Really? Engenders nothing to no one? Did you miss the parts of this thread where people were sad to see him go? Some even said they liked the guy. Imagine for a second not everyone shares your delicate sensibilities and next thing you know you’ll be swimming in the deep end with the other adults — DingoJones

What do you want from me? I said what I personally thought about the guy's style. To me, he didn't engender warm feelings. I value arguments where you don't get personal, you don't make petty comments about other people's arguments, and you try to look for positive intent in the other (until you know otherwise). He just didn't do any of that. Because others disagree, I should withdraw my conclusions? It's nothing to do with delicate sensibilities. Look how many times I've had to defend myself against numerous interlocutors, often at the same time, over many years. I really have no problem most of time. I didn't like his super aggressive style. That's my assessment.

Yes, agreed.

"First they came for the assholes, and then there weren't many left." — Bitter Crank

Yes, I never said he should be banned but constant assholiness engenders nothing to no one and ya know, asshole is what asshole does.

But interestingly, I'd hold you up as an example of as someone who is good at disagreeing without being disagreeable. :clap: . That's the very opposite of the S approach.

S crossed the line into troll too many times. Every attack from him seemed like he was personally offended by any argument he disagreed with. He used disparaging remarks that were meant to incite and get the argument into rabbit-holes of frustration. I'm not surprised he said "fuck you" and dared the moderators. It's one thing to be passionate, and it's another to be some forum imp waiting to aggravate people at every turn. I did say this to him one time in one of our long-standing debates (which never seemed to end)..

As an aside, you realize, you don't win arguments by showing the most disdain, right? Dispense with the theatrics of snobbery and condescension and actually debate instead of inflate your own ego. See, I feel bad even calling you out on this shit..but that's the difference between me and you.. You don't feel bad.. Again, something odd there. If it is a debate tactic to be patronizing, it sucks. If it is your personality, I'd do some soul searching. If it is just you trying to get a rise out of people, knock it off and just focus on the arguments. — schopenhauer1

That in a nutshell was my frustration with him. If he just knocked off being an asshole, he would could have been a fine forum participant. There are ways to disagree without being disagreeable.

Someone might consider being offended by speech harm, but as I said, I think it's their problem. I have to problem with the person who offended and who intended to offend them. In fact, I think it's a good thing to offend the offendable. — Terrapin Station

I think we can parse out offensive speech and being mean to a particular person.. For example, I don't see anything wrong with comics that are offensive.

Also, just because something might be vague as a concept, I think we can both find cases where we agree when someone is being mean to someone else (and not just offensive, like a comment, or a public figure, or when someone spouts off their beliefs).

Lol, no, that's not my position. That would be very misleading to say. But it's fine to say that one reason I don't have a problem with "emotional harm" is because in most situations, you can just tell the person off yorself, or you can just not deal with that person. It would be misleading to characterize that as the sole reason or as sufficient in itself, though. — Terrapin Station

I mean what else is there? That's all I got from your "force" statement.. That's a bit vague.

I consider intent, but not intent alone. I don't consider any thoughts immoral, only certain actions. Intent does matter for those actions, but intent absent the actions, and absent forced outcomes, doesn't matter to me. — Terrapin Station

I also don't consider thoughts immoral either (although if someone provides some clear examples of how it is, I may change that notion). However, being mean is usually some sort of behavior towards someone so we can start with that. Intent absent forced outcomes, is where we disagree perhaps? I don't even know actually. Someone being mean to another person, whether it matters to me or not, can be immoral because the intent is to harm them. To bypass this back-and-forth can we agree that we have hit the relevant axioms here which don't go further?

Your position seems to be that as long as someone can get away from the mean person, it is not immoral, is that about right?

My position is that if the person has intent to inflict harm, and is acting in such a way to inflict harm, then it is in the realm of morality, and is perhaps indeed immoral.

I think that is our point of disagreement, but I think we can agree on some things:
1) It would have to involve an action, not just thoughts or anything about another person. That really doesn't matter if it is thoughts in someone's head.

2) There is definitely degrees of meanness.. We can probably both agree there are behaviors which are more mean than others.

So can we agree on these points? I'm trying something new where we find what we can agree on and find the hard stops where we disagree that cannot go any further. Otherwise, we will just have the same back and forths.

Life is like that: inescapable but provides intermittent pleasure and suffering. ("Inescapable pleasures? Sure. Antinatalists focus on the inescapable sufferings, but overlook inescapable pleasures). — Bitter Crank

This is true, and an important point. Do you think (not knowing any future outcome and admitting to oneself that it cannot be predicted for another person), that causing the conditions (life) of someone else's pleasure or happiness is worth causing the conditions (life) of someone else's suffering or pain?

