Being able to say anying we feel like in public places

[Symbology]

Firstly this shows the problem people (like me and you - in other words 'anybody') losing their temper because they see something as real and threatening.

 

How about if we tell Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and a host of other peaceful activists that words are not real or threatening. Oh wait... they are all dead because the people they were protesting (for how they spoke and treated others) amped their thoughts from words into lethal actions.

 

There is a time and a place for all things, including Anger. We were given Anger for a Darwinian purpose. And the main time for expressing Anger is when you or someone you care about is being taken advantage of, abused, or otherwise being harmed. To turn a blind eye or remain silent is just a form of cowardice.

 

Your beliefs become your thoughts.

Your thoughts become your words.

Your words become your actions.

Your actions become your habits.

Your habits become your values.

Your values become your destiny.

- Gandhi

 

The good news is that there is at least some moral trigger within the human race, that once someone has been killed, then they finally will rise up and take the power away from the murderers. But unfortunately someone always has to die first for that to happen.

 

I figured out at the age of 6 that the "sticks and stones" statement was complete and utter BS. Warriors consistently use words to taunt and instigate a fight. Words are just the second stepping stone to violence, right behind direct eye contact. And anyone that denies that truth has no real experience with fighting.

 

I will agree that it is worthwhile thing to have the inner strength to slough off verbal abuse and violence. But just because it is a good thing to be able to bench press 250 lbs, does not mean that everyone should be expected to do so, just so that a few who feel they have a "right" to go tossing lead discus.

 

You have a right to punch anywhere you want to,

as long as it stops short of my nose.

 

I'm all for fighting arenas, mosh pits, and forums like this. But the key is all people present, are there voluntarily, and can walk away from it whenever they choose. By contrast, no one should be forced to endure someone else's abuse or assault, just because they are in a public place.

 

Science should be about discovering the cause of something (understanding) so it can be dealt with, not suppressing it because you don't like it and that includes both PC and non-PC comments (Morality says you should or shouldn't do something but science and especially technology is only interested in what works i.e. is practical).

 

Science is about objective debate and proof. Objectivity carries with it no bias, predisposition, opinion, slang, or disrespect. In fact any papers that show an apparent disrespect for their subject are fairly quickly dismissed as being non-objective.

 

Science at its fundamental core is fair and balanced. So attempting to pepper a scientific discussion with blithe disrespect for others (be it premeditated or just ignorant lack of awareness) discredits the entire surrounding discussion.

 

There are seven sins in the world:

Wealth without work,

Pleasure without conscience,

Knowledge without character,

Commerce without morality,

Science without humanity,

Worship without sacrifice

and politics without principle.

- Mahatma Gandhi

 

Political correctness is impossible to enforce and counterproductive as it pushes things underground (hides them not eradicates them or allows them to mature and die out naturally). If the thought still exists, even if not expressed, then how do you get rid of the thought?

 

Anything is enforceable, be it right or wrong. So that is irrelevant. Political Correctness (otherwise known as "awareness" and "respect for diversity") may be difficult for some people to grasp, just like the concept that we don't kill our little brother just because he has a toy that we want. We can first attempt to educate or rehabilitate those that abuse others, but if that does not succeed then at some point we have to isolate either the abuser or the target of the abuse.

 

Scott Jennings aka "Lum the Mad" was a wise commentator of an online game called Ultima Online. About 3 years into the game they offered a safe haven and were shocked that 64,000 players (80%) immediately moved out of the lawless zone and into the protected zone. And soon after a large group of the "Player Killers" aka "Griefers" (those that liked to cause others grief just for fun) quit the game en mass. Scott observed that victims to abusers are like oxygen to flame. If you remove the oxygen, then the flame is soon extinguished.

 

Is the fault in the listeners ego or the speakers? (hurt pride at image destruction or true victimization?). In my opinion political correctness is a lie upon a lie or a negative attitude versus a positive one (One man's joke is another man's insult).

Well let me ask this:

• Who is responsible for the words being out there in the first place?

• If there are to be consequences, to whom to they belong?

