Posts by Melissa Stewart6

Sam Martinez9 said:I have to disagree. Here is some reading material for you:

Meet the languages that America has forgotten

According to research from the University of Helsinki, over 70 percent of languages in the West fall into the endangered category. While major global languages expand their influence through mass media, certain smaller, isolated ones are slowly fading from the collective consciousness. Because of this, we are bringing you a few interesting examples from the Old Continent.

In the US, according to the UNESCO list, there are a total of 300 languages spoken, and 277 of them are considered endangered. This staggering figure was confirmed by a study conducted a few years ago at the University of Helsinki, which covered a specific region of the Old Continent (excluding Russia and Turkey). Essentially, Finnish researchers concluded that out of 136 languages, only about 30 don't need to worry about their future.

Globalization and the cultural imperialism of "major" Western nations—fueled by mass media and educational systems—are quite literally trampling smaller languages until they vanish entirely. Language death has happened before, but never on the scale we are seeing during the 20th and 21st centuries. It results in new political and cultural shifts. Beyond dying out in the traditional sense, smaller languages sometimes assimilate or merge into larger ones, thereby losing their unique identity. Most minor languages in the West are being rapidly buried under internationalisms and English loanwords, so we are presenting a few that, while perhaps not the most critically endangered, remain relatively unknown.

Here is the full article:

And those are just the languages found in the West. The situation is even more dire for the rest of the world.

There is nothing here that contradicts what I said.

Most extinct languages belonged to small, isolated tribes. There are plenty of those out there, but national languages have much more staying power. It’s often a matter of national pride; take Germans, for instance—they aren't going to adopt English as their official language, even though practically everyone understands it perfectly well.

Then there's the issue of loanwords. Sure, people pick up English terms here and there, but simply borrowing a few words doesn't change the fundamental structure of a language.

It honestly feels like things might actually run smoother without a moderator than they do with one.

Sam Martinez9 said:What can you even say about a people who, halfway through the 21st century, living in the West and surrounded by every educational tool and technological marvel the modern world has to offer, still haven't figured out how to implement a functioning civil society in their own backyard?

Are they the most foolish people on earth?

How could the "dumbest nation" have produced someone as monumental as J. B. Tit?
Maybe it was just that Canadian blood winning out. They always seemed to be one step ahead.

feralranger said:Of course, assuming we are discussing healthy individuals. (Though one might argue that those struggling with severe cognitive impairments, patients in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's, or even young children whose personalities haven't fully crystallized, don't quite fit that description.)

The true distinction lies in how one perceives themselves in relation to the world and the people surrounding them. A healthy ego—or rather, a healthy sense of "self"—fosters a balanced relationship with others.

An egocentric individual or an egomaniac feels this compulsive need to suppress the ego of others simply to diminish them, though they remain blissfully unaware of their own staggering level of egocentrism.

In this discussion, it doesn't matter if we're talking about Omen's ego or whether someone is being egocentric. The only thing that actually matters is whether they're right or wrong.

Joseph Bailey41 said:If this thread were titled "Respect," the discussion would look completely different. Honestly, I'm not even sure if anyone would be asking these questions. In the common sense of the word, it's hard to put "humility" and "self-respect" in the same sentence. And while there aren't any real boundaries between our inner and outer worlds except for the ego, that doesn't mean they are identical; it means they form a single whole. Some parts of that whole are simply more beautiful or pleasant than others, and I think closing your eyes to that fact is just denying that connection. The world isn't some shapeless, singular blob; it's a complex entity made up of distinct yet interconnected parts. No one would argue that there's no difference between a leaf and a root, even though they clearly belong to the same tree.

True humility is about being spiritually grounded—not puffing yourself up without any substance. You see this mindset in all the great thinkers who study Bogey.
That doesn't mean falling into morbid submissiveness or masochism, which usually happens when people fail to find deeper meaning in life. It simply means knowing where you stand.

Finding your place requires struggle, growth, and mental sharpness.

