Posts by Dennis Jackson38

ironmarlin1 said:Not by a long shot! Honestly, the whole notion that being "sincere" is some sort of moral gold standard is one of the most dangerous misconceptions out there. What people are actually starving for isn't mere honesty, but true authenticity. See, the thing about people who claim to be sincere is that they rarely have any clue just how much they are actually kidding themselves. The fundamental flaw in their logic is this shaky assumption—this massive, unexamined premise—that they truly understand their own inner workings and that when they speak about their intentions, those motives are perfectly transparent even to themselves. It’s one of those basic, sweeping errors in judgment that people make all the time.

wow. Excellent. You hit the nail right on the head.

Authenticity.

By the way, it is a profound art to master the balance between true sincerity and simply minding one's own business.

And we haven't even touched upon another incredibly vital factor: the lady known as Perception.

My perception of reality and the perception of the person I am communicating with are frequently two entirely distinct viewpoints, shaped by different angles of the perceptual prism.

To put it bluntly, my truth does not necessarily have to be someone else's, and therefore, why should someone else's "honesty" imply that their vocalized version of reality is somehow more accurate than mine?

Take, for example, Silvana from my old office in Chicago. She was always, if you'll excuse my bluntness, bragging about how incredibly honest she was. Her version of honesty consisted of telling people straight to their faces if they were lazy, scatterbrained, or incompetent. That was how she viewed the world, and she prided herself on her integrity because she believed she was "the only one with the guts to tell everyone exactly what she thinks."

Aside from the fact that Silvana was quite foolish, there is no doubt she wounded several wonderful people along the way. These individuals weren't actually exhibiting the character flaws she so "HONESTLY" criticized; rather, Silvana would use her precision to hunt for the tiniest tragic flaw or minor mistake in someone else, and then use her "HONESTY" to lash out as a means of asserting dominance.

A significant number of people interpret honesty as a license to say whatever they want to anyone. This has nothing to do with intelligence, because, for heaven's sake, HOW on earth could YOU possibly know what everyone else needs to hear?

So, yes, a brilliant observation from ironmarlin1 up there.

There is nothing in nature more beautiful than authenticity.

In this recent chapter of my life, I have met several people who are truly authentic in their behavior. They aren't threatening, and they aren't inhibited by anything; they simply *are*. They certainly have flaws—some quite irritating ones, actually—but they radiate such a sense of being their true selves that they practically glow. They are beautiful precisely because they are unapologetically themselves.

As for this whole business regarding honesty...

Of course, if someone close to you is, say, struggling with a serious addiction, you might need to give them a reality check and honestly tell them to get their act together. Or perhaps you'll be brutally honest with someone if they are driving you absolutely insane. But in almost every other discipline... if you aren't authentic with yourself, you hardly have any right to attempt being "honest" with others.

Dedicated to some cool dude sitting on the toilet, frantically realizing the roll is completely empty.😈

Seriousness?

I was under the impression she mentioned you two would be running into each other spontaneously in a few days.

If any group of Lowe's moderators had ever actually demonstrated a sense of tolerance or basic common sense, it would be this specific duo currently overseeing the PDF section.

Kura, I have been following your posts for quite some time now, and I was just one of many individuals you’ve attempted to ensnare in your signature verbal skirmishes—those convoluted webs of contradictions where you employ a biting, often insulting tone. You seem to aim for that precise, provocative sweet spot designed to drive your interlocutors to the brink of insanity, hovering right on the edge of outright harassment, all while cranking up the tension just to ensure a discussion devolves into pure chaos rather than actual dialogue.

You represent that particular breed of provocateur found in every online community, which isn't surprising, though I don't begrudge people for finally reaching their breaking point. To be perfectly honest, whenever I've spotted you in a thread lately, my instinct has been to simply steer clear; I find I no longer have the patience to sit through your attempts to belittle and insult others purely for your own amusement.

I wouldn't go so far as to call you unintelligent—quite the contrary, it is evident that you aren't a fool and that you possess the capacity for meaningful insight—but you certainly have mastered the art of manufacturing an uncomfortable atmosphere and delivering insults.

It would be highly beneficial if you could attempt to grasp what people are actually trying to communicate here. My fear is that you will inevitably find some new way to lecture everyone, insisting that they are universally mistaken while you alone hold the truth.

Regardless, I am not suggesting you vanish from the forum entirely; in fact, I disagree. Stay as you are, Kura. But please... for heaven's sake, try to loosen up once in a while, or at the very least—allow others to do so.

