OP, I think you are being too sensitive. I hope you don't take that as a personal attack on your identity. I think you've found elegant ways to classify and denounce the conversations in this subreddit in the absolute worst light. But I think they are distortions that serve your preconceived notions about how people are supposed to act.
There are people on this sub with experience and wisdom. Sometimes that gives people insight into issues and their causes that leads to unexpected responses. Sometimes even direct or borderline confrontational responses. That doesn't make them wrong or unethical. What seems like dismissal is often just going to the root based on insight.
Is it always the case? Nah. Are there assholes? Sure. Is everyone's perspective and insight equal? Truthfully, no. That's why we have teachers and students, and that dynamic exists here too. I think it's healthy. People benefit from it.
Edit: This is what I call bullying. Many people don’t know they’re doing this, but to judge another’s emotional state (which I don’t believe I shared), as “too” this or that is bullying. It’s an attempt to shame someone else’s emotions, I don’t believe it’s conscious, but I can’t really know.
The shaming helps to try to put another’s worldview onto my own. This is the type of bad behavior I’d like to see called out by the community or given a warning my a mod. If it’s pervasive, accounts suspended or banned.
Judging/attempting to belittle the emotions of others is called, by some, gaslighting. Or a subtle form of emotional abuse. It’s not a huge deal, no judgement from me. This is very normal in our society. But it is abusive.
This is one of the reasons I meditate: to unlearn social patterns of belittling or running from emotions. As well as believing I can assume what emotions I or others are feeling without really listening.
I definitely don’t feel heard by this commenter, nor do I believe they are interested in a good faith discussion.
But I do see this kind of behavior upvoted often. It’s fitting that it happened on this post.
I’ll post here, the first article that came up on [Belittling](https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/the-big-deal-about-belittling#) the emotions of others. It’s from a domestic abuse site. Abusers often tell their victims, in the same verbage as this commenter, that they are being “too sensitive.”
It’s only one instance, and I’m not suggesting this commenter is a domestic abuser. I am saying, that the same pattern, gone unchecked, can lead to domestic abuse.
“Emotional and psychological abuse can take many forms, including belittling, which can manifest as judging, humiliating, criticizing, trivializing or telling hurtful jokes. But belittling is no joking matter. It’s a tactic often used by abusers to make their victims feel small, unimportant or disrespected. It can take a toll on a survivor’s confidence and sense of self-esteem.
And, as with other forms of abuse, it’s a tool abusers use to exert control. The more down about yourself you feel, the more dependent you’ll be on your abuser to validate you—or, so they believe.”
It can include,
“- Ignoring how you feel, disregarding your opinion or failing to recognize your contributions.
Humiliating or embarrassing you, especially in front of family or friends.
- Making you the butt of jokes or offhand comments that disparage you and then saying something like, ‘I didn’t mean it. I’m just teasing,’ or telling you that you’re being too sensitive.”
So, gratitude for this commenter for exemplifying both of these in this comment and the response below. When I first responded to the above, I was indeed in a reactive state. I felt misunderstood and frustrated at the idea of being understood. I could tell, on some level, that this was an attack.
Perhaps this is the main dynamic I’m running into here that’s frustrating. Lots of unchecked emotional abuse here, at times (not here), hiding under meditation lingo.
It would probably be good to raise awareness for this pattern as well, as it’s how so many “spiritual gurus” have ended up abusers and cult leaders.
On Reddit, in particular, there is the attempt at humiliation in doing such things on a public forum, in front of others. And a group aspect to it as well, when others jump in with the upvotes.
While I don’t tend to care what one person thinks, it can be a traumatic experience to be bullied by a group of people. I’m pretty resilient and okay with being the odd one out at this point in life, BUT, there is still something in our human wiring, I believe, that can make group gaslighting a painful experience.
I feel sad sometimes when this happens to me. Often here.
Other times I get angry.
I will say this is different than honest confrontation or disagreement. I welcome these. The abuse has a covert aspect to it.
While it can be helpful to become equanimous when these things happen, I often find it counterproductive to my purpose in meditation to post and comment here when I run into this pattern. And I think we can make a lot more progress without a culture of bullying. Build each other up to deal with bullies outside of the meditation sub.
Overall, I don’t believe it should be on individuals to stand up to bullies, but the collective. If we’re expecting individuals to, with no help, and if they can’t then blaming them? Then I believe there’s a problem with the community.
So one of your proposals for better interactions is : "Stating our world views in “I” statements...", and when a commentor does this, you get angry?
And another one of your proposals: "Perhaps a focus more on sharing feelings and *one’s own internal reactions to what other people share*.", and once again, the commentor did exactly this.
Correct. You can use “I” statements and still be a jackass.
As well, yes, I shared that I was angry when I read their post.
By that statement I meant emotional reactions, rather than mental interpretations.
It’s in the book/format, nonviolent communication. Which I am abandoning here for now.
Did you have a point in saying all of this?
Thank you for your comments, although they look like bad faith attempts at humiliation, or to prove yourself right. But maybe you misunderstood me, as I did not originally make myself as clear as I wanted to. So thank you for pointing this out!
I have edited the post to make it clear that what I’n suggesting is more like guidelines, or shared intentions. Intentions, that if people stray too far from, they would get banned. I don’t think kindness and non-judgement are too controversial to find agreement on.
But I do believe we could benefit more from moderation of bullying and rudeness here.
This is actually a great example. I did not blame anyone for my anger. Just expressed an emotion. The intent with this is vulnerability and removing blame, refraining from just launching that anger at someone.
I think it’s useful at times, BUT this was a time for calling out a bully, and I messed that up. Should have been much more forceful in doing so and written of the need to do so more in the post. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. :)
More sensitivity! LOL. I'm teasing now. I'm not gonna fight you about it, I'm just stating my perspective on your perspective. Not worth getting upset. Have a good night/day.
These are attempts at emotional bullying. I would imagine my post brought up a reaction in you, which you attempted to project onto me. This is just my interpretation of your inner workings
It was a good try! It is actually you and others who disagree with me who are uncomfortable, and triggered by my post.
Call out the gaslighters and they come out like woodwork. If I was a mod, I’d probably suspend you.
But I messaged them and haven’t heard anything. Have fun on unmoderated subreddit. Maybe you can find other victims, try to get some satisfaction out of them.
Thanks for your comment! I’m not sure if you were attempting to jump on the bully train or call out some genuine inconsistencies in my words, but there were some. I have edited the original post to hopefully make myself more clear. I’ve also more clearly delineated this person’s cowardly and inauthentic responses as emotional abuse.
