Bring4th

Quote: I thought the birthing of more children was so they could have more money from tithes in the future.

This idea of having as many children as possible to suit some self serving agenda isn't new, but I used Quiverfull as an example because they are quite open that their goals are political (more children = greater chance one of them succeeds at politics) and align with far right conservative values.

https://www.ranker.com/list/rules-and-ri...y-benjamin

(05-22-2019, 01:13 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: I thought the birthing of more children was so they could have more money from tithes in the future.

This idea of having as many children as possible to suit some self serving agenda isn't new, but I used Quiverfull as an example because they are quite open that their goals are political (more children = greater chance one of them succeeds at politics) and align with far right conservative values.

https://www.ranker.com/list/rules-and-ri...y-benjamin

And the IRS and government lets them be political? And still gives them no taxes?

(05-22-2019, 01:19 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2019, 01:13 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: I thought the birthing of more children was so they could have more money from tithes in the future.

This idea of having as many children as possible to suit some self serving agenda isn't new, but I used Quiverfull as an example because they are quite open that their goals are political (more children = greater chance one of them succeeds at politics) and align with far right conservative values.

https://www.ranker.com/list/rules-and-ri...y-benjamin

And the IRS and government lets them be political? And still gives them no taxes?

Oh, I don't know if there is a 501c3 associated with them, sorry to be confusing. I was just saying that Christianity and politics go hand in hand, and they know how to dance together following the rules of the game, and that there is a group who is open about wanting to infiltrate politics with a Biblical agenda by having lots of babies and conditioning them to grow up to be politicians. I guess my point was that obviously there is politics in religion, and religion in politics. It's fairly late stage and unfortunately our system is super corrupt at this point.

It’s interesting to see how diverse traditions like certain forms of Christianity and of Islam will promote child bearing, ban abortion, limit women’s rights when they know areas of Earth to be overpopulated, and food being scarce.

Back to speedforce, and this is a question perhaps more appropriate in another place, but we have been talking about it here. Of course move it if it is not appropriate here.

I did just visit a thread where speedforce's name was crossed out and the word "banned" underneath. Is this how it was always done? I don't recall that being done before (the crossing out and announcing "banned"), but since banning is rare, maybe I just never noticed it before. It feels a little mean-spirited. It made me feel a little awful. 

The only thing I don't like is that you can't search for posts by a user who was banned.
I wanted to find posts by 3DMonkey. But can't find them.

(05-22-2019, 01:42 PM)flofrog Wrote: [ -> ]It’s interesting to see how diverse traditions like certain forms of Christianity and of Islam will promote child bearing, ban abortion, limit women’s rights when they know areas of Earth to be overpopulated, and food being scarce.

Yes. I think this is the reign of the patriarchal system in play. 

Don't anyone take that the wrong way. I'm talking about an archaic system, not men. Besides, it's my opinion that it wasn't only men who perpetuated the patriarchal system—casting blame is not that simple, neither does it do any good (in my opinion). I think moving forward without blaming is more productive. For instance, instead of prosecuting the Muslims subjugating women and concentrating on the problem, free the women and work on the solution. (I'm well aware that I have stated a complex thing in simplified words.) To me it's really about focus and proactivity, not punishment.

(05-22-2019, 01:50 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]Back to speedforce, and this is a question perhaps more appropriate in another place, but we have been talking about it here. Of course move it if it is not appropriate here.

I did just visit a thread where speedforce's name was crossed out and the word "banned" underneath. Is this how it was always done? I don't recall that being done before (the crossing out and announcing "banned"), but since banning is rare, maybe I just never noticed it before. It feels a little mean-spirited. It made me feel a little awful. 

I'm sure we've hardly seen it just because it is so uncommon. I agree that it's not very kind, but it's not something intentionally done by us, more a function of the forums, I guess. I have no idea if it's even possible to change.

(05-22-2019, 01:52 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]I wanted to find posts by 3DMonkey. But can't find them.

He made a lot of interesting and entertaining posts.  

