Hi everyone,

We the moderators have decided to add a new guideline to support the ideal of common courtesy. This section was added to the home page:

I feel this is entirely in line with the following goal, which has been on the front page at least as far back as February 23, 2014:

The vast majority of the posts on the DhO are already in accordance with this guideline, which is not surprising because it is fairly basic. But for those posts that are not, this is now a clear guideline we can point to when moderating.

To demonstrate, here are some recent examples of critical posts I (Claudiu) personally thought were in accordance with this ideal:

And some recent examples which I thought were not:

Hopefully this will help bring out the best of what the DhO is capable of!

Regards,
Claudiu & The Mod Team

Woo hoo!  A good day for the DhO.

Vigilance*

Haha, yes... clearly we were not so vigilant with the spell-checking... thanks, I've fixed this over-one-and-a-half-year-old typo.

How would you classify this kind of thing, which was what sparked my commet towards Daniel in an attempt to demonstrate I wasn't amused:



That was where I responded by saying Daniel's penis probably compared favorably to mine. It didn't seem out of context to me, or even discourteous, honestly. I was just joking back.

After Daniel responded again with more patronizing, I even followed up with:



In another thread he posted:



And then:



These specific posts have a lot more taunting and misrepresentation in them - this is just specific sampling. This post, in particular: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5779441

So I got pissed off and used some swearwords. After he responded to my comment with his own swearwords, I thanked him for being direct and moved on with life. It was no big deal. But I'd like to continue to be able to expressed when I'm pissed off because, honestly, people don't do that enough on here. That's why things explode. There's lots of resentment as people try to be courteous while also dealing with the pissing contest - and I think a lot of Daniek's commets to me were just placeholders for, "Damn, NT, you're just an egotistical know-it-all blowhard" - and then there's an explosion when someone reaches a boiling point. It'd be nice if I could just say, "you're pissing me off and I'm fucking annoyed," and let that be the end of it.

So, here, I'd like to say that it's fucking annoying that you quoted me out of context as a bad example, Beoman, but didn't impose your courtesy rule on Daniel and his passive agressive posturing, haha. I'm not here to be "most enlightened" and I think the thread improved greatly when I just told Daniel how I felt and he stopped poting there. If you look at my comment, I actually followed the rules of good/progressive conflict - I said how I felt in relation to what Daniel was doing. Maybe you could make a rule agains heated swearwords, or whatever, but I don't think you're being fair here comparing my posts with Daniel's or Jenny's - which were just mean spirited.

EDIT: I even posted this viewpoint before you made this thread. This is my response to Daniel's angry post:

@NT and everyone, in general:

I think specificity is very important.  Meaning, in addition to not using swearwords, it is important to express that "I" am experiencing "this emotion" when I read what "you" said.  There is a formula to this type of communication, this 'I statement'.  One can absolutely stick to it, again and again, without losing clarity or force.  In fact, it can be even more forceful because one does not allow it devolve into a fight.  When the other person can not react with 1 dimensional anger, they must face the complexity of clashing opinions and use their intellect instead of their emotions.

One can even add to specificity by elaborating on an "I" statement.  For instance, after saying that 'you felt anger when you read Daniel's words', you could add in why you felt anger, and how you interpreted his words.  But it is important that each of these things be expressed as discrete thoughts to avoid muddling your meaning.

I know this may sound preachy, didactic, unrealistic, or even condescending, but I swear that this type of training is necessary for everyone.  I went to college for human resource management and was trained in how to interact and coach others this way in high-level, corporate environments.  Even executive coaches frequently need to go back to the basics of interpersonal communication.

P.s.- I also think people should be willing to go right into skype sessions with each other when conflict arises.  If this makes someone feel uncomfortable, they should probably just push themselves and skype with the person anyway.  If you have time to post, you have time for a 5 to 10 minute video chat to analyze an interaction.

I have to disagree with you here, Noah. If someone believes that there is overwhelming evidence another person is arguing in bad faith, then a Skype session is worse than a waste of time. 

I wish to thank the mods, and express my willingness to uphold this code. I think it's important to be willing to step in when someone else is being savaged, as well as flag posts that are in violation. Thank you again for spelling things out.

Yeah I can see how my view on this point might be slanted by my own tendencies.  I just have always pushed myself to be very direct with others, but that is a subjective character trait, not an objective recommendation.

I partially agree with this sentiment.

In our culture there seems to be an aggression taboo. It seems to me that this is usually amplified in spiritual communities. It also seems to me that more damage is done by the resulting passive aggression etc than would have been done by the original aggressive impulse.

