What to do about my aggressions? :-/

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry, but we will be going in circles for yet a while here, I think; I'm just that stupid in this case. What I'm talking about as justified and not prejudiced is e.g. when I point out to someone that I don't like a certain behaviour and they keep doing it. That's what I mean by knowing, in knowing they're aware of my problem and don't respect it. To analyze isn't the only aspect, it doesn't matter how far a person analyzes, of course, it's still prejudice as long as it's not compared to the oppressor's opinion of what's going on. And that's why I differ myself from a person who e.g. suddenly "WHAT THE F*** ARE YOU DOING, IDIOT?!?!" at a certain action and afterwards don't apologize when I say it's very disturbing for me to take insults and scoldings since I'm so sensitive, when I apologize for the mistake I made. That person thinks I should respect its world view even though it refuses to respect mine.



But in not calculating a situation but acting before they know (that I didn't do something intended to harm them which should've triggered such a response) - which I don't (or try not to) when I get into those panic reactions of mine - I mean they do act prejudiced. Why not do you mean, exactly? I take into concideration the fact that they may very well be trying too, but when it happens continuously and not even the intencity diminishes anything I no longer see that as a biased view even in that respect.



Ah, this needs to be cleared up, it seems. I think it's unacceptable to simply follow our nature and not try to do better. Human nature can be applied to anything, and I think that attitude is one of the main causes for this world being in the state it is now sociopolitically. It can be done by simply making another choice. How well it goes doesn't matter as much as how good the intentions are, but the higher goals the further we strive. Setting too high goals only becomes unbearable if the goal itself is seen as the important thing and not the strive to get there. I think it's inherently human nature to try to better things for the environment, but our cultural dogmas have led enough of us to believe we should be egoistic and short sighted. I can only see how an attitude like that degenerates my environment and thusly makes it worse for myself, even if I should happen to gain power/money/whatever, the place I have to spend it in will feel like s**t so it's really a worthless goal, and therefore altruistic values are the only true beneficial ones imo.
Thusly I'm not satisfied with human nature being the way it is; it's destructive to itself and it's illogical. Getting angry at it has a use: it feeds my need to change it. I suffer voluntarily, so that's why I don't want to let go, because I fear that might change my perspective to become one of those cynical bastards full-time. I think this is what should be straightened out into something more beneficial for myself, but still without losing sight of that goal.



This is a very good argument. It's been hard for me to formulate it like that with all my hate, so thanks for making it clear.



Because a lesson should be taught with respect to the student's feelings. Feelings are more valuable than efficiency. Efficiency is, like I said in an earlier post, only a means to gain positive feelings. I think a scolding is always a mistake and shouldn't be accepted. Some people are very sensitive and the risk is always that you happen to run into one of those. Many people don't learn nearly as good and efficient but instead become protesting and do the exact opposite in revenge of the violence they've been exposed to. I'm like that, mostly to make the point that scolding is unacceptable. Informing is good, though. I don't listen to how a person say a thing and judge how serious it is from that, but to what arguments it conveys its point. To me, if a person isn't sharp enough to teach me with rational arguments alone, then it shouldn't try to teach me anything, because it doesn't know anything more than me it can clearly define and therefore shouldn't try to force me into any kind of submission. An open dialogue is key in social communication at all times as I see it.



But it isn't the scolding's intention, it's the fact that my nervous system biochemically isn't aligned so that it reacts positively to that kind of stimuli.
It gets too intense and I don't want to have to put up with it when it's so easy to try to stop it, but it's very, very hard for me and probably many others, to get used to it, in combination with it being less effective.
I think many things people don't care about because they haven't been scolded could just as easily be "corrected" by giving them the rational reason for why it's so important. I remember when I was a kid and my parents and teachers taught me things but never told me why. "That's just the way things are," is just something that makes the person seem egocentric and stupid enough to ignore, so it's understandable that people think it's necessary to scold one another.



