Thank You Christopher for posting that. I’ve evolved quite a lot as well with my online presence. It is in my nature to snap back quickly when someone strikes at me. I have changed. I have heard the term sea lioning where someone just sits online trying to invoke people to go off the edge in a response. The more you respond negatively the more they push you. I’m learning everyday.
We all at times are faced with situations that force us to look inside and deal with uncomfortable issues. If we go on for years always handling these same problems by punching back we will continue to be aggravated again and again. Thinking someone else changing will fix our problem, will probably end up with more aggravation. Almost always it’s up to us to make the changes to resolve these problems. We are forever on a potters wheel. God is constantly moulding us. It’s the hard things in life that many times makes us better, stronger and more aware. If we never feel stress or discomfort it’s a sure sign we are not growing and we will not change. We all have imperfections, which can be the lack of patience, anger, sometimes someone just doesn’t like us, sometimes for no reason. They may become passive aggressive, juvenile and we have to deal with that and find a solution.
I never did social media ever. I was always so busy I only read what I had to to get through things for my business. I certainly didn’t write, I’m not a writer, I’m just a struggling carpenter like most all of you trying to make it through this life. Almost always when we have problems with people that mess with us we look to change them but if willing and aware the answer is within ourselves. The answer to many of our challenges and difficulties often lie within our own abilities, mindset, and potential rather than relying solely on others to change.
“The solutions to most of our problems lies within us. But since we are unaware we are unable to do anything.” Santosh Joshi.
I honestly think you are 100% correct Christopher, just try to use kindness and kind words and watch the reaction of those trying to insight drag down arguments, they will have a hard time handling it. Thanks Christopher, BTW I’m returning to being a paid subscriber 😊. J.Goodrich
—Yes. We must take that approach. Fix oneself and let others do the same. Don't look for external solutions. Tough, because we are a highly social species, but we must nonetheless.
"BTW I’m returning to being a paid subscriber."
—That means a lot to me—thank you. It's also pleasant news after 13 hours of driving and flat tire in Virginia (thus forcing me to stop driving and stay at the somewhat ironically named Quality Inn here in Wytheville).
Well I’m glad you’re alright. I very much appreciate your sub stack and glad to be back as a paid subscriber. You offer a great product and deserve to make a living doing it. Thanks again for using part of my post in your essay. Looking forward to continue reading your work Christopher, thank you and stay safe!!!
Well, James... you're a lying sack of dog landmines. Better than a lying dog faced pony soldier, eh?
You're a writer, you're extremely talented at getting your positive influence messaging across, especially to the readers who religiously follow you on other forums. You indeed make a big impression, an impact on the psyche of those whom you grace your presence during the fleeting moments in all of our lives.
"You're a good man, Charlie Brown !"
(Linus Van Pelt, 1967)
So, Brother James, I'm calling you out ! Don't shortchange yourself on how much the peanut brittle between the earholes means to the rest of the world, who's life is fortunate enough, simply knowing you.
My nature + nurture has made me a fighter. Unfairness is my biggest trigger. I've been a disciplined professional voice for those who are treated unfairly. And I've been a passionate, unprofessional voice for self when treated unfairly. That can sometimes extend to my voice for others, but mostly is unfairness I've been subjected to. Hence, the online incivility I've sometimes engaged in.
I feel the spirit of Saint Michael is strong in me, justice has been my clarion call since I was a child. But I can be impetuous, an eye for an eye makes intuitive sense. I don't buy the "leaves the whole world blind" ending often attached to that applies in all cases. I was raised in rough neighborhoods as a child and had to learn how to survive it. My instincts, given my relative size and strength was to be like the crazy-eyed little guy who the big bouncer types didn't want to fight. My big, nasty, crazy bark kept much bigger threats at bay. It's worked.
I found a way to take my fighter instincts and restrain my bark and crazy eyes in professional settings in real life. From the rough neighborhood upbringing I was able to learn skills of refinement, build my vocabulary and be an effective communicator with the top leaders in my state. My work has even taken me into congressional leadership offices and supreme court justice's chambers. Would go to so many black tie affairs of glass-clanking and ego-stroking rent-seekers that I needed a dozen tuxedos in my closet. Any instincts to display a big, nasty, crazy bark were fully suppressed in those circles.
