Does this sense of emotional self-responsibility extend to personal reactions to the existence of topics whose subject matter is in conflict with one's own personal preferences?
Metta,
Paul.
Does this sense of emotional self-responsibility extend to personal reactions to the existence of topics whose subject matter is in conflict with one's own personal preferences?
Yes. What is your point? That Members should not speak out unless you agree with them?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:41 amDoes this sense of emotional self-responsibility extend to personal reactions to the existence of topics whose subject matter is in conflict with one's own personal preferences?
Members (including you, including me) can say what they like, so long as they adhere to the Terms of Service.... and they won't be censored merely because their words or chosen subject matter has offended the sensibilities of any individual members (including you, including me).
No. I have no idea what you're talking about.
As stated, we are all responsible for the kamma we ourselves perform. This personal responsibility has been the point from the very beginning of this Topic. A point which apparently has been missed by many here.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:03 pmA civil society certainly values courtesy and consideration, but no person is inherently entitled to this. To the world, to society, one's feelings are absolutely insignificant and it is inflated self-indulgence to think otherwise. To ourselves and to our loved ones, feelings are valued and acknowledged, but do not in the least expect this from a complete stranger or society at large. They owe nothing to ones subjectivity. Do not expect it, and if kind consideration does occur then it is a delightful privilege, not a right.
Nobody has advocated censorship. I don't know where you got that from.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:51 amMembers (including you, including me) can say what they like, so long as they adhere to the Terms of Service.... and they won't be censored merely because their words or chosen subject matter has offended the sensibilities of any individual members (including you, including me).
That has been my point as well.My "point", as you call it, was just about the principle of taking ownership of one's own mind and reactions, applying sense restraint where relevant, and the general decorum of not making one's private emotional turmoils a public matter.
My mistake, It's actually the OP of the other controversial Topic I started which has been altered, not this OP. viewtopic.php?f=16&t=30614 Perhaps as the almighty administrator, you can look back and see who edited the OP in that Topic. I don't know if you or anyone else edited the OP in this topic.
That's funny, you were awfully insistent in a recent topic that any and all discussion and critique of Islam and Mohammad should be stopped.Nobody has advocated censorship. I don't know where you got that from.
Yes, I still am insistent the discussion and critique should be much more measured. You should rein in the hate speech about other faiths, especially in light of the persecution of Rohingya Muslims at the hands of self-identified Buddhists. But again, that is your business, and your kamma to perform.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:02 amThat's funny, you were awfully insistent that any discussion and critique of Islam and Mohammad should be stopped.
While I am open to changing my position, in this instance I have not changed any position. Rather, you have misunderstood my position from the very start.Have you changed your position, and become tolerant to the existence of such discussion?
Have you stopped beating your wife? What kind of silly question is that. You are the one who hijacked this thread for the purpose of making personalized comments about me. I does not feel as though you have respected the autonomy of others to speak messages with which you personally disagree.Have you come to respect the autonomy of others to decide for themselves whether participation in such topics is of net benefit?
If you mean my efforts to discuss Dhamma in a meaningful way, no, this is not yet over.Is your crusade now over?
retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:02 amThat's funny, you were awfully insistent that any discussion and critique of Islam and Mohammad should be stopped.
Ah, so in fact you are advocating censorship and controls, despite your "Nobody has advocated censorship. I don't know where you got that from" protests. Glad we cleared that up.L.N. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:09 amYes, I still am insistent the discussion and critique should be much more measured. You should rein in the hate speech about other faiths, especially in light of the persecution of Rohingya Muslims at the hands of self-identified Buddhists. But again, that is your business, and your kamma to perform.
That's interesting.... I don't recall censoring or starting up a rally cry for the censorship of those with whom I personally disagree. I don't recall starting up a poll trying to demonize, tar, and feather those whose speech upset me. I don't remember reporting a whole swathe of posts that violated my personal feelings, but did not violate the Terms of Service.
I didn't say "workable for the forum". I said "workable on the forum". I entirely agree that when one makes a personalised comment, playing the person, etc., one can anticipate unexpected responses. But as I didn't make a personalised comment, your point does not apply. Your entire point is based upon simply choosing your particular interpretation against the good advice of others.L.N. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:01 am It is not meant to be workable for the forum. It is meant to be workable for oneself. In other words, when one makes a personalized comment, playing the person rather than the ball, one can anticipate unexpected responses. In which case one can take personal responsibility for the words spoken. As the poll shows, different people have different ideas of what comments might reasonably be taken personally.
Unsupported repetition. Who allows you to judge with objectivity and finality whether comments are personal? The point is that it was a comment that you chose to interpret as being personal. Despite reassurances that it was not, and that you did not need to. And yet you maintain that you take responsibility for your actions. Why do you not take responsibility for interpreting the words of others? That interpretation is a mental act which is free in that you could have done otherwise, you could have revised that interpretation. It could have been a misinterpretation. It is this insistence on your own self-righteousness that makes your holier-than-thou routine so risible.The point is that it was a personalized comment
Why keep on arguing all the time ? Let go, let go, let go!L.N. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:09 am If you mean my efforts to discuss Dhamma in a meaningful way, no, this is not yet over.
If it hasn't dawned on you yet, you have completely missed my point. Your posts have helped to make my point regarding personalized comments. You probably still don't get it.
"Monks, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions [the earliest classifications of the Buddha's teachings]. Having studied the Dhamma, they don't ascertain the meaning (or: the purpose) of those Dhammas [5] with their discernment. Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don't come to an agreement through pondering.
They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
You're forgetting who the posters here are. This isn't a debate class at a Buddhist university.
Some people just want to get personal.L.N. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:12 amThe kernel of truth might be: "I spoke in a manner which came across as personal, but I did not intend to speak about your person." Or the kernel of truth might be: "I intended to speak about your person, because I intend to comment about your state of mind." But we should acknowledge the kernel of truth and take personal responsibility for it.
People have vastly different ideas about what it means "to do better."
Censorship is a government function. This is a private website. Censorship is not even an applicable concept. You have TOS, and you can decide the face of Buddhism which you choose to present here. So far, it has included disparagement of other faiths, and disparagement of individuals with whom you disagree.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:23 amretrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:02 amThat's funny, you were awfully insistent that any discussion and critique of Islam and Mohammad should be stopped.Ah, so in fact you are advocating censorship and controls, despite your "Nobody has advocated censorship. I don't know where you got that from" protests. Glad we cleared that up.L.N. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:09 amYes, I still am insistent the discussion and critique should be much more measured. You should rein in the hate speech about other faiths, especially in light of the persecution of Rohingya Muslims at the hands of self-identified Buddhists. But again, that is your business, and your kamma to perform.
No, but bulling behavior is chilling. You are the administrator. You hijacked this thread for the purpose of making personalized comments about me. Also, please stop mischaracterizing my reporting. I have reported a grand total of 6 posts, as follows: (1) when Sam Vara went off the rails on the locked topic and got offensively personal; (2) at Mike's instructions as I understood them, and (3-6) various posts which showed open contempt for other traditions, in violation of TOS as I understand it. That is all.That's interesting.... I don't recall censoring or starting up a rally cry for the censorship of those with whom I personally disagree. I don't recall starting up a poll trying to demonize, tar, and feather those whose speech upset me. I don't remember reporting a whole swathe of posts that violated my personal feelings, but did not violate the Terms of Service.
I had assumed private reporting was confidential, and PMs were confidential. I have come to understand this is not the case, and if someone makes a report, they may be subject to retaliation by DW admin.Oh, that's right, that was you, wasn't it?
More personalized comments.Don't think your double-standards and hypocrisy will get you very far with me, mate.
When you use that word, I hope you use it with sincerity, not sarcastically.Metta,
Same meaning.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:28 amI didn't say "workable for the forum". I said "workable on the forum".L.N. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:01 am It is not meant to be workable for the forum. It is meant to be workable for oneself. In other words, when one makes a personalized comment, playing the person rather than the ball, one can anticipate unexpected responses. In which case one can take personal responsibility for the words spoken. As the poll shows, different people have different ideas of what comments might reasonably be taken personally.
Yes you did. You repeatedly discussed "your confusion" and alleged "hysterical" comments. See poll results above. These terms could reasonably be taken personally.I entirely agree that when one makes a personalised comment, playing the person, etc., one can anticipate unexpected responses. But as I didn't make a personalised comment, your point does not apply.
No it is not. I created a Topic about Right Speech. You and others have chosen to play the person, not the ball. I invite you to play the ball. I know you probably will not.Your entire point is based upon simply choosing your particular interpretation against the good advice of others.
But a reasonable person might. You never know, when you start talking to someone about their supposed confusion.The poll does not show that anyone would take the comment that I made personally.
More personalized comments.The poll does not ask whether people would take a particular statement personally, having been told by the person who made it that it was not personal. I also note that the poll does not ask whether, having taken a particular interpretation, one should repeatedly denounce the author despite their remonstration that the interpretation is wrong. Nor does the poll ask whether people think that it is possible to misinterpret someone's utterance.
Unsupported repetition. Who allows you to judge with objectivity and finality whether comments are personal? The point is that it was a comment that you chose to interpret as being personal. Despite reassurances that it was not, and that you did not need to. And yet you maintain that you take responsibility for your actions. Why do you not take responsibility for interpreting the words of others? That interpretation is a mental act which is free in that you could have done otherwise, you could have revised that interpretation. It could have been a misinterpretation. It is this insistence on your own self-righteousness that makes your holier-than-thou routine so risible.
That's right, each time we hit the reply button we have the choice to escalate or de-escalate. De-escalating is not that hard it just takes a bit of objectivity, a bit of tolerance, and impersonal language in the reply.
Conflict arises when there are competing interests. Which is how people who have less or more harmonized interests don't consider themselves to be in conflict with eachother, even though they make plenty of personalized comments. In contrast, no amount of proper speech can harmonize people who have competing interests, and so these people will be in conflict with eachother.
Do you know what makes your efforts typical? That you, like so many others, assume public activism will affect change. All it does is break down the community. Everything you are doing here is a carbon copy of someone else's previous efforts to take the forum in one direction or another. Truth is, there is no right thing to say to directly and immediately affect the change you claim to represent. Many right things need to be said repeatedly in order to create the appropriate context which can then help generate enough momentum to allow for the necessary density to be there in your words so that they won't go to waste. And not all of those words must be in reference to that proposed change. Either way, you skipped over that step.