I saw a post on the forum that cyan went to that i feel belongs in this thread as well and may help with the discussion. To the original topic "why the hate for wisdom" I personally believe the problem comes from confusion on what wisdom is. Human language is flawed and we cant always put are thoughts and feelings into a set a words that allow every one to understand what we want to convey. Every single one of us has our own definition of wisdom and i believe that is what leads to most of the disagreement. here is the link and the post

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showth...p?t=129051

This is not written by me. I found it interesting. I am sharing with friends on this forum

1. Intelligence leads to arguments.
Wisdom leads to settlements.
2. Intelligence is power of will.
Wisdom is power OVER will.
3. Intelligence is heat, it burns.
Wisdom is warmth, it comforts.
4. Intelligence is pursuit of knowledge, it tires the seeker.
Wisdom is pursuit of truth, it inspires the seeker.
5. Intelligence is holding on.
Wisdom is letting go.
6. Intelligence leads you.
Wisdom guides you.
7. An intelligent man thinks he knows everything.
A wise man knows that there is still something to learn.
8. An intelligent man always tries to prove his point.
A wise man knows there really is no point.
9. An intelligent man freely gives unsolicited advice.
A wise man keeps his counsel until all options are considered.
10. An intelligent man understands what is being said.
A wise man understands what is left unsaid.
11. An intelligent man speaks when he has to say something.
A wise man speaks when he has something to say.
12. An intelligent man sees everything as relative.
A wise man sees everything as related.
13. An intelligent man tries to control the mass flow.
A wise man channelizes the mass flow.
14. An intelligent man preaches.
A wise man reaches.
15. Intelligence is the “Seeking”
Wisdom is the “Sought”

Namaskar

I don't agree with all 15 but if two people have to different ideas of what wisdom is I think it would be very difficult to have any discussion on "why the hate for wisdom." I have enjoyed this thread very much and feel thankful to everyone for the time they put into it.

While I think I understand what is being attempted to convey in the above quote, I take issue with a lot of what is said about intelligence. And this isn't semantics, rather, it's pigeonholing intelligence.

(05-22-2019, 10:18 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]We tried to put speedforce on moderated status, after logging into the temper tantrum he had on the forums a few nights ago, where he made several posts intentionally crossing the line. We honestly have a lot of patience for this behavior, because if you read through the thread, you can see a lot of heated emotions. However, he indeed used different words and tone to discuss these concepts than most of us. His reaction to being put on moderated status was to send multiple PMs to the moderators cussing them out, threatening them, and overall just having an absolute meltdown. We decided that, now that we saw what he thought was an acceptable way to treat people that unequivocally crossed the line, we should probably just ban his account. Before the account got deleted, he created an OP where he detailed (22+ reasons) why he believes he is Jesus.

Again, if you all want to make a forum to host these types of engagement, go for it. If you are feeling pity, there is an act of service you can take: Create a new forum, offer a home to the victims who have been deplatformed. Be the change you wish to see. We obviously all could use more spiritual groups to engage with, because many people seem frustrated with the limitations that Bring4th has. I'm seriously confused why nobody has done this yet, because it seems like a much easier solution. I know it's fun to articulate where others are in the wrong, but we're never going to be able to put in the energy to be a perfect moderating team, and we're not going to significantly change our policies any time soon. Speedforce is the second person that I know of in my time that we have banned. If one poster every two years is an egregious use of our power as moderators, then I guess I have to take that hit to my polarity and hopefully will be able to balance it in meditation. We will never make everyone happy as moderators, but we have to err on the side of protecting people from potential abuse, and drawing a line in the sand is required to do that.

I doubt speedforce is gone forever, let's be honest. It's not like we IP banned him or asked him not to come back. If he wants to try again to play nice, he's welcome! If his frustrated potty mouth takes over again, we'll have to act upon that as we see it.

Totally what I was thinking. He can easily start another account and try things a bit different. No reason to be sad.

Besides this he detailed repeatedly that he got fired for not being able to control his reaction to being interrupted, then stated other jobs were lost for the same reason, so he got fired repeatedly for the same energy he brought here. That unfortunately sounds like a life lesson and since every time it was spoken of he blamed the other who interrupted him it seems the lesson continues.