But online communities have a way of being able to pull that back out from time to time. For the reasons you describe. On other social media I ended up getting really nasty towards the end, 2020 pandemic fights with (former) friends and strangers. Some blog comment boards would also invite that part of me out to play. But by and large I've tried to keep my Substack page and comments on other pages more professional and decline the invitation for my youthful fighter to come out and play. Not always successful. But the number of times I went there I can count on one hand.
As far as in person, the only times that side of me has come out since I was a young man were during pandemic insanity. The mask Nazi's and insane freaks who tried to impose that illegitimate authority over me were often met with my crazy-eyed nasty bark, it was all so insane. I'd usually regret it afterwards, but the scenes were so offensive I'd lose my executive brain functioning. If some of my former professional colleagues had seen me I'd never have lived it down.
The Struggle is very real for me. The duality I possess, the wide universe of society my life journey has taken me on is incomprehensible for most. I've even gone back to the rough neighborhood I was born in since my tuxedo professional days and fit in like I never left. As I sometimes still will find myself in the glass-clanking affairs. And everywhere in between. And through it all I have to admit that just by knowing I'm able to display my big nasty side if a situation calls for it I have no fear in any situation, high-brow or low-brow. The versatility is a strength. But more discretion of when the appearance of the fighter is warranted remains my life struggle to learn. Even if it's a two steps forward, one step back endeavor.
And that is really more of what I am talking about here: our side.
I am not necessarily advocating being UNcivil to the other side (statists, leftists, et al). But for them, by and large, I recommend not bothering. Until they've come a certain distance, no amount of talking is going to produce any results.
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God" Matthew 5:9
We are not born in the family of God. That we can become children is only by God's grace. Making peace is the gateway. And it is a very narrow gateway, and as you pointed out it is hard, for pride is the most painful thing to give up. Perhaps, in this season of Lent, we should seek to give up pride.
Some very practical and useful wisdom here Christopher, and especially important to those of us who intend to bring this new paradigm into reality. We want to gather support and good impressions of us and our purpose, and that means influencing and not antagonizing or making enemies. A strong person is not quick to take offense because their self esteem is not threatened by those who are less aware, and are ignorant or mistaken regarding our intentions or character. Even a suspicious dog who growls at you is looking to see a reaction that tells him you are fearful because you are up to no good. I not only give people the benefit of the doubt, but I inevitably look to see something about them that I like or find interesting. It is very rare that I don't see it. I have many friends and actually very very few who fail to respect or like me because they sense that I care about them as a fellow human being in a world that is not very easy to navigate. It always used to puzzle me that two friends that I liked very much hated each other. I find that this is usually because they took a simple mistake to be something the person was doing intentionally with malice, even when that was not the case. They say things like "she was lying," when the person in question was actually quite sincere but mistaken. A gentle response to aggression turns away wrath as the Good Book says, and it tends to startle the aggressor into a greater state of awareness, or at least a sign that this person is very secure and maybe not someone you want to get into it with. I have met angry aggression from someone who certainly appeared, and I am sure was, much stronger, bigger and meaner than me, but because I was obviously not afraid of him, and had an objective viewpoint that was not judging him, he backed off. May well have thought that maybe I had some martial skill or was a bit more dangerous than appearances would suggest since I was not intimidated by him. We are in the right in our purpose and intentions, know that, do not doubt that we will prevail, and that the truth doesn't need us to force people to acknowledge it. As the Course in Miracles says, "Nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God." Don't let yourself be offended by an illusion, by the deceiving appearances that are so common in this spiritually blind world.
Thank you for writing this! I’m always glad to be reminded about being civil online. I’ve come a long way and am very proud of myself, but the struggle is still real. I wish I had read this before I responded to a friend on one of my Instagram posts this morning. I wasn’t rude, but I could’ve worded things in a less combative way.😉
I had an 88 civic hatchback with no power steering, windows or door locks, and I had to use my phone as my radio. I was to cheap to get the tape deck and speakers fixed. It was a 5 speed manual transmission with no tachometer
I believe there are many bots or instigators on Substack. I encountered two a few weeks ago. One who insulted me with profanity so I reported him.
Another was a woman commenting on my response to someone else’s Sub article. I spoke out very clearly, then remarked that they seem very angry and I wished them well. She told me not to even bother to reply because she was done with me. She was heavily pro-vax and I believe I triggered her, a mother of 4 as per her profile, if it is even real. It’s safe to say people are highly emotional and with good reason, but there is no need to be hateful.