I don't mean to imply any definite conclusions/prescriptions from this observation. I've observed this in myself also.

For a positive spin on 'aggression' see here

Or everyone could just relax and not get so personally offended so often, and decide just to stop questioning other people's intentions entirely because it's usually incorrect, certainly was in this case
I'm just throwing another option out there for those extra sensitive hardcore dharma practitioners out there 

According to your link, " In human affairs there is always external resistance, and so
"aggression" is the ability to move toward a constructive goal against
some resistance."
So what constructive goal would the now banned aggression serve that could not be served by the slightly more polite renditions?  If someone can't use swear words they will become passive aggressive? IMO if people can't control their behavior during typing on the keyboard that might be a good thing for them to work on as a skill.  Living in society means we have to make sacrifices that including not doing and saying everything we feel like exactly when we feel like.  That does not mean trying to deny those things entirely, though, it means dealing with them constructively and learning from them.  Maybe that means means not typing when I obsereve that I feel angry but instead waiting until I have time to sort out my feelings.   I think Noah's advice in general is good but the downside is that it probably takes considerable training for most eople to accomplish it.  Probably partially because many people like to blame their unsavory side on the instigation of others instead of taking ownership of it as their own problem that crops up over and over in their life.   Also it was once believe in the 70s that the way to get rid of aggression was to vent it, but research since then has indicated that more likely it is a case of habits becoming ingrained the more they are repeated so most psychology methods today involve training of more constructive methods of dealing with things, many of which are similar to what Noah said.  His way allows a person to more fully express personal emotion in a way that will help others to understand but also is less likely to spiral into nonconstructive argument. 

I think in the new age community, there is a belief that people should have at least enough self control to be polite to others.   But I also agree it can be a problem if lack of aggression is at a level where people become door mats or are afraid to speak their mind at all or some such.  But I don't see this rule going that far.   The allowed critques above are still fairly aggressive and certainly allow considerable latitude in expression of opinion.   

Also there is always going to be the issue of environment and context.  On the basketball court, a certain amount of trash talk is often expected, but that same level may not go over so well at a business luncheon.  Flexability is about fitting into a variety of environments.  The majority in any environment sets the expected ground rules.   Others will have to adapt to a resasonable extent, leave, or expect to get kicked out or at least nagged at.  Luckily there are tons and tons of different environments on the net so those who like more 'f yous' and the like have plenty of boards to  choose from.
-Eva

IMO, that is even more unlikely to happen than everyone being polite.  ;-P
-Eva

do you guys have jobs? 

Yeah, I do.  Wanna skype, Daniel? :p

skype id is noah.starbuck2

Anytime! Not on this subject right? ;)

Hehe naw this is boring.  Just to shoot the shit.

I think we're in agreement.
From my link,
etc. The link addresses more.

Also, "lack of aggression" doesn't apply (at least to every mortal I've ever encountered). That's essential to the point here.

In my post I said partial agreement with sentiment, i.e. I see some truth in NT's post. I haven't looked at this situation particularly. I was just making a general statement that might provide some balance in this discussion

Perhaps the forum readers will forgive the gross digression of the lowly forum owner when he is reminded of The Wallet of Kai Lung, a book whose characters speak in ways at once polite and yet somehow very direct, demonstrating that the two need not be in conflict, and even may seem to enhance each other:

"

The sun had dipped behind the western mountains before Kai Lung, with twenty li or more still between him and the city of Knei Yang, entered the camphor-laurel forest which stretched almost to his destination. No person of consequence ever made the journey unattended; but Kai Lung professed to have no fear, remarking with extempore wisdom, when warned at the previous village, that a worthless garment covered one with better protection than that afforded by an army of bowmen. Nevertheless, when within the gloomy aisles, Kai Lung more than once wished himself back at the village, or safely behind the mud walls of Knei Yang; and, making many vows concerning the amount of prayer-paper which he would assuredly burn when he was actually through the gates, he stepped out more quickly, until suddenly, at a turn in the glade, he stopped altogether, while the watchful expression into which he had unguardedly dropped at once changed into a mask of impassiveness and extreme unconcern. From behind the next tree projected a long straight rod, not unlike a slender bamboo at a distance, but, to Kai Lung's all-seeing eye, in reality the barrel of a matchlock, which would come into line with his breast if he took another step. Being a prudent man, more accustomed to guile and subservience to destiny than to force, he therefore waited, spreading out his hands in proof of his peaceful acquiescence, and smiling cheerfully until it should please the owner of the weapon to step forth. This the unseen did a moment later, still keeping his gun in an easy and convenient attitude, revealing a stout body and a scarred face, which in conjunction made it plain to Kai Lung that he was in the power of Lin Yi, a noted brigand of whom he had heard much in the villages.