Now this account is banned he can start a new one, fresh start and perhaps slowly over a few accounts/ forum incarnation develop a new way to interact with people.

Boundaries are nothing to be sad about. You know us, have we as a group ever held a grudges? Start fresh 50 times maybe the 51st will be a winner.

Minyatur- one point about him not being shown compassion or patience to your eye.
I wonder if it might have been a different experience if you were here to witness the flow between multiple threads that were happening. It wasn’t just this one in isolation.

Unfortunately he couldn’t seem to tell us women apart and even if you had only approached him with good energy multiple times he would often blame you and lash out about something you said, only it wasn’t even you that said it.

I saw that happen to at least 3 different women myself included so it wasn’t that we didn’t try, more that no matter what was said it was responded to in anger till we started all being a bit more direct. I don’t think any of us are perfect but I do believe an attempt was made.

The only person that didn’t upset him when they disagreed was redchartruce,, the two of them had a long disagreement in an incredibly civil tone yet neither of them could mange that with anyone else that disagreed with them. I’m not sure if that was edited out but his response to rc were so considerate and reasonable while the rest of us could say anything and be the enemy. It was a super weird weekend.

Not easy or cut and dry.

K I feel weird talking about people who are no longer here so I am off the topic.

(05-20-2019, 07:47 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]Fox News? Prager University? I'm actually kind of shocked, I wouldn't consider either of these legitimate sources of truthful information in any way whatsoever. I watched them, too, and my discernment tells me that they are just dripping with propaganda.

Well I'm not surprised. Because they don't support your "woke" narrative. It isn't "propaganda". But believe what you want. Nobody is ever convinced by these debates. It is like peeing against gale force winds.  

I honestly don't care anymore. There is really no point.

Everybody says that whatever they don't agree with is propaganda.

"Down with the patriarchy!"

"Go feminism!"

"Everything including biology is a "social construct"!"

"White privilege!"

"Yay intersectional identity politics!" (so we can all compete over which race/group identity is the most victimized)

"Get woke!" (what a joke)

"Punch a nazi!" (because anyone you disagree with is a Nazi/Hitler)

I just summed up all SJW thinking everywhere.

There's a lot going on in this thread to try to sift through. I'd love to be thorough in offering a personal response, but I regret that time constraints force me to be brief. There are a couple interesting things that are at the top of my list:

(05-20-2019, 02:57 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not so much concerned about total deplatforming (total ban) as I am mods not allowing "politically incorrect" things to be said. If someone is banned, they can just create another account since that isn't something anyone has the power to actually stop.

Hopefully discussions don't actually end up getting pruned in that way, and people are still allowed to express their opinions.

I guess I'll just wait. If it gets too drastic, maybe it will be time for me to take my thoughts elsewhere (much to everyone's relief I'm sure).

I have some pretty strong opinions about free speech. I believe in it very strongly. I think it is a foundation of a society that honors personal liberties and am personally saddened to see the progressive left flirt with arguments against free speech. Any systemic mechanisms implemented to limit free speech for the sake of compassion will inevitably be turned against it.

Despite that, I do believe that it's impossible to allow complete freedom of expression on a platform like Bring4th and maintain the original intent of the community. Yes, perhaps it's hypocritical. But try this perspective on for size.

L/L Research, via Bring4th, provides a platform for discussion. All posts made travel through a system maintained and provided by us (thanks to donors and amazing volunteers who help maintain it like Jade, Garry, and Steve E.). These forums are not provided on an obligatory basis. They are a service we offer as part of our mission. We offer them with a certain intent, and we reserve the right to maintain them in a way we see fits within that intent.

That is, in its own way, a right we claim as free expression, yes? It is a beautiful thing about the internet (in most countries). Anyone, for any reason, can create their own forum with their own intentions. In an ironic sense, claiming that a person or organization, by argument of ideals, shouldn't moderate their forums is a statement against that person's or organization's right to free expression.

