Right Speech: Getting Personal

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).

I can see how the following comment(s) might reasonably be taken personally by someone else.

(1) "I disagree with you."
2
3%
(2) "You are incorrect."
6
8%
(3) "How could a person with the qualities you advocate ever take the position you hold to be true?"
6
8%
(4) "Here is the source of your confusion." (When you do not believe you are confused.)
7
9%
(5) "... backing away slowly ..." (followed by eye-roll emoji)
13
17%
(6) "You are too pig-headed to listen."
14
18%
(7) A post pointing out "your increasingly hysterical comments."
10
13%
(8) "You are a solipsist."
7
9%
(9) "That is your own idiosyncratic view, but the Buddha teaches ..."
7
9%
(10) "I can see how my comment may have offended you."
4
5%
 
Total votes: 76

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4092
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 am

L.N. wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:12 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:27 pm
L.N. wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:17 pm

I agree. I also think that when one becomes aware that one has said something, intentionally or unintentionally, which has caused a misunderstanding and possibly caused the person spoken to to feel harmed in some way, we should not escalate it. We should carefully consider our next First Words.
The same would apply to those next words.
Of course, but this is whataboutism. If one's First Words after speaking hurtful words (whether intentionally or not) are even more hurtful and show no regard for the harm caused (intentionally or not), then talking about the same applying to the next words is just a diversion. If one speaks in a manner which offends, one's duty is to attend to one's First Words, not attack the next words from the person spoken so.

Do you ever see any point at which one should take responsibility for the words one has spoken, and then "sweep your side of the street" as discussed in the locked thread? What do you view as being objectionable about acknowledging when you have spoken in a manner which has an unintended negative consequence, but then following up with kindness and self examination?
I'm not sure what you mean by "whataboutism" here. If the restraints one has placed on one's own utterances are the correct ones, then they will be fit for purpose regardless of the mental states of others and the claimed mental states of others. My duty to others in the context of internet communication is exhausted by Right Speech and the TOS. Both of these are voluntarily chosen as being personally binding upon me. Anyone else telling me what my duty is (i.e. wishing to restrict my autonomy) is of course very welcome to do so but will need to have very good arguments.

As a side issue, I'm entirely relaxed about "whataboutism" (although I don't know if it applies here). It's often a useful corrective to hypocrisy.

One always has responsibility for words one has spoken. There is nothing objectionable about acknowledging that one has spoken in a manner which has an unintended negative consequence. But that's not part of the restraints that I choose to place upon my utterances. Once I have made a point, the responses of the person to whom I have made it become part of the reality to which my next utterance applies. But that's also my responsibility. I have no duty to keep "my side of the street" clear of what a person on the other side of the street takes objection to. They might be an ingenuous suffering individual who I have inadvertently offended through ignorance. But they might also be an egotistic manipulator with a nice line in offended innocence. Or a snowflake who needs to take more responsibility for how they perceive things. Or anything, really. That's why it's my responsibility, not the responsibility of others.

binocular
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by binocular » Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:57 pm

L.N. wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:14 am
binocular wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:44 pm
I find that it is assuming some kind of objectivity and authority over other people is the problem. And the strawmaning, the redherringing, the virtuesignalling that is the problem.
You have leveled such accusations on numerous occasions. Not sure what you are driving at.
I find it hard to believe that you're not sure what I'm driving at.

Issues of power take place in communication. Similarly as one might physically seize control of another person by binding their hands and feet, so a person can attempt to have control over another person's mind and the meaning of their words. Such control can be described as "I am the one who decides what you mean," and so such a person says things like "When you say X, what you really mean is Y," "When you say Z, it can only be that you say it for reasons W."

Talk about getting personal!

binocular
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by binocular » Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:06 pm

L.N. wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:19 pm
The two are not essentially the same, or substantively the same, as there are two different objects of discussion.
As long as one externalizes issues of communication this way, one is bound up in the power game, and fighting for the upper hand.
L.N. wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:14 am
Excluded from my understanding of "personalized" comments are comments which address another person's expressed opinion or factual assertion. In other words, there is a difference between (1) commenting about what someone said, and (2) commenting about the person.
As long as one doesn't take ownership for making the comment to begin with, the problem will remain, and so long it doesn't make a difference if one is "commenting about what someone said" or "commenting about the person".

