When we attempt to shame or belittle others, its always an act of violence.
Are you sure about that? This sounds like a tactic one could use to avoid all forms of confrontation. If one bends their language so far that nothing substantive can be said because some people will be shamed as a result, is that not also violence by omission (because you failed to correct a bad behavior that bit them badly in the future)? I think one must understand that shame is a useful emotion if it is truly on correct moral ground. That is far more important, than protecting the egos of statist psychopaths.
I can also think of one biblical quote that disagrees...
"For the LORD disciplines those he loves, and he punishes each one he accepts as his child." - Hebrews 12:6
Its got nothing to do with ''protecting the egos of statist psychopaths'' it is about actually changing the perspectives of people we disagree with.
Quotations from a book that is all about creating blind obedience to the self appointed authority of the church and state cuts no ice in me at all. In reality religion is one of most disturbing aspects to the control grid that we face.
Just look at Adam and Eve's reaction after eating the fruit. They experienced shame, and changed not one bit.
I was also schooled in the view that the light bringer Satan, was the figure who gave certain people the knowladge to manipulate, govern and enslave others. Inducing shame in others is a good way of doing that.
Yes, that one is kind of obvious and I hesitated about including it for that reason. But I remembered it because I studied the bible long before I became a voluntarist.
However, that quote still tells you that even those who promote such things know better. Larken already talked about changing the perspectives of those we disagree with in that video, but I would say that there are times when you just have to be blunt with the truth.
I was also schooled in the view that the light bringer Satan, was the figure who gave certain people the knowladge to manipulate, govern and enslave others. Inducing shame in others is a good way of doing that.
Yes, but notice that I said that one has to be on correct moral ground to use shame righteously. That makes all the difference in the world. The reason shame works negatively to "govern, manipulate and enslave others" is because they are already slaves to ego. It doesn't always work in one direction only.
My point is that shame will always lock people into their pattern.
Its just making ourselves feel better, feel more dominant. And I can be as guilty as the next person, and i feel a shame, i will be locked into that pattern and hate myself for it : )
And yea I have spent way too many hours reading the bible myself.
Its just making ourselves feel better, feel more dominant.
If that's how one feels after speaking truth, then it's not coming from a righteous place. I've seen shame come from a different place than that and work positively on occasion. I remember Stephan Molyneux has said something similar saying that using moral arguments is far more effective than using logical arguments.
Again, please don't take the fact that he is now a Trump statist as reason to not see the truth. This would be a form of argument known as "ad-hominem". The truth will often times show up where you least expect it.
I have not even bothered to look at any of Stephan Molyneux's stuff for years because he appears to be driven by ego. Some of stuff is ok and valid but his strategies are crap.
Anyway, we could apply your argument to a situation where I am in contact with person who is emotionally and physically violent to women and children. So I am in a violent situation where I deliver a blow to that person they fall to the ground so i drag the to a doorway and start to slam the door on this persons head between the door and frame around the door way. I may feel dominant and even 'righteous' but I m just a thug at that point. If I employ shaming, it will lock that person into the pattern they are in and I am still a thug.
It's not about whether one feels righteous but whether one really is. Someone doing all the things you say above obviously isn't.
You have to make sure that you are on solid ethical ground and shame ideally isn't caused by accusation (as in public shaming), but by the realization of wrongdoing which can happen in multiple ways when the truth is exposed.
So according to you, if someone was all the way and openly a Nazi, it would be divisive, and would constitute violence, to say that that's bad? Um, no. 100% dead wrong. Advocating statism is advocating ACTUAL violence. Someone saying something you don't like isn't violence. Yes, there very much IS an "in group" and an "out group" when it comes to whether people condone the violent subjugation of mankind. ALL statists do, and ALL statists should be condemned--whether gently or bluntly--for doing so. (Once again, you seem to just fish for things to argue about under my posts, even if they make little or no sense.)