Joseph Bailey41 said:How we interact is really the best indicator of where someone actually stands or how much they've progressed. In this context, trying to take a high ground of modesty, tolerance, or acceptance is a pretty tough sell, which is why you see so much hypocrisy. When you’re a certified, trademarked guru with a seal of approval from a specific tradition, it’s easy to adopt a "don't do what I do, do what I say" attitude—basically forcing your own concepts as the ultimate truth. Maybe it is the truth, maybe not; but a student of a certified, trademarked guru has to accept it as such, otherwise the whole interaction is pointless. In open settings where information flows two ways—or even multiple ways—in totally unexpected directions, it’s just crazy to insist on acting like a guru, especially if you aren't willing to put your credentials on the line. And it’s even sillier to take someone else's claims at face value when you have no idea where that path actually leads.

This is a place for exchanging knowledge and experiences. Nothing else. For every "I know," you should be prepared to explain how you know it, what your sources are, and what your arguments look like. If you say, "my experience is X," you have to be ready for different bystanders to project whatever they want onto that, because that's the easiest way to discredit a person and boost one's own importance. So, even that route isn't recommended unless you are truly humble—meaning you don't cling to your own experiences or your own self-image, and you genuinely don't care what others think or say about you. This forum is by no means a "safe space," especially the parts where most participants are just trying to prove their intellectual or spiritual superiority or simply shout, "I am right." Measuring humility, ego, or the intensity of spiritual experiences here mostly boils down to a contest of egos, or like primates fighting over dominance. It’s all quite amusing and fun, right up until someone tries to swing for the fences and actually hit you. 😁

Exactly. At this stage, it doesn't even matter if the "guru" is a certified expert, an author, or just some guy down the street. There is a teacher, there is an authority, and you accept them because you trust them. You can rebel, sure, but you can do it the right way—from a place of strength—by basing your disagreement on the good you recognize in their teachings. The bad way to rebel is to just lose your temper, tear everything down, and immediately go looking for a new guru to start the whole cycle all over again.
Essentially, you follow the path based on trust. If that trust isn't there, there is no teacher.

feralranger said:And what exactly constitutes "rubbish" in your eyes? I suspect many would find themselves nodding along if they weren't so preoccupied with tossing such heavy words around so carelessly...

As I have already stated, an ego is not possessed by the severely mentally impaired, nor by small children before their self-awareness and personality have developed, and even those suffering from Alzheimer's lose it in the later stages...

I am speaking from my own experience interacting with people, and since you asked, I suppose you fit the description quite perfectly.

Everyone has an ego; it’s really just a matter of how deeply you identify with it.

Betty Patel172 said:We could just as easily be talking about aliens; it doesn't change the logic. Humility isn't exclusive to Christianity; you find it in everything from Islam to Hindus to Native Americans.
Humility is about respecting others and their differences, rather than forcing your own will upon them.

That doesn't actually address your question. It was just being used as a talking point against Christianity and the concept of humility.
And yeah, I agree—humility exists in other faiths too.

Joseph Bailey41 said:You created this thread to drop wise spiritual quotes, so by all means, knock yourself out. You’re also more than welcome to deal with that whole ego thing with other people somewhere else. If you haven't managed to say anything smarter than "some users find the concept of humility disgusting" up to this point, there's no need to even try. But hey, feel free to post some more tattoos; this thread wouldn't be half as interesting without them. ☕

Well, now... some posts aren't even worth a reaction beyond an emoji or a smiley face.
Most of your comments just boil down to ad hominem attacks and trolling again.
Anyway, I'm heading out, so you can get this discussion back on the right track.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Okay, so what’s the point of all that?

The legal system punishes individual actions, but in our day-to-day lives, we usually rely on our general impression of someone to decide if they're even worth dealing with. Hegel was incredibly precise about this in other contexts, but for some reason, his claim here feels vague and unsupported. Since I haven't personally studied Hegel, I'm basing this on what's available (specifically that quote you shared), and my conclusion is that it doesn't seem worth my time to dive deep into his work. I doubt anyone will hold that against me, since it seems like almost nobody here has actually read Hegel or feels any deep emotional connection to his theories. Hegelianism isn't a religion; you don't have people knocking on your door wanting to chat about him, church bells don't ring in his honor on Sundays, women aren't wandering the streets wrapped in bandages because he told them to, and elementary school kids aren't learning a thing about him in class.