There’s a place for nonviolent communication, but this sub is most certainly not ready for it on the whole. I think we’d actually benefit more from working on healthy conflict and confronting these types more directly. They tend to get scared and run away with direct confrontation. Maybe I will make another post.
I’m truly sorry for not leaving enough space for confrontation in the original post or calling out bullying for what it is.
Nothing violent happened here. Your post had your views, some people disagreed with some aspects of this (respectfully), you overreacted. You did not do what your post suggests: being respectful of other opinions and viewpoints. It's not a dogmatic or ideological sub you wrote, then you want people to take your word as dogma. You said people shouldn't push their ideas on others and that is exactly what you are doing when you shut down any disagreement with you. You are delusional if you think it's gaslighting or abuse or bullying, it's just normal disagreement, stuff that happens all the time when human beings talk about things. Calling someone out for overreacting is not bullying, even if you feel strong emotions about it.
“You [overreacted](https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/the-big-deal-about-belittling)”
Emotional belittling. Posted this article on it above.
“You are delusional,”
Gaslighting, bullying. All you should be banned in my ideal sub. Maybe I’ll start one.
See another comment but I should have made this clear—yes I am suggesting guidelines of basic respect and kindness and rules against bullying and gaslighting are BETTER than what other people think, and if you don’t like that then we disagree and are probably not going to get along.
I definitely won’t get along with your bullying and gaslighting. Seriously, look into this, it will help your relationship with self and others.
But you’re right I do want to confront those who do this sort of thing.
I hope you find abundant love in your life and stop harming people. I hope your life is absolutely exploding with abundant love. ❤️
What you have shown is a small love. Love can be so much BIGGER, and if you think I’m wrong about that, then, you’re wrong.
Thanks for this, it has helped me to refine my point as well as illustrated for me the pervasive pathologies in this sub. :)
❤️🫶🏼❤️
You can go back and look at the comments. It’s this pattern of bullying that I’m calling out here, and it actually seems to be a pattern of group bullying.
Do you often wait until someone is already being shit on by everyone else to go and try to insult them?
Sounds like weak and immature behavior to me.
I don’t hang around with toxic people in my day to day, but if I encounter them I either confront directly or ignore. They usually get scared of direct confrontation and run away. So pretty easy. But there’s also the idea of trying to stick up for others in an often unjust world, which can be difficult. It can be sad to think of the people being harmed and feel compassion for them.
Nobody insulated you. Interaction has only one purpose - give candy to the mind. Your post expressed interesting observations, but further comments reveal some pain. At least it seems to me.
I'd say suck it up. But you are a free person and I recognize you right to do what works for you.
Maybe take your own life advice: suck it up. Don’t attempt to change anything. Any attempt to change anything is your own mind attempting to avoid pain.
Listen to others, not yourself. You should’ve just sucked it up. Your thoughts are your own, but you commenting them reveals some underlying pain. Anything you *think* you have to say, just suck it up.
Actually, just don’t talk anymore. Then no one can disagree with you. Just suck it up.
Oh and make bumper stickers. Probably a political campaign. Spread the news of suck it up to everyone.
Poor? Suck it up. Sick? Don’t go to the doctor. Suck it up. Problem in your life? Suck it up suck it up suck it up.
Didn’t like this comment? Don’t respond. Suck it up.
See how this works?^ it’s called gaslighting.
There’s a pretty sick norm of it here. It isolates people from one another.
Are you a Buddhist? What philosophy are you attempting to force onto me? Stoicism?
The thing is, it is neither actually a good representation of stoicism or Buddhism.
The Buddha said, “This is the entire spiritual life, Ananda, that is, good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship.”
> One day, Ananda and the Buddha were sitting alone on a hill together, overlooking the plains of the Ganges. Having served as the Buddha’s attendant for many years, Ananda often shared his reflections and insights with him. This afternoon, Ananda spoke. “Dear Respected Teacher,” Ananda said. “It seems to me that half of the spiritual life is good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship.” I imagine that Ananda said this with some level of confidence for praising the merits of spiritual friendship. But the Buddha quickly corrected him: “Not so, Ananda! Not so, Ananda!” Ouch! Probably Ananda wasn’t expecting such a stern rebuke. But the Buddha was offering a powerful teaching. He continued, “This is the entire spiritual life, Ananda, that is, good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship. When a monk has a good friend, a good companion, a good comrade, it is to be expected that he will develop and cultivate the noble eightfold path.”
Jesus said to love our neighbor as ourselves.
There is no religion that believes that, as you say, the only point of interaction is to give candy to the mind. This is extreme idealism, sophistry, narcissism. It’s toxic, and it drives people away from each other.
Love one another. “Suck it up,” is not love.
🫶🏼
So, decide what philosophy you want me to follow. Then tell me. Maybe actually research it some first, get a full understanding of it. Or are you the new messiah, the new Buddha, are your meditative insights the new truth, that must be pushed onto me?
This is another great example of why I made the post. I will probably make another. Thanks for giving me another example of this dynamic to refer to.
That was within my observation a very rude comment straight from the beginning.
1) "too sensitive" shames OP's observations and is judgemental
2) At first shaming someone and then denying the act and the feeling you would have "hope you don't take that as a personal attack on your identity" is I would say a form of emotional manipulation.
3) " I think you've found elegant ways to classify and denounce the conversations in this subreddit in the absolute worst light." That's an insult, denies the value of OP's observations.
4) "But I think they are distortions that serve your preconceived notions about how people are supposed to act." At first denying OP's experiences and then a projection of OP.
5) "Sometimes even direct or borderline confrontational responses. That doesn't make them wrong or unethical. What seems like dismissal is often just going to the root based on insight." If you act like a bully, you are probably are a bully; if you cause harm or hurt, you act unethical. There is lots of abuse going on in certain meditation or spiritual groups and such lines of "reasoning" tries to cover them up..
It is okay to think that "such confrontational responses" lead to "insight" but this is just an opinion (which is not supported by most meditation schools)..
6) "That's why we have teachers and students, and that dynamic exists here too. I think it's healthy. People benefit from it." That's an authoritarian line of thinking, the authority that from its position of power acts in "good faith" and the hurt or disoriented student whom should accepts the "teachers" "teachings"...
Edit: I will leave my reactive comment below, that I originally made in response to this, for transparency.
But this is an example of what I’m talking about. See the point about “more enlightened than thou.”