Forget it. Forget as much as possible. Forget the absolutely real suffering one endured, forget the insults, the failures, the disasters. Forget the pain. A cop out? Not at all. Forgetting lessens the suffering of the inescapable. One may have had an extremely painful physical or emotional experience last week or 50 years ago. One can either dwell on the suffering for years, or one can let it go. ("Forgetting" isn't like the destruction of traumatic brain injury. It's selective.) — Bitter Crank

Yes, I think this is good possible coping strategy, but going back to the focus of work- that is something that we cannot forget, but is a matter of doing. What if all work is just bad because of its obligatory nature? I don't necessarily agree for example an avocation and vocation aligned make work completely free of negative experiences. The pleasure in the avocation can come from the fact that it is freely done in the manner and timing that one chooses, not the demands of management, customers, and shareholders. But, I do agree, having a job that one rather do over others is preferable than just any job.

Whether we can easily let the memory of suffering go or not is not entirely voluntary. Depressive types tend to hold on to the memory of suffering. Being depressive is not a voluntary condition, but the most depressed person can still make an effort to forget unpleasantness. The goal is not to escape into 'la la land', which in any case is short term and involves the payment of unpleasant withdrawal later on. — Bitter Crank

Yes, if one is a depressive (depressive realist?) one doesn't forget as easily, and one often dreads more.

Successful forgetting won't change the antinatalist into a population explosion; it will just make their life more endurable until inescapable death provides relief. — Bitter Crank

This may be true. The point is though, are these situations good to put other people through? It seems like you're saying, as long as there are coping strategies and preferences (like jobs that are more preferable than others), then it is justified to put people into these situations which inevitably cause suffering or are at least known to be a source of it.

Can we agree that there is some subversion going on here where people try to justify the suffering since "growth" or "stronger outcomes" can come from adversity? In other words, it seems people think it is justified to put other people through this adversity in the first place because sometimes growth can come from it. Thus, they may think adversity itself as an experience, is justified because of possible "growth" outcomes. In this thinking, because adversity is inescapable, there must be some positive or acceptable thing about it (growth, fullness of experience, makes people stronger, more empathetic, wouldn't know happiness without it, etc.). There is a justification for what is negative and perhaps even an embrace of it, thus creating conditions of negative experience for another is justified because of this. Now, it is up to the coping strategies of the individual born to deal with it, no? Isn't the onus now just put on a new generation rather than stopped in the previous one?

(1) causality issues, where what I'm concerned with there is force (and being able to demonstrate force) — Terrapin Station

Forced to hear the comment? So are you claiming a sort of consequentialism whereby an act is only as moral as to what the outcome of the act has done? Intent or the behavior itself is something you don't look at in terms of moral issues?

(2) the subjectivity of it, including but not limited to the fact that it's impossible to confirm anyone's report (because we can't observe anyone else's mind) — Terrapin Station

Again, why is the sole focus on the consequence? A person with mean intent is trying to invoke a negative consequence whether successful or not.

(3) the fact that in most situations, the "victim" can just tell the person they're having a problem with to get lost, they can just stop associating with them, etc. The only exception is when we're talking about kids. — Terrapin Station

Same issue as the other two, all based on consequence. Also, even if we do look at solely consequences, there may be issues of shared resources. If the two people have to share the same resource. The onus in is on the target even if they did not ask for this?

There is no intentional offense that I'd consider immoral. When someone is offended I see it as their problem, not the offender's problem. — Terrapin Station

Two things going on here that are troubling:
1) You don't seem to put any stock in emotional abuse. That's concerning.
2) The motive of someone trying to inflict emotional abuse is to harm them.

I consider harm the basis of most things that fall into morality. How can someone trying to harm someone else not be considered at least "negative" in some way? This is trying to illicit negative emotional states from another person by being mean.

In other words, even if what you are saying is correct, they are not mutually exclusive. Someone can try to inflict harm (and thus be immoral or at least be accused of trying to illicit a negative response which I would think most people would disapprove of), and the target of the meanness can be taught how to psychologically block the mean person's comments. Those are two separate issues though.

Really good post.. I have to digest it now :D.

That's not my view. For example, I don't think there's anything immoral about intentionally offending someone. — Terrapin Station

Offending has many shades here.. Is this friends clearly teasing each other, something understood in its context, or is this outright being mean to be mean?