I know that it's not that simple, but I don't think it's much more complicated. If someone wants to witness what the most minimal moderation can lead to, check out 4chan or voat. We very, very much do not want Bring4th to become anything like those places. I am not saying that those places shouldn't exist, but we don't want to provide it, and we are not obligated to.

It seems to me that internet culture is constantly shifting. The way ideas and attitudes spread is pretty impossible to get a handle on. It's fascinating to watch but alarming from the perspective of maintaining a forum community. Attempting to enforce a certain culture via moderation is certainly folly. But we can do our best to tend the garden. Currently, there are a lot of seeds scattering on the internet winds that we, as a mod team, feel would cause (and have caused) the forum culture to drift astray from the original intention.

We are imperfect. We're criticized for both being too lenient and too strict (though more commonly for being too lenient). We certainly are open to ideas and feedback, but we must reserve a certain level of authority to try our best to keep things in line with what we want. What that means necessarily adapts to the shifting winds and the needs of the moment. We don't like enforcing rules or silencing people. Speaking personally, it's antithetical to my very being. But unless a better method comes along (please hurry, social memory complex), we are stuck with this system.

---

(05-22-2019, 11:37 AM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]I'm responding to this not to argue or question the decision to ban speedforce. Although as an aside, before you were here Jade, there was one member, 3Dmonkey, who was quite an amusing character. He became argumentative and temper-tantrumy and he was banned. But as I look back on that, the difference between then and now is so markedly different. Emotions and anger and are so much higher now as reflected in these forums. I can't help speculating that this is a reflection of the state of the world, or maybe the state of transition.

You and I remember the emotional state of the forums back then very differently. In my mind, animosity on Bring4th has never been higher as when the meat-eating thread was a primary focus of the community.

(05-22-2019, 11:58 AM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2019, 11:46 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: [ -> ]L/L Research is growing all the time. We are a nonprofit which means that we are treading a thin line by allowing any sort of political discussion on the forums that are under the L/L umbrella.

That's an interesting statement. I'm curious why. Does it violate a nonprofit boundary or description of the nonprofit business?

There are rules about what we as a 501©3 can do or say regarding politics. The focus is primarily on specific candidates and elections themselves, but it's not limited to just that. It becomes a very tricky topic when Bring4th is a platform provided via L/L Research resources, hosting opinions of non-L/L agents. But that caution is coupled with a desire to keep our mission separated from political discourse and animosity in general. Political bias can create such vivid distortion in perception that we don't want to unduly influence interpretation or interest in the material by having it adjacent to political discussion on an official L/L Research platform.

(05-22-2019, 05:34 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]You and I remember the emotional state of the forums back then very differently.    In my mind, animosity on Bring4th has never been higher as when the meat-eating thread was a primary focus of the community.

I may not have a clear picture looking back. I do remember the volatility. Maybe I just don't recall so much name-calling, although there was some. I can't put my finger on it. I feel as though there are more people in pain now.

(05-22-2019, 06:09 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2019, 05:34 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]You and I remember the emotional state of the forums back then very differently.    In my mind, animosity on Bring4th has never been higher as when the meat-eating thread was a primary focus of the community.

I may not have a clear picture looking back. I do remember the volatility. Maybe I just don't recall so much name-calling, although there was some. I can't put my finger on it. I feel as though there are more people in pain now.

It's getting harder, because more 4D light means more catalyst. We are working through our last inklings/dregs (if that's the right word) of distortions while still here in 3D.

(05-22-2019, 05:27 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]

I think anything can be discussed with respect between all, heated discussions with despise towards others just do not bring anything interesting, usually the reverse, and usually creates with more heat more misrepresentations, which is what moderation and moderators are all about. Doesn't really mean political correctness but just kindness to someone who would differ, and the possibility to listen when the conversation loses heat.

(05-22-2019, 07:39 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]

I think the main counterproductive effect is that it slows the balancing process that is already unfolding and may create tension on the current state of things. Like if some people are forced to repress their anger, maybe it will build up and hit harder at a later time. Things are not easily erased.

Then again, some people may need a break to strenghten themselves and have more energy, or even self-esteem, to face the oppressing energies. Then, perhaps there is a time for everything and that too is part of the balancing process.