"O illustrious person," said Kai Lung very earnestly, "this is evidently an unfortunate mistake. Doubtless you were expecting some exalted Mandarin to come and render you homage, and were preparing to overwhelm him with gratified confusion by escorting him yourself to your well-appointed abode. Indeed, I passed such a one on the road, very richly apparelled, who inquired of me the way to the mansion of the dignified and upright Lin Yi. By this time he is perhaps two or three li towards the east."

"However distinguished a Mandarin may be, it is fitting that I should first attend to one whose manners and accomplishments betray him to be of the Royal House," replied Lin Yi, with extreme affability. "Precede me, therefore, to my mean and uninviting hovel, while I gain more honour than I can reasonably bear by following closely in your elegant footsteps, and guarding your Imperial person with this inadequate but heavily-loaded weapon." {italics mine}

Seeing no chance of immediate escape, Kai Lung led the way, instructed by the brigand, along a very difficult and bewildering path, until they reached a cave hidden among the crags. Here Lin Yi called out some words in the Miaotze tongue, whereupon a follower appeared, and opened a gate in the stockade of prickly mimosa which guarded the mouth of the den. Within the enclosure a fire burned, and food was being prepared. At a word from the chief, the unfortunate Kai Lung found his hands seized and tied behind his back, while a second later a rough hemp rope was fixed round his neck, and the other end tied to an overhanging tree.

Lin Yi smiled pleasantly and critically upon these preparations, and when they were complete dismissed his follower.

"Now we can converse at our ease and without restraint," he remarked to Kai Lung. "It will be a distinguished privilege for a person occupying the important public position which you undoubtedly do; for myself, my instincts are so degraded and low-minded that nothing gives me more gratification than to dispense with ceremony.""May our lowly discourse rise to this level of exhaultation and glory.May our sharp tongues yet be silver.May all clarity and wisdom blossom forth!

Gordo, you seem to have misunderstood. If you'll notice I quoted your post as an example of posts that I thought "were in accordance with this ideal" - as in, a post that was critical yet still courteous/considerate. That is specifically the type of post I was encouraging, particularly because I don't want people to be unable to criticize each other here and yet that may be one of the misconceptions of a rule about being courteous/considerate.

Cheers,
Claudiu

Oh I think I understand what you're saying now. This isn't about the new moderation guideline. Rather, you are just disagreeing of my assessment of your post as "critical".

I meant "critical" in the general sense of "not agreeing/disapproving/negative" (my definition). This definition conveys the sense I meant: "expressing adverse or disapproving comments or judgments" and also "expressing criticism or disapproval". I see that "critical" can have negative connotations like "inclined to find fault or to judge with severity, often too readily." but I didn't mean it that way.

I think it's fair to categorize your post in the sense I meant it. It is certainly an adverse (as in "unfavorable")/disapproving comment. I agree it wasn't a personal criticism, as you said in the post, and I don't think you criticized me either, but your post was critical nevertheless. And I don't think this is a bad thing at all. It only makes sense to be critical (this time in the sense of "involving skillful judgment as to truth, merit, etc.; judicial") when coming across something new. That's why I was explicitly listing that post as something I would want to continue to encourage on the DhO. Not everybody will agree with everything and it makes sense to allow critical discussions here as long as there's a basis of common courtesy - which I think there was in your interactions there.

Hmm well firstly, the important thing is that even if there was a flare-up of some sort, it died down and the thread proceeded swimmingly thereafter. So whatever issue there was, it was resolved.

Secondly, what follows is subjective and ultimately it's up to the moderators to use their good judgement. It won't be exact but we'll try for the best.

Now, your interaction with Daniel definitely at some point broke the barrier of common courtesy. I scrolled up in the thread to see where that may have happened and I thought that the post I quoted was a good candidate. However it is true that the context was important and shows you didn't just say that out of the blue, so I added it back into my original post. My completely professional and objective evaluation (joke) was that, taken as a whole, Daniel's comment, with all his edits (which were available for a few minutes before you posted your edit - not sure if you saw them though) did not cross the line.

*

That thread you linked is the one in which post with the "Good to see [...] you like to do that" line appears. That line is 23 words out of a large, 984-word post, the rest of which has quite a decent tone, even positive at times ("[...] I've thought a lot about this as I've read your (good) writings and then thought about my own motivations [...]"), and seems constructive over-all, so though that line taken out of context doesn't sound like the nicest thing, the post as a whole does not seem so bad.

