Posts by steelridge58

mistybison said:What is the point of penalizing a few posts in the sub-forum chat? It seems almost futile, considering there isn't a single regular user left who hasn't insulted or driven someone else away at least once. 😁

A sub-forum requires an active moderator, yet when it comes to finding someone willing to step up, nobody seems interested. We saw the exact same thing happen with the "Alternative" sub-forum.

It really isn't worth worrying about...

That’s not really the point I'm trying to make, though. You're getting it wrong if you think my reaching out has anything to do with those first two posts right here—that whole thing is already settled. It's about the second issue.

I'm honestly wondering if anyone here knows how to get in touch with...

It’s honestly a lost cause since we can't even access the site properly.
I’m really hoping the Admin will step in and take a look at this latest sequence of posts from this particular user, because the way they keep replying makes it impossible to actually share an opinion without being met with such incredibly rude and blatant provocations. They are twisting my words and manufacturing a whole narrative that simply isn't there—my actual post (which was a reply to ) doesn't contain any of what they're claiming, nor does it imply anything even remotely close to their accusations.



Here is my full post, which is the specific part they are choosing to "critique" above.

hiddenhound3 said:The subject matter itself is inherently absurd, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone with any sense of self-respect would choose to participate in such a discussion. It is equally insulting to women and men who possess even a modicum of intelligence. Furthermore, it serves as an affront to the very concept of being a person, regardless of one's gender.

Lock this thread, leave us to Andrew Booth29, and let's all move on peacefully.

If that's how you feel, then why on earth did you decide to jump into the fray yourself?

rustydrifter10 said:Look, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that warning wasn't meant for you—the only person who can actually lodge a formal complaint about it is the user who actually earned it. As for the whole moderation thing, if you truly feel like a moderator isn't pulling their weight, we’re going to need more than just pointing out a single warning handed to someone else; we'll need actual links to back up those claims. For more specifics on how this all works, we might just have to wait for a moderator to weigh in.

Just to respond briefly to your point, Nice.

I don't think they're a good moderator, and I've already provided a link where anyone who takes the time to actually read carefully can reach the same conclusion about why that is. I suppose my evidence isn't quite enough for you, and honestly, I don't really have the energy to sit here and try to prove myself further when I feel I've already laid out my case.

Based on the perspectives they hold—and even the way they resort to caricatures just to explain things in their posts here—it's pretty clear to me they aren't the right fit to moderate the philosophy section.

I just really hope that, sooner or later, the philosophy community gets a new, capable moderator who actually knows what they're doing.

bluemason3 said:Nothing is truly mutually exclusive. Different fields naturally overlap, but they always approach things from their own unique angle. It’s the same with philosophy; someone might have their own take on art, but playing the guitar doesn't suddenly make you a philosopher. It only becomes philosophy once there's a conceptual framework behind it. When you’re defending a point here, you’re essentially trying to build an argument. We also have to remember that a forum is a specific kind of medium. We're limited to the written word, which means we lose all those subtle nuances you get in face-to-face conversation. Because of that, it's even more important to frame our arguments in a way that actually fits the medium.

If we aren't going to distinguish between different topics, then there’s really no point in having separate forums for religion, politics, spirituality, or anything else.

There are two ways people try to tell you that you’re clueless: the direct approach and the subtle one. The direct way is blunt. It’s the "you just don't get it" argument. It’s simple, aggressive, and usually lacks any real substance. Then there’s the implicit version. This is much more condescending. It’s when someone implies you aren't on their intellectual level, or they suggest you need to go study some ancient, obscure text before you dare to have an opinion. It’s basically a polite way of saying, "Go read a book and stop talking."You probably won't get it anyway. You lack that specific brand of esoteric knowledge I happen to hold—though I’m not actually going to say anything about it. I'll just leave it at an insinuation, if only to maintain a sense of pseudo-intellectual superiority in this debate.Those aren't valid arguments in any serious debate. It’s more like toddler-level communication.

I find it hard to accept any approach to philosophy that doesn't prioritize logic and formal debate. There needs to be at least a baseline level of discipline—staying on track and avoiding those tired logical fallacies. I’m talking about the usual suspects: leaning on authority, whether it’s your own, some ancient figure, or something transcendent, as well as playing on emotions. It's just a collection of propaganda tricks designed to bypass rational criticism so someone can pass off an ideology or a gut feeling as an objective fact.

Forrest Gump, acting as his defense attorney here—which, let’s be honest, violates the rules—isn't a new development. This guy has been hovering on the edge of trolling for a long time now; it’s just how he argues. Every other post of his is basically a wrapped gift that says: "You're an idiot who can't grasp the higher truth, so I won't bother providing a single concrete argument since you wouldn't understand it anyway." That kind of behavior wouldn't fly in any serious, coherent philosophical debate. Because he's been using these same destructive tactics for years, I've decided to start stepping in. I'm going to begin sanctioning this behavior to keep the discussions from falling apart.

I realize not everyone will agree with me here. My stance might be a bit too rigid, and sure, there’s room to let discussions breathe or debate how "philosophical" they should actually be. But this is the standard for moderation and discourse as I see it right now, and for the time being, I have to stick to it. Look, I don't have to be the ultimate arbiter of philosophy, and this isn't about me playing gatekeeper. That's not the issue. However, I can't sit by while deep discussion gets undermined and turned into aimless, low-effort chatter. At this stage, I won't tolerate personal attacks or trolling disguised as opinions that refuse to offer any actual substance. It just doesn't work for the quality of the conversation we're trying to maintain.

If you actually look back at my opening post, it should be pretty obvious why I'm writing this and what my deal is, so please, just drop the whole "lawyer" label and stop trying to characterize me.

I am simply defending my views based on value criteria that are, frankly, much less subjective than yours.

Looking at what you wrote above, aside from the blatant bias you're bringing to philosophy from that second PDF, nothing you said justifies your actions, especially since there was absolutely no reason to act the way you did in this specific instance—which is clearly shown by the sanctioned post and the entire thread regarding the topic that concerns me personally.