The real reason you and I are even talking about Hegel on a Saturday night is that you constantly hide behind quotes. One minute it's Nietzsche, the next it's Hegel. And then you act surprised when people call you out, even though you haven't technically "said" anything or insulted anyone directly—you just show up to be a nuisance, complaining about how certain women on these forums don't subscribe to your idea of humility. Wherever you pop up, you're trolling. At this point, we aren't talking about a single action anymore; we're talking about your entire legacy. I honestly don't know what you're trying to achieve, but it's becoming exhausting. No amount of Greek terminology or philosophical citations can mask the fact that you don't actually have anything to say—not about this topic, and not about anything else.

And why are you so focused on the forum users and their motivations instead of the actual topic?
I might not have much to say personally, but that's why I share thoughts I actually like. It doesn't matter at all if someone else said them first.
What do you actually have to contribute, aside from trying to tear down the people you don't like?

If I wanted to, I could write a much more detailed response and dive into that whole ego thing. But I won't—not here, and certainly not right now. With other people, maybe.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Well, in this particular situation, I don't give a damn about dialectics. Bad people exist. Liars, hypocrites, malicious trolls—they're all out there. Just because I can see them doesn't mean there's "evil in my eye." It just means I'm not blind.

If someone wants to chant mantras about how we're all one, or how a benevolent God is watching over us, or even that the Earth is flat, go ahead. It’s their business. But I reserve the right to be exclusive toward people I simply don't like, and I have zero intention of bleating along with the politically correct (or, in this case, spiritually correct) herd.

I think he wasn't talking about people who happen to notice evil, but rather those who actively go looking for it everywhere they turn.
Are you familiar with the concepts of Ergon and Pragma?

Pragma refers to a specific action—like buying a pack of matches. It’s an isolated act performed with a particular goal in mind.
Ergon, on the other hand, is one's life work, or what philosophers might call a person's essence.

What's the takeaway? You can't judge a whole person based on a single isolated incident. A good person might slip up and do something wrong occasionally, but that isn't the same thing as living a life defined by evil.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I was actually considering picking up some Hegel lately, but you’ve totally convinced me he’s just some massive windbag who isn't worth my time. ☕

Why's that?
Hegel had this idea that when someone looks at the world and sees only evil, they end up isolating themselves from the very society they're criticizing—and that isolation itself becomes the problem. Then again, if you look at it through a dialectical lens, evil is just a necessary step on the path toward something good.

amberpuma8 said:I was just writing that from the perspective of the people who say stuff like that—not really speaking for myself... all good! 😁

By the way, Buddhism teaches that the ego doesn't actually exist—it's just an illusion.

amberpuma8 said:Hey everyone! Just joined the party here (thanks for the warm welcome, 😁), and honestly, just lurking through this thread has me thinking... if we didn't have an ego, we wouldn't have any drive at all. Sure, there are different levels to it—obviously some people take it way too far—but if you’ve got a healthy dose of it in your daily life, I think it’s actually a pretty vital tool for growing as a person. Whether you're navigating a relationship or trying to climb the ladder at a place like Google, most of us just want to prove our worth, right? I feel like a "normal ego" is necessary because, in a way, it's that little voice telling you that you're actually capable of things and that you deserve them.

And don't even get me started on those "spiritual gurus" who claim they can just shed their entire ego after a couple of meditation sessions—to me, those people are the biggest egoists of them all. It’s like someone digging out their own two eyes just because they heard it's the only way to see with a "third eye." Total nonsense. You need balance and common sense. To me, the real point of spirituality should be helping a person—with all their goals, visions, and ambitions—to step back from the chaos, stay present, and actually be satisfied with where they are right now. That doesn't mean throwing everything you've worked for down the drain or being like, "well, this is just who I am, so I'll never improve my career or work on being a better partner." That's just giving up. You can't just shrug your shoulders and say, "it is what it is" while sitting around doing nothing.😁

If that's the case, then you don't actually need spirituality.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I honestly find it hilarious how all these "humble" types suddenly turn into total monsters the second you bruise their non-existent egos. 🤣

Who exactly is acting up?
It reminds me of something Hegel once said: evil is found in the eye of the one searching for it.
If you're convinced that humble people are being fake, you'll start seeing them everywhere.

