Do you have to be ruthless to succeed? How do the "good guys" fare?

velvetstag5 said:If you think you'd be better off being a jerk, it means you're already one; you just haven't realized it yet. Get it?

Oh, give me a break. ☕

So, what you're actually claiming is that she’s still an "unconscious scumbag" because she’s been burned by people exactly like herself? You're basically arguing that because she was on the receiving end of the bad behavior, she somehow gets a pass as a victim while mistakenly thinking things would be easier if she acted just as poorly?

By the way, the original poster isn't even active here; this thread dates all the way back to 2009, so don't sit there expecting some kind of reply confirming whether she "gets it" or not.

Edit: Honestly, that word "scumbag" has been grating on my nerves since the very start. We have a massive vocabulary in English; surely we could have used a term like "unprincipled" or "ruthless" right from the title instead of resorting to that? This whole thread is just a bunch of people tossing around insults like they're nothing, when it’s really not even necessary...

I’m changing the title now, so let’s drop the "scumbag" rhetoric and move on with the discussion properly..

Andrew Doyle said:Oh, give me a break. ☕

So, what you're actually claiming is that she’s still an "unconscious scumbag" because she’s been burned by people exactly like herself? You're basically arguing that because she was on the receiving end of the bad behavior, she somehow gets a pass as a victim while mistakenly thinking things would be easier if she acted just as poorly?

By the way, the original poster isn't even active here; this thread dates all the way back to 2009, so don't sit there expecting some kind of reply confirming whether she "gets it" or not.

Edit: Honestly, that word "scumbag" has been grating on my nerves since the very start. We have a massive vocabulary in English; surely we could have used a term like "unprincipled" or "ruthless" right from the title instead of resorting to that? This whole thread is just a bunch of people tossing around insults like they're nothing, when it’s really not even necessary...

I’m changing the title now, so let’s drop the "scumbag" rhetoric and move on with the discussion properly..

At first, I thought my vision was failing me, but then I realized someone had messed with the intro.
I did use an inappropriate term, but it feels like that nasty little label perfectly captures how disgusting some people's behavior can be.

As for the gossip, I was being a bit playful while trying to shift the focus toward the unnecessary jealousy people feel regarding the "successes" of certain... pieces of trash.

Years ago, I was definitely jealous of people who held me back, tripped me up, rejected me, or mocked my naivety. Today, I honestly feel nothing but pity for every single one of them.

I've come to realize that most people are unscrupulous simply because they are miserable, or because their own lack of ethics and egoism has totally screwed them over.

Get it, Serena Williams?

velvetstag5 said:At first, I thought my vision was failing me, but then I realized someone had messed with the intro.
I did use an inappropriate term, but it feels like that nasty little label perfectly captures how disgusting some people's behavior can be.

As for the gossip, I was being a bit playful while trying to shift the focus toward the unnecessary jealousy people feel regarding the "successes" of certain... pieces of trash.

Years ago, I was definitely jealous of people who held me back, tripped me up, rejected me, or mocked my naivety. Today, I honestly feel nothing but pity for every single one of them.

I've come to realize that most people are unscrupulous simply because they are miserable, or because their own lack of ethics and egoism has totally screwed them over.

Get it, Serena Williams?

Sure, you could argue that way. It’s certainly not a universal rule—you definitely see some people who breeze through life unscathed despite having those kinds of attitudes—but let’s be real: there are plenty of others who eventually have those choices come back to haunt them. I think this whole issue gets much more complicated when you realize we're talking about problems rooted entirely in the ego. And once the ego takes over, it becomes the catalyst for all sorts of ugly situations and broken relationships.

In my view, a person needs to navigate this life guided by their own conscience. If someone has actually internalized a solid set of standards, ethical values, and moral principles, then I don't believe they ever have to worry about letting their ego warp them into becoming something deviant or depraved.

At the end of the day, there are several decisive factors that determine whether a person turns out to be utterly unscrupulous or stays true to themselves.

It’s not just about how other people act, either. I’ll try to explain my way of looking at it. Sometimes, I’ll see someone do something and feel like it’s absolutely unacceptable, but then a little while later, I’ll see that exact same thing and just laugh it off, thinking, "Wow, look at that..."

Honestly, it all comes down to those chemicals in your brain.

velvetstag5 said:It’s not just about how other people act, either. I’ll try to explain my way of looking at it. Sometimes, I’ll see someone do something and feel like it’s absolutely unacceptable, but then a little while later, I’ll see that exact same thing and just laugh it off, thinking, "Wow, look at that..."

Honestly, it all comes down to those chemicals in your brain.

