4 ms·

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 distinctio

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.

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.