Yes! I wasn’t trying to convince her of anything. I was just sharing my thoughts on the Substack article that wasn’t even hers. It was a bit confusing.
Some people have anger issues and are looking for an outlet. Or they have an area of special focus, and in some cases, it has become what they called in the 19th century an idée fixe. An obsession. So they see you say something and if they think it runs afoul of their idée fixe, they can't let it go. It happened to me with a paid subscriber who decided that the fact that I say "Founders" instead of "Founding Fathers" must make me a 8th wave feminist or whatever. And nothing I said after that could disabuse her of that notion. She unsubbed right there.
Or maybe the CIA is just dumping anger juice into the water supply………
I want to put Blue Lotus Flower infusions and Shrooms in the water! Blue Lotus heightens intuition and has many beautiful properties as an adaptogenic flower. Shrooms are a beautiful plant medicine that can help folks move beyond their trauma, help with PTSD and depression. You may already know this. 😃🪷🍄
Christopher: Well done! I can personally corroborate that every one of these techniques work in (almost) every case. The exceptions occur principally when interacting with someone who doesn't want to understand, and just plain wants to fight.
An instance of that kind of failed communication happened shortly after I joined Substack. An individual completely misunderstood something I wrote and tore into me. In my reply, I immediately expressed that I was sorry I had failed to communicate my true meaning. After all, the source (transmitter) of the message has a responsibility to ensure that it is received and interpreted correctly.
Then I tried another approach—one that addressed her misinterpretation, and reframed my previous message in terms that were more aligned with her frame of reference. However, in this case, the sink (receiver) of the message rejected my clarification. She had already made up her mind that her interpretation was the "correct" one. She insisted that, "No, you communicated...", insisting that I meant what she said I meant. Then she proceeded to lecture me via a psychoanalysis that was completely inaccurate, and which I did not request.
In other words, she was insisting that the way she interpreted my message was what it "really" meant, rather than what I intended it to mean. And because (to her) it meant what she apparently needed it to mean, she informed me that there was no point in any further communication.
Well, she got one thing right: There was definitely no point in any further communication. My experiences with such individuals have led me to coin the admittedly somewhat cynical maxim, "When people make up their minds that they're not going to understand, nothing will stop them."
She doesn't know how symbolic communication works. Verifying that the sink interpreted the message correctly is an essential part of successful communication. If the source says, "Sorry...I didn't communicate successfully. Your interpretation of my message is not correct. What I actually mean is...", and the sink rejects that correction, she* (see NOTE below) is not communicating to understand; rather, she is only interested in communicating to be understood. What's more, she is essentially insisting that her need to be understood is somehow more valid than that of her co-communicant.
That is a failure to provide her co-communicant the benefit of the doubt, one of the techniques your post correctly advises. Further, it reveals a failure to acknowledge the reality that there is always the possibility of noise in the communication channel, which contributes to one or more of the five principal types of communication failure. Ultimately, it is the source's responsibility to ensure that noise does not torpedo the communication transaction, but the sink has a responsibility to cooperate with the source's error correction process. That includes taking the source at his word when he informs the sink that she misinterpreted the message. The sink is not entitled to insist that the source "must" have the intent that the sink insists he has. It is a failure to communicate in good faith.
Symbolic communication is the process of using symbols (e.g., words) to exchange ideas. Understanding how that process works should be a part of the fundamental educational curriculum in any civilized culture. Of course, for that to occur, those who design the curriculum would have to understand the principles of successful communication in the first place. The fact that the LACK of such an understanding is epidemic reveals how far away from "civilized" our current culture actually is.
________________
*NOTE: I shouldn't have to say this, but "he/him/his" and "she/her/hers" are interchangeable in the descriptions above, and are a consequence of the fact that the English language does not have singular genderless pronouns except "one/one's", which is cumbersome and often confusing.
Despite the current popular misuse of "they/them/their" as singular genderless substitutes, those are plurals, and they inject semantic noise into the message content when used to denote a singular. Words mean things. Arbitrarily changing their meanings by using them in less semantically precise ways is just silly, when a simple caveat that says "the masculine implies the feminine, and vice versa" is sufficient to eliminate that noise. It is especially absurd to increase the semantic noise in deference to those who demand that the language be abused and misused under the threat that not doing so (somehow) interferes with their "right to be offended".
