Silence implies consent vs acceptance of what is

[Glow]

So we've had some heated interactions.
Seems we've unfortunately lost a few members as a result and that sucks.

One of the contentious things was that some of us see not standing up for others and self in the face of injustice as "Silence Implies Consent" while others feel it's better to change inside and not try to stop things from affecting others or self. I'm not judging here just want to explore because it seems those who want to help were a seen as less evolved.

I see it the way I do because no one protected me. I know others here have had the same experience. As a result I will protect others when possible. I have no hate for perpetrators i love them too but I won't just watch, how is that loving to either?

Many have said things are as they are, and are that way for a reason.
Well perhaps could those of us like myself have experienced being not protected chronically specifically so I could learn to be this person that is driven to protect others. Couldn't that too be exactly as it is because it's supposed to be that way? I'm supposed to have this drive to shelter others?

If one is acceptable even though it allows and accepts others suffering, how could it be less acceptable to stand in their place, take part of the pain or help to bring the perpetrators to awareness of what they are doing to others.

I know you will say something about control but the truth is by speaking we are not stopping or controlling anyone, just not letting someone continue without at least them having a voice in the distance saying hurting others isn't ok.

I know I'm not wording this 100% I'm still recovering from the head injury so I apologize. Truth is though if I'd rather take part of the suffering to ease another's, or take the brunt of someone's anger on behalf of someone who is to fearful to stand up for themselves, how is that control?

I wish as a kid someone had helped me. Anyone! There were so many people who could have for years things happened in plane sight that shouldn't have but they all were conditioned to accept things as they are or look the other way. I don't blame them but it certainly didn't help me. I choose to help when I can. Yet I see if someone had helped I'd not have become this person driven to shelter others.

Again I am learning that maybe for some they are not supposed to do anything but be accepting of all experience people suffer. At the same time it's hypocritical to think it's less as it's supposed to be to accept how things are but not accept it will continue that way.

[Infinite Unity]

So we've had some heated interactions.
Seems we've unfortunately lost a few members as a result and that sucks.

One of the contentious things was that some of us see not standing up for others and self in the face of injustice as "Silence Implies Consent" while others feel it's better to change inside and not try to stop things from affecting others or self.

I see it the way I do because no one protected me. I know others here have had the same experience. As a result I will protect others when possible. I have no hate for perpetrators i love them too but I won't just watch, how is that loving to either?

Many have said things are as they are, and are that way for a reason.
Well perhaps could those of us like myself have experienced being not protected chronically specifically so I could learn to be this person that is driven to protect others. Couldn't that too be exactly as it is because it's supposed to be that way?

Every experience where we choose to let the darkness be experienced by someone when we could help diminish the darkness could be exactly as it's supposed to but why then vilify the opposite? Being with someone in their struggle so they won't be there alone if that's all you can accomplish or even better to stop the darkness.

If one is acceptable even though it allows and accepts others suffering, how could it be less acceptable to stand in their place, take part of the pain or help to bring the perpetrators to awareness of what they are doing to others.

I know you will say something about control but the truth is by speaking we are not  stopping or controlling anyone, just not letting someone continue without at least them having a voice in the distance saying hurting others isn't ok.

I know I'm not wording this 100% I'm still recovering from the head injury so I apologize. Truth is though if I'd rather take part of the suffering to ease another's, or take the brunt of someone's anger on behalf of someone who is to fearful to stand up for themselves, how is that control?

I wish as a kid someone had helped me. Anyone! There were so many people who could have for years things happened in plane sight that shouldn't have but they all were conditioned to accept things as they are or look the other way. I don't blame them but it certainly didn't help me. I choose to help when I can.

Again I am learning that maybe for some they are not supposed to do anything but be accepting of all experience people suffer. At the same time it's hypocritical to think it's less as it's supposed to be to accept how things are but not accept it will continue that way.

The Law is One.

[Minyatur]

The only truth for action is to follow your feelings, nothing more and nothing less. So I think what certain people have a problem with is to not see their own feelings reflected within others as they would expect so from their perspective of what is right.

Earlier I asked myself what I really desire to wish for others and first I contemplated the idea of desiring bliss for everyone but this seems paradoxal as my reality can only mirror back to me that this is not what is desired by the Creator and this does seem like just a sure fire way to torture myself endlessly until I give up the notion of that what is desired is simple bliss. So then I contemplated myself and wondered for myself alone what it was I desired, and that is to be able to be what I am, to evolve and to experience what allows me to become what I desire to become through time, and this is the conclusion I got for what I wish for others. I want them to be able to explore what their own path leads them to explore so that they may become what they desire to become, whatever moment of darkness or light it takes as a step, I want the Creator to experience what it desires so that it may know Itself. The cool part is that this is what I think is ever unfolding, so my wish for all already is granted to all.

I think this quote touches nicely this subject :

Questioner: In the illusion that we now experience it is difficult to maintain this response especially if the entity’s attack results in physical pain, but I assume that this response should be maintained even through physical loss of life or extreme pain. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and further is of a major or principal importance in understanding, shall we say, the principle of balance. Balance is not indifference but rather the observer not blinded by any feelings of separation but rather fully imbued with love.

More in regard with what you do as a self, when, where and with whom you are at has meaning. If someone needs to suffer alone it won't require you to be up in it's face to test your ability at restraining yourself from your own desire of helping but instead will be within conditions where you won't pop up in it's face or that someone not inclined to help will pop up instead. Everything is about energy, resonance, attraction, symbolism, timings. Everything is the experience of One.