What is it which makes someone think he could adhere exclusively to demands of modernity, ignorant of the best of all erst eras, and retain any possibility of being a perennial man? What is it which makes one think the modern world is the best of all times in all ways (that it is progressing?). Every era has a socioeconomic variable to it more advanced than the era before and what comes after. Feudalism was far less alienating than capitalism, work was never in question, there was no "job hunting." One of the very few symptoms of sanity I've come across anent modern commercialized life is open hiring. Like a guaranteed minimum income, open hiring is another element of capital which is extremely slow catching up to the fact that if money or a job isn't guaranteed you (without any hoops/games)...guess what ...it's systematized murder. — Anthony

Hey, in a way I agree but going about it differently. I simply advocate not making other people suffer by not having them. No need to worry if there is no subject that is the locus of any worrying to begin with :D. Hence I advocate against procreation- antinatalism that is. No agendas that other people need to carry out (work, happiness, growth-through-adversity, X). People think there is some ideals that people must experience and thus need to be born to experience this. I see this as flawed logic and want people to be more aware of this.

And just anticipating this response, it's not just because other people want to be around some of the stuff I'm talking about that I'd say it's not immoral. The vast majority of people, including me, wouldn't want, say, a brown recluse spider as a pet, or wouldn't want to hang out with someone who only showers once per year but who goes to the gym every day, etc. but I don't think those things are immoral. — Terrapin Station

I think we have to distinguish what kind of asshole we are talking about. An asshole whose intent is to routinely try to emotionally denigrate or hurt someone would be immoral. It is purposely trying to harm a person. A person can be harmed emotionally. Physical harm is not the only one that exists, and often emotional harm can lead to physical harm, so it is enmeshed. It is incumbent on the victim to get away from the asshole, but sometimes this can't happen as easily, or sadly, if the asshole and the victim have to share some sort of resource, it is the asshole that will win out even if the victim would also like to use that resource, because the victim doesn't want to be around the asshole. This happens in friend groups too, but any institutions, clubs, groups, and workplaces, I can see this also taking place.

What still holds? The distinction between good and bad? I never denied that distinction, nor did I intend to "blur" or "narrow" it. This seems entirely irrelevant to my point. — S

I don't want to argue with you. You are uncharitable and a mean poster. Clearly we've argued a lot, and I am not shy of arguing your rebuttals over and over as I have done in the past. But I must break that cycle somewhere (just like this procreation shit).. and I cannot continue being annoyed at doggedly answering your responses- especially because by not answering you think your point is correct or better. I just am not going to play the game with you anymore. If you want to engage with me, you have to change your style or your aim.

You can play the innocent, or say how harmless you are being, but you are indeed a hostile poster.. it turns that way at least. You start off a bit more reasonable-sounding and just become annoyingly hostile over time.. This has been played out before. You are a mean poster, uncharitable and then you chalk it up to "I just tell it like I see it".. so can't get through to you.. It's not a matter of me not wanting to argue back.. believe me, you clearly illicit that, I am just trying to break this cycle of how our exchanges go by throwing up these words to show you how annoyed I am by how you interact with me on this forum.

The argument isn't that it's inescapable and therefore acceptable or good. The argument is that it's good overall, in spite of inescapable downsides. — S

The distinction can be as blurry or as narrow as you like between "good despite the bad" or "good in the bad". It still holds.

Hooo Hoooo

What is it that is "inescapable"? Life? Existence? There are escape routes available. Being born is inescapable (because the unborn do not exist in the first place and are not party to the problem of existence and escapability). Suffering? Again, it is not inescapable. Death is inescapable, if one has been born. — Bitter Crank

I mean, there are "escape routes" and there are "escape routes". Work/labor is not realistically inescapable except through very special conditions- all of which are either out of reach for most, or simply worse off (thus making the situation de facto inescapable). Let's see, we have the options of become super rich, live homeless, be some sort of survivalist, etc. Most of these options are off the table or lead to slow deaths. Work it is as a (pretty much) inescapable position. But that doesn't mean work/labor is good because it exists.

As you know, the modern (last 40 years or so maybe?) books try to subvert "negative experiences" by saying they are "good for you". Thus "growth-through-adversity" is seen as something to embrace. Let's all have children because even if they face adversity, they get to grow from it!! See, everything's cool. You get to have your cake and eat it too. No, just because there is potential to grow from adverse/negative conditions, doesn't mean that this is good. Just because negative and inescapable realities exist doesn't mean they are good just because humans are able to tolerate these conditions and that they exist in this reality in the first place.

