I don't really disagree with your overall points.. .even though some of them are coming off as a wee bit too much lovey-dovey woo-woo.
I perfectly understand that. But this is a one-sided view to it.
It seems to me that there remains a bit of a role for some antagonism and ability to argue points with a bit of rigor and even personal attacks (from time to time), whether we are referring to online relations or to in-person relations.
Of course, there are "acceptable" context-related boundaries too, and none of us should proclaim to be innocent from either purposefully or accidentally crossing over such context-related boundaries..
It's actually simple, and much less romantic or naive than it might look at first glance, as well as proven by many spiritual teachings, to mention Shaolin Kung-Fu (Gong Fu, actually) as a more serious and credible example.
Try to look at it like so: Every time you experience negative emotions (pain, grunt, hate and so on) you are attacking your own wellbeing. All feelings based off these emotions are limiting your quality of life. You can (if you practice) stay passive in regards of those feelings, to choose how you want to react right after. This mode of living can actually bring one close to (real) freedom, and it also gives one the neccessary judgement to stand and act above (inherited) moral understandings. That's also where romantic and the lovey-dovey woo-woo ends, because you have to deal with the consequences as well.
One can (externally) justify said negative emotions as much as he wants, but this will create even more events of experience unfree, negative emotions.
When we are grateful, helpful, forgiving, loving (...) we are actually giving much more to ourselves than to others, while not "giving away too much to others", if done right.
Most people are confusing this with dependance, and most time it's some sort of dependance that makes people acting like "giving", but they actually try to take something in return. That doesn't age well, typically.
I get nervous
(skeptical?) if anyone proclaims some answer to be "simple." t is possible that we might be talking past each other to some extent, because the initial question was about how we might present ourselves to others and how we might interact in terms of laughing at them and/or I told you so versus kiling them with kindness, and there can be times in which either one of the tactics could be productive, and there may be some need to concern ourselves with our audience too.. .. I am not presuming that a person who might fly off the handle is doing such in an unmeasured way, even if some impression of "unmeasured" might be communicated.
Sometimes we might choose to not telegraph our true motives and the extent that we might be exaggerating our behaviors, while at the same time, I generally expect that laughing at someone else for being a no coiner (or a lowcoiner) might not be a good way of dealing with the matter or the relationship with such other person... sometimes teaching moments or i told you so assertions might be in order, and I am not necessarily going to presume that the communicator of that message is acting from a point of ego, even if it might appear to be so.
Sorry, i understood the original question as passive aggressive vs. (for)giving way of reacting to naysaying nocoiners, then came out with the seemingly unrelated answer, pointing to what makes us feel good in life. My thoughts are (more than) sometimes, how to say it...
not quite straight.
Also related, i tried some "biohacking"- substance lately, only to find out that it made me a little more confused, but luckily it is already getting better slowly after i stopped taking it two days ago.
For the definition of Ego, we'd have to go more out of scope than we'd want in regards to this discussion, but i better omit this (for) now, not to write myself into more confusion.
I am not sure about how to employ the balance exactly, especially since there seems to involve free will and discretion in these matters that sometimes can be difficult for some folks to figure out where to play it, and surely any of us could become uncomfortable when we might get stuck in interactions that we don't really want to be in, and sometimes we might need to learn when to engage and/or when to remove ourselves from the interaction.. and I don't claim to always know how to employ such discretion (whether in the real world or online) since there always is a bit of a moving target going on, too.
As stated above, "free will" is bound to taking consequences.
But for the interactions part, you can mostly trust your feelings and walk away in peace, if i have understood your argument well.
We are deciding for ourselves in which interactions and relationships we want to be (stay) in, but most times we are just not brave enough to respect our true needs, because we fear the consequences or blindly follow some bullshit morale codex.
This is a huge discussion between all kind of ethics and cultures, it also was at the roots of christianity, until the church fucked over the original christian messages to slave the people, but now we get way out of topic (in an out-of-topic topic)
It seems to be getting beyond my ability to follow, since I thought that initially we were talking about whether or not to laugh at the face of the no coiner/low coiner - bitcoin naysayer.
[/quote]
I was triggered by the term "free will", which was a main point of a big ethical discussion while i did improve my spiritual skills through an extensive seminar.
To keep it short, we are following a set of moral rules, culturally evolved in our society, which are opposed to actions of "free will", and these rules tell us to stay in social interactions longer than we'd want to, and to get out of them in ways we'd normally wouldn't want to follow.
I am not a hippie (or like that) but i refuse to feel bad because of my own decisions. Actually we meet a lot of decisions every day, considering judgements are decisions too. "This dude pisses me off", "I hate pink people", "I love getting put down by my wife, because that gives me her attention"... Should i go on? Theoretically, with a few exceptions, you can quickly change yourself just by monitoring and altering your decisions, and life will react to those actions through consequences. Most people to decide the same, every fucking day, and cry that their life is so unsatisfying.
I think that I do understand this part, yet I am not sure how
easy it would be to just change the way that we choose to interact with others... especially people who are already used to interacting with you. It is easier to change your ways of interactions with strangers or people you just met as compared with people you already established relationships and interaction practices.
[/quote]
Instead of
easy i'd use
convenient. The more unconvenient way, but only in short term, is to just tell them friendly and straightforward. In the long run, getting out of interactions that are fruitless and kept up mainly for good manners, even current and regular ones, is freeing time and energy to engange in more fruitful interactions with other people. It's normal to let relationships just fade out, sometimes even end them abruptly (ghosting as an extreme example), but i switched to just "thank you... i can't... because..." and go on. Before that i was used to (try to) keep up relationships for good manners, but that wasn't either honest nor "free" at all.
Shit, now we're even more off topic, so i'll end it here.
Think about it and you should get a good idea. You can always decide to keep thinking about it the same as before
I am not going to disagree that there can be some challenges in changing our ways of thinking or changing our ways of interacting, yet I doubt that you can presume that change is necessary or even that if we might be disadvantaged (or not able to learn more) by doubling down with our already existing practices. We can have a lot of interactions with people in our lives and some of them interactions might not be very often, and I am not going to presume that there is any advantage if I come across some friend or relative with whom I had not interacted for more than 5 years, but then he is acting like a totally different person from my previous interaction with him. If so, I might choose not to interact with him or to cut the interaction short if I am having trouble understanding him... and you might also consider that there could be someone with whom we had not interacted for close to 20 years, but then we meet and after 15-30 minutes, we start to tell the same stories that we did 20 years a go, and there is a bit of comfort in that and a bit of comfort in measuring the extent to which each of us is the same and how each of us might show that we might have changed during that elapsed time.
[/quote]
That describes most of what i tried to say before in a more straightforward way, thanks. My explanations were based on concepts of how we feel when interacting. The two examples you were showing, the after 5-year vs. 20-year interactions are set apart by feeling slightly uncomfortable, vs. feeling comfortable in interacting, and i advocated for letting these feelings decide to truly keep up or end these interactions, even if we'd fear disadvantages (at first glance) to do so - sometimes. You know, like being (seemingly) friendly to the boss at work, while constantly having a sense of feeling awkward because you don't really like his personality or motives. In this case it might be hard to just stop interacting with him, but if you choose to keep acting, you're a slave to him anyway, no?
On the other hand, sometimes we might behave arrogant to people that don't really deserve it (nocoiners?), but to be honest: who really does? This is just feeding our Ego. It's sufficient to just stay passive, in a more understanding way, without having to "i told you so", because if they are honest to themselves, they already well know that you told them so. Just like one would deal with a crying child that got hurt after he was warned about the possibility of injury. "I told you so" just gets the child embarassed and maybe mad at you, because it well knows you did. But then, they need your loving consolation.
One thing about laughing at nocoiners: Believe it or not, i am the type of guy that never laughs at someone, ever. My kids always wondered how i was able to watch those "don't try to laugh" clips with them without showing a reaction, with the exception of "ouch, that must have hurt, big time!".
TL;DR They claim that "This redistribution of wealth and purchasing power is unlikely to occur without detrimental consequences for society. Even if the Latecomers cannot attribute their loss of purchasing power, they will feel a malaise and frustration, that will contribute further to an ever more split society." I cannot disagree more.
#metoo
The true reasons of splitting society are much more complex, while the assumption that money can buy happiness is quite the root mistake of this particular plot. I won't go into more detail here, because i'd lose myself in many words, possibly without really being successful in getting to the point.
Poll
