If you're like me, you struggle with how to INTERACT with others who seem so hard-hearted (edited)
Last edited Thu Jul 19, 2012, 09:04 PM - Edit history (1)
(I edited the subject line, changing "engage" to "interact" because that's more appropriate. I don't seek out those with different worldviews with the intention of trying to discuss these matters. I simply meant that when I DO find myself interacting with extreme right-wing conservatives, I often have a difficult time...I find myself being passive-aggressive.)
Anyway, maybe others struggle regarding how to interact, especially about issues of compassion and having an open heart, as so many times their words and actions contradict their loudly proclaimed religious beliefs. Though this isn't something necessarily relegated to those who claim the label "conservative."
I know there are many (Limbaugh/Beck crowd) that will never see things the same way. I don't try to interact with them at all; in fact, I detach and avoid them as much as humanly possible.
But I can't help but feel there are many out there who are conflicted...who do have cognitive dissonance and struggle with the inner conflict.
This blog was written in an attempt to at least try to trigger a heart opening and a shift in perspective.
If you're inclined to share it with those you know or like the GD post, I'd appreciate it. 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002968054
= new reply since forum marked as read
Last edited Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)
Like I said, I definitely think those who lack compassion and who have no desire for justice and equality are out there -- and I do shun them. I want nothing to do with them any longer and go out of my way to avoid them.
I lump them together as the Limbaugh/Beck crowd.
I do think there are others who aren't quite so entrenched in their selfishness; they haven't taken a good look at themselves and/or haven't been honest with themselves and thus don't even realize how they treat others...or why they treat people as they do.
Of course, I could be wrong. 
you have no choice
emanate love, that'll get em eventually
I hope I would respond to seeing things in a different way as well, if a similar invitation to dialogue is extended.
Just doing what I am led to do in a way I'm led to do it, which is to try to gently encourage people to be introspective and honest with themselves.
I'm not trying to change anyone...not trying to save the world. (I know you're thinking that, worried that I deplete myself in the process... )
A lot of righties do have compassion, but they vow that they HATE anything hinting of liberalism. My husband is like this. He came home upset one night that a waitress that was kind to him at Bob Evans was waiting at the bus stop when he left, he thought it was horribly unfair that she probably wasn't making enough money (what we insane liberals would call a "living wage" . They just have been turned against verbiage, not all, but a lot of them. And they like hearing a bunch of he-man crap. The compassion is there though, I just have no idea how to convince any of them that we are talking about the same stuff sometimes. The brainwashing on certain terms and ideas is thorough. I keep working on Mike when I we are discussing something we both think is wrong, I make sure not to use politicized words though. The words Fox and Limbaugh have destroyed in our society.
My BIL is a compassionate right leaning guy, he might be reachable, but my sister and he have been fighting since the court upheld Obamacare. He refuses to look at the fact that it will save lives, he says "it's not that simple" every time my sister tells him that. Avoidance. He is convinced it will hurt businesses. His Dad is also an insurance guy. He's also an avid hunter and believes "liberals will take his guns". He will be past Obamacare in another year or so, when it is simply what is. He has bought into that NRA crap though. Funny that his sideline is lovingly producing free range, all natural eggs from happy chickens.
Me, I'm nastier than both those guys and have very strong opinions which I curse freely about, God knows how many people freak out over my indelicacy, so I guess I am Limbaughesque on some things myself (women's rights and animal abuse).
Sorry for the rant, I guess the bottom line in my mind is language. We need to find language that hasn't been destroyed by the right. Key words just shut them down and they stop hearing. Bill Clinton is a master at putting things in a way that the kind of folks you are hoping to reach can get.
You're so right: Starting back in the early 90's, Limbaugh & Company began to destroy language...and destroy people and relationships in the process.
Thanks for sharing those stories of people you know. It helps.
And, girl, please don't ever refer to yourself as Limbaughesque!!!! We can be mouthy and brazen and anything else, but we are NOT that. We don't lie and distort, we may simply be indelicate.
You know I appreciate profanity.