I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure if that tension inherently exists. I think a lot of it is taught to us at an early age. — Tzeentch

Buddhism sets up its own philosophy for this tension. As long as we have the ability to make distinctions like A is A and B is B, etc. then we have a more-or-less straight forward argument from Buddhism whereby it sets itself up for this struggle from the start (being born). Being born kicks off a tension or struggle whereby our egos become attached to various desires. We must free ourselves from detachment through the eight-fold path which leads to Enlightenment. This is a classic Eastern ideological/philosophical/religious move- change from non-awareness to awareness, etc. So, this process of change (think of the hard efforts of monks and laypeople alike in Buddhism) is to reach a state of peace and Enlightenment. Thus, the condition of being born is that of non-awareness and the possibility to move to awareness. This condition is just as susceptible to the naturalistic fallacy as any other condition of human life. That is to say, because it exists, does not make it acceptable or good. This is mainly in relation to procreation. Because this tension to move from non-awareness to awareness exists, it must be good and therefore acceptable to procreate people into this. Perhaps this tension of not being aware unless through "the way" is not good. Perhaps there should be no exposure to birth and having to find peace in the first place?

As an aside, a hardcore Buddhist would make what I think of as a cop-out move. That is to say that the cycle of reincarnation will always be turning, and the fate of an individual being born is simply determined in some spiritual way. I don't agree with that metaphysical view, of course.

Inescapable suffering is bad. Buddhism offers an escape from suffering by not desiring. But not desiring is still bad, relative to the good of satisfying desires. But still better than suffering from unsatisfied desires. — Pfhorrest

Good points.

I wonder who you have heard making that claim. I can’t imagine anyone seriously saying that what is inescapable is good. You can’t escape from prison, so prison is good? You are destined to be slave, so slavery is good? Life is misery, so misery is good?? — Congau

Yes, people do make claims like these. They think they are subverting something bad or being "oh so clever". "Life has misery so misery must be something that makes life richer (aka meaningful/fuller/put anything positive here)". I call this thinking "Nietzschean" as it is sort of what Nietzsche's beyond good and evil, overman, and eternal return were all about- embracing a life that has whatever negative qualities we suffer from. But this supposed subversion is a circle that can't be squared. Rather, it seems to be just the naturalistic fallacy that "If it exists, and humans have to deal with it, then it cannot be bad simply because it exists in the first place". But this again, is a self-justifying fallacy akin to the naturalistic fallacy. The fallacy is something like "Pain exists in the human condition, and humans still survive and may "grow" from it, thus it growing from adversity must be good for people to have to experience because it exists".

What you often notice in people, though, is an incapacity to imagine things being different from what they are. It hardly makes sense to complain if a different condition is not even imaginable. You don’t complain of the grass being green even if it’s not your favorite color. You don’t object to having to eat beans every day if that’s the only food you know to exist. — Congau

This is true. People get upset when you raise the point that there could have been better worlds, even in the slightest way, but that this world is not that world. But again (pace Nietzsche's bad stance) just because this is the reality we live in, doesn't make it better, acceptable, or good because better worlds that we can imagine are impossible. In a way, I am rejecting the modern "self-help" mantra to radically accept what cannot be changed or inescapable. That seems to be a great cause for people thinking it is at least acceptable to procreate more people into this reality.

It is indeed often the case that people like what they have just because they can’t envision anything else. This is far from being a philosophical position, though. The essence of philosophy is exactly to be willing to examine everything and not take anything for granted. We should never assume that something is good just because it appears to be an inescapable reality. — Congau

Completely agreed. That is basically the gist of the OP. Conditions of life being the way they are, are not inherently good just because that is the reality.

The common saying that “whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”, is probably true, but that doesn’t mean that that thing itself is good. It’s just to say that nothing is so bad that there’s no good in it. — Congau

Correct, adversity becomes the "hero" in this horrible stance, precisely because it is inescapable.

But buddhism itself is inherently a "way" meaning there is "not the way". This tension. Between a way and not the way already sets itself up for the condition of "growth through adversity" as one must figure out peace from not peace or some awareness from not awareness. This is falling onto the thinking that conditions that exist (moving from awareness from non awareness) must be acceptable or good.

What some deem hobbies, then, are infinitely more valuable to me, inasmuch as these activities are in some ways, the only place to learn without being fired. It's far more relevant to life than a fountain of happiness. You have to be able to self-regulate to learn. — Anthony

You can probably find a large, remote tract of land somewhere and test your theory out if you really wanted.

I like this color fine.. is any one else reminded of coconut and caramel cookies with this color?

Good point

No, I don’t. Meanness is categorically different from malicious intent. I dare say if you kindly point out the apparent withdrawal of kindness in their behaviour, their subsequent response will usually inform you of their intent. — Possibility

Many times that response is pretty mean too ha.