I think when we leave this Octave we experience a moment of making a choice as the Creator to embody all that is and that is to become every oppressor/oppressed and oppressed/oppressor, every dynamic, every moment, every emotion, every action, etc. So while we could call this the end of the path of acceptance, it's what acceptance always build up toward and that is to consciously and willingly desire to be all of the things that make up infinity through your very own will, and only then will you release yourself and merge with the All. Also I think the true mechanics of the Universe are somewhat very impersonal to a 3D contemplation of what Love is, I think everything you do also does manifest it's counter-part, so however much of a saint you attempt at being you will manifest the idea of it's opposite being experienced as an external facet/portion of your being, this is somewhat the power of non-acceptance, it manifests what will require to be accepted as a portion of what we all are.

---

About the oppressor/oppressed duality, in my eyes an oppressor is always one with more things to heal than the oppressed and the oppressor through its actions spreads the karma it contains into an external portion of itself as they are both one.

You can consider that everyone is literally in a relationship with everyone else in which at the core of each lies the purest of desire for what each are to know themselves through both self and other-selves, to get the truthful mirror and nothing less.

[Glow]

Thank you Minyatur. I know I'm going to have to read that a bunch of times but I see there is a lot for me to consider in your post. Many thanks

[AnthroHeart]

I am usually silent because I don't know what to say. The words don't come to me usually until after the fact.

Plus I'm of the position that I don't really try to defend myself. I never was one to debate.

Even if the other person seems wrong, I just don't want conflict or to bring it up.

I figure we'll both understand at our life review. Why try to prove that I am right?

I'd rather be happy than right.

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

Be as you will and all will be as it should.

Control is an illusion.

But how do you teach a child being abused this?
How do you tell the rape victim that was forced down that they weren't out of control?

Your post resonates so deeply with me it fills me with many different emotions.  First and mostly, happiness that you made this post.  100% or not, it is a start and that is the most important foundation to change,  A Beginning.

I know e_s is sticking around for the gravel path thread, I hope Jade feels she is welcome to voice her concerns again...

If silence implied consent then every silent reaction to harassment implies they wanted to be harassed.  That isn't true and such a reasoning is of an oppressive skew.  You didn't say anything so I thought it was okay to keep belittling you and harassing you.  Jades silence doesn't mean she consents to our insensitive (and mean) ways of behaving towards her.  My silence doesn't mean keep on doing what you're doing.

How cruel of a line of reasoning.  Maybe some see it as balanced but here in 3D that isn't the case.  Without consideration of another's reason for silence we can't contemplate the why's or how's of our reasons for learning in this medium called Earth.

You are right if you ask me, you are as you are because you were supposed to and meant to be such ways.

I agree, lets not villify actions against how things are when they're done in ways as to express love, light, and progress towards 4D.

Until you force someone down to a few, or two, one, or no options I can't see the word control applying to the situation.  Control removes the choice prospect of another.  I mean sure some control offers structure, like the control of gravity over us.  But we aren't forces of nature.

In a sense everything is acceptable, but is it desirable and are we/they conscious of such things as mattering, or are we/they just as lost in the 'darkness' of unawareness of such things?

Head injuries!  The most [sarcasm]fun kind[/sarcasm] of injury.  I hope you're okay...

I'll state the argument for you, by your taking away something meant for another you may be interfering with their choice to experience that which was meant for them.

However, here in 3D, for all we know you were meant to do that, so no argument here is valid.  The Freedom of Will to make a Choice is the highest primal law there is of the Law of One.  Everything is accepted.  So you are not wrong (technically no one ever is) in your choices except unless you believe yourself to be wrong.

There is no wrong but wrong itself.

The state of literally ignoring those in need is a very sad prevalent reality here on Earth...Your choice to help is very important for Earth.

Paradoxically, not accepting something too is acceptable, accepting, accepted (can't think which is the right word to use).  It's through this paradox that change can be expedited, you know?

Thank you so much for this post Glow <3

[rva_jeremy]

A lot of my thinking is influenced by that Eisenstein book I recommended you, Glow. Gotta plug that again -- I especially think you would find it useful based on exactly what you're wrestling with now. It's free, you know! http://charleseisenstein.net/project/the...-possible/

I second Minyatur: you gotta follow your feelings because they connect you to an intelligence that is greater than the intellectual kind that gets us into the messes. I have absolutely no idea who should have done or said what.

Generally speaking, it's difficult for me to accept that mere words can possibly constitute a reasonable or sufficiently urgent threat demanding a defense. Triggers are personal and subjective because they represent a wound, an unhealed injury in need of care, one that causes pain when it is touched far in excess of the degree of touch. I certainly believe folks deserve to heal, but I am not so certain that the rules of decorum should be bent so as to accommodate every possible injury and thereby make the entire world a hospital. Maybe I should think of it that way, I don't know; we are positively awash in trauma.

So it's always a question of where to draw the line. Rather than bicker about it, why don't we just recognize that we are on contested ground? That way, we don't build up these expectations that everybody believes like we do, and we can listen in curiosity rather than out of demand, to see what it's like to be somebody else. When we feel threatened or angered, here's one trick that works well: talk about your feelings instead of the other's actions. That doesn't place any blame on the other person, but merely witnesses how it affected you.

On the point about not sticking up for a party specifically: Glow, do you really think that I could have helped you? By what, teaming up on earth_spirit and thereby establishing more credibility for your argument than for his? What would that have accomplished? I'm genuinely curious how you think about this. I don't believe in helping in order to allay my own discomfort at seeing people in pain; I believe in helping when it can actually be useful to the person helped.

[Glow]

Jeremy I'm going to have to read that book. Free is a bonus for sure.

Please don't anyone think me not replying line by line means I'm not interested. if anything I just have a lot here to think about.

As to the question Jeremy I don't really have a prescribed expectation of who should have said anything. No one owes me anything. You ask though if you saying something could have helped, yes.