Regarding the thread on the Logical Consequences of Atheism, you didn't participate in it or even follow it, and if you had, you might have realized that none of the things you just claimed have any basis in reality. That thread covered everything under the sun, with all sorts of diverse discussions happening on many different levels.
You just jumped in at the very end, made a snap judgment, unfairly handed out a penalty, and then started issuing your own little decrees about what kind of argumentation is acceptable in philosophy and what isn't—which is just complete nonsense.
By your own logic, I suppose you'd have to label it as trolling if someone suggested looking at the proportions of a Plato line, studying a Dürer print to see what it reveals, or discussing an Escher drawing, a Möbius strip, or the Vitruvian Man in the context of that old scroll with the scales. Because, honestly, those qualifications of yours regarding "mystifying through cryptic suggestions" are right up there with that level of absurdity.

Nothing excludes anything else. Different fields interact with one another, but they do so from their own unique perspectives. It's the same with philosophy; it can certainly have its own take on art, but that doesn't mean playing the guitar immediately becomes philosophy—it only becomes philosophy once it's been conceptualized. And since you're trying to defend certain points here, you need to make an actual argument. This forum is a specific type of medium limited strictly to the written word, and since we can't convey all those subtle nuances found in face-to-face communication, it's even more important to present arguments in a way that fits the medium.

The level of this discussion is truly beneath criticism; it's honestly hard to even comment on it.
Regardless, it's clear from everything here that you haven't followed the flow of the forum discussion at all.

Arguments that either directly or implicitly say, "you don't understand this," "you aren't at the right spiritual level," or "go read the scroll (which you probably won't understand anyway because you lack the secret hermetic knowledge that I won't bother mentioning—except to insinuate that I possess it, just so I can try to establish some kind of pseudo-superiority in the debate).)" just aren't valid arguments in any organized debate; honestly, it feels more like how toddlers communicate in a preschool playground.

Whether you mean that directly or you're just hinting at it, this whole interpretation carries all the weight and seriousness of nothing more than cheap gossip.

I especially don't find it acceptable in a field like philosophy—which should be focused on nurturing logic and structured debate through at least a modicum of constructive discipline regarding staying on topic and avoiding logical fallacies like appeals to authority (whether it's one's own, some transcendent figure, or ancient wisdom), emotional manipulation, and those other typical propaganda tricks used to bypass rational scrutiny just to push an ideology or a vague impression under the guise of a "fact."

You really don't need to lecture me on what philosophy ought to cultivate, because, frankly, I think I understand it a little better than you do, which is pretty evident from this post right here.

As for being rationally critical, the forum member you're attributing all these qualities to—most of which are clearly just your own projections—actually possesses a level of criticality that many people can't even touch, and I think that’s exactly what’s bothering you. Not many people are actually willing to practice true self-criticism.

As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over. I wanted to share my perspective in a space that felt appropriate for it, and I believe I've done just that.

rustydrifter10 said:Look, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that warning wasn't meant for you—the only person who can actually lodge a formal complaint about it is the user who actually earned it. As for the whole moderation thing, if you truly feel like a moderator isn't pulling their weight, we’re going to need more than just pointing out a single warning handed to someone else; we'll need actual links to back up those claims. For more specifics on how this all works, we might just have to wait for a moderator to weigh in.

For anyone interested, the whole discussion on the logical consequences of atheism starts over on page 47, specifically at post 930—that's where things really start heating up and the "controversial question" gets kicked off.

I’m not going to sit here and whine, really, because I’m stepping up to protest this entirely on my own terms, regardless of whether that ban was actually meant for me or not, simply because there’s been a real injustice done here. In my previous post, I already laid out the logic behind why these sanctions were handed down, and honestly, they are totally unfair—you can see that just by looking at the post that got flagged and comparing it to the reply it received, which was actually a perfectly appropriate response.
I’m not trying to drag anyone into some formal disciplinary hearing or anything like that, but this all stemmed from a disagreement I had regarding how much weight emotional intelligence should carry within philosophical discussion. To support my side, a colleague pointed toward an ancient parchment where the visual symbolism speaks for itself; you can clearly see what truly matters—the heart—without needing to wrap everything up in heavy, academic jargon, because imagery has its own language and serves as a perfectly legitimate addition to any debate.
But then, this whole way of "arguing" was dismissed outright as being obscure or vague, which I pushed back against, trying to keep the conversation moving in that direction, especially since the initial stance taken was essentially, "either explain it this specific way or we aren't talking," and well, nobody should be dictating how someone else chooses to express themselves or how much detail they feel like providing; you can't just force your own preferred style of discourse onto someone else.
Now, look, having a provocative, firm, and ultimate stance like that is certainly valid, but so is the response that comes naturally from someone facing it.
So, after all that, a moderator who seems to have just stepped into the role for the philosophy section—and apparently hasn't been following the full thread, which was admittedly colored by some provocations and even a bit of belittling, though we were working through it—jumped in and took a side, and suddenly we get this notice: Posts that don't feature open, reasoned debate but instead mystify things with cryptic suggestions, dodge actual discussion with minimal debating discipline, profile their interlocutors, or otherwise stifle the flow of the topic without saying anything concrete will have no place on this forum and will be treated as trolling and appropriately banned. And, quite shockingly, the ban landed exactly where it least belonged. They even went as far as deleting a user's response to another person's observations, while leaving the original observations untouched.

That’s why I’ve decided to speak up on my own initiative—because of the way posts are being handled, and I won't say it's one of the best, but it's easily the best one still posting in philosophy, whether people liked it or not, it's being labeled as trolling, while meanwhile, the philosophy section is becoming a total wasteland where nothing of substance is allowed to be written.

And if you ask me, given everything I just said, there's really no point in having "that kind of" posting in the philosophy section at all.

