Speaking of Nails – a few months ago I asked my ex-barber where he got most of his ‘news’. He mentioned Piers Morgan. Now I walk past and politely smile. I’m not having anyone near me with a sharp instrument in their hands, who watches Piers Morgan.
"So while I’m sorry to be making these individuals who I respect into an example, I hope it will help us recognize that critiquing a behavior is different than disrespecting the person."
This is a huge problem, because people often bind their identity to their ideas and actions. I recognize that in myself, and in the past I've been very defensive when criticized. As I get older and go through more crap (aka life experience), I'm getting a bit less defensive and more willing to admit that I was wrong.
Well, you know that I think a person who changes their mind is the second most powerful force in the universe. Two people asking the same question, with more interest in getting the answer right than being right is the most powerful force. I'm glad we'll be that force in the coming year working on the caret system. I feel 2025 is going to be a year of collaboration.
And yes, I think we've been fooled into a superficial 'niceness' because we think it's the nature of people to fundamentally disagree. Competition and winning the debate have created a hierarchical view of discussion. That's why I say that we need to own our dogma--you need a principle that you're measuring your consistency against, not one person being right and one wrong.
All of these people think they believe that people are born equal (except maybe NN who thinks some choose to sell our souls before birth for an enhanced experience?) Yet their words are inconsistent with that belief. When I point out that inconsistency, they think I'm saying they're bad people--because they believe superiority is bad. If any of them were in a conversation with the people they're disparaging, politeness would take over and they'd treat them with respect.
What I'm doing is bringing to the surface the cognitive dissonance between what they think they believe and their words and behaviors. I'm not judging them for their superiority, I'm just showing how it exists in their words. So they either have to change their underlying belief, and acknowledge they think they're superior (which they think they think is bad), or see the superiority in their words as bad.
That goes to the core of their identity as a good person who thinks they believe in equality. I'm forcing them logically into a corner where they're either a bad person BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS, or they've been misled to think that superiority IS standing up for equality.
With Jenna, I feel certain she believes she's standing up for the ordinary peope by being pro-Trump. I'm certain my neighbors feel the same way when they're pro-Kamala. When Jenna shows off her necklace saying she's kind of a bitch, why is that a brag for her and an insult to me? To whom is she a bitch and how?
I would guess by saying insulting things about Kamala supporters, yes? Yet even when I challenge her ideas while stating that I adore her, that makes me the bad kind of bitch, not the good kind. It's a contradiction in her thinking that what's wrong for others to do to her is right for her to do to others. I'm just bringing that inner conflict to the surface and making it visible at the level of change.
“… a person who changes their mind is the second most powerful force in the universe’
I don’t have an opinion on this article – just taking things on board, as I knitcast, but I need to share this (again!)
“Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one's self-esteem. That is why young children, before they are aware of their own self-importance, learn so easily; and why older persons, especially if vain or important, cannot learn at all.”
- Thomas Szasz, author, professor of psychiatry (1920-2012)
What an excellent quote! From my observation, children learn easily, it dries up with the rise of peer pressure in middle school on, and I think we geriatrics have the greatest hope of regaining our flexibility of mind ;-) Especially if we've been practicing our splits (personality).
And speaking of splits, someone sent me to Piers Morgan's interview of Dan Bilzerian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KICYv4O03CA. At first I thought 'there are a number of people who'd have more facts at their fingertips' but as he went on, I was so impressed by how he held his views against every semantic trick that Piers threw at him.
I think it would be worth my time to do an analysis of Piers' rhetorical tricks. I noticed him using the same ones with the Lebanese comedian just after the false flag Hamas attack (like Pearl Harbor allowing it to happen). What a cheap diversion to come back with 'they weren't done on a single day.' I'm really happy this guy spoke out on Piers' platform.
I have hardly ever watched Piers Morgan other than in short clips. I really noticed his style and agenda in a panel discussion following the Darryl Cooper debacle. That's also where I learnt about that rabid zionist guy [Edit: Seth Dillon] behind The Babylon Bee (which I don't find funny anymore).