Quentin Tarantino said:You seem to be operating under the assumption that shifts driven by social trends can be categorized as hard science. It’s a bit murky and highly open to interpretation, really. I’m not convinced that changes in perception stem from specific scientific breakthroughs, nor are they purely the result of societal pressure. Rather, it feels more like a complex interaction involving various social mechanisms and evolving dynamics—much like how psychotherapy

I am addressing your inner Sheldon Cooper 😬 :

Society—actual human beings—is what birthed science in the first place. Every single scientific achievement we celebrate is essentially a derivative of human thought, experimentation, and logical deduction.

Let’s just take a moment to remind ourselves that science wasn't engineered by robots, nor has it—like anything else in our society—reached some ultimate peak or finalized its absolute conclusions. 😍

And by the way, if we were to follow a strictly scientific methodology, one wouldn't dare inject any personal convictions into a therapeutic approach at all.

I’ll just jump in briefly here to comment on your reply; I plan to give you a full response once I’ve had a chance to properly digest your points, as I am currently quite famished and my mind is entirely occupied by thoughts of food. :humanoid:

bluemason3 said:Quincy:

Dennis Jackson38 Asks: Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't just clinical pathologies; they are serious criminal offenses under the law.

Looking back at history, our attitude toward both of these things has been incredibly inconsistent. Honestly, I’m not even sure if we’ve managed to shake off the influence of social context today—or if that's even something we can actually achieve.

Quincy:

To be honest, I don't think it makes sense to group homosexuality into that logical sequence. It isn't a disease, nor should it even be remotely considered one—not if we're looking at things from a modern perspective. It doesn't belong in the same category as the issues mentioned above.

But honestly, everything I just said applies here too.

Quincy:

As a layman, I get it. If you’re an expert in the social sciences and health professions, you have to pull in some extra tools to stay objective. You need that mental distance and a healthy dose of empathy just to look at a predator or a criminal and see them as a human being worthy of help.

That’s true, but people aren't robots in the real world, so that isn't always going to be possible. The real question is where we draw the line on what's considered problematic or even a disorder. Some might argue that homosexuality needs treatment; we've seen actual examples of that from some of our most prominent psychiatrists mentioned here on the forum. 😁 Let’s say you have one therapist who views homosexuality as an illness—something that needs to be "cured" because they see it as a fundamental problem. Then you have another who holds the exact opposite view. Obviously, those two approaches are going to lead to completely different therapeutic outcomes.

Quincy:

On the other hand, as a free agent in the modern world, I should be allowed to call out professionals in the social sciences and health professions when they let their own biases get in the way. It’s frustrating when people who are supposed to be objective let deeply ingrained, conservative prejudices cloud their judgment and drag them down to a level they really shouldn't be operating at. Look, I find it hard to respect someone claiming to be a major authority in the social sciences and health professions when they act like this. You have one instance where they look visibly uncomfortable, staring at the ceiling while a gay man tries to share his experiences, eventually having to ask him to just stop talking. Then there’s the case where they label a woman promiscuous based on nothing more than her looks, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous" and isn't "marriage material." It’s hard to take that kind of behavior seriously.

That assumes mainstream beliefs are some kind of universal truth, but they aren't. They’re just illusions—subjective views held by different social groups that shift constantly. This isn't classical physics; there are no exact formulas or absolute certainties here. I don't buy into the idea of total objectivity either. We're all limited by our own perspectives.

Quincy:

For anyone planning to work in this field, I need to see a high level of openness, an acceptance of differences, and a genuine respect for people's choices. Most importantly, there absolutely cannot be any trace of discrimination. That’s non-negotiable for me.

I get that, but honestly? Someone who's seen the darkest sides of life might actually be better equipped to help a member of the Catholic Church than someone like me. 😁

Are you referring to that same historical stretch where people insisted the Earth was a flat disc, thought leeches were the panacea for almost every ailment, or believed redheaded women were witches destined for the pyre? 😬

bluemason3 said:Quincy:

Dennis Jackson38 Asks: Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't just clinical pathologies; they are serious criminal offenses under the law.

Looking back at history, our attitude toward both of these things has been incredibly inconsistent. Honestly, I’m not even sure if we’ve managed to shake off the influence of social context today—or if that's even something we can actually achieve.

Quincy:

To be honest, I don't think it makes sense to group homosexuality into that logical sequence. It isn't a disease, nor should it even be remotely considered one—not if we're looking at things from a modern perspective. It doesn't belong in the same category as the issues mentioned above.