You made me ponder the idea of a dictionary of sorts. What Limbaugh-type right-wingers perceive when they hear a word, versus what it means to most of us on the left.
Which words nowadays stand out as dog whistles for the people you mentioned, like your hubby? (no rush...only if you have time)
I've gotten to a point where it seems we don't speak the same language at all, so I've lost sight of which words are key, other than the obvious: common good, compassion, empathy, social justice.
That's a lot of trigger words!!!
I especially love "basically the word social" --
Thank you, ma'am!
personal responsibility
resourcefulness
independence
spirituality
non-dualism
Tolerance goes BOTH ways and as I read GD, I see very little of it. I see a lot of put-downs and the like. 
Sorry for the interruption. Has been dispatched back to the bridge.
Thanks!
wasn't such blatant hypocrisy.
I am NOT a troll. A troll is someone who goes on boards with no genuine desire to communicate his or her truth, but rather simply to upset the apple cart. I stand by my hidden comment 100%. IF you claim to be on the spiritual path, it has no room for sides. When someone (even a handsome, intelligent someone) orders attacks that kill innocent people, there is no room for discussion. It is UNACCEPTABLE and should be UNSUPPORTABLE. Although I've been a life-long Democrat, I made the mistake of voting for BO because I wanted to make history, as well as was hoping that his stance on increasing troop strength in Afghanistan was just another lie told by a politician trying to get the swing vote. Nope. For the first time in history, a politican told the truth. 
You don't have to worry about constantly hiding my threads or about me "disrupting" your little mindsets because I am about done here. And I know that when people refuse to fall into that trap of bipartisanship, it's not only unpopular but it rallies the DU community to marginalize the poster. When we stop posting, the regulars seem to start turning on one another. Because deep down, we all know whether or not we are being led with the kind of values that we claim to champion.
How can any thinking, feeling person (let alone a sensitive, SPIRITUAL one) not have their stomach turn every time we hear of these atrocities carried out in our country's name? 
that most of us (myself included) were not able to see the content of your post (I don't know if I should assume you're also the icke/Islam screen names Ruby the Liberal referred to?).
I wasn't LOL'ing at you or whatever you posted, as I wasn't aware of either. It IS unusual to have anyone's posts hidden in this little corner of DU, which is what I and the other member were LOL'ing about.
Where content is posted is very important here at DU3 as well.
I do believe you could use a hug (can't we all?), so I offer you one in earnest, and reiterate that I wasn't ridiculing whatever information or thoughts you were sharing here.
I have interacted here so little since the new platform (DU3) came into play that I didn't know we COULD see a hidden post.
Silly, I agree, but I never took the extra step to try to see what was hidden, and just assumed it was just that: hidden from view.
Anyway, I'm always sincere about my hugs. Peace be with you as well.
I assumed you chose not to read the hidden thread. I must always remember not to jump to such conclusions and realize that there's always another possible explanation. I like that book "The Four Agreements" because one of them is not to take anything personally.
By the way, I admire your endeavors with your other site. I honestly think that is the future. We don't have to rely on an outer entity if we band together and help one another to live
Is that supposed to be intimidating? Look at yourself. In the mirror, preferably. I hope you can answer for your decisions, including whom you support to lead this country.
As a solitary witch, I would think you would be more interested in transcending these superficial barriers. Stop trying to control what others feel!
Would that be a Sun-Choke???
Yes, I know. Bad Laura. BAD Laura.
Laura
I would like to know why anyone not parroting what DU tells us to do is deemed a troll or somehow not treated with the same respect that you give to the others here. Not very open-minded. Reminds me of some old granny in the boondocks who is suspcious of the "furriners" from the big city.
I have been a life-long Democrat. The Democratic party has changed. I voted for Obama and have not been happy with many of his stances. Sorry, but it is what it is...
I feel violated, don't you?
Isn't that the narrow-mindedness you denounce? It makes me laugh to think of someone assuming I am a fundie!
Did you read my post? Did you consider whether or not it should have been hidden?
