As a mediator, I was trained to differentiate between needs and wishes. Between something which will actually make your life easier and something you just fancy. And to understand the fact that everything we do has consequences.
A father has asked me the other day: ‘What had I done wrong? My only son hardly ever speaks to me…’
‘When did the rift became apparent? How early?’
‘Things went fine until he had become an young adult. OK, we had some ‘misunderstandings’ when he was a teenager but he seemed to had overgrown them… Until sometimes in his early 20-ies when he really rebelled. And told me everything he couldn’t tell me – his words, about how he felt while growing up.”
‘And what exactly were his grievances?’
‘He was cross at the manner in which I was telling him things. At the manner in which I was trying to stimulate him. He’s very bright, you know, only didn’t do much in his life. Not by a long shot! And I kept telling him that. I still do, as a matter of fact.’
‘You see, no matter whether you go to the church or to a brothel, the soles of your shoes will get thinner. This doesn’t depend on where you go. It only depends on the road you chose and the manner in which you shuffle your feet. Same with words. What you’re trying to say is, indeed, very important. But even more important is the manner in which you try to get the message across. Whenever your ‘target’ becomes angry at you … the message will be truncated in the process… Even more importantly, the ‘target’ will retain a ‘bad’ memory of the whole incident. And if more and more ‘bad’ memories keep piling one on top of the other… But not everything is lost! The very fact that he took the trouble to talk out the matter with you means he was not ready for a ‘divorce’. Not then, anyway…’
“For a proposition to be true, it is not enough for it to be logically correct. It also needs to make epistemological sense.” Oscar Hoffman
Ricky Gervais is right, right? There’s no logical connection between being offended and being right… There’s no doubt about this!
Only Gervais is wrong. Wrong in saying it, not in what he said.
Yes, there are people who declare themselves to be offended in an attempt to get something. Sympathy, some slack… or even the others to accept their version of things. That ‘they’ are ‘right’.
But this is not always the case! Some (other) people are so offended by the manner in which things are unfolding that they actually need to express their feelings. To send the warning ‘don’t continue in this manner or you’ll loose my attention/will to cooperate’.
In this sense, Gervais is actually wrong. His saying had been used by numerous meme builders to create a bubble inside which callousness is actively encouraged. ‘Go on disregarding other people’s sentiments. They’re nothing but pussies. It’s just words, not sticks nor stones.’
Here’s a more detailed analysis:
So fucking what?!? Somebody just told you they are not going to stop paying any real attention to what you are trying to say to them and you don’t care? Why did you start communicating in the first place? Or ‘performing’ the ‘offensive’ thing in public? Was the ‘offense’ premeditated? For a reason or just for fun? Then it’s not ‘so fucking what’ anymore… Or you just hadn’t thought about it beforehand? And you’re looking for an easy way out?
No, you don’t have to pretend to like people when you don’t. But, in the longer time frame, it pays to honestly respect those you get in contact with. All of them.
Cât de … trebuie să fii ca să poți scrie așa ceva?!?
Ceaușescu „a păstrat demnitatea acestui popor de tâmpiți”….
Care demnitate? Nu urcam în lift de frică să nu rămânem între etaje? Aveam, cu toții, lumânari în casă? Cu toate că nu mai credeam în Dumnezeu… Păstram săpunurile primite de peste graniță între cearceafuri? Ca să miroasă frumos? Părinții se spălau pe dinți cu sare sau cu bicarbonat ca să rămână pastă pentru copii? Iarna mai puneam o haină pe noi pentru că tot cărbunele era folosit în siderurgie? Ca să fie produse utilajele și vagoanele de cale ferată pe care le-au vândut șmecherii la fier vechi după ‘zaveră’? După care și-au cumpărat Mercedesuri, pe care le rup în gropile pe care tot ei nu-s în stare să le astupe?
După care m-am întrebat dacă nu cumva tipul chiar are dreptate! Pană la urmă, am stat vreo 5 ani de zile la coadă pentru câte o pungă de frații Petreuș înainte de a-l trimite pe marele cârmaci în excursie cu elicopterul la Târgoviște…
Iar aceia dintre voi care nu știți care era treaba cu frații Petreuș dar aveți convingeri ferme despre cât de ‘mai bine’ era pe vremea lui Ceaușescu… să vă dea Domnul demnitate… că habar n-aveți ce să faceți cu mintea!
