mr_engineer

And, is there a discrepancy between the 'time it takes' depending on whether it's Dwayne Johnson or a regular guy?

@Eternal Unity I think we can come to the official conclusion that you have lost it.

I may be coming across as asking silly questions here because the people who subscribe to these ideologies literally believe that this isn't true. Which is why they will play games to get the other side to invest emotions first. It is truly sad, to believe that the other side has to be manipulated into it. Cuz the only explanation you can have is that they're not fundamentally capable of love. This is what I believe they need to hear. A positive narrative. It's not obvious to either side.

@Emerald Are women capable of love, according to you? I mean, I don't know. I'm not a woman. I've tried to ask this question to a lot of people. Everyone's dismissed it as a 'stupid question'. And nobody's given me a straight answer.

What is the truth, then? I'm not taking any ideological position here, I'm asking for your opinion on this.

@Emerald I see that you have some experience embodying your definition of 'respect'. That's good work. Do you have a vision for what the world should look like, what society should look like, what relationships should look like? And, if so, how that can be actualized? With all of this experience, if you just have a vision, I'm sure you'll have a way to actualize it. The reason I'm asking you about role-modelling and emulating is that practically, this is what I have seen to work to change relationship-dynamics and to improve them. Do you have other ways in which you change relationship-dynamics for the better?

Alright. What this sounds like is that you see 'giving respect' as a good spiritual practice that you feel intuitively called to do and you're saying something spiritual to justify it. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you're doing it because you truly want to do it. Because if you don't truly want to do it, you'll become a codependent. I don't know how you'll discern between when you're being codependent vs when you're doing it out of your own volition, you're saying you'll switch back to a survival-oriented frame yourself if someone else disrespects you. You probably have your way of handling that. I don't get it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Do you think others should emulate what you're doing? Do you see yourself as a good role-model for others? Are you a good practitioner of this practice or do you have some distance to go on this front? If you were to teach it to someone else, would you be able to use your spiritual justification to convince them to do as you're saying? Would you know how it applies to their context?

@Rishabh R Which college? Where is it?

There is 'separation' and 'oneness' in the relative domain, which are two sides to the same coin. Then, there is 'Oneness' with a capital 'O'. It does not have an opposite. There is no other side to the coin of 'Oneness' with a capital 'O'. I agree with the theory. Wait. Through the lens of separation? Either this is a strange-loop or a contradiction. I'm thinking contradiction. If you said 'the lens of Oneness, with a capital O', cuz that's how I'd expect to be able to see someone's oneness/sacredness, it would make perfect sense to me. Because to be able to have access to that lens, you would also have to have Infinite Self-Respect, or Respect for yourself as the God-self. Because, when I put on the lens of separation, I don't get this magnanimous view of someone's oneness/sacredness. It's just me and the finite reality around me.

If you recognize the validity of their existence but still maintain your own survival, what this means is that you are recognizing their existence as an entity that's separate from you. If you didn't recognize the 'separateness', i.e. the opposite of your oneness with it, you would not have to also maintain your own survival, right?! And, the Absolute Truth, is that this is wrong. Because separation is an illusion. If you define 'respect' like this, it fundamentally goes against your desire to define 'Respect' with a capital 'R'. A 'Respect' without an opposite. Because, when you embody it, you are willing to recognize the validity of the 'other' party's agenda, even though it is separate from you, cuz you have your own survival to maintain too. This neglects the reality that the 'other' side is 'disrespecting' you in the relative domain, precisely because your absolute definition of 'Respect', when applied to the relative realm, does not have an opposite! So, you will have this blindspot, in practice, when you define it like this. In other words, you are compromising with 'the reality of conflict', in the way you define 'respect'. This is the failure of your theory, when applied to practice. Because, the point of this concept of 'respect', is to get along with each other, have a consensus and not be conflicted. To not have war, to have peace. And to therefore form a strong team-dynamic between people, get shit done together and create a utopian world.

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream If this is true, I don't even want to spell out the consequences of it. You can do the math yourself.

Mainstream media is state-sponsored. Hersh is not. So, the MSM may not be 'corrupt' by the government's definition. But, if you look at it and use your own mind, isn't that corruption?! I would be very interested to see you rationalize how it's not technically 'corruption' and how they're doing the work of God by being a mouthpiece for the government. I know, I'm quoting 'Fox News' and that's very bad, I get it. But, I'm quoting Victoria Nuland herself, not Tucker Carlson. She did threaten to destroy Nord Stream in Jan 2022, 1 year ago. Then, in September 2022, they did it. You know what? You're right. The government is always right, the mainstream is always right. All hail the supreme US government. Let's present our asses to them on a silver platter for them to spank. And anyone who questions the mainstream, that's the 'corrupt' one!

@Emerald Okay, this is really big talk. Let's make this even more practical. Do you have respect for a mosquito in the moment that it's sucking your blood?! If not, if you say 'I'm not there in my ability to offer unconditional respect yet', will you ever get there?

@aurum From what I've heard, Seymour Hersh is an OG investigative journalist, of a time before the corrupting of mainstream media.

