Why do some people just have to put others down?

Sam Wright21 said:Being a brilliant artist doesn't automatically make someone a decent human being.

Well, what you said above is just keeping things obvious—it’s a thought that costs absolutely nothing, neither effort nor money.
The real issue is that such a banal sentiment actually has to be proven through action.
In other words, someone needs to possess enough love for the truth to actually write a book about Carlos Castaneda, much like Amy Wallace did. Then, someone like hiddenpuma75 has to be willing to buy it, read it, and have the passion to write something back.

Do you actually have the drive to sit down and read a book by Amy Wallace?

If you say no, or that you simply don't care, then I'd ask you to please start a (spiritual) thread about some (spiritual) book you *have* read and share those insights with us.

Love is about selfless giving. 🧐

Love isn't just typing out obvious, 150-character text messages that require zero financial investment or actual effort.

Sam Wright21 said:I’d suggest looking into a PDF on the subject. It's all just part of the usual American political theater.

Zero spirituality here, and zero leaps of faith!

Looking at this strictly through a political lens feels way too one-dimensional. As progressives—guys like casualtiger2 and Joseph Bailey41 included—we really need to be multi-faceted and look at the bigger picture.🙂

hiddenpuma75 said:To quote mravac88:

I’m actually tied up right now and heading out, but I’ll get back to this later. 😁

By the way, I’ve honestly lost interest in psychology lately; it feels like nothing more than dwelling on trivialities and engaging in a sort of mental sado-masochism.

Once you realize that psychology is essentially just daydreaming about our own internal daydreams—fantasizing about our emotions and thoughts—that dark cavern of psychological theory starts to look pretty terrifying compared to the freedom of living outside of it.🙂

That said, for those who are still trapped within the cave of their own minds and emotions—deep inside that psychological grotto—I have to admit that psychology can be quite useful.👍

But only if they eventually realize they aren't defined by their thoughts and feelings, allowing them to finally leave that cave behind and step out of their mental loops and into real life.🙂

That isn't really psychology to me. It feels more like pure business. They think they can score a win just by sucking up to people who are more powerful—the ones with more fame, money, or influence—than they are. Then, when that other side doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, whether it was explicitly stated or just implied, they act surprised and start complaining.

At the end of the day, you really can only count on yourself. That’s why it feels pretty reckless to sell out your own dignity just to get ahead... but let’s be honest, people (and yes, women are people too) aren't exactly known for being geniuses. If we were all a bit sharper, those self-proclaimed gurus and religious leaders wouldn't have nearly as much room to maneuver.

You know, you're actually right about one thing—life really is incredibly fascinating.

hiddenpuma75 said:Zero spirituality here, and zero leaps of faith!

Looking at this strictly through a political lens feels way too one-dimensional. As progressives—guys like casualtiger2 and Joseph Bailey41 included—we really need to be multi-faceted and look at the bigger picture.🙂

At the end of the day, we all face the same inevitable end. 🤣

Sam Wright21 said:Being a brilliant artist doesn't automatically make someone a decent human being.

Spot on—it's all about that dark side or the ID stuff.

But honestly, what does it even mean to be a good person?

staying on topic:

So, someone actually went and asked one of those "primitive" folks to define good versus evil.

He says: "Loss is when a neighboring tribe raids our village—slaughtering the men, taking the women, and making off with the livestock and the food supply."

So, what's actually good?

"Once we hit their village—wipe out the men, grab the women, and take all the livestock and food..."

Enough with all this psychoanalysis junk—all that "life as a duo" nonsense. Honestly, you could probably make sense of most of it if you just looked at it through the lens of Transactional Analysis.

The thesis? Basically: "I'm the good guy, everyone else is just evil."
Audience: folks on the forum, neighbors...
Supporting roles: man, I feel you—it’s tough out there. Honestly, I’m right there with you. The world is just a grim place... at least if you’ve got a more sensitive radar than everyone else.
It’s always the same old variations—my husband is this way, my partner is that way, it’s the fault of those shady foreigners, our parents, the government, the leftists, the ultra-wealthy, atheists, science, or just "evil modern times." Same excuses, different day.
Listen, give me a little attention here—everyone else is driving me crazy.