Someone (generally a man so it's not seen as a woman being triggered) saying anything even that you don't personally agree or agree to that extent or almost anything really would have completely shut down my defences.

I make no claims women are perfect but it going that long uncontested or his charge unbalanced is actually what made me upset, not the fact he said it.

People can think what ever they want but as part of a group, foolishly I just didn't expect that. Jade actually commented a similar thing that she was shocked no one else said anything.

Anyways it really doesn't matter. What I came away with though was a feeling that there was a belief it was "more evolved" to be detatched from other people's suffering, and not feel and urge to help. I can concede each plays a role but I can't help thinking a lot more of suffering would be happening in this world if people hadn't dug their heels in even when it didn't affect them personally and through their voice changed the course of things.

Again I'm going to reread your post. Lots to digest.
I think the earth kind of is a hospital ward, unfortunately most are contagious.

[MaximumGainzBruh]

Every action is a form of silence

To speak for one is to be silent to all else

Resisting these facts is futile

[Diana]

What I came away with though was a feeling that there was a belief it was "more evolved" to be detatched from other people's suffering, and not feel and urge to help. I can concede each plays a role but I can't help thinking a lot more of suffering would be happening in this world if people hadn't dug their heels in even when it didn't effectvthem personally and through their voice changed the course of things.

I have a different perspective on the above view. (That is, if I haven't misunderstood it—the grammar is conflicting so I could be totally missing your point Glow.)

I have advocated being detached and I will speak for myself alone. The above interpretation couldn't be further from the truth of my existence. I care greatly about the suffering of others. However, I do endeavor to honor free will, detach from outcomes, help where I can without controlling, and act with compassion for all (people, animals, plant life, etc.). It is very difficult to do this, and is not associated with not caring about others.

To control (or attempt to control) outcomes, or to put it another way, to obstruct free will, is exactly what Ra so scrupulously avoided. 

Of course activism plays an important role in the human drama, but there are other ways to add light to this existence.

[Glow]

Diana sorry about the language, I used to be quite a good communicator.
Unfortunately my language centre was most effected by the injury. Thank you for your patience.

[isis]

I make no claims women are perfect but it going that long uncontested or his charge unbalanced is actually what made me upset, not the fact he said it.

People can think what ever they want but as part of a group, foolishly I just didn't expect that. Jade actually commented a similar thing that she was shocked no one else said anything.

i had already tried with him before in another thread.

i posted this to him:

Where I'm at pretty much all females go to college & then get jobs. I know a lot of females...& I don't know any that don't have a job...& most of them are mothers, too. Oh wait - I do know a few that don't have jobs - but that's bc they've retired. Did any of those girls dress provocatively when they were growing up? Take a wild guess. Was it bc they were trying to get out of going to college & getting a job? I find that laughable. The primary reason was probably just bc it gets really hot in FL haha.

it was in reply to this post of his:

As for young girls dressing provocatively, I suppose that's just early training for their ideal goal of objectifying themselves to attract sexual validation and getting a guy to look after them for a lifetime instead of studying hard and eventually working for themselves. I believe both boys and girls are roughly equal in terms of intelligence (girls are even said to mature faster), but girls start to lose out starting from adolescence as a result of pursing superficiality above all else.

he's just like: *sticks fingers in ears* lalala, i can't hear you, females are too lazy to work, lalala.

[Glow]

Thanks Isis.
I never saw that thread but I kinda got the feeling he wasn't going to listen to one of us calmly try to discuss it.

Thank you for so calmly trying anyways. (((Hug))) I need one so I hope you don't mind.

[Diana]

Diana sorry about the language, I used to be quite a good communicator.
Unfortunately my language centre was most effected by the injury. Thank you for your patience.

It's perfectly okay. I'm sorry to hear about your injury.  

Many people post on smart phones as well, which makes it doubly difficult to type and preview accurately, so we must allow for some confusion anyway.

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

I make no claims women are perfect but it going that long uncontested or his charge unbalanced is actually what made me upset, not the fact he said it.

People can think what ever they want but as part of a group, foolishly I just didn't expect that. Jade actually commented a similar thing that she was shocked no one else said anything.

i had already tried with him before in another thread.

i posted this to him:

Where I'm at pretty much all females go to college & then get jobs. I know a lot of females...& I don't know any that don't have a job...& most of them are mothers, too. Oh wait - I do know a few that don't have jobs - but that's bc they've retired. Did any of those girls dress provocatively when they were growing up? Take a wild guess. Was it bc they were trying to get out of going to college & getting a job? I find that laughable. The primary reason was probably just bc it gets really hot in FL haha.

it was in reply to this post of his:

As for young girls dressing provocatively, I suppose that's just early training for their ideal goal of objectifying themselves to attract sexual validation and getting a guy to look after them for a lifetime instead of studying hard and eventually working for themselves. I believe both boys and girls are roughly equal in terms of intelligence (girls are even said to mature faster), but girls start to lose out starting from adolescence as a result of pursing superficiality above all else.

he's just like: *sticks fingers in ears* lalala, i can't hear you, females are too lazy to work, lalala.

Wow, wish I would have known this earlier.  Maybe I'll see if I can't learn why he feels these ways...  Sure there is a social push on everyone in the media to be superficial, but why such specificity towards women as if they deeply preferred being those ways?

Glow, what was the accident?!  You can pm me if you prefer.  I'll pray for your healing, I'm no stranger to head injuries and how they effect a person, I was once almost Adam Sandler in 50 First Dates when my ex hit her head after passing out at work and her memory kept resetting every five or so minutes.  What happened to you?

Please don't apologize for any communication confusions, you shall recieve all the patience and compassion you could possibly want.   Just let us know you're okay and handling the aftermath well!