Again, I'm not complaining, but I am feeling pretty disappointed. I don't think I'll be posting in the philosophy section anymore, because that's where freedom is being suffocated—freedom of expression, freedom in how we argue, and the freedom to decide what, how, when, and how much we want to argue (not because someone else is demanding it or insisting on a specific format), and treating the use of symbolic tools like imagery—which is a completely legitimate part of philosophy, especially in metaphysical discourse—as if it were just trolling.

I’m not going to sit here and write an essay, even though this really deserves one, so I’ll try to be as brief as possible, though I know that might be asking too much.
I’ve been hanging around this philosophy forum for a lifetime, basically since 2004, and it truly felt like a second home to me. I met some absolutely wonderful people there whom I learned so much from, but I also encountered those who walked into our open house just to tear things down; friendships were forged and rivalries were born, which is just what happens when you get all these different people with varying motives gathered in one digital space.
I definitely consider myself a student rather than an expert, but I do feel like I have a pretty sharp eye for recognizing quality and telling the difference between what’s sound and what isn't.

So many high-quality members—real philosophers—have moved on from the forum, some because they outgrew the space and moved on to bigger things, some because they passed away, and others who were essentially driven out once they stopped playing along with the "philosopher" persona.

Lately, I get this nagging impression that everything has already been said, as if there’s nothing left to write that hasn't already filled pages upon pages over the years, yet it feels like we’re constantly starting from scratch, almost like being back in grade school, which is incredibly frustrating—mostly because of how unaware people can be of their own ignorance and how unwilling they are to accept criticism that doesn't sugarcoat things, since we aren't in a preschool anymore and directness is necessary.

You really have to follow the threads and actually engage with them to understand the underlying motivations and why certain criticisms are being leveled; you need a certain level of intuition to distinguish between valid critique and the use of symbolic elements in metaphysics—elements that aren't explicitly explained because their whole purpose is to serve as a bridge toward deeper understanding. If someone doesn't know what to make of that or rejects it outright, it doesn't make the tool any less valid, and it certainly doesn't justify labeling such an approach as "trolling."

Posts that steer clear of open, reasoned debate and instead rely on cryptic suggestions, dodge actual discussion by lacking basic argumentative discipline, or resort to profiling their interlocutors to stifle the flow without saying anything concrete, have no business being on this forum; such behavior will be treated as trolling and dealt with via a ban.
moderator

To be honest, I find this—directed at a specific person—to be downright shameful.

Philosophy doesn't exist in a vacuum; it encompasses spirituality, art, politics, religion, history, and mythology... because it investigates the very roots of civilization and the ancient sources that stretch back to times when humans conveyed knowledge through symbolic language.
To label the use of a cultural, spiritual, or philosophical symbol as "trolling" simply because it involves "mystification through cryptic suggestions" and doesn't offer immediate, blunt facts is, to put it mildly, a purely subjective interpretation. It results in narrowing the scope of philosophical discourse and shutting down the very auxiliary tools that are woven into the cradle of our civilization.

Issuing a red card for "trolling" is a disgraceful mark of misunderstanding, especially when applied here, given that I myself participated in the discussion and contributed significantly to reinforcing that exact symbolic detail—defending its credibility and the ancient wisdom that remains the subject of study for both modern scholars and classic philosophers—without allowing it to be belittled, and I was always very clear with my peers about where I stood; honestly, if we're handing out red cards for "trolling," I should probably be getting one too.

Having served as a moderator on the philosophy forum myself, I know exactly what trolling looks like; I’ve had my fill of trolling tactics used to obstruct and harass, and after all these years, I can easily tell the difference between genuine philosophical merit and total nonsense.
There is plenty of nonsense out there, but true quality is rare.

The only reason I’ve stayed on this forum for twelve years, practically continuously (much like how Viviana used to stay), is because I love philosophy; but the truth is, as I become increasingly intolerant of stupidity and superficiality—which seem to be on the rise—I cannot remain indifferent. Philosophy is fundamentally a search for truth, so I react when I feel it's necessary, and I view this moderator intervention as an unobjective and shallow judgment characterized as mere trolling.

At the same time, though I suspect I might be the only active participant in this philosophy thread who actually feels this way, the idea that the majority opinion is somehow a valid argument has always been a total fallacy to me.

So, there’s absolutely no truth to this whole accusation of using "mystical, cryptic suggestions" to troll people. To frame it that way is just a complete misreading of my intentions, and frankly, it's just plain wrong.

Look, someone might not vibe with another person's style or how they communicate depending on the context—and trust me, I don't particularly love everyone's style either—but please, nobody needs to lecture me on what constitutes an "open, reasoned debate" or tell me I'm "stifling the flow of the topic" by "failing to say anything concrete." Honestly, that kind of thing is just pretentious and subjective; it's quite a leap to claim you alone get to define what counts as a "productive discussion" or what qualifies as "substantive," especially since there isn't one single, rigid template for how these things should go.

Just to be clear, I'm not looking to start a fight about any specific user, myself included, but rather I'm pointing out the issue with staying on topic—which is the only real way to stifle a conversation. We have rules about staying on track so that opening posts remain open, a rule that isn't really being followed lately, so we should probably pay more attention to that. My point is also about what a philosophy discussion should look like and what actually counts as a legitimate argument versus what doesn't (because you'd be surprised at the variety of "arguments" tossed around here, given that we've always had the freedom to argue however we see fit), all of which is being triggered by one totally unnecessary red card.

People who tell you that "boundaries only exist in your mind" are motivators.
Those who actively undermine your moves, your attempts, your projects, or your work ethic... they’re just saboteurs.
And those who constantly insist "this won't work" or "that's impossible"? Those are the boundary-setters.

If you're wondering how the same people in your life can flip-flop between being motivators and being saboteurs, I’d say it’s because that whole motivational phrase about mental limits should really be taken as a general principle—its whole purpose is just to give you a little nudge of encouragement. It isn't meant to be taken as a literal rule for everything. So, it's entirely possible for the exact same person to act as a motivator one day and then turn around and sabotage you the next.