*

Right, and your reply to this one was your "I'm pissy because it's fucking annoying! If you don't wan't me to think you're just trying to be an asshat, then stop doing that. [...] Ok, now I'm bailing - unless you come back and say more stupid shit that I feel a desire to correct.". This isn't an exact science, but in my perception Daniel's post didn't seem mean-spirited, although clearly it did piss you off (going by your words). Definitely takes two to tango, but again trying to pinpoint that spot where common courtesy broke down, I would more readily place it at your post I just quoted from rather than Daniel's post. 

*

Fair enough about the out of context and as I wrote above I corrected it. As to good/progressive conflict, if that was your intention you could have certainly handled it better than "I'm pissy because it's fucking annoying! If you don't wan't me to think you're just trying to be an asshat, then stop doing that." and "It's obvious you don't take any time to think about what I'm writing or make any effort to actually understand it." and "Ok, now I'm bailing - unless you come back and say more stupid shit that I feel a desire to correct.". That middle one is definitely not you saying how you feel in relation to what he's doing.

I do think it's fine and possible to express your feelings in accordance with this guideline. For example I really like the way Noah did it on his thread:

*

Yeah this one is pretty good in my opinion.

Cheers,
Claudiu

do you think this video helps the discussion at all?

Somehow I got subscribed to this thread, it wasn't intentional.  Now I can't get off, when I click on 'unsubscribe' I get a red error message about it not being available.  Would like to stop the spam attack on my email, how is this done please?
-Eva 

Never mind, fiugred it out, the unsub button to the side of thread names when they are all arrayed on the same page worked for me.  Not sure why but sometimes I end up getting subbed to some threads I post on, then suddenly there maybe all those alerts in my email,  and other times not. 
-Eva

It's pretty descriptive, all right--not sure I'd like it to be prescriptive, though.

(Thanks--Every so often it's nice to be reminded of just how hilarious Monty Python are.)

Well, I did my best to put it into context there, but whenever Daniel or Bill post after me on a thread, they seem to just delight in making as many personal attacks as they can - like, really delight in their cruelty.  I've never actually experienced this anywhere before, and I have to say it's really worn me down and made posting here really unpleasant.  For example, Beoman, that post in the thread I linked, Daniel takes my instructions for how to deal with anxiety, and turns them into a "how to become a sociopath" post, ending with:



I think the forum would benefit from a mute function where you could personally block someone - I've seen this a few places.  As it is, it's just too difficult to have any kind of useful conversation while having it constantly pointed out that I'm a horrible person. Sorry if my outbursts have offended anyone, but they didn't just come out of nowhere.  I really do, genuinely, think Daniel and Bill are looking for trouble, and I will most certainly be angry about things they say in the future and probably express it loudly and obnoxiously (mainly because it's so satisfying to do so). I don't reall care about "being the bigger person" haha, courtesy is how the whole thing dets drawn out. Feel free to ban me when I cross the line if you think it's necessary.

This is a good day for me.  I didn't appear on the unacceptable list.

I'm going to go and celebrate.

Not to derail the thread too much, but weren't you the one argueing against morality, and saying that you shouldn't take the feelings of others into account? But at the same time you're complaining about other's perceived cruelty? Maybe time to revise one of those viewpoints?

IMO it is best when we refrain from questioning each others intentions
The reason is, many times you will be incorrect, as happened here


and I think you should take that lame idea to China. We live in Emerica.


Did I do that? Who did that?


I am offended and I accept your apology
And I am sorry. And also sorry if this sorry seems less than perfect. I am also sorry for that. Sorry


ok, if that brings you happiness I have no problem with it. A welcome effect of many years of 'spiritual practice' for me is that I don't take things personally so much anymore, and I don't usually care about the ideas in other people's heads, as they tend to be different, and always changing...


I think you should be banned immediately - but only for making a lame post and then being offended when someone pointed out how obvious the insight was and then encouraged you to go deeper. Maybe there is no deeper. Maybe that is something
Anyway, ban me too. I'm no good either, there's just too much room for improvement here....

EDIT: I would like to clarify that I find the post and the ideas lame, not Not Tao, he is a unique and beautiful snowflake, just like you

I thought it was a good idea personally. 
-Eva

Well blah, apparently unsubbing from a thread does not unsub one from the thread? I am still getting my email box spammed 24 hours later.  How to stop the 'onslaught,' anyone know? 

It's happening to me too. 

Is it for older threads too? E-mail notifications were stopped for a while. When Simon re-enabled them, I got an extended onslaught also - maybe it's just working its way through your backlog of notifications now?