But honestly, everything I just said applies here too.

Quincy:

As a layman, I get it. If you’re an expert in the social sciences and health professions, you have to pull in some extra tools to stay objective. You need that mental distance and a healthy dose of empathy just to look at a predator or a criminal and see them as a human being worthy of help.

That’s true, but people aren't robots in the real world, so that isn't always going to be possible. The real question is where we draw the line on what's considered problematic or even a disorder. Some might argue that homosexuality needs treatment; we've seen actual examples of that from some of our most prominent psychiatrists mentioned here on the forum. 😁 Let’s say you have one therapist who views homosexuality as an illness—something that needs to be "cured" because they see it as a fundamental problem. Then you have another who holds the exact opposite view. Obviously, those two approaches are going to lead to completely different therapeutic outcomes.

Quincy:

On the other hand, as a free agent in the modern world, I should be allowed to call out professionals in the social sciences and health professions when they let their own biases get in the way. It’s frustrating when people who are supposed to be objective let deeply ingrained, conservative prejudices cloud their judgment and drag them down to a level they really shouldn't be operating at. Look, I find it hard to respect someone claiming to be a major authority in the social sciences and health professions when they act like this. You have one instance where they look visibly uncomfortable, staring at the ceiling while a gay man tries to share his experiences, eventually having to ask him to just stop talking. Then there’s the case where they label a woman promiscuous based on nothing more than her looks, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous" and isn't "marriage material." It’s hard to take that kind of behavior seriously.

That assumes mainstream beliefs are some kind of universal truth, but they aren't. They’re just illusions—subjective views held by different social groups that shift constantly. This isn't classical physics; there are no exact formulas or absolute certainties here. I don't buy into the idea of total objectivity either. We're all limited by our own perspectives.

Quincy:

For anyone planning to work in this field, I need to see a high level of openness, an acceptance of differences, and a genuine respect for people's choices. Most importantly, there absolutely cannot be any trace of discrimination. That’s non-negotiable for me.

I get that, but honestly? Someone who's seen the darkest sides of life might actually be better equipped to help a member of the Catholic Church than someone like me. 😁

Upon further reflection, one could theoretically conceive of a brilliant robot designed to step into the role of a therapist—one capable of posing flawless logical inquiries and delivering impeccable logical responses and diagnoses. Why, then, would such a thing never succeed in the real world? Because a machine will never possess the single most vital element required to truly grasp the struggles of another human being: empathy.

bluemason3 said:Quincy:

Dennis Jackson38 Asks: Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't just clinical pathologies; they are serious criminal offenses under the law.

Looking back at history, our attitude toward both of these things has been incredibly inconsistent. Honestly, I’m not even sure if we’ve managed to shake off the influence of social context today—or if that's even something we can actually achieve.

Quincy:

To be honest, I don't think it makes sense to group homosexuality into that logical sequence. It isn't a disease, nor should it even be remotely considered one—not if we're looking at things from a modern perspective. It doesn't belong in the same category as the issues mentioned above.

But honestly, everything I just said applies here too.

Quincy:

As a layman, I get it. If you’re an expert in the social sciences and health professions, you have to pull in some extra tools to stay objective. You need that mental distance and a healthy dose of empathy just to look at a predator or a criminal and see them as a human being worthy of help.

That’s true, but people aren't robots in the real world, so that isn't always going to be possible. The real question is where we draw the line on what's considered problematic or even a disorder. Some might argue that homosexuality needs treatment; we've seen actual examples of that from some of our most prominent psychiatrists mentioned here on the forum. 😁 Let’s say you have one therapist who views homosexuality as an illness—something that needs to be "cured" because they see it as a fundamental problem. Then you have another who holds the exact opposite view. Obviously, those two approaches are going to lead to completely different therapeutic outcomes.

Quincy:

On the other hand, as a free agent in the modern world, I should be allowed to call out professionals in the social sciences and health professions when they let their own biases get in the way. It’s frustrating when people who are supposed to be objective let deeply ingrained, conservative prejudices cloud their judgment and drag them down to a level they really shouldn't be operating at. Look, I find it hard to respect someone claiming to be a major authority in the social sciences and health professions when they act like this. You have one instance where they look visibly uncomfortable, staring at the ceiling while a gay man tries to share his experiences, eventually having to ask him to just stop talking. Then there’s the case where they label a woman promiscuous based on nothing more than her looks, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous" and isn't "marriage material." It’s hard to take that kind of behavior seriously.