The Antithesis: what’s the other side saying, what do the actual facts show—and why don't you just do something to make things better?

😁

Topics like "Coronavirus" and "Global warming" belong to a sort of "Scary Stories" game, where people trade horror tales just to enjoy the thrill of being frightened. 😁

hiddenpuma75 said:Well, what you said above is just keeping things obvious—it’s a thought that costs absolutely nothing, neither effort nor money.
The real issue is that such a banal sentiment actually has to be proven through action.
In other words, someone needs to possess enough love for the truth to actually write a book about Carlos Castaneda, much like Amy Wallace did. Then, someone like hiddenpuma75 has to be willing to buy it, read it, and have the passion to write something back.

Do you actually have the drive to sit down and read a book by Amy Wallace?

If you say no, or that you simply don't care, then I'd ask you to please start a (spiritual) thread about some (spiritual) book you *have* read and share those insights with us.

Love is about selfless giving. 🧐

Love isn't just typing out obvious, 150-character text messages that require zero financial investment or actual effort.

To be honest, I haven't even had the energy to tackle Carlos Castaneda... ☕

I really intended to address the original post properly and stay on topic, but life is calling me away right now. 😬

Thomas Nelson25 said:Spot on—it's all about that dark side or the ID stuff.

But honestly, what does it even mean to be a good person?

For starters, it means not being an emotional vampire...

hiddenpuma75 said:That's a clever one, and quite a good way to hide my identity.

In that link about Raspudić, I noticed the image ended up being about Mao Zedong.😁

This is an outstanding article by Raspudić regarding the sexual assault allegations involving Jerry Mark—it's funny how much the left-wing crowd is losing their minds over it.

Nobody’s complaining about slandering Heinrich Himmler, and nobody is out there defending him either—but even he’s two moral tiers above Markićka in my book.🕺

bluemason3 said:Nobody’s complaining about slandering Heinrich Himmler, and nobody is out there defending him either—but even he’s two moral tiers above Markićka in my book.🕺

But why?

In what way exactly are Dr. Željka Markić's actions considered immoral? 🤔

hiddenpuma75 said:

Do you have any vision for a better world involving the right-wingers, conservatives, and believers?

Well, I actually do, and I base it on Ken Wilber’s philosophy.
Since nobody is quite foolish enough to be 100% wrong, nor wise enough to be 100% right, the only way forward is the INTEGRAL PATH. That means walking a razor's edge, balancing the tension between what holds true for the right and what holds true for the left.

Essentially, the right advocates for eternal, unchanging, classic values—which is perfectly fine. On the flip side, the left pushes for change and progress, which is also perfectly fine.

True wisdom lies in knowing when something is timeless and shouldn't be touched, but it also means recognizing when we shouldn't force change just for the sake of being "progressive" or to satisfy some thirst for provocation.

The approach you're taking isn't really an "integral" one; in fact, your question already contains its own answer.
You’ve framed this as if being a conservative, a right-winger, or a believer is somehow regressive or "incorrect." It seems our friend casualtiger2 assumes it's common knowledge that the only valid path is to be a leftist.

It’s almost as if you’re implying—and it’s pretty obvious from how you phrased this—that while it's perfectly acceptable to follow a secular progressive ideology, being a Catholic is somehow backwards and unprogressive.

Personally, I disagree. I think it's perfectly okay to be a Catholic (or a Buddhist, or a Muslim), and it's just as okay to be a staunch secular progressive.

Just another non-STEM type making noise. 🕺

hiddenpuma75 said:ps. (just for those who aren't following along or might be out of the loop)

I am being very DELIBERATE and perhaps a bit tedious when I write DOCTOR Željka Markić, and here is my reasoning.

The liberal media will NEVER use positive descriptors when talking about Željka Markić; you’ll certainly never see them referring to her as, say, DOCTOR Željka Markić.

But whenever there is a story about someone like Mimi Simić, they always make sure to include titles like "author" Mimi Simić or "film critic," and so on.