''So according to you, if someone was all the way and openly a Nazi, it would be divisive, and would constitute violence, to say that that's bad? ''
Disagreeing with things people do and say is essential. Its what I am doing here with you right now! and you with me. But saying something is 'bad' just seems to be ignorant and childish to me. It looks to me like employing the Statist strategy of creating in groups and out groups. Tapping into peoples hate.
The way I see it, the vast majority of us have been indoctrinated into seeing the 'State' as valid and necessary. Many many people see the State as their protector and are not even consciously aware that they see it that way.
And just because you do not understand something just yet, does not even imply that it does not make sense. It just means that we have not found common ground yet. The enemy is only exists in your head.
that may be true, but it is not what I said is it?
I am sure i would have said something like, creating in groups and out groups or vilifying individuals is tapping into peoples hate. It not so helpful if our aim is to create anything like a democratic world.
And i dont understand, why if you teach others how to connect in a different way, why you choose not to employ those strategies on your own channel.
How to reach the members of the military and law enforcement, that is the question because it is they among us that use force to protect our enslavement. Makes no sense but...
While waiting for my car to be serviced, a retired military guy started talking to me. Nice guy, very friendly until.. He brought up football and I said I hadn't been watching it much lately. Big smile came to his face because he thought I was boycotting football due to the players kneeling.
I saw that in his face and I just said, "You know the truth about that."
His head started shaking side to side in the NO motion almost involuntarily, then his eyes glazed over and he walked off in what appeared to be a trance. Not another word spoken.
All I can do is tell the truth as matter-of-factly and logically as I can. Anyway, still waiting for something to work.
Thanks Larken for this great rant! This is why I said while back that I wanted to charge everyone with Dereliction of Duty. All I ever hear from people or "statists" is that the government sucks this or they hate the government because of that, and then they go out and vote for more government. And then people wonder why I have lost faith in humanity.
Statism: the belief that we require permission to be free.
This is why I'm not at all afraid to be the inglorious bastard that I am getting right in societies face about these things. Establish world peace, kill all the statists!
Which of course I know is irony because by saying this I'm advocating violence. But am I Larken? In my eyes I'm reacting out of self-defense because these Statists advocate violence and aggression towards me giving me a genocidal death sentence. Yet, I'm the asshole for speaking up and speaking out wishing we could kill those who want to kill us. SMH
Holding a person accountable is an act of respect as surely as vengeance is an act of justice.
Individuals embracing statism are initiating aggression and their action forfeits their control over the outcome of retaliation to their aggression. It follows that statists are not entitled to debate, any debate extended to them is charitable which includes pity. Statists are not entitled to charity. Statists are not entitled to pity.
"All statist positions are cowardice." - Larken Rose
Cowards are some of the most dangerous individuals (and collectives) on the planet. The cult of statism has sheltered exposure of the statist (globalist) climate engineering agenda for seven decades. The present trajectory outcome for this aggression is planetary omnicide 2026. In exercising my virtue of selfishness I will not feign respect for statists who intend to turn two blind eyes to the truth and cowardly seek shelter in sophist masturbation about an imaginary aggression manifesting emotions of shame within their own body. Emotions are byproducts of thought processes not vice versa. Statists have banked enough unrepentant aggression to expect the worst from their own cult members, let alone the voluntaryists who know what they are. In contrast I myself know the blessing of pure hatred in my heart and it is empowering.
The justice of an act of vengeance characterized by me not lifting a finger to impede the cannibalism of statist versus statist is within my philosophical right of retaliation against statist aggression. Vengeance is a dish best served cold, and in these end days I will allocate the coldest to collective psychopathy and minuscule differentiation to individual sociopathy. To the traitors that peddle their "shame" sophistry, I look forward to their screams in the night. The human life-form is not a comfort zone experience. There is no future for men who don't man up.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
woodchuckpirate.com
Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?
Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?
Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?
When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?
When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?
None of us are perfect.
I have mentioned that you and I could agree with each other on a lot of things.
But this continual drive to create in groups and out groups is undoubtedly in direct conflict with the other work you claim to do in this video.