What makes the difference is owning one's words, instead of taking for granted that they are an objective statement about something out there.

One externalizes issues of communication by taking for granted that one's words are an objective statement about something out there.

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by L.N. » Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:34 pm

Good comments, Sam Vara.
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 am
L.N. wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:12 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:27 pm


The same would apply to those next words.
Of course, but this is whataboutism. If one's First Words after speaking hurtful words (whether intentionally or not) are even more hurtful and show no regard for the harm caused (intentionally or not), then talking about the same applying to the next words is just a diversion. If one speaks in a manner which offends, one's duty is to attend to one's First Words, not attack the next words from the person spoken so.

Do you ever see any point at which one should take responsibility for the words one has spoken, and then "sweep your side of the street" as discussed in the locked thread? What do you view as being objectionable about acknowledging when you have spoken in a manner which has an unintended negative consequence, but then following up with kindness and self examination?
I'm not sure what you mean by "whataboutism" here.
I may have misunderstood you. Following is the framework for the hypothetical conversation as I understand it:

SPEAKER: "Here is the source of your confusion."
PERSON SPOKEN TO: "Please stop with your personalized comments."
SPEAKER: (Whatever he/she says next are the "First Words.")
PERSON SPOKEN TO: (Whatever he/she says next are the "Next Words.")

Please let me know if this understanding is incorrect. When you stated, "The same would apply to those next words," I understood "Next Words" to be defined as above.

This is whataboutism because it changes the topic of discussion. Instead of discussing appropriate First Words (spoken by SPEAKER), the topic becomes Next Words (spoken by PERSON SPOKEN TO).
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 am
If the restraints one has placed on one's own utterances are the correct ones, then they will be fit for purpose regardless of the mental states of others and the claimed mental states of others.
I agree. It is still whataboutism, because we no longer are talking about First Words as defined above.
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 am
My duty to others in the context of internet communication is exhausted by Right Speech and the TOS.
That is your personal choice. However, I suggest that you consider whether your First Words following a misunderstanding are also subject to Right Speech and TOS. If, in your opinion, someone misunderstands you, is it your understanding that this then give you license to continue to speak in the same manner?
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 am
Both of these are voluntarily chosen as being personally binding upon me. Anyone else telling me what my duty is (i.e. wishing to restrict my autonomy) is of course very welcome to do so but will need to have very good arguments.
Then you are more patient than I am. If someone wishes to restrict my autonomy, I will not welcome it. You are correct that it is entirely up to you to decide what is your duty. Others may have different ideas about what our duty is to one another in a community such as this.
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 am
As a side issue, I'm entirely relaxed about "whataboutism" (although I don't know if it applies here). It's often a useful corrective to hypocrisy.
It may be useful to address hypocrisy, but it should never be used to avoid the subject. "Whataboutism" generally means the strategy of changing the topic. For example, when the United States would point out the human rights abuses in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union would say, "what about ...", changing the subject without addressing its own issue. Similarly, when critics of President Trump point out that he should not have equivocated about racism following the Neo Nazi marches a few months back, Trump responded by saying, what about the conduct of those who demonstrated against the Neo Nazis? Yes, the Soviet Union and Trump were attempting to paint their critics as hypocrites. They also were changing the subject and avoiding their own issues.
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 am
One always has responsibility for words one has spoken. There is nothing objectionable about acknowledging that one has spoken in a manner which has an unintended negative consequence. But that's not part of the restraints that I choose to place upon my utterances.
This is where you and I part ways. I believe in taking personal responsibility if I have unintentionally said something which might have caused offense.
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 am
Once I have made a point, the responses of the person to whom I have made it become part of the reality to which my next utterance applies.
Yes, "part of" the reality. An additional part of the reality is the words which you actually spoke, and the potential for misunderstanding which you might have created by speaking them.
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 am
But that's also my responsibility. I have no duty to keep "my side of the street" clear of what a person on the other side of the street takes objection to.
That's not what "sweeping your side of the street" means. Rather, it means acknowledging the kernel of truth in what the PERSON SPOKEN TO has said (e.g., acknowledge the truth you may have spoke words which could be misunderstood, acknowledge the truth that your words may have created an uncomfortable situation, etc.). It also means making amends (e.g., stating an intention to try to be more clear in the future). Very practically speaking, until you have done this, you may find that mis-communications will spin out of control, as they did in the locked thread.
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 am
They might be an ingenuous suffering individual who I have inadvertently offended through ignorance. But they might also be an egotistic manipulator with a nice line in offended innocence. Or a snowflake who needs to take more responsibility for how they perceive things. Or anything, really. That's why it's my responsibility, not the responsibility of others.
Yes, we might call people names like this in our thoughts. We might think the other person is a "manipulator" or a "snowflake." You may think these things about me. And yes, each of us is responsible for our own reactions. My suggestion in this Topic is that it is more effective to avoid personalized comments in the first place. My suggestion in response to your comments is that having made a potentially personalized comment which may have offended, one's First Words should be compassionate, not hostile.

