mr_engineer

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.

@Emerald Real men, the kind of men you want. How they react to the embodiment of these 'good' qualities vs the lack of embodiment of them. People are so unconscious these days that I have to use the language of manipulation, honestly. This is how you 'manipulate us' into being better, so to speak. You want me to tell you exactly what to do?! I won't do that, that would be too 'tyrannical'. Also, I'm not a woman. Competent women can guide you on that front. I talk about what the principle would be for a 'good woman' to embody, then I talk about a prevalent problem where it can be applied and I talk about a payoff to embody that principle. Now, how you go about doing that, is on you. And your unique creative-abilities. And your individual identity. I want to create an equal opportunity for women to improve! Men have that, on that thread. There have to be stakes, right?! The point of doing this is to show you the stakes and why it's important for you to be doing this. On that thread, he encouraged female opinions. Here, I'm encouraging male opinions. Women can reply too! It's not like I'm blocking you from replying anyways... Listen, I understand, you have been traumatized by the patriarchy of unconscious men telling you 'how to be a good woman'. If you don't like men telling you that, this thread is not for you. And, if you have the discernment between men saying nonsense about 'beauty-standards' and 'rigid gender-roles' vs men talking about truly embodying important feminine qualities, read the posts and see how you can apply them!

By soliciting the ones I find credible. If someone is trying to indoctrinate me with a bad self-concept without me soliciting it, I become suspicious of their intentions and reasons for doing that to me. It's not that I can't take an ego-hit, it's the issue of credibility and intent.

As a man, being respected means - to be received, to be given a fair chance to perform. Being disrespected means - being given unsolicited criticism. I tend to not take that well, I tend to deflect it back. I only receive criticism well when I solicit it.

Yeah, but who's going to battle the assholes for us?! Women?! Children?! No. We have to do it.

Here's how my logic went - men are not given respect on a silver platter. We have to earn the respect. Every single bit of it. Why should women be entitled to respect on a silver platter?

Here's what I think - To give respect to women is to be a giver, to give them something. And, to disrespect them, is to be a taker. This is what it means to show respect to the part of them that is 'receptive'. And, should it be given freely, or should it be earned - it should be earned. (Not the thing that you're giving in and of itself, that'll make it 'transactional'. And that, counter-intuitively, will be perceived as 'disrespect'.) The respect for the part of them that's receptive should be earned.

@NoSelfSelf Yeah, that's how it would work for an actual asshole. The way I saw it, I let it self-destruct because I saw that the return was not worth it. Here I am, being inauthentic, being the asshole in the group, creating issues with my friends for this girl I've just met and what I got, was her being nice to me to 'fix' me. I found that disrespectful. This basically made it so I never envy assholes who get laid a lot ever again in my life. They take the hit to their image for some pussy. This destroys their prospects of finding a long-term relationship in that circle, because they build that fuckboy reputation. And, even if they do get a girlfriend, it will be a toxic relationship. As it should be! I saw a pattern of mutual manipulation and got out of it immediately. And, I urge the guys who believe this 'nice guy and asshole' myth to do this experiment and see this for themselves.

@koyadr3 When I was in your shoes, I tried being an asshole. And, it kinda worked, but not in a good way. Let me explain how I did that. I participated in a chess-tournament with my friends. There, we performed well. All of us won some cash prize or the other. My prize was the biggest. And, we met a girl there, she became our friend. She wanted to hang with us after the tournament, cuz we were supposed to be partying after winning a cash-prize, right?! We went to a restaurant. And, they gave a treat, but I didn't give a treat. I decided 'I don't want to waste my money partying, I want to be smart with my money'. It was non-conformism to people being nice, in a relatively low-stakes situation. And, it was an asshole-thing to do, let's just be honest. And, I saw the effect that had on the girl. She started being really nice and kind to me, in order to placate me and 'fix' me! But, the problem with this is that I felt disrespected. That's when I started feeling fatigued because of the inauthenticity of what I was doing. Because, let's face facts - I did want to give the treat. Who wouldn't?! And, because of my fatigue, my frame self-destructed. I didn't do or say much, I acted kinda petty. I don't regret this too much, cuz the stakes weren't too high. I wasn't really into this girl, she was just the first female-interaction I'd had in a long while and I took my opportunity to try out something I thought would work. And, I didn't do something really horrible to her. It was just a little step towards being mean. And this was the reaction it had. (What this also did for me is that it killed off any future impulse I could've had to be a simp.) I'd suggest you do something similar. If you think that 'being nice doesn't work', fine. Be the asshole and see what happens!

Yeah. That's why I'm not really a fan of that thread. Cuz it's not truly solution-oriented relative to specific issues we see. The point of the forum, honestly, is to go into specifics of how to embody these principles. If you want a list of ideals, you can google 'femininity' or 'qualities of femininity'.