If I don’t like you I can flag you! That is so odd…
Flagging is a tricky subject indeed. It can and is probably being misused (I presume merely because humans are involved)
I flag for one unique reason : someone is attacking someone else’s character.
Except if its me that is being attacked. Because I may be biased.
Bias still comes into it eg. sometimes I don’t flag an ad hominem when some particularly disagreeable figure is being called out. Mea Culpa.
But I think these are rules to aim for : point out violence, except when its being directed at you (in which case just refuse to ineract)
2 Likes
The same happens when someone’s ego gets hit and blames the poster for that instead of gaining insight into it.
So if I have a bipolar character and somebody points that out to me then he is wrong or is he?
I dunno - context & intention matter? Its tricky and not a perfect foolproof system. Humans are a varied bunch.
btw I did not flag you, in some cases of aggression my attention wanes. especially in cases of habitual conflict. Mea Culpa
2 Likes
“May” be? Being I is being biased.
But I think these are rules to aim for : point out violence, except when its being directed at you (in which case just refuse to interact)
Why raise the bar from “inappropriate” or “off topic” to “violence”?
Similar to a hot air balloon, my ego is inflatable as well as deflatable. It prefers maximum inflation. As long as it ‘exists’ it will always be in fear of or at least wary of, someone with a ‘pin’. Its bias is to be as fully inflated as possible but will put up with a bit of deflation if it somehow finds that ultimately inflating! I’m left with, that to be without ‘bias’, I must be without ‘ego’ and I must be as ‘nothing’ (not-a-thing). Is it a possibility? In this very moment?
Violence is the bar that makes me feel obliged to act. I’m not here to judge people’s general activity
We (as a society) have decided that violence is unacceptable - goes against wellbeing.
Being “as nothing” is not being nothing - it’s being free of whatever is limiting.
Is it [being as nothing] a possibility? In this very moment?
Why would a being limited to time and space ask this question?
So ad hominem is nothing to flag about?
An algorithm does the “approvals”.
Okay, there has been a light into the warnings that we get, possibly from an A I .
I think that there is not much more to discuss about the flaggings…
Why not? Why is attacking someone’s character not a form of violence?
Dear all - Some more thoughts on our relationships here on Kinfonet.
Maybe you feel that if only this one really annoying person could dissapear things would be so much better - we would all be able to express ourselves in a safe space, maybe more people would dare to participate in a friendlier, more compassionate environment? I certainly wonder about this myself sometimes. And so called trolls have been (hopefully correctly) identified and banned in the past.
But have you considered the following :
-
The world is not fair - by which I mean the universe is not concerned with avenging your pride.
-
Everyone is actually doing the best they can - and all of us have our specific neurological and psychological burdens, some of which are terribly debilitating.
All of which to ask : why are words like knives?
What is purpose of listening to K?
To find out whether we are able to directly listen. Listening can only be direct. If there are judgements interfering that is self talk. That is the only purpose.
If someone says something, how does one read, listen? Is it using judgement, thought? Then one is not listening.
If one is listening, it is perhaps only the listening that matters. So if someone tries to be aggressive with words, what matters is my inner being that listens. All words are temporary so why give importance to them. They are like the breeze, it will come and go, so the words don’t matter much, it is the listening mind that matters. Dialogue cannot take place just on level of thought, it has to do with silence, with listening. It cannot take place with inner chatter, but without it in silence. We give too much importance to thought. We have been trained to believe thought and time are necessary to function, but can we not live in peace and silence. Thought is a means of pressure. Can we not function in peace without this pressure of thought? We have given too much importance to thought. Our work we feel is based on thought and competition. But work or action comes from learning perceiving mind that is not thought.
What is the role of such a mind in dialogue?
1 Like
I am not sure if that is the right question.
When you listen to Mozart or Beethoven do you ask yourself what is the purpose of me listening to them? No because you enjoy listening to them.
Thought is the response of memory to a challenge. The challenge may be economical or environmental. How am I going to make money in the future? How am I not to get sick in the future?
It is fear that sustains thought.
So we should accept unfairness in this forum?
Dev has constructed a beautiful Jiddu Krishnamurti site, but only moderators should have the ability to flag posts and certainly not for pointing out when someone is contradicting Krishnamurtis’ fundamental realisation, even if their comment is based on ignorance.
re: “It is fear that sustains thought.”
You have it backwards. J.K. gave a great example: If someone points a gun at your head and says "I’m going to kill you and immediately pulls the trigger, there is no fear (and you are dead). If someone points a gun at your head and says “I’m going to kill you in ten minutes”, in that space of time, thought will create fear.
Could be a circular, each scratching the others back, kinda thingy?