PS. „A dublat populația urbană”… da, interzicând avortul! Ce o fi demn în a umbla cu plicul la doctori încercând disperat să scapi de o sarcină nedorită…. ‘Dacă erați proști și nu foloseați prezervativul!’ Care prezervativ?!? Nu se găsea nici un fel de contraceptiv… ‘Pilule’ ioc, prezervative canci, sterilete doar pe sub mână din Uniune (adică din Rusia)… Contraceptive nu, examen ginecologic obligatoriu din trei în trei luni pentru femeile „fertile” … curat „demnitate” Coane Niculae….
Demnitatea bunicilor care așteptau să vină mașina cu butelii.
Society exists in two forms. One in which the individual members have a certain amount of respect towards their peers. And another one, where John Doe doesn’t give a damn about anybody else. Or even hates everybody else.
The first kind evolves. People talk – and listen, about their problems. Then find solutions. The second experiences revolutions.
When too many individuals have never had anything ‘substantial’ on their name, and feel they have no chance of improving their lot – because ‘everything’ has already been appropriated by a small minority, that society has a marked tendency towards communism.
Sometimes, too many individuals see their fortunes go down the drain, for no matter what reason. From there, only God knows how, those fortunes go straight into somebody else’s pockets. Any society which experiences something similar has a marked tendency towards fascism.
The problem with both communism and fascism being that they have always failed. Crumbled from within before being pushed into the precipice by those who has seen the situation as an opportunity. As an opportunity too good to be wasted. Then, if neither had ever survived for long, why are so many people who continue to profess either? So many intellectuals who try to convince their audience that …
Well…, first of all, because ‘intellectuals’ are nothing but regular people. With a twist! Not only that intellectuals have the same ‘passions’ as the commoners – ‘greed’ being the most intense, but they also have a very good opinion about themselves. Hence too many of the intellectuals consider that they are the ones who should be in charge. That they are the ones who know what everybody else need to do if they want to live comfortably.
In a nutshell, too many intellectuals fall into the trap of considering themselves infallible. And ‘deserving’! Hence those would do everything needed to get what is rightfully theirs.
If a society is ripe for communism, one/a bunch of the ‘intellectuals’ I described above will, for sure, drape themselves in a communist flag. If another society is ripe for fascism, in a similar manner, one or, probably, more ‘intellectuals’ will drape themselves in a fascist flag.
It’s up to us, who’ve experienced at least one of them, to blow the whistle. And it’s up to the rest to listen…
Let me start by attempting to answer this question in a logical manner.
Theoretically, individuals have the right to defend their lives. And properties. In some jurisdictions, the defender might even shoot the trespasser. On the other hand, it is a lot harder to identify an example where property might end up purposefully damaged in a lawful manner while life is being defended. ‘Purposefully’ as in property being targeted in an attempt to fulfill the goal of defending life. When groups of people are involved, things are even more complicated. Is a community entitled – using the police force, a “well regulated militia” or even ‘spontaneously’, to inflict bodily harm to a group of people who randomly destroys property? What becomes different when the destruction occurs during a protest ‘gone wrong’? The way I see it, things are more complicated at the social level because of the number of people involved. At the individual level, things are simple. The guy who trespasses is the one who gets hurt. The defender is the only person who might inflict injury and the one who will answer for the act. When there are more people involved…. Some protest peacefully, others do the damage… and who knows who gets clobbered – or shot, by the police?!? Same thing looking from the ‘other’ side. The owner of a property might have decided to protect it in a different manner than the police … or even not at all… To wrap it up, there’s no single answer for this question. On the individual level, the actors/agents must decide on the spot. Considering the specifics of each incident. While being ready to accept the consequences. On the social level, neither murder nor property damage are acceptable and must be dealt with in a very thoughtful, but firm, manner.
As usual, logic can take us only this far. Far from the essence…
What are we doing here? How can we even attempt to compare life with property? Do they belong to the same category? Can we sell a human being? Do houses have souls? What’s happening to us?
One of the best examples of professional grade propaganda which had recently crept up on my FB wall
As always, the ‘gaslighters’ use ‘the obvious’ to get inside our heads. Once there, they actually twist our minds.
