DaVinci

They were not toxic environments at first, and to be fair in my travels around this site I have seen some name calling, passive-aggressive behavior and other forms of verbal abuse. So I'm not purposefully going places to get abused.

You mention applying philosophy to how I live my life. Can you explain what you mean by this? Also, I'm not having trouble accepting truth, I'm just having trouble learning it in a way that suits my style and so get overloaded at times with some of the concepts. This is why I talk about these concepts with others online, so that I can work through what I understand and what I don't understand.

I most certainly desire the truth. However as I mentioned before I will bring up a topic or enter a debate to practice what I know and challenge myself to learn more, but eventually I get ganged up on to the point where I can't keep up, or just flat out get shut down when someone wants to end the conversation and that is where the learning ceases. So, I would say in one on one "in person" conversations it is the overwhelm of the person I am talking with, where as online it is probably also the overwhelm of who I am debating, but I am outnumbered and outgunned and so eventually just have to bow out so I can move on to other things that will actually benefit my desire to learn. I can understand what you are saying. I see a lot of really knowledgeable people here and some of the debates I can't even keep up with. I just wish those people who feel uncertain would still post. I feel uncertain about half the stuff I post and worry that I sound silly, but I still post it.

Yes, I'm working on self knowledge. I actually have been for a long time now. I've also just started what I might call a journal, but probably not in the typical sense. I think part of what got me stuck was the way people were reacting to my opinions both in real life and especially online. In an effort to try to understand many of the things Stef presents in his videos, and books, like UPB, I would join debates online where I could present some of his ideas within the framework of the debate. I sort of treated the debate as a chance to work through some of the material, like how you might be taught to do a statistics problem but you don't really know how until you tackle a half dozen problems. But what I didn't count on was the overwhelming animosity I got to having a contrary point of view, and how many people would gang up on me in a forum. So what I saw a chance to learn became a typical internet flame fest. Contrast that with here where I feel like these boards have more open minded people, but the volume of people responding to a topic is much less and as such it seems to take a lot longer for any one issue to get thoroughly examined to my satisfaction. This topic for example has 10 replies and a little over 100 views, In fact most of the topics in this Misc board have under 10 replies, and most also have over a hundred views if not more. So it seems as if lots of people are reading, but not discussing. Yes, that could be because someone else has said what they wanted to say, and they don't feel like they can contribute, but given that I could have posted a similar topic on a half dozen other boards and got 30 or 40 responses by now it makes me feel frustrated. It's like I am getting too little feedback, (not enough varied opinions), or too harsh feedback. (being ganged up on by a-holes)

Good question. I'm not sure I have the answer. I know for me I've always felt like something was wrong with the world. Something about it always felt off. Like there was a fog obscuring my vision. Then I started hearing people say things that made me think "Why have I never heard this before?" or "Why wasn't I taught this?", and the fog lifted a little. No one "changed my mind", it was just that new information allowed me to make new conclusions about the world. So, I guess the question is why does this same thing not happen with everyone when presented with this "new information". I think part of the answer might lie in the way that people try to discover the truth on their own. That someone feels like the world around them is wrong and they then spend many years looking for answers and when they finally find the answers they are looking for and feel like they have reached that "A-ha" (not the band) moment, someone is there to show them that they are still not quite seeing the whole picture. I think the sense of accomplishment and of personal victory that truth has been obtained and that truth feeling like it is being torn down might make people recoil away from accepting the truths being presented. So, I think some people feel like they have already found truth. That they have already cleared the fog. So being told, "Yeah, there is still fog. You are still not seeing clearly." is an upsetting thing that makes people retreat into a shell. This is just me taking a guess at this problem. I really don't know. I'm sure someone here who is more versed in this type of situation might be able to provide more insight into this.

Yup. I'm definitely in the Acceptance stage. I just wish others were more willing to come along on the journey. I've had very similar thoughts. Especially about how lonely this road seems. It strikes me as odd how many people, even people who claim to be reasonable, don't want to walk this path.

I think that children indulging in fantasy worlds might actually hep lead them into being better at divergent thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_thinking

Long story short, there is a part of me that is just overwhelmed by the amount of truth in the videos and I kind of can't take it. It's like trying to cram five people through the same door and they are all escaping a fire. I've basically had to take a hiatus to let my mind catch up. Not to mention that when I talk about the stuff Stef talks about with people in real life or with others online I am often times met with people who dismiss me, tell me I'm stupid, laugh at me, tell me that "well, everyone has an opinion", etc and I just can't understand where this animosity is coming from. Does anyone else know what I am talking about? Anyone experienced something similar?