[rva_jeremy]

As to the question Jeremy I don't really have a prescribed expectation of who should have said anything. No one owes me anything.

I think this is an excellent place to start, for what it's worth. We're not as far apart as it may seem if we take this for granted.

And truly, anything that is a duty is not freely given and therefore not as polarizing. Help that comes out of a sense of obligation is not expressing as much love, I believe, as help coming from a genuine desire to see love and healing. What I dreamed to see, Glow, was you and e_s clash a bit, back up and see if you can hear each other, and find out where you disagree and agree so we could get back to the spirituality of all of it. I guess I'm a bit of a fool.

You ask though if you saying something could have helped, yes.

Someone (generally a man so it's not seen as a woman being triggered) saying anything even that you don't personally agree or agree to that extent or almost anything really would have completely shut down my defences.

Although I recognize you're not demanding anything, I am sorry I didn't empathize more with you. Perhaps if I had I could have seen this need at the time, the need that you are clearly expressing now. I don't think it would have helped the community in any direct way if I had intervened more forcefully, but it might have helped you, and that's not without merit. You are worthy of help, and my lack of action is not any statement on that.

I genuinely would rather let toxic stuff die on the vine rather than pick it, tell everybody how bad it is, and then stomp it to jelly. I think this adversarial bent of the culture wars is really misguided, this idea that the way to promote social justice is to tell anybody off who behaves in a way of which I disapprove. Many of my comrades disagree with this. It doesn't surprise me or offend me that you would disagree with me, Glow, on this matter.

Tactically I think leftists and those who want to inculcate a different culture in the West get this wrong all the time and have little to substantively show for all their struggle. It's not an issue of principle so much as one of what it is one believes one is accomplishing and how to go about it. I think feminists, for example, actually draw a lot of attention to conservative ideas by their fierce opposition (as an aside, this relates directly to the points I was making in another thread about critical theory) when what would be more useful in many cases is to simply demonstrate the kind of behavior, culture, and world you want to see. I don't see a lot of value in fighting for the moral high ground when, after all, we seem to have so many values at odds with each other in today's hyper-ideological world.

I think you have a strong voice, your heart's in the right place, and your principles are sound, Glow. It does strike me as a bit weird and sad to see a feminist asking a man to stand up for her. I get what you're saying--that it's an issue of communication, and sometimes changing the speaker's identity can help the message get heard better--but you give yourself too little credit. What I think that conversation really needed is more patience, more time, more backing up and reexamining claims, less reaction and more listening, from both sides of course. It doesn't need a man like me to lend you or SMC's points credibility.

What I was trying to get at, Glow, is this: it seems like you wanted my help in part to help defeat earth_spirit in debate. I have no interest in that, really, because first of all I don't think winning arguments makes you right or losing them makes you wrong. That's exactly the mindset of waiting to counter what somebody said instead of actually hearing them and their story. I can just tell you that after 20 years of that I don't really have any stomach for it -- not because I can't but because I don't think it really delivers what you are looking for, Glow.

On the topic of "silence=consent vs accepting things as they are", I am still balancing this after a great deal of time as a radical activist. For what it's worth, there was an episode of "In the Now" where I discussed this with Gary, Austin, and Jim, because we tend to think of activism as inherently about not accepting things like injustice and bigotry, that that lack of acceptance is what motivates action and change in the first place. I'm working on a piece about exactly this topic, but first I think Eisenstein has the best writing here.

That said: I do not think silence implies consent, because we're in a diverse age where it's unsafe to judge anything as necessarily implying anything else. Silence means somebody didn't have something to say. To infer something else usually means one has an agenda, a need to put diverse people into pat groups that they can generalize about so they can make a sweeping judgment. Not my bag.

As for acceptance, I think you accept what you're seeing as real without needing to personally validate your own values by judging it so quickly and finally, and that's the beginning of true activism IMHO. Because you can't bring the right channeling of love to bear on the situation without seeing it clearly, and you can't see it clearly if you're judging it, measuring it up against yourself. The ideological approach of having a hyper-acute sensitivity to things judged right and things judged wrong actually leads us to filter what we're seeing through that robotic ideological mindset, to prioritize judgment over acceptance, and foist our idiosyncratic personal dramas on these things happening in the world (more to say here). On the one hand, these dramas are perfectly legitimate in terms of working through our own issues. On the other hand, they're not necessarily attenuated to the so-called objective, collective situation in our society, being so tied up with our own personal stuff. So yes, I think acceptance is how you figure out whether silence is appropriate or not, in a way. Does that make sense?

[Agua del Cielo]

I would like to offer a few things:

@isis
my first offer is an apology to you!
Thanks for posting the conversation above!
i have to admit i was ready to put you in the "ass-box" because of the, in my opinion in that very Thread, quite inappropriate not-really-funny satirical pictures and the Breitbart link!

I honestly apologize for this and should really work on my willingness to judge people!

@ glow
I discovered that thread i guess hours or days after ee's post, which has at that Time already been removed.
My silence was due to the fact that i didnt See and participate in that thread.


What i think is a difficulty in challenging situations like this, is the confusing and mixing up of different "layers" which Must be treated seperately!
I will use a fictional woman that has been abused in childhood as an example:
(i Write this out of my own experience)

One Level would be:
Most likely, the childhood abuse will be triggered, intense emotions will arise.
Actually, a regression takes place. Youre dealing with a Little Child that in that very moment IS in an abusive Situation AND is being let down by her family.
Detachment here would be totally misplaced. That child needs a safe place to express, space for the heavy emotions and mostly compassion and understanding.
With detachement, you would let down the child again leading to re-traumatization!!
The problem would be, people outside are mostly not aware of this (this would require they had they Same childhood issue and have already significantly healed it).
So one would Need to become aware of this oneself, which is very difficult when emotions are overwhelming.
In any case, that part of emotional Energy has nothing to so with the Situation or the people involved!
Action being taken out of that state will Most likely to awry.