I know I'm really just scratching the surface here.

Deep down, this topic is incredibly layered and complex, and honestly, I don't think I want to get too deep into it right now...

I honestly can’t help but feel like I might be overthinking things here, but there’s just something about how this whole situation is unfolding that feels incredibly heavy, almost like we’re watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone is too busy arguing about the mechanics of the engine to notice the tracks have already been pulled up. It really makes you wonder if anyone is actually listening to the underlying concerns being raised, because it feels like we’re all just shouting into a void while the actual substance of the debate gets lost in the noise, and frankly, it’s a little exhausting to try and make sense of it all when the goalposts seem to shift every single time we get close to finding some kind of common ground.

I’m honestly feeling a little out of my depth here, but I just had this sudden, overwhelming thought about how much everything seems to be shifting under our feet lately. It feels like we're all just trying to navigate this massive, complicated web of changes without a clear map, doesn't it? I know I might be overthinking things—and I definitely have a tendency to do that—but there's just something about the way the current landscape is evolving that feels incredibly heavy and significant all at once. kaže: If that "little" issue can actually be solved... though even then, when you’re dealing with refugees—or maybe just economic migrants, since it's honestly hard to tell sometimes—it feels like a lost cause. You can always write a check just to ease your own conscience, I suppose, but finding some genuine, unmediated connection with these people seems like an impossible task to me. Maybe there's some soul out there who will completely upend their entire life, pack up, and head straight to a massive refugee camp on the US-Mexico border just to try and offer some help and actually look the people they're helping in the eye.

We don't need to be heading all the way down to the border between Jordan and Syria to deal with this, because honestly, the refugees are already here on our doorstep, and that means we actually have a real chance to step up and help them right where they are, close to home.
But honestly, what we’re seeing right now with all these refugees arriving near our borders is just devastating, because it feels like the darkest kind of fascism is being stirred up in people's hearts. I truly believe there's a way to help fight this, and that starts with refusing to stay silent when we see such blatant evil unfolding right in front of us. You mentioned certain media outlets—like how you can see flashes of outright fascism bleeding through their editorial stances—and it really makes me feel like we simply can't afford to sit idly by or keep quiet when faced with that kind of malice.

There’s another thread going around discussing human rights and all the fundamental liberties every person ought to possess—and honestly, everything has been laid out so perfectly there that I can’t think of a single right that hasn't already been covered. But it gets me thinking about something a bit more complicated: does a person also have the right to remain silent in the face of evil? Is there a right to let one's own fear or mere conformity speak up instead of a moral conscience, or even a right to be tolerant toward something inherently wicked?

I honestly don't know if I can even find the right way to put this into words without sounding like I'm overthinking things, but I really feel like we need to take a moment to look at what’s actually happening here because everything feels so incredibly heavy lately. It seems like every time I turn around, there's some new development in the political landscape that just leaves me feeling a little bit lost and wondering where we all stand, though I suppose that's just part of being an engaged citizen in a country as complicated as ours. I was reading through some discussions earlier, and when I saw what steelridge58 had to say, it really hit home for me how much we're all struggling to make sense of these shifting tides in American politics. It’s easy to get cynical, and maybe I'm being a bit too earnest for my own good, but I truly believe that if we don't stop to have these long, rambling conversations about our shared future, we're going to lose sight of the very thing that makes this nation worth fighting for in the first place.

Look, I have to be honest, this whole situation just isn't the same thing as those devastating floods we dealt with back in May of last year—and honestly, I feel like I can relate to those folks and truly understand their struggle on a much deeper level. I feel this even deeper connection with my friends who were watching their homes being threatened back then, and because of that, I ended up doing what little I could to help out others as well.

It isn’t just about being identical, because the whole issue regarding Arab refugees actually reveals two other pretty sinister layers to the problem—beyond the massive, widespread lack of basic understanding about what it even means to be a refugee in the first place (which, if you look at some of those more disgraceful examples out there, shows that you don't actually need to have lived through being a refugee to claim you understand the concept). On top of that confusion, we're dealing with racism, religious egoism, reactionism, and fascism, which, judging by his own rhetoric, seems to be perfectly embodied by a true-blooded fascist like Viktor Orbán.

I honestly don't know how I can even begin to wrap my head around this whole situation, but I feel like we really need to take a moment to sit down and actually look at what’s happening right in front of us. It feels like everything is moving so fast lately, almost too fast to process, and I sometimes find myself tripping over my own feet just trying to keep up with the sheer scale of it all, but I truly believe there's something important here that we shouldn't just gloss over.

For the people who actually engineered this crisis, they’ve managed to engineer a total win-win situation, regardless of how the average person across America decides to react. I was just talking about the whole immigration mess over on Politics, and I even brought up the possibility of holding a national referendum, though I honestly don't see that ever becoming a reality here in the States.

I’m not entirely sure which referendum people are buzzing about, but I feel pretty strongly that fundamental human rights shouldn't be subject to a popular vote. We aren't talking about economic migrants looking for a better paycheck or a step up in life; we are talking about refugees—people who have been forced to flee their homes to escape the horrors of war just to survive and find a shred of safety somewhere else.
At the end of the day, I really feel like America should step up and take its fair share of refugees according to the EU's framework, because honestly, how those people are received in their daily lives—how they’re treated by regular folks in the streets—is going to dictate whether they actually feel welcome and safe within the borders of Europe, and that includes right here in the States.

Sure, even if I personally enjoy being on the opposite side of the fence, I think disagreement is always this great catalyst for self-reflection and collective questioning, which ultimately helps us sharpen our shared perspective.

I feel the exact same way because of that very reason,
it isn't just about disagreeing for the sake of it, but rather having the actual opportunity for dialogue—real, reasoned conversation.

Or to put it even more bluntly; it serves as an alternative, or perhaps anarchy in relation to hierarchy, or like antimatter meeting matter—something that wedges itself in, relieving the pressure—truth, which remains vulnerable to all the same flaws and sicknesses that plague the system itself.