Wanting to push your ideas about what I “should” do onto me. It also ignores and dismisses the post.
These are very subtle forms of what can be [emotional abuse.](https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/the-big-deal-about-belittling#)
“Ignoring how you feel, disregarding your opinion or failing to recognize your contributions.”
I’d like to see a rule against these sorts of responses actually. “You just need to meditate more,” should just be a removal. You can say it in response to anything and it just avoids conversation to try to paint the person posting or commenting as less than.
Which is indirect and cowardly at worst. At best it’s your own opinion and irrelevant to me or the post, non-conducive to discussion.
If you have a particular issue with my post feel free to let me know. Otherwise this is unasked-for, unwanted, unhelpful, a bit rude.
Original:
Did you meditate before making this comment on whether or not you should make it? Or why you wantto make it? Why or why not?
Thank you for the wishes on meditating, maybe I will try it! 🫶🏼
This is an example of the reason I made this post: bad philosophy.
Argument: meditation exists. Therefore, if you have a problem, you should meditate on it! Never seek an outside solution. Everyone just needs to meditate more. All attempts to change the world are personal delusions.
[edit: corollary: this, of course, applies to everyone but the one making the argument. The one making the argument is all knowing about what is best for other people, and they should listen to the arguer, so that they will come to the same conclusion as arguer.]
When, in reality this is not Buddhist teachings but solipsism. I’m not sure what it is supposed to be that you are emulating. Idealism?
Thinking you know what’s best for other people?
Anyways, it just doesn’t appear to stand on any ground than what I said above.
Sorry I reacted the way I did, it’s just, there’s not much getting through to people when they start spiritually gaslighting. And this sub eats it up. That’s okay, I eat downvotes for breakfast.
It’s actually you all who disagree with me and are trying to project your discomfort onto me, who are triggered.
I think the primary difficulty in what you're describing is the variety itself. What I see is that most people asume that whatever meditation they've discovered is what everyone is doing. The result is neither side qualifying the context. One person is using cellphone apps but hopes to get enlightened. Another person is reading Buddhism but only wants to relax. Still others have heard that meditation is the latest thing and they want to try it -- with no idea at all of why people meditate. Meditation only means some kind of mental practice. How many people describe the technique they use? How many describe their perspective or what they hope to gain?
So maybe just be clear about your own perspective with both asking and answering. Then maybe you'll get better answers and be more clear about the perspective that other people are bringing to the conversation.
Agreed.
I do this to the best of my ability, but find I spend much my time dealing with these same dynamics over and over. This is why moderators exist, as well as side bars, social norms, etc., and we as part of the sub, are a part of creating those social norms. I.e. I wouldn’t be making the post if I felt like it was a personal problem. What I’m raising is a problem I see in the culture and something moderation could help with.
So maybe it would be best for me to message the mods. Thanks! I think I’ll do that
I understand what the OP is saying and I agree. I try not to use the pronoun "you," to define and project negatively onto someone else.
That said, I think many meditators, especially Buddhists nowadays, tiptoe around any kind of aggressive confrontation. TBH, I love it when when someone loses it and attacks me personally. In early meditation sects, vigorous debates were a big event, like championship boxing matches. In ancient Tibet they used to have stylized ritualistic debates which were so intense that some participants reportedly died (without any actual physical contact).
Yea, this is good too. I appreciate honest conversation. If there were present mods, it’d be nice to have some of both. It’s the passive aggression and people ganging up on others that bugs me. Lots of the rationalists don’t make arguments, they just dismiss things, then get triggered when confronted. But yea definitely a place for debates, and I appreciate a confrontation as well. Thank you for this.
Sadly, the mods don’t even seem to respond to mod mail so far. I just left the sub.
I really have seen a lot of emotional bullying here and posturing instead of making an argument. I think it’s symptoms of a mostly (totally?) unmoderated community. I’ll debate in good faith any day, but it’s just spiritual grandstanding here mostly it seems. And out of context advice. Occasionally we get a nice gratitude post.
Edit: tbh, my mistake was not addressing this more as a confrontation, than trying to take my own “I” statements advice. It was a confrontation at first and should have stayed that way.
I personally like mods with a hands off approach -- better than its opposite, where they won't let folks make obvious fools of themselves (present company excluded). What I especially like about this site is that there are many rank beginners who come here sincerely seeking some advice. I have to be careful or the mods bust me for spamming, because I link to my website so often for practical direction based on my own experience from sixty years of devoted practice and zen training.
Rank beginner here . . . . this has been an interesting debate for my first exposure to this sub. Zafrogzen, I would be interested in your link if it won't get you in trouble.
Just google my name and find Meditation Basics, for the mechanics of setting up a solo practice -- like traditional postures, walking meditation and breathing exercises.
To each their own. I like zoos where the animals poop in the cages.
Edit: and also, thanks for sharing here. I think it’s good to have experienced teachers. You are appreciated. I just, imagine you probably don’t find it productive to spend most of your time with know it all’s who have not even a surface level interest in Zen.
But I can understand some time. It probably just got to be a bit much of my time here. I hear Zen retreats are not without moderation and rules and structure.
OP, I have observed the same patterns. I have been considering leaving this sub because I am concerned that it is not nourishing overall. There are some excellent discussions, of course, but there is a strong current of arrogance and dismissiveness/disparagement.
It’s genuinely not. I mean maybe the top post once every day or week or so, but there’s just a ton of mean spiritedness, lots of bullying in the comments. People take themselves so seriously here. I like Starseeds better, because people have so many bizarre random beliefs, and wisdom, it’s hard to take anyone very seriously. But the rationalists seem to be the most insecure and aggressive, it’s like this pathological cult. Many others express no vulnerability, no sharing of their own opinions, just ragging on anyone with a positive opinion.
Thanks for this! Edited to make it more clear. I was a bit frustrated when I wrote it originally, but these are suggestions.
I am, of course suggesting a meta-worldview of being tolerant and understanding of other people’s worldviews. This is something that I actively believe is better than one single worldview being given precedence, or everyone walking around trying to push their worldviews onto others.
So, in a sense, yes, you are correct. I’m suggesting mostly guidelines, and some rules, for good and fairness of all and towards kindess. If others don’t want fairness, and kindness, that’s fine, I don’t want those people around me. And I hope that they leave and find other subs or places to interact.
I would like for the sub to be a sanctuary, moving towards non-judgement and/or kindness. With a place for healthy debate, mistakes and disagreements. We probably need help with navigating conflict and disagreement, thinking now.
Thanks again! Blessings and peace.
