I am baffled for you are using the very same argument which the powers to be use themselves:
My preferences are not important right now - if there are bigger things to address...
I would say that there are no bigger things for me to address directly.
the argument and the basis of the argument are two very different things, but can presented in the same way.
Knowing the difference is key.
First and foremost I can only refer to what I perceive about reality. It can't be otherwise. Make the test: Try not to think about your preferences and instead think only in terms of other peoples preferences, actions and inactions.
lolol...I'll leave you to work out humongous logical contradiction there....lol..funny....(if you can't work it out - but I'm sure you can - get back to me).
I address the bigger things in not directly targeting them, not aiming straightforward but in circumventing the yes and no answers, the either or questions.
I know your strategies already.
My view of making my life more peaceful is to not become grim in that game.
Very wise choice.
You can safe someone from misery when you don't try hard to safe them from misery, only when you play it lightly - like something you would enjoy to witness but not at all costs. You cannot be sure about someones misery, because if expressed straightforward someone may even answer: "what misery do you mean?! I am not miserable!" and when you argue someones perceived misery in pointing out that there is no need for misery, even the very same person may answer: "I just told you, that I am hurt! You know nothing about me, so keep it to yourself!" HaHa!
I'm not sure where this fits into the post so far (can you help?)...
(oh, btw I read each section or two, and then copy paste, and then reply - then I don't know whats coming next - surprises ! ..it's fun).
*Lol...I like you- a lot .... but I don't trust you. (no offence taken, I would hope)
I am alright with that. But this then actually can lead you to the same realization that you yourself are not trusted either (I am not talking about me, it is not something I have hard feelings about).
I only give trust through observable action (meaning psychological profiling online if no actions are verifiable).
To date?.....I'm 99 % correct.... I have transferred _thousands- of $ peer to peer transactions, where trust was required - any one of them could have been 'fraud'..... Yet to lose penny.
My psychological profiling on users - well over 600 to date - Using linguistics styles - plus observable actions - I'd say I'm over 99% accurate.
Does this _mean I'm accurate? ..No - But my online hypothesis + real world, tangible results to date, are at 100% .< that's fact, not hypothesis.
As I said, it's almost impossible to create binding and intimate relationships as internet-persons. To welcome advice one needs the mandate in doing so. Even in long term friendships where there is a certain basis for mutual trust there are times in which this trust is not stable. How can it be more ideal on the Internet?
I don't know how it can be more ideal - but I do know that mitigating free speech in any way whatsoever , is corrosive to trust.
*Hence my question: what if the founder of blurt had agreed with you? What if he had actually called the user exploitative and misbehaving, publicly?
*Cool .
There I disagree. I find it not only uncool but see it as something you seemed to argue against all the time (?).
Cool! lol...You're incorrect. I argue against the abuse of power and corrupt thinking.... - which is morally and ethically based. 9 timeout of that that means arguing against the authority, yes?
Your confusing the argument with the object of the argument.
If a person with power acts in your favor, it's alright, and if a person of power does not act in your favor, it's not alright. So there is the double standard, don't you see?
No double standard, becuase if 'the authority' was in agreement with me, they would share the same perspcetives and values - and act accordingly. No duoble standard.
... There is convention about the fact that talking to a person is always better than talking about this person.
You use too much of the talking abouts or tagging the usernames. That is perceived as uncool (immoral), I can assure you, not many people will take that lightly, even if the pretend they do.
This is intentional - and you are correct.
The real question is - the important part - is can you work out why it's intentional ?
If I was sat in 'the psychologist chair', one to one, for example - I would never talk in the same linguistic style.
*I think if you ente rnto the public forum and speak your truth, by defualt you're putting yourself f in line for criticism, praise, - good and bad - postive and negative - but you are choosing to put yourself into the public square, and all that comes with that..
right, I agree and I see it somewhat similar. But you cannot make another one viewing this in the same way.
