How to respond spiritually to rude or aggressive behavior

feralranger said:At the end of the day, a fellow member is just a human being, so I fail to see why we should bother with such tedious double standards—as if there were some distinct moral code applied to "members" versus everyone else.🤷>

I have to admit, I’m pretty confused by this too.

It sounds like a purely pragmatic move; for instance, the idea that the site "protects its regulars" because it wants them to keep coming back. There’s a logical assumption that people won't return to a community where they feel openly insulted.

But still, it feels bizarre to say you can make offensive generalizations or insult a third party, yet you aren't allowed to "insult" an individual regular. 🤷

To be honest, I haven't a clue how you even solve a dilemma like this. It probably can't be solved.

rustymaker5 said:Honestly, I don't even think it’s about double standards... I mean, in the real world, it’s sometimes just harder to dodge those awkward, face-to-face confrontations because you can't exactly walk away or take a breather, but in a digital space like this, that shouldn't be an issue at all... unless it is, which seems to be the case more often than not.
It just comes down to the individual... people can't really escape who they are, I guess... 😁

I find myself operating under much the same principles, whether I am navigating the digital landscape or dealing with reality itself...

Just as it brings me a certain quiet satisfaction to show genuine respect to someone like a local sanitation worker—simply because they perform an essential service—it was equally gratifying to label Hillary Clinton a narcissistic, rude woman at a moment when I knew my words might actually reach her ears.

Regrettably, our society seems structured in such a way that the masses are all too eager to applaud those in high positions, elevating various political figures and pundits to pedestals, while simultaneously disregarding the very people—like street cleaners and those holding "unattractive" yet vital roles—without whom our daily existence would be practically impossible.

Michael Castillo said:rustymaker5, is there anything about you besides being fake?

First, you were whining about lack of education and illiteracy—but honestly, it’s pretty clear that stuff doesn't bother you at all (your attitude doesn't suggest it does, anyway)

Then you moved on to complaining about people acting like know-it-alls who are always right—I highly doubt those types actually annoy you (I didn't see you call out a single post where someone explicitly claimed "I know everything," despite plenty of them popping up)

Now you're attacking someone's ego—even though you just dropped twenty posts in a row following one specific person, all starting with some variation of "you're beneath me, but I'm superior (and magnificent)."
Clearly, an inflated ego wasn't your problem, since you had zero issues with it.

As for hurting others—it would be a lot wiser if you didn't bring up that topic.

Anyway, I don't really care.
Heading back to my own thread.

(And why did I even reply? Probably because it hits a nerve. )

This pseudo-spiritual nonsense is nauseating. Truly disgusting.

Look, Sanya, I'm not sure what you mean by "whining," but you're right about one thing: other people don't bother me. Especially not in a digital space where I don't have to interact with anyone if I don't feel like it.
Why are you always so wound up?

lonegardener said:The thing is, that isn't even technically an "ad hominem" logical fallacy. For something to be a true "ad hominem" fallacy, it has to be irrelevant. If a witness makes a claim and you prove they are generally a liar, that's not a fallacy. It would only be an ad hominem if you tried to argue their point was wrong just because their socks smell. 🤣 The whole point hinges on irrelevance, not just because the argument is directed "against the person." It is perfectly fine to use arguments "against the person" if those points are logically tied to the matter at hand.

Precisely, which is why I maintained that context is everything... though I would go so far as to say that while both instances could be characterized as an 'attack' on a person, that doesn't automatically transform them into a logical fallacy.

lonegardener said:I have to admit, I’m pretty confused by this too.

It sounds like a purely pragmatic move; for instance, the idea that the site "protects its regulars" because it wants them to keep coming back. There’s a logical assumption that people won't return to a community where they feel openly insulted.

But still, it feels bizarre to say you can make offensive generalizations or insult a third party, yet you aren't allowed to "insult" an individual regular. 🤷

To be honest, I haven't a clue how you even solve a dilemma like this. It probably can't be solved.

But what actually constitutes an insult? If you tell someone they are being foolish because you truly believe they are, there are only two outcomes: they take offense because they recognize the truth in it, or they don't care because they know it isn't true. In that case, how are we supposed to categorize the first scenario—as a statement of fact, or as an insult?🤷

It’s not people that bother me—it’s the lack of humanity in them.

When I talk about "whining," I'm referring to posts that:
- lament the sheer horror of everyone's ignorance
- moan because certain people act like they have all the answers
- critique those on an ego trip

I made that point pretty clearly in my last post.
Are we really pretending you didn't get that?

And I never said you don't mind people.
On the contrary—I said you don't seem to mind the very traits you claim to be complaining about.
Which makes it look like people are actually what's bothering you after all.

I’m only typing this out so it doesn’t look like some of you are actually right—because there exist people who simply don't feel the need to jump every time someone throws an insult or a provocation their way.
Look, personally, I just don't have that itch, even if Sanja Dalaj thinks my silence is just some fake, pseudo-spiritual act. But hey, that’s her take, and honestly, I don't have the energy to obsess over her opinion of me.