According to Marshal Rosenberg, when we shame a person for a behavior, we make it impossible for them to change.
When we attempt to shame or belittle others, its always an act of violence.
Are you sure about that? This sounds like a tactic one could use to avoid all forms of confrontation. If one bends their language so far that nothing substantive can be said because some people will be shamed as a result, is that not also violence by omission (because you failed to correct a bad behavior that bit them badly in the future)? I think one must understand that shame is a useful emotion if it is truly on correct moral ground. That is far more important, than protecting the egos of statist psychopaths.
I can also think of one biblical quote that disagrees...
"For the LORD disciplines those he loves, and he punishes each one he accepts as his child." - Hebrews 12:6
Hey thanks for your reply.
Its got nothing to do with ''protecting the egos of statist psychopaths'' it is about actually changing the perspectives of people we disagree with.
Quotations from a book that is all about creating blind obedience to the self appointed authority of the church and state cuts no ice in me at all. In reality religion is one of most disturbing aspects to the control grid that we face.
Just look at Adam and Eve's reaction after eating the fruit. They experienced shame, and changed not one bit.
I was also schooled in the view that the light bringer Satan, was the figure who gave certain people the knowladge to manipulate, govern and enslave others. Inducing shame in others is a good way of doing that.
Yes, that one is kind of obvious and I hesitated about including it for that reason. But I remembered it because I studied the bible long before I became a voluntarist.
However, that quote still tells you that even those who promote such things know better. Larken already talked about changing the perspectives of those we disagree with in that video, but I would say that there are times when you just have to be blunt with the truth.
Yes, but notice that I said that one has to be on correct moral ground to use shame righteously. That makes all the difference in the world. The reason shame works negatively to "govern, manipulate and enslave others" is because they are already slaves to ego. It doesn't always work in one direction only.
My point is that shame will always lock people into their pattern.
Its just making ourselves feel better, feel more dominant. And I can be as guilty as the next person, and i feel a shame, i will be locked into that pattern and hate myself for it : )
And yea I have spent way too many hours reading the bible myself.
If that's how one feels after speaking truth, then it's not coming from a righteous place. I've seen shame come from a different place than that and work positively on occasion. I remember Stephan Molyneux has said something similar saying that using moral arguments is far more effective than using logical arguments.
Again, please don't take the fact that he is now a Trump statist as reason to not see the truth. This would be a form of argument known as "ad-hominem". The truth will often times show up where you least expect it.
I have not even bothered to look at any of Stephan Molyneux's stuff for years because he appears to be driven by ego. Some of stuff is ok and valid but his strategies are crap.
Anyway, we could apply your argument to a situation where I am in contact with person who is emotionally and physically violent to women and children. So I am in a violent situation where I deliver a blow to that person they fall to the ground so i drag the to a doorway and start to slam the door on this persons head between the door and frame around the door way. I may feel dominant and even 'righteous' but I m just a thug at that point. If I employ shaming, it will lock that person into the pattern they are in and I am still a thug.
Of course, but this isn't quite correct:
It's not about whether one feels righteous but whether one really is. Someone doing all the things you say above obviously isn't.
You have to make sure that you are on solid ethical ground and shame ideally isn't caused by accusation (as in public shaming), but by the realization of wrongdoing which can happen in multiple ways when the truth is exposed.
So according to you, if someone was all the way and openly a Nazi, it would be divisive, and would constitute violence, to say that that's bad? Um, no. 100% dead wrong. Advocating statism is advocating ACTUAL violence. Someone saying something you don't like isn't violence. Yes, there very much IS an "in group" and an "out group" when it comes to whether people condone the violent subjugation of mankind. ALL statists do, and ALL statists should be condemned--whether gently or bluntly--for doing so. (Once again, you seem to just fish for things to argue about under my posts, even if they make little or no sense.)