You and others have so many excellent ideas to share, I hate to see you shoot yourself in the foot by using personalized comments which get in the way of the point you are trying to make.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4092
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:14 pm

L.N. wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:34 pm

I may have misunderstood you. Following is the framework for the hypothetical conversation as I understand it:

SPEAKER: "Here is the source of your confusion."
PERSON SPOKEN TO: "Please stop with your personalized comments."
SPEAKER: (Whatever he/she says next are the "First Words.")
PERSON SPOKEN TO: (Whatever he/she says next are the "Next Words.")

Please let me know if this understanding is incorrect. When you stated, "The same would apply to those next words," I understood "Next Words" to be defined as above.

This is whataboutism because it changes the topic of discussion. Instead of discussing appropriate First Words (spoken by SPEAKER), the topic becomes Next Words (spoken by PERSON SPOKEN TO).
Sorry, I don't really understand this hypothetical conversation. My point is that the rules I bind myself with are sufficient to deal with whatever situation presents itself and requires speech. Whether the recipient of speech has spoken before, whether I have spoken before, and no matter what feeling is felt by both parties or evinced by both parties, remaining within the constraints of Right Speech and the TOS are all that are required. Of course, as a conversation develops, the content changes; but I see no reason to add anything to those two constraints in the present moment.
I suggest that you consider whether your First Words following a misunderstanding are also subject to Right Speech and TOS. If, in your opinion, someone misunderstands you, is it your understanding that this then give you license to continue to speak in the same manner?
I've considered it, and I'm quite clear about it. Of course, whether or not a misunderstanding has taken place, the same restrictions on one's speech are appropriate if they are universal. One might or might not repeat the content in the same manner, depending on what one wants to say to the new situation as this has arisen, or one might wish to modify the content. But if it remains within the boundaries of the two self-imposed restrictions, the only reason to change what one says is that one now wishes to say something different. The requirements about Right Speech and TOS remain.
Then you are more patient than I am. If someone wishes to restrict my autonomy, I will not welcome it. You are correct that it is entirely up to you to decide what is your duty. Others may have different ideas about what our duty is to one another in a community such as this.
Indeed, that's the "TOS" part.
It may be useful to address hypocrisy, but it should never be used to avoid the subject
Should it not? I hope nobody attempts to restrict my autonomy in this...
"Whataboutism" generally means the strategy of changing the topic. For example, when the United States would point out the human rights abuses in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union would say, "what about ...", changing the subject without addressing its own issue. Similarly, when critics of President Trump point out that he should not have equivocated about racism following the Neo Nazi marches a few months back, Trump responded by saying, what about the conduct of those who demonstrated against the Neo Nazis? Yes, the Soviet Union and Trump were attempting to paint their critics as hypocrites. They also were changing the subject and avoiding their own issues.
Sounds fine to me! I don't know why Trump and the Soviet Union did what they did, but pointing out the hypocrisy seems an entirely reasonable response to unsolicited requests for introspection.
This is where you and I part ways. I believe in taking personal responsibility if I have unintentionally said something which might have caused offense.
Excellent! Providing you don't expect me to do the same, I can't see any problem with this.
My suggestion in this Topic is that it is more effective to avoid personalized comments in the first place. My suggestion in response to your comments is that having made a potentially personalized comment which may have offended, one's First Words should be compassionate, not hostile.
Thanks for your suggestion. As I have outlined the self-imposed rules which govern my speech here, you can hopefully see why it does not apply, and why I will not be taking it up.
You and others have so many excellent ideas to share, I hate to see you shoot yourself in the foot by using personalized comments which get in the way of the point you are trying to make.
You should rest easy, then, and your hate can remain dormant on this occasion. I've not shot myself in the foot; I've not made what I consider to be personalised comments; even if I have then I'm absolutely fine with that; and I'm happy with the clarity of the points I've made.