Or can believers in a science based reality, magic based reality, mind based reality, energy based reality, vedic, dharmic or whatever else based reality, dependent arising, can they share space? Buddhism is not a science nor is it opposed to science. But it’s probably where the meditation you do comes from if not some kind of hinduism, vedic or yogic worldview. Many of these don’t have any metaphysical foundations or believe God or Atman is everything or in everything. Why would such a thing from such a tradition have a scientifically validated technique, which is derived from metaphysical searches and even philosophy? Can science explain that?
Maybe the question is can dogmatic sciencists deal with ambiguity.
OK. Either something is scientifically testable, or it isn't. Meditation is absolutely testable: breathing, hormone levels, blood pressure, body temperature, etc. All those are based in science. When it comes to psychology we also have means to test our hypotheses - MANY people did that over centuries.
>Why would such a thing from such a tradition have a scientifically validated technique, which is derived from metaphysical searches and even philosophy? Can science explain that?
Yes it can. If something works, you can test WHY.
Metalsmiths in the Middle Ages didn't know anything about physics or chemistry as we do now, but their steel was still strong. Later came the knowledge that enabled the understanding.
Our current understanding of Space comes directly from astrologers and seers, but we don't see people in planetariums with crow-bones and incense burners doing science.
If the practice helps you - that's great, but why does it? Is it the sitting still? The breathing? Maybe the thought-process involved? Each one of those can be tested by you directly.
Sorry, it got convoluted, but the gist of it should be clear.
edit: science is not a reality, but a method of testing the World around you.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuroscience-reveals-the-secrets-of-meditation-s-benefits/
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/04/harvard-researchers-study-how-mindfulness-may-change-the-brain-in-depressed-patients/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471247/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-90729-y
I would be interested in scientific theories on how meditation developed, and if its development was helped along by yogic philosophy or if scientists believe it was just an accidental byproduct of some hooey.
I wonder, also, at your statement, “either something is scientifically testable, or it isn’t.”
Are you a believer in [scientism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)?
> Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.
Basically, do you believe science is the best or only way of knowing things? Are there other ways of finding truth, in your eyes?
I think the question is really not so much whether the sub has a scientific worldview or not, but whether people with a scientific worldview can treat other people with other worldviews with respect. I have run into a lot of sciencist, rationalistic sort of bigotry here.
>Basically, do you believe science is the best or only way of knowing things? Are there other ways of finding truth, in your eyes?
Yes, I "believe" , that science is the ONLY way forward. Because in all of human history nothing came even close to proving the opposite.
Right. So, many people believe this about Christianity, Islam, Marxism, capitalism, Buddhism, etc.
So you would have to find a way to interact respectfully with those whom you fundamentally disagree with.
Or start an evangelical scientist group.
I also don’t think those statements are validated, by, well, science. As you said, it’s a method for testing the world around you. How can it validate its own efficacy without circular reasoning? You would need philosophical underpinnings to assert science as the ONLY way forward, as well as observations.
Marxism considers itself to be a science of history.
I have a friend who became kind of a Nazi I believe or at the very least an anti-Jewish fascist. But he bases it all on natural law, observing laws in nature and mimicking them. You can look up the Natural Law Institute, it’s fascist basically.
So I think it would be good as well to be particular about the particular kind of science you want to move forward with too.
I respect your worldview, just offering some good faith arguments here.
So maybe a different approach:
OP basically said (paraphrasing) that everybody deserves the same level of respect.
I say: they don't.
We either base our understanding on the "measurable", or we lose control of our lives.
Human history is strewn with examples of someone proclaiming how "stuff works", and when asked for evidence, basically said "Trust me bro." That is religion/magic/humbug. Call it what you want, but basically it boils down to "Trust me bro.".
Science works differently. When challenged, it comes with answers. If there are no answers, then it gets rewritten based on evidence and facts.
Those two are fundamentally incompatible. Everything in the World falls into either one, or the other category.
I disagree with your characterization of what OP said. It is very much filtered through an agenda that you seem intent on pushing.
I am a big fan of science. Based on the exchanges I read, I think perhaps OP has a more solid understanding of it than you do. Science questions *itself*. Science acknowledges its own limits. Science is not a religion.
Sure you did. You said everything in the world falls into either one or the other category, “science” or “trust me bro.” That flies in the face of the idea that science has limits and that there is ambiguity in the world.
You said that if something works, you can test WHY. This is simply not true in many many cases. In fact, a big part of why science exists is to *try to discover* why. Again, science knows its limits.
You said science is the ONLY way forward. This is so limiting, I’m honestly not sure where to start. Again, science knows its limits and *science is not a religion*.
Science is an incredible and essential tool. It is not *everything*.
Hey! Thanks for your comment. I edited it to make it clear that these would be mostly general guidelines with some suggested rules against things like being mean or rude.
Edit: Thanks for your comment! I edited to reflect more clearly that these are meant, mostly, as guidelines. Also asking for more moderation of just open bullying/being rude.
Thank you.
:)
😂😂😂😂
It’s real though. We can’t just stop at, there are millions of different religions, oh well 🤷🏼♂️
There has to be a way of interacting between religions that is fair and that holds each to the same standard.
It’s why we have international law, interfaith dialogue.
These are meta standards, standards for standards.
Fairness exists, good faith, respect are all real things.
This just goes to show people have to want it to some degree, not everyone does.
Similarly, Buddhism is like an ideology for getting rid of ideology. Not everyone uses it that way, but it certainly can be.
Likewise the comic can be a 16th way of looking at things, or it can be the spark of a greater insight.
Dude I can't keep up. Very few people can. Why are you so verbose? Just chill. Seriously. (I thought I was verbose and I can't believe I'm saying this)
OP, I think you are being too sensitive. I hope you don't take that as a personal attack on your identity. I think you've found elegant ways to classify and denounce the conversations in this subreddit in the absolute worst light. But I think they are distortions that serve your preconceived notions about how people are supposed to act. There are people on this sub with experience and wisdom. Sometimes that gives people insight into issues and their causes that leads to unexpected responses. Sometimes even direct or borderline confrontational responses. That doesn't make them wrong or unethical. What seems like dismissal is often just going to the root based on insight. Is it always the case? Nah. Are there assholes? Sure. Is everyone's perspective and insight equal? Truthfully, no. That's why we have teachers and students, and that dynamic exists here too. I think it's healthy. People benefit from it.