 

To my observation there are a large number of people in the world, who do not want to be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

• They want cheap energy, don't care where it came from (oil, coal, nuke), but then don't want to have the pollution results show up in their back yard.
  
• They want cheap goods, don't care about the deplorable conditions of the workers that produced them, and then complain when their OSHA protected jobs go over seas.
  
• They vote for government ordinances based on bonds, that indebt future generations, but then complain about having to pay for Social Security and other debts of those that came before us.
  

 

Karma is a *****

 

Speaking personally it isn't only women who get all of this crap either but how do you really stop it? Last week I had someone call me 'Darling' and asked if I'd like a bottle put somewhere, where the sun doesn't shine and I'm a bloke but I must be on the feminine side to get that I suppose. So what should I have done - hit him (and his two mates) or insulted him back? Would that have changed the situation or only inflamed it more? Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me (only bruise my ego somewhat).

 

The journey of a thousand miles

begins with a single step.

 

What would happen in this world if every person picked up a single piece of trash that was carelessly left by someone else? How much cleaner would your neighborhood be?

 

What would happen if each person became responsible for withholding a single careless or hurtful comment? How much more pleasant would your world be?

 

In your case above, and given favorable conditions, I am all for "taking out the trash" :eek_big: You were just, unfortunately, not in favorable conditions. So whatever needs to happen, I'm with you. Sorry I wasn't there at the time.

 

But in any case, I do not believe that any of us here would advocate that the responsibility was yours to take their abusive language.

 

Therefore it falls to the rest of us to work to make sure that you don't have to.

 

 

 

So given the choice... if people could live in a place where there were appropriate consequences for how they spoke to other people (respectfully vs. not) or instead could live in a place where anyone could say whatever they felt like - whenever they felt like it... where do you think a majority of the population would move to?

 

To my observation it is fairly evident that when people have the resources to make that choice, they move into suburbia where the deed restrictions and social pressures tend to keep a tight lid on disrespectful behavior and those who have a lack of awareness for the consequence of their actions on those around them.

[paigetheoracle]

How about if we tell Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and a host of other peaceful activists that words are not real or threatening. Oh wait... they are all dead because the people they were protesting (for how they spoke and treated others) amped their thoughts from words into lethal actions.

 

There is a time and a place for all things, including Anger. We were given Anger for a Darwinian purpose. And the main time for expressing Anger is when you or someone you care about is being taken advantage of, abused, or otherwise being harmed. To turn a blind eye or remain silent is just a form of cowardice.

 

 

 

The good news is that there is at least some moral trigger within the human race, that once someone has been killed, then they finally will rise up and take the power away from the murderers. But unfortunately someone always has to die first for that to happen.

 

I figured out at the age of 6 that the "sticks and stones" statement was complete and utter BS. Warriors consistently use words to taunt and instigate a fight. Words are just the second stepping stone to violence, right behind direct eye contact. And anyone that denies that truth has no real experience with fighting.

 

I will agree that it is worthwhile thing to have the inner strength to slough off verbal abuse and violence. But just because it is a good thing to be able to bench press 250 lbs, does not mean that everyone should be expected to do so, just so that a few who feel they have a "right" to go tossing lead discus.

 

 

 

I'm all for fighting arenas, mosh pits, and forums like this. But the key is all people present, are there voluntarily, and can walk away from it whenever they choose. By contrast, no one should be forced to endure someone else's abuse or assault, just because they are in a public place.

 

 

 

Science is about objective debate and proof. Objectivity carries with it no bias, predisposition, opinion, slang, or disrespect. In fact any papers that show an apparent disrespect for their subject are fairly quickly dismissed as being non-objective.

 

Science at its fundamental core is fair and balanced. So attempting to pepper a scientific discussion with blithe disrespect for others (be it premeditated or just ignorant lack of awareness) discredits the entire surrounding discussion.

 

(1)I agree but why do we we burst out with such reactions? Poor losers syndrome?