If they can't view this in the same way, then they are either unable to understand basic logic, critcal thinking , and ethics (which tells you volumes), or they have an ulterior motive for not wanting it this way.
Also, this realization is weakened by yourself in the complaints about losing your income. If you are fine with that sacrifices, be fine. Why mentioning it any further?
I decided to try and make writing a livable income - if it's not possible, it will mean I don't write as much. - or at all - my and aspergers traits(i.e - i'll focus alI I have, elsewhere, doing whatever I myself apply to doing 100%)
I'd prefer to write, and thus, I mention it.
*I would love to spend my time on here doing nothing but funny shit, telling tales of a nutty life, etc-
HaHa! Allow me to doubt it.
My man does not let me get away with that kind of statements, ever. I love him for that. If I state that " I really would love to..." he asks: "And, why don't you then?" And if I find all kinds of arguments, in particular the greater good, he either starts to laugh or ridicule me. Or provokes me until my blood boils.
No problemo - feel free to doubt .
It is possible to hold two thought equally, at the same time.
An extreme example.
I'd love to go t a girly bar, and have mad session with with my Luce - get totally wrecked and have a wild two days.
I'd _love to write non stop for two days, writing about funny shit.
You might love to do the two things, but if one interrupts - or destroys the possibility - of the other, you have to make a choice.
I know the cost of partying nowadays , and it's too steep a price to pay (for me). That doesn't mean I still don't love it...you do have to prioritize.
I'd prefer to write (than party), so my love of one thing, doesn't change because I choose another love...
Why not focus onto these things for a relevant time?
Would you not welcome it yourself to get out of those loops and experience something utterly different?
Experience something utterly different ? Seriously? ..lol....
I've spent 35 years of my life doing just that. Daily, almost.
Hedonism on steroids
My now relatively mundane life is utterly different....Very novel - still.... And I'm enjoying the contrast between the two - immensely.
To sound a bit pathetic, I would not ask you to sacrifice anything for "humans" or for "me". Give yourself freely and sponaneiously, no?
You've obviously never read my various post about me and 'ye olde martyr complex' ?....(and then throw in those asparagus traits as well ?....ah bugger !)....
Wanna hear the cosmic joke ?....if I could, somehow, miraculously, know what I know now about _myself ......I'd never have left the farm back in the UK, never traveled, never 'gone hedonistic', never, never ..... you get the picture ?
I'd be on the farm, just farming away.......wisdom....and I never got even close to comprehending that kind of wisdom , until I was in my late 40's ..ah...bugger...lolol...
Accordingly to your subjectively opened case? Then, of course, it is a double standard if someone more influential than you opposed and sanctioned a person you denounced, when you explicitly mention that person and put them in a bad light, but at the same time would like your view to be supported by the same influential person.
The influential person is obviously to be brought over to your side with moral arguments.
The person you are targeting is in the spotlight because you have turned that light on. Whether this person appears to others as unsympathetic or sympathetic, it is inappropriate to make moral value judgements based on gossip (nothing else is) because the person in the spotlight did not ask for it. She is not on trial. You don't have the mandate to stage one. The story of the guy whose vapor was stolen (etc. etc.), his complaints of financial loss and the crowning immorality of the cats being left alone are manipulative attempts to create a discredit.
If you want to claim actual damages, you can use legal means, send a bill or file a lawsuit, if the bill is not paid, it will eventually go to court. If you don't want to do that or wish to settle in some other way, that's what you do. But what you don't do, and there is a broad consensus on this, is blacken people's names, spread unpleasant things about them, just because you yourself were unable to bring the matter to a satisfactory resolution.
What mature person needs to post their conflicting issues on a blog and want to be vindicated for the misdeeds someone else has done to them?
To make it clear: I don't care about the woman either, I don't care because I don't need to care. I am not an official jury and we are not in court here.
For my part, I therefore chalk it up to gossip.
How do you like it when the influential person now imposes sanctions on you instead? How would you like it if you were named on that person's blog and considered persona non grata?