Whenever I think of planned cities I always think of Walt Disney's City of Tomorrow and I have to say it is an intriguing idea, and I actually understand the appeal.

What I will say based on what you have said about your parents is this: 1) Your dad is holding you hostage with that line about being cut out of the will. That is BS and not okay. He is basically saying that he wants to buy your devotion. You are a person, not a product. 2) Watch out for your mom's understanding as this comes across to me as a game of "good cop, bad cop". I get the sense she is drawing you into the illusion that she is resposnsive, and cares. But at this point in your life you are already independent and apologies for the past, and understanding are really coming too late to save you from a bad childhood and might actually be very self serving behavior on her part. I think ulitmately you need to tell them how you feel without getting angry. or crying or anything. Just lay it out for them how you feel and leave it at that. They need some type of accountability for their actions and the best way to do that is to not get overly emotional about it with them.

In reagrds to this situation some people in the group did take off. They saw how he was and the kind of environment he created and so they gave a clearly made up reason why they couldn't participate anymore as to avoid conflict and then they split. Of course after this he called the person who left a jerk, and made fun of him, and talked about how he does not understand why people can't just help others out. I've had this thought before too. It's the same idea presented in my original post. Why do people say they are going to help only to bail on the project with little to no warning? When I see situations like this one above where someone is clearly being beligerent and it makes people take off, I have to wonder if people have ever percieved me in the same light even when I might have thought I was just stanidng up for myself.

This conversation was a while ago so I can't say that everything I typed was verbatim what was said, and yes, it excludes body language and other things I can't provide here that would give more context. So most of your points were adressed in the more drawn out conversation we had. Also, in terms of me saying that Man A is mad, you say I should let him express that first, but he has expressed it by bringing up the subject with me to vent about how it makes him mad. So I am not triggering anything he has not already triggered himself. That is why I ask him if he would rather be mad or be productive, and that being mad is not solving anything or furthering the process. It goes from a discussion to bullying when I propose a compromise like "Tell him you want him to remember his script, and then give him a spare one to keep productivity flowing" that way he is expressing his feeling of frustration that scripts were forgotten, but he is also fostering an environment where people feel like more than just a tool having orders barked at them and the group can continue to work without a five minute halt to listen to someone being berated. This potential compromise is then met with "No, I'm still going to do what I did before." Then if I continue to try to show from experience how that type of behavior is not conducive to a creative environment I get completely shut down with the same type of responses "No, I'm not going to do that." Only louder and much more agressive. I mean, I'm not sure I can explain it better than this. This one conversation is also not an isolated incident. It is more like one stitch in a pattern that would provide much more context.

Sure: I'll try and give you an example of a conversation I've been witness to before that should illustrate what I'm talking about: Man A: So did you remember to bring the script for the movie we are making. Man B: Oh, sorry I forgot. Man A: What do you mean you forgot? Man B: Sorry I just got distracted when I was leaving the house Man A: Well, you knew we were meeting tonight right? Man B: Yeah, I just had to put my kid to bed before I came over. It just slipped my mind Man A: I mean you know we are trying to be serious here right? Man B: Yeah, I just... y'know I had to take care of my kid Man A: Cause you know we are making a movie right? etc etc. So then later Man A: Can you bellieve he didn't bring his script? Me: He said he forgot it. Man A: Yeah, but we are trying to be serious. Me: Sometimes people forget stuff. Man A: I spend a lot of time trying to make this thing work Me: Okay, meaning what? Man A: Meaning he should put in the same effort as me. Me: Yeah, I get that, but do you want to get mad about it or do you want to be productive? Man A: What? Me: You could have asked him where his script was and when he said he forgot it just remind him to bring it and hand him an extra copy. Man A: (laughs) Me: What? Man A: Nothing. Me:You don't agree? Man A: He should just put in as much work as me. I work hard, he should too. Me: What if he does not want to contribute that much? Man A: Then he is free to leave. Me:So just because he doesn't want to contribute the same percentage as you he should leave? That's not cool. etc etc Basically this conversation, or this type of conversation (which I won't bore you with anymore) ends up devolving into Man A screaming about how he is right and Man A is unwilling to compromise because he feels like he is in charge, and that he is right. The conversation ends up with lots of NO! I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT! type responses coming from Man A which are what I see as "monolithic" these uncompromising, no room for negotiation, get out of my house type responses which have to be countered with "You're being an unreasonable douche" type of monolithic responses from me.

I actually have tried negotiating with people when these types of situations arise and what I find is that they essentially don't want to negotiate. I can propose a dozen ways of everyone getting treated fairly but they just don't want to hear it. I can suggest that we do things a little differently and I am met with accusations of being an unrelenting a-hole.

The A/B example above is not exactly something that has happened to me but very similar situations like that have happened that I was involved in, and I have also watched similar situations unfold between two or more people where I was not directly involved in the events, but did witness them. So I have seen a pattern like the A/B one above occur multiple times where people on both sides are convinced that they are being mistreated, or disrespected. To answer your questions about A/B, which I would base on similar situations, I would say that yes, A trusts that B will come over, and yes, A believes that B had something important come up, but B not showing up, and not calling to say where he was, and A having to be the one to call the next day and find out where B was indicates that B might lack respect for A. As for the last question I would say A and B are trying to defend themselves to each other because both A and B are raising an issue of concern with the other that each other takes offense to because it seems like the concern being raised is unfounded. In this case B does not like that A is mad, and A does not like that there was no attempt at communication. I would not describe myself as a bully. I was mercilessly bullied as a kid and so I've always tried to have a sense of compassion and understanding when it comes to other people because I don't want to do to anyone what was done to me. But sometimes when I defend myself from those who I feel are trying to take advantage of me I often times am monolithic in my response to them in an effort to counter them being monolithic to me. Because that is what a bully is right? Someone who does not negotiate but tells you what is going to happen, or what should happen and that you have no say so becasue they say so, and to get away from someone who does not wish to negotiate you might have to also be someone who does not negotiate. But this monolithic response can come across as being mean to someone who is convinced that they are right. So I sometimes wonder if responding the way I do, or the way I have seen others respond to similar situations is them being a bully who is just trying to get their way to the detrement of everyone else, or if they are just being harsh in an effort to defend themselves. It seems like the issue has a lot of gray areas.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Interesting video. He links to a lot of his other videos so I feel like I'm getting a small part of his overall picture. I also feel like, perhaps because I haven't seen all his videos, that some of his methods for diffusing a difference of opinion seem like they would not work. Like for example if someone broke their arm and I told them to seek medical attention I'm not sure that their reassurance that God was going to fix it would make my concern go away. I'm not sure being told let's agree to disagree would make me stop telling them to go the hospital. That is part of my problem with "power struggles" as he calls them. When rational people suddenly act irrational I get concerned.

First off I don't mean bully in a purely physical sense like the stereotypical schoolground variety, but more like a pattern of repeated behavior. I find myself struggling with the idea that who I percieve is being a bully to me, and who I am defending myself against, probably feels exactly the same way about me. They feel like I am a bully and they are defending themselves. So who is right and who is wrong? Is there even a right and wrong? So for example let's take person A and person B A calls up B and asks for help building a shed. B agrees to come by on Saturday and help. A goes to the store and buys the material to construct the shed. Saturday rolls around and B is a no show. A calls B the next day and asks why they didn't show up and B says that they had something else important that was family related that they had to do that day. A tells B that they are mad at B for not showing up when they said they would. A feels like B is being disrespectful. B tells A that their family comes before A and is mad that A is mad at them. Both people feel like they are being disrespected. Both people feel like they are having to defend themselves from being disrespected. Is there any way of sorting this out? Are both people right? Both people wrong? One more right than the other?

Some of the best advice I've been given is to remember that your position is consistent. You reject all forms of violent aggression and not just some. This allows you to punch holes in your oppositions arguments. Also, the "against me" argument works well too. So when someone says they are okay with taxes tell them you respect that, but then ask if they respect that you don't want to be taxed.

Crazy. I just got a crock pot. The only thing it makes explode is my taste buds.

Sickening,

The problem there is you don't always know who your neighbors are anymore, and you don't know if you can trust them or not.

I love this almost subliminal assassination type stuff. It tells me the "libretarian" movement is gaining ground.

I almost had my car repoed last year, but got out of it because the person I called and talked to acted like an actual human being and helped me out. It sucks that doing nice things for your fellow man are rare and in the case of this guy in jail actually looked down on and cost someone their job.

He must have been in that car a long time or the cops must not have been far away to get there with him still looking through the car for a cigarette.