In fact, the professional propagandists act like viruses do. They use the internal mechanisms of the target to alter its ‘software’. To ‘convince’ the target to act in a manner favorable to the ‘virus’ rather than in its own interest.
And the fact that both sides – or trolls embedded there?!?, use the same ‘tools’ only makes it harder for the targets – for us, really, to defend ourselves. To maintain our sanity.
Let’s go back to the example at hand. Yes, it’s ridiculous to blame this child for Pearl Harbor. This is the evident part of the meme. Only it’s very legit to blame those who deny that Japan attacking Pearl Harbor was ‘murder’. Legit enough to become a must. Just like it’s a must to blame those who deny the Holocaust.
Same thing with slavery. And with other crimes of the past. Blaming people alive today for what their ancestors had done in the past is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as denying that past crimes had consequences. Some of which continue to pull us down today.
Present day colored people in America – and Roma people in Europe, continue to suffer the consequences of having been enslaved for many generation. Denying that only burdens entire societies. It burdens the colored people themselves and, on a way larger scale, it burdens the rest of us. The colored people having less opportunities than the rest of us is a waste for the society at large. The disproportionate number of crimes and felonies perpetrated by the colored people are a cost shouldered by all of us. Meanwhile, the blame is not entirely ‘theirs’. Had they been ‘defective’ in any way would have prevented any of them from ‘prospering’. Hence we’re dealing with a rather ‘cultural’ thing. Which cultural thing has appeared at the intersection between us and them. We had enslaved them. We had kept them at arm’s length until not so long ago. So many of us continue to look down on them. We consider it’s their individual responsibility to pull themselves up! And how are they supposed to do that? Statistically speaking, and in the present conditions, not only the most talented and the very lucky among them….
How are we going to proceed? Continue with the blame game – and play into the hands of those who want us weak, or attempt to do something about it? To find a real solution?
There’s one thing shared by both parties who currently pull on the proverbial ‘bone of contention’ – whatever that is. Except for the ‘bone’ itself, of course.
Both parties consider the ‘others’ as being stupid. Stupid enough to ‘discard’. So stupid that nobody actually hears what the ‘others’ have to say.
What drove me to this conclusion?
Would you pay any attention to something uttered by a ‘libtard’? Or by a ‘fascist’?
Why would an antivaxxer actually listen to the arguments presented by a vaxxer when the anti-vaxxing community is convinced – or had allowed itself to be convinced, that the vaxxers are ‘sheeple’? Why would a vaxxer try to understand what’s going inside the head of an antivaxxer when the vaxxing community is convinced – or had allowed itself to be convinced, that the antivaxxers are slow minded idiots who cannot understand science. And put us all in harm’s way!
Why would somebody concerned about catching Sars-Cov 2 listen to the arguments of somebody who is ‘cool’ about it? When those who are casual about the whole thing are called Covidiots? Why would a ‘Covidiot’ care about Covid-19 when so many of them are convinced there are already too many people on Earth? Too many stupid people…
See what I mean?
The problem with this line of thought is that following it blinds each and everyone of those who go along. Us, that is.
Blinds us to the fact that we are all idiots.
None of us knows everything. Some of us might know more than others, indeed. But no one knows so much as to be able to live comfortably on their own. To be both fully independent and to have a good life for any sizable amount of time. Hence each of us – no matter how skillful or how highly educated, might – and eventually will, be proven idiot. Sometimes by a ‘simpleton’…
Don’t you believe me?
A guy has a flat tire. Being handy enough, he starts to change it. During the process, the lug nuts end up in a curb inlet. He tries to recover them using a piece of wire but… A kid, who had been watching the whole thing, tries to intervene. ‘Leave me alone, don’t you see I have a lot on my head?’. After another 5 minutes, the child attempts again to say something. The driver rebuts him for a second time. Another 10 minutes pass by and the guy lightens a cigarette. The child was playing nearby. Remembering his undeserved rebuttal, the ‘handy’ guy approaches the child:
‘You were trying to say something to me a while ago. What was it?’
‘I noticed you’ve lost the lugs holding one of your wheels. Why don’t you unscrew one nut from each of the other wheels, put the spare on and drive to the next repair shop?’