To be clear, I never claimed to be humble, nor did I say I don't have an ego.

Jamie Davis9 said:And I'm just going to say, that honestly sounds more like a suggestion for a tattoo than a coherent thought.

Tattoos, huh...

Jamie Davis9 said:It's clear you haven't the slightest clue what he actually said.
And it isn't "superman," it's the *Übermensch*. Sorry, but even the spelling is wrong—it’s Nietzsche, with a 'z,' so you're really stretching the topic here, for heaven's sake.

If neither of you qualifies as an *Übermensch*, then you're just wasting my time.

So, are you saying he was claiming that for himself, or what exactly are you getting at?

Jamie Davis9 said:It's clear you haven't the slightest clue what he actually said.
And it isn't "superman," it's the *Übermensch*. Sorry, but even the spelling is wrong—it’s Nietzsche, with a 'z,' so you're really stretching the topic here, for heaven's sake.

If neither of you qualifies as an *Übermensch*, then you're just wasting my time.

Joseph Bailey41 said:So, I was just scrolling through a Wikipedia link I stumbled upon while digging through some totally unrelated topic, and it made me wonder if this counts as synchronicity:

1973: Allegations of "ego-stripping" and "brainwashing"

In 1973, LaRouche started writing about applying specific psychological techniques to new recruits. In an article called " Beyond Psychoanalysis", he claimed that a worker's persona had to be completely dismantled to reach what he termed a "little me" state, which would then allow them to "rebuild their personalities around a new socialist identity," according to The Washington Post.[64][65] The New York Times wrote that the initial session—which LaRouche dubbed "ego-stripping"—involved a German member, Constantine George, during the summer of 1973. LaRouche claimed that during this process, he discovered a plot to assassinate him had been planted in George's subconscious.[66]

He also recorded sessions with a 26-year-old British member, Chris White, who had traveled to England with LaRouche's former partner, Carol Schnitzer. In December 1973 LaRouche asked The couple to return to The U. S. his followers Sen tapes of The subsequent sessions with White to The New York Times as evidence of an assassination plot. According to The Times, "[t]here are sounds of weeping, and vomiting on the tapes, and Mr. White complains of being deprived of sleep, food and cigarettes. At one point someone says 'raise the voltage,' but (LaRouche) says this was associated with the bright lights used in the questioning rather than an electric shock." The Times wrote, "Mr. White complains of a terrible pain in his arm, then LaRouche can be heard saying, 'That's not real. That's in the program'." LaRouche told The newspaper White Had been "reduced to an eight-cycle infinite loop with look-up table, with homosexual bestiality." He maintained that White hadn't been harmed and noted that a physician—a member of the LaRouche movement—was present the whole time.[66][67] Ultimately, White told LaRouche that he had been programmed by CIA and British intelligence to set up LaRouche for assassination by Cuban exile frogmen.[68]

According to The Washington Post, a sort of "brainwashing hysteria" swept through the movement. One activist recalled attending meetings where members were actually writhing on the floor, claiming they needed de-programming.[14] During a single two-week stretch in January 1974, the group put out 41 different press releases regarding brainwashing. One activist, Alice Weitzman, voiced her own skepticism regarding these claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Even though this falls squarely into the "WTF" category, I have a feeling it ties back to what we're discussing here. Basically, once a guru or whoever strips away a person's ego, there's usually an attempt to plant something new in its place. It’s also interesting to me how so many long-term meditators end up believing in total nonsense, like the Flat Earth theory, reptilians, and other absurdities. It's almost as if after the "emptying of the mind" and the "death of the ego," something *has* to fill that void, and for some reason, the most irrational concepts seem to be the ones that stick best.

Is there any actual argument to support this?

Jamie Davis9 said:Mhm... as if that whole "superman" concept from Nietzsche wasn't officially debunked the moment he decided to embrace a beaten horse.

He didn't even claim to be the Superman himself...