Or maybe it's just emotions? It hits way harder when it's someone we actually care about doing it.

Richard Wells said:Or maybe it's just emotions? It hits way harder when it's someone we actually care about doing it.

Once you stop loving them, just move on—there are 4 billion other people out there.

velvetstag5 said:It’s not just about how other people act, either. I’ll try to explain my way of looking at it. Sometimes, I’ll see someone do something and feel like it’s absolutely unacceptable, but then a little while later, I’ll see that exact same thing and just laugh it off, thinking, "Wow, look at that..."

Honestly, it all comes down to those chemicals in your brain.

Of course, our reaction to what people do depends entirely on whether we're having a good day or a bad one. But whether we choose to respond with an eye for an eye—that tit-for-tat mentality—doesn't actually depend on the provocateurs themselves, but rather on us.
It’s a matter of awareness and self-control—what some might call a conscience. First and foremost, one must learn—
learn about people and the nature of modern relationships as they truly exist today. Once you recognize those who operate without a moral compass, you'll find yourself avoiding any connection with them altogether; and if avoidance isn't an option, you'll at least be careful not to walk straight into their traps.
And, as you've already observed, you should never envy their so-called "success,"
not even when those unscrupulous types seem to have everything you currently lack.
To approve of them, to admire them, or to wish you were more like them... well, that's just a different, perhaps less successful, way of lowering yourself to their level. 😉
The idea that the behavior of such unprincipled individuals is "unacceptable" is something that can only be corrected by society as a whole.
And on that front, humanity has largely failed the test.

velvetstag5 said:Once you stop loving them, just move on—there are 4 billion other people out there.

That’s just how it plays out. I’m talking about the actual breaking point. And yeah... feelings don't just have an off-switch. Certain behaviors might speed things up, but nothing changes overnight.

Andrew Doyle said:But how else are you supposed to raise them?

I ask because I find myself facing similar parenting dilemmas right now, and frankly, I’m struggling with how to handle them.
How am I supposed to raise a child? Should I teach them to be a hypocrite? To cheat and steal whenever the opportunity arises? To believe that school is irrelevant and that their only real goal should be curating a social circle just to manipulate their way toward success?

Because if I actually raised them that way, what kind of person would I be? I'd be someone who couldn't even look at themselves in the mirror without feeling pure shame.

Sure, my parents grew up in a completely different system—one where there was actual hope for tomorrow, where things felt more stable. Today, that feels like a total utopia, especially after all the massive societal shifts we've seen here in the States over the last few decades.

But can I really raise someone who steps on others or acts purely out of selfishness just because "that's what the world demands"?
Absolutely not.
And I won't. Not because I'm naive, but because I believe that my child and I both contribute our tiny fraction to the state of this world. I refuse to be part of the problem. That is why I will continue to instill moral values in them; I will keep hammering home that education matters and that real results come from hard work and perseverance.

Doing anything else would go against everything I stand for. It wouldn't be me, and it certainly isn't the vision I have for my child's future.

My kid will eventually learn just how cruel this world can be and what kind of cutthroat rules people play by—they're already learning it. But that does not give them a free pass to be a moral wreck just because "society requires it," and I will never, ever condone behavior like that, even if they choose to follow those examples.

👍
Honestly, this topic deserves its own separate thread.
It seems the original poster was clearly thinking about relationships between fully formed adults.
Your dilemma and your perspective—well, credit to you—but you're definitely in the minority here...😉

Andrew Doyle said:But how else are you supposed to raise them?

I ask because I find myself facing similar parenting dilemmas right now, and frankly, I’m struggling with how to handle them.
How am I supposed to raise a child? Should I teach them to be a hypocrite? To cheat and steal whenever the opportunity arises? To believe that school is irrelevant and that their only real goal should be curating a social circle just to manipulate their way toward success?

Because if I actually raised them that way, what kind of person would I be? I'd be someone who couldn't even look at themselves in the mirror without feeling pure shame.

Sure, my parents grew up in a completely different system—one where there was actual hope for tomorrow, where things felt more stable. Today, that feels like a total utopia, especially after all the massive societal shifts we've seen here in the States over the last few decades.

But can I really raise someone who steps on others or acts purely out of selfishness just because "that's what the world demands"?
Absolutely not.
And I won't. Not because I'm naive, but because I believe that my child and I both contribute our tiny fraction to the state of this world. I refuse to be part of the problem. That is why I will continue to instill moral values in them; I will keep hammering home that education matters and that real results come from hard work and perseverance.

Doing anything else would go against everything I stand for. It wouldn't be me, and it certainly isn't the vision I have for my child's future.