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by L.N. » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:18 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:14 pm
You should rest easy, then, and your hate can remain dormant on this occasion.
Please do not associate me with hate or make other personalized comments of this nature. The reference to "your hate" is a personalized comment. This is an apt example of the type of comment subject to discussion in this Topic. You have just made a personalized comment.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4092
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:00 pm

L.N. wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:18 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:14 pm
You should rest easy, then, and your hate can remain dormant on this occasion.
Please do not associate me with hate or make other personalized comments of this nature. The reference to "your hate" is a personalized comment. This is an apt example of the type of comment subject to discussion in this Topic. You have just made a personalized comment.
I was merely using a word that you had used of yourself. You said
You and others have so many excellent ideas to share, I hate to see you shoot yourself in the foot by using personalized comments which get in the way of the point you are trying to make.
and I was pointing out that the hate which you feel when you think I and others "shoot ourselves in the foot" was misplaced here. You associated yourself with hate when you said "I hate".

Tough task you've chosen for yourself there; you have to really keep on the ball. I wish you joy with it.

binocular
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by binocular » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:29 pm

L.N. wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:34 pm
Good comments, Sam Vara.
That's a personalized comment!
:tongue:
You and others have so many excellent ideas to share, I hate to see you shoot yourself in the foot by using personalized comments which get in the way of the point you are trying to make.
Oh, my personalized comments do not get in the way of the point I'm making (and not just trying to make).

binocular
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by binocular » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:31 pm

L.N. wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:34 pm
You and others have so many excellent ideas to share, I hate to see you shoot yourself in the foot by using personalized comments which get in the way of the point you are trying to make.
You do realize there is no judge here to whom we would all subject ourselves to and who would judge our posts, presumably objectively and neutrally?

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by L.N. » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:16 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:00 pm
L.N. wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:18 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:14 pm
You should rest easy, then, and your hate can remain dormant on this occasion.
Please do not associate me with hate or make other personalized comments of this nature. The reference to "your hate" is a personalized comment. This is an apt example of the type of comment subject to discussion in this Topic. You have just made a personalized comment.
I was merely using a word that you had used of yourself. You said
You and others have so many excellent ideas to share, I hate to see you shoot yourself in the foot by using personalized comments which get in the way of the point you are trying to make.
and I was pointing out that the hate which you feel when you think I and others "shoot ourselves in the foot" was misplaced here. You associated yourself with hate when you said "I hate".
You and I both know this is not true, as my comment clearly and on its face displays an intent to be kind toward you, not express hatred or any kind of actual hate. I used an expression out of compassion, and you chose to twist it into something it is not for the purpose of playing games.

Specifically, you have made the decision to put the worst possible spin on these words and assert a further personalized comment which reasonably can be understood as a hostile attempt to provoke and to mock. You have turned the tables and are shifting focus away from your own personal responsibility. This is where you and I part ways. You have stated that you do not take personal responsibility for the effect your words might have on others.
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:00 pm
Tough task you've chosen for yourself there; you have to really keep on the ball. I wish you joy with it.
I always try to keep on the ball. I don't always succeed. My goal is to take personal responsibility for the words I speak and the effect my words might have on others. Again, this is where you and I part ways. I had assumed, incorrectly, that you were trying to have a serious conversation rather than seek out ways to nit-pick and try to provoke. This uncivil approach to discussion creates a negative perception of Buddhism and is one reason I had been reluctant to add my voice here.

