how to accept & reject?retrofuturist wrote: That is true if one places Buddhism over all other world-views, and takes the Canon as infallible.
just according to your taste?
retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 11:31 pmGreetings Budo,
That is true if one places Buddhism over all other world-views, and takes the Canon as infallible.
There may be perfectly valid reasons why people don't do one or another. (See my above post for more details)
Be wary of responding to intolerance with intolerance, or other akusala states. We should not foresake our Right Effort on account of others.
retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 2:10 amGreetings cappuccino,
That's for each to determine for themselves. I told you my criteria, and I have zero interest in imposing it upon others, because any attempt to impose one's private criteria as a common criteria for others, is to disregard their intellectual and/or spiritual autonomy.
Any deeper analysis of my personal reasoning will be off-topic, so I suggest we leave it there and get...
They don't, you don't, we don't.
I don't necessarily think that's the case, but you're welcome to report any posts where you think the sub-forum, and/or the topic are not being regarded appropriately. Section 1 & 2i of the Terms of Service cover precisely that territory.
That's a question for another forum. But I will say, using the example I gave above about people who follow the Dhamma and Vegetarianism, that those who follow Vegetarianism should not try to shoehorn their Vegetarianism into the Dhamma and say that theirs is the only one true way to properly manifest wisdom and compassion etc... so I guess you could draw parallels, as these external paths interface back to the Dhamma.
That's fine, but I suggest you spend more time doing just that, and less time on those who might get "triggered" by that.
They don't give up their autonomy per se, but we all need to recognise Section 4 of the Terms of Service...
I think that's enough about that... probably time get back on topic to sharing Dhamma teachings that adherents of other ideologies might find "problematic".At Dhamma Wheel, we respect your intellectual and spiritual autonomy. As such, the staff here will not enforce reverence to anyone or anything, nor censor speech gratuitously. In keeping with this respect for your autonomy, we expect you to be personally responsible for your own emotions and responses. If there are forum members you do not wish to engage with, please apply restraint and/or register them in the system as foes - do not publicly complain about them.
Speech and actions are moderated strictly and impartially according to the standards defined in the Terms of Service - not to the standard of Sutta, Vinaya, personal preference, nor any other code and/or standard of conduct.
Someone who pushes for acceptance over tolerance at the expense of freedom of speech and expression.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:04 pmAs this thread was started immediately after a robust exchange of views with Aloka was locked, my guess is that an sjw is herein defined as "a woman who gets the last word in".
Here's some info from: "How the Term 'Social Justice Warrior' Became an Insult"
According to the Oxford Dictionary, a social justice warrior is a derogatory term for “A person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.”
Know Your Meme gives us a better idea of the nature of these negative connotations. Used derogatively, a social justice warrior is:
a pejorative label applied to bloggers, activists and commentators who are prone to engage in lengthy and hostile debates against others on a range of issues concerning social injustice, identity politics and political correctness. In contrast to the social justice blogosphere at large, the stereotype of a social justice warrior is distinguished by the use of overzealous and self-righteous rhetorics [sic], as well as appealing to emotions over logic and reason.
In other words, calling someone a social justice warrior implies that the accuser thinks the other person is an unreasonable, hostile, and self-interested internet user with a progressive agenda.
But this was not always the case. A decade ago, calling someone a social justice warrior was merely a description, and in some cases, even a compliment.
https://fee.org/articles/how-the-term-s ... an-insult/
...but....according to another post:
....so....is this discussion supposed to be about "someone who pushes for acceptance over tolerance at the expense of free speech and expression"....or is it about "a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views"? These two definitions really do define two completely different sets of people....it would be nice if we knew what people were talking about rather than to leave it undefined and up to each person's imagination to come up with whatever biased definition that person is subject to without the rest of us being aware of just what it is they are talking about.According to the Oxford Dictionary, a social justice warrior is a derogatory term for “A person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.”
(Social Justice Warriors) The overly offended blindly ignorant scum of the internet whom’st report anything and everything that offends them.
SJWs keep reporting my memes
Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.
The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.