(Not so) Funny reaction to post

[aaronfransen]

Okay, I posted this link on Facebook for all my assorted family & friends to see regarding HAARP and Snowden. A classmate whom I haven't seen in 25 years read it, someone who I used to greatly admire, and apparently took offence to it and posted several replies.

They weren't rude or insulting, but most certainly they were "firm" and "read between the lines and I'm calling you an idiot" kind of replies.

I am by nature a pacifist, I avoid conflict if at all possible. Sometimes it's not possible, I accept that, and when proverbial push comes to shove I let the adrenalin flow and shove as far as my adrenaline-adled brain will guide me.

Typically this type of response arises in person, so the adrenaline response (and the shakes that go with it) is understandable.

But to have the same response to a freaking post on Facebook? What's up with that? I wasn't upset, I was worried about upsetting the former classmate.

Sheesh. Anyone else get these crazy kinds of responses?

 

[Buddy]

But to have the same response to a freaking post on Facebook? What's up with that? I wasn't upset, I was worried about upsetting the former classmate.

Hi Lost Spirit. Have you read this thread yet? It may help you better understand people's reactions and maybe some of your own.

 

[aaronfransen]

I have read it, but I just thought it was interesting how I reacted, even given the fact that I *knew* what was going on.

Thanks!

 

[Buddy]

I have read it, but I just thought it was interesting how I reacted, even given the fact that I *knew* what was going on.

Thanks!

Yeah, I've had similar experiences in the past. As a child, I was raised to function mostly as a pacifier to parents and found myself extending this behavior to other people, so I have acutely experienced that amygdala hijack. It would occur whenever I had the slightest suspicion that something I was about to say or do could be the least bit provocative. And posting stuff is a lot like "saying it yourself" from other people's points of view.

Interestingly, Laura points out that there is no difference between the physiological manifestations of fear and excitement, so anyone could probably find enough confidence to experiment and maybe discover that many times we think we inhibit ourselves out of fear when we are really inhibiting a natural excitement to energetically interact with people and learn from the experiences.

If this is old news to you, my apologies, but I did relate to what you were saying. :)

 

[mcb]

Okay, I posted this link on Facebook for all my assorted family & friends to see regarding HAARP and Snowden. A classmate whom I haven't seen in 25 years read it, someone who I used to greatly admire, and apparently took offence to it and posted several replies.

They weren't rude or insulting, but most certainly they were "firm" and "read between the lines and I'm calling you an idiot" kind of replies.

I am by nature a pacifist, I avoid conflict if at all possible. Sometimes it's not possible, I accept that, and when proverbial push comes to shove I let the adrenalin flow and shove as far as my adrenaline-adled brain will guide me.

Really? I guess I would have to see the original post to see if it is consistent with what you said here. Who were you thinking about when you posted, you or your audience?

Typically this type of response arises in person, so the adrenaline response (and the shakes that go with it) is understandable.

But to have the same response to a freaking post on Facebook? What's up with that? I wasn't upset, I was worried about upsetting the former classmate.

Sheesh. Anyone else get these crazy kinds of responses?

Crazy from "them" or crazy from my own body? Yes to the former; no to the latter. I fully expect that my FB posts will offend some people. When it happens, I usually am able to discuss it with them -- to clarify, not to convince.

 

[ocean59]

Okay, I posted this link on Facebook for all my assorted family & friends to see regarding HAARP and Snowden. A classmate whom I haven't seen in 25 years read it, someone who I used to greatly admire, and apparently took offence to it and posted several replies.

They weren't rude or insulting, but most certainly they were "firm" and "read between the lines and I'm calling you an idiot" kind of replies.

Which link did you post? The only story I've seen circulating about Snowden and HAARP is this one: _http://www.chronicle.su/news/snowden-reveals-haarps-global-assassination-agenda/ which is a site many people don't realize to be pure satire/parody, much like The Onion.

 

[aaronfransen]

Hah that was the one. That's what I get for not watching the video.

 

[mcb]

Hah that was the one. That's what I get for not watching the video.

So this whole thing was over satire? Have you learned anything from that?

 

[Buddy]

Hah that was the one. That's what I get for not watching the video.

Hmmm, my response assumed that you were aware of what you were posting and that it was related to some truth about our reality. If that is not the case, then I should probably clarify that the above practice was not what I was relating to. A lesson here for me as well, I suppose.

 

[ocean59]

I have read it, but I just thought it was interesting how I reacted, even given the fact that I *knew* what was going on.