While I do believe in free speech, losing a small portion of it is maybe not the worse thing that can happen to someone. I do think I get where your perspective comes from, that these things are desired from a place of deep imbalance and ask for something irrational, but while emotions tend to be irrational the energy also does not lie. If you stop focusing on the mindful words of it, then all that is left is the scream of pain.

Then again, I hear that some do want to move toward a social memory complex and that is full transparency. The energies don't like magically vanish, instead the boundaries of seeming separate thoughts and emotions simply fall down and a majestic interbalancing process may take place. Nothing is overcome right? All energies are transmuted and so all shame, all hate, all the lowly emotions shift in transparency inbetween everyone. There is no confusion and instead the true perception of one another. Free speech is still plain far off from that, but it is true that in transparency there is no safe zone, you meet others in what they contain straight.

Also you need to drop that NPC thing. Sounds like a NPC that each time it faces a disagreement it goes like: "Your logic is unlike mine and so you must be deprived of a soul, fake people think unlike me and thus their argumentation is rendered meaningless". It really sounds like shooting yourself in the foot and instead you gotta think like a teach/learner, learn and evolve.

(05-22-2019, 07:39 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]

Do you would defend the free speech of an Orion recipient? If not, you will understand why the free speech of far right people should not be allowed. Without limits it's impossible the basic civilizatory experience. And seems they will come us to another world war (as in the past). It always end like that.

(05-22-2019, 11:25 PM)Infinite Wrote: [ -> ]Do you would defend the free speech of an Orion recipient? If not, you will understand why the free speech of far right people should not be allowed. Without limits it's impossible the basic civilizatory experience. And seems they will come us to another world war (as in the past). It always end like that.

I believe I already said previously that yes, I would.

Why?

Because I make the basic inherent assumption that people are *intelligent* enough to make rational decisions and they don't need to be babied, coddled, or restricted information because society is afraid it will turn them to the dark side. Shutting down free speech doesn't make negative philosophies go away. It just makes the philosophy more attractive to people because they feel like they are being lied too and suppressed. It just breeds resentment.

In the presence of information, most people will easily reject a negative philosophy, without having to silence them. But far left ideologies are every bit as negative as far right ideologies, but most people are too brainwashed to see it. The main difference is the negativity is more disguised on the left side because people act like they are trying to help when in reality it is just as much a grab for power as the other side. But I don't think most people are polarized far right or far left. I think most people are around the middle, whatever side they fall on. I think it is just a small but vocal minority of far left ideologues and far right ideologues. The extremes of every ideology are usually psychotic and fanatical in nature.

But it doesn't really matter what I think. People are too "woke" to hear any of this. It basically boils down to whether you believe in equality of outcome, or equality of opportunity. You can't have both. Negative leftist neo Marxist ideologies are all about equality of outcome at the expense of equality of opportunity. Oftentimes that sounds nice at first, until you actually think it through.

Information brings light.
Knowledge brings light.
Positive intent is light.
Love is light.
When people know, it is harder to enslave them.
That is why darkness wants free speech curtailed.

Analogy, can I just ask, is there a certain fact that you think people here are in denial about?

Feminism and patriarchy are such huge abstractions I really doubt people are talking about the same thing when they bring it up, so I'm hoping for some more specific concrete facts.

As for free speech, there are already limits on free speech, such as inciting violence or conspiring to commit crimes (including threats of violence).

I believe the argument of progressives is that "hate speech" is an incitement of violence or a real threat against certain people. The problem is that here we are dealing with abstractions. Can saying something racist or sexist contribute to some oppressions of people that include criminal activity against them?  For example, aggressive pick-up tactics that border on harassment and that foster an attitude of sexual exploitation? There is a serious argument here to consider, and I think you'd have to be in denial to not see it.

However, I am of the opinion that abstractions shouldn't be used to limit free speech because it can lead to a slippery slope. Also most abstractions are dependent on certain perpectives of history, an area with limitless potential of interpretation.