That’s exactly it.

Honestly, that sharper way of framing things was exactly what was needed here.

Looking at what you wrote—specifically that part about truth being subject to all the diseases of the system—I can't help but wonder, where does the core of the problem actually lie?

I guess I would frame it through a comparison like this:

amateurism (our alternative to the establishment) versus professionalism (the established system).

Should we be looking for the answer in the very essence of human freedom and the freedom to simply "be"—is freedom the master key to human potential, the one under which a person's true nature opens up, much like how a vertebra might close up when that same key is turned in the opposite direction?

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Don't get me wrong—I'm not exactly out here defending "public administration" or "bureaucracy," but it is a product of social evolution, an inevitable byproduct of progress, and we don't really have a better alternative at this stage.

I agree that—on an individual level—it’s often better if someone bypasses a rule to satisfy a higher standard of justice or simple compassion for a neighbor, but rules exist fundamentally (interestingly enough...) to protect the very person who *needs* assistance from being bypassed by someone else who might exploit a loophole.

The common perception is that the bureaucratic machine favors those trying to dodge clear standards while screwing over those whose rights were stripped away by those very dodgers. Of course, that happens—far too often—but that isn't the goal. The goal is the equitable distribution of resources, making that fairness the central benchmark for evaluation.

The fact that such a perception exists is, in itself, a critique of the immaturity of the systems tasked with fair distribution—it's clear that the "human factor" is still under immense pressure to act on tribalism, nepotism, or even organized crime principles like the "Cosa Nostra."

But, I suppose there's no need to dwell on that for too long.....

I don't think so. 🙂) Actually, when I first read that, I realized I was probably thinking more along the lines of "bureaucratic madness."
I feel like you have this knack for stripping things down until they reach that necessary, fundamental understanding,
whereas my whole approach tends to lean much more toward the idealistic "how things ought to be,"
even though, deep down, we're really coming from the exact same place.

A person isn't truly brave when they're just standing alone and isolated, but they become brave when they've sunk so deeply into the reality of others that there's simply no turning back.
That’s really how it works—you find your courage when you finally reach out to touch someone else's pain, and suddenly, life stops being trivial and becomes something absolute. Most people never actually move toward one another; they don't even cross the threshold of what we all endure, and because of that, by staying obedient to a society that doesn't respect human dignity, we lose the chance to actually participate in something meaningful, to die with a sense of peace. I think plenty of people would tell you it’s better not to get involved, fearing that ideals will just end up unfulfilled, much like those Platonic loves that seem to lose their magic once they become real. Maybe that's true, but human wounds have a way of screaming for attention.
And addressing that requires action, which feels like a brand new concept given everything we're going through lately. Real action only flows from freedom and is tightly bound to a sense of responsibility; it's that specific kind of power that manages to conquer fear. The modern American is often shackled to the comforts provided by technology, and so often, they don't dare to dive into deep experiences like genuine love or solidarity. But, paradoxically, a human being will only save themselves if they risk their own life for someone else—for a neighbor, a friend, or for the children left out on the cold streets of an American city who no one cares about, even though their age demands care, living in hardship that will leave them scarred for the rest of their lives. There are hundreds of millions of children cast out onto the streets of the world.
Those kids belong to us as if they were our own, and they ought to be the primary reason we fight, our most sincere calling.
From our commitment to supporting the poor, a completely different way of life could emerge, where turning inward might be seen as a scandal, and where a person can discover and build a totally different kind of existence. History is mostly just a massive collection of aberrations, wars, persecutions, tortures, and injustices, but at the same time—or perhaps precisely because of all that—millions of men and women sacrifice themselves to care for the most unfortunate among us. They embody resistance from sabbath.
It really comes down to what Camus said: figuring out whether sacrifice is sterile or fruitful, a question that every heart has to face with total seriousness in those decisive moments. In making that choice, we recognize the specific place where each of us is called to offer resistance; that is how spaces of freedom are created, opening up horizons we never saw coming.
That is the bridge we have to cross, the passage. We can't stay chained to the past, nor can we just stare blankly into the abyss. Facing the dead end we find ourselves in today, the human being and their world reappear before us—not just as one possibility among many, but as an undeniable fact, much like the birth of a new creature when its time finally comes.

People actually find the strength to overcome things right in the middle of a crisis. There is so much evidence of this in the countless men and women whose only tools in the struggle were persistence and grit, and who ultimately defeated bloody tyrannies right here on our continent. Human beings know how to turn obstacles into new paths, because life only needs a tiny crack to renew itself. In this task, if we want life to open our eyes, we can't let it suffocate us. We have to defend—just as brave nations have done throughout history—the traditions that prove how much sanctity exists within a person. We shouldn't let the sweetness of those brief moments of freedom slip away: the dinner table we share with the people we love, providing shelter to a few creatures, a walk through the woods, the simple gratitude of a hug. It is an act of courage, almost like jumping from a house into a fire. These acts aren't always rational, but they don't have to be.
Love will be what saves us.

The world can't take anything from a person who sings even when they are miserable.

In the epilogue of the book (printed in 2000), the author reflects on his own mortality and prepares himself for it. He believes that a new humanism will soon emerge and that humanity will successfully overcome the current crisis.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:If someone feels empathy—that is, if they actually sense another person's pain—and then chooses to step in and help, their motive is perfectly transparent: they want to alleviate or entirely eliminate their own discomfort. Honestly, what's so surprising about that?

