I just do not get some people. If you treat them as equals and you share you view point. Which mind you is different from theirs. They harass you and use a multitude of ways to discredit you and hurt you. But you still treat them as equals. In my book that is not equality its a spoiled brat that believes their way is the way all people should feel
Take care.
Hope your day gets better
Some people are so locked into their world view, they donât have any logic left. I just ignore them to their âworldâ. Unfortunately, that âworldâ is impacting the real world with false premises and even more false conclusions. A reckoning is on the horizonâŚ
You summed it up ⌠âTheir view is the correct way.â and anything else is a abysmal deviation.
I remember a friend from work had another co-worker and myself over for a dinner. We all got along at work. He shares his story of losing someone he loved. How, as they were not married and not the norm, he was not allowed in the critical care unit. The person he loved died and he could not be there with them. Now while digesting that !=fair add another !=fair as the family invades the home taking anything not nailed down. My friend âI bought that.â response âI doubt it ⌠Iâm sure my son âinsert nameâ bought this that that over there and all of this.â Here you are a functioning member of society with a masters in engineering paying your state and federal taxes with what feels like no rights or representation.
My mind opened up after a few similar stories from other friends over the decades. I guess some people move through life with the switch set to Read and not Read + Over Write.
Hope this helps some how ⌠ie : your not alone.
ps: This must be why we love our pets so much. They donât judge. Unless they wanna bite ya. lol
I have been digging into this some, and may have some insight to offer.
There are two kinds of hierarchies, dominance and competence. In merit based competition, those who are best rise to the top, and the resulting structure is good at what they do. The distribution of wealth of a competence hierarchy follows the Pareto distribution, in which very few people have the most resources.
In a dominance hierarchy, those got to where they were by exploitation, pull, privilege, and those who are the most dominant rise to the top and control power, denying access to those who would compete on merit. One has discrimination of numerous forms, and also direct elimination of competition, even if that competitor could do the job better.
Most of the world operates upon a competence hierarchy, but dominance hierarchies are common enough that some think they are the prevalent hierarchy. To break up a dominance hierarchy, one must forcibly pressure for inclusion and push merit based standards. Things like equal opportunity are there to break into the structure. Those who are at the top of such structures have a voice, and those who echo it are their mouthpieces. And thus for justice to prevail against this structure which has no merit, no inclusion, and could stand for a lot of improvement, some think the end of upending that dominance hierarchy justifies silencing those voices that align with it, and amplifying those voices who operate against it.
The problem though is if a competence hierarchy is viewed as a dominance hierarchy. We can see this post revolution Russia, in which competent farmers had their land seized and redistributed to party members without regard to their ability to actually farm, and there was massive famine. We also saw this recently in Venezuela with the nationalization of the oil industry, the installation of party members and favorites as administrators, the looting of the enterprise to the point it collapsed in ruin.
Most of us like to think that we have something to offer to the conversation which is more than mere parroting of the ideas of others. Most of us see value in interaction with others because through civil dialogue we expand and refine our understanding, find out where our blind spots are, and both parties improve. Thus there is an obligation to permit others to speak freely, and also upon us to give fair consideration to what they say.
But when you run into someone who views the world as a vast dominance hierarchy, and you as a mouthpiece for such, they will not listen to what you say, since they are fighting that evil. They shut you down, they do not let you speak, they do not give you due consideration.
And when I look at all of this, I do not think the ends of destroying dominance hierarchies justifies the means of silencing free speech, not engaging in civil discourse, and not giving others fair consideration. When one adopts the latter, we erode society in a terrible way that operates against all, and worse paves the way for tyranny in the form of censorship from on high. In fact when one employs such tactics to undermine a dominance hierarchy, one establishes and even worse dominance hierarchy to replace it.
For us to make any progress on these issues, I suppose those who are presently engaged in the tactics must personally experience the downside of such tactics when it is directed at their own person. Only then can empathy drive a willingness to divorce oneself from such tactics. And I think the other way to undermine this behavior is to illustrate and educate that what they think is a dominance hierarchy is largely a competence hierarchy, and point out that such tactics are destructive when employed against merit based hierarchies.
Reciprocity and Propertarianism.
An excellent post, @Snydelee , thank you for sharing.
Unfortunately, my optimism is low. I once read an article about how the old âwalk a mile in my shoesâ form of empathy that many of us old timers grew up with is no longer holding sway, that folks more so now cling to empathy towards their âown tribeâ and are unwilling to consider empathy towards others outside their âtribeâ. 
Perhaps thatâs the only way, to subject their âtribeâ towards the same downside so that tribal empathy forces them to reconsider?
Brohawk- I am failing to understand the relevance of Propertarianism. I did have a fun little dive into though in response to your usage of the term. Thanks.
Falkenstein- I think another trend of our society for the worse is the de-emphasis of personal responsibility and accountability. Many incorrectly think that their present situation is insurmountable outside intervention by someone else, typically the politician who puts this idea into their head. I read through Frederick Douglassâs autobiography and it is evident to me that it is hard to conceive of a worse start than what he had, and yet he went so far. Desire for literacy as an avenue for liberty; physical escape at his own peril; advocating via speeches for emancipation at great personal risk; being reduced to brute animal existence for that year he was loaned out in which he describes his mental state as being brutal and savage from the experience; going on to found HBCUs and usher in black business. This man, with far greater hurdles than most even could conceive of today, overcame all and became someone we remember even now. Rather than look to men like Douglass for the avenue out, many scapegoat others for their problems and surrender to despair.
Policially scapegoating your situation on someone else is an easy sell. There is no face lost. You get something for very little effort on your own. You release some of that frustration on a target of your ire.
But to actually get out one must first acknowledge that my problems are mine and I am the one who should go about fixing them. Blindspots and faults need to be addressed, and those who are successful emulated rather than demonized and legally plundered. I just went through Ben Franklinâs autobiography, and it amazed me how he applied scientific method to improving virtue in himself. It takes humility and work to go this road, but it leads to great reward. Those who scapegoat never acknowledge they have any part in the problem, they deny their faults, they never learn from their mistakes, and worse rather than rise to become better humans, they savage others for what they think is their just due.
That is a big topic. Propertarianism is a political structure to ensure reciprocity. Reciprocity is basically âwin-winâ where both sides get something of equivalent fair value. How that all relates at least in my mind is that not everything of value is physical or even purchasable. Friendship for instance, or love, while I suppose you can buy either for a short time, is it really real? Or are you just placating yourself?
That said, when relationships breakdown it is usually because of a lack of âfair tradeâ, whether that is with a spouse, friend, family member or business. In some cases, it is just a lack of both parties communicating effectively their needs and wants, and in some, it is one or both parties doesnât want to treat the other party fairly. The OP while not really giving exacting details, to me it seemed that it was a case where one party wasnât being treated fairly, or maybe both since one side of the story doesnât usually turn out the same as the other.
So in the bigger picture, and in the smaller details, for me, reciprocity is a key element in any relationship. That is why I brought it up and why I thought it was pertinent to the discussion.