''So according to you, if someone was all the way and openly a Nazi, it would be divisive, and would constitute violence, to say that that's bad? ''
Disagreeing with things people do and say is essential. Its what I am doing here with you right now! and you with me. But saying something is 'bad' just seems to be ignorant and childish to me. It looks to me like employing the Statist strategy of creating in groups and out groups. Tapping into peoples hate.
The way I see it, the vast majority of us have been indoctrinated into seeing the 'State' as valid and necessary. Many many people see the State as their protector and are not even consciously aware that they see it that way.
And just because you do not understand something just yet, does not even imply that it does not make sense. It just means that we have not found common ground yet. The enemy is only exists in your head.
No, condemning evil is not "tapping into hate." Duh.
that may be true, but it is not what I said is it?
I am sure i would have said something like, creating in groups and out groups or vilifying individuals is tapping into peoples hate. It not so helpful if our aim is to create anything like a democratic world.
And i dont understand, why if you teach others how to connect in a different way, why you choose not to employ those strategies on your own channel.
Congratulations @larkenrose! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click here to view your Board
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
How to reach the members of the military and law enforcement, that is the question because it is they among us that use force to protect our enslavement. Makes no sense but...
While waiting for my car to be serviced, a retired military guy started talking to me. Nice guy, very friendly until.. He brought up football and I said I hadn't been watching it much lately. Big smile came to his face because he thought I was boycotting football due to the players kneeling.
I saw that in his face and I just said, "You know the truth about that."
His head started shaking side to side in the NO motion almost involuntarily, then his eyes glazed over and he walked off in what appeared to be a trance. Not another word spoken.
All I can do is tell the truth as matter-of-factly and logically as I can. Anyway, still waiting for something to work.
Thanks Larken for this great rant! This is why I said while back that I wanted to charge everyone with Dereliction of Duty. All I ever hear from people or "statists" is that the government sucks this or they hate the government because of that, and then they go out and vote for more government. And then people wonder why I have lost faith in humanity.
Statism: the belief that we require permission to be free.
This is why I'm not at all afraid to be the inglorious bastard that I am getting right in societies face about these things. Establish world peace, kill all the statists!
Which of course I know is irony because by saying this I'm advocating violence. But am I Larken? In my eyes I'm reacting out of self-defense because these Statists advocate violence and aggression towards me giving me a genocidal death sentence. Yet, I'm the asshole for speaking up and speaking out wishing we could kill those who want to kill us. SMH
sigh is there any hope???
Larken -
Holding a person accountable is an act of respect as surely as vengeance is an act of justice.
Individuals embracing statism are initiating aggression and their action forfeits their control over the outcome of retaliation to their aggression. It follows that statists are not entitled to debate, any debate extended to them is charitable which includes pity. Statists are not entitled to charity. Statists are not entitled to pity.
"All statist positions are cowardice." - Larken Rose
Cowards are some of the most dangerous individuals (and collectives) on the planet. The cult of statism has sheltered exposure of the statist (globalist) climate engineering agenda for seven decades. The present trajectory outcome for this aggression is planetary omnicide 2026. In exercising my virtue of selfishness I will not feign respect for statists who intend to turn two blind eyes to the truth and cowardly seek shelter in sophist masturbation about an imaginary aggression manifesting emotions of shame within their own body. Emotions are byproducts of thought processes not vice versa. Statists have banked enough unrepentant aggression to expect the worst from their own cult members, let alone the voluntaryists who know what they are. In contrast I myself know the blessing of pure hatred in my heart and it is empowering.
The justice of an act of vengeance characterized by me not lifting a finger to impede the cannibalism of statist versus statist is within my philosophical right of retaliation against statist aggression. Vengeance is a dish best served cold, and in these end days I will allocate the coldest to collective psychopathy and minuscule differentiation to individual sociopathy. To the traitors that peddle their "shame" sophistry, I look forward to their screams in the night. The human life-form is not a comfort zone experience. There is no future for men who don't man up.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
woodchuckpirate.com
---- THE FIVE QUESTIONS ----
by Larken Rose