So, on one hand, we have the agitators Ilčić and Markićka, yet we never actually read about them as

concert pianist Ilčić 🙂

or DOCTOR Željka Markić 😉

These little media nuances are the subtle hallmarks of fake news that my eagle eye catches every single time. 🙂

Markićka is an entrepreneur at heart. She studied medicine, sure, but she hasn't actually practiced as a doctor, and she likely never held a medical license to begin with.
Sure, it doesn't take away from her level of education, but it isn't exactly her identity. It’s not what she would be known for. That's different from the examples you're bringing up, where those people actually make a career out of that specific thing.

Ilcic is a violinist, not a pianist. 🤣

Maybe we don't give them official titles, but at least we have some loose connections. ☕

Joseph Bailey41 said:Who even cares? The people actually interested in this stuff spend all their time camping out on Politics, not Spirituality.

The moderation on the politics board is pretty intense. Honestly, hiddenpuma75 wouldn't last a week over there. 😁

bluemason3 said:Just another non-STEM type making noise. 🕺

Markićka is an entrepreneur at heart. She studied medicine, sure, but she hasn't actually practiced as a doctor, and she likely never held a medical license to begin with.
Sure, it doesn't take away from her level of education, but it isn't exactly her identity. It’s not what she would be known for. That's different from the examples you're bringing up, where those people actually make a career out of that specific thing.

Ilcic is a violinist, not a pianist. 🤣

Maybe we don't give them official titles, but at least we have some loose connections. ☕

The moderation on the politics board is pretty intense. Honestly, hiddenpuma75 wouldn't last a week over there. 😁

🤣

You really ought to propose this as a new word. 😁

mistybison said:🤣

You really ought to propose this as a new word. 😁

Do I need to worry about intellectual property rights here? 😳

How would the dictionary entry actually look?

bullshitter - a person who rambles incessantly without any solid foundation; a pseudo-philosopher, a fake spiritualist, an alternative type.
synonyms: windbag, blowhard, loudmouth, phony, empty suit
Antithesis: STEM expert, scientist, productive citizen

🧐 😁

Jesse Davis said:How many times have you dealt with someone being just plain malicious toward you—you know, people who seem to have this desperate need to belittle you or provoke a reaction through lies and fabrications? To be honest, it happens to me quite frequently...
Sometimes I’ll admit, I get genuinely angry at those injustices, especially if the person acting that way ends up getting ahead while I'm left behind.
But then again, most of the time I just find myself laughing at them—it’s because I know exactly who I am and what my worth is—though, like anyone else, I still have those days where certain things just hit a little harder than they should...
What I really want to say is that if someone feels the need to tear you down, insult you, or play dirty just to reach a goal, it's usually because they are deeply unhappy with themselves and their own lives. It's particularly true for those types who try so hard to be "perfect" and please everyone; at the end of the day, they still have to go home and face their true selves, and all that hypocrisy eventually catches up to them.
What are your thoughts on all this??

I experienced this exact phenomenon right here on the ZUD forums, where I was essentially ganged up on by a mob,😬

In my view, what we are witnessing is a classic case of emotional vampirism; they are simply looking to drain your vitality. There are essentially three distinct archetypes of emotional or energetic vampires, and the question is which kind you happen to encounter.

For instance, the type I encountered on the ZUD forums—who largely operate through pack mentality because they are nothing more than mediocrities—is impossible to avoid, as they rely on crude, low-brow humor to mock others.

A subcategory of this would be the "geniuses," figures like Carlos Castaneda or Pablo Picasso; they tend to strike individually, possessing enough intellectual weight to employ methods far more cruel and sophisticated than the average mediocre crowd.

Your post specifically addresses that first group.

Then, you have the vampires who attempt to kill you through sheer logorrhea—endless, tedious monologues—much like our colleague hiddenpuma75.

Finally, there is the third type, which I personally find the most exhausting: the eternal complainers, the perpetual mourners, the endless victims. Those are the ones I prefer to avoid at all costs.