We are at a point where the sleepwalking thru life and blind obedience to "rules" (without examining them!) must end. Engage in Truth! Stop being DUalistic (Right versus Left, etc.)
If you are liberal and have lived in a conservative area your whole life, then MOVE! If it's so intolerable to deal with certain types, MOVE! Because as someone who has experienced the opposite, I can tell you there is no perfect place. Maybe having something to rebel against is your unconscious MO.
Namaste!
Because, when you act like an asshole (with a low-post count to boot) you're going to attract that label no matter what. Not to mention the fact of using such "cute" insults for our Democratic President
Yes, I read your post, and it should have been hidden. Personally, I wish the jury had the authority to delete it, too. It would certainly clean things up if all posts by the PPR'd would disappear along with their accounts.
And in case you don't understand, please read the homepage of this site for a clue (hint: it starts with a Big 'D'.) No matter how much you'd like to get away from the "dualism", you really can't here. We don't support "the other side" much less allow those from the other side of the aisle here. If we did, the name and focus of our site would be all-inclusive, and it ain't.
Additionally, you can only break the rules so many times before authorities bite you in the butte. As we can see time and again so far...
or someone calls me a troll, doesn't make ME the asshole and them right!
Your chief argument is that I am breaking the rules! So the eff what! I am not a good little sheep(le) who stays in line if I feel the rules are unjust. Sorry if that bugs you. I am a Sadge, therefore I seek Truth, which is what all who CLAIM to be on the spiritual path should be doing.
Eff the "authorities!" Ooooo...I'm a'skeered!
I was introduced to this site via a family member in 2004. I signed up and when I read the rule about advocating for Dems no matter what, I was utterly appalled. I wrote to the admins. about it and got NADA in response. So if they cannot even defend such a policy, I don't feel the need to adhere to it.
It's not the primary reason, nor is someone simply calling someone a troll. What is a reason why the label fits is how one acts. And that is my primary argument, not whether you obey the rules. However, I guess I have to reiterate this yet again: if you act like an asshole, whether in this group or elsewhere on DU, then expect the consequences of that action, i.e., being labeled a troll. Doesn't matter if you break any rules or not. And from what I've seen of your various hidden posts, the label is still appropriate due to continued behavior in the asshole department.
As for not getting a response from the admins: I've written to them before and never received replies. Does that mean they didn't care? Maybe, or it might have meant that there was no reply needed. Normally, policy changes require more than one member complaining about them
Talk about strange...
I am pointing out that we have to be consistent in our beliefs. If we claim to be tolerant, then that applies to EVERYONE. It is so smug to walk around saying how hateful "repugs" are (using such a negative label) and yet doing just that.
I see all the vitriol in GD--even putting down Romney's wife--and I expect better of the people here. Then I see posts like "Romney's Eyes," etc. and people like to savage Dubya as a war criminal but what is our DEMOCRATIC president doing himself? Does he respect human life in other countries?
As I said to OGR, I am not planning to constantly bombard this board or any other on DU in the near future. I sometimes get caught up in trying to make people see the light (my Mars in the 9th, perhaps?) and that is fairly futile. The only way that people will usually understand something is if they have to experience it. And while I wish people would wake up right now, I do know that it's all good. We are eternal beings and whatever happens, ultimately it's all good!
I just read through the list and can see, if I were a dittohead, how the words would trigger something.
But public transportation?
What's that about?
LOLOL
One usually is racist in nature, so I won't detail it here. Another is that it goes against the free market, that is, it is efficient. The last thing they want is for there to be a glut of oil, despite their adamant desire to drill any part of the Earth. Better that everyone drive a car, and best if it's a Hummer or giant dick-up truck. No efficient small cars or hybrids, either. And absolutely no bicycles or pedestrians. Those are just "fun targets" in the meantime. Yes, there are people that actually "aim" for cyclists
then there is one subject I just do not understand: "Charity is bad."
I've seen people try to understand this concept, too, asking why it's so bad to be charitable to those in need now versus trying to "change the system". The latter could very well take decades in some cases. Yet those in need just have to suffer while the system gets changed.