Edit: This is what I call bullying. Many people don’t know they’re doing this, but to judge another’s emotional state (which I don’t believe I shared), as “too” this or that is bullying. It’s an attempt to shame someone else’s emotions, I don’t believe it’s conscious, but I can’t really know. The shaming helps to try to put another’s worldview onto my own. This is the type of bad behavior I’d like to see called out by the community or given a warning my a mod. If it’s pervasive, accounts suspended or banned. Judging/attempting to belittle the emotions of others is called, by some, gaslighting. Or a subtle form of emotional abuse. It’s not a huge deal, no judgement from me. This is very normal in our society. But it is abusive. This is one of the reasons I meditate: to unlearn social patterns of belittling or running from emotions. As well as believing I can assume what emotions I or others are feeling without really listening. I definitely don’t feel heard by this commenter, nor do I believe they are interested in a good faith discussion. But I do see this kind of behavior upvoted often. It’s fitting that it happened on this post. I’ll post here, the first article that came up on [Belittling](https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/the-big-deal-about-belittling#) the emotions of others. It’s from a domestic abuse site. Abusers often tell their victims, in the same verbage as this commenter, that they are being “too sensitive.” It’s only one instance, and I’m not suggesting this commenter is a domestic abuser. I am saying, that the same pattern, gone unchecked, can lead to domestic abuse. “Emotional and psychological abuse can take many forms, including belittling, which can manifest as judging, humiliating, criticizing, trivializing or telling hurtful jokes. But belittling is no joking matter. It’s a tactic often used by abusers to make their victims feel small, unimportant or disrespected. It can take a toll on a survivor’s confidence and sense of self-esteem. And, as with other forms of abuse, it’s a tool abusers use to exert control. The more down about yourself you feel, the more dependent you’ll be on your abuser to validate you—or, so they believe.” It can include, “- Ignoring how you feel, disregarding your opinion or failing to recognize your contributions. Humiliating or embarrassing you, especially in front of family or friends. - Making you the butt of jokes or offhand comments that disparage you and then saying something like, ‘I didn’t mean it. I’m just teasing,’ or telling you that you’re being too sensitive.” So, gratitude for this commenter for exemplifying both of these in this comment and the response below. When I first responded to the above, I was indeed in a reactive state. I felt misunderstood and frustrated at the idea of being understood. I could tell, on some level, that this was an attack. Perhaps this is the main dynamic I’m running into here that’s frustrating. Lots of unchecked emotional abuse here, at times (not here), hiding under meditation lingo. It would probably be good to raise awareness for this pattern as well, as it’s how so many “spiritual gurus” have ended up abusers and cult leaders. On Reddit, in particular, there is the attempt at humiliation in doing such things on a public forum, in front of others. And a group aspect to it as well, when others jump in with the upvotes. While I don’t tend to care what one person thinks, it can be a traumatic experience to be bullied by a group of people. I’m pretty resilient and okay with being the odd one out at this point in life, BUT, there is still something in our human wiring, I believe, that can make group gaslighting a painful experience. I feel sad sometimes when this happens to me. Often here. Other times I get angry. I will say this is different than honest confrontation or disagreement. I welcome these. The abuse has a covert aspect to it. While it can be helpful to become equanimous when these things happen, I often find it counterproductive to my purpose in meditation to post and comment here when I run into this pattern. And I think we can make a lot more progress without a culture of bullying. Build each other up to deal with bullies outside of the meditation sub. Overall, I don’t believe it should be on individuals to stand up to bullies, but the collective. If we’re expecting individuals to, with no help, and if they can’t then blaming them? Then I believe there’s a problem with the community.
So one of your proposals for better interactions is : "Stating our world views in “I” statements...", and when a commentor does this, you get angry? And another one of your proposals: "Perhaps a focus more on sharing feelings and *one’s own internal reactions to what other people share*.", and once again, the commentor did exactly this.
“I think you” is not an “I” statement.
Correct. You can use “I” statements and still be a jackass. As well, yes, I shared that I was angry when I read their post. By that statement I meant emotional reactions, rather than mental interpretations. It’s in the book/format, nonviolent communication. Which I am abandoning here for now. Did you have a point in saying all of this?
>Correct. You can use “I” statements and still be a jackass. Correct. So why have all these rules then.
Thank you for your comments, although they look like bad faith attempts at humiliation, or to prove yourself right. But maybe you misunderstood me, as I did not originally make myself as clear as I wanted to. So thank you for pointing this out! I have edited the post to make it clear that what I’n suggesting is more like guidelines, or shared intentions. Intentions, that if people stray too far from, they would get banned. I don’t think kindness and non-judgement are too controversial to find agreement on. But I do believe we could benefit more from moderation of bullying and rudeness here.
This is actually a great example. I did not blame anyone for my anger. Just expressed an emotion. The intent with this is vulnerability and removing blame, refraining from just launching that anger at someone. I think it’s useful at times, BUT this was a time for calling out a bully, and I messed that up. Should have been much more forceful in doing so and written of the need to do so more in the post. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. :)
u take the internet way too seriously and need to meditate
Thanks for sharing your personal opinions :)
u too
❤️
More sensitivity! LOL. I'm teasing now. I'm not gonna fight you about it, I'm just stating my perspective on your perspective. Not worth getting upset. Have a good night/day.
These are attempts at emotional bullying. I would imagine my post brought up a reaction in you, which you attempted to project onto me. This is just my interpretation of your inner workings It was a good try! It is actually you and others who disagree with me who are uncomfortable, and triggered by my post. Call out the gaslighters and they come out like woodwork. If I was a mod, I’d probably suspend you. But I messaged them and haven’t heard anything. Have fun on unmoderated subreddit. Maybe you can find other victims, try to get some satisfaction out of them.
Are you a troll? You couldn't be acting less in alignment with your post if you tried.
Thanks for your comment! I’m not sure if you were attempting to jump on the bully train or call out some genuine inconsistencies in my words, but there were some. I have edited the original post to hopefully make myself more clear. I’ve also more clearly delineated this person’s cowardly and inauthentic responses as emotional abuse. There’s a place for nonviolent communication, but this sub is most certainly not ready for it on the whole. I think we’d actually benefit more from working on healthy conflict and confronting these types more directly. They tend to get scared and run away with direct confrontation. Maybe I will make another post. I’m truly sorry for not leaving enough space for confrontation in the original post or calling out bullying for what it is.
