself.

Now, in typical understanding of objectivism, altruism is rejected and the self is held above all. But if a person recognizes the fact that our actions have ripple effects, then one realizes that one can't benefit the self while stepping on others. What's the point of having a huge mansion and billions of dollars if you got to that point by sucking the money out of the city in which you live? Now you're rich and comfortable only until you step outside your door into the slums. True objectivism recognizes how the self benefits from practicing altruism. However, altruism isn't truly altruism if the person being altruistic benefits from it. So, if you're the second personality described in Jung's theory and you practice pure objectivism, then doing things to benefit others is no different than doing something we'd consider "selfish" because their benefit means your benefit.

So, in the context of this conversation, not being rude to someone will probably benefit you either because they won't be rude to you, or if they are, you at least have the moral high ground and others are more likely to side with you in a disagreement or something.
Just an observation.