Like those that have argued for charity, I have a hard time understanding how anyone could reject charity that takes place now, in favor of something that will take much longer and far more effort (and money) in the long run. It seems to be yet another black&white mindset. There is no gray area or the possibility of doing both! 
You will no doubt remember bobbolink and the heated threads any time poverty and homelessness were mentioned.
I actually want to address your post further in much more detail but don't have time right now. I agree with you that we can multitask: work to change system which creates poverty, as well as relieve suffering NOW.
The key is the wording -- charity versus justice -- and the intention of those offering assistance.
I'll be back.......
I ask for your patience ahead of time; I'm sure this is going to be awkward as I try to explain my perception of this topic. (I suddenly feel awkward and clumsy about everything...lol.)
Certainly the main point is very obvious, and with which you agree: Ideally, we would heal the systems which lead to and perpetuate poverty. THAT is the ideal and goal and we should always have social justice as our goal.
But, as you said, in the meantime, people are suffering.
(I know what I'm saying here you know already, but in case someone is reading who hasn't thought about this before, I'll elaborate as best I can.)
For many -- especially those who have been the recipients of assistance -- the term "charity" in and of itself has begun to trigger a knee-jerk cringing response. Much of it has to do with the intention of the person offering aid. Do they look down upon the person they're assisting as "less than" in some way, even subconsciously? Do they expect something of the person they are aiding?
If someone is hungry or their child is hungry and they need a place to sleep, if a faith-based organization requires they pray with them first, chances are they're going to do it, even if they're atheist. The faith-based initiatives are often the most widely available and effective, but some (certainly not all) require participation in their religion in some way before they'll give the help offered.
The point bobbolink was often trying to make is that in many cases, the assistance offered is done to assuage the ego/conscience of the person helping, much more than to help the recipient. As in the faith-based initiative example, help is help, especially in dire situations, yet the situation isn't one of equality and certainly isn't healing. There is an inequality, a power dynamic involved.
This is one of my favorite graphics which, to me, explains the subtle differences involved, and it has to do with intention.
Here is an excerpt of a really good essay about this topic. I encourage you to follow the link to read the whole thing. I think it's very powerful.
"Helping incurs debt. When you help someone, they owe you one. But serving, like healing, is mutual. There is no debt. I am as served as the person I am serving. When I help, I have a feeling of satisfaction. When I serve, I have a feeling of gratitude. These are very different things.
Serving is also different from fixing. When I fix a person, I perceive them as broken, and their brokenness requires me to act. When I fix, I do not see the wholeness in the other person or trust the integrity of the life in them. When I serve, I see and trust that wholeness. It is what I am responding to and collaborating with."
http://www.infj.com/ServingVsHelping.htm
but I didn't get very far into your link due to reading a whole lot of semantics. That may very well be that person's point of view, but it's not mine. What I see, is that suffering needs to be diminished. How one goes about that (so long as it's a positive method) isn't really important. The goal is no suffering or poverty or inequality. Any method is good due to the outcome. If someone is second-guessing my intent, that's also their choice and out of my control. In fact, I will state that it's always the choice of the recipient as to how they are going to interpret any offering to diminish their suffering. I'm not going to judge a person, but if my offering is refused, I'll just give to someone else. If I am judged for trying to be nice, well, again, that's their choice, and I'll just move on.
Thankfully, I've only been judged for being generous on DU. In person, that doesn't happen. People are genuinely thankful. Now, before y'all get the idea that I'm massaging my ego with the fact that people thank me, that's not it. I'd rather give anonymously, but even there, systems are set up to give thanks for the offering. I post online mostly anonymously to share my knowledge so people can use it (or ignore it.) Is that helping or serving? Or, is it offering something intangible that can be turned into something tangible (such as cooking/baking knowledge) that eases suffering?
I still find the "easily offended" odd in that they'd rather refuse something that could assuage their suffering for a few moments because it doesn't do anything for their plight in the long run. Well, that's just one part of the whole. I can't discuss the topic with those that can only see one part.