The fact that I don't dive into every petty argument or join in on those group pile-ons against certain members doesn't mean anything other than that's just not who I am, and frankly, it's none of my business. If anything, I think the people who live for that kind of drama are usually just dealing with their own deep-seated issues, since it seems like only broken people feel the need to tear others down just to get a little boost for their own egos.

The truth is, the reason I even brought this topic up today is because the constant bickering on this chat is getting ridiculous, but I clearly overestimated things... I assumed that basic cognitive ability would be enough for people to grasp both the purpose here and the chance we have for some elementary, decent human communication.

I wouldn't even be bothering with this if I didn't see how my lack of reaction is being twisted into something completely opposite from what it actually is... though, I have to admit, seeing that is pretty stinging.
Stay sane out there in your neck of the woods! 😛

Btw, Executioner, you've completely lost your way...

The issue is that half the people here act like total snowflakes. If you don't spend every second stroking their ego or nodding along to everything they say, they take it as a personal attack. Anyone who dares to have a different opinion—or heaven forbid, points out a mistake they made—instantly gets labeled a heretic. After that, anything else they say is treated like some kind of blasphemy.
There are just way too many people around here who mistake facts, solid arguments, and basic intellectual honesty for an insult.

Michael Castillo said:rustymaker5, is there anything about you besides being fake?

First, you were whining about lack of education and illiteracy—but honestly, it’s pretty clear that stuff doesn't bother you at all (your attitude doesn't suggest it does, anyway)

Then you moved on to complaining about people acting like know-it-alls who are always right—I highly doubt those types actually annoy you (I didn't see you call out a single post where someone explicitly claimed "I know everything," despite plenty of them popping up)

Now you're attacking someone's ego—even though you just dropped twenty posts in a row following one specific person, all starting with some variation of "you're beneath me, but I'm superior (and magnificent)."
Clearly, an inflated ego wasn't your problem, since you had zero issues with it.

As for hurting others—it would be a lot wiser if you didn't bring up that topic.

Anyway, I don't really care.
Heading back to my own thread.

(And why did I even reply? Probably because it hits a nerve. )

This pseudo-spiritual nonsense is nauseating. Truly disgusting.

I’ve been hanging around this forum for about ten years now, and honestly, I think this comment is totally off base.
rustymaker5 is actually one of the most genuine and helpful people on here.

Her question is a valid one—both in real life and right here—and frankly, comments like this (which usually just kick off more drama) are exactly what this thread is about.
Moderators. 👍

lonegardener said:The thing is, that isn't even technically an "ad hominem" logical fallacy. For something to be a true "ad hominem" fallacy, it has to be irrelevant. If a witness makes a claim and you prove they are generally a liar, that's not a fallacy. It would only be an ad hominem if you tried to argue their point was wrong just because their socks smell. 🤣 The whole point hinges on irrelevance, not just because the argument is directed "against the person." It is perfectly fine to use arguments "against the person" if those points are logically tied to the matter at hand.

There's truth there. Real debaters use these so-called "ad hominems" all the time, then wait for their opponent to cry foul. It's just smoke and mirrors. Like a cheap distraction in a street fight. Or like when that guy landed a low blow on Mirko Filipović. It doesn't matter if the strike was legal once the fight is over. 🤣

vividdrifter79, whom I disagree with on almost everything, is right about one thing. Anyone whining about "ad hominem" is just flagging themselves as a coward. It's the ultimate self-inflicted insult.

lonegardener said:I have to admit, I’m pretty confused by this too.

It sounds like a purely pragmatic move; for instance, the idea that the site "protects its regulars" because it wants them to keep coming back. There’s a logical assumption that people won't return to a community where they feel openly insulted.

But still, it feels bizarre to say you can make offensive generalizations or insult a third party, yet you aren't allowed to "insult" an individual regular. 🤷

To be honest, I haven't a clue how you even solve a dilemma like this. It probably can't be solved.

It's all about dosage. A little bit can be a cure; too much becomes poison. Insults aren't necessarily insults if they stay within certain limits. Who decides what's appropriate? I'm sure -Sisyphus- will jump in to say how twisted that is. But there's a link on the homepage most people miss: "By posting here, you agree to the terms." Or some "User Manual" nonsense like that. 🤣

I'm out here fighting the good fight in politics

just messing around on Reddit a bit

and using the spiritual stuff to recharge my batteries

Any communication that isn't face-to-face is inherently flawed—it lacks vocal nuance, real interaction, and facial expressions. Given how this forum operates, the bluntness often feels like pure provocation, mostly because people hide behind anonymity. I don't get why some folks chase that kind of attention—it's like someone doing their business and forgetting to flush; we've all seen them—but honestly, the "ignore" button is a pretty decent aspirin for the headache they cause.