I am a person to person kind of guy in that respect. If Mr. X has raped people then I definitely feel sorry for those victims and think it's horrible, even though Mr. X doesn't become my personal enemy for it. In my book everyone are worthy of as many second chances as there are. That doesn't mean that the rapist should continue his behaviour, because not trying to avoid mistakes is also an act of violence. But I am of the attitude of giving everyone a clean slate no matter what they've done, because I think it's detrimental for someone who's almost certainly gotten something wrong in his life to get it even worse - for the environment of the person who would benefit more if the rapist was helped to overcome his urges. No one should be left out, everyone should be equally respected like that. So the question is really: do I want to treat every person equally? Yes. Do I want to treat every behaviour equally? No. Rape isn't respected as much as humanitarian ideals in my book.



Yes, an argument I will definitely try to use. Thanks again!



I meant that in not being so emotionally deficient you can be more objective than me.

Well, you saw the point I was trying to make. The basic gist of my advice, is to not be sensitive to the emotions and actions of others. By responding to such a behavior in a defensive way, perpetuates it as much as responding in an offensive way. Responding with neutrality, stops a whole lot of problems. They don't feel attacked, so they won't try to defend with an offensive or defensive tactic; and they don't feel like you're vulnerable, and that they're invited to continue.
All the arguments I have been putting forward to you, has been to try and show you one thing. If you respond with a defensive or offensive tactic, they will either feel like YOU are doing the attacking, or feel encouraged to continue their behavior. Take your defensive tactic of telling them you don't like a certain behavior, for an example. They will then, in all likelihood feel that you are saying they are in the wrong, and they will respond how they are conditioned: they will attack, or feel victimised. In verbal sparring, almost noone chooses to flee.


You know, you just reiterated my point. It is impossible to ever know, unless you are that person. Every calculation is your perception of what they are doing. If you told them you thought their actions are prejudiced, they would think YOU were prejudiced. It's a mistake to think you can talk personally with someone and believe they will be perfectly objective. Trying to calculate your way to avoiding conflict just doesn't work. It's not like chess. There's too many variables to control or consider.


Why are you extending your principles and expecting everyone else to share them? I think it's a fine belief, and it's also one I share, that people should try to improve themselves. But I think part of that self-improvement, is realizing that people have a right to choose who they are, who they should be and what they do, so long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's right to those same things. This is why I think pure existence is more important than


But since your need to change it can't be fulfilled, does it have a use? I think ideas or ideals that can't be used daily and incorporated as part of your being have no use at all.


Oh ho, aha! So it's so: You're completely mistaken. I'm not objective, I'm the least objective person I know. Neutrality is not objectivity, neutrality is lack of emotion.

They are invited to continue if I am vulnerable? As I see it, that should instead make it apparent to them they have attacked me and stop it, because they're obviously wrong.



Well, obviously they are in the wrong and that's why I'm correcting them. It's universally fundamental that no one has any right to attack an innocent person. EVERYONE should get that. Already at the age of two the human nervous system is complex enough to get that the environment suffers too. From that point it shouldn't take many years to figure out that "if I don't attack them, they don't attack me, because that would make me want to attack them back and they don't want to be attacked." Are they thinking maybe, that they can get away with an attack? What would possibly give anyone that idea when it's so obvious ANYONE can attack anyone else, just by jumping them from behind or in some other unexpected moment? If that's the case then it's completely amazing how stupid people are and I think I will continue to refuse to get that until my head has stopped spinning from the mere fact that they haven't all been deported and shot into space or locked up by now.



No, because what I would be telling them is that they don't know me, which they don't. But I _know_ they take action against me and I know it is intended to hurt me - no matter if it's seen as revenge for them or not. I don't need to know anything more than that to say they're prejudiced about me, because of course you can only attack a guilty person.



That looks contradictory to me. An attack is by definition an action intended to force someone else into submission => not allowing it to choose how it wants to live. To retaliate is simply to allow yourself to do what your attacker felt it had the right to do and it has therefore given you that right since everyone have equal rights.