There is a great movie called What We Do in the Shadows about vampires, and it was later adapted into a series. In that context, there is a modern twist involving an emotional vampire of a different sort. He spends time with a female vampire of the third type, but their relationship inevitably collapses because they are too evenly matched; neither can satisfy their parasitic need to drain energy from the other.

bluemason3 said:Do I need to worry about intellectual property rights here? 😳

How would the dictionary entry actually look?

bullshitter - a person who rambles incessantly without any solid foundation; a pseudo-philosopher, a fake spiritualist, an alternative type.
synonyms: windbag, blowhard, loudmouth, phony, empty suit
Antithesis: STEM expert, scientist, productive citizen

🧐 😁

That gave me a good laugh! 😁

bluemason3 said:Do I need to worry about intellectual property rights here? 😳

How would the dictionary entry actually look?

bullshitter - a person who rambles incessantly without any solid foundation; a pseudo-philosopher, a fake spiritualist, an alternative type.
synonyms: windbag, blowhard, loudmouth, phony, empty suit
Antithesis: STEM expert, scientist, productive citizen

🧐 😁

🤣

It is best to ask about intellectual property in the "Lexicon" section, though I suspect it might fall more under "the common good." 😁

On topic:

Jesse Davis said:How many times have you dealt with someone being just plain malicious toward you—you know, people who seem to have this desperate need to belittle you or provoke a reaction through lies and fabrications? To be honest, it happens to me quite frequently...
Sometimes I’ll admit, I get genuinely angry at those injustices, especially if the person acting that way ends up getting ahead while I'm left behind.
But then again, most of the time I just find myself laughing at them—it’s because I know exactly who I am and what my worth is—though, like anyone else, I still have those days where certain things just hit a little harder than they should...
What I really want to say is that if someone feels the need to tear you down, insult you, or play dirty just to reach a goal, it's usually because they are deeply unhappy with themselves and their own lives. It's particularly true for those types who try so hard to be "perfect" and please everyone; at the end of the day, they still have to go home and face their true selves, and all that hypocrisy eventually catches up to them.
What are your thoughts on all this??

I haven't encountered truly evil people yet. I've met people with various issues, complexes, bad humor, nuisances, know-it-alls, arrogant and unpleasant individuals, people full of themselves, liars, envious types, people living in self-delusion, troublemakers, and frauds—yes to all of that. But all those negative traits usually stem from something, and that something isn't necessarily "evil." Many of these people are actually unhappy, insecure, afraid, hurt, hardened by life's hardships, disappointed, bitter, or unfulfilled...

It is natural to protect oneself from their negative influence, but you can also protect yourself from excessive negative emotions by understanding the root cause of why they act the way they do.

Sometimes people simply have difficult personalities—those who are awkward, perpetually grumpy, easily annoyed, and constantly criticizing, belittling, or insulting others without restraint. In those cases, you should just say, "Whatever, let them be," and move on. 😁

Sam Wright21 said:I experienced this exact phenomenon right here on the ZUD forums, where I was essentially ganged up on by a mob,😬

In my view, what we are witnessing is a classic case of emotional vampirism; they are simply looking to drain your vitality. There are essentially three distinct archetypes of emotional or energetic vampires, and the question is which kind you happen to encounter.

For instance, the type I encountered on the ZUD forums—who largely operate through pack mentality because they are nothing more than mediocrities—is impossible to avoid, as they rely on crude, low-brow humor to mock others.

A subcategory of this would be the "geniuses," figures like Carlos Castaneda or Pablo Picasso; they tend to strike individually, possessing enough intellectual weight to employ methods far more cruel and sophisticated than the average mediocre crowd.

Your post specifically addresses that first group.

Then, you have the vampires who attempt to kill you through sheer logorrhea—endless, tedious monologues—much like our colleague hiddenpuma75.

Finally, there is the third type, which I personally find the most exhausting: the eternal complainers, the perpetual mourners, the endless victims. Those are the ones I prefer to avoid at all costs.

There is a great movie called What We Do in the Shadows about vampires, and it was later adapted into a series. In that context, there is a modern twist involving an emotional vampire of a different sort. He spends time with a female vampire of the third type, but their relationship inevitably collapses because they are too evenly matched; neither can satisfy their parasitic need to drain energy from the other.

According to legend, a vampire can't enter your house unless you invite them in.

Exactly.

It makes one wonder why we subconsciously decide who fits into our inner circle and who doesn't—why we extend an invitation to one person while instinctively keeping another at arm's length, or perhaps refusing to let them through the front door even when they feel familiar.

Maybe we should all just add a laurel wreath to our avatars, just to be safe, if only to protect ourselves from these forum vampires. 🤔