Perhaps this would do well to quote here, and I have no idea where I heard it, only that it's somewhat known:
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
I know it's related to the spiritual topics we discuss and hold dear around here, and could amend it with any verbiage on the order of "especially when those parts are positive in nature." The whole being, the eradication of suffering. Anything that diminishes that in the slightest is a good thing in my book
(the only time is with someone here at DU, who refused offers of help repeatedly, from many people).
I honestly don't think many people in dire straits would refuse help out of some moral high ground or questioning of intention. I do think people are grateful, regardless.
That said, from a spiritual perspective, I do think there is something to be said about intention and the energy of it, and how it affects the overall healing of a situation. It's not so much about how the gesture is received; we can't control that, of course. Yet how it's offered, and why, is something that is good to be mindful of, imho.
Other than that, I also feel it's largely semantics.
however it reads. It's fun to discuss it as we evolve how we see it in a positive manner, versus the knee-jerk variety that seems to be the only response elsewhere on DU. I have to wonder if any of them other than the trolls read us...
As far as "loaded" words go that the anti-compassionate use, I think we can take ownership of those words once again. Just use them in different ways, and steer them back around to their origins as best we can. That's another slow process, yet worth the effort. It also helps to deflate any of them used as an insult by simply replying "Thank you! I appreciate you calling me a (liberal!) (socialist) (et cetera)"
'Kill them with kindness' after all
I agree wholeheartedly!
That is "kindness?" You really need to read what you say and actually practice it instead of patting yourself on the back for your so-called uber humanitarian instincts.
don't really deserve much kindness. Because you keep pissing people off by breaking the rules, and then turning around and rubbing it in their faces. Everyone has a breaking point, and trolls (such as yourself) delight in such behavior. Being kind doesn't work, nor does getting mad. Alerting on all of your new puppets does work until you just get tired of trying
Eventually, they'll figure out how to block all of your IPs and that will be the end of that.
In it, he talks about guilt, though I listened to some other shows after and don't remember as much. However, here's the blurb for it, and if you're interested, I'll post it to a file-sharing site to share
Guilt and innocence are not facts of life, but choices we make based upon the vision we use. Alan illuminates the dynamics of healing using innocence as a guide. If you would like to feel better and freer about yourself and others, listen to this insightful program.
One thing you can ponder about health is if your health is less than good, then you're less able to give as much as when you're healthier. When you take care of yourself first, then it's easier to help others. And yes, when I give money, I'd like to give even more, but it's pointless to give until you end up needing the same assistance. I suppose some can live their lives that way, but it's a small handful of individuals.
The "system" does still need changing, and I'd start with the MIC and Pentagon budgets. The only way I'd be happy with their budget as it stands now is if at least half of that money was going for the building and retrofitting of hospital ships, Search & Rescue crews and equipment, and engineering crews and equipment. Turn the military into one sent into disasters to help, care, and heal people first and foremost, instead of kill first, clean-up later. Tax the wealthiest (top 1-5%) to the point that they have the incentive to invest in this country in order to keep their current income levels. That's partly how it worked in Eisenhower's day. No reason it can't work that way again. Then you can raise taxes on the rest of us. Otherwise, all that does is make people save for next year's taxes and not consume. Or give to charity.
a VERY powerful thought!
"Maybe it isn't ALL about teachers and students, but more about growing the ability to hear all the voices out there."
I hear you, mother earth.
Unless someone is a sociopath (and I do fear their numbers are rising), I believe they have empathy, even if it's hidden wayyyyy deep inside. It's actually a painful path to be empathetic, so I don't blame them for shutting these feelings off.
Still, for us to survive, I sincerely believe we must replenish what is an empathy and compassion deficit, numbed by the media (which is Corporate America, imho).
I'm awkwardly attempting to offer ways to perhaps trigger empathy in those who try not to empathize. Yes, they have to choose to see or not see, feel or not feel, all on their own. We all do, of course.