For example one can romanticize the politeness of Victorian society, saying how wonderful it was when people were civil to eachother, but then again do we ask what it took to sustain the strict social conventions of the time? Babies born out of wedlock were often sent to baby farms because it was considered impolite that these births occurred, in many cases due to rape. In this regard, politeness was more important than people.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”

At all times, always.

There is so much fighting over abstractions. Is patriarchy the "birth of civilization" and "fathers in the home" or is it "domestic violence" and "exclusion of women from the workforce"?... so who's right in this fight? or who will say that it's all those things and so much more?

Countercultures can turn into mainstream cultures and then all of a sudden the people calling out NPCs become the NPCs themselves...

   In my opinion, Louisabell’s post above shows good balanced thinking.
   A common tactic used by some in the U.S. is to say the equivalent of, “If you do not agree with me, then you are engaging in hate speech, and I have the right to silence you.”
   I am optimistic that this tactic will not work as well in the future.  We will accomplish more as we learn to work together.

(05-22-2019, 01:50 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]Back to speedforce, and this is a question perhaps more appropriate in another place, but we have been talking about it here. Of course move it if it is not appropriate here.

I did just visit a thread where speedforce's name was crossed out and the word "banned" underneath. Is this how it was always done? I don't recall that being done before (the crossing out and announcing "banned"), but since banning is rare, maybe I just never noticed it before. It feels a little mean-spirited. It made me feel a little awful. 

yes- I saw this too which I mentioned as making my heart lurch in sadness for him - that such an action became necessary... but apparently saying that wasn't sufficient for Minyatur to believe that I care about speedforce. I did- I do, he's in enormous pain and further rejection was not what he needed. That he spoke from the outset (or soon into his postings) in such a dismissive and authoritative tone (ie: that only his truth was the real truth) and then became so abusive he was screaming that people were 'HATE' and 'the most hateful' - with very little provocation to get to that point is exactly why he creates the division and lack of love he so urgently needs... behaviour from his original disenfranchisement that creates further disenfranchisement for him.  

I can't convince you (Minyatur) that I did mean it when I offered caring for his evident pain (he described a lot of examples - so soon after him sharing them I was actually commiserating with him). I really felt for his pain. I also saw that he was in a loop of behaviour that was replicating the conditions that would continue his pain.
That's why I say it's good that his banning happened - because maybe he'll try to be more gentle... but maybe he's in psychosis and unreachable at the moment?... I don't take enjoyment from that - but I do have the courage to assert myself with someone to show them how they are affecting people.

I felt no personal distress from his calling me hateful btw - because it's not the truth of me. But b4th and knowing I'm hated by several here does mean I often simply retreat and avoid posting (or leave and return after a break). No hurt or sadness (not anymore) just self respect and a time out.

Certain members on b4 have difficulty believing I am actually a genuinely loving person- I think this is probably because I've survived brutality that has had mental health workers in tears and speechless at the nature and amount of what I've survived- and the abuse I still ongoing unfortunately... so much that I can be very 'forceful' - direct.
When b4 is a in certain 'mood' I "take no prisoners." I'm sure I have erred - I'm also sure it's an age and gender issue as well. And location. Australia has a very different energy to USA.

So when you've lived as long as me and gone through repeated years of trauma you may understand a little better why I can come across so 'strident' at times.
(as I speak I am currently in hiding having had to leave my home in the middle of the night and experiencing stress that has me concerned for my physical and especially mental health). The assertiveness comes from being treated violently by men repeatedly, and abandoned by organisations meant to protect and help me.
I don't think women are 'angels' by the way - I take each person individually - and I love a lot of men and have criticism towards some women. But what I do is to discuss patriarchy as an abusive imbalanced state of the world? Because it's clearly not working - I have male feminist friends - this isn't about individual men - (unless they're violent bastards). 'Political correctness' is making the observation that with a white face I'm less likely to be shot while robbing a store in USA than with a black face... the stats are proven - how can you deny the stats? and grumble about 'wokeness'... what utopia do you live in Anagogy?

