|
Post by laughter on Jun 22, 2013 3:39:33 GMT -5
More random trolling? I would normally never argue for someone to be banned from a forum, exclusion does not suite me....but it seems that you spend so much energy pointing out what you perceive to be other people's flaws, or, as in the case of this post, outright trolling people....that you make a strong case as to why a ban can be useful. You just spend too much time trying to provoke people instead of communicating with them....in a forum that has just gotten ugly with personal assessments and provocation, instead of collegial exploration, you are the worst offender, and usually instigator of the bad tone.....you intentionally provoke and provoke whomever you can, and then when you are successful you gloat and point a finger at the person that you had been provoking as if to say: AHA! You are caught! So unfortunately, as you seem to be the primary initiator, and supporter of most of the ugliness around here, I gotta say that I'd actually like to see you banned for a bit....you just to involved with every bit of ugliness that goes on in this forum, and by ugliness, I mean this crazy perfusion of personal assessment posts that get flung at each other like weapons here. Banning you would go a long way toward "deweaponizing" this place lol What you call random trolling, and which set off a rant, I see as a perfectly valid and useful response to Amit's inquiry. Reefs is saying that character is in the conditioning, and as such, perhaps it's not a particularly useful focus. It addresses moral codes and style preferences; what we sometimes call the personal perspective here, and I know Reefs has little interest in it. Amit (and you) are confused about what's happening here when folks are challenged. Belief systems and unconscious reactions are challenged so as to bring conscious awareness to these limited ways of being. The character discussions are initiated by the ones reacting to these challenges. those who you criticize the most don't have any particular interest in what kind of a person you are. That's not what is meant by the personal approach.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 22, 2013 3:41:42 GMT -5
I'm waiting to see if I report his post for name calling. It's within the extended latitude range, said Peter. I asked him about his take on this. However, I don't know why Question chose a sexually loaded word like pervert as if we would have discussed sexual matters there. I rather think Question has some mental hick-ups around the subject of sexuality. Hetero got banned because he said 'jackass' but Question gets a free pass with saying 'pervert'. I'd say pervert is much more offensive than jackass. Maybe Max and Peter should rethink their decisions. It's possible that it's about settling a score from the ban-voting thread.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 22, 2013 3:44:51 GMT -5
More random trolling? I would normally never argue for someone to be banned from a forum, exclusion does not suite me....but it seems that you spend so much energy pointing out what you perceive to be other people's flaws, or, as in the case of this post, outright trolling people....that you make a strong case as to why a ban can be useful. You just spend too much time trying to provoke people instead of communicating with them....in a forum that has just gotten ugly with personal assessments and provocation, instead of collegial exploration, you are the worst offender, and usually instigator of the bad tone.....you intentionally provoke and provoke whomever you can, and then when you are successful you gloat and point a finger at the person that you had been provoking as if to say: AHA! You are caught! So unfortunately, as you seem to be the primary initiator, and supporter of most of the ugliness around here, I gotta say that I'd actually like to see you banned for a bit....you just to involved with every bit of ugliness that goes on in this forum, and by ugliness, I mean this crazy perfusion of personal assessment posts that get flung at each other like weapons here. Banning you would go a long way toward "deweaponizing" this place lol Yes, it's all personal again for you and your trolling is picking up momentum again. What happened to the air of serene peace that was oozing from the Son of God (Sog) account?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 22, 2013 4:02:23 GMT -5
It's within the extended latitude range, said Peter. I asked him about his take on this. However, I don't know why Question chose a sexually loaded word like pervert as if we would have discussed sexual matters there. I rather think Question has some mental hick-ups around the subject of sexuality. Hetero got banned because he said 'jackass' but Question gets a free pass with saying 'pervert'. I'd say pervert is much more offensive than jackass. Maybe Max and Peter should rethink their decisions. It's possible that it's about settling a score from the ban-voting thread. I just don't happen to be able to see the connection or significance of name calling and spiritual progress.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 22, 2013 4:23:17 GMT -5
It's possible that it's about settling a score from the ban-voting thread. I just don't happen to be able to see the connection or significance of name calling and spiritual progress. don't you mean "spiritual growth"?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 22, 2013 5:31:22 GMT -5
I just don't happen to be able to see the connection or significance of name calling and spiritual progress. don't you mean "spiritual growth"? All the same in my book, an imaginary journey thru unicorn land.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 22, 2013 5:43:48 GMT -5
don't you mean "spiritual growth"? All the same in my book, an imaginary journey thru unicorn land. Shedding belief in illusions leads to making more grounded and responsive decisions, I.e. becoming more mature. I can understand viewing many of the woo woo characterizations of growth as journeying through unicorn land. Do you have the same problem with the characterization of growth when it is defined as cleaning up the window we are looking through?