There are interesting people to talk to and plenty of engaging topics here, so the potential for actual good discussion exists. It’s just that people today seem to have lost the ability to read between the lines, so everything gets under their skin...

rustymaker5 said:Since you all seem to be such brilliant minds on here, I was wondering if anyone would care to weigh in on a little thought of mine... personally, when it comes to communicating in this digital space, using ad hominem attacks is basically the online equivalent of getting slapped in the face in real life, and we all know people resort to that kind of low blow the second they run out of actual arguments and just want to force their own narrow perspective on everyone else as the absolute truth.
So, what does that actually say about those kinds of users? Does it mean they lack basic social etiquette, or are they just aggressive types, or maybe—and this is my guess—they’re just deeply insecure people? Because it seems incredibly easy to sidestep that whole mess by just ignoring them, yet so many people refuse to take the high road. I get it, not everyone is going to click with everyone else, but I truly don't grasp the desperate need to turn everything into a violent confrontation...🤷

Look, we're on the internet. People don't have to pretend to be polite like they do in real life; they use this space as an outlet.🙂

This isn't some deep question about spirituality; it's pure psychology.

Ryan Wilson2 said:Look, we're on the internet. People don't have to pretend to be polite like they do in real life; they use this space as an outlet.🙂

This isn't some deep question about spirituality; it's pure psychology.

There should be a dedicated thread for this, but if there were, the moderator wouldn't even be able to hold a conversation with some of the most well-known avatars on this board.

I fail to see the necessity of such a violent approach.

Violence is an inherent part of the human condition. It is simply how the will manifests itself. This entire debate is utterly pointless.

That was moved over from Philosophy, likely from their own thread, and probably their mod, Executioner, gave it that title...

The same thing happened with the thread about Apemant.

Pretty funny, I guess... 😳

rustymaker5 said:I’m only typing this out so it doesn’t look like some of you are actually right—because there exist people who simply don't feel the need to jump every time someone throws an insult or a provocation their way.
Look, personally, I just don't have that itch, even if Sanja Dalaj thinks my silence is just some fake, pseudo-spiritual act. But hey, that’s her take, and honestly, I don't have the energy to obsess over her opinion of me.

The fact that I don't dive into every petty argument or join in on those group pile-ons against certain members doesn't mean anything other than that's just not who I am, and frankly, it's none of my business. If anything, I think the people who live for that kind of drama are usually just dealing with their own deep-seated issues, since it seems like only broken people feel the need to tear others down just to get a little boost for their own egos.

The truth is, the reason I even brought this topic up today is because the constant bickering on this chat is getting ridiculous, but I clearly overestimated things... I assumed that basic cognitive ability would be enough for people to grasp both the purpose here and the chance we have for some elementary, decent human communication.

I wouldn't even be bothering with this if I didn't see how my lack of reaction is being twisted into something completely opposite from what it actually is... though, I have to admit, seeing that is pretty stinging.
Stay sane out there in your neck of the woods! 😛

Btw, Executioner, you've completely lost your way...

Hmm, 🤔 I wouldn't be so quick to throw those kinds of labels around.

Regarding that point about staying quiet, I’ll just add that in certain situations, choosing to stay silent can be just as hurtful—it can easily be perceived as an attack or plain old rudeness.

By that same logic, those who fail to act might be dealing with their own personal issues, but at the end of the day, I couldn't care less; having a million problems doesn't give anyone a free pass to hurt others.
They belong in the same category as those who make their hostility much more obvious.

Anthony Hayes2 said:There's truth there. Real debaters use these so-called "ad hominems" all the time, then wait for their opponent to cry foul. It's just smoke and mirrors. Like a cheap distraction in a street fight. Or like when that guy landed a low blow on Mirko Filipović. It doesn't matter if the strike was legal once the fight is over. 🤣

vividdrifter79, whom I disagree with on almost everything, is right about one thing. Anyone whining about "ad hominem" is just flagging themselves as a coward. It's the ultimate self-inflicted insult.

Actually, I’d argue that true polemicists—the kind who value logical consistency and sound Philosophy during a debate where fallacies are easily spotted and disqualified—don't touch that stuff. Using it would just be self-sabotage at that point.

But you'll see it all the time from demagogues, populists, politicians, and anyone else running a negative marketing campaign.

I suppose it all depends on how we define a "polemicist" anyway.🤔

I should probably just mention that I didn't actually start this thread myself; these posts were all migrated over from the Philosophy chat, so I’m really not looking to dwell on it any longer than necessary.
But since we’re dealing with spirituality here, Imagine, who knows what kind of things might surface... 😍

rustymaker5 said:I should probably just mention that I didn't actually start this thread myself; these posts were all migrated over from the Philosophy chat, so I’m really not looking to dwell on it any longer than necessary.
But since we’re dealing with spirituality here, Imagine, who knows what kind of things might surface... 😍

Dreams of a utopia usually spiral into dystopia or just end up being an addiction to harder drugs. 😁