That assumes mainstream beliefs are some kind of universal truth, but they aren't. They’re just illusions—subjective views held by different social groups that shift constantly. This isn't classical physics; there are no exact formulas or absolute certainties here. I don't buy into the idea of total objectivity either. We're all limited by our own perspectives.

Quincy:

For anyone planning to work in this field, I need to see a high level of openness, an acceptance of differences, and a genuine respect for people's choices. Most importantly, there absolutely cannot be any trace of discrimination. That’s non-negotiable for me.

I get that, but honestly? Someone who's seen the darkest sides of life might actually be better equipped to help a member of the Catholic Church than someone like me. 😁

Really? Seriousness? A therapist "views" it??? There hasn't been a "view" regarding this specific example since 1970. (I find it hard to believe that we still have to Wikipedia and copy-paste this stuff on this PDF 😁)

Since the 1970s, the consensus of the social sciences and health professions has moved to the belief that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation, while there remain those who maintain that it is a disorder.[2] In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Listen to this... "influence the therapy." The only thing it will influence is his loss of medical licensure, because he's busy declaring a homosexual person to be sick.
Now, remind me about that little girl they kept locked away just for being a lesbian... chills....

bluemason3 said:Quincy:

Dennis Jackson38 Asks: Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't just clinical pathologies; they are serious criminal offenses under the law.

Looking back at history, our attitude toward both of these things has been incredibly inconsistent. Honestly, I’m not even sure if we’ve managed to shake off the influence of social context today—or if that's even something we can actually achieve.

Quincy:

To be honest, I don't think it makes sense to group homosexuality into that logical sequence. It isn't a disease, nor should it even be remotely considered one—not if we're looking at things from a modern perspective. It doesn't belong in the same category as the issues mentioned above.

But honestly, everything I just said applies here too.

Quincy:

As a layman, I get it. If you’re an expert in the social sciences and health professions, you have to pull in some extra tools to stay objective. You need that mental distance and a healthy dose of empathy just to look at a predator or a criminal and see them as a human being worthy of help.

That’s true, but people aren't robots in the real world, so that isn't always going to be possible. The real question is where we draw the line on what's considered problematic or even a disorder. Some might argue that homosexuality needs treatment; we've seen actual examples of that from some of our most prominent psychiatrists mentioned here on the forum. 😁 Let’s say you have one therapist who views homosexuality as an illness—something that needs to be "cured" because they see it as a fundamental problem. Then you have another who holds the exact opposite view. Obviously, those two approaches are going to lead to completely different therapeutic outcomes.

Quincy:

On the other hand, as a free agent in the modern world, I should be allowed to call out professionals in the social sciences and health professions when they let their own biases get in the way. It’s frustrating when people who are supposed to be objective let deeply ingrained, conservative prejudices cloud their judgment and drag them down to a level they really shouldn't be operating at. Look, I find it hard to respect someone claiming to be a major authority in the social sciences and health professions when they act like this. You have one instance where they look visibly uncomfortable, staring at the ceiling while a gay man tries to share his experiences, eventually having to ask him to just stop talking. Then there’s the case where they label a woman promiscuous based on nothing more than her looks, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous" and isn't "marriage material." It’s hard to take that kind of behavior seriously.

That assumes mainstream beliefs are some kind of universal truth, but they aren't. They’re just illusions—subjective views held by different social groups that shift constantly. This isn't classical physics; there are no exact formulas or absolute certainties here. I don't buy into the idea of total objectivity either. We're all limited by our own perspectives.

Quincy:

For anyone planning to work in this field, I need to see a high level of openness, an acceptance of differences, and a genuine respect for people's choices. Most importantly, there absolutely cannot be any trace of discrimination. That’s non-negotiable for me.

I get that, but honestly? Someone who's seen the darkest sides of life might actually be better equipped to help a member of the Catholic Church than someone like me. 😁

If I had to choose a personal motto to live by, it would be:

"Not doing more than the average is what keeps the average down"

In an effort to extract the philosophical core from this topic and steer the conversation back toward its intended course, I’ll attempt to refocus the point 😉

It is perfectly reasonable to expect those who have dedicated their lives to mental health to possess a higher degree of insight, openness, and freedom from the primitive biases found in whatever "mental mainstream" you are referring to.
I am certainly not suggesting they need to be superhuman, far from it; however, they shouldn't be using their credentials as an excuse to implant their own prejudices into patients who come to them in good faith—especially those dealing with more complex issues.

bluemason3 said:I’m not entirely convinced how much a therapist's own journey through therapy actually matters here. When you're dealing with topics like substance use, sexuality, or even more controversial issues, a lot of it is subjective and constantly shifting. It isn't really about labeling things as right or wrong—it's more about whether those things create internal conflict for the individual.

