5 ms·

I beg to disagree. You need to be careful with what you accept. Little by little, small things pile up and make a big difference. Some examples: * Nasty manag

I beg to disagree. You need to be careful with what you accept. Little by little, small things pile up and make a big difference. Some examples: * Nasty managers. You go on accepting one issue here and other there and the guy will just get worse and worse. * Collapsing countries, such as most of Latin America and Caribbean. You go on accepting some crime because "shit happens" until you are in a place where you just can't raise your kids without fear. I used to think like that when living in South America. But when my oldest son was born I just said to myself: enough is enough, gotta get out of here; I don't want this as a future for him.

trevyn 9y ago
There is a distinction between making rational decisions based on events and being negatively emotionally affected by them. You can leave your manager or country while laughing at the absurdity of the situation and being grateful for having had a unique experience.
xutopia 9y ago
If you read the article he's not saying you should put up with bullshit but that the bullshit you have to put up with should not bring you down. The distinction is huge. I'm pretty sure that he'd agree with your point that allowing BS to accumulate is not a good way to live your life.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I'm on board with that, but I find that many (most?) people "reason" by estimating the magnitude of emotional impact. That is, if I'm "zen" when people do things they shouldn't, to me or to people I care about, then people take that as "I only kind of care". I can politely spell out that it's not OK, that it needs to stop, etc., but some people do not think you are serious unless you are in some sort of heightened emotional state. So, because they don't see an emotional escalation, when request turn into repercussions (like quitting a job or dis-inviting a guest), then people feel blindsided because I didn't communicate well in their terms (emotionally). I'm not sure how to resolve this phenomenon. Could I escalate externally while staying innerly peaceful? Do I spell out consequences, basically laying down ulitmatums?
  - ignoramceisblis 9y ago
    I think that's something that you'll have to find out for yourself. One potential outcome would be that you lose your inner peace in an attempt to display your lack of control over a situation (or whatever emotions people believe you display). But you bring up a very important matter, which seems to be more pronounced now with ubiquitous social media (more people having an outlet to act): many people seem to believe those who act "emotional" - eg. frightened, angry, happy - even if that act is a fraud. I think this is a major problem. Those acting the lie would disagree, but it can result in our resources being directed towards dead-end or harmful ways (such as efforts that benefit the deceiver most of all), especially at a time when our collective priorities matter so much. My humble opinion would be to be true to yourself, and direct your attention and energy towards constructive actions, whenever possible.
uoaei 9y ago
Acceptance is not the same as complacency. I think the article is suggesting that accepting your current situation puts you in a better mindset to tackle it full-force if it's going to cause you problems down the road. "Ok, so we're here--now what?"

trevyn 9y ago

There is a distinction between making rational decisions based on events and being negatively emotionally affected by them. You can leave your manager or country while laughing at the absurdity of the situation and being grateful for having had a unique experience.

xutopia 9y ago

If you read the article he's not saying you should put up with bullshit but that the bullshit you have to put up with should not bring you down. The distinction is huge. I'm pretty sure that he'd agree with your point that allowing BS to accumulate is not a good way to live your life.

humanrebar 9y ago
I'm on board with that, but I find that many (most?) people "reason" by estimating the magnitude of emotional impact. That is, if I'm "zen" when people do things they shouldn't, to me or to people I care about, then people take that as "I only kind of care". I can politely spell out that it's not OK, that it needs to stop, etc., but some people do not think you are serious unless you are in some sort of heightened emotional state. So, because they don't see an emotional escalation, when request turn into repercussions (like quitting a job or dis-inviting a guest), then people feel blindsided because I didn't communicate well in their terms (emotionally). I'm not sure how to resolve this phenomenon. Could I escalate externally while staying innerly peaceful? Do I spell out consequences, basically laying down ulitmatums?
- ignoramceisblis 9y ago
  I think that's something that you'll have to find out for yourself. One potential outcome would be that you lose your inner peace in an attempt to display your lack of control over a situation (or whatever emotions people believe you display). But you bring up a very important matter, which seems to be more pronounced now with ubiquitous social media (more people having an outlet to act): many people seem to believe those who act "emotional" - eg. frightened, angry, happy - even if that act is a fraud. I think this is a major problem. Those acting the lie would disagree, but it can result in our resources being directed towards dead-end or harmful ways (such as efforts that benefit the deceiver most of all), especially at a time when our collective priorities matter so much. My humble opinion would be to be true to yourself, and direct your attention and energy towards constructive actions, whenever possible.

uoaei 9y ago

Acceptance is not the same as complacency. I think the article is suggesting that accepting your current situation puts you in a better mindset to tackle it full-force if it's going to cause you problems down the road. "Ok, so we're here--now what?"