"If we don't let ourselves be moved by what happens around us, we won't be able to feel any true solidarity with anyone or anything; instead, we’ll become that cold, detached way of being that defines the modern individual, an atomized shell, an isolated person who creates other shells in their own environment, retreating into their functional state, into a narrow slice of work, or into the rigid scheduling of their planner. We have to remember that back in the day, things like farming, fishing, gathering, crafting, or working in blacksmith shops, tailor shops, or even on a farm, used to connect people and felt like a natural part of their whole identity. Realizing that this was disappearing is what drove workers in the 13th century to revolt against machines and try to burn them down. Today, people are trying to mass-connect just to adapt to the growing, absolute functionality that the system demands hour after hour. But while massive cities dominate life much like a tornado sweeps through desert sands, and while it has become the norm to just sit in front of the TV and accept whatever happens as inevitable without ever feeling responsible for anything, our freedom is in serious danger. It's a huge risk, as Junger put it: If wolves infect the flock, one bad day, that flock will turn into a pack.
If we can shift the human mindset, the danger we're facing paradoxically turns into hope. We might actually be able to reclaim the home that was mythically handed to us. History is always full of surprises. So, despite all the accumulated disappointments and frustrations, there’s really no reason to stop believing in the value of everyday actions. Even if they seem simple or modest, those small acts are what write a new chapter in history, steering the current of life toward a brand new direction."

(this is actually a passage from the first letter, specifically the fourth one, and I honestly wasn't sure which part to pick because everything feels worth including, but it would get so long—which is probably better suited for the book club thread—so I definitely recommend reading resistance from sabbath; a friend gave it to me a long time ago when we were walking through downtown Chicago at a local bookstore)

And the intro to the first letter:

"What beautiful comforts the world might find
within a single soul, embracing its kind through a friend"
F. Hölderlin

I guess I’m just one of those people who can't stay still, always looking for that next peak to climb or some rugged trail to get lost on, though I have to admit my knees aren't quite what they used to be when I first started hiking through the Rockies. kaže:
To actually get this democratic engine running and start tackling our problems head-on, we really need to dive into the deep end of informing people, educating them, winning them over, and basically just getting everyone fired up and aware of what's at stake—it’s all about that collective awakening, honestly. I honestly don't know how you even begin to approach something like that, but I suppose if you really want to push someone into doing something they're clearly resisting, you just have to find that one specific lever that makes them realize they don't really have a choice in the matter. The public is just too passive and disinterested right now, honestly, and they seem completely oblivious to the fact that we actually need to take action, which means the only way to truly wake people up is to lead by example through our own individual efforts.

So, you actually managed to nudge me into diving deep into the weeds of the Affordable Care Act and how health insurance actually functions, and honestly, after spending some time digging through the official guides, I’ve stumbled onto something that really bothers me. I found this one specific procedural detail they insist on following—something that seems completely nonsensical to me—but even when I pointed out how illogical it was, those agencies wouldn't budge. It’s frustrating because, from where I'm sitting, their refusal to adapt to common sense feels like a straight-up violation of how the Affordable Care Act is supposed to be applied.
I honestly feel like we really need to put in the work to educate ourselves and stay informed, because if we don't, we’re never going to truly grasp that frustrating gap between what the textbooks say should happen and how things actually play out in the real world. It isn't enough to just sit back as passive users or people simply checking off boxes to meet some requirement; we have to step up and be active participants who actually call things out when they aren't working right.
It’s probably true that we’re just as much in the dark in other areas and fields too, mostly because there is just so much we don't know simply due to being poorly informed.

When it comes to volunteering—and I don’t just mean the official stuff, but that deeper, more fundamental sense of being a decent human and stepping up when life gets messy—I don't think it's strictly about fixing the cracks in our broken systems. To me, it feels much more like an act of immediate intervention, a way of engaging with "life on the ground" exactly where it's happening, which serves as this vital counterpoint to everything else. It’s almost like a worldview in itself, offering a completely different kind of message than the one we usually get from the world around us, and honestly, it feels like a quiet, necessary refusal to just accept things as they are.
I truly believe that nothing works quite like a personal example, because that’s the only way you can actually transmit real energy to others. It’s that specific kind of spark—the one that connects people and breathes life into them through a shared sense of purpose—that serves as the absolute backbone of any meaningful activism. You just won't find that kind of collective spirit within the rigid machinery of a government agency or a massive federal bureaucracy, mostly because that raw, driving force comes from a grassroots volunteer movement fueled by pure idealism and a genuine belief in what we can achieve together.
But you have to admit, she possesses this incredible creative force that really acts as a glue for everyone around her. Honestly, the world is just starving for that kind of energy right now—that genuine spirit of cooperation and true friendship.

I guess I’m just one of those people who can't help but find myself constantly looking toward the horizon, always itching to get out there and tackle some rugged trail or scale a peak, because honestly, there's just something about being high up in the mountains that makes all my little everyday stresses feel completely insignificant. kaže:
So, what I’m getting at—and I think this is exactly what you're seeing as both a massive opportunity and a genuine necessity—is that the entire environment where these volunteers operate needs to step up. We’re talking about that passive layer of society, the folks who aren't necessarily out there on the front lines doing the heavy lifting, but who act as a theoretically active voting bloc, and they really need to be backing the political forces that actually give a damn about the goals and missions these volunteers are working so hard to achieve.
Then you have to consider how political forces, once they actually secure a mandate from the voters, start exerting their influence over the entire bureaucratic machine, which then begins to funnel resources, mobilize agencies, scout out locations, open up job postings, and basically dictate how budgets are proposed and planned all according to their own specific political agenda.

Our voting bloc just doesn't have that kind of critical mass or collective consciousness required to actually trigger a shift that promises real change. It feels like we’re stuck, and a friend was just telling me the other day that we simply don't have the right foundation to leverage progressive individual values into an election result that looks any different from the same old cycle we've been trapped in for years, which basically just keeps us stuck in this aimless, directionless status quo.
It’s honestly kind of a paradox how people tend to just hand power right back to the very folks they should probably be trying to escape from.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Volunteers essentially represent the "conscientious neighborhood"—those community members who refuse to sit around waiting for some democratic management model to finally kick in and address local needs. They can't afford to wait, precisely because such a sluggish mechanism might be far too slow to react when a crisis actually hits.