OK, fine. Everyone has a right to be offended if that's their concept of the pursuit of happiness. But that does not confer a right to manipulate and control the language others are "allowed" to use, and it certainly does not justify using the political state to coercively impose restrictions on free speech. When you control the language that people use, you control what they think. "Thought crimes" are one of the hallmarks of authoritarian, totalitarian, tyrannical social structures.
Oh goodness, I am not talking about them. I am talking about people within the ambit of the freedom movement. We want to get along among ourselves and our movement.
I am talking about "giving what you get". I fundamentally assume that we each sincerely practice the Golden Rule, i.e., that we are neighborly. This used to be called "reciprocity". I've most often heard it discussed in "dojos" in the context of violence modulation and, of course, in the inevitable blinding the whole world, as violent law and order criminals will always assert.
It is a simple human concept that, like every other human concept, is always seen to work best with people you are likely to encounter often. That is because the opportunity for retribution is higher and because human affinity, like everything else in the universe, is affected by physical laws, particularly the inverse square law. A refutation of jingoistic predation by the yankee occupation force can be structured by noting that everyone's obligations are first to their family and then to their home, and then to their neighborhood, with affinity diminishing with distance as larger political impositions are encountered. In one dimension, the disfunction of all communists, globalist communitarians, and other mobsters is evident in their inversion of natural affinity and the assertion that the most powerful crime syndicate has the most fundamental claim on your fealty. Remember Solzhenitzen and "... how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if ..."
Here is a legal argument contrasting reciprocity and mutuality, in case you want to know how such opinions might be structured. I have no opinion on the opinion and only present it for the academic sorts who've not thought much about those things.
This is a huge topic. I am replying in advance of having read the legal argument at the link, so please let me know if I should just stop and read it, e.g., if I am repeating stuff it says.
At one level of analysis, of course, I simply agree. "Do no harm but take no shit." People who initiate force against you entirely deserve whatever protective force you deploy in response. And the righteously indignant part of me has an emotional desire to see **disproportionate levels** of protective force deployed in response. A) To punish them for their wrongdoing and B) to send a message to them, and others, for the future. LEAVE PEACEFUL PEOPLE ALONE OR YOU WILL @##$%ing REGRET IT.
But then we have the problem that everything that government does is an initiation of coercive force. And every single government employee, from presidents to bureaucrats to city bus drivers, is initiating coercive force upon you by proxy—to pay their salary if nothing else. It's all theft and slavery. But how are we to react to that? The system has existed in one form or another for thousands of years. The jobs are there, and most city bus drivers do not think—"I am enslaving my fellow man by doing this job." But they are. But they don't know it, and they are our neighbors, family, friends, etc. What are we to do about that? Reciprocity in one circumstance may not quite fit for another.
And then there is how we are treated badly verbally. Since there is no force there, we ought not use force in reply. But also, since a kind word in response can actually produce a greater aggregate good outcome than just responding in kind, is it not worth it to try that?
Solzhenitsyn was right. Unfortunately, we are a frog that is being boiled—there isn't a single moment of, "Now, now is the moment when we resist." The whole thing is one long slouch into oppression. So how do we deal with that? (And am I on the right track in terms of getting, and replying to, the point(s) you are making?)
Thank You Christopher for posting that. I’ve evolved quite a lot as well with my online presence. It is in my nature to snap back quickly when someone strikes at me. I have changed. I have heard the term sea lioning where someone just sits online trying to invoke people to go off the edge in a response. The more you respond negatively the more they push you. I’m learning everyday.
We all at times are faced with situations that force us to look inside and deal with uncomfortable issues. If we go on for years always handling these same problems by punching back we will continue to be aggravated again and again. Thinking someone else changing will fix our problem, will probably end up with more aggravation. Almost always it’s up to us to make the changes to resolve these problems. We are forever on a potters wheel. God is constantly moulding us. It’s the hard things in life that many times makes us better, stronger and more aware. If we never feel stress or discomfort it’s a sure sign we are not growing and we will not change. We all have imperfections, which can be the lack of patience, anger, sometimes someone just doesn’t like us, sometimes for no reason. They may become passive aggressive, juvenile and we have to deal with that and find a solution.