I should have been more clear - I am only sorry if I offended other people. I fully intended to offend you, and I don't feel any remorse about it. I'm also not interested in apologies, I just don't want to deal with you anymore.

So, that said, I think it would be healthiest to simply stop engaging you at this point. I'll just do my best to pretend there is a mute function and skip your posts from now on. I think that'll be acceptable to keep to the rules, anyway.

I haven't gotten notifications for any other thread, and in fact this thread has now gone quiet in my email.

@Not Tao: You may wish to try asking yourself why this particular person makes you so angry. You don't have to be public about it the way I did ("It Has Happened" thread, page 5), but consider anyone who bugs the sh*t out of you as an opportunity to earn more about yourself. If this doesn't sound helpful, kindly disregard. 

Well, well, it appeared in my email after all . So I lied/was wrong. 

BTW, is it okay to use swear words in a friendly way, as I just did in my note to NT? I'm assuming it is. Let's face it, a whole lot of us would be out if not. But I can try to avoid them just in case.

Laurel,

I've kind of been experimenting with a few things recently.  One of them is publicly stating how I feel - mainly because I've often been obsessed with projecting a certain image of myself in the past, and that image isn't really me.  I try not to edit out mistakes or re-read my posts too much these days, as well.

I do know why Daniel has been bothering me so much, and it's definately been an opportunity to learn a bit about myself.  Mainly, I still care about what other people think.  In this case, it wasn't Daniel I cared about, but the people who might read his characterizations of me.  So, the practice going forward is to realize I can't control this, and it doesn't matter - which is a relief in its own right.  It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, even people you might respect or people you might want to help.  The best you can do is put what you know out there and let other people do what they like with it.

Good work. If you want to take it to the next level, and maybe you already have, you can try asking yourself, "what if I actually am all the things I'm being accused of being? Is that the end of the world?" This can be dangerous to some people, especially those in a habit of self-blame. But the "f*ck you, I don't care what you think!" response can also be a mask for the fear that you really are clueless, stupid, the deserving butt of everyone's jokes, whatever. Or that you did something bad and deserve other people's scorn. Generally, when I find myself engaging in point by point self-justification, there's fear underneath. 

I don't mean to go all psychological touch-freely on this place, but again, if this isn't helpful, feel free to let it go. It's just something I have found useful.

I've also found that works to a degree.

However, I don't know that it's necessary. To me, it seems like taking one lie, "What -person- said about me is wrong and it's important that I correct them," with another lie, "What -person- said about me may be right, and I have to deal with that." The truth is actually this: what anyone says doesn't matter, and how you respond doesn't matter. You're off the hook at any point you want. There might be some real world consequences, sure, but it's up to you how much those matter as well.

I suspect that what she means is not that what he accused you of is right, but that the things he does that bother you are also some things you may have traits of in yourself that you don't like.  Like for instance, there was this guy today that I found a bit irritating because he just talked a ton and was going on and on about his knowledge of this and that in a bit of an egotistical way, and I realize that part of why it bothered me was I have that tendency myself and I don't really like it in my self, so he triggered me more than say the other 20 people there that also have irritating traits but their irritating traits bother others instead of me.   It wasn't even that what that guy said was wrong, it was just that he was kind of an egotistical knowitall about it, and it wasn't even that I am as bad as he is (he was pretty bad!) but it was just that it reminded me of something I don't like about myself so it bothered me extra. 

But if I don't think it through, then I will not get past him being irritating to the part where I realize the part about myself.  And for those who might think we are picking on NotTao, others in this argument saying various people are irritating might also want to consider it.  Anyway, this is old psychology that has stood the test of time, glad to see someone else brought it up. What you find irritating about others is typically what you find irritating about yourself.  IME, it's pretty much always the case to be true.  And sometimes it's a kind of jealousy, like maybe you have a  part of you that wants to do that, be a big shot or whatever (this is just an example from my own experience, not saying specific others are specifically doing this specific thing) and so if you see someone else trying to do that, and all the worse if they don't deserve it, then you might find it especially irritating.  While others might just chuckle, dismiss the person in their mind, and move on, but not experience feelings of irritation at all.  Because that desire is not an issue for them, so maybe that person just is not a trigger for them, but then maybe 10 minutes later they find someone whining about their parents or complaining they don't earn enough or whatever, and get really irritated by that person instead.  Anyway, point is, IME, what triggers a person can show you things about yourself, but I also think it can be hard to cipher exactly what unless you are looking at yourself because there are so many subtle nuances and energies at work, I don't think I could easily guess on other people unless I really knew them well. 