My kid will eventually learn just how cruel this world can be and what kind of cutthroat rules people play by—they're already learning it. But that does not give them a free pass to be a moral wreck just because "society requires it," and I will never, ever condone behavior like that, even if they choose to follow those examples.

Most people's behavior is largely driven by genetics. The small portion influenced by their environment (parents) usually happens subconsciously, mostly through the child just watching how we act. Then you've got the influence of social media, preschool teachers, and all that "you must do this/can't do that" stuff.

Just my two cents.🙄

velvetstag5 said:Most people's behavior is largely driven by genetics. The small portion influenced by their environment (parents) usually happens subconsciously, mostly through the child just watching how we act. Then you've got the influence of social media, preschool teachers, and all that "you must do this/can't do that" stuff.

Just my two cents.🙄

I have to say, I think your logic is completely flawed. Genetics might provide the foundation, but you cannot ignore the environmental factors required for actual development—whether we're talking about illnesses, behavioral patterns, or anything else.
Take a child who is adopted into a stable, healthy American family. Even if their biological parents were absolute bottom-feeders—we're talking criminals, addicts, or violent deviants—that child can grow up to be a perfectly well-adjusted individual because of the environment they were raised in. They won't inherit those deviant behaviors just by blood.

Where do you even draw the line when it comes to being "pure"? How do you define someone as more or less virtuous... is it about kids? People struggling with mental health? For me, being pure has always just felt like a synonym for being incapable of handling life on your own terms.

To address that first point of yours... No, you don't have to be a complete sociopath. I’ve never been that kind of person, and honestly, my conscience is clear. Life isn't some binary choice between being a saint or being ruthless. You just need to be decent to the people who actually treat you right, and then just cut the jerks off short without a second thought.

Anonymous said:Sometimes I can’t help but feel like life would be a lot easier if I were just more ruthless. But honestly? That’s just not who I am, and I don't know how to function in an environment like that. Even when I’m surrounded by people who seem well-meaning on the surface—even though we all know deep down they’re total snakes—I still give them the benefit of the doubt until they eventually stab me in the back. When they do, I just end up feeling disappointed, angry, and heartbroken, wondering how this keeps happening to me. I truly love genuine, good people, but they tend to live in their own little bubbles. Nowadays, if you actually want to build a meaningful life and surround yourself with decent human beings, it feels like you have to fight through a gauntlet of chaos just to establish a sense of security and independence.

I’m curious to hear from you guys: how have you structured your lives to find peace? More importantly, how do you navigate around the materialists, the egoists, and those selfish power-trippers with warped values who seem to hold all the cards?

In my view, you simply cannot fake being a genuinely good person. Once someone gains a bit of real-world experience, their true colors inevitably come out to play.

Regarding society at large, I've noticed a pattern: individuals with weak characters or low self-esteem tend to cling heavily to corrupt people.
It's because they eventually morph into that very same type of person themselves.
Perhaps it's fear—they see that perceived power and think they need to be near it to survive.

Speaking from experience, I truly believe it pays to be a good, moral person—but *only* if you back that goodness up with a backbone! If you are "good" but lack a firm stance, people will simply walk all over you.

Malice always finds its way back to haunt you, and let's face it: those kinds of people rarely enjoy a clear conscience. So, isn't it much better to sleep soundly at night knowing you've surrounded yourself with people who are actually well-meaning?

analogviper9 said:In my view, you simply cannot fake being a genuinely good person. Once someone gains a bit of real-world experience, their true colors inevitably come out to play.

Regarding society at large, I've noticed a pattern: individuals with weak characters or low self-esteem tend to cling heavily to corrupt people.
It's because they eventually morph into that very same type of person themselves.
Perhaps it's fear—they see that perceived power and think they need to be near it to survive.

Speaking from experience, I truly believe it pays to be a good, moral person—but *only* if you back that goodness up with a backbone! If you are "good" but lack a firm stance, people will simply walk all over you.

Malice always finds its way back to haunt you, and let's face it: those kinds of people rarely enjoy a clear conscience. So, isn't it much better to sleep soundly at night knowing you've surrounded yourself with people who are actually well-meaning?

this isn't even about whether it's "worth it" or not. that's not an economic calculation, it's more like a matter of dogma.
Aristotle puts it pretty clearly in his Ethics: 'Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and so it is truly said that the good is that at which all things aim.'

If you just accept that dogma—since it’s basically an uncritical, affirmative premise for how we act—then you finally have a direction. "Direction" is a way better word than "stance." Because a direction actually leads somewhere. It keeps moving. It's toward faith. Not necessarily religious faith, but faith in humanity. Not just in specific people, but in the whole species...