Meanwhile, here is Sir Oswald Mosley speaking out AGAINST war on Thames Television, 1975
• Sir Oswald Mosley | Interview | Oswald Mosley | Thames Television | 1975
I mentioned Ken O’Keefe on the BBC HARDTalk … See second interview from 24:48. Note the interviewer’s ‘style’ and Ken’s no-nonsense responses. I particularly like Ken’s responses from around 37:45
Remember the episode where I said I was claiming my power as a geriatric sex symbol? It's time to redefine these words. I have another draft on Coming Into My Cronage.
Yes, that interview was featured in a couple of places I visit and I had never heard of Dan ?Bolsario [sic Bilzerian]. I immediately thought of Piers Morgan (and Marco Rubio et al) when you talked about “selling their souls for fame”.
You will note that same ‘interviewing’ technique here by Mike Wallis (and several others than come to mind – such as on BBC HardTalk with Ken O’Keefe – and I recall one on the BBC with Sir Oswald Mosley …
• In 1976 Sha of Iran talks about how Jews Control America - Thor2022 [5:42]
"So they either have to change their underlying belief, and acknowledge they think they're superior (which they think they think is bad), or see the superiority in their words as bad."
Of course, they don't actually HAVE to change. Just pointing out the inconsistency as you see it is enough; they can choose to respond in any way that pleases them.
Thank you, Guy. I thought of you when I read a post by Katie Grace yesterday: https://revkatiegrace.substack.com/p/awakening-to-future-you. Her subtitle is "Claim your sovereignty by swapping "could" for "should," which seems right along the lines of what you've been saying. I would have told her about you also but only paid subs can comment.
The problem with these kind of exchanges (And I’m looking at you, ND) is that they are public and it’s almost impossible not to take criticism as a personal offense. Said one-on-one, challenged ideas are perceived as more of an expansion than as a shrinkage under a spotlight.
Well, I dunno, Tonika. I've never been successful (or rarely) challenging someone's ideas one-on-one. It seems like that's even more of a spotlight. But ND certainly brings out the worst in people, especially as the circle gets wider.
Yeah, social media interactions are shit for conveying “love the person, challenge the idea.” My experience is usually challenging ideas in person. In those cases, it’s much easier to express loving the person because my disagreements are often between people I already love and there’s prior context to our relationship. Although it is easier to express oneself through writing, at least for me and I imagine people have to practice patience as I try to convey what I mean verbally. Either way? Grateful to continue expanding my understanding of this little thing we call the human condition. I appreciate the experience you bring to the table.
Speaking of Nails – a few months ago I asked my ex-barber where he got most of his ‘news’. He mentioned Piers Morgan. Now I walk past and politely smile. I’m not having anyone near me with a sharp instrument in their hands, who watches Piers Morgan.
"So while I’m sorry to be making these individuals who I respect into an example, I hope it will help us recognize that critiquing a behavior is different than disrespecting the person."
This is a huge problem, because people often bind their identity to their ideas and actions. I recognize that in myself, and in the past I've been very defensive when criticized. As I get older and go through more crap (aka life experience), I'm getting a bit less defensive and more willing to admit that I was wrong.
Well, you know that I think a person who changes their mind is the second most powerful force in the universe. Two people asking the same question, with more interest in getting the answer right than being right is the most powerful force. I'm glad we'll be that force in the coming year working on the caret system. I feel 2025 is going to be a year of collaboration.
And yes, I think we've been fooled into a superficial 'niceness' because we think it's the nature of people to fundamentally disagree. Competition and winning the debate have created a hierarchical view of discussion. That's why I say that we need to own our dogma--you need a principle that you're measuring your consistency against, not one person being right and one wrong.
All of these people think they believe that people are born equal (except maybe NN who thinks some choose to sell our souls before birth for an enhanced experience?) Yet their words are inconsistent with that belief. When I point out that inconsistency, they think I'm saying they're bad people--because they believe superiority is bad. If any of them were in a conversation with the people they're disparaging, politeness would take over and they'd treat them with respect.
What I'm doing is bringing to the surface the cognitive dissonance between what they think they believe and their words and behaviors. I'm not judging them for their superiority, I'm just showing how it exists in their words. So they either have to change their underlying belief, and acknowledge they think they're superior (which they think they think is bad), or see the superiority in their words as bad.
That goes to the core of their identity as a good person who thinks they believe in equality. I'm forcing them logically into a corner where they're either a bad person BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS, or they've been misled to think that superiority IS standing up for equality.
