Carborendum
-
Posts
4807 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
203
Posts posted by Carborendum
-
-
5 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:
For context, AFPAC was billed as an "alternative" to CPAC (from which Fuentes is banned; he was also kicked out of Charlie Kirk's org, TPUSA).
These facts should tell you that he was a poor example of Conservative thought.
Can you say the same about the masses of liberals that are calling for the extermination of Jews? Members of Congress are not just "talking to them" or "shaking hands with them." They are themselves calling for the extermination. And the mainstream media is supporting them.
As such, you can't deny that antisemitism is mainstream liberalism today.
-
17 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
I totally get folks who don't want someone to know what they really feel about them.
I'm talking about the 2nd great commandment. "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Life is better when your feelings are pure.
Please don't think I'm preaching to anyone but myself. I've gotten better at this over the years, but I'm hardly perfect. But forgiving your enemy and loving your neighbor go a really long way to making tact easy and truthful.
This is very interesting. I'm considering the idea that I may not be able to think of a "nice & honest" thing to say because I don't really love them.
So, the key to "find a nice thing to say regardless of the question" (within reason) is based on my ability to love them as a child of God. And my inability to say such nice things, is because I don't have enough Charity to be able to see the good in them.
I could easily be offended by this. But I'm choosing not to be. I'm considering it.
-
3 hours ago, Traveler said:
I am very lucky because I married the polar opposite personality type that is able to cover for most of my relationship blunders. I will give an example: I ask a new member of our Elder’s quorum to lead the discussion topic recently. After priesthood I was with my wife and the good brother’s wife joined him. Since we were all close, she turned to me and asked how her husband did with the lesson. I responded very truthfully and said that he did much better than I expected. My wife stepped in and said that my response is as high of a complement as I ever give – that it must have been really good. Later she explained to me that most people would take my complement negatively – that I would assume that they would do terrible. I should just say he did a good job. I attempted to explain that I expected a typical good job but he had done better. She reminded me that it was not what I said.
Something like this happened to me recently. This is a question of "framing."
"It was better than I expected" can be taken either way. You meant it one way. They took it another way. Luckily your wife was able to translate.
I was not so fortunate. My wife was the one who got upset, believing I had offended someone. But luckily, the person that was supposed to be offended took it the way I intended. He didn't have a problem with it.
-
3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
It seems like you are looking for a Win button. AKA some method or plan that always allows you to be truthful, never gets you accused of anything not nice.
Nope, quite the opposite.
I'm pointing to the fact that (so far) I'm finding that the truth hurts most people. Yet everyone swears that all they want to hear is the truth. Then they cry and scream when they hear it.
I certainly don't WANT to make people cry. But when they are asking for something that I can't give them, this somehow becomes my fault.
-
2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:
I used to feel that way.
And we have members of Congress who are supporting Hamas and calling Israel the aggressors -- even calling them Nazis. Like that even makes any sense.
They are saying to national news "From the Rivers to the Sea." Which mean they want the extermination of Jews in Israel. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS calling for extermination of Jews.
And I have no idea who those people are in those image, nor do I have any background on what they're doing. So, how can I take seriously the idea that they are somehow representative of mainstream conservatives?
I have no idea who Nick Fuentes is until I just looked him up. That is one of the problems here. You're going out of your way to pick random people as examples when most conservatives don't even know who they are.
-
7 minutes ago, zil2 said:
This is part of "practice" - but I suppose if 99.9% of the population have given up and just tell the pretty lies, that makes it difficult for you to find resources to learn from.
I have plenty of practice in what NOT to do. But to "practice" doing the right thing, I first need examples of the right thing to do. No one offers them to me.
Take this forum for instance. Good honest people telling me to lie. Gee, that helps.
7 minutes ago, zil2 said:
(I actually have this pad of sticky notes.
)
I'm going to look for this and place it on my desk.
-
26 minutes ago, zil2 said:
Clearly you haven't mastered human avoidance.
Try harder.
The thing is that I try not to go physically go somewhere unless I feel needed. And apparently, there are a lot of things I can do that no one else can. So, I'm needed a lot.
When I'm gone, they need someone who can fill that gap. While they get along ok without me, they tend to wish I was there.