Another layer:
That Person would most likely be very sensitive to any situation that contains even a bit of the Original violation, resulting in accumulating more of the Same energy.
This also has nothing to do with the current Situation.

Another Layer:
Women are discriminated very often, worldwide and throughout history.
This leads to accumulating more pain, which also has nothing to do with the people involved.

Another Layer:
The thread.
People posting hurtful things, like ee did, other people don't speak up against it and so on.
This is absolutely connected with the thread and the people involved.
When you, while being aware of the other "layers" , still feel the urge to defend or speak out, it simply is an appropriate reaction in my opinion!


So, if you take 10 different people, put them in a thread, everybody having different layers active and are not aware you will probably get the Chaos we did!

[rva_jeremy]

o, if you take 10 different people, put them in a thread, everybody having different layers active and are not aware you will probably get the Chaos we did!

Welcome to third density incarnation.

[Jade]

There are points made well on both sides, but IMO Bring4th really needs to work on this "everyone is an island" mentality. This is supposed to be a community. Like, if I was at work, and I saw a customer blatantly abusing one of my coworkers, and they asked for my help de-escalating, would I step in? Of course this is a choice we all make in the moment. We can hold things we see happening to people right in front of us away from us and say, "This is not my fight, this is that person's catalyst" - but do we really believe this comes from a sincere, genuine, clear desire to serve others? Is this how a community works? (Or is it possible that there is a different "community" you feel more beholden to protect?)

What if you were at, say, a family reunion with your mother, or wife, and someone came up to you & her and said "Women are lazy. Mothers only know how to raise narcissistic airheads for daughters and etc etc Please read this really hateful and ideological pamphlet written by this other dude talking about how horrible women are" and your mother/sister/daughter was extremely hurt and/or scared. Would you react? Or would you just tell her smugly that she has the strength to deal with this on her own, and that you feel "weird and sad" that she's even looking to you for help?

The problem in this scenario is that the person who is bigoted against a group of people will not listen to that group of people. When a misogynist makes hateful statements towards women, to have a bunch of women standing up for each other is completely useless and only furthers to serve the "women are irrational/etc" narrative. Sometimes it takes someone "of their type" to speak to them plainly for them to understand, to balance the rhetoric, because they refuse to listen to the object of their hatred. I can recall posts I've made directly to earth_spirit that have gone completely ignored, because he obviously didn't want to hear it from me. This is why any requests for help from others was solicited. And instead of males rallying to say that what earth_spirit said might be a bit extreme, instead, they defended him. Don't you see how this might make the "targeted" group, who is already in the extreme minority, feel a bit marginalized?

So, in this context, I don't believe that that they could have duked it out and "bridged the gap in their differences". Do you think that was likely possible? Do you think if we took a KKK member and sat them down with a black person, that the two of them would be able to resolve their differences in a quick little internet back and forth? Do you think it's possible that some intervention might help benefit the discussion, words and thoughts from other, more balanced view points? Because what earth_spirit said was quite extreme. It wasn't just an off-handed comment, his ideology flat out condemns a whole group of people, more than half of the population in fact. This wasn't the first time he's posted about this either, it didn't happen in a vacuum. And the fact that the majority of this forum seems to think that this is okay and normal and acceptable in their community that has a stated goal of polarizing service to others is baffling to me.

To stop embodying the Story of Separation, we need people who will stand up and say "I'm not going to participate in this anymore." According to Charles Eisenstein, we need groups of people willing to do this to really anchor the New Story. For me, it's no longer okay to make blatant, hateful statements about groups of people, period. Not in my reality. It's certainly okay to disagree, to discuss opposing viewpoints, etc. But I believe this goes beyond a minor disagreement of viewpoints and into ideological territory.

[Agua del Cielo]

@Jade

As much als i agree with what you said, i have to say that bit by bit i am getting discouraged from continuing to post here.
This, i have to say is not only because of your post, just to make that clear.

For me it's not about "sides" to start with, it's about a Common issue we Share at the moment, and i expressed my hope that we can heal here TOGETHER.
I really tried to convey this, but it seems with no success.

I also, not only in this thread, usually speak out against injustice and what i perceive as degrading or insulting, if someone ever noticed.

I somehow feel that my posts are being over-read and since, by the General approach in quite some posts, i feel this is also directed to me.
I perceive this as unfair and unjustified, and it really discourages me.

Just wanted to share how i feel :/

[Diana]

As much als i agree with what you said, i have to say that bit by bit i am getting discouraged from continuing to post here.

I sure hope you stay and continue to post. You make an important and lucid contribution here.

[Diana]

Just because members don't say exactly what you wanted them to in defense of women (and in particular the post at issue), or in the way you wanted them to, does not mean they weren't supporting members here or women in general. Answering hate with hate, or offense with defense, or abuse with revenge, or ignorance with being offended, are not the only ways. A community does not need to think the same way, or follow an expectation one member of that community has.

One's view may seem obvious to him- or herself, and yet, there are other perspectives, larger views (what may have been Ra's perspective?), or simply different ways to handle evolution. 

I will add that, for example, calling women lazy is so absurd it doesn't seem (to me) worth giving any power to at all. It's just that silly. That's only my reaction though. I can't see the efficacy of getting into a power play over it.

[rva_jeremy]

I appreciate you stating your view so forcefully and clearly, Jade -- it makes it a lot easier to engage with.  

There's a root level value at the crux here that we never call out: how safe should Bring4th be?  What are we willing to do to ensure it?  What are we not willing to do?  Do we all agree on what safety means?