That depends on whether you need validation. What can seem from my perspective to be a ‘waste of time’ might be the only kindness that person receives that day. A large number of my posts on this forum appear to be ignored, in that no-one responds to them or a discussion ends there. Some might consider them a waste of time, but I’m not doing it for validation (although it would be nice). I have information and a perspective to be shared.

I still think you’re assuming that kindness on your part will be met with unpleasantness, or else still assuming intent on the part of the mean person in hoping their unpleasantness will somehow prevent unpleasantness in return. You might need to test your assumptions - ask the question. — Possibility

Ok, but waste of time because the people are known already to respond a certain way. Your posts are probably less confrontational.. People on the forum tend to like conflict, which possibly is why people tend to ignore your posts.

The manager-employee relationship often has a contract to handle entitlement, and any employee should be made aware of the expectations of the job before signing. Beyond that, showing ‘disapproval’ can take many forms, and managers often have defense mechanisms in place to conceal the fear that they may not be sufficiently competent themselves as managers. This often includes maintaining a certain relational distance from their employees that can be construed as a lack of kindness. The employee may not know the manager well enough to distinguish this from a subtle message that they’re not meeting expectations. It takes courage as an employee to ask for clarification. I would say the responsibility of a manager, though, is to make sure their employee is aware of expectations they may not be meeting, and give them the opportunity and perhaps even support to then strive to meet those expectations before taking due course. Firing is only ‘mean’ if the employee was unaware that they weren’t meeting expectations before being fired. — Possibility

This sounds like it makes sense. I can probably have a whole topic on how the workplace changes social relations in general.

On the other hand, if a person is being made to feel inferior, the natural response is to try to turn the tables - to gain the upper hand. But regardless of whether or not I am inferior to them in every way possible, I need to acknowledge that they know about stuff I don’t. That will ALWAYS be true. So I don’t really need to gain the upper hand unless this is a competition or a formal debate. My aim, then, is to accept a certain inferiority, and then demonstrate what unique competence I can bring to the discussion that complements their own. If they’re no longer fighting to be superior or right, they’re less likely to be mean, and more open to learning a thing or two by accident. — Possibility

Makes sense but the natural human tendency is to not be in a lower position, thus retaliation to gain the upper hand. So while this ideal makes sense, it's easier to respond in kind rather than taking the higher road. There's very much a "you first" mentality when meanness is responded to with meanness. Thinking about the bigger picture is lost. In a way, this is how trolls operate. They know human nature is to try to fight back in the same meanness. This is how they trap the victim.

Your response is surprisingly more idealistic, optimistic, and less esoteric than I thought, which is good.

One of the hard things about this is that much of this is opportunistic: you need a sense of what the Greeks called kairos, seizing the right time, intervening at the right moments, if you're in the right position. The conversations we have prepare the ground, they enable those who are in a position (not usually people like you and me) to tap into something existing and take it from there. 'We' can't change the funding rules for governments, but we can talk about it and put it on the agenda until it becomes impossible to ignore. — StreetlightX

I can agree with most of these positions you bring up, if I'm discussing everyday politics mode. I agree that Sanders has brought socialism into the mainstream (of the left) in the US- something that would have been political suicide in the 80s and 90s. It would have gotten some people literally blacklisted in the 50s and early 60s :).

One of the hard things about this is that much of this is opportunistic: you need a sense of what the Greeks called kairos, seizing the right time, intervening at the right moments, if you're in the right position. The conversations we have prepare the ground, they enable those who are in a position (not usually people like you and me) to tap into something existing and take it from there. 'We' can't change the funding rules for governments, but we can talk about it and put it on the agenda until it becomes impossible to ignore. — StreetlightX

I see that this is actually very much in line with what happens already (civil rights movement, anti-war movement, progressive era in regards to labor laws/anti-monopoly laws and income tax).

Now moving this out to the abstract again, what do you see as the individual's relation to politics/political systems? Communism for example has an idea that people need to free themselves from the evils of exploitation, thus man is always somehow in some sort of shared labor. What are the assumptions of democratic-socialist economies of the individual and their place in the system as a whole? What is the metaphysical status of the self/individual in the "soft" socialist position (as opposed to hardcore communist let's say) and/or the current US system?

But will he get convicted and removed? Doubtful

If this work situation is the most realistic of the best of all worlds that involve work and non-work, why do we procreate more people into this model? A very basic question people don't really ask that much. It's like because we know nothing else, then it must be acceptable by default. Prevent forced labor, prevent birth..Fight the Power!