And, by the way, what’s your opinion? Does this guy know what he’s doing? Is he ‘expert’ enough to teach others?
Since I don’t want to leave you ‘on a limbo’, compare to this:
And always consult a manual before attempting to do something for the first time. If one is available, of course. If not, use a double dose of common sense. Or call for help. Don’t be a knows it all idiot.
‘For things to work as intended, there must be a rule’.
Errr…
‘For things to work, there must be at least some consistency involved’.
This is a far better starting point!
An example would be fine?
Then imagine an Earth where the gravitational field was haphazard. In space and time. Where two lumps of dirt, a k a mountains, sometimes pulled at each other while some other times pushed. With no rules involved whatsoever. Or where sometimes wood needed oxygen to burn while some other times – or in some other places, the presence of nitrogen was enough for wood to burst into flames. Need some more? Then how about a place where dogs breed with cows. And also with butterflies. Only not always. And not in a constant manner.
Have you stopped laughing? Well, this was how our ancestors imagined the Earth. Sometimes after a mutation had provided them with the most powerful brain ever, our forefathers had learned to speak. To ‘trade’ information. Soon after they has started to develop something Humberto Maturana called ‘the ability of an observer to observe themselves while making observations’. ‘Self awareness’ for short. Or ‘conscience’ in everyday parlance.
Imagine a self-aware observer watching the sun go down. A rather smart one. One with a vivid enough imagination to ask ‘what if the sun will not come up tomorrow morning’… Stonehenge has suddenly acquired a new meaning, right?
That was why God had so much traction. Simply because it gave sense to everything. It lend meaning to everything under the sun. And beyond!
In time, under God’s protection, we invented science. And, slowly but surely, we’ve started apportioning meaning ourselves. Meaning we’ve started to take for granted. Meaning which no longer depended on any third party!
Only we’ve gradually forgotten what science is really about.
Why we had developed it in the first place.
We had forgotten that science is wrong by definition. That, by following this path, we’ll be forever able to find new meaning but that we’ll never be able to find ‘the’ meaning.
And now, that we’ve ‘killed’ God – as no longer necessary, we rely solely on the meaning we’ve already affixed to the things we already know. To the things we consider to know… conveniently forgetting what science taught us….
Faced with unforeseen crises – unforeseen, not unforeseeable, we are left powerless. Having taken so much for granted – our knowledge about the world and our ability to overcome everything the nature throws at us, above all, we find ourselves bereaved of our erstwhile powers.
Are we going to rediscover intellectual humility? And the ability to take advice? From the most unlikely teacher?
Existence takes place ‘inside’ while things happen in-between.
Survival is a matter of preserving, ‘as is’, what already exists while evolution is about change and might involve ‘dismissal’.
Everything may survive while only ‘living’ things are capable of evolving on their own.
At some point, evolving organisms became complex enough to ‘feel’. Not only complicated enough to react in an orderly – a.k.a. pre-programmed, manner but also to generate emotional reactions – which can be remembered, when certain things happen in their vicinity. Things which are important for the survival of the feeling organisms. As a consequence of the ‘feeling’ process, data regarding the happened occurrences are stored by the feeling organisms as information. Which information may help the organism in its struggle to survive. Using that information, that organism might become a ‘better version’ of itself.
At a further point in the evolution of ‘things’, organisms have added another layer of complexity. They have become complex enough to ‘think’. As in complex enough to attempt to maximize the effects of the information they have at their disposal.
That was when ‘facts’ had been identified as being ‘things’ which had had consequences, when data had been identified as being information and when the thinkers had discovered that thinking was driven by sentiment.
Which sentiment is nothing but an evolution of the ‘survival instinct’. Present in any living organism. Which survival instinct is nothing but the living equivalent of something the physicists have identified as inertia.
În ’89, „De Craciun ne-am luat rația de libertate.” În ’90 eram deja obosiți. Așa că ne-am culcat înpoi. „Noi muncim, nu gândim!”
Am tot soilit până în ’96. Când ne-am sucit în somn. Și-am mai dormit, pe parte cealaltă, încă 4 ani.