I never did social media ever. I was always so busy I only read what I had to to get through things for my business. I certainly didn’t write, I’m not a writer, I’m just a struggling carpenter like most all of you trying to make it through this life. Almost always when we have problems with people that mess with us we look to change them but if willing and aware the answer is within ourselves. The answer to many of our challenges and difficulties often lie within our own abilities, mindset, and potential rather than relying solely on others to change.
“The solutions to most of our problems lies within us. But since we are unaware we are unable to do anything.” Santosh Joshi.
I honestly think you are 100% correct Christopher, just try to use kindness and kind words and watch the reaction of those trying to insight drag down arguments, they will have a hard time handling it. Thanks Christopher, BTW I’m returning to being a paid subscriber 😊. J.Goodrich
"the answer is within ourselves."
—Yes. We must take that approach. Fix oneself and let others do the same. Don't look for external solutions. Tough, because we are a highly social species, but we must nonetheless.
"BTW I’m returning to being a paid subscriber."
—That means a lot to me—thank you. It's also pleasant news after 13 hours of driving and flat tire in Virginia (thus forcing me to stop driving and stay at the somewhat ironically named Quality Inn here in Wytheville).
Well I’m glad you’re alright. I very much appreciate your sub stack and glad to be back as a paid subscriber. You offer a great product and deserve to make a living doing it. Thanks again for using part of my post in your essay. Looking forward to continue reading your work Christopher, thank you and stay safe!!!
I won't drive too far on that spare donut tire :-)
Seriously—thank you!!
Well, James... you're a lying sack of dog landmines. Better than a lying dog faced pony soldier, eh?
You're a writer, you're extremely talented at getting your positive influence messaging across, especially to the readers who religiously follow you on other forums. You indeed make a big impression, an impact on the psyche of those whom you grace your presence during the fleeting moments in all of our lives.
"You're a good man, Charlie Brown !"
(Linus Van Pelt, 1967)
So, Brother James, I'm calling you out ! Don't shortchange yourself on how much the peanut brittle between the earholes means to the rest of the world, who's life is fortunate enough, simply knowing you.
Peace out, brother James.
Thank You T
Always impressed with the quality and wisdom of the people who are drawn to this cause. Thanks James.
The. Struggle. Is. Real.
My nature + nurture has made me a fighter. Unfairness is my biggest trigger. I've been a disciplined professional voice for those who are treated unfairly. And I've been a passionate, unprofessional voice for self when treated unfairly. That can sometimes extend to my voice for others, but mostly is unfairness I've been subjected to. Hence, the online incivility I've sometimes engaged in.
I feel the spirit of Saint Michael is strong in me, justice has been my clarion call since I was a child. But I can be impetuous, an eye for an eye makes intuitive sense. I don't buy the "leaves the whole world blind" ending often attached to that applies in all cases. I was raised in rough neighborhoods as a child and had to learn how to survive it. My instincts, given my relative size and strength was to be like the crazy-eyed little guy who the big bouncer types didn't want to fight. My big, nasty, crazy bark kept much bigger threats at bay. It's worked.
I found a way to take my fighter instincts and restrain my bark and crazy eyes in professional settings in real life. From the rough neighborhood upbringing I was able to learn skills of refinement, build my vocabulary and be an effective communicator with the top leaders in my state. My work has even taken me into congressional leadership offices and supreme court justice's chambers. Would go to so many black tie affairs of glass-clanking and ego-stroking rent-seekers that I needed a dozen tuxedos in my closet. Any instincts to display a big, nasty, crazy bark were fully suppressed in those circles.
But online communities have a way of being able to pull that back out from time to time. For the reasons you describe. On other social media I ended up getting really nasty towards the end, 2020 pandemic fights with (former) friends and strangers. Some blog comment boards would also invite that part of me out to play. But by and large I've tried to keep my Substack page and comments on other pages more professional and decline the invitation for my youthful fighter to come out and play. Not always successful. But the number of times I went there I can count on one hand.
As far as in person, the only times that side of me has come out since I was a young man were during pandemic insanity. The mask Nazi's and insane freaks who tried to impose that illegitimate authority over me were often met with my crazy-eyed nasty bark, it was all so insane. I'd usually regret it afterwards, but the scenes were so offensive I'd lose my executive brain functioning. If some of my former professional colleagues had seen me I'd never have lived it down.