So, what we are seeing here—what you are identifying as both a possibility and a necessity—is that the environment surrounding these volunteers (that segment of the population that remains passive in terms of volunteering, yet is theoretically active as a voting bloc) needs to support the political forces that actually care about the goals and tasks highlighted by the volunteers' actions.
Then, once those political forces secure a mandate from the voters, they can exert influence over the bureaucratic apparatus—which then uses its political leverage to allocate funds, activate agencies, find resources, put out RFPs, and propose or plan budgets...

That is how it works in theory, but—and this is the rub—what happens if the people, that very voting bloc, aren't particularly interested in tackling general community issues because they are already overwhelmed by their own personal problems? Which, let's face it, is usually the case in practice. Furthermore, in an environment crowded with massive crises—including those artificially amplified by the media—who is going to have the willpower to tackle the myriad of small, hidden issues that the public ignores?

To get this democratic problem-solving mechanism moving, you have to inform, educate, win over, mobilize, and raise awareness—essentially, you have to force the inactive, uninterested, and oblivious part of the public into action, which can only be achieved by leading through personal example. Imagine if someone trying to spark this movement was themselves completely disengaged... where would their legitimacy come from?

I remember watching a news segment once about volunteers who were taking in and feeding stray cats in their own apartments, houses, and yards—cats abandoned by owners who were away on summer vacations. It’s clear that, in a perfect world, we need to raise owner awareness to a more responsible level, control the population through spaying and neutering (for which owners or the community must fund), and ensure proper care and veterinary oversight. But until that systemic shift occurs, you have to deal with the reality of the moment and sensitize the public to the issue at hand.

The bureaucratic machine carries responsibility, sure, but it isn't answerable to the community's needs directly—not on an ad hoc basis or in response to individual crises—but rather indirectly and broadly through political channels, by executing planned tasks within its jurisdiction and sticking to pre-allocated federal budgets; its direct accountability lies solely with its superiors—the Executive Branch and various federal agencies.

The Executive Branch, in turn, is held accountable to the Legislative Branch—Congress—for how it enforces laws and upholds the Constitution.

Take this scenario, for instance: an official working at the Department of Health and Human Services or a major insurance provider might deny a patient a life-saving medication simply because that specific drug isn't on the approved formulary covered by their budget. In the eyes of the bureaucracy, that is considered "responsible" behavior. If that official were to bypass the rules and approve the medication out of pure altruism—say, because they felt for a single mother struggling to provide for her five children—they would actually be deemed *irresponsible*... A situation remarkably similar to this happened quite recently, where a patient, aided by a friend who mobilized a grassroots fundraising network via Facebook and other online platforms, managed to crowdsource the funds to buy the expensive medication privately. Eventually, after some movement within the system, the bureaucracy finally caught up and approved the coverage.

So, I'm not suggesting that the bureaucracy shouldn't be empathetic—it just can't be, by definition—since empathy is a human trait, not a structural one. The system exists to apply rules, ensure compliance, and execute the law... and that's about it.

My whole philosophy starts with the idea that, generally speaking, following rules and procedures should never take precedence over respecting human life, because the right to live is fundamentally more important than any regulation.
In that light, the responsibility of public agencies to enforce rules shouldn't ever outweigh their broader purpose; if those rules are used to justify someone's suffering or leave them stranded without help, then the system is failing its original mission. Tools like rules and regulations ought to serve the core idea behind them, not the other way around, and we really ought to be adjusting those tools—or finding better ways to think about them—to meet the actual needs of the people and the communities those services are meant to represent.

On the flip side, that purely procedural nature of the government—as he puts it—really undermines its credibility when it comes to upholding the rule of law, mostly because, in my view, the public perception of these institutions has been pretty badly compromised. And for any system to work, people need to trust it. But a system can't maintain the moral support of the community it serves if it lacks that essential layer of credibility.
To help make sense of that connection, I'll include a thought from a professor at the University of Chicago: "There is a profound link between human values and social norms on one hand, and the legitimacy of an economic system on the other."

Later on, once I have a moment, I'll post about Ernesto Sabato and his piece "Community Values" (the fourth letter from his book *Resistance*).

I guess I’m just one of those people who can't help but wander off the beaten path, always looking for that next ridge to climb or some remote trail where the air actually feels clean for once. There’s just something about being out there, miles away from the noise of the city, that makes everything else feel so much smaller and less complicated than it does when I'm stuck behind a desk. It’s a bit ridiculous, really, how much energy I spend planning these treks just to end up exhausted and sore, but I honestly can't imagine spending my weekends any other way. kaže:
The system—whether you look at it as a massive government bureaucracy or just the general way our society functions—is always going to fail us more or less often than we’d like. I truly believe that volunteering isn't just about being a nice person; it's actually a way to shine a spotlight on exactly where the gears are grinding and where the whole machine is breaking down, forcing the powers that be to finally look at the cracks and actually bother to adapt. But then again, there's another side to this... It’s the volunteers who really make this whole community what it is.I honestly believe that’s exactly how a community works—it’s through that very process of collective effort that we manage to step in and fix those mistakes that might otherwise just slip through the cracks and get overlooked.

You're spot on about that. Honestly, patching things up like that usually just ends up being a band-aid solution—it provides a little bit of immediate relief, sure, but there's this nagging tendency for those quick fixes to just stick around until they become the permanent status quo.
Fixing mistakes on the fly is absolutely essential because life doesn't just pause for us to catch up, but at the same time, we really need to apply pressure on the community to act as a catalyst for change, pushing for those adaptations exactly where volunteer efforts show they are needed most—just like you pointed out, steelridge58. I guess what I’m trying to say is that the community shouldn't be allowed to just sit back comfortably and distance itself from the necessity of finding systemic solutions, which would actually allow us to tackle the root causes that lead to these vulnerabilities in the first place.