I've learnt to stand-up for myself (and for marginalised/disadvantaged people) and that requires a lot of directness that can seem like I'm uncaring, bitchy, bossy cunning etc... I'm not - I'm simply absolutely desperately on the edge day in day out trying to stay incarnate and not give up on being alive... and occasionally chip in on a forum of spiritual information which has made more sense to me than decades of lost searching for why I feel so like a creature from another world/galaxy/elsewhere.

I don't know how to be emotionally cunning or manipulative. Since childhood I've been known for criticising someone for something (that no one else would say to their face - but have always thought) and then because I still don't hate them - climbing onto their lap for a hug the next moment.

I'm weird... I have 'diagnoses'... I'm neuro-atypical - high functioning, semi on the spectrum - I don't know how to do 'calculating' - or 'normal' or 'political'... I don't know how to manipulate or be 'cunning'.

I was a constant embarrassment  and confusion to my parents because I'd just say what I felt - when I felt it... have learnt to control that a bit better... but I hate lies... what you see (read) is what it IS.

When you've had several near death experiences your directness in speech becomes quite strong.

I have at least 2-3 decades experience longer than the medium age of most forum members so if you feel bad in your life troubles now - imagine how exhausted you'll be if these agonies continue for another 30 years - ? You'll probably get a bit cross when people don't understand (or minimise) the anguish you live with.

So stop insinuating that I'm two faced - I am strident and I am loving - I am fierce, I'm exhausted. I get things wrong - I'm clinging to life.
I'll risk my life to save anyone - but I won't be disrespected by anyone any more - so if you'd lived with domestic violence for 10 years and that was only 1 of the many traumas you were dealing with you'd be a bit 'forceful' and/or defensive too.

I say it how I see it - of course I can get it wrong but I always come from love - or why the eff would I bother?

Also, (Anagogy) I'm very supportive of freedom of speech - but not the organised proliferation of hate speech.

I've said it here before - because my father and mother lived through a world war - he was younger than you currently are - when he flew over Germany in night raids and lost his best friend (shot down) - he saw the corpses of Jewish people in mass graves and it broke him... those horrors - when you've been raised by a person who saw with his own eyes the naked emaciated corpses of entire families piled high upon each other - THE direct result of 'freedom of (hate) speech' - you and your wife and daughters end up feeling strongly about 'freedom of speech' having limits.

.

(05-23-2019, 12:10 AM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]Because I make the basic inherent assumption that people are *intelligent* enough to make rational decisions and they don't need to be babied, coddled, or restricted information because society is afraid it will turn them to the dark side.

If the Confederation thought so, this planet would have already been annexed to the Orion Empire.

The problem with allowing alt-right ideology like Jordan Peterson, Pepe the frog, anti trans speech, anti muslim speech, cries about deplatforming nazis, support for the wall, terms like SJWs, larping, NPCs, etc etc, is that here we are in a time of actual violent political turmoil.

Many of these lines of thought and discourse are obvious dog whistles for the white nationalist agenda, whether or not the people who are engaged with them realize this.

Allowing de facto hate speech with zero pushback normalizes the dehumanization of others in the alt-right echo chamber. Eventually, "SJWs" and the rest are so "other than" the crowd, that the group mocks victims of the violence, even if they aren't perpetrating this violence. If we have an attitude that we do everything "for the lulz", then even calls to or acts of violence and hate speech are merely "jokes", and this is by design. Even the term "NPC" is a meme meant to literally dehumanize others who disagree.

The alt right mentality often dips deep into the concept of schadenfreude, getting pleasure from watching others suffer. This is why they start with "edgy" humor - because if you can laugh at something "dark" that targets another class/group/race, then you are primed.

This video here is about stochastic terrorism, which is defined as creating an atmosphere of hatred towards a group that escalates to the point where a very small part of that group feels encouraged and supported to do violent acts. We're past that point. The left isn't murdering people in the streets over politics and religion. The right is. So when I see someone who goes through the talking points almost without deviation, I get super worried that they are being radicalized without even realizing it.

Anyway, I don't want to be on the news some day because we were sympathetic enough that someone thought it would be a good idea to stream a mass shooting on our forums, or post their manifesto here.