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jun 22, 2013 6:29:20 GMT -5
Agreed. Their way basically is "show me yours, but I won't show you mine, because I don't want you to get too excited", basic intuition already tells us to stay far away from such perverts. Who are youcalling a pervert, Bambi? Fine, I will spell it out for you. My position is that psychoanalysis is a great tool but when it is used in an asymmetrical context (analyst/analysand) it should be done only with someone of great competence and with absolute confidentiality. This forum is a terrible place for it. At the present moment, on this forum there is present neither sufficient competence, certainly no confidentiality, and above all here is way too much hostility - some discussions here are utterly bizarre and the behaviour of some members is quite frightening to be honest. So, given that all this should be somewhat obvious, what does it take for someone to openly confront another member and force him to reveal the depth of his/her personality, especially in such an unsuitable context? And even worse, to structure the discussion so that another member is expected to repent his/her sins, even though the sins are a matter of interpretation? I suggest that this attitude is supported by a sadistic desire for dominance, not dissimilar from the "show me yours, but I won't show you mine" example. That is not to say that personal matters can't be discussed here, but merely that it can only be done so absolutely voluntarily and in total solidarity and absent any sort of dominance, it is this asymmetry that accounts for many conflicts.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 22, 2013 6:59:42 GMT -5
Who are youcalling a pervert, Bambi? Fine, I will spell it out for you. My position is that psychoanalysis is a great tool but when it is used in an asymmetrical context (analyst/analysand) it should be done only with someone of great competence and with absolute confidentiality. This forum is a terrible place for it. At the present moment, on this forum there is present neither sufficient competence, certainly no confidentiality, and above all here is way too much hostility - some discussions here are utterly bizarre and the behaviour of some members is quite frightening to be honest. So, given that all this should be somewhat obvious, what does it take for someone to openly confront another member and force him to reveal the depth of his/her personality, especially in such an unsuitable context? And even worse, to structure the discussion so that another member is expected to repent his/her sins, even though the sins are a matter of interpretation? I suggest that this attitude is supported by a sadistic desire for dominance, not dissimilar from the "show me yours, but I won't show you mine" example. That is not to say that personal matters can't be discussed here, but merely that it can only be done so absolutely voluntarily and in total solidarity and absent any sort of dominance, it is this asymmetry that accounts for many conflicts. Thank you for spelling it out for me.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 22, 2013 7:36:05 GMT -5
don't you mean "spiritual growth"? All the same in my book, an imaginary journey thru unicorn land. They should just buy one of these and be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 22, 2013 7:38:06 GMT -5
Who are youcalling a pervert, Bambi? Fine, I will spell it out for you. My position is that psychoanalysis is a great tool but when it is used in an asymmetrical context (analyst/analysand) it should be done only with someone of great competence and with absolute confidentiality. This forum is a terrible place for it. At the present moment, on this forum there is present neither sufficient competence, certainly no confidentiality, and above all here is way too much hostility - some discussions here are utterly bizarre and the behaviour of some members is quite frightening to be honest. So, given that all this should be somewhat obvious, what does it take for someone to openly confront another member and force him to reveal the depth of his/her personality, especially in such an unsuitable context? And even worse, to structure the discussion so that another member is expected to repent his/her sins, even though the sins are a matter of interpretation? I suggest that this attitude is supported by a sadistic desire for dominance, not dissimilar from the "show me yours, but I won't show you mine" example. That is not to say that personal matters can't be discussed here, but merely that it can only be done so absolutely voluntarily and in total solidarity and absent any sort of dominance, it is this asymmetry that accounts for many conflicts. I double-dog dare ya' to change yer login name to Chester.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 22, 2013 8:48:51 GMT -5
Who are youcalling a pervert, Bambi? Fine, I will spell it out for you. My position is that psychoanalysis is a great tool but when it is used in an asymmetrical context (analyst/analysand) it should be done only with someone of great competence and with absolute confidentiality. This forum is a terrible place for it. At the present moment, on this forum there is present neither sufficient competence, certainly no confidentiality, and above all here is way too much hostility - some discussions here are utterly bizarre and the behaviour of some members is quite frightening to be honest. I disagree with you on a couple of points. First, that what's going on here is mostly psychoanalysis. I don't see a strict line between pointing out confused thinking and psychoanalyzing someone. It's a fuzzy line, and where it gets crossed is pretty much subjective. Second, that the level of competence isn't sufficient. Sufficient for what? This is all about seeing for ourselves what's going on in mind. Someone says to me, "you're hung up on morality (or whatever)", the point is to look inside and see if that's true. If it's not, toss it. Totally agree that there's a lot of hostility. And that alone can be a deterrent to open sharing. Not sure if anything can be done about that, though. When there's a challenge to those ideas we hold most dearly, hostility can happen. I don't see anyone being forced. Lots of options - don't respond, ignore, sign off. It is all voluntary. All that being said, though, I agree there's a confrontational tone to the forum, and some times it does border on creepy. It seems to come down to what each person expects from ST. If they're looking for a caring, nurturing, supportive space to share views - this probably ain't it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 10:34:45 GMT -5
It's possible that it's about settling a score from the ban-voting thread. I just don't happen to be able to see the connection or significance of name calling and spiritual progress. But....2 posts down you refer to 'spiritual progress' as 'an imaginary journey through unicorn land'. Considering those words, it seems you don't really place any actual value on 'spiritual progress' anyway....so, where's the problem?
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 22, 2013 15:48:51 GMT -5
All that being said, though, I agree there's a confrontational tone to the forum, and some times it does border on creepy. It seems to come down to what each person expects from ST. If they're looking for a caring, nurturing, supportive space to share views - this probably ain't it. Seems like people want some degree of hand holding and to also not be lied to. It's very difficult for both to happen.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 22, 2013 17:07:47 GMT -5
All that being said, though, I agree there's a confrontational tone to the forum, and some times it does border on creepy. It seems to come down to what each person expects from ST. If they're looking for a caring, nurturing, supportive space to share views - this probably ain't it. Seems like people want some degree of hand holding and to also not be lied to. It's very difficult for both to happen. Many here, I think, would change "hand holding" to compassion before agreeing with that. They want to know that they're seen and understood and, when it comes down to it, loved. The irony is that not being lied to is an act of love.
|
|