The goal is really just finding the right fit with the right professional. Though, even that's a bit complicated. For instance, imagine someone has a specific trait X and a problem Y. They want to fix problem Y without changing trait X, so they look for a therapist who fully accepts X so they can feel safe. But what happens if problem Y is actually caused by trait X?

If I may indulge in playing the "devil's advocate" for a brief moment:

- Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't merely issues that can be categorized as pathologies; they are technically criminal offenses under American law.

- Consequently, it feels logically inconsistent to group homosexuality within that same sequence. It isn't a disease, nor is it something that should—or even could, if we are speaking from a modern American perspective—be tossed into the same basket as the aforementioned behaviors.

From my perspective as a layperson, it makes sense that an expert in the human psyche would need to employ additional cognitive tools to view a pedophile or a criminal as a human being deserving of help, maintaining a certain degree of clinical distance and empathy despite the nature of the individual.

On the other hand, as a free citizen in this modern era, I believe I have the right to feel unsettled when psychology professionals allow their own biases to interfere. When experts hold prejudices against things that clash with their upbringing or deeply ingrained convictions, they descend to a level of judgment they simply shouldn't reach—namely, the level of conservative bias.

Forgive me, but it is quite difficult for me to respect someone as a major scientific authority in psychology or psychiatry when I see them visibly uncomfortable—perhaps staring at the ceiling while a gay man shares his life experiences (even having to interrupt him to stop the discomfort)—or when they label a woman as "promiscuous" based solely on her attractive appearance, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous and isn't marriage material." (I am referring to the two specific examples I mentioned earlier).

A high degree of openness, an acceptance of differences, an understanding of personal choices, and above all, a total ABSENCE of discrimination are, in my view, absolute "must-haves" for anyone intending to successfully assist people in this field.

That is an excellent question, and it is one I have found myself contemplating quite deeply of late.

I can recall two specific instances where professionals—in one case a psychiatrist and in the other a psychologist—manifestly allowed their personal convictions to bleed into their practice, thereby severely undermining the trust their patients placed in their clinical expertise.

1. A close friend of mine, who is gay, sought help from a psychiatrist to manage panic attacks following a harrowing traumatic event involving two heterosexual men (I shall refrain from the specifics out of respect for his privacy).
The psychiatrist’s office was decorated with a massive crucifix on the wall, and he himself wore a similar one around his neck. It was painfully apparent that the doctor was attempting to steer the conversation away from any mention of homosexuality; whenever my friend brought it up, the psychiatrist would offer this pointed, heavy glance toward the crucifix on the wall and then back at him. Just when my friend began to wonder if he was hallucinating—feeling as though the doctor was uncomfortable discussing these matters "in front of Jesus" ( 🤣)—the psychiatrist abruptly cut him off, stating, "We aren't here to discuss your beliefs or your orientation, merely the trauma. Here, take these pills..." and after handing over the prescription, he effectively ended the session and sent him on his way.

2. An acquaintance of mine consulted a therapist to address debilitating jealousy, specifically regarding his inability to tolerate his girlfriend interacting with other men. During one session, the therapist requested—or perhaps simply permitted—that the girlfriend (whom I know well; she is perfectly lovely and by no means flirtatious, just naturally attractive) sit in on part of the discussion. Once they had asked her to leave, the therapist turned to my acquaintance and remarked, "I see exactly what the issue is. Honestly, even I would find a woman like that bothersome, and I certainly understand why her behavior upsets you. One must uphold traditional family values... yada, yada..."

So, where does that leave us?

To what degree of open-mindedness should a person be held when they possess the authority to serve as someone's psychotherapist?

If you ask me, such professionals ought to maintain a perfect distance from their own biases, focusing instead on the wholeness of the individual. They should accept the patient exactly as they are and use that acceptance as the foundation for delving into the core of the issue, but I suppose that is easier said than done.

Whenever I reflect on these dilemmas, I am reminded of that film where youth is wasted on the young, specifically the scene where Uma Thurman goes to see Meryl Streep for therapy. She discusses a wonderful younger man she has met, and the therapist appears supportive and delighted for her, until the chilling realization strikes that the young man is actually her own son, whom she had been raising for a certain young Jewish girl. 😁

wearyowl29 said:We really need to draw a line between what's just a commercial hustle and what's a genuine spiritual journey.