26 minutes ago, zil2 said:(Also, I once tried to go there, but the minute I arrived, it became here. After this happened many times in a row, I finally gave up on there altogether and decided to just stay here.)
LoL.
26 minutes ago, zil2 said:PS: Lest you think you're all alone (which seems unlikely given your inability to avoid humans, but still), I'm with you in this - there should be a way to both not lie and be polite. It likely requires practice, thinking fast on your feet, humility, and the pure love of Christ. (In other words, I don't think it is necessary to lie to be polite.)
Yeah, that doesn't work with me. I learned that a long time ago. I don't really have the mental ability to think of those things. If I come up with things, they always go wrong.
The best I can do is to listen to hundreds of example situations and then see how experts at this craft were to handle it. Someone will have to explain to me what was happening and why this was an appropriate response to this situation. Then, after seeing such things in hundreds of situations, I could eventually get it. But I haven't seen them. I only get people saying, "You just need to learn tact." And then they tell me to lie.
Yeah, thanks for that.
-
6 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:
I could have told you that based on the title alone.
You have a point. But many of his other books are not like that at all. It is a sociologist's look at the human condition. In this particular case, it is about how powerful people tend to work and behave. It also describes how people around such powerful people behave. But it inevitably goes into the manipulative bits.
6 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:Imagine a world where virtually everyone is 100% honest with each other in day-to-day interactions. What do you suppose that would look like?
Again, if we just allow for the "not answering" I think it would be great. Do you know how confused I got and how much I was (for lack of a better word) abused in my childhood by my peers because I didn't really understand the concept of a lie? It was all the time. I believed everyone. But I did at least wonder about some people possibly being wrong. That was something I understood. But lie? I just didn't get why they would do that -- especially when it was a lie to inflict harm. Yes, they considered it a joke. But it certainly didn't seem funny to inflict physical harm on someone or damage their property.
6 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:I operate on the outskirts of the political realm, and even from a reasonably safe distance, it's painfully obvious to me that it's impossible to be a truly honest politician. They simply don't exist.
No, I believe that the art of "reframing" is what needs to be done. But people are really bad at it nowadays. Politicians used to be more adept at that. But nowadays, they are so inept that they choose to lie and deceive rather than reframe.
6 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:Welcome to the Thunderdome.
That's not the way the world is supposed to be.
-
4 minutes ago, zil2 said:
If you know that people think you're being anti-social, you aren't doing a very good job of avoiding humans.
When I am absent, I'm there in absentia... if that makes sense.
People tend to know when I'm gone.
-
1 minute ago, zil2 said:
How could I find it pleasing (or displeasing) if I didn't care?
The tone of your previous posts indicated:
- You believe that HIS mustache was none of your business. And as a personal preference, your opinion shouldn't matter to him or his wife. So, you didn't care about it being on him.
- You believe that such a mustache on a mannequin would draw smirks, raised eyebrows, and subtle mockery from you, should someone point it out to you.
If I'm wrong, then I guess I'm wrong.
-
Here's another perspective: I've been reading a book by Robert Greene: 48 Laws of Power.
It sounds like a good commentary on the human condition. There are certain dynamics of human behavior that are not intuitive for a person like me. But once someone points it out, then it makes all the sense in the world.
The more I read it, the more I get convinced of a few things.
- This is really a "how to" book on manipulating people.
- This is how virtually everyone behaves.
- This is exactly why people "lie to be nice."
It isn't drawing a very nice picture of how noble "lying to be nice" is. Instead, it seems to be sociopathic or narcissistic. At the same time, virtually anyone in history uses these specific methods to gain power and are praised by history as people of great achievement and hailed as noble figures. Meanwhile, Almost all of those who are ignorant of this end up dying in ruins.
This, in addition to a lot of people encouraging me to "lie to be nice" isn't painting a great picture of humanity.
-
1 minute ago, zil2 said:
I don't know that I was good at it, and in my mind at the time, I wasn't avoiding anything, just speaking the truth. It is my firm belief that the person who has to kiss the lips hidden inside all that hair gets all the say over whether the hair exists. Other than that, I couldn't care less what dude did with his facial hair. FWIW, dude wasn't pleased that I wasn't praising his magnificent 'stache.