The Struggle is very real for me. The duality I possess, the wide universe of society my life journey has taken me on is incomprehensible for most. I've even gone back to the rough neighborhood I was born in since my tuxedo professional days and fit in like I never left. As I sometimes still will find myself in the glass-clanking affairs. And everywhere in between. And through it all I have to admit that just by knowing I'm able to display my big nasty side if a situation calls for it I have no fear in any situation, high-brow or low-brow. The versatility is a strength. But more discretion of when the appearance of the fighter is warranted remains my life struggle to learn. Even if it's a two steps forward, one step back endeavor.
I feel you. And I am glad you're on our side!
And that is really more of what I am talking about here: our side.
I am not necessarily advocating being UNcivil to the other side (statists, leftists, et al). But for them, by and large, I recommend not bothering. Until they've come a certain distance, no amount of talking is going to produce any results.
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God" Matthew 5:9
We are not born in the family of God. That we can become children is only by God's grace. Making peace is the gateway. And it is a very narrow gateway, and as you pointed out it is hard, for pride is the most painful thing to give up. Perhaps, in this season of Lent, we should seek to give up pride.
Pride would be a good one. A lot harder than giving up, say, peanut M&Ms!
Some very practical and useful wisdom here Christopher, and especially important to those of us who intend to bring this new paradigm into reality. We want to gather support and good impressions of us and our purpose, and that means influencing and not antagonizing or making enemies. A strong person is not quick to take offense because their self esteem is not threatened by those who are less aware, and are ignorant or mistaken regarding our intentions or character. Even a suspicious dog who growls at you is looking to see a reaction that tells him you are fearful because you are up to no good. I not only give people the benefit of the doubt, but I inevitably look to see something about them that I like or find interesting. It is very rare that I don't see it. I have many friends and actually very very few who fail to respect or like me because they sense that I care about them as a fellow human being in a world that is not very easy to navigate. It always used to puzzle me that two friends that I liked very much hated each other. I find that this is usually because they took a simple mistake to be something the person was doing intentionally with malice, even when that was not the case. They say things like "she was lying," when the person in question was actually quite sincere but mistaken. A gentle response to aggression turns away wrath as the Good Book says, and it tends to startle the aggressor into a greater state of awareness, or at least a sign that this person is very secure and maybe not someone you want to get into it with. I have met angry aggression from someone who certainly appeared, and I am sure was, much stronger, bigger and meaner than me, but because I was obviously not afraid of him, and had an objective viewpoint that was not judging him, he backed off. May well have thought that maybe I had some martial skill or was a bit more dangerous than appearances would suggest since I was not intimidated by him. We are in the right in our purpose and intentions, know that, do not doubt that we will prevail, and that the truth doesn't need us to force people to acknowledge it. As the Course in Miracles says, "Nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God." Don't let yourself be offended by an illusion, by the deceiving appearances that are so common in this spiritually blind world.
"We want to gather support and good impressions of us and our purpose, and that means influencing and not antagonizing or making enemies."
—Yes, very much. I want to write more about that in an upcoming installment. About the benefits and reasons why we would want to take this approach.
"A strong person is not quick to take offense because their self esteem is not threatened"
—Good point.
Indeed, this whole comment is filled with good points, as yours so often are.
Thank you for writing this! I’m always glad to be reminded about being civil online. I’ve come a long way and am very proud of myself, but the struggle is still real. I wish I had read this before I responded to a friend on one of my Instagram posts this morning. I wasn’t rude, but I could’ve worded things in a less combative way.😉
Reminders are helpful to all of us. It's easy to slip. That's why I favor turning this into an "official" (I hate that word) value for our new nation.
I had an 88 civic hatchback with no power steering, windows or door locks, and I had to use my phone as my radio. I was to cheap to get the tape deck and speakers fixed. It was a 5 speed manual transmission with no tachometer
I've had some cars like that!
Herr Cook
Wise advice on how to treat your fellowship
Well done
Tusen Takk
Jon
🙏
I believe there are many bots or instigators on Substack. I encountered two a few weeks ago. One who insulted me with profanity so I reported him.
Another was a woman commenting on my response to someone else’s Sub article. I spoke out very clearly, then remarked that they seem very angry and I wished them well. She told me not to even bother to reply because she was done with me. She was heavily pro-vax and I believe I triggered her, a mother of 4 as per her profile, if it is even real. It’s safe to say people are highly emotional and with good reason, but there is no need to be hateful.