1. Unlimited cash for political advertisement
2. A winner takes all system
3. Political appointment of judges
4. Disconnect between rich politicians and normal people means normal people's problems aren't taken care of (an issue in most Western democracies, just that Congressmen in the US are filthy rich) — Benkei

I can get on board with all of those.

As I said to someone else, if, at this point, you're still trying to convince people that things are fucked up, the only person living under a rock is you. The only idiot in the room is you. — StreetlightX

I mean this kind of talk reminds me of Trump.. "The only idiot is you". Just insults.. How is that contributing to something better? Maybe you unconsciously agree with Trump's methods.

My proposals are largely negative: don't individualize politics. Don't psychologize politics. Look to things that will have mass effects on how people engage with the world around them; if you're not discussing something in social terms, it's probably not worth very much. If you're not looking at how power is operating (who is doing what to whom for whose benefit?), then you're doing more mystifying than helping. — StreetlightX

I mean this is very vague stuff.. In fact, it's almost as vague as what you are accusing me of when stating how things are screwed up right now in Congress. Actually, I gave much more detail at least in how things are screwed up and shared a particular angle on the situation. In a way I agree, if what you mean is politics is really everything we do socially. We have to learn that it is all connected. Even being by yourself in an apartment is connected. Man is a political animal and thus every engagement is really involving with social institutions, social values, social ways of life. But how about real concrete examples?

There are HOAs, community meetings, town hall meetings, party meetings, meetups, homeless initiatives, and various civic channels. I mean, potentially people could join these and feel more connected and participatory in their neighborhood. Often people consider life to be more discrete- worklife, family life (maybe involving some civic stuff as an example to kids and such?), but mostly personal entertainment.. Work, entertainment. Every couple years there may be an election, and that is often the extent of most people's politics outside of reading some articles or headlines.

I disagree, however, that character is entirely irrelevant. People with character would resist the worst extremes the system would allow. Which, although not a solution to any systemic problem, would dampen some of the consequences. — Benkei

Nixon comes to mind here..But notice he actually had the decency to LEAVE office once he saw the tapes come out and that other Republicans were now on board that this was bad. So two things going on.. First you had a more/less appropriate response (resignation) as Congress was starting to lean towards president being unfit to stay in office. Second, you actually had other Republicans recognizing the cover-up as a bad thing, warranting the drafting of impeachment charges.

Notice, both of these things may not happen this time.

As far as systematic changes, again, what are we proposing? I mentioned a list of stuff earlier in response to Streetlight X, but he didn't actually respond with concrete ideas. I'm all for systemic change. However, at the end of the day, the people running are just not great people, and we have the worst of the worst.

It's like Wayfarer who keeps asking 'how could the GOP be so hypocritical?' as though he expected any answer of substance. — StreetlightX

Why wouldn't there be an answer of substance?

But it's a rhetorical question - he knows it, everyone who reads it knows it - so the only thing it is a statement of masturbatory political commentary. It's a psychological feel-good mechanism and nothing more. — StreetlightX

The first step in change is recognizing what is fucked up.. It looks like he is just trying to get people to recognize what is fucked up..

But to my previous point, what do you suppose to do systematically, as you were stating? Right now, I don't see much else except outrage at Wayfarer's outrage. That in itself can be called masturbatory.. maybe masturbatory squared even!

Because to 'play politics' is to 'play democracy'. There's nothing democratic about the 'odious' focus on the backroom deals and personalities of the rich and powerful. The issues are to change the conditions under which truth, lies, and significance circulate in society. the If you don't address those conditions, no amount of dewey-eyed nostalgia for a time when there were Good People will do anything. Systemic problems require systemic solutions, not shitty psycho-individual tinkering. The latter is simply complicity - you may as well be a Trump supporter. — StreetlightX

Well, I did say a lot more than what you decided to quote. How would you take from what I wrote, that I wouldn't be for systematic solutions? And what systematic solutions are we proposing? Limit campaign money contributions (Super PACs)? Congressional term limits? Less signatures to get on the ballot? Electoral college abolition? Equal election funding? Promote third-parties?

Anyways, even with all these systematic changes- hell, even with very exact wording of what Abuse of Power entails or High Crimes or Misdemeaners.. My main claim that the party that is in power can do what they want as long as they don't hold themselves to standards. In the US Constitution as it stands, only Congress can impeach and basically remove the President from office. As a congressman, you can either find any escape route to keep the person in your party in power, or you can try to be as fair as possible when looking at matters of abusing power. One great litmus test is, "Would I allow this to go on if someone from the other party did this?". That is one really big test they can use. I guarantee 95% of Republicans would be calling for impeachment if this was seen to be the case with a Democrat. As someone mentioned earlier, Obama wore a tan suit and got lambasted. What else can you say? This is asymmetrical warfare. How do you propose to combat this type of entrenched power politics?