Sometimes it is when we are most convinced we know what is going on, that we need to question everything more than ever. I know it is a lesson I've been subjected to repeatedly. :)

 

[cubbex]

I thought about preaching to everyone in the church what Laura pointed in a thread, "Jesus Christ is Julius Caesar!!" but seriously i'm experienced enough to know the reactions from people, i'd be burned like a witch if I ever say that to someone.

Just another confirmation to the concept that my teacher taught me "a victim is what it is because it choses to do nothing", I've just noticed that people work through ignorance in different levels, something that has been taught here. They can be very objective at certain topics, but don't dare to touch their sacred cows that usually come as beliefs that serve for the mere purpose of lying to ourselves. But yeah, I've got this type of comments but not on facebook but on other sites like other forums.

 

[United Gnosis]

Hah that was the one. That's what I get for not watching the video.

That strikes me as quite STS, especially with the light-hearted way you dismiss the matter. What about doing due diligence before sharing information?

My interpretation would be that you were seeking approval in a self-righteous way, perhaps hoping that the sharing of deep-end tinfoil hat material would get you some cred as a deep thinker. Especially considering that you shared it first on FB, then came here seeking validation about the experience. The poor choice of medium/audience, as well as the breach of strategic enclosure also point the same way. Do you think that could be the case?

Not to mention that the video is ridiculous and irrelevant to the article, which should have raised red flags for you. The editing is classic shock-and-awe style and there is no explanation of the mechanism used. FYI, the demo is made with piezo-electric transducers - in other words, speakers (the electric signal being converted to vibration through the cristalline piezoelectric effect. These being applied to the jaw area, the cranium is made to resonate mechanically, hence the sound is heard by skipping the outer ear pathway. Some cochlear implants use this mechanism, especially when the vibration-transmitting bonestructure is damage.

Not that I mean to either support or deny whatever claims are made about HAARP, just to make you see that if you were externally considerate, you would have made due diligence in your research prior to posting. That the video is unrelated and presented as a misleading corrobation of the article's content would then probably have stopped you.

It seems your hope was to be right, rather than to find Truth.

 

[aaronfransen]

Wow. Okay. I'll be sure to stop posting. Thank you.

 

[shijing]

Typically this type of response arises in person, so the adrenaline response (and the shakes that go with it) is understandable.

But to have the same response to a freaking post on Facebook? What's up with that? I wasn't upset, I was worried about upsetting the former classmate.

Sheesh. Anyone else get these crazy kinds of responses?

Putting aside for a moment the issue of this article being a satire piece, I don't think that your response to being challenged by your friend is all that uncommon. I've experienced a similar physiological reaction on Facebook before, and in retrospect it was because I was identified with what I'd posted and/or worried about how I came across to other people and whether I could back it up. Pure internal consideration in other words. Have you seen the thread Splitting as a Symptom of Internal Considering? Part of it is about how physiological reactions like this can reflect changes in our brain chemistry, which can be triggered by all sorts of things -- it's quite good, and you may find it applicable to this recent experience.

 

[Carl]

Wow. Okay. I'll be sure to stop posting. Thank you.

No need to simply stop posting (I assume you mean posting articles on facebook?). It's just about using discernment and thinking about what you're sharing, and with whom. I also get that kind of adrenaline in confrontations, as I never learned to deal with them in a calm way until recently. It's very important to breathe and to laugh at your self importance, lest you do something stupid!

Added:
This quote from the thread linked by Shijing is very applicable here

[quote author=laura]
Why is it so difficult to eliminate such fears? Once the amygdala is turned on, it can influence information processing in the cortex from the earliest stages onward, but only the later stages of cortical processing affect the amygdala. In other words, even though communication goes two ways, it's not equally effective in both directions. In general, the projections from the amygdala to the cortex are much stronger than vice versa. If we think of the routes from the amygdala to the cortex as superhighways, then those from the cortex to the amygdala are narrow back roads. Once the emotions are activated, they can influence the entire working of the cortex, whereas the cortex is very inefficient at controlling the amygdala. So, using thinking to overcome emotion is like using a back road or side street from the cortex, while the amygdala is bombarding the cortex with input via the superhighways. [LeDoux, 1999]

But thinking with the cortex, it turns out, is basically a way to rewire your brain. It is like working on the back roads to develop them into the commanding interstate system of the brain they were meant to be. Research shows that changes in the brain are the result of learning experiences, and it seems that learning - acquiring knowledge - is the path of rewiring the synaptic connections in the brain.

[/quote]

Perhaps this is an opportunity to work on rewiring that brain :)