Your words and the words of others are needlessly contentious and careless, and you and others refuse to take any personal responsibility for the effect of your words on others. I hope this Topic raises some awareness about this issue, but I suspect you may see it as nothing more than some kind of game.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by L.N. » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:17 pm

binocular wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:31 pm
You do realize there is no judge here to whom we would all subject ourselves to and who would judge our posts, presumably objectively and neutrally?
You are your own judge. You bear the consequences for your volitional actions.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by L.N. » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:18 pm

binocular wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:29 pm
L.N. wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:34 pm
Good comments, Sam Vara.
That's a personalized comment!
:tongue:
Of course it is. I wanted to let Sam Vara know that I appreciated his good comments. He returned this with hostility. So you are right, perhaps it is best not to say anything positive in some cases, either.

I hope not to be the pig in these discussions, but Sam Vara and I are getting muddy. It is not enjoyable.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

perkele
Posts: 891
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:37 pm

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by perkele » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:41 pm

L.N. wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:18 pm
I hope not to be the pig in these discussions, but Sam Vara and I are getting muddy. It is not enjoyable.
I think you have started the mud-wrestling.

Excuse me for getting personal.
L.N. wrote:I may have misunderstood you.
/.../
Please let me know if this understanding is incorrect. When you stated, "The same would apply to those next words," I understood "Next Words" to be defined as above.
Since you already suspect(ed) that this understanding is incorrect, you could have spared someone else's time by just reading another time a bit more carefully. If paying attention while reading you would undoubtedly come to the conclusion that your understanding has been indeed incorrect.

Same for the original case where Sam Vara pointed out "the source of your confusion" (a completely neutral statement which you have [offensively, in my estimation] interpreted as being hostile and not stepped back from that misinterpretation even after clarification [and not even bothered to consider whether it is true or not]). It appears you still have not read what was written there (in that other thread, pointing at "your confusion") another time to check if you might actually have been confused.

In fact, I believe that you have already come to the conclusion that your understanding is incorrect. And you simply continue in this manner to stay in the same patronizing (with sweet sweet sugar on top) mode of demanding/requesting (clarification..., being more sensitive..., etc. etc.) of the other person.
This is what I believe.

It is understandable (although still somewhat ugly) when people on the receiving end of such behaviour become sarcastic.
L.N. wrote:I believe in taking personal responsibility if I have unintentionally said something which might have caused offense.
The impression I have gotten from this thread and the on which caused it is that: No, you don't seem to actually own up to your own mistakes or even only consider the possibility that there are any from your side (despite all the sweet talk), but instead contend yourself with demanding the same from others.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20037
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by retrofuturist » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:47 pm

Greetings,
Modus.Ponens wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:38 pm
...depends on whether there is a poignant truth to it
Agreed - sometimes "the truth" and "the personal" overlap. What gets precedence then?

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20037
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal

Post by retrofuturist » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:55 pm

Greetings L.N,
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:00 pm
Tough task you've chosen for yourself there; you have to really keep on the ball. I wish you joy with it.
L.N. wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:16 pm
I always try to keep on the ball. I don't always succeed. My goal is to take personal responsibility for the words I speak and the effect my words might have on others. Again, this is where you and I part ways. I had assumed, incorrectly, that you were trying to have a serious conversation rather than seek out ways to nit-pick and try to provoke. This uncivil approach to discussion creates a negative perception of Buddhism and is one reason I had been reluctant to add my voice here.

Your words and the words of others are needlessly contentious and careless, and you and others refuse to take any personal responsibility for the effect of your words on others. I hope this Topic raises some awareness about this issue, but I suspect you may see it as nothing more than some kind of game.
Interesting how you complain about personalization and yet manage to come out with something like this...?

:shrug:

Please stop trying to police everyone speech and please stop thinking its your job to police the world's "perception of Buddhism" by silencing those with different perspectives than you. After all, who nominated you to be the communications spokesperson for Buddhism?

Frankly, I find it rather distasteful and grotesque that you try to rope in "Buddhism" to support your perspective, when the Buddha of the Sutta Pitaka himself was quite unafraid to "get personal", in the appropriate circumstances when dealing with those who were truly foolish and obstinate.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests