Manipulation and the Force...as Jedi

Kohadre wrote:

ZealotX wrote:
I purposefully didn't mention any names. So the only person bringing up our previous interaction is you.

What I said about grey may apply to you but only if the shoe fits. I said I agreed with it in theory. If you apply it as a means of self-justification then, as I also stated was my opinion, its not legitimate. Guess what? I never said you were not entitled to your own opinion. You do not get to change mine without an argument that has MERIT. You have presented no such argument. You are simply stating a different opinion and trying to denigrate mine simply because YOU feel convicted. I do NOT, I repeat, do NOT need to share your opinion. I do NOT need to validate your personal views and opinions. That's for you to work out, not me. I'm definitely not going to change my mind because someone else says "hey your opinion makes me look bad"; especially when I did not mention their name and it isn't my job,role,goal, or mission in life to protect them from ever feeling bad.

To my knowledge, I'm the only person within this thread who has openly identified as within a grey path. So by that logic, I would assume you were directly referring to me; unless of course you were referring to another member who also follows a grey path.

We can keep changing words around, but ultimately the content of the message remains the same.

So now that you've attacked me as being unable to let go of grudges and in need of help... how should I respond? Exactly, as the advice I gave before. Defend your position unless confronted with facts and logic. Expose intent if necessary. Stay in control. See? I win again.

Attachment download.jpeg not found

No, you are making it about yourself. Here, let me show you and to be clear this is me trying to HELP you, not throw stones.

Although I identify within the gray path, I have also been called out as a "sith" multiple times within forum discussions over the years. My behavior at times has not been the best, and yes I acknowledge I've allowed my anger to get the better of me. The grey code however is neither entirely Jedi, nor entirely Sith; but instead a combination of aspects from both ideologies.

The point of the above being, that there are times when the utilization and expression are appropriate; such as specific membership using smear tactics to push responsibility off themselves or those within their circle.

Dude, I don't really care if you're light grey, dark grey, earl grey, midnight black, or pink lemonade. It doesn't matter. You first introduced grey and also "sith" to this discussion which have to be the context for understanding this second paragraph. They obviously are not completely unrelated. You were saying that there are times when the above are necessary ie behavior that doesn't fit into your ideal view of the Jedi path.

In my opinion it is NEVER appropriate to stray from the Jedi path. And therefore, **IF** any person, doesn't have to be you, is using a situation as an excuse, then that's not a legitimate use of grey, dark, or "sith". A Jedi should be who we are at all times; not simply when it's convenient. The whole point of spirituality is to condition and train yourself to be your best version... to attain your highest self... regardless of the situation or circumstances. Failing to do so is simply weakness and we can ALL be weak at times but one should never justify that weakness by say they're grey. Because grey, imo, suggests purpose. But like I said, some people confuse purpose and weakness because they are simply trying to justify themselves. This is self-righteousness.

So again... you introduced an IDEA. That idea was "if you're grey or dark its okay AND sometimes these behaviors are appropriate based on the situation". I disagree with that IDEA. That's simply your opinion. Ideals and virtues shouldn't change based on how the wind blows. If I'm against the death penalty I shouldn't change my mind in the case where my cousin was shot and killed. It has to be the same. Do you understand? Sometimes life is hard. It is in those moments that who you are matters even more. But if you change who you are its like giving up your values. Instead of making the world a better place you make it worse. If you're a Jedi be a Jedi. If you're a Sith be a sith. If you're Grey, make that mean something other than failure to stay in control. There is a way to be grey like Bindo Jolee and Qui Gon Jinn, but they didn't swap sides whenever things got tough. They were still Jedi. Again, this is my opinion. If you don't like it you don't like it. But its not going to change without a rational argument that is logical and fact based. It's not going to change just for you.

For me this is about IDEAS not people. It's not about you. I don't care how much you think it is. I don't care how much you think I should care about you or what you think or what you've done in the past. It's not about you. It's about IDEAS. And if you present an opinion I disagree with there is a statistical probability that I might see it and post a contradicting IDEA. To me saying "it is appropriate" = "its not just okay to be weak but you should be". I take issue with that. A Jedi should be strong. If the obstacle is strong the Jedi should be stronger than that obstacle.

If you don't like an IDEA that I present, by all means, debate it. I encourage that! One of my favorite people on this site was banned but they were one of my favorite people for the very reason people wanted them banned. I liked debating them. I like arguing with them. Even though we argued we got along. Even though we have differences of opinion I respect them, I like them, and consider them a friend. And that's why I defended them.

Arguing with people I disagree with... makes me better. I value those opinions because it forces me to think harder about what I'm saying and how I present it. If makes my argument better, my logic better, my facts better, it's simply a challenge. Do you like playing easy video games? Probably not. It's the challenge that makes you better. You shouldn't win just because you're holding the controller. You should win because you have developed the skills to win by overcoming the challenges the game throws at you. And if the challenges are harder that's not an excuse to rage quit and throw the controller against the wall. If it breaks its only hurting you because you're going to be out the money to replace it. If I'm an obstacle for you then be better at arguing against me. I can't make you better. I can only provoke you to think in this direction. And whether you see it or not, I do constantly try to do just that.

Why? Partly selfish. I want you to be better to provide me with a better challenge. Rage quitting doesn't affect me in the slightest. It doesn't challenge me. But if you were a sith and you simply channeled that anger into making a better argument because you wanted to win so bad... I could take that challenge and be benefited by it. But you seem to think that I don't accept people being different or subscribing to different paths. That's not true at all. I love debating ideas. It's not as enjoyable if everyone has the same view. It's how we get to the same view or to different views that interests me. So STOP. STOP thinking that it's about YOU. It's not. It's possible that I want better for you than you want for yourself. This is about IDEAS. If you're Jedi be Jedi. If you're sith, be sith. if You're grey... it has to be more than just an inability to be Jedi or sith. And if it's NOT then there's no reason to suggest that its ever appropriate to not follow ANY path depending on the situation. That's simply not being 100% true to that path.

The Jedi path is a GREAT path, yes, even when its hard and even when you feel like cussing someone out. I LOVE being able to regulate my emotions and not respond in ways that make the situation worse. Being a Jedi isn't weak and I think that's how some people think of it when it comes to conflict; because they don't like the idea of "losing face" especially in front of other people. But real strength is being able to control yourself and the more control you have over self the more control you can exert to influence your situation. But that doesn't mean you can ever, no matter what path you choose, ever fully control any given situation. You can only ever fully control your reaction to it. It takes more strength to do that than it does to give in to negative feelings and act out of them. This is my opinion and belief which is also my personal experience and therefore I submit it to the forum for the edification of those willing and able to hear. If you have a disagreement that stems from your "legitimate" use of the grey classification then make a logical, rational, coherent, and fact based argument.

If you don't want to do that, and instead you want to argue against me as a person, and not my ideas, then I will correct you if you are wrong in order to defend myself; as anyone should.

ZealotX wrote:
Dude, I don't really care if you're light grey, dark grey, earl grey, midnight black, or pink lemonade. It doesn't matter. You first introduced grey and also "sith" to this discussion which have to be the context for understanding this second paragraph. They obviously are not completely unrelated. You were saying that there are times when the above are necessary ie behavior that doesn't fit into your ideal view of the Jedi path.

Then let it go, stop responding to my posts.

Kohadre wrote:

ZealotX wrote:
Dude, I don't really care if you're light grey, dark grey, earl grey, midnight black, or pink lemonade. It doesn't matter. You first introduced grey and also "sith" to this discussion which have to be the context for understanding this second paragraph. They obviously are not completely unrelated. You were saying that there are times when the above are necessary ie behavior that doesn't fit into your ideal view of the Jedi path.

Then let it go, stop responding to my posts.

You can't tell me what posts to respond to. It's not about who the IDEA came from. It's about the IDEA. If you can't handle that and cannot present a sufficient argument in support of your IDEA then maybe you shouldn't respond to MY posts. I don't have that issue.

ZealotX wrote:

Tmattos93 wrote: I had an instance this past weekend where I witnessed a myriad of cognitive distortions and flawed logic on full display in my twitter feed, a painful example of SJW extremism, essentially saying "fuck ALL cops, they're all GARBAGE and anyone in support of ANY of them is garbage too!"

You may never hear it from that person, but I personally appreciate you trying to engage that person in positive conversation. I can tell you where that anger is coming from but you and I could have a different conversation because I already know where you're coming from and so there is more of an understanding and ability to relate that's already in place.

Many time periods have revolutionaries. And revolutionaries tend to be zealots. What they don't understand is why other people are not revolutionaries too. So they jump to conclusions. You have to dodge these conclusions in order to have a successful dialogue.

Think of it this way... if someone kills your sibling and someone who doesn't know you or your sibling says "why you mad, bro?" There's a chance you might get offended. And yes, I'm exaggerating in order to match how it sounds in the hearing of the zealous revolutionary mindset. You're saying this person is an SJW extremist but for them, its a black and white issue and it isn't extreme to them. The grey isn't grey because the grey enables the bad cops to stay bad. The grey keeps Rome occupying Israel (in the case of the zealots during the time of Jesus; like Barabbas). When people say they're for good cops or that "ALL LIVES MATTER" that doesn't necessarily help because they're more likely to do nothing in response. Because usually this is a response to the protest... not a response to bad cops. In other words... where were all the good people who support good cops when the bad corrupt cops are being protected by the system? If, and to be clear I'm mimicking his thought process, the system has a majority of good people then how could the corrupt cops be protected? It's kind of like the way the Catholic church protects pedophile priests and sometimes simply moves them to a different diocese. It is, in some ways, an insult to the intelligence of the protesters to treat them as if they haven't considered that not ALL cops are bad. Do you really not think they know that already? Of course they do. But if their message is wishy washy, watered down, and more palatable for you to digest, it wouldn't make you uncomfortable.

And guess what? It's DESIGNED to make you uncomfortable. And it worked because it made you want to talk to him. If he was being completely reasonable you would not have been provoked.

Do I agree with the tactic? Not really. But I understand it. "NOW they want to talk." I can almost hear them say. Maybe you were talking about it before, but the truth is many others weren't. Many others only entered the conversation to defend the police. So while people were getting murdered by the police everything was okay... no talking. A segment of the population was living in fear (OF ALL COPS) because that segment of the population could never tell which cop was corrupt and/or racist and which wasn't when those lights turned on behind them. You don't know which one you're going to get and to many cops ALL black people are bad (but of course they know its not ALL too). But many cops, tend to presume guilt beyond whatever crime they're investigating, depending on the color of the "suspect's" skin. And if there was a break in or car stolen or whatever, even if no one saw anyone, the suspect may be assumed to be "tall black male". Understand, many people fit that description, even myself. But the fact that we say (to the cops) "Black Lives Matter"... simply as a statement of fact to try and get them to stop and consider that black lives ALSO have value and that shooting black suspects when you don't have to shouldn't be tolerated.... when people contradict that statement by saying "ALL lives matter" its like debating the victim on behalf of the victimizer because that's who benefits. And things are less likely to change as long as people defend them. It's just like in the Matrix.

Everyone is potentially an agent.

And even though some want an honest discussion and to have these things explained to them, others really do not. They just want to be anti. And if one side doesn't see legitimacy in the other, conflict is almost inevitable.

I get that. To be clear, I wasn't in defense of one side over the other, and I certainly wasn't trying to diminish or belittle the plight of the oppressed . I am 100% in agreeance with the BLM movement, and the work that I do is truly in the hopes that it will one day make our current law enforcement system obsolete. Again, I recognize the problem with the system in place, but my point with this individual was more trying to put less focus on the problem and start opening up the discussion to solutions. Utilizing inflammatory language about a prevalent issue in our country and viciously hating on a group of people as a whole vs. recognizing the valuable and honorable contributions/intentions of some is spinning the narrative and manipulating a population ( social media followers) to think and feel one way because it impassions people in a negative way.

People are far too quick to blow up a problem and make it seem world ending because the system does suck, people are dying, in general there is categorically immoral work being done, and that straight up SUCKS. With regards to the subject of the thread, manipulation, that's the problem. There are plenty of people in this world complaining and hating and chastising. We need people with constructive energy and mindsets to go about fixing the problem, working alongside the "good" cops and people from within the already existing system (with regards to this specific issue). When a surplus of voices, particularly loud voices, spew this hate and anger, it inevitably spreads. Negativity is woefully infectious. When those hateful people are confronted with the opportunity to discuss solutions or to open up about their experiences so that others can understand and learn why they feel the way they do, in this particular instance, they get louder and that manipulated "mob" mentality ends up potentially striking down the ones working towards constructive change. People can be so hungry for validation, they ignore reason. If people can not look past their pain and be mindful of how to effectively reduce or altogether rid themselves of that pain, it seems to me we have another problem to deal with...

This isn't always the case, thank goodness...but with social media in particular it is everywhere, seemingly all the time.

Imagine a world where we had Relay for Life, a charitable event geared towards raising awareness about cancer and raising money for research to end cancer. What if Relay for Life was just a place for people to say how much they hate and despise cancer and the family members of cancer patients, and friends of cancer patients, and doctors of cancer patients JUST because they hated cancer so much? And at these bizarre events they raised money that they did NOTHING with? All of this JUST to evoke a shared hatred for something. To me, that's what this feels like.

It isn't enough to connect over feelings, especially anger or hatred. Share your stories, share your family's stories, your friends' stories. At the very least brainstorm potential solutions to underlying issues. Be open to ideas for how to achieve constructive change. You simply can not fight oppression with oppression, and trying to convince others that is the way to go just breeds disaster. People might do this in hopes someone else will step up to the plate and initiate that change, I really don't know for certain, but that still boils down to deconstructive manipulation.

As individuals, I think we need to take it on ourselves to work towards constructive solutions to areas where we face genuine problems. It isn't as easy and getting together with a group of loud and angry folks, but ideally if EVERYONE empowered themselves to operate with a constructive and rational mindset, the world might not seem so scary and dark.

"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude..." Maya Angelou (A Jedi in her own time, lol...)

Both of you play nice ......sometimes things can just be left where they are. No path holds credence over another universally. Particularly when we are open to the possibility of being wrong, it is the idea that we are not wrong that breeds the very arguments where manipulation has to come in forms that I would say are less than ethical.

Much Love,
Kobos

Tmattos93 wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Tmattos93 wrote: I had an instance this past weekend where I witnessed a myriad of cognitive distortions and flawed logic on full display in my twitter feed, a painful example of SJW extremism, essentially saying "fuck ALL cops, they're all GARBAGE and anyone in support of ANY of them is garbage too!"

You may never hear it from that person, but I personally appreciate you trying to engage that person in positive conversation. I can tell you where that anger is coming from but you and I could have a different conversation because I already know where you're coming from and so there is more of an understanding and ability to relate that's already in place.

Many time periods have revolutionaries. And revolutionaries tend to be zealots. What they don't understand is why other people are not revolutionaries too. So they jump to conclusions. You have to dodge these conclusions in order to have a successful dialogue.

Think of it this way... if someone kills your sibling and someone who doesn't know you or your sibling says "why you mad, bro?" There's a chance you might get offended. And yes, I'm exaggerating in order to match how it sounds in the hearing of the zealous revolutionary mindset. You're saying this person is an SJW extremist but for them, its a black and white issue and it isn't extreme to them. The grey isn't grey because the grey enables the bad cops to stay bad. The grey keeps Rome occupying Israel (in the case of the zealots during the time of Jesus; like Barabbas). When people say they're for good cops or that "ALL LIVES MATTER" that doesn't necessarily help because they're more likely to do nothing in response. Because usually this is a response to the protest... not a response to bad cops. In other words... where were all the good people who support good cops when the bad corrupt cops are being protected by the system? If, and to be clear I'm mimicking his thought process, the system has a majority of good people then how could the corrupt cops be protected? It's kind of like the way the Catholic church protects pedophile priests and sometimes simply moves them to a different diocese. It is, in some ways, an insult to the intelligence of the protesters to treat them as if they haven't considered that not ALL cops are bad. Do you really not think they know that already? Of course they do. But if their message is wishy washy, watered down, and more palatable for you to digest, it wouldn't make you uncomfortable.

And guess what? It's DESIGNED to make you uncomfortable. And it worked because it made you want to talk to him. If he was being completely reasonable you would not have been provoked.

Do I agree with the tactic? Not really. But I understand it. "NOW they want to talk." I can almost hear them say. Maybe you were talking about it before, but the truth is many others weren't. Many others only entered the conversation to defend the police. So while people were getting murdered by the police everything was okay... no talking. A segment of the population was living in fear (OF ALL COPS) because that segment of the population could never tell which cop was corrupt and/or racist and which wasn't when those lights turned on behind them. You don't know which one you're going to get and to many cops ALL black people are bad (but of course they know its not ALL too). But many cops, tend to presume guilt beyond whatever crime they're investigating, depending on the color of the "suspect's" skin. And if there was a break in or car stolen or whatever, even if no one saw anyone, the suspect may be assumed to be "tall black male". Understand, many people fit that description, even myself. But the fact that we say (to the cops) "Black Lives Matter"... simply as a statement of fact to try and get them to stop and consider that black lives ALSO have value and that shooting black suspects when you don't have to shouldn't be tolerated.... when people contradict that statement by saying "ALL lives matter" its like debating the victim on behalf of the victimizer because that's who benefits. And things are less likely to change as long as people defend them. It's just like in the Matrix.

Everyone is potentially an agent.

And even though some want an honest discussion and to have these things explained to them, others really do not. They just want to be anti. And if one side doesn't see legitimacy in the other, conflict is almost inevitable.

I get that. To be clear, I wasn't in defense of one side over the other, and I certainly wasn't trying to diminish or belittle the plight of the oppressed . I am 100% in agreeance with the BLM movement, and the work that I do is truly in the hopes that it will one day make our current law enforcement system obsolete. Again, I recognize the problem with the system in place, but my point with this individual was more trying to put less focus on the problem and start opening up the discussion to solutions. Utilizing inflammatory language about a prevalent issue in our country and viciously hating on a group of people as a whole vs. recognizing the valuable and honorable contributions/intentions of some is spinning the narrative and manipulating a population ( social media followers) to think and feel one way because it impassions people in a negative way.

People are far too quick to blow up a problem and make it seem world ending because the system does suck, people are dying, in general there is categorically immoral work being done, and that straight up SUCKS. With regards to the subject of the thread, manipulation, that's the problem. There are plenty of people in this world complaining and hating and chastising. We need people with constructive energy and mindsets to go about fixing the problem, working alongside the "good" cops and people from within the already existing system (with regards to this specific issue). When a surplus of voices, particularly loud voices, spew this hate and anger, it inevitably spreads. Negativity is woefully infectious. When those hateful people are confronted with the opportunity to discuss solutions or to open up about their experiences so that others can understand and learn why they feel the way they do, in this particular instance, they get louder and that manipulated "mob" mentality ends up potentially striking down the ones working towards constructive change. People can be so hungry for validation, they ignore reason. If people can not look past their pain and be mindful of how to effectively reduce or altogether rid themselves of that pain, it seems to me we have another problem to deal with...

This isn't always the case, thank goodness...but with social media in particular it is everywhere, seemingly all the time.

Imagine a world where we had Relay for Life, a charitable event geared towards raising awareness about cancer and raising money for research to end cancer. What if Relay for Life was just a place for people to say how much they hate and despise cancer and the family members of cancer patients, and friends of cancer patients, and doctors of cancer patients JUST because they hated cancer so much? And at these bizarre events they raised money that they did NOTHING with? All of this JUST to evoke a shared hatred for something. To me, that's what this feels like.

It isn't enough to connect over feelings, especially anger or hatred. Share your stories, share your family's stories, your friends' stories. At the very least brainstorm potential solutions to underlying issues. Be open to ideas for how to achieve constructive change. You simply can not fight oppression with oppression, and trying to convince others that is the way to go just breeds disaster. People might do this in hopes someone else will step up to the plate and initiate that change, I really don't know for certain, but that still boils down to deconstructive manipulation.