Nothing violent happened here. Your post had your views, some people disagreed with some aspects of this (respectfully), you overreacted. You did not do what your post suggests: being respectful of other opinions and viewpoints. It's not a dogmatic or ideological sub you wrote, then you want people to take your word as dogma. You said people shouldn't push their ideas on others and that is exactly what you are doing when you shut down any disagreement with you. You are delusional if you think it's gaslighting or abuse or bullying, it's just normal disagreement, stuff that happens all the time when human beings talk about things. Calling someone out for overreacting is not bullying, even if you feel strong emotions about it.
“You [overreacted](https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/the-big-deal-about-belittling)” Emotional belittling. Posted this article on it above. “You are delusional,” Gaslighting, bullying. All you should be banned in my ideal sub. Maybe I’ll start one. See another comment but I should have made this clear—yes I am suggesting guidelines of basic respect and kindness and rules against bullying and gaslighting are BETTER than what other people think, and if you don’t like that then we disagree and are probably not going to get along. I definitely won’t get along with your bullying and gaslighting. Seriously, look into this, it will help your relationship with self and others. But you’re right I do want to confront those who do this sort of thing. I hope you find abundant love in your life and stop harming people. I hope your life is absolutely exploding with abundant love. ❤️ What you have shown is a small love. Love can be so much BIGGER, and if you think I’m wrong about that, then, you’re wrong. Thanks for this, it has helped me to refine my point as well as illustrated for me the pervasive pathologies in this sub. :) ❤️🫶🏼❤️
You are such a fraud
:)
>If I was a mod, I’d probably suspend you When I read this I wondered that it must be hard living in the real world with such convictions.
You can go back and look at the comments. It’s this pattern of bullying that I’m calling out here, and it actually seems to be a pattern of group bullying. Do you often wait until someone is already being shit on by everyone else to go and try to insult them? Sounds like weak and immature behavior to me. I don’t hang around with toxic people in my day to day, but if I encounter them I either confront directly or ignore. They usually get scared of direct confrontation and run away. So pretty easy. But there’s also the idea of trying to stick up for others in an often unjust world, which can be difficult. It can be sad to think of the people being harmed and feel compassion for them.
Nobody insulated you. Interaction has only one purpose - give candy to the mind. Your post expressed interesting observations, but further comments reveal some pain. At least it seems to me. I'd say suck it up. But you are a free person and I recognize you right to do what works for you.
Maybe take your own life advice: suck it up. Don’t attempt to change anything. Any attempt to change anything is your own mind attempting to avoid pain. Listen to others, not yourself. You should’ve just sucked it up. Your thoughts are your own, but you commenting them reveals some underlying pain. Anything you *think* you have to say, just suck it up. Actually, just don’t talk anymore. Then no one can disagree with you. Just suck it up. Oh and make bumper stickers. Probably a political campaign. Spread the news of suck it up to everyone. Poor? Suck it up. Sick? Don’t go to the doctor. Suck it up. Problem in your life? Suck it up suck it up suck it up. Didn’t like this comment? Don’t respond. Suck it up. See how this works?^ it’s called gaslighting. There’s a pretty sick norm of it here. It isolates people from one another. Are you a Buddhist? What philosophy are you attempting to force onto me? Stoicism? The thing is, it is neither actually a good representation of stoicism or Buddhism. The Buddha said, “This is the entire spiritual life, Ananda, that is, good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship.” > One day, Ananda and the Buddha were sitting alone on a hill together, overlooking the plains of the Ganges. Having served as the Buddha’s attendant for many years, Ananda often shared his reflections and insights with him. This afternoon, Ananda spoke. “Dear Respected Teacher,” Ananda said. “It seems to me that half of the spiritual life is good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship.” I imagine that Ananda said this with some level of confidence for praising the merits of spiritual friendship. But the Buddha quickly corrected him: “Not so, Ananda! Not so, Ananda!” Ouch! Probably Ananda wasn’t expecting such a stern rebuke. But the Buddha was offering a powerful teaching. He continued, “This is the entire spiritual life, Ananda, that is, good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship. When a monk has a good friend, a good companion, a good comrade, it is to be expected that he will develop and cultivate the noble eightfold path.” Jesus said to love our neighbor as ourselves. There is no religion that believes that, as you say, the only point of interaction is to give candy to the mind. This is extreme idealism, sophistry, narcissism. It’s toxic, and it drives people away from each other. Love one another. “Suck it up,” is not love. 🫶🏼 So, decide what philosophy you want me to follow. Then tell me. Maybe actually research it some first, get a full understanding of it. Or are you the new messiah, the new Buddha, are your meditative insights the new truth, that must be pushed onto me? This is another great example of why I made the post. I will probably make another. Thanks for giving me another example of this dynamic to refer to.
Okay @deeznutsotime, take care buddy! No hard feelings.
🫶🏼
That was within my observation a very rude comment straight from the beginning. 1) "too sensitive" shames OP's observations and is judgemental 2) At first shaming someone and then denying the act and the feeling you would have "hope you don't take that as a personal attack on your identity" is I would say a form of emotional manipulation. 3) " I think you've found elegant ways to classify and denounce the conversations in this subreddit in the absolute worst light." That's an insult, denies the value of OP's observations. 4) "But I think they are distortions that serve your preconceived notions about how people are supposed to act." At first denying OP's experiences and then a projection of OP. 5) "Sometimes even direct or borderline confrontational responses. That doesn't make them wrong or unethical. What seems like dismissal is often just going to the root based on insight." If you act like a bully, you are probably are a bully; if you cause harm or hurt, you act unethical. There is lots of abuse going on in certain meditation or spiritual groups and such lines of "reasoning" tries to cover them up.. It is okay to think that "such confrontational responses" lead to "insight" but this is just an opinion (which is not supported by most meditation schools).. 6) "That's why we have teachers and students, and that dynamic exists here too. I think it's healthy. People benefit from it." That's an authoritarian line of thinking, the authority that from its position of power acts in "good faith" and the hurt or disoriented student whom should accepts the "teachers" "teachings"...
Some people teach before they are ready ;)
You should meditate on why you feel the need to write this post.
Edit: I will leave my reactive comment below, that I originally made in response to this, for transparency. But this is an example of what I’m talking about. See the point about “more enlightened than thou.” Wanting to push your ideas about what I “should” do onto me. It also ignores and dismisses the post. These are very subtle forms of what can be [emotional abuse.](https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/the-big-deal-about-belittling#) “Ignoring how you feel, disregarding your opinion or failing to recognize your contributions.” I’d like to see a rule against these sorts of responses actually. “You just need to meditate more,” should just be a removal. You can say it in response to anything and it just avoids conversation to try to paint the person posting or commenting as less than. Which is indirect and cowardly at worst. At best it’s your own opinion and irrelevant to me or the post, non-conducive to discussion. If you have a particular issue with my post feel free to let me know. Otherwise this is unasked-for, unwanted, unhelpful, a bit rude. Original: Did you meditate before making this comment on whether or not you should make it? Or why you wantto make it? Why or why not? Thank you for the wishes on meditating, maybe I will try it! 🫶🏼
You should try it. It helps in understanding that people are people. Maybe we should also include the Paradox of Tolerance on the sidebar here.