I think, for practical considerations, it's very important to agree on what 'respect' means. We don't have the luxury to 'agree to disagree' on this one. It's the basic-level jargon of relationships. It's like going to a math-class and saying 'I disagree with the statement 2+2=4'. Fine, you have the right to do that. But, you're not going to get better at math if you do that. I don't see it as a feeling, I see it as a choice. When you say 'regard', what do you mean? Is it an 'acknowledgement of its existence'? Or, does it mean, to consider as important when you set your agenda? If it's the first definition of 'regard', I agree with you. Because, the way I've seen 'respect' work, is that you can have 'respect' for your opponents too. You can know them intimately, what they're capable of, what they want. And yet, you will not consider their feelings, wishes or rights as 'important when you set your agenda'. Sports are a good example of this. Athletes will respect each other, but not consider the other person's agenda when competing for a world cup. Competitors can 'respect' each other! You're probably using the second definition of 'regard' here. In which case, I don't think I can do that, if it's not reciprocated. This would have to be mutual. I'm being asked to be 'trustworthy' or 'reliable' here, aka, to consider their feelings, wishes, rights as important when I set my agenda. And, the way I see it, I shouldn't do that unless it's reciprocated.

@Emerald Your definition of 'respect' sounds very personal to you. Do other people in your life agree with your definition of 'respect'? If not, how do you get along with them? I'd be curious to know that. Also, if we assume that your definition of 'respect' is absolutely right, for a second, that it is the 'recognition of the inherent sacredness and unshakable validity of all living beings', it's kinda abstract and generalized. I don't know how people would agree on the correct way to practically embody this definition of it. Because, if this is what 'respect' means, if this is what it takes to correctly embody 'respect', 'disrespect' would not be possible, right? It would not be possible for someone who is 'respectful' towards one living being to be 'disrespectful' towards another living being. Yet, in practice, we see that to be the case. It sounds like you're trying to define a 'Respect' with a capital 'R', that doesn't have an opposite. The issue with this, from a practical perspective, is that people disagree on the right way to embody something that's purely abstract. Because the practical reality is relative, not absolute. And, in the relative, practical reality, 'disrespect' is a thing. Which is the problem on our hands here.

Oh... okay. I actually have examples of people who have integrity and are respectable but who are not trustworthy. Or admirable. For example, Adolf Hitler. In his anti-semitism, he had integrity. True to his word, he did gas Jews. And, this did earn him the respect of his Nazi party. But, that's not trustworthy. You would not trust a bloodthirsty crazy-man like Adolf Hitler to have any position of power or even be a decent civilian in today's world. And, is that admirable?! Hell no. He's sorta respectable simply because he was a world leader, he stayed true to his anti-semitic ideology and he carried it to the ends of the earth. And, he got put into power because of his pro-Germany rhetoric. He also built the autobahns. The way I've defined respectability, it has nothing to do with being moral or even being humane. It's just raw power being amassed in one direction. And that happens when you have integrity.

Empathy is selfish. You are getting to know information about someone by putting yourself in their shoes and asking them deep questions about them to get to know them. Empathy is the recognition of the other as a part of the self. So, even though it is egocentric, if you're doing it correctly, your 'ego' will also include their ego. This is how it can be used to get along and create peace. This, honestly, is the answer to the question 'Why be empathetic?' To resolve conflicts and create peace. Again, selfish desire. But, if you're going to ask a question like 'Why be empathetic', you're looking for a selfish answer. HTH!!

After thinking about this answer for a while, I agree with you. In theory. Having said that, in practice, to implement this principle, there comes one condition to be respectable - integrity. If you have integrity, no matter who you are, no matter what your identity is, you unconditionally deserve respect. But, if you lack integrity, you will lose it. This is how it tends to work in the real world, in my experience. Technically, in theory, it is unconditional. But, practically, integrity is what it takes to earn it. Lack of integrity is the one shortcoming that will make it so you lose everyone's respect, without exception. If you have other shortcomings, you will only lose the respect of biased people. But, lack of integrity will lose you the respect of unbiased people too. 'Respect', the way I'm defining it, is a validation/acknowledgement of your identity, of who you are. In theory, you deserve it, no matter who you are. Because, in theory, we assume that your 'identity' is well-defined. But, in practice, a lack of integrity tends to disrupt this definition of who you are. When you break your word, when you say one thing and do something else. That's why it loses you respect.

Because people on either side of this debate really, really dogmatically identify with their stance. And most of them think that the other side is pure evil, to the point of being threatened by the other side. I have been brainwashed to believe that there is one absolutely right way to see this issue. By different people, who disagree with each other. Being confused about this issue is seen as very, very dangerous. No matter who you talk to about this.

@Emerald Okay. Let me rephrase the question. Are all identities respectable? (Not even remotely implying anything about gender.) If not, what does it take for someone to earn respect?

I'd like to hear male opinions on this. I get the sense that some people here want to talk about this. So, here's your opportunity.

@Emerald If we set aside your psycho-analysis of me for a second, (don't worry, we'll get there, in this thread, I am open to it) - what is your answer to the question to which you're replying? Cuz amidst the psycho-analysis, my stupid brain is missing the actual, factual answer to the question.

@Emerald If you don't care about male opinions, this thread is not for you. It's for women who actually care. And, please don't give me this shit about 'this is why you're motivated to do this'. I can also psycho-analyze you and tell you 'why you're responding the way you are'. We can play this game all day long, that 'this is why you're motivated to do this'. Would that be respectful?! I don't think so. No, I'm not going to question my motivations behind doing this, I know exactly why I'm doing this. Take it or leave it.