You may be right in this, but right now I think it's the trivialties of daily life that gives inspiration to the greater ideas. If I am reminded by my hate then I know exactly what I should put a stop to. I take walks daily and during those I think through exactly why people are wrong and more and more I refine my arguments until finally I can tell the entire world off.



But neutrality is the best position from which to be objective. Being governed by something you can't control gives rise to a prejudiced attitude.

Think of it as a struggle for energy, Malaclypse. You show you are vulnerable, you reinforce the perception that you will give them that energy as a result of their aggressiveness. Why would they stop? You're making a mistake thinking people are rational and self-controlled. In fact, you're making a mistake thinking at all. Even hesitation can be interpreted as a vulnerability.


The brain is complex enough for us to be genius calculators and have photographic memories, but not everyone can access it. Why should everyone learn that, Malaclypse? It's like physics. People can learn it, if they've had the right training. But just because it's learnable doesn't mean it's easy to learn, or even taught! A lot of it depends on your childhood, Malaclypse, where your deep programming is programmed into you. And most people's deep programming is to get energy any way they can, and to keep it at any cost. It's not as simple as "If I don't attack them, they won't attack me". Some people learn that "If I don't attack them, I won't get any energy". So even if you don't attack anyone, others will attack you. And I'm not talking physical attacks like someone jumping out behind you, because that's a very inefficient way of obtaining energy.


I think I answered this with my comment about energy battles. They don't intend to hurt you, they try to take your energy. They're not really attacking you, just trying to steal your energy. Don't give them your energy, and they have no reason to continue to try and take your energy using that tactic. The problem regarding maintaining friendships I think is an extention of the energy theory. We're very bad at giving other people our energy freely, and also pretty bad at refusing to hand our energy over when we are forced. But nothing I've seen from NT's has them better at refusing, just the giving.

Because what I show them is the premonition of something very bad for them: the end of my patience => revenge => their death/horrible pain/etc.
Since this should be obvious for anyone to realize the only way to go is by my idea of it: not attack innocents.



Okay, I yield in this point. But I have to add something else that's important to take into concideration. I know how the system of social interaction works well enough to see where giving up my ideals would lead me: toward less. I.e. by the ideals alone, not as we've seen in practice. But that's not becaues I have the wrong idea but because people are f*****g STUPID. When I am this certain I have the right idea about something I act like it's an absolute truth because that gives me most focus in it. But in the final sense, you are right.



Because these rules are both so very simple and so very present in our daily lives, no matter what culture or anything else we're enveloped in. Like saying everyone of us know the sun will rise tomorrow. We're not there yet, so it's not an absolute truth, but it would be pointless to pretend otherwise.



No, I can't understand how they can't see past that and into the "one day I will be weak and someone will attack me back for all I've done to them", and seen from there it's not very energy efficient. Why should anyone learn that? Because it's easy to realize that "power" is bs when it comes to rule people. I.e. most of the time it works, but what about the constant risk of being finitely demolished by someone with a vengeance?



I see that as hurting me: forcing me out of something I may use for my benefit will potentially make my situation worse. That's an attack in my book. And what I am hurt by is the fact that people actually allow themselves to do these things to me. It makes me feel like I've done something wrong and are being punished, so it makes it impossible to learn what's good and bad according to people, because I am constantly swept by their preaching about how things should be done, so I know most of them think in right/wrong.
Hey, that's also an important point. I said somewhere before, I think, that I work as a mirror. I allow myself to the same principles they use against me, but I apply them so that it suits me. They expect me to follow it, but I make hypocrites of them by showing them that they didn't really like their own ideals after all, so they shouldn't try to force that kind of behaviour on me.



I think you've finally convinced me, so thanks a million for shrinking all the years of obstinate thinking out! I will use it as a tactical advantage, but not give in to thinking it's okay to give away energy. At least not yet.



I don't think adding to their idiocy will ever be my thing, though.