:(

 

 

 

Anything is enforceable, be it right or wrong. So that is irrelevant. Political Correctness (otherwise known as "awareness" and "respect for diversity") may be difficult for some people to grasp, just like the concept that we don't kill our little brother just because he has a toy that we want. We can first attempt to educate or rehabilitate those that abuse others, but if that does not succeed then at some point we have to isolate either the abuser or the target of the abuse.

 

(2) Heat is the problem and cooling down is the answer (see thread this originally came from and how it is pushing humanity to the brink of extinction) :evil:

Scott Jennings aka "Lum the Mad" was a wise commentator of an online game called Ultima Online. About 3 years into the game they offered a safe haven and were shocked that 64,000 players (80%) immediately moved out of the lawless zone and into the protected zone. And soon after a large group of the "Player Killers" aka "Griefers" (those that liked to cause others grief just for fun) quit the game en mass. Scott observed that victims to abusers are like oxygen to flame. If you remove the oxygen, then the flame is soon extinguished.

 

(3)Interesting point, so how do we extinguish the addictive flame that is driving this society to the brink of destruction? (The thread this led from):eek_big:

 

Well let me ask this:

• Who is responsible for the words being out there in the first place?

• If there are to be consequences, to whom to they belong?

 

(4) The person who opens their mouth and the person who does or doesn't react to those words (an ego thing):eek_big:

 

(5) Consequences? That is down to whether you react or not and that will depend on how you take the comments (ego again):doh:

 

To my observation there are a large number of people in the world, who do not want to be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

• They want cheap energy, don't care where it came from (oil, coal, nuke), but then don't want to have the pollution results show up in their back yard.
  
• They want cheap goods, don't care about the deplorable conditions of the workers that produced them, and then complain when their OSHA protected jobs go over seas.
  
• They vote for government ordinances based on bonds, that indebt future generations, but then complain about having to pay for Social Security and other debts of those that came before us.
  

 

(6)Lack of conscience and responsibility? See You Tube on Native American Indian Prophecy: This is suicide. Why provoke others into attacking you unless it is to claim the moral high ground? (You started it). These people are bitter and twisted, living in hell, so they try to dump that hell on others, rather than turn into heaven by being response-able: Not my fault/ Nothing to do with me/ Not my fault/ It's them others/God/Other people. I feel sorry for them and treat them with the same respect I would a rattlesnake :eek:

 

 

What would happen in this world if every person picked up a single piece of trash that was carelessly left by someone else? How much cleaner would your neighborhood be?

 

(7) I still do that and pick up my dog's crap, where others don't but I didn't used to until my wife encouraged me

:doh:

What would happen if each person became responsible for withholding a single careless or hurtful comment? How much more pleasant would your world be?

 

(8) That's what I do because it makes more sense than spreading verbal pollution built on me feeling sorry for myself: I have been there and keep slipping into it, so understand others there on a more permanent basis.:eek_big:

 

In your case above, and given favorable conditions, I am all for "taking out the trash" ;) You were just, unfortunately, not in favorable conditions. So whatever needs to happen, I'm with you. Sorry I wasn't there at the time.

 

But in any case, I do not believe that any of us here would advocate that the responsibility was yours to take their abusive language.

 

Therefore it falls to the rest of us to work to make sure that you don't have to.

 

 

 

So given the choice... if people could live in a place where there were appropriate consequences for how they spoke to other people (respectfully vs. not) or instead could live in a place where anyone could say whatever they felt like - whenever they felt like it... where do you think a majority of the population would move to?

 

 

To my observation it is fairly evident that when people have the resources to make that choice, they move into suburbia where the deed restrictions and social pressures tend to keep a tight lid on disrespectful behavior and those who have a lack of awareness for the consequence of their actions on those around them.