As individuals, I think we need to take it on ourselves to work towards constructive solutions to areas where we face genuine problems. It isn't as easy and getting together with a group of loud and angry folks, but ideally if EVERYONE empowered themselves to operate with a constructive and rational mindset, the world might not seem so scary and dark.

"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude..." Maya Angelou (A Jedi in her own time, lol...)

You are correct and honestly, I think he just wasn't the right guy for that conversation. There are people who are conversation starters and by being a part of the thing that starts the conversation they've done their part; fulfilled their duty. A lot of people don't know how to fix the problems. They just feel the effects and a lot of them are not going to offer anything more than how they feel because, for them, they're not the ones responsible to fix it. I'm not saying that is a correct attitude but I do understand it.

Think of it this way... if you have a victim of a lynching, his family would probably be the wrong people to talk to to ask "how can we avoid more people getting lynched?" You could ask them, but the fact that their loved one didn't do anything wrong, except be born black, what can they say? It's not their job to fix it. And sometimes (not you) we deal with people who simply don't want to have that conversation and they feel so uncomfortable that the only reason they're shifting the conversation from problem to solution is keep the person from talking about the problem. Both conversations can be had simultaneously.

Every school shooting immediately goes from problem and outrage to, let's talk about solutions and while that conversation goes on the emotion and anger dies down and people start going back to normal until another school gets shot up. The reason why its a vicious cycle is because there's not enough push for that change. So sometimes part of the solution is to keep talking about the problem so that the separate discussion of solutions can keep happening until it produces results. You have to push until the right people, the people in the right positions, have no choice but to do something. And when they want to do something they'll invite the right people to discuss the issue and they'll seek solutions from them while proposing their own. That's simply how its done. But MLK wasn't going to stop marching until there was a deal on the table for civil rights. You don't stop until you get change. Talking about solutions isn't enough.

And for the longest kids were not part of the gun control conversation either. Remember that? Because it wasn't supposed to be their problem to fix. But since the adults acted like nothing could be done eventually one school started speaking out to the point that people concocted conspiracies about them being crisis actors. One family had to move like 8 times because of it. Why? Because some people want a revolution and many others want things to stay the same. As much as we all want to assume we're on the same side, we aren't. And people on both sides understand that. So then its a matter of how to differentiate those on the other side from those who are in the middle, wanting to have an honest conversation. And truthfully, not enough people take the time to figure out who is who. And like I said, he probably wasn't the right person to have that discussion. He may simply be a representative of the raw nerves of black people expressing pain. And you don't ask your nerve endings to explain how to fix the pain. They're simply sending you signals to let your brain know it needs to figure something out. So I'm not defending him. He was probably wrong and was probably insensitive in the way that he responded to you. But again, I understand where he's coming from.

And if you know what the problem is, isn't the solution(s) somewhat obvious? Wouldn't it help to prosecute bad cops to the fullest extent of the law to discourage other cops from that same behavior? Isn't it obvious that IA should investigate racism and use undercover officers to detect and remove racist officers? Isn't it obvious if a racist cop gets removed from one precinct that they should be disqualified from getting hired someplace else? Maybe less obvious, why not not have the same license and insurance concerns that doctors have? Where a doctor can lose their ability to practice medicine. Cops often get protected by the "blue shield" and at times by prosecutors (who they help win cases for) and mostly white juries who only need a minority vote using the justification of reasonable doubt to hide that juror's own racist attitudes and fear of black people. All these things seem obvious to us to the point that we don't know what discussion needs to be had. The people who have the power to fix it, simply need the will to do so. If it was their children we suspect they'd have it. Of course in school shootings it is their children but their guns seem to be more precious.

Athena_Undomiel wrote: Where is the line between sharing, educating...and manipulating or bullying?
How do you reconcile the difference? What do you do to combat this manipulative behavior?

Deep questions, all. The line, I find, lies where one asks for sharing and educating. When it's forced on someone, or offered when it wasn't requested, that is manipulation.