Thanks, Eva, for clarifying. I appreciate the example as well!

Wow Laurel, I had this exact experience, where a client basically accused me of being incompetent
I’m not incompetent! I am actually quite good at my job (said I)
It was at least a day of brewing until I got to the point you describe – wait, maybe I am incompetent – or, more accurately, let’s say it’s true – I was temporarily incompetent, just like I am temporarily successful. Just like everybody else  

Too late I already accepted your apology and it feels so good - no take backs ;)
Plus I already told you I'm not offended so no problem 


That is quite the presumptive and self-centered view NT, that I am delighting in harming you
I am not here to taunt you, I would never do that. Needling maybe, but not taunting 


I don't believe you. Where? Who?


Sorry, didn't catch that last part buddy – it was such a great idea that I also put you on mute!
But you are right, another great idea! This is so much better than listening – now I can really hear myself speak! 

I suspect you are missing the point a tad. In that case, sounds like it's that guy who was irritated by you.  People who are irritated rarely consciously know the real reason why so they can either says something vague like  'for some reason' or they can come up with a reason (which is usually not the real reason) like they think you are incompetent or mean or whatever.  Sometimes the accusations/excuses are fairly reasonable sounding and other times they are totally wacky.  Who knows why that guy found you irritating, it could have truthfully been anything from something like you making fun of him (a lot of people really dislike that), to he thinks you are too cocky, to he is actually very intimidated/jealous of your competency and doesn't want to look bad in comparison.  Sometimes they will use their own weakness and project it onto others as well kind of as an added defense mechanism to protect themselves against the truth.   So the question would be put to that guy, what was the REAL reason he was irritated what about you triggered a weakness in him?  (assuming you are not truly incompetent.  ;-)

Anyway, so that guy got irritated by you.  He said something that probably then maybe irritated you back if you had any insecurities and/or sense of identity wrapped into your concept of your job performance (as most people do).  If you didn't have much of either, then you may not have gotten that irritated and may have been just more surprised and confused instead.     Certainly there are people that are able to irritate a lot more people than others but even so, they can only make an irritated effect if there is a weakness on the other side. 

I have also noticed that if I irritate someone, if I am able to switch to a position of strong loving kindness and speak from that place, they will often suddenly stop being irritated by me and switch to saying nice things instead.  It's very powerful but can take some considerable effort to get to that place while someone is saying bad things about me.  It also has to be a very real and honest desire on my part instead of an act.  I have to make sure every word from my mouth is coming from a place of kindness, sometimes it helps if I try to think of people that are very naturally kind in my life (people that are not me, LOL!)   Anyway, I have found it to be a very good metta type practice in a challenging environment that yields real world benefits as well.  In comparison, it's fairly easy to sit on a mat and think loving thoughts, but how about doing it in the face of an angry person?  Should metta only be applied to those you kind of liked already anyway?  Some of these people probably rarely if ever experienced even the emotion of loving kindness directed at them.  They may have grown up bitter and angry from bitter and angry parents and then perpetuated that lack of love by acting as they do.  So when they feel a sense of kindness, the effect can be profound.  Often if I switch up my own attitude, the attitude of the other person will switch up almost immediately as well.  So I try to think of it as an exercise in flexibility for myself, albeit one that I am not always succesful at. (cuz it's hard! ;-P)
-Eva

Hi Eva,

I like very much your posts - well written and insightful. What do you think about the so called difficult persons and sociopaths, who seem to have no or weak consciousness, and who when they hurt others don't feel guilty or even enjoy it and do it on purpose? Does your metta-based technique work also when dealing with this type of people?

I understand the argument that the current unpleasant behavior might be rooted in past, unpleasant events of the upbringing. But don't you think that there are people whom cannot be helped, who cannot change and cannot be changed? Or, at least, with whom one is not able to solve the situation. I think that if when encountering a sociopath the option of walking-away/stepping-aside is available it still provides the best solution, from the point of view of the "normal" person. I'm not talking about the "being the bigger person" thing (btw, this is not about anybody in this thread, so no insinuation intended), rather just a simple but radical self-defence strategy which is sometimes the only meaningful alternative.

People who don't care who they hurt need to be stopped, no question. Any effort at extending leniency, feeling sorry for them, or what have you is something Pema Chodron calls "idiot compassion." There is a real compassion, which calls them to account, and I think there's unquestionably room for metta and karuna. After all, would you want to be someone like that? Can you imagine not caring about anything other than your own power trip? But engaging with such people and trying to help is only making it easier for them to hurt you.

