totally agree with you. Although I do believe the guy who said that Penn's morality was just "fun" was indeed worse, like you said it doesn't matter which one is "worse" just matters that a guy was bein a douche and Penn responded.
Funny, but I thought "FUCK YOU IN THE NECK" was a response, however emotionally originated, could be construed as an attempt to translate what the other person was saying to them. Penn was insulted.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but there's more going on if the other fellow then goes and snitches on Penn to a mutual friend. Sounds like social game playing, to me.
If someone calls you out and you admit you're wrong that's one thing. If Penn say's "Fuck You In The Neck" ...he's been playing "Gears Of War" too long!
Good to see you making videos more often these days.
Sometimes I feel like replying to nasty comments, justified or not, might be a weaker strategy than ignoring the comment all together. I guess in my mind, ignoring such comments would be like the MLK approach to ending segregation. You get a brick to the head, you don't retaliate, anyone observing this, including yourself, can easily see you are the more virtuous person while the other guy stands there with a bloody brick in his hand.
The point is to vocalize something that is not acceptable to you. At the same time the point is to end communication, have the other person stay away from you, and possibly have the other person make an observation about his own behavior (either in an understood way or in a Pavlovian way).
The point is to end abuse of you. The tricky thing is that you are also continuing abuse of the other (compared to his past). It's an impossible situation really.
I think the scary part is the fact that I won't violate the NAP, so I'd actually have to be attacked before I did anything. That may be what passive-aggressive people are doing, just avoiding what a dickhead might do.
Dickheads will always throw the first punch because good guys don't play like that. Which makes it scary when you've never been in a fight and don't like getting hit very much.
That's exactly Libertarian Anarchists advocate, a totally voluntary society. You can have your government, just don't force others to be a part of it.
what a fucking idiot.........hehe get it?
DavidValley 2 years ago
totally agree with you. Although I do believe the guy who said that Penn's morality was just "fun" was indeed worse, like you said it doesn't matter which one is "worse" just matters that a guy was bein a douche and Penn responded.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Funny, but I thought "FUCK YOU IN THE NECK" was a response, however emotionally originated, could be construed as an attempt to translate what the other person was saying to them. Penn was insulted.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but there's more going on if the other fellow then goes and snitches on Penn to a mutual friend. Sounds like social game playing, to me.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
If someone calls you out and you admit you're wrong that's one thing. If Penn say's "Fuck You In The Neck" ...he's been playing "Gears Of War" too long!
grrcrl 2 years ago
Good to see you making videos more often these days.
Sometimes I feel like replying to nasty comments, justified or not, might be a weaker strategy than ignoring the comment all together. I guess in my mind, ignoring such comments would be like the MLK approach to ending segregation. You get a brick to the head, you don't retaliate, anyone observing this, including yourself, can easily see you are the more virtuous person while the other guy stands there with a bloody brick in his hand.
OpineTime 2 years ago
Doesn't this contradict your philosophy on anger?
2ndTreatise 2 years ago
Kind of. I have withdrawn some of those positions recently. I will likely make a video in the future about my revised views.
aaron0883 2 years ago
The point is to vocalize something that is not acceptable to you. At the same time the point is to end communication, have the other person stay away from you, and possibly have the other person make an observation about his own behavior (either in an understood way or in a Pavlovian way).
The point is to end abuse of you. The tricky thing is that you are also continuing abuse of the other (compared to his past). It's an impossible situation really.
Nielsio 2 years ago
@2ndTreatise theres a contrediction to anything thats not a fact . Am i right? =)
TheSovietBears 10 months ago
Yeah, dickholes like that make it very tempting to violate the NAP.
"Hey, asshole, maybe I DON'T really believe in the NAP." *BAM!*
DixyHair 2 years ago
I think the scary part is the fact that I won't violate the NAP, so I'd actually have to be attacked before I did anything. That may be what passive-aggressive people are doing, just avoiding what a dickhead might do.
Dickheads will always throw the first punch because good guys don't play like that. Which makes it scary when you've never been in a fight and don't like getting hit very much.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
So if you support the NAP, then presumably you're against cops using force against peaceful individuals?
DixyHair 2 years ago
Yeah, but I thought that was obvious. Sorry if I'm being dense, but is there something more to your question?
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
That's exactly Libertarian Anarchists advocate, a totally voluntary society. You can have your government, just don't force others to be a part of it.
DixyHair 2 years ago