It is much like distinguishing hardware from software. 😉

wearyowl29 said:I have to disagree that spirituality should *only* be a serious discipline. To me, spirituality is everything that flows into our lives, and that includes the silly bits too! After all, the words "spirit" and "spirituality" share the same root... having spirit...
and laughter is the best kind of prayer anyway.

People just don't laugh enough these days, much like they don't pray enough. For many, laughing and praying at the same moment feels like two completely incompatible actions. But some people actually realize that the power of a good laugh is just as potent as any prayer. When we laugh, we are essentially praying to every deity out there without exception, because laughter is the universal language of the gods. No matter how we define the divine or what form we're ready to accept them in, laughter remains our one true prayer sent straight from the most honest part of our hearts.

Indeed. I find myself in complete agreement, Nemrut. It is precisely because I view the weight of existence with such profound seriousness that I am relentless in my pursuit to fill my days with waves of laughter and bright sparks of joy and amusement.

However, looking at it from another angle, consider the woman who dials a psychic hotline to have Dorothy predict her love life, or the weary, ailing man who visits his Canadian neighbor hoping a heated "sacred stone" can magically extract a tumor without surgery; I believe those individuals take these types of "spiritual services" with absolute, unwavering seriousness.

Now, let us be clear: I am certainly not suggesting that there aren't esoteric practitioners whose "talents" possess legitimate healing properties or who might actually navigate the fractures of time to glimpse someone's future. But if we are being realistic, the sheer saturation of charlatans in these fields has rendered one mysterious and occult branch of esotericism nothing short of farcical. And yes—whether they are true mystics or mere frauds, I would label them as esoterics, but certainly not as spiritualists.

Why is this distinction necessary? Because a fundamental divide must exist. All the brilliant teachings of the great masters, the profound insights of those who have delved through layers of introspection until they float upon the shores of total enlightenment, and the divine spiritual revelations reached through long, arduous contemplations and occasionally harrowing experiences—all of this comes from people who have dedicated their entire lives to the deep study of themselves, their reactions, the world around them, and the unbreakable bonds that link everything together. This leads to a pure life and an absolute understanding of the interconnectedness and harmony of all existence. You simply cannot, for heaven's sake, throw that in the same basket as the predictions made by Stanley, who will charge you $2.00 per minute (plus tax) to tell you that you'll meet a tall, dark stranger at an upcoming corporate gala and marry him, provided you watch out for an envious older woman in his family.

Again, I am not claiming that esotericism lacks its geniuses and true mystics, but... the differences, if you ask me, are vast and glaringly obvious.

Spirituality ought to be treated as an incredibly rigorous discipline—perhaps even more accurately described as a comprehensive way of life. However, since the majority of people still mistakenly categorize it as some sort of "alternative" lifestyle, the term has become a catch-all for everything from the profound and transformative teachings of enlightened mystics to seven thousand different meditation techniques, yoga classes specifically designed for flat feet, reading tea leaves, or even those patchouli-scented vaporizers being peddled during late-night infomercials on local cable by Mr. Džirlo.

It’s honestly a bit pathetic, but I suppose it doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. If you have achieved a sufficient level of spiritual centering, something this superficial won't bother you one bit.

Has anyone else ever entertained the idea of introducing a "Like" button to this forum, similar to how they do things over on Facebook?

In my estimation, such a feature would drastically reduce the endless clutter caused by people quoting brilliant—albeit often lengthy—contributions from our most insightful members just to let everyone know, "Man, you hit the nail on the head," or "I second this," accompanied by a bowing emoji.

Implementing an option like that would make our threads three times easier to navigate, and it would allow the true "stars" of the community to emerge quite rapidly, given that we all recognize how much of an ego boost a high tally of "Likes" can provide.

😁

Does any platform out there actually utilize something like this for its forums?

I wish RBOY had just told him straight. 🙄

Bureče, if it means anything to you, there are those of us here who hold people in exceptionally high regard when they carry themselves with genuine class and dignity.

All I can tell you is that you will encounter plenty of individuals just like him if you look hard enough.

My question for you is simply this: how would you react if someone, say, launched an aggressive attack against you or those close to you? If they truly insulted your honor?

Would you stand your ground and push back? Or would you merely step aside to avoid the fray?

Because politeness and good manners are wonderful virtues, but only when they aren't being used as a defensive shield.
If you catch my drift...