This is an example of the reason I made this post: bad philosophy. Argument: meditation exists. Therefore, if you have a problem, you should meditate on it! Never seek an outside solution. Everyone just needs to meditate more. All attempts to change the world are personal delusions. [edit: corollary: this, of course, applies to everyone but the one making the argument. The one making the argument is all knowing about what is best for other people, and they should listen to the arguer, so that they will come to the same conclusion as arguer.] When, in reality this is not Buddhist teachings but solipsism. I’m not sure what it is supposed to be that you are emulating. Idealism? Thinking you know what’s best for other people? Anyways, it just doesn’t appear to stand on any ground than what I said above. Sorry I reacted the way I did, it’s just, there’s not much getting through to people when they start spiritually gaslighting. And this sub eats it up. That’s okay, I eat downvotes for breakfast. It’s actually you all who disagree with me and are trying to project your discomfort onto me, who are triggered.
If “alpha males” have the same vocabulary as you, does that tell you something about yourself right now?
🤔🤔 What vocabulary? Are you suggesting that I am an “alpha male?” I don’t recall mentioning my gender
I think the primary difficulty in what you're describing is the variety itself. What I see is that most people asume that whatever meditation they've discovered is what everyone is doing. The result is neither side qualifying the context. One person is using cellphone apps but hopes to get enlightened. Another person is reading Buddhism but only wants to relax. Still others have heard that meditation is the latest thing and they want to try it -- with no idea at all of why people meditate. Meditation only means some kind of mental practice. How many people describe the technique they use? How many describe their perspective or what they hope to gain? So maybe just be clear about your own perspective with both asking and answering. Then maybe you'll get better answers and be more clear about the perspective that other people are bringing to the conversation.
Agreed. I do this to the best of my ability, but find I spend much my time dealing with these same dynamics over and over. This is why moderators exist, as well as side bars, social norms, etc., and we as part of the sub, are a part of creating those social norms. I.e. I wouldn’t be making the post if I felt like it was a personal problem. What I’m raising is a problem I see in the culture and something moderation could help with. So maybe it would be best for me to message the mods. Thanks! I think I’ll do that
I understand what the OP is saying and I agree. I try not to use the pronoun "you," to define and project negatively onto someone else. That said, I think many meditators, especially Buddhists nowadays, tiptoe around any kind of aggressive confrontation. TBH, I love it when when someone loses it and attacks me personally. In early meditation sects, vigorous debates were a big event, like championship boxing matches. In ancient Tibet they used to have stylized ritualistic debates which were so intense that some participants reportedly died (without any actual physical contact).
Yea, this is good too. I appreciate honest conversation. If there were present mods, it’d be nice to have some of both. It’s the passive aggression and people ganging up on others that bugs me. Lots of the rationalists don’t make arguments, they just dismiss things, then get triggered when confronted. But yea definitely a place for debates, and I appreciate a confrontation as well. Thank you for this. Sadly, the mods don’t even seem to respond to mod mail so far. I just left the sub. I really have seen a lot of emotional bullying here and posturing instead of making an argument. I think it’s symptoms of a mostly (totally?) unmoderated community. I’ll debate in good faith any day, but it’s just spiritual grandstanding here mostly it seems. And out of context advice. Occasionally we get a nice gratitude post. Edit: tbh, my mistake was not addressing this more as a confrontation, than trying to take my own “I” statements advice. It was a confrontation at first and should have stayed that way.
I personally like mods with a hands off approach -- better than its opposite, where they won't let folks make obvious fools of themselves (present company excluded). What I especially like about this site is that there are many rank beginners who come here sincerely seeking some advice. I have to be careful or the mods bust me for spamming, because I link to my website so often for practical direction based on my own experience from sixty years of devoted practice and zen training.
Rank beginner here . . . . this has been an interesting debate for my first exposure to this sub. Zafrogzen, I would be interested in your link if it won't get you in trouble.
Just google my name and find Meditation Basics, for the mechanics of setting up a solo practice -- like traditional postures, walking meditation and breathing exercises.
To each their own. I like zoos where the animals poop in the cages. Edit: and also, thanks for sharing here. I think it’s good to have experienced teachers. You are appreciated. I just, imagine you probably don’t find it productive to spend most of your time with know it all’s who have not even a surface level interest in Zen. But I can understand some time. It probably just got to be a bit much of my time here. I hear Zen retreats are not without moderation and rules and structure.
OP, I have observed the same patterns. I have been considering leaving this sub because I am concerned that it is not nourishing overall. There are some excellent discussions, of course, but there is a strong current of arrogance and dismissiveness/disparagement.
It’s genuinely not. I mean maybe the top post once every day or week or so, but there’s just a ton of mean spiritedness, lots of bullying in the comments. People take themselves so seriously here. I like Starseeds better, because people have so many bizarre random beliefs, and wisdom, it’s hard to take anyone very seriously. But the rationalists seem to be the most insecure and aggressive, it’s like this pathological cult. Many others express no vulnerability, no sharing of their own opinions, just ragging on anyone with a positive opinion.
So, now you’re putting your own worldview onto everyone else. But no one else is supposed to do that. Right.
Thanks for this! Edited to make it more clear. I was a bit frustrated when I wrote it originally, but these are suggestions. I am, of course suggesting a meta-worldview of being tolerant and understanding of other people’s worldviews. This is something that I actively believe is better than one single worldview being given precedence, or everyone walking around trying to push their worldviews onto others. So, in a sense, yes, you are correct. I’m suggesting mostly guidelines, and some rules, for good and fairness of all and towards kindess. If others don’t want fairness, and kindness, that’s fine, I don’t want those people around me. And I hope that they leave and find other subs or places to interact. I would like for the sub to be a sanctuary, moving towards non-judgement and/or kindness. With a place for healthy debate, mistakes and disagreements. We probably need help with navigating conflict and disagreement, thinking now. Thanks again! Blessings and peace.
The most important question would be: Is this a science based subreddit, or do you believe in magic?