You may not care. But you clearly didn't find it to be a pleasing feature.
1 minute ago, zil2 said:I avoid these problems by avoiding humans - problem solved.
Yeah, that's not always an option. Although, my current job makes it a lot easier.
But then, there's church. I avoid humans a lot. But then people think I'm being anti-social... which is true... and so???
-
11 minutes ago, zil2 said:
It's an external image, so maybe from a domain your filters don't allow. It's a dude with a full beard and a handlebar mustache - you know, with the curled up ends. Honestly, the dude at work (who was about my age, maybe a little older) had even more of a curl to his mustache - it reminded me of Salvador Dali, only fuller.
You realize that your example was simply the "avoidance" that I described that I feel like I have to do. You did not lie. That is what I am advocating. And if I could be as good at it as you are, then I'd find that to be a good solution.
-
Just now, zil2 said:
A married co-worker once asked me what I thought of his new facial hair style - not unlike this one:
I told him his wife was the only person allowed to have an opinion and hers counted for more than his own.
The image appears to be broken. My guess, the new site improvements.
-
From an old Sprint commercial:
"When Sprint said that you could speak freely on weekends, we didn't mean it like this:"
Flash to a young man speaking on the phone: "No, it's not the dress that makes you look fat. It's your hips... hello??... Mom??..."
- zil2 and ZealoulyStriving
-
2
-
5 minutes ago, zil2 said:
Why the heck is any female other than your wife and daughters asking you about their appearance? And if they are, why isn't your standard response something like, "I only discuss such things with my wife and daughters."?
That was just an example that everyone could relate to. And it was a "less attractive" roommate of a girl I was picking up for a date.
... to be clear: it was before I was married.
-
10 minutes ago, Traveler said:
In general, I think those of us that have the gift of logic and love using it to express what we think is true can never quite say the right thing to the types that “follow their heart” and live off their feelings. Attempts to connect on our level or theirs is just not going to happen very often – never without some spiritual help from above.
While I am glad to be part of the club, I have to admit that I'm not the most logical person in the world.
-
20 minutes ago, ZealoulyStriving said:
Using your example- you can still be truthful. Does the dress go with the "feature" of her eye color? Her hair?
To clarify, "features" was my way of short-handing a variety of ways that females may ask about their appearance. So, no, I can't.
20 minutes ago, ZealoulyStriving said:The Lord counseled Abraham to lie (by omission) about Sarah being his sister.
Just as I said, I can be silent. I can re-direct. I can simply NOT speak. I've already learned and accepted this lesson.
20 minutes ago, ZealoulyStriving said:David feigned being crazy to avoid Philistine wrath.
The Nephites gave Lamanites guards wine that had been "fortified" more than it's normal strength to cause them to pass out.
These fall under the war exception:
Quote...therefore he thought it no sin that he should defend them by stratagem...
Clearly when "Thou shalt not kill" is a more important commandment than "thou shalt not bear false witness."
I'd say defending one's life is also more important than bearing false witness.
My question is not about war. It is not a matter of life and death.
Scriptures show examples where people could die if the murderous people would obtain their design if they told the truth. So, yes, lying is warranted. But you're trying to extend this line of logic to "avoid hurting someone's feelings" when simple silence will do? Why should I feel compelled to speak a lie because of someone's feelings, when I can simply stay silent?
I also don't accept your terminology "Hyper-honesty." What is that supposed to mean?
"Don't lie unless you have to." Well, what defines "have to"?
-
16 minutes ago, ZealoulyStriving said:
Kindness > Unrestrained Honesty
I'm not trying to be a smart aleck when I ask: does this mean that I should lie to spare someone's feelings? I can't go along with that.
I can remain silent and shrug my shoulders. But I can't lie about something when someone asks me a direct question. I could even refer them to someone else to get a different opinion instead of voicing mine. But I'm not going to lie.
When really pressed and when they specifically want an opinion from me, I'll tell them, "I don't think I'm the best person to ask." If they press, "You realize that I'm not going to give you an answer you like." That usually puts people off and they don't press for the answer.