I don’t believe the intention of meanness is to hurt, though. The feelings of the target are irrelevant, but it is because we expect some level of consideration (kindness) that meanness is perceived as malicious intent. In most situations, I would argue there is no intentional malice. The intent is to win, to avoid humility and reassure themselves of relative superiority at all cost. They are more often than not being led by their own fears - fears they will of course deny. — Possibility

You don't think there is at least some intentional malice going on with certain incidences of meanness? Though, I would agree that there are other factors that may weigh more heavily- win at all costs, avoid humility, relative superiority, etc. It may be simply stress. When one is stressed, and has too much going on, one tends to lash out. So there are many causes here, and many of them are not from malicious intent.

I think the person being mean should be made aware that their behaviour has fallen below an expected level of kindness and civility, without assuming it was done intentionally. The hardest thing about being the one to tell them this is that we must accept a certain amount of humility ourselves in doing so: it feels like we’re acknowledging their power or capacity to harm us, doesn’t it? But isn’t it true? Why do we need to deny that fact? What are we afraid of? — Possibility

Yes, I think there is a certain discomfort confronting in general. But depending on the situation, it may be a waste of time, or just unpleasant to deal with. The mean person is hoping this will override any admonitions.

I don’t see it as a political battle, but a battle for the rule of law — Wayfarer

Well, that is basically what my last post was trying to say..

If it were a dispute over policy then it would be political. But it’s happening because the incumbent is demonstrably unfit for office and has failed to lawfully exercise his duties as President. — Wayfarer

I agree very much. What I meant by political battle is, at the end of the day Congress will have to get over its own partisanship and even perhaps their own constituency to hold up the Constitution as anything but a joke right now. If this matter isn't resolved properly, indeed the message is some people are above the law. To not recognize this as an Abuse of Power, and one that is worthy of impeachment means there is no rule of law and that all that matters is the party in power.

The difficulty is fighting lies by legal means. If you get into the ring with someone who will kick you in the balls and gouge your eyes out while you have to play by gentlemen’s rules, then you’d better have some pretty good moves. — Wayfarer

Being that this is mainly a political battle over what is considered an Abuse of Power, it is up to both parties to a) come to an agreement of what that means and b) interpret facts using the same methodologies. Well, prior to trump it would have been more than an outrage if a president was openly asking help from a foreign country to help win an election. Nixon only used domestic spies, for example.

Now, people might get confused here. Nixon's crime was not that burglers broke into some random hotel room. They broke in on political opponents to the president. Even then, it may be argued Nixon was unaware of the original break-in. Rather, it was the cover-up that he got caught up in that was found out. Unlike today, JUST a cover-up of an attempt to spy on political enemies was eventually seen by Nixon's own party (the Republicans) as worthy of impeachment (and thus Nixon resigned). However, today, Trump not only covered up an attempt to get dirt on an enemy, it is clear in the transcripts that indeed, he asked a foreign government to help dig up dirt on a political opponent. That in itself is an Abuse of Power. As far as I see it, you don't even have to prove "quid pro quo" (which actually seems to have been the case too) to prove this was an Abuse of Power. But with asymmetrical warfare, the party in power does not hold its own party to any standard (or pay lip service to it, even if they themselves don't care), so that this clear Abuse of Power is overlooked or the standard is raised to an unbelievably narrow standard. High Crimes and Misdemeanors as I see it, are not the same as actual crimes, but is a term used for officials in power who corrode the very system they are in charge of.

This is partly what I mean when I say that Trump supporters are generally far better attuned to the things that matter: they grasp - however cynically and nihilistically - the importance of power. They understand - in a way liberals are laregely clueless about - the instrumentalities of politics entirely unsubordinated to moral injunctions, even if they use the latter in service of the former. This is partly why the perpetual confusion of Trump opponents over how such an alliance between him and evangelicals is possible is itself so exasperating.

When Trump supporters are treated as dupes - again, a debilitating individualization of politics - and not as eagle-eyed clear about what they are doing, the only idiots here are aghast liberals who, in thinking themselves superior and immune to being hoodwinked, are the only clueless ones in the room. Without a proper understanding of power, Trump opponents will flounder and even play right into the hands of all they apparently hate. Treating the political as a space of morals and individuals is fatal, absolute suicide. — StreetlightX

I'm a bit fascinated now by asymmetrical warfare. I consider what the evangelicals and Trump-supporters in general are doing asymmetrical warfare as anything Trump does to them gets a pass, but if a Democrat like Obama did any ounce of what Trump did, he would have been impeached long ago. That kind of unjust double standard is the odious part. A strong democracy where all that matters is the majority who have power is indeed not a strong one after all. I disagree with this idea that it's just playing better politics. If that's the case, why even have a democracy? This corruption can work under any format and corrodes the idea of living up to any ideals. There is a difference between cynicism of human tendencies and then indulging them as what should be the case.

Being mean would be to callously speak or behave in a way that disregards the negative feelings your action trigger in another person. It's a moral flaw because it perpetuates unjustified, unnecessary suffering. — aporiap

Very good definition there. Being that suffering is one of the most important things to consider in morality, I can very much get on board with the idea that it is one of many things that leads to suffering in others. Of course, the next question is why would morality be based on whether one causes suffering or not in others? But this is then metaethics.

Personally, I think withdrawing kindness has no positive effect in any exchange, and there is no call or justification for it under any circumstances. But I wouldn’t call it immoral - I tend not to evaluate behaviour in this way.

If you tell me that I’m being ‘mean’, I would interpret it as a call to consider that my behaviour has fallen below the minimum level of kindness and civility that you expect in the exchange. Of course, I may not agree with your assessment or that the exchange requires that level of kindness - but if I wish to continue the exchange, then we need to reach some level of agreement.

I think mean-ness also relates to humility, so the association with ‘arrogance’ mentioned earlier is another good point. When we call a behaviour out as ‘mean’, we consider our own behaviour in the exchange (or as a rule) to be kinder in comparison. That may not be accurate, but withdrawing kindness as a response to ‘mean’ behaviour is only stooping to their level. If I build someone's self esteem, I am not extracting it from my own or tipping a balance in their favour. When both parties withdraw kindness, then nothing positive will result, and any suggestion otherwise is a matter of ignorance, IMO.

I think continuing to demonstrate the level of kindness we expect from others is the most effective way to eliminate mean-ness in an exchange. — Possibility

Yes, it is hard to not ask for retribution from the mean person. Usually that means being mean back, a retaliation. But as you explained, no one wins when both people "withdraw kindness". I think the idea that being mean is withdrawing a base level of kindness is not a bad way to look at meanness. It is evaluating the other person as not worthy of a certain kind of respect or civility. Something about that other person has triggered in the mean person a response or a way of relating that involves ridiculing, demeaning, isolating, or acting with condescension towards another person. The intent is to probably hurt, and the hope is that the meanness is received negatively the target of the meanness. What is the appropriate response to the mean person then? Is it pointing out that meanness is taking place? Is it just ignoring it? Is it getting an apology? Silently just know that the other person is being an asshole but not letting them know? What would be the just way to handle this sort of asymmetry of attacks?

This is of course keeping in mind that there actually is someone being mean, and not in the "victim's" head. The epistemology of this is something to take into account. How does one tell if one is just oversensitive or misperceiving what is the case?

The intelligent person falls back from niceness - questionably and examines, the smart person uses meanness to suppress the malicious intent of niceness. To say meannness is a moral flaw is dangerous. There is not one thing nice about truth, knowledge, or integrity. It is all mean, rude, and invasive. If you don't feel sad or upset yet, you are probably too nice.

Kindness prevails above both niceness and meanness. It is necessary for survival because you cannot not be kind. Kind is morality. Yes, you can be kind and mean. — Swan

This just seems like mincing words and meanings- up is down, down is up.. A bit too Nietzscheanesque for me. So being nice is immoral because it hides some sort of truth statements that are somehow associated with meanness. I'm not sure that necessarily correlates. You can call someone a fuckn moron who doesn't know his own ass from his head.. or you can say that someone is misinformed. I don't know, one seems a bit meaner than the other and unnecessary, both convey the same message. Also, it just seems like you are stretching the meaning of "kind" too much beyond its meaning.

If you are trying to say that "the truth hurts" then that is something to explore. For example, the idea that you aren't force recruiting new people into a labor force by abstaining from procreation. You aren't force causing the conditions for a lifetime of various negative experiences by abstaining from procreation. That to me is a truth, and often times it is an odious idea to people and perhaps hurts their sensibilities. However, I don't intend to hurt with it. It I believe to be the truth of the matter, but I don't think anyone would construe that as being "mean". Now, if I went up to a pregnant lady and started harassing her about how awful she is for having kids, that would be mean and I wouldn't condone it. So this bit of wordplay between kind and mean and truth and mean doesn't pass muster with how I see it.