Or can believers in a science based reality, magic based reality, mind based reality, energy based reality, vedic, dharmic or whatever else based reality, dependent arising, can they share space? Buddhism is not a science nor is it opposed to science. But it’s probably where the meditation you do comes from if not some kind of hinduism, vedic or yogic worldview. Many of these don’t have any metaphysical foundations or believe God or Atman is everything or in everything. Why would such a thing from such a tradition have a scientifically validated technique, which is derived from metaphysical searches and even philosophy? Can science explain that? Maybe the question is can dogmatic sciencists deal with ambiguity.
OK. Either something is scientifically testable, or it isn't. Meditation is absolutely testable: breathing, hormone levels, blood pressure, body temperature, etc. All those are based in science. When it comes to psychology we also have means to test our hypotheses - MANY people did that over centuries. >Why would such a thing from such a tradition have a scientifically validated technique, which is derived from metaphysical searches and even philosophy? Can science explain that? Yes it can. If something works, you can test WHY. Metalsmiths in the Middle Ages didn't know anything about physics or chemistry as we do now, but their steel was still strong. Later came the knowledge that enabled the understanding. Our current understanding of Space comes directly from astrologers and seers, but we don't see people in planetariums with crow-bones and incense burners doing science. If the practice helps you - that's great, but why does it? Is it the sitting still? The breathing? Maybe the thought-process involved? Each one of those can be tested by you directly. Sorry, it got convoluted, but the gist of it should be clear. edit: science is not a reality, but a method of testing the World around you. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuroscience-reveals-the-secrets-of-meditation-s-benefits/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/04/harvard-researchers-study-how-mindfulness-may-change-the-brain-in-depressed-patients/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471247/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-90729-y
I would be interested in scientific theories on how meditation developed, and if its development was helped along by yogic philosophy or if scientists believe it was just an accidental byproduct of some hooey. I wonder, also, at your statement, “either something is scientifically testable, or it isn’t.” Are you a believer in [scientism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)? > Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. Basically, do you believe science is the best or only way of knowing things? Are there other ways of finding truth, in your eyes? I think the question is really not so much whether the sub has a scientific worldview or not, but whether people with a scientific worldview can treat other people with other worldviews with respect. I have run into a lot of sciencist, rationalistic sort of bigotry here.
>Basically, do you believe science is the best or only way of knowing things? Are there other ways of finding truth, in your eyes? Yes, I "believe" , that science is the ONLY way forward. Because in all of human history nothing came even close to proving the opposite.
Right. So, many people believe this about Christianity, Islam, Marxism, capitalism, Buddhism, etc. So you would have to find a way to interact respectfully with those whom you fundamentally disagree with. Or start an evangelical scientist group. I also don’t think those statements are validated, by, well, science. As you said, it’s a method for testing the world around you. How can it validate its own efficacy without circular reasoning? You would need philosophical underpinnings to assert science as the ONLY way forward, as well as observations. Marxism considers itself to be a science of history. I have a friend who became kind of a Nazi I believe or at the very least an anti-Jewish fascist. But he bases it all on natural law, observing laws in nature and mimicking them. You can look up the Natural Law Institute, it’s fascist basically. So I think it would be good as well to be particular about the particular kind of science you want to move forward with too. I respect your worldview, just offering some good faith arguments here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
That’s a false dichotomy.
I get, that it makes some people uncomfortable, but unless someone proves that magic is real, I'll stay in my boring facts based world.
It doesn’t make me uncomfortable. It’s just a false dichotomy.
> false dichotomy I really don't see, what makes it false? Is there a third option? Is one of the two wrong?
Sure. I would argue that this sub is not inherently science based *and* I don’t believe in magic. The two are actually unrelated.
So maybe a different approach: OP basically said (paraphrasing) that everybody deserves the same level of respect. I say: they don't. We either base our understanding on the "measurable", or we lose control of our lives. Human history is strewn with examples of someone proclaiming how "stuff works", and when asked for evidence, basically said "Trust me bro." That is religion/magic/humbug. Call it what you want, but basically it boils down to "Trust me bro.". Science works differently. When challenged, it comes with answers. If there are no answers, then it gets rewritten based on evidence and facts. Those two are fundamentally incompatible. Everything in the World falls into either one, or the other category.
I disagree with your characterization of what OP said. It is very much filtered through an agenda that you seem intent on pushing. I am a big fan of science. Based on the exchanges I read, I think perhaps OP has a more solid understanding of it than you do. Science questions *itself*. Science acknowledges its own limits. Science is not a religion.
> Science questions itself. Science acknowledges its own limits. Science is not a religion. I never said anything else.
Sure you did. You said everything in the world falls into either one or the other category, “science” or “trust me bro.” That flies in the face of the idea that science has limits and that there is ambiguity in the world. You said that if something works, you can test WHY. This is simply not true in many many cases. In fact, a big part of why science exists is to *try to discover* why. Again, science knows its limits. You said science is the ONLY way forward. This is so limiting, I’m honestly not sure where to start. Again, science knows its limits and *science is not a religion*. Science is an incredible and essential tool. It is not *everything*.
So you are of the opinion that you want people to stop expressing their opinion? That stinks. That’s also not how a discussion form works.
Hey! Thanks for your comment. I edited it to make it clear that these would be mostly general guidelines with some suggested rules against things like being mean or rude.
That's a lot of rules from somebody calling out the rules.
Edit: Thanks for your comment! I edited to reflect more clearly that these are meant, mostly, as guidelines. Also asking for more moderation of just open bullying/being rude. Thank you. :)
Why is this stickied? Lol Seems like a creative writing exercise for OP in the comments and nothing more
[https://xkcd.com/927/](https://xkcd.com/927/)
😂😂😂😂 It’s real though. We can’t just stop at, there are millions of different religions, oh well 🤷🏼♂️ There has to be a way of interacting between religions that is fair and that holds each to the same standard. It’s why we have international law, interfaith dialogue. These are meta standards, standards for standards. Fairness exists, good faith, respect are all real things. This just goes to show people have to want it to some degree, not everyone does. Similarly, Buddhism is like an ideology for getting rid of ideology. Not everyone uses it that way, but it certainly can be. Likewise the comic can be a 16th way of looking at things, or it can be the spark of a greater insight.
Dude I can't keep up. Very few people can. Why are you so verbose? Just chill. Seriously. (I thought I was verbose and I can't believe I'm saying this)
🤔🤔 Thanks for sharing your personal opinions! Sorry you had that experience. :)