 

(9) Well there you go! My partner is a health visitor as they call them in the UK and she points out that her old client group were the working class, who didn't want to improve their lot but wallowed in self-pity and blame culture (paranoid/ negative/ low self-esteem)but her new client group is middle class and appreciate all the help they can get. In a nutshell this is the problem and the problem area - white collar workers speak with their voices and through their education, while blue collar workers speak with their fists because they don't have the confidence and abilities to do anything else, sadly:shrug:

[Symbology]

(6)Lack of conscience and responsibility? See You Tube on Native American Indian Prophecy: This is suicide. Why provoke others into attacking you unless it is to claim the moral high ground? (You started it). These people are bitter and twisted, living in hell, so they try to dump that hell on others, rather than turn into heaven by being response-able: Not my fault/ Nothing to do with me/ Not my fault/ It's them others/God/Other people. I feel sorry for them and treat them with the same respect I would a rattlesnake :eek:

 

There are three main reasons people taunt their opponent into throwing the first punch.

1. Getting an opponent angry causes them to "loose their cool" and they are not nearly as an effective fighter at that point
   
2. The warrior anticipates them throwing the first strike, and is often trained in taking that energy and redirecting it to the opponents disadvantage
   
3. The official blame does still fall squarely on the one that through the first punch, regardless of whether or not any of the judge or jury would do exactlly the same thing if similarly taunted.
   

 

Taunting... aka "smack talk" is a skill, that is even simulated in most multi-player games.

 

Granted a highly distasteful skill, in my opinion. But never the less a very effective one for accomplishing its task. It is something that many Sensing Perceivers excel at naturally.

[Essay]

At the risk of posting this little impromptu essay without first reading your post PTO posts #2-3 yet, I'll chance appearing inept or off-topic.

...besides I just want the chance to coin the phrase "socially dyslexic" if nobody else has.... :eek:

===

 

PTO,

I think Symbology makes all very good points.

I try to feign ignorance when confronted with assaults (verbal, emotional, social, whatever I guess, but....).

 

Being a bit "socially dyslexic" makes it hard to know what is specifically causing some particular interaction.

And individually we have so little knowledge about others' lives; so there are many huge actual gaps in our information about social interactions. Forgiveness is easy, if you can see another's prompting; but seeing is hard.

But these days, it's easy to imagine how someone's day may not be going as well as it was last year (month? week?) at this time.

 

How many folks do we see unknowingly in a day, who are affected by the general pall of PTSD that is being generated overseas?

 

Anger? Injustice will make someone angry; injustice is a very strong motivator.

...combined with depression.... OMG!

 

~ :(

[paigetheoracle]

There are three main reasons people taunt their opponent into throwing the first punch.

1. Getting an opponent angry causes them to "loose their cool" and they are not nearly as an effective fighter at that point
   
2. The warrior anticipates them throwing the first strike, and is often trained in taking that energy and redirecting it to the opponents disadvantage
   
3. The official blame does still fall squarely on the one that through the first punch, regardless of whether or not any of the judge or jury would do exactlly the same thing if similarly taunted.
   

 

Taunting... aka "smack talk" is a skill, that is even simulated in most multi-player games.

 

Granted a highly distasteful skill, in my opinion. But never the less a very effective one for accomplishing its task. It is something that many Sensing Perceivers excel at naturally.

 

There we go - the person that reacts is takes the taunting personally and is trying to suppress their inferior feelings by shutting up the person taunting them (Hide the truth - not that the taunt is true but that they feel it is or fear it is i.e. the same thing).

 

Real martial art experts reach a level of skill so I've heard, where no blows are struck at all but the loser is the first person to react to the displayed intention of their opponents mind (planned attack), rather than actual blow.

 

This is where it starts getting spiritual or enters the realm of the mind as opposed to the crudity of the body ('Look at that guy - I wouldn't want to meet him down a blind alley!' (Heavy set man, covered in scars).'I wouldn't want to meet the man that gave him the scars - he obviously lost more fights than he won or he'd be scar free!')

[paigetheoracle]

Talking of Guru's like Gandhi - one got bird crap dropped on him from a great height and a follower wanted to give chase to the bird 'It's too late the damage is done' was the reaction.

 

How could you stop it unless you knew what was coming? (I couldn't stop those youths because I was in Cloud Cuckoo land when they struck and brought me down to earth with a bang, with their loutish behaviour). What, were you thinking of following me and everybody else in existence, caught out by such acts? Got a time machine like Dr Who, so that you can get to the site of the incident before it occurs, preventing it reaching the light of day? What time would you have to do what you wanted with your own life?