I don't see any point saying much on this topic until we make our views on those questions known, instead of having them assumed or implied for each other.  The following is just my opinion, and I apologize in advance if it upsets anybody.

Personally, I have never encountered a way of controlling expression online that actually accomplishes what it sets out to do.  Rules, moderation, reporting abuse -- every popular system has them, and they still have the hurtful stuff.  I accept that these ideas are out there, and I think that folks who embody those values came by them honest.  I really don't have any confidence in my unique ability as a man or even as a good debater to change those values, those core beliefs that we build our very identities around.  We have different values and we want different outcomes, and those aren't matters of logic or reason, so I don't really have intellectual ammunition for the problem.

I get the feeling that many of the people on your side of this issue, Jade, feel like the guys have failed in some duty that I don't ever remember signing up for.  Unless it's an express threat, I don't think there's any opinion that suddenly becomes unacceptable simply because it is spoken.  I simply didn't see anything requiring my service, though I will admit that I paid very light attention to this until after e_s had departed.  But the degree of obvious danger that you see, I only see as a really, really different opinion that has no power to touch me. I saw people trading insults, not one party getting beaten up by another.

In terms of what kind of community we want, maybe this is something we should actually ask of ourselves.  If there's going to be an expectation that I'm to protect any two or more people from hurting each other's feelings in an online argument, I'd at least want that to be plainly stated and not merely assumed.  Does that really strike anybody here as such an unreasonable position?

One thing I don't understand is why e_s wasn't banned if what he was saying was so obviously hurtful.

EDIT: I do think it's unfortunate that people got hurt and felt unsafe, and I would like us to learn something from this. I just don't think blaming anybody is very productive. This stuff happens on the internet, and we can have sympathy without feeling like every unfortunate event is a result of the inaction of somebody somewhere. I hope my opinions above don't offend too much; I just feel like some kind of accounting of how I see all this is needed in order to respond meaningfully to Jade.

[Minyatur]

I think its really always about the energy that is being distilled by each and collectively, and I really doubt there is anyone that acts up outside what it is distilling itself.

The entire idea of picking a side in-between other-selves only works if you see yourself reflected more within one of them and less within the other simply because you are distilling a similar energy to one them.

[Infinite Unity]

So we've had some heated interactions.
Seems we've unfortunately lost a few members as a result and that sucks.

One of the contentious things was that some of us see not standing up for others and self in the face of injustice as "Silence Implies Consent" while others feel it's better to change inside and not try to stop things from affecting others or self. I'm not judging here just want to explore because it seems those who want to help were a seen as less evolved.

I see it the way I do because no one protected me. I know others here have had the same experience. As a result I will protect others when possible. I have no hate for perpetrators i love them too but I won't just watch, how is that loving to either?

Many have said things are as they are, and are that way for a reason.
Well perhaps could those of us like myself have experienced being not protected chronically specifically so I could learn to be this person that is driven to protect others. Couldn't that too be exactly as it is because it's supposed to be that way? I'm supposed to have this drive to shelter others?

If one is acceptable even though it allows and accepts others suffering, how could it be less acceptable to stand in their place, take part of the pain or help to bring the perpetrators to awareness of what they are doing to others.

I know you will say something about control but the truth is by speaking we are not  stopping or controlling anyone, just not letting someone continue without at least them having a voice in the distance saying hurting others isn't ok.

I know I'm not wording this 100% I'm still recovering from the head injury so I apologize. Truth is though if I'd rather take part of the suffering to ease another's, or take the brunt of someone's anger on behalf of someone who is to fearful to stand up for themselves, how is that control?

I wish as a kid someone had helped me. Anyone! There were so many people who could have for years things happened in plane sight that shouldn't have but they all were conditioned to accept things as they are or look the other way. I don't blame them but it certainly didn't help me. I choose to help when I can. Yet I see if someone had helped I'd not have become this person driven to shelter others.

Again I am learning that maybe for some they are not supposed to do anything but be accepting of all experience people suffer. At the same time it's hypocritical to think it's less as it's supposed to be to accept how things are but not accept it will continue that way.

Sacred silence

[Aaron]

Inspired to write this due to Jeremy6d speaking about the community and moderation. We want a community in which we can discuss the Law of One and other L/L Research material specifically and share our studies, one in which we can also share our catalyst and talk about spirituality, our lives, and our seeking. And we want to do this with people who are at our level of consciousness so that there can be mutual understanding, even in disagreement.

We want a community in which catalyst that is being experienced by an entire nation or planet, such as this male/female issue, can be observed and discussed with clarity and sincerity and respect.

There is usually no problem when discussing higher concepts such as archetypes and specific LOO sessions. However, when discussing the lower vibration catalyst we all experience and identify with, things get heated and we act just as we do when discussing these things elsewhere. However, when this happens we need to put what we have learned into practice and always answer the lower vibration with a higher vibration. Live the Law of One by always bringing it back to the Law of One. Doing this is being of service while also learn/teaching, and it is also tuning the Bring4th community to the energy we want to be at. It is not the moderators' jobs to come between anybody, but to simply do by example what is stated above, bringing the discussion and the attitude back to the observation of the Law of One. It is all of our responsibiliy to do this, though. In this light, the moderator is simply a steward of the forums, reorganizing threads as needed, etc.

The heart of what they do is expected from every student of the Law of One, which we ALL are, at least the positively polarized among us.

[Nicholas]

So we've had some heated interactions.
Seems we've unfortunately lost a few members as a result and that sucks.

Do you know who?

One of the contentious things was that some of us see not standing up for others and self in the face of injustice as "Silence Implies Consent" while others feel it's better to change inside and not try to stop things from affecting others or self. I'm not judging here just want to explore because it seems those who want to help were a seen as less evolved.

