A
Archaea
Guest
Approaching Infinity said:Andromeda said:Archaea said:I feel like now I'm going to get in trouble for writing this post, but I figured if I'm one of the bad guys or one of the bad guys puppets then that's OK. Also I think now that I've talked a little bit about it, maybe it'll go away.
Not in trouble, but it certainly shows that you have a lot to learn about empathy and tact. There are 100 ways you could have thought about the issue and expressed your feelings in a less insulting way.
Exactly, Archaea. Couldn't have put it better (speaking of tact...).
I felt bad about the cow comment, I don't like it when people say things like that to me and I don't want to be one of those people that say things like that to other people.
Thanks luc, Ciro124 and SAO for your comments. A large part of my world view is a result of Laura's work and I generally implicitly agree with what Laura and the C's say.
To me Laura just comes off as frank, and writes very matter-of-factly. She seems to write the way she would talk, which is a congruent quality though it may seem jarring if you're used to the written word being different from the spoken word. She's busy and doesn't have time to write prose with colorful words to cater to someone's ego when commenting, so it comes off blunt simply because she's trying to get to the point fast and hit the heart of the matter without taking any backroads. And as for cranky, which means "irritable", she doesn't seem averse to letting her feelings show through her writing. So if someone is being annoying, or thick, she (and many others) can be justifiable irritated, and often she will say what many others are thinking, so it's actually refreshing, and never unjustified. There is a difference between being polite/patient, and being polite/patient when the situation asks for something different. But honestly I think it comes down to the matter-of-factness and getting the the point without being wordy (I often have an issue with being too wordy, which isn't a good thing). And as you said, knowledge plays a huge role so she is justified in being more confident in her statements and less wishy washy because she's been there done that.
I disagree with the bolded part. I think when someone is annoyed or irritated it's because of their self-importance. Because we communicate in text, not speech on this forum, we have to fill in the emotional content ourselves. Because of this, reacting to what someone else say's in an emotional manner is problematic, so I think it's best not to respond to what someone else has written until you're no longer annoyed or irritated.
Thanks for the session! To add to Archea's comments, the mention of covert antagonism is interesting and a bit tricky to articulate but I will give it a try...I think I find myself in this camp at least occasionally, not necessarily because of some pesky discarnate entities (though I guess I can't rule that out :/), but because I sometimes disagree with the way some ideas or some-[baked noodle]-body are dismissed out of hand.
I find myself holding my tongue due to "wrong bar trauma" (left over from the old days of more aggressive mod overreach, maybe)--that if comments are interpreted the wrong way I'll find myself with a reputation for opposing the consensus that forms around certain concepts here, and wind up booted from the forum, pronto.
I am stuck on the contradiction that many found their way here because they were unfulfilled by mainstream answers, but now close ranks and dismiss ideas or 'wackos' that deviate from forum consensus (I can pick a few sample topics where I hesitated to comment, like keto diets, or psychopathy, or Putin-fandom)--and further, that many of our families or coworkers would consider us wackos for expressing what is already consensus here...this disconnect seems to head down a slippery slope of [spiritual] elitism. I get uncomfortable that there may be some reflexive group-think going on, or that members' relief in finding a relatively safe harbor stifles a more vigorous debate or more critical thinking.
I don't mean to devalue in any way the paradigm-busting ideas on offer here, they are powerful. But hadn't thought of my frustration as antagonism, or as a lack of faith that might be counterproductive in a larger sense (and needing airing). Perhaps the "covert" antagonism may mean it is somewhat hidden from the antagonists themselves or misunderstood as something else.
I think this is one of my major problems as I was banned as well. Sometimes it seems like Laura talks down to people. I don't know if that's really what she's doing, but when I fill in the emotional content that's how it comes across to me. I think this because sometimes she will write parts of her sentences in CAPS, so she might write YOU or ARE instead of you or are. This might just be for emphasis, but when you're a little worried that you might get insta-banned for saying something that may have annoyed or irritated Laura, it can seem like she is standing over you and making you feel small.
I think this is why these "antagonisms" are covert, it might feel like the options available are either to keep quiet about it (which is what I would have done if I didn't feel like the C's gave me an opening) or you can say what you feel, get ignored, then get banned and maybe go find somewhere else to discuss Laura's work and the Cassiopaean transmissions.
I have a wizard book because I want to be a wizard when I grow up. One of the things it says somewhere is that if you want a living system to be happy and healthy you need to make sure that your hold on it isn't too tight or too loose. If it's too tight then you choke the system and it starts to die and decay, if it's too loose the system will descend into chaos and anarchy.
I think we couldn't get a better leader of this forum than Laura, however, I feel she needs to loosen her grip a little.