Tell me, in what way were you specifically harmed by the woman, how exactly do you quantify your financial loss of your account in detail? The statement that people "raid the reward pool" is as vague as it is popular. Saying that people gain strategic advantages that are considered unfair in your eyes, well, that happens, doesn't it? People ingratiating themselves, flattering themselves etc. is far from being a crime, but of course you are free to find it distasteful. I do find it bad taste too.
I think you are imagining too much about your ability to give people a psychological profile. This preoccupation with the psychological abysses basically says more about you than it does about others. Maybe for your part you like being profiled? That you are analysed? I don't know, but I don't think people who are strangers to each other want to read that about themselves.
Couldn't you just have discussed in private with the woman? Would it be too much of an effort to come to terms with her, if she really bugs you so hard? And if she did so herself, to place you in the light, is it sensible to do the very same thing? Would there even be the possibility to enjoy a private conversation and changing the course of communication altogether?
Well, if the two of you, on the other hand, love to shine lights onto yourself, then be it. It's only hard to tell if that is so.
It is different with public figures who have deliberately placed themselves there as representatives of the many. They are rightly the focus of criticism if they want to legislate and influence the personal lives of all.
For the rest of your answers I may need some more time.
I won't reply, now that I've read it.
...Wouldn't want to be accused of 'putting a spotlight' on your 'logic' (n the very loosest term) now would I ?
I might get sanctioned.
When discussion stops, force starts.
When discussion not open, it is censored. Then it stops..... then force begins.
....the mind boggles.
have you been hanging out with this guy?
...leave my friends alone !
I don't think that would happen between the two of us or between me and another person I have a conversation with online.
I wouldn't spotlight you personally for something on my blog page that annoyed me about you or from someone I had a conflict with in my offline life. What do you want people to respond to? That I am right or wrong? Well, that's what would happen, wouldn't it, if I did that, listing things that I felt some other person had done wrong to me. HaHa, thats what they do. Do you like it?
I mean, you could basically take anyone here and find anything that could be considered detrimental.
Secondly, I am doing exactly what you advocate, I am discussing with you in the open. I have no power at all over whether you censor yourself or not, whether you want to react or not. Just as you have no power over me, even if you were to put me in the spotlight and give me a bad name, for example, based on the fact that I treat my plants or cats badly or something like that. I just wouldn't jump at that.
I think I've had conversations with you to an extent that makes me somewhat appreciate that in many ways we're hardly impressed with the way people talk about bullying here. Between you and me, the issue seems clear to me. You couldn't bull me at all, even if you tried by all means. It would be irrelevant, we don't even live in the same country, we don't know the same people, you don't know where and with whom exactly I've worked etc. etc.
It would be nice if everyone saw it that way, wouldn't it? I mean, I know you can't hurt me and I can't hurt you.
But as you can see, not everyone thinks that way. People run to others when they "feel wrongly treated" on the internet and state their case. They want protectorate or flattery, they want, if they don't feel satisfaction, to win morally, etc. Then you get responses from people with influence that you didn't ask for and is basically none of their business. But then they make it their business. Because apparently everyone is calling for it?
I once heard a good saying that I consider wise: only offer people as much food as they can take.
So I take you at your word when you say that you can take a lot of food. With others, where I do not receive such statements, it would not be worth the effort for me, because they do not give space (directly or indirectly) to openly disagree with them. Where I perceive that contradiction is not welcome, I eventually withdraw because "too much food". I cannot make anyone eat what they don't want to eat.
I care for exactly those ones, I am having present direct conversations with. If I discuss with you and one of us stops, it's just that. End of communication and nothing else. Which might be taken up again eventually or not. No forces needed.
i just found this unanswered comment - but i'm offline in a sec -I'll read it tomorrow and reply !
exactly
....you equate sanctions (actions), to discussion ? (the content of the discussion is not relevant).
So saying 'Russia is bad', is the same as disconnecting russia from swift ?
hilarious.
proposing someone be blacklisted
is proposing they be sanctioned