We also can't forget that the government apparatus—acting as our representative community—isn't actually driven by empathy, but strictly by its own interests, yet we have to remember that people, and all living creatures for that matter, truly suffer, and it’s that capacity for empathy that serves as the vital spark for altruism and basic humanity. It's honestly that missing piece of compassion that allows us to fix the fundamental flaw in the system, which is its complete and utter lack of feeling.

If you ask me, I’d say we aren't just dealing with a system that lacks empathy, though that's certainly part of it; rather, what we're really seeing is a fundamental breakdown in good governance and the messy fallout that inevitably follows such a failure. "Good governance" might sound like some fancy, modern administrative buzzword to some people, but honestly, the term itself carries enough weight to stand on its own as a vital principle for how things should actually work.
I’ve been sitting here chewing on this idea, wondering just how much of a negative slant we’re actually adding when we describe the federal government as being "merely interesting," because it feels like that phrasing carries this subtle, underlying weight—like there's a hidden motive or a specific direction it's pulling toward—and honestly, it keeps leading me back to this frustrating loop where I find myself using the word "interest" in two completely different ways, which doesn't help my case at all.
I’ve always felt that when we use the word "interest," there’s this subtle, slightly nasty undertone baked right into it that hints at pure ego. It carries this weight of self-centeredness, describing a mindset where someone views the entire world through such a narrow lens that they only see what serves them. It’s like they have this built-in reflex to filter everything—every conversation, every event, every person—through a single metric, automatically deciding what’s worth their time and what isn't based solely on how much it benefits them personally.
If we look at "interest" through a different lens, it really boils down to a fundamental need—that wide spectrum of requirements every living being has just to function. When we talk about what’s truly in someone's interest, we’re talking about their quality of life and making sure those basic needs actually get met. If you take that specific meaning of the word, then being open to someone else's needs—being the kind of person who is both willing and able to step up and help—becomes this deeply altruistic way of relating to them. It’s about looking out for what’s best for the person in need, even if, in a way, our own sense of purpose and connection is fueled by that very act of helping.

I really want to drive home the point that when we talk about being willing to step up and help others—that raw altruism and basic humanity—it isn’t just about having empathy or feeling someone else's pain. It goes much deeper than that, because at the end of the day, what truly drives us is our sense of morality, that heavy weight of duty, and just following our own conscience.
Look, if a government agency—one of those massive, bureaucratic institutions that’s supposed to serve the public interest—can't manage to be driven by actual empathy or any kind of selfless altruism, then honestly, it shouldn't be allowed to act out of pure, unadulterated ego either. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Look, if we’re actually being honest about everything I just laid out, then trying to argue that the system is inherently heartless doesn't really hold any water for me, because at the end of the day, the whole idea of accountability is baked right into the very foundation of how the system is supposed to function.

If I sit back and really look at the idea that the government apparatus exists solely to serve specific interests, I honestly think that might actually be enough to make a case for it. But I only mean it in the sense where, when you look at the relationship between a community and its representatives, "serving our interests" becomes the ultimate goal, because you have to view every single factor affecting the community through that lens of mutual interest.
When you look at how democracy actually functions, if the entire government apparatus starts acting like a completely detached entity that has zero connection to the people it’s supposed to serve, then the whole thing becomes nothing more than a hollow shell, where the substance is just being masked by a bunch of colorful, superficial layers.

Thinking that we’re actually doing more good by withholding help or just looking the other way—as if that somehow forces change—is completely backwards, and honestly, it sounds a lot like the logic used by that third group of people...

We really shouldn't be turning our backs or refusing to lend a hand when we can, because at the very least, that’s what we owe one another—but we have to be realistic and realize that simply patching things up isn't going to fix a chronic, systemic issue. True activism should, by its very nature, push further to find solutions within the existing framework, digging deep to tackle the root causes that keep these problems alive in the first place. But that's where you hit a wall... since success ultimately depends on the people who hold the actual decision-making power.

I skimmed through the articles in those links—not fully, because there’s just so much to get through—but I think we could draw another distinction here:
Volunteering to fill the gaps where the community is failing to improve the quality of life.
Volunteering to support the community by contributing to programs that are already up and running.

In that first scenario, activism should really be about initiating or creating entirely new pathways for progress.
In the second, you're just plugging into the systems that are already in motion.

I really think we need to draw a clear line between volunteering for the sake of our community and working *instead* of the community as a way of structuring society itself.
When you work for the community, you're actually building things up and helping it grow, whereas working instead of the community is mostly just patching over holes where the system has already failed us.
Helping people in need is obviously altruistic and fundamentally human—and honestly, it’s vital whenever the government fails to provide—but that isn't really "working for the community" in the sense of improving our social functions so these crises don't happen in the first place.
At the end of the day, the very fact that we even need this kind of humanitarian aid is a massive red flag, signaling that we desperately need activism aimed at fixing the actual glitches in our societal framework.

So, sure, volunteering to help the poor, the vulnerable, or the marginalized is wonderful and deeply compassionate, and for those individuals, local charity might be their only lifeline, but it doesn't drive the systemic change needed to ensure those groups aren't left behind to begin with.

It makes me wonder, when you brought up those old-school "community work drives," why can't we pull off anything like that in today's formal democratic setup? I suspect it's because there's such a massive, widening gap between the people in power—the folks running the political and economic machinery—and the actual citizens.
That deep alienation makes it impossible for any real sense of solidarity to bridge the gap between the elected officials and the public. There's just no spirit of shared responsibility coming from the top, and that's precisely because they've become so disconnected from everyone else.
In practice, our version of democracy feels a bit like an "opium for the masses"—the more you indulge in it, the more sober and disillusioned you realize you actually are.

I already knew my last one was a little more than I actually needed. 🙂)

Jonathan Brooks8 said:In this light, what we call "evil" is really just passivity, indifference, gloom, isolationism, defeatism, hopelessness, and fear—and this kind of healthy, proactive activism is exactly what drives all of that away...

Do you honestly think people struggling with those kinds of mindsets actually get involved in activism?
I truly believe you need the exact opposite traits if you want to actually make an impact through activism...