Sometimes, when the gap is really big, there simply is not point in trying to convince each other of anything. We can still try to be civil, though!
Yes! I wasn’t trying to convince her of anything. I was just sharing my thoughts on the Substack article that wasn’t even hers. It was a bit confusing.
Some people have anger issues and are looking for an outlet. Or they have an area of special focus, and in some cases, it has become what they called in the 19th century an idée fixe. An obsession. So they see you say something and if they think it runs afoul of their idée fixe, they can't let it go. It happened to me with a paid subscriber who decided that the fact that I say "Founders" instead of "Founding Fathers" must make me a 8th wave feminist or whatever. And nothing I said after that could disabuse her of that notion. She unsubbed right there.
Or maybe the CIA is just dumping anger juice into the water supply………
I want to put Blue Lotus Flower infusions and Shrooms in the water! Blue Lotus heightens intuition and has many beautiful properties as an adaptogenic flower. Shrooms are a beautiful plant medicine that can help folks move beyond their trauma, help with PTSD and depression. You may already know this. 😃🪷🍄
Yep, I have a friend who is microdosing shrooms for PTSD.
But we can only put it in people's water if they consent voluntarily, explicitly, and in fully informed fashion. But you already know that :-)
🙃😉of course…it was always about full consent
Christopher: Well done! I can personally corroborate that every one of these techniques work in (almost) every case. The exceptions occur principally when interacting with someone who doesn't want to understand, and just plain wants to fight.
An instance of that kind of failed communication happened shortly after I joined Substack. An individual completely misunderstood something I wrote and tore into me. In my reply, I immediately expressed that I was sorry I had failed to communicate my true meaning. After all, the source (transmitter) of the message has a responsibility to ensure that it is received and interpreted correctly.
Then I tried another approach—one that addressed her misinterpretation, and reframed my previous message in terms that were more aligned with her frame of reference. However, in this case, the sink (receiver) of the message rejected my clarification. She had already made up her mind that her interpretation was the "correct" one. She insisted that, "No, you communicated...", insisting that I meant what she said I meant. Then she proceeded to lecture me via a psychoanalysis that was completely inaccurate, and which I did not request.
In other words, she was insisting that the way she interpreted my message was what it "really" meant, rather than what I intended it to mean. And because (to her) it meant what she apparently needed it to mean, she informed me that there was no point in any further communication.
Well, she got one thing right: There was definitely no point in any further communication. My experiences with such individuals have led me to coin the admittedly somewhat cynical maxim, "When people make up their minds that they're not going to understand, nothing will stop them."
She doesn't know how symbolic communication works. Verifying that the sink interpreted the message correctly is an essential part of successful communication. If the source says, "Sorry...I didn't communicate successfully. Your interpretation of my message is not correct. What I actually mean is...", and the sink rejects that correction, she* (see NOTE below) is not communicating to understand; rather, she is only interested in communicating to be understood. What's more, she is essentially insisting that her need to be understood is somehow more valid than that of her co-communicant.
That is a failure to provide her co-communicant the benefit of the doubt, one of the techniques your post correctly advises. Further, it reveals a failure to acknowledge the reality that there is always the possibility of noise in the communication channel, which contributes to one or more of the five principal types of communication failure. Ultimately, it is the source's responsibility to ensure that noise does not torpedo the communication transaction, but the sink has a responsibility to cooperate with the source's error correction process. That includes taking the source at his word when he informs the sink that she misinterpreted the message. The sink is not entitled to insist that the source "must" have the intent that the sink insists he has. It is a failure to communicate in good faith.
Symbolic communication is the process of using symbols (e.g., words) to exchange ideas. Understanding how that process works should be a part of the fundamental educational curriculum in any civilized culture. Of course, for that to occur, those who design the curriculum would have to understand the principles of successful communication in the first place. The fact that the LACK of such an understanding is epidemic reveals how far away from "civilized" our current culture actually is.
________________
*NOTE: I shouldn't have to say this, but "he/him/his" and "she/her/hers" are interchangeable in the descriptions above, and are a consequence of the fact that the English language does not have singular genderless pronouns except "one/one's", which is cumbersome and often confusing.