I would swap the word "evolved" for wisdom. I see it as a love/wisdom, wisdom/love issue.

Glow, I have a history of getting involved in the object world, but the situation you are referring to was a subjective one. When e_s reacted the way he did to my reply to Jeremy6d's post, it was the first time I had experienced a direct and charged criticism on Bring4th. It not only had bigoted and arguably misogynistic layers to it, it also had a personal critique of me being "obnoxious". (I think I should disclose here that I had to go and look that word up!). From my perspective it was a great comfort to me that Jeremy understood what I was trying to say. He seemed to understand the heart of my response to him, and you are not alone here with your feelings of being attacked! (thanks, Jeremy!).

I did not get involved because I was too busy thinking "oh s**t!", and as the creator of the thread I was also not used to being a provocateur. I was in unchartered territory.

Silence is not an implication of consent in this context. I think it's more a case of unexplored territory. In a court of law or in a debate if there is no objection made to a thesis then it is seen that there is no counter argument to what is being asserted, and therefore an assumption of concession results.

In the case of that thread, e_s was not seen through compassionate eyes, but instead through adversary ones, and it somehow morphed into "this is an sto forum and I am outraged!"

With that said, if you were down a dark alley and were being attacked by a couple of males, I can assure you with a whole heart that I would unquestionably smash their bottom jaws before they laid a hand on you. With no effort my own devious and dark nature would likely add to the carnage, too. I was 7 years old when I first whacked someone for picking on somebody I cared about. The problem with that reaction was that the person I was protecting refused to talk to me for 3 days. He was my best friend! And I have stood up to much bigger folks since that time, but what I have learned about sticking up for the seemingly vulnerable is that it points more to my own childhood than it does to the actual situation.

My wife said to me several years ago "what was it like to not have a father?". I had never been asked that before and until then it had never occurred to me, but the query got me interested in finding out. 95% of what is posted on Bring4th is not of personal interest to me because it seems to not be aimed at "know the self" from my perspective. And so I posted something that did relate to it on a personal level.

Here is a quote that is relevant to that very thread about Feminism. I have bolded the specific portion.

94.26. Then I am guessing that the crossed legs of the entity in Card Four have a meaning similar to the cross of the crux ansata. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. The cross formed by the living limbs of the image signifies that which is the nature of mind/body/spirit complexes in manifestation within your illusion. There is no experience which is not purchased by effort of some kind, no act of service to self or others which does not bear a price, to the entity manifesting, commensurate with its purity. All things in manifestation may be seen in one way or another to be offering themselves in order that transformations may take place upon the level appropriate to the action.

And so under the well meaning intention of protecting others we unintentionally deny them the opportunity to grow and learn. The archetypal saviour protects everyone from everything and the impetus for growth has been conquered in the name of justice and equality, while the values of truth and honesty are systematically ignored.

I see it the way I do because no one protected me. I know others here have had the same experience. 

We are definitely on the same page here! [i]  [/i]

[Aion]

I will let Ra echo my own thoughts as to the proper balance for moderation.

Ra: I am Ra. The lobes of your physical complex brain are alike in their use of weak electrical energy. The entity ruled by intuition and impulse is equal to the entity governed by rational analysis when polarity is considered. The lobes may both be used for service to self or service to others. It may seem that the rational or analytical mind might have more of a possibility of successfully pursuing the negative orientation due to the fact that, in our understanding, too much order is by its essence negative. However, this same ability to structure abstract concepts and to analyze experiential data may be the key to rapid positive polarization. It may be said that those whose analytical capacities are predominant have somewhat more to work with in polarizing.

I'm of the opinion that disagreement is an organizational phenomenon. You never find out more clearly where everybody actually stands until there is an argument. Personally I believe that these things emerge for a variety of reasons but in general I think when they manifest it is just the 'final stage' of an internal process which has been taking place. Usually conflict exist long before they are ever addressed on principle.

I think there are two main factors in a forum, especially such as this: What is the focus of the forum? And the second being, what is the focus of the individual?

The fact is that these things are what come in to play when it comes to 'community' arguments. In that, I think it needs to be seen that if you are going to maintain a focus for the forum then you must be prepared that there will be people who have their own focus and may try to shift the focus of the forum towards their focus.

By that same token, people who come here with whatever we focus need to be prepared that they may be nudged towards the focus of the forum.

Quite simply, I don't think an 'anything goes, accept everyone' free for all is the way to build a community, but without a clearly established focus the rules will be enforced arbitrarily.

Accepting anyone to come play is easier said than done. When you have a new kid join in the sandbox, but suddenly they start destroying other peoples' sandcastles, do you tell every other child to turn their cheek and accept the destruction, or do you address the destructive child?

The fact is that people can be destructive even if they don't mean to be. A child having an emotional tantrum is obvious to the turmoil they create around them. I think adults are the same way when they are locked in their emotions and have already made up their minds. They will think what they think.

[Jade]

I guess I'm just baffled that we're still here arguing over "picking sides". To me, this isn't about men vs. women. This is about someone who was abusive to a segment of the population of the Bring4th forum. And whether or not I was triggered by the hateful words personally, other people (victims who did not solicit this) were extremely upset and I heard the call to defend them. I have already stated that this could have been said about any marginalized group of people and I would have found it equally inappropriate.

I know people eschew the idea of a "safe space" but I believe this is exactly what Bring4th should be. I don't think anyone should feel scared or ostracized because of their physical appearance/body. Yet, here we are. It is a sketchy balance to maintain - free speech and protecting others. Obviously we don't want to stifle the blue ray, but if we're only in the lower rays anyway, some speech is less equal than others. I don't think you get to say "All women are lazy!" with immunity from anyone speaking back to you, or without someone trying, in the blue ray, to articulate why what you said lacked balance or a grounding in reality.