La cumpăna dintre milenii, ne-am trezit din pumni. Atât de adormiți fusesem până atunci că mai aveam puțin și ne trezeam conduși de Tribun. Așa că am făcut cruce cu stânga și l-am uns, din nou, pe ‘Ilici’. Pentru a patra oară…
În 2004, am zis că rupem gura târgului. I-am angajat pe Moromeții să ne cânte și, în frunte cu Marinaru’, l-am trimis pe Bombonel să frece puntea. Și iar ne-am trezit că dăduserăm din lac în puț… tratamentul era cel puțin la fel de nasol ca boala…
Partea cea mai proastă e că din ce în ce mai mulți dintre noi au obosit să se tot trezească. Și-au rămas blocați în proiect.
Indiferent de ce au făcut, de la Iliescu la Dragnea și Firea, psdeii se bucură de încrederea a cel puțin 20 – 25 % din electorat. După toate măgăriile la care a fost asociat, grupul politic condus de Băsescu mai adună încă mult prea multe voturi. Liberalii nu înțeleg, în ruptul capului, ce se întâmplă. Cum să-i ia pe oameni. Iar noii veniți, USRPlus, sunt plini de entuziasm dar…. Ieri m-au oprit unii să semnez pentru ei. Vin alegerile locale și… În mod normal, aș fi făcut lucrul ăsta cu bucurie. Am refuzat, oarecum confuz. Chiar nu-mi dădeam seama ce se întâmpla cu mine. Peste 10 minute, când m-am întors, am înțeles. Era la apusul soarelui iar cei de la USRPlus își puseseră măsuța în așa fel încât să nu-i deranjeze lumina. Pe ei! Numai că asta însemna că toți cei opriți stăteau cu soarele-n ochi… Bine-nțeles că majoritatea refuzau… I-am atras atenția celei care mă oprise la dus, spunându-i că ar trebui să caute un loc mai la umbră. Mi-a răspuns că „Bună idee!”. N-am stat să văd daca o și pun în practică. Dar mă duc diseară pe-acolo!
Să vedem ce facem în continuare… Iohannis îi trage tare cu ‘greaua moștenire’. Din punct de vedere practic, are dreptate. Toată administrația e osificată iar mare parte din merit cade în poala celui mai mare și mai important partid din Romania. Nu doar pentru ca a fost la putere, direct sau indirect, cea mai mare parte din aceste trei decenii. Ci pentru simplul motiv că este, efectiv, cel mai mare partid din Romania. Adică reprezintă interesele celui mai mare grup organizat, din punct de vedere politic, de cetățeni români. Și cum administrația publică este compusă din… cetățeni români și lucrează pentru cetățenii acestei țări…. Are cineva impresia că administrația publică – locală sau centrală, chiar lucrează pentru noi? Adică pentru noi toți?
Și-atunci? Cel mai mare partid, prin guri cât se poate de avizate, reproșează actualei puteri toate lipsurile administrației publice. Și bine face. În momentul de față, ‘cel mai mare partid’ este în opoziție. În cine să dai, în opoziție fiind, dacă nu în cei aflați la putere?!? Chiar dacă cea mai mare a incompetenților de care ne împiedicăm acum au fost ‘montați’ acolo chiar de către cei care astăzi strigă ‘hoțul’… Cei aflați acum la putere, în loc să promită o reformă administativă, îl scot pe Iohannis în față. Și-i dau să interpreteze, fad, aria ‘PSD-ul e-n toate!’ Păi da… de frică ca nu cumva să se mobilizeze toată funcționărimea…
Și noi? Restul?
Noi când pricepem că, de fapt, e vina noastră? A tuturor!
Noi ne-am tras pe cur în ’96. Și l-am lăsat singur pe Constantinescu. Asta după ce, în primăvara lui ’90, în loc să facem muncă de agitație ‘la țară’, ne-am adunat în Piața Universității și ne-am ținut, unul pe celălalt, de mânuță… Tot noi n-am fost în stare să-l dăm jos pe Băsescu după ce ne lămurisem căte parale face. Și așa mai departe…
Ne vine odată mintea la cap? Ne trezim? Că până nu-i împingem noi, de la spate, ‘aștia’ n-o să facă nimic ca lumea. Indiferent de partid!
OK, unii sunt mai simpatici. Poate chiar mai cinstiți… Dar fără ajutor din partea noastră, a celor mulți, nici unii dintre ei nu pot face nimic semnificativ.
nicichiarasa 