To even have a "stance" on anything, you'd have to be conscious enough to realize that the right stance is actually not having one. A stance holds you back. It limits you. It locks you into certain principles and patterns of behavior that you stick to. Usually, it's just the result of internalization—absorbing norms and behaviors from others and thinking they're our own. It's paradoxical because instead of showing autonomy, a "stance" shows the exact opposite tendency. That's why I don't believe in stances. I believe in losing them. And that's why I think "direction" is the better term...

And the consequence of that uncritical belief is that you ask fewer questions. Everything becomes simpler. The categories, the answers, everything.

Andrew Doyle said:I have to say, I think your logic is completely flawed. Genetics might provide the foundation, but you cannot ignore the environmental factors required for actual development—whether we're talking about illnesses, behavioral patterns, or anything else.
Take a child who is adopted into a stable, healthy American family. Even if their biological parents were absolute bottom-feeders—we're talking criminals, addicts, or violent deviants—that child can grow up to be a perfectly well-adjusted individual because of the environment they were raised in. They won't inherit those deviant behaviors just by blood.

I’ll try to offer a counterpoint here:

- Look at siblings. Their genetics are similar but definitely not identical, and they usually have roughly the same upbringing. Yet, you'll see one become a police officer while the other ends up in prison, or one lives an honest life while the other follows a completely different path—one is shy, the other is a total extrovert... and there's plenty more to it.

- Genetics is often mysterious and incredibly diverse; it isn't something you can just easily track or predict.

Sometimes, specific traits can "skip" generations, popping up from distant ancestors who had them hidden away within the parents. It can even happen with their grandparents.

velvetstag5 said:I’ll try to offer a counterpoint here:

- Look at siblings. Their genetics are similar but definitely not identical, and they usually have roughly the same upbringing. Yet, you'll see one become a police officer while the other ends up in prison, or one lives an honest life while the other follows a completely different path—one is shy, the other is a total extrovert... and there's plenty more to it.

- Genetics is often mysterious and incredibly diverse; it isn't something you can just easily track or predict.

Sometimes, specific traits can "skip" generations, popping up from distant ancestors who had them hidden away within the parents. It can even happen with their grandparents.

Most parents will give you the same tired line regarding siblings—that they are completely different people. But usually, when people say that, they’re talking about personality quirks, like whether someone is an extrovert or an introvert. In reality, if one child grows up to be arrogant or prone to criminal behavior while the other turns out moral and conscientious, I highly doubt the parenting approach was actually the same. And let's be honest: parents will swear up and down that they treated everyone identically, even when the underlying reality is vastly different. I've seen this pattern countless times, even within my own family circles. The truth is, parents simply do not behave the same way toward their first, second, or third child...

edit: Take a look at the final page of the Toxic Parents guide and read about just how "equally" parents supposedly treated one child versus another.

Nancy Lee84 said:this isn't even about whether it's "worth it" or not. that's not an economic calculation, it's more like a matter of dogma.
Aristotle puts it pretty clearly in his Ethics: 'Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and so it is truly said that the good is that at which all things aim.'

If you just accept that dogma—since it’s basically an uncritical, affirmative premise for how we act—then you finally have a direction. "Direction" is a way better word than "stance." Because a direction actually leads somewhere. It keeps moving. It's toward faith. Not necessarily religious faith, but faith in humanity. Not just in specific people, but in the whole species...

To even have a "stance" on anything, you'd have to be conscious enough to realize that the right stance is actually not having one. A stance holds you back. It limits you. It locks you into certain principles and patterns of behavior that you stick to. Usually, it's just the result of internalization—absorbing norms and behaviors from others and thinking they're our own. It's paradoxical because instead of showing autonomy, a "stance" shows the exact opposite tendency. That's why I don't believe in stances. I believe in losing them. And that's why I think "direction" is the better term...

And the consequence of that uncritical belief is that you ask fewer questions. Everything becomes simpler. The categories, the answers, everything.

Oh, really? Now, I strongly disagree! I think it is absolutely an economic question. If you treat someone well, there is a much higher statistical probability that they will return the favor down the road. Of course, you shouldn't be a good person just for the sake of the ROI—you do it for the greater good!

If someone treats me poorly, it implies that I should act the same way toward others. But surely, a person behaving badly won't serve as my role model? Quite the opposite—they become the very example of what I refuse to become.

analogviper9 said:In my view, you simply cannot fake being a genuinely good person. Once someone gains a bit of real-world experience, their true colors inevitably come out to play.