 

I've been in the village a year and a half - I never saw the guy before and have never seen him since, so he might not even be local. Under these circumstances, how could I have predicted what happened and stopped it?

 

On top of this I could have spent ages seething at this episode and seeking revenge against the guy - all to what purpose? Stuck on the past because you can't control everything in life and feeling exasperated, only leaves you feeling drained. Letting the experience go and getting on with your life, frees energy to use and enjoy the rest of your life with.

 

They do it to get attention and unlike the middle class, don't have the same incentive to behave because they don't get the same slice of cake, hence they get hit with a bigger stick as their carrot is smaller and they are less willing to conform/behave than richer people

[paigetheoracle]

Why such tactics work is through shock reaction because they are unexpected and make no sense (Are suicidal because they could lead to retaliation - 'X' the unknown, means you might 'think' you know what you're doing and that the odds are in your favour but your evaluation of reality might be drastically flawed).

 

In the village apart from the original incident mentioned, there were two others aimed at shocking and confusing me by feral youths (wild boys). The science is about attraction and repulsion as deliberate forces. Violence and insanity are repulsive forces (spitting, kicking, punching etc), aimed at pushing others away as calm, sensible action stops you wanting to run away in panic or fear and is therefore an attractive or at least a neutral stance.

 

The definition of a coward in my book is somebody who hasn't the nerve to do anything on their own, so travels in a wolf pack, carries weapons because they see danger everywhere (the most dangerous person to them is of course themselves and their negative attitude towards life) and drinks or drugs themselves silly, to cover up the fear inside they feel constantly as the cowards they are: Violence isn't dominance but the struggle for it as so many animal programs show - peace (control of your self and others) is it in action. So in essence they are not only cowards but liars to themselves and others as well as life - and you can't lie to reality because it kills you if you do (Takes no prisoners).

 

A BBC wildlife program on a troop of Indian Temple Monkeys made this extremely clear. The dominant male kept order (peace/ order) and it was the young males vying for position that caused all the trouble in the pack of animals.

 

TV programs like The Dog Whisperer, Supernanny, Brat Camp etc. are about

what happens when quiet dominance fails and how to restore it. Watch Cesar Millan and you'll see it's about presence and eye contact, not voice (shouting, boasting about prowess) or violence. As he says 'Dominance is haughty, proud' (shutting up and shutting out, not fighting to get in at - that's losing it). 'Don't touch, look at or speak to the pack' are his instructions to anyone entering his dog compound and as he says, they apply to the school playground too. It is not about noticing and reacting to bad behaviour but putting it in its place by walking on and ignoring it as just simple provocation by the underdog, the cowardly, the insane.

 

Men are always struggling for recognition (dominance) in their particular fields or lives, which is why you don't get with most women, who are more balanced, certain of themselves and their position in society, to struggle.

 

The middle class are the more dominant force in a society - hence they live longer and have a better style of life. Likewise women are the more dominant sex and men the sexual underclass, who live short and violent lives in comparison: As they say in the UK, 'The proof of the pudding is in the eating' or 'The facts speak for themselves'. The beautiful people are the dominant and the ugly ones are the subservient in a society. When this dominance fails as with the Temple Monkeys, breakdown of order and violence follows (Chrysallis stage) as a new leader/ system tries to take control - could this be why the worlds finances are really breaking down - a vote of no confidence in the way we presently live our lives and a demand for change?

 

If you want you could maybe make this a totally new thread 'Mr Moderator', given its new spin?

[paigetheoracle]

Robert Scaer in "The Trauma Spectrum" (interesting name - anagram of 'scare'), talks about how being brought up in a violent environment or exposed to it through war or disaster, can make us prone to associate negativity with positive feedback (endorphin release), so that we 'seek' self-destructive action to get release from the uncertainty of life ('I don't like it, it's too quiet!' versus 'I don't like it, it's too noisy to concentrate').

 

In other words it is back to Pavlov's dogs or Cesar Millan's!:phones: