5 ms·

Sincere question: why should you not accept it? >Any person capable of angering you becomes your master; he can anger you only when you permit yourself to be d

by laotzu 11y ago

Sincere question: why should you not accept it? >Any person capable of angering you becomes your master; he can anger you only when you permit yourself to be disturbed by him. -Epictetus To answer your question, we should accept it because that is the way reality is fundamentally. Go ahead and try to eternally fight to erase all darkness so that there is only light. Spoiler alert: it's impossible. If there were no darkness there would be no such thing as light because light implies the presence of darkness and darkness implies light.

coldpie 11y ago
I sincerely believe our society would be improved if people could live how they want, provided they harm no one else. While I agree it's a lofty goal, I don't think we have to voluntarily shackle ourselves to a life of hard knocks. > Go ahead and try to eternally fight to erase all darkness so that there is only light. I will, thanks! Why do you think people try to impede me?
- laotzu 11y ago
  >I sincerely believe our society would be improved if people could live how they want, provided they harm no one else. That may be but an insult is not harmful unless you accept it personally. When you accept an insult you are the one hurting yourself.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    That works for many people, but I'm willing to hold people to a lower standard than that.
    - laotzu 11y ago
      Don't you think they'd find it insulting that you are holding them to a lower standard?
      - coldpie 11y ago
        Good point, I've been phrasing that poorly. Maybe something like I don't think people should be required to walk around with a shell of emotional armor to participate in modern society.
        laotzu 11y ago
        I'd call it emotional strength rather than emotional armor. In any case I wholeheartedly agree with standing up for people who are having a hard time. But simply censoring and covering up the darkness will only cause it to fester and grow stronger while the emotional strength of the supposed victim atrophies. This reminds me of a passage from MLK's Letter From a Birmingham Jail: >Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?
- LunaSea 11y ago
  Because there's a thing called the first amendment.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    Go on. How does the first amendment protect you from me and my associates shunning you for your offensive speech?
    - LunaSea 11y ago
      Because the first amendment gives me the right to say or write anything. This is a fundamental right in a democracy.
      - coldpie 11y ago
        And under the same amendment, my associates and I are free to shun you for your speech. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the US constitution applies to private citizens. It does not. It specifies what the US government is allowed to do. I'm not an agent of any US government, so it does not apply to me.
- jimmy_sprinkles 11y ago
  I've been seeing you post throughout this entire thread and it offends me highly. Should speech like yours also be banned because I'm offended? Or do I tolerate it because I know it's your opinion? This is the problem with your argument: being 'offended' is highly subjective. To some people, simply existing means you are offended...which is why it will never work. 'safe spaces' and trying to make everything a 'safe space' is a huge disservice to these students and will only put them that much further behind the rest of the world when they go out into the real working world and can't handle an opposing view point. We should be concentrating on creating strong adults that can discuss any view point intelligently and stand their ground when needed. Instead, we have students that never learn these skills (which should be taught in college) and crumble at any hint of opposition. I feel like this is a a weakness and a step back in terms of societal evolution. I started seeing it a few years back in many open source projects. Rather than try to win on the merits of an idea, many people would rather spend time destroying a person on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media to gain support. I have since sworn off all open source projects and stick to my own private repos.

by laotzu 11y ago

coldpie 11y ago

I sincerely believe our society would be improved if people could live how they want, provided they harm no one else. While I agree it's a lofty goal, I don't think we have to voluntarily shackle ourselves to a life of hard knocks. > Go ahead and try to eternally fight to erase all darkness so that there is only light. I will, thanks! Why do you think people try to impede me?

laotzu 11y ago
>I sincerely believe our society would be improved if people could live how they want, provided they harm no one else. That may be but an insult is not harmful unless you accept it personally. When you accept an insult you are the one hurting yourself.
- coldpie 11y ago
  That works for many people, but I'm willing to hold people to a lower standard than that.
  - laotzu 11y ago
    Don't you think they'd find it insulting that you are holding them to a lower standard?
    - coldpie 11y ago
      Good point, I've been phrasing that poorly. Maybe something like I don't think people should be required to walk around with a shell of emotional armor to participate in modern society.
      - laotzu 11y ago
        I'd call it emotional strength rather than emotional armor. In any case I wholeheartedly agree with standing up for people who are having a hard time. But simply censoring and covering up the darkness will only cause it to fester and grow stronger while the emotional strength of the supposed victim atrophies. This reminds me of a passage from MLK's Letter From a Birmingham Jail: >Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?
LunaSea 11y ago
Because there's a thing called the first amendment.
- coldpie 11y ago
  Go on. How does the first amendment protect you from me and my associates shunning you for your offensive speech?
  - LunaSea 11y ago
    Because the first amendment gives me the right to say or write anything. This is a fundamental right in a democracy.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      And under the same amendment, my associates and I are free to shun you for your speech. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the US constitution applies to private citizens. It does not. It specifies what the US government is allowed to do. I'm not an agent of any US government, so it does not apply to me.
jimmy_sprinkles 11y ago
I've been seeing you post throughout this entire thread and it offends me highly. Should speech like yours also be banned because I'm offended? Or do I tolerate it because I know it's your opinion? This is the problem with your argument: being 'offended' is highly subjective. To some people, simply existing means you are offended...which is why it will never work. 'safe spaces' and trying to make everything a 'safe space' is a huge disservice to these students and will only put them that much further behind the rest of the world when they go out into the real working world and can't handle an opposing view point. We should be concentrating on creating strong adults that can discuss any view point intelligently and stand their ground when needed. Instead, we have students that never learn these skills (which should be taught in college) and crumble at any hint of opposition. I feel like this is a a weakness and a step back in terms of societal evolution. I started seeing it a few years back in many open source projects. Rather than try to win on the merits of an idea, many people would rather spend time destroying a person on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media to gain support. I have since sworn off all open source projects and stick to my own private repos.