Regarding my comment about the people or behaviors that make us particularly angry and defensive: I think several possibilities enter into it. One is that we reject people displaying traits that we reject in ourselves; another is that we are apt to project onto others relationships from the past which the other person seems to be replicating in some way. So if I was hurt by a woman's manipulative behavior or a man's bullying in the past (news flash: uh, yeah, I was), then those traits, associated with the gender of the original, will arouse self-protective stuff in the present. Even after a certain level of attainment it's possible to see a pattern triggering a response. The difference for me, and for many others, is that now the response is a lot less intense, and it doesn't last nearly as long.

I realize that some of you have indicated you would like to erase certain negative emotions altogether. I can't say that I blame you; however, I can say that having insight into my patterms and having gotten out from under the total immersion I used to have in certain emotions has been wonderful. I feel sane, even though I'm not perfect, and that's priceless.

Yes, needling! I got that impression as well. That you were really twisting the knife here, so to speak, when it came to Not Tao (another way to say "needling"). I'm going by this definition of needling: "provoke or annoy (someone), especially by continual criticism or questioning".

This is why we can't have nice things. In short: don't do that! Feel free to criticize but don't do it with the intention to provoke or annoy. Why would you even want to do that anyway?

Cheers,
Claudiu the Mod

What is the difference between taunting and needling?  Definition of needling: provoke or annoy (someone), especially by continual criticism or questioning.  Definition of taunt: provoke or challenge (someone) with insulting remarks., reproach (someone) with something in a contemptuous way.  (They are a very similar kind of activity.)

Point taken. I had an overall point other than knife twisting that was more important than my childish sarcasm however, does that factor in?


Yes you're right. I guess I didn't really want to do that, it just happened. I think it is because I have an aggressive and arrogant mind. I need to meditate more? Thanks BCDE for being the cooler head in general, it is a truly admirable trait


And Cheers to you as well sir,
D-San the Provoker

You are correct Eva, but the guy I was irritating tends to go on and on about how he's discosvered a brand new way not to be irritated by things and he wants to tell all about it, and in the same breath (post) he got irritated. I know I shouldn't laugh at other people's irritation - but I'm really kinda laughing at the paradox (hehe)

Some of this depends on one's view of the nature of reality.  I personally do believe in reincarnation and gradual learning and evolution of consciousness through that process.  I suspect many of us start out in the process as rather selfish, uncaring of others, etc, perhaps many start out with very sociopathic tendencies.  From my experience with sociopaths and also from reading about them, what I see is that they do have some things where they care some about the welfare of others, but it's just very underdeveloped compared to the average person.  Like one guy we know, he likes dogs and feels bad if they are sick or injured.  He doesn't care as much as many others and he doesn't care about the welfare of humans that much, but in that one area, he does show some humanity.  All the sociopaths I have known have had some sparks of humanity, it was just underdeveloped compared to their drive to satisfy their own desires and try to appease their own emotions.  I suspect that sociopaths are just those that have a lot more learning and development to do. I can easily suspect that may in fact be why they go through this Earth system to improve those areas of themselves.   They will have a lot of suffering ahead of them, they will have very little idea how to abate it, they will go through much before finding better paths, so for that, I can find sympathy for them.  I sometimes wonder maybe 100 lifetimes ago or whatever, I was much like them.  So in that way, I can look at them with less judgement.  Probably there are many that will only learn a little bit this time around.  There is an old saying that says an expert is someone who has made every mistake at least once, there are people who yet have a whole LOT of mistakes still ahead of them.   

Like if I find a feral kitten and it's snarling and trying to bite my finger off.  I have sympathy for it's plight, it's lack of knowledge and all the suffering and fear it is putting itself through due to that lack of knowledge, but I am still not going to let that little sucker bite my finger.  I will take appropriate precautions to protect myself and to be realistic about the threat of that kitten and it's sharp claws and its intentions for my delicate human skin.  And if you think about it, and as many have noted in a kind of jocular way, many cats are very much like sociopaths, the main difference is they don't speak our language so we can't hear all the selfish things they would probably say, and they are far far cuter than the average human.  And many of us put up with those little stinkers, would cats be so lucky if they were ugly like slime molds?   ;-P  

Metta does not imo mean to me that I need to be a door mat, have unrealistic expectations, put trust in something that does not warrant it, or fail to maintain my safety.  To me it means more that I try to have respect, understanding, sympathy, and realistic expectations for how long and hard the road is, how slow progress often is, and gratitude that I finally got past some long hard segments of it and recognize that others are still on those segments and suffering and causing suffering accordingly.  Not saying I accomplish that every second though, just that I find it as an overall goal, something that seems right to me.  That to look at the situation in a big picture and long term kind of way kind of lessens my tendency to want to pass judgement on others and increases my compassion for how difficult the path is for everybody and not just me.  
-Eva

Yes, I do see the irony but for myself, I have found that even the best systems I develop have times when they are greatly challenged, probably because I think one may need to be without any weaknesses or insecurities at all in order to never get irritated.  Not many accomplish that but at least the closer one gets, the less irritation one must suffer.  But I am not surprised when others are not able to live their ideal for every second of their days since I am not able to do that either. 