Regarding society at large, I've noticed a pattern: individuals with weak characters or low self-esteem tend to cling heavily to corrupt people.
It's because they eventually morph into that very same type of person themselves.
Perhaps it's fear—they see that perceived power and think they need to be near it to survive.

Speaking from experience, I truly believe it pays to be a good, moral person—but *only* if you back that goodness up with a backbone! If you are "good" but lack a firm stance, people will simply walk all over you.

Malice always finds its way back to haunt you, and let's face it: those kinds of people rarely enjoy a clear conscience. So, isn't it much better to sleep soundly at night knowing you've surrounded yourself with people who are actually well-meaning?

My own experience tells me that the most important thing is really the crowd you hang out with and the environment you grow up in. You've gotta keep in mind that you can't have a real conversation with an idiot—so, you aren't going to get anything positive out of bad people, and it works the same way for the good ones.
So, yeah, be picky about your friends and inner circle. In other parts of life where you're forced to deal with all sorts of losers, you just have to learn how to set boundaries. As kind, genuine people, we become prime targets for those who've learned how to exploit others... and those types love finding easy prey...

I think I'm going to raise my kids with that mindset—teaching them to respect everyone, but above all, to respect themselves... even if that means giving someone a taste of their own medicine when they deserve it.

Nancy Lee84 said:this isn't even about whether it's "worth it" or not. that's not an economic calculation, it's more like a matter of dogma.
Aristotle puts it pretty clearly in his Ethics: 'Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and so it is truly said that the good is that at which all things aim.'

If you just accept that dogma—since it’s basically an uncritical, affirmative premise for how we act—then you finally have a direction. "Direction" is a way better word than "stance." Because a direction actually leads somewhere. It keeps moving. It's toward faith. Not necessarily religious faith, but faith in humanity. Not just in specific people, but in the whole species...

To even have a "stance" on anything, you'd have to be conscious enough to realize that the right stance is actually not having one. A stance holds you back. It limits you. It locks you into certain principles and patterns of behavior that you stick to. Usually, it's just the result of internalization—absorbing norms and behaviors from others and thinking they're our own. It's paradoxical because instead of showing autonomy, a "stance" shows the exact opposite tendency. That's why I don't believe in stances. I believe in losing them. And that's why I think "direction" is the better term...

And the consequence of that uncritical belief is that you ask fewer questions. Everything becomes simpler. The categories, the answers, everything.

What has always stuck with me is the notion that the good is inherently good in its own right without needing any extra layers of calculation, valuation, or external assessment

Similarly, the problem of evil as a philosophical "question"—and please forgive me, as I consider myself a mere amateur when it comes to philosophy—objectively precludes any generalization of good or evil. It seems to reduce everything down to personal experience, or rather, one's individual perspective on how various phenomena or relationships exist within the world we inhabit.

Personally, when looking at nature—specifically regarding natural relationships and laws—I find a certain "logic of survival." I view the biological process itself as a form of good, along with the ways in which that life can be actively influenced to become more comfortable.😉

Human constructs, in my estimation, are heavily influenced by local cultures and the attempt to satisfy infantile needs. Consequently, they are riddled with absurdity and insecurity, which leads to numerous societal "losses" throughout the course of life... any kind of morality, regardless of its form, often costs a person their very existence, and don't even get me started on dogmas.🤮

Lawrence Bailey77 said:What has always stuck with me is the notion that the good is inherently good in its own right without needing any extra layers of calculation, valuation, or external assessment

Similarly, the problem of evil as a philosophical "question"—and please forgive me, as I consider myself a mere amateur when it comes to philosophy—objectively precludes any generalization of good or evil. It seems to reduce everything down to personal experience, or rather, one's individual perspective on how various phenomena or relationships exist within the world we inhabit.

Personally, when looking at nature—specifically regarding natural relationships and laws—I find a certain "logic of survival." I view the biological process itself as a form of good, along with the ways in which that life can be actively influenced to become more comfortable.😉

Human constructs, in my estimation, are heavily influenced by local cultures and the attempt to satisfy infantile needs. Consequently, they are riddled with absurdity and insecurity, which leads to numerous societal "losses" throughout the course of life... any kind of morality, regardless of its form, often costs a person their very existence, and don't even get me started on dogmas.🤮

Yeah, this definitely isn't a topic for psychology.

Lawrence Bailey77, how do you personally experience these questions? Is there a need to be meticulous here? And if so, what kind of need are we actually talking about?

And then there's the phrase, "How do the untainted fare?" What does "faring" actually mean in this context—through what, and under what conditions? And who, exactly, are these "untainted" people?