The words weren't just that women were lazy. They were specifically that "women are too lazy to provide any real value to society" amongst many other hateful things. I have also said what was especially jarring in his post were the blog links that were endorsed. The more we downplay what was said, the more we say it's okay to feel hatred and hostility towards each other. The fact that some people refuse to acknowledge that it's okay to be upset by such hateful words is also baffling.

One thing I think is a part of the main theme that is encouraged on this forum is that emotionality is unspiritual. I think people tend to side with the person who is displaying less emotions because they perceive that as more balanced. Earth_spirit's post was calm and collected and Glow's response was heated and angry - it's obvious which person has the "problem", right? Many people have spent many words trying to placate Glow and defend earth_spirit, instead of just validating her that what was said was inappropriate to say to people you are supposed to love, which is an assumption I believe we make when we enter Bring4th: that here we are loved.

This isn't saying that those who didn't jump right up and defend women did something wrong. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that it's shocking that the forum SUPPORTS this rhetoric much more than it abhors it. And I don't think this same type of rhetoric would have been supported and might have been much more likely refuted if it were about a different demographic.

I obviously agree with Aion's Ra quote about too much order being negative. It's a personal mantra in fact. And if anyone thinks I get any enjoyment from a power trip of being a Bring4th mod, you are completely wrong. I would love to be on the other side to constantly, and naively, advocate for no censorship. Aion uses the metaphor of a sandbox. I've been trying to think of the metaphor of the garden. You can let a plot of land do its own thing, harmonize itself, all beings working with/against each other as they do, and you will still have something beautiful. But if you're going to make something intentional, as in, say a plot of land to harvest food, then you must take special care to encourage the beings (plants, microbes, bugs) you want to grow and harmonize and discourage the weeds that will choke out the plants/etc that are beneficial. This is something I truly struggle with in real life - pulling the weeds from my garden is literally painful. Who am I to judge what gets to live and die? But if I don't do it, then all the work I put into cultivating delicious vegetables is totally wasted by the end of the year. The extreme form of this is to grow a monoculture of crops and spray pesticides on absolutely everything that doesn't belong. Obviously it's about finding a balance. But in finding the balance there will always be errors on either side of the spectrum.

[rva_jeremy]

I guess I'm just baffled that we're still here arguing over "picking sides". To me, this isn't about men vs. women.

At the time that is exactly what it seemed to be about, and that's exactly why I had no interest in getting into the back and forth.

This is about someone who was abusive to a segment of the population of the Bring4th forum. And whether or not I was triggered by the hateful words personally, other people (victims who did not solicit this) were extremely upset and I heard the call to defend them. I have already stated that this could have been said about any marginalized group of people and I would have found it equally inappropriate.

I have been scouring the original thread to find where this call took place. I just re-read it, because I wanted to see if there was some call I missed.

I could not find any explicit call. Any call for help was done after the fact, in the form of "Why didn't you help?" Maybe you can point it out to me, Jade? Because I really do want to understand what we expect of each other.

Again, I just want to state that I don't think an opinion, however odious, becomes punishable simply because it is written or spoken. I do think people were surprised and angered that opinions like this were held among the membership. I do admit to a distaste for people who expect everybody else to agree with them out of the box.

I know people eschew the idea of a "safe space" but I believe this is exactly what Bring4th should be. I don't think anyone should feel scared or ostracized because of their physical appearance/body. Yet, here we are. It is a sketchy balance to maintain - free speech and protecting others. Obviously we don't want to stifle the blue ray, but if we're only in the lower rays anyway, some speech is less equal than others. I don't think you get to say "All women are lazy!" with immunity from anyone speaking back to you, or without someone trying, in the blue ray, to articulate why what you said lacked balance or a grounding in reality.

The words weren't just that women were lazy. They were specifically that "women are too lazy to provide any real value to society" amongst many other hateful things. I have also said what was especially jarring in his post were the blog links that were endorsed. The more we downplay what was said, the more we say it's okay to feel hatred and hostility towards each other. The fact that some people refuse to acknowledge that it's okay to be upset by such hateful words is also baffling.

But this just brings me back to the thing I'm confused about: if these expressions were truly hateful, why didn't you ban earth_spirit, Jade? I really, really don't get this. How can earth_spirit be at once dangerous and at the same time not be breaking the rules and need us to rein him in? Do you see maybe how this doesn't all fit together for me?

One thing I think is a part of the main theme that is encouraged on this forum is that emotionality is unspiritual. I think people tend to side with the person who is displaying less emotions because they perceive that as more balanced. Earth_spirit's post was calm and collected and Glow's response was heated and angry - it's obvious which person has the "problem", right? Many people have spent many words trying to placate Glow and defend earth_spirit, instead of just validating her that what was said was inappropriate to say to people you are supposed to love, which is an assumption I believe we make when we enter Bring4th: that here we are loved.

I agree with this. But I think there's different viewpoints at work here. I saw Glow's anger as her throwing down the gauntlet to fight, much as SMC has done in the past. I did not see Glow as a victim of earth_spirits's. I appreciate you pointing out how you see this because it helps me understand how narrow my vision is of these matters.

This isn't saying that those who didn't jump right up and defend women did something wrong. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that it's shocking that the forum SUPPORTS this rhetoric much more than it abhors it. And I don't think this same type of rhetoric would have been supported and might have been much more likely refuted if it were about a different demographic.

I don't understand how you can conclude that the forum supports those sentiments. I don't see that at all. Surely we can bring more nuance to this topic than you're either with the women or against them, can't we?

But in finding the balance there will always be errors on either side of the spectrum.

I agree!