But I've also found some people get offended at that reticence to simply tell the truthful answer to the question they directly posed to me.
-
Remembering the announcement for "singers needed." I'm kind of disappointed.
One example from pop culture: ".... Fi-i-inely questioning, I am my own worst ... enemy." The word is "Finally." It grates when I hear that song.
The vocalists in these songs, thankfully, were not nearly that bad. But I wish there was more care in the production.
The rendition of Gethsemane was much better than the production of the other hymns in the list.
Interesting thing is that I doubt Gethsemane will ever be sung in a congregation. Many people don't even understand multiple endings with a repeat sign.
Imagine what will happen when they come cross a D.S and coda.
-
I've always wondered about this. But when I bring it up, I think people get the wrong impression.
I understand the idea "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." That is simply "not speaking." I can always choose to not engage. But then I've found myself accused of being passive aggressive or some similar/related descriptor.
But when I've been given examples of saying some things tactfully, there is always some deception involved. I've really tried to understand this concept, but I just don't.
Example: A woman is very unattractive no matter what she does. She asks if this dress goes with her features. A simple yes or no would be accurate. Simply saying, "No, you really won't look attractive no matter what you put on" is really rude and uncalled for. But the example I was given was to suggest another dress and say, "That one makes you even more beautiful." It didn't. So, wouldn't that be a lie?
First, it didn't make her look any more beautiful. Second, it implies that she is already beautiful, which she wasn't.
Now, there are some statements that can be taken either way. I've found this to be the best way to get through it without lying. If they took it the bad way, that was up to them. If they took it the good way, that was up to them. But I can't always figure out a good way to do that in many situations. So, what am I supposed to do?
-
5 minutes ago, zil2 said:
On my computer, I have to check a box. (That could be because I have Firefox locked down quite a bit and nothing automated can happen, not sure.) On my Android device, using Chrome, it just spun a graphic for a while, then proceeded - no idea how it decided I was human (not by using my camera - that has a physical cover over it to prevent apps from using it without my cooperation).
The spinning thing is what happened to me -- on my desktop.
I didn't notice anything that it required.
-
The site was pretty much non-functional for a time yesterday. I thought it was a problem on my end. Apparently, it was due to site maintenance.
I've been getting similar messages as well.
I wonder how it is verifying. For instance, is there an AI that can get past the "images" test that is found on many sites?
-
38 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:
I know the internet isn't the most accurate picture of our society.
Nope, full stop. No modifiers. That's all you need to know about what you've cited.
Trump 2024?
in General Discussion
Posted
Due to this trial, I'm beginning to wonder about when otherwise evil traits can be considered good.
The stripling warriors were the most stalwart and humble souls. Yet they "fought like dragons" against their enemies in war.
Since lawfare has been waged, I wonder how many people would be able to withstand the pressure of the entire justice system being turned against one man. If we had someone of the caliber of George Washington, it may have been possible for a "good man" to withstand it and still be able to fight back.
Today, we don't have anyone like that. Someone who is a saint, a statesman, and a warrior at the same time. That is a symptom of the times we live in. They don't exist. Society has change the meaning of "Christ-like" to demand that a man be weak. Society has changed the rules of statesmen to easily make them corrupt. And warriors are almost always supposed to be contrasted with saint.
We live in a time when the opposition is willing to stoop so low as to twist laws in ways they have never been twisted before in order to justify a trial for a non-crime. Then a judge issues jury instructions that basically forbid them from considering exculpatory evidence, testimony, conditions or even valid legal arguments, that must make us ask an important question. Who (today) would not buckle under these circumstances?
Answer: only a narcisistic glory-seeking bully. I certainly don't think Ron Paul would have been able to take it. I doubt Ronald Reagan would have handled it.
I still haven't changed my mind about voting for Trump. I don't think I will. But considering this, that door is now open. I believe someone on this forum invoked the sentiment best: He may be a glory-seeking bully. But he's OUR glory-seeking bully.
Or as the movie said: No, I can't stand the guy. I think he's an <expletive>. But maybe an <expletive> is exactly what we need right now.
We don't win wars by sitting tight and just taking all the abuse hoping someone else will save us.