And there seem to be people out there that seem to find great joy and pleasure in and have a natural skill for sensing weaknesses in others and driving home the knife not in a gentle way but in a way that hurts more.  In the greater scheme of things, IMO those people teach us a lot about who we are, but in the short term, those people cause a lot of pain to others and seem to really have fun doing it.  And I think there is benefit to having some times and places where people can take a break from those attacks of others just for a little while.  Perhaps the point of this thread is a request to try to criticize in a way that communicates truthfully but in away that tries to cause less pain and hurt while doing it so that this place can be more like a place where one can take a break from that a bit more.   

ok, I usually have no problem with word-knives Eva, just real ones - but sensitivity is a virtue, I hear you

OK, I suspect what is happening is that each time I post another post on this thread, I get resubbed.  That is why unsubbing does not appear to 'stick' the email stops for a bit but the minute I post again, I am back on the email list.  Must be something about how this thread is set up compared to other threads.  I have had this happen occasionally with threads in the past but most threads it does not happen. I think I have only deliberately subbed to a thread maybe twice so most of the time it is unwanted.  Right after I post this, I am going to unsub from the thread for the 3rd time and test out the theory.  If it works, then I should not get any more emails unless I post again. 
-Eva

I wonder how much of this kind of confusion lies with the social norm of different groups.  In some groups, trash talk and needling are a normal and friendly passtime that is respected as a skill.  But the same behavior in another environment, not so much.  ;-P
-Eva

It's true Eva - you have penetrating insight, where I come from  = 

I guessed once you mentioned real knives vs word knives.  I wonder how much of that trashtalk in certain environments actually serves an important function of hardening people to survive harsh conditions.  It's like practicing to be harder to get hurt.  But for those who did not get that practice, those same words could be interpreted very differently and taken much more seriously.  The more safe the environment, the more softspoken the people tend to be (seems to mostly hold for America anyway, not sure about other countries).  I suspect things like that are why people often stay in their same environment with the same kinds of friends for their whole life.  That way it's much easier to understand social cues and know the right way to act in a variety of situations.  Even if you think you'd prefer a whole different environment, once you get their, ti will be a whole different set of rules and it can be difficult to know the expected way to interact in various situations.  Very few are able to interact fluently across a large variety of nonative environments.  ;-P
-Eva 

Hi Eva,

There is a "Subscribe Me" checkbox available when posting a message/reply. Uncheck that and you won't be subscribed to the thread.

Simon

I thought your point was good, and that Jenny's post had a good point behind it also, but with regards to this guideline, it doesn't factor in. That is, please do continue to make these points, but find a way to do so without the "childish sarcasm"/intention to provoke/annoy aspect. I think it would be a loss if these critical (see my post to Gordo for the sense of "critical" I am using) points were no longer being made.

Well all it would require is self-awareness. My suggestion is, when you find yourself posting, be consciously aware of how you feel/where your intentions lie. If they lie along an aggressive/arrogant/needling aspect, then stop what you are doing and reflect on that a bit. Only resume posting once you are not posting with that intention. You may find that without that intention then you don't want to post at all - that is, that your interest in participating in that thread came only from that intention. If that's the case then don't post it at all! It'll save everyone (including yourself) a lot of time and energy. And in the process, you've learned something about yourself.

Roger that, and cheers again!
Claudiu

Maybe I am blind but I don't see it.  I am lookign right now but can't find it. I am using the reply with quote option.
-Eva

I just unchecked the "Allow Pingbacks" box under the text box I'm using to send this. Hope that's what you meant.

A message in Swedish will follow... 
Simon, jag hittar inget sätt att skicka ett meddelande här, alltså privat.

Kan man det?

Jag tänkte fråga dig om en bok som var nämnd i en tråd, och du hade postat där, så jag tror du har den på pdf.
Kan du vänligen maila  mig: k.akeby (at) gmail.com

Mvh
K

And a followup in swedish, sorry we're done after this.

Du kan skicka privata meddelanden via 'Messages' länken i menyn längst upp.

Jag mailar dig.

Simon