Despite the current popular misuse of "they/them/their" as singular genderless substitutes, those are plurals, and they inject semantic noise into the message content when used to denote a singular. Words mean things. Arbitrarily changing their meanings by using them in less semantically precise ways is just silly, when a simple caveat that says "the masculine implies the feminine, and vice versa" is sufficient to eliminate that noise. It is especially absurd to increase the semantic noise in deference to those who demand that the language be abused and misused under the threat that not doing so (somehow) interferes with their "right to be offended".
OK, fine. Everyone has a right to be offended if that's their concept of the pursuit of happiness. But that does not confer a right to manipulate and control the language others are "allowed" to use, and it certainly does not justify using the political state to coercively impose restrictions on free speech. When you control the language that people use, you control what they think. "Thought crimes" are one of the hallmarks of authoritarian, totalitarian, tyrannical social structures.
In a motel after a very long day of driving, so I cannot reply at length—but I don't really need to, because all that you say makes perfect sense!
I would better appreciate your pacifist promptings if we weren't at war with the vilest of inhumanity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJBVPSnBlKY
And remember, my discerning foot tapping friends, a rope's not a thing
if it ain't
got that swing
Oh goodness, I am not talking about them. I am talking about people within the ambit of the freedom movement. We want to get along among ourselves and our movement.
Ok, my brother.
Sorry. Didn’t we talk about giving what you get? That should still work within our family of man I hope.
"Didn’t we talk about giving what you get? That should still work within our family of man I hope."
—Can you elaborate on your thoughts on this?
I am talking about "giving what you get". I fundamentally assume that we each sincerely practice the Golden Rule, i.e., that we are neighborly. This used to be called "reciprocity". I've most often heard it discussed in "dojos" in the context of violence modulation and, of course, in the inevitable blinding the whole world, as violent law and order criminals will always assert.
It is a simple human concept that, like every other human concept, is always seen to work best with people you are likely to encounter often. That is because the opportunity for retribution is higher and because human affinity, like everything else in the universe, is affected by physical laws, particularly the inverse square law. A refutation of jingoistic predation by the yankee occupation force can be structured by noting that everyone's obligations are first to their family and then to their home, and then to their neighborhood, with affinity diminishing with distance as larger political impositions are encountered. In one dimension, the disfunction of all communists, globalist communitarians, and other mobsters is evident in their inversion of natural affinity and the assertion that the most powerful crime syndicate has the most fundamental claim on your fealty. Remember Solzhenitzen and "... how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if ..."
Here is a legal argument contrasting reciprocity and mutuality, in case you want to know how such opinions might be structured. I have no opinion on the opinion and only present it for the academic sorts who've not thought much about those things.
https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/2553135/160793_NJLP_2213_0713_2014_043_002_006.pdf
Thanks for asking. I hope you are having a great day.
This is a huge topic. I am replying in advance of having read the legal argument at the link, so please let me know if I should just stop and read it, e.g., if I am repeating stuff it says.
At one level of analysis, of course, I simply agree. "Do no harm but take no shit." People who initiate force against you entirely deserve whatever protective force you deploy in response. And the righteously indignant part of me has an emotional desire to see **disproportionate levels** of protective force deployed in response. A) To punish them for their wrongdoing and B) to send a message to them, and others, for the future. LEAVE PEACEFUL PEOPLE ALONE OR YOU WILL @##$%ing REGRET IT.
But then we have the problem that everything that government does is an initiation of coercive force. And every single government employee, from presidents to bureaucrats to city bus drivers, is initiating coercive force upon you by proxy—to pay their salary if nothing else. It's all theft and slavery. But how are we to react to that? The system has existed in one form or another for thousands of years. The jobs are there, and most city bus drivers do not think—"I am enslaving my fellow man by doing this job." But they are. But they don't know it, and they are our neighbors, family, friends, etc. What are we to do about that? Reciprocity in one circumstance may not quite fit for another.
And then there is how we are treated badly verbally. Since there is no force there, we ought not use force in reply. But also, since a kind word in response can actually produce a greater aggregate good outcome than just responding in kind, is it not worth it to try that?
Solzhenitsyn was right. Unfortunately, we are a frog that is being boiled—there isn't a single moment of, "Now, now is the moment when we resist." The whole thing is one long slouch into oppression. So how do we deal with that? (And am I on the right track in terms of getting, and replying to, the point(s) you are making?)