With Jenna, I feel certain she believes she's standing up for the ordinary peope by being pro-Trump. I'm certain my neighbors feel the same way when they're pro-Kamala. When Jenna shows off her necklace saying she's kind of a bitch, why is that a brag for her and an insult to me? To whom is she a bitch and how?
I would guess by saying insulting things about Kamala supporters, yes? Yet even when I challenge her ideas while stating that I adore her, that makes me the bad kind of bitch, not the good kind. It's a contradiction in her thinking that what's wrong for others to do to her is right for her to do to others. I'm just bringing that inner conflict to the surface and making it visible at the level of change.
“… a person who changes their mind is the second most powerful force in the universe’
I don’t have an opinion on this article – just taking things on board, as I knitcast, but I need to share this (again!)
“Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one's self-esteem. That is why young children, before they are aware of their own self-importance, learn so easily; and why older persons, especially if vain or important, cannot learn at all.”
- Thomas Szasz, author, professor of psychiatry (1920-2012)
What an excellent quote! From my observation, children learn easily, it dries up with the rise of peer pressure in middle school on, and I think we geriatrics have the greatest hope of regaining our flexibility of mind ;-) Especially if we've been practicing our splits (personality).
And speaking of splits, someone sent me to Piers Morgan's interview of Dan Bilzerian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KICYv4O03CA. At first I thought 'there are a number of people who'd have more facts at their fingertips' but as he went on, I was so impressed by how he held his views against every semantic trick that Piers threw at him.
When Piers Morgan chortled - when did Israel ever kill 1200 ?civilians' in one day? I was hoping Dan would respond - "September 11, 2001"
Oh excellent retort!
The top three comments on Piers Morgan’s own channel …
@raphmcafee
• Before it got removed the top comment stated "They will call you an 'anti-semite' but never a liar"
35 replies
@deesee6009
• 38K comments ... still can't find ONE that agrees with Piers!
11 replies
@WillRfpt
• The fact piers Morgan’s response to the list of Israel’s terrorist attacks is ‘well they weren’t done on a single day’ is mind blowing
98 replies
I think it would be worth my time to do an analysis of Piers' rhetorical tricks. I noticed him using the same ones with the Lebanese comedian just after the false flag Hamas attack (like Pearl Harbor allowing it to happen). What a cheap diversion to come back with 'they weren't done on a single day.' I'm really happy this guy spoke out on Piers' platform.
I have hardly ever watched Piers Morgan other than in short clips. I really noticed his style and agenda in a panel discussion following the Darryl Cooper debacle. That's also where I learnt about that rabid zionist guy [Edit: Seth Dillon] behind The Babylon Bee (which I don't find funny anymore).
Meanwhile, here is Sir Oswald Mosley speaking out AGAINST war on Thames Television, 1975
• Sir Oswald Mosley | Interview | Oswald Mosley | Thames Television | 1975
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNhF28fzN9I
I mentioned Ken O’Keefe on the BBC HARDTalk … See second interview from 24:48. Note the interviewer’s ‘style’ and Ken’s no-nonsense responses. I particularly like Ken’s responses from around 37:45
https://youtu.be/KKm5Ou8O_no?t=2265
Oh dear …
“What age is geriatric in Australia?
aged 65 and older
A geriatrician is a specialist doctor who is an expert in the health of older people (those aged 65 and older).”
Damn!!
Remember the episode where I said I was claiming my power as a geriatric sex symbol? It's time to redefine these words. I have another draft on Coming Into My Cronage.
Yes, that interview was featured in a couple of places I visit and I had never heard of Dan ?Bolsario [sic Bilzerian]. I immediately thought of Piers Morgan (and Marco Rubio et al) when you talked about “selling their souls for fame”.
You will note that same ‘interviewing’ technique here by Mike Wallis (and several others than come to mind – such as on BBC HardTalk with Ken O’Keefe – and I recall one on the BBC with Sir Oswald Mosley …
• In 1976 Sha of Iran talks about how Jews Control America - Thor2022 [5:42]
https://odysee.com/@Thor2022:d/1976-Shah-of-Iran-Interview:9
Piers Morgan was particularly pathetic – when his lies don’t work he resorts to insults – and all for money and fame.
"So they either have to change their underlying belief, and acknowledge they think they're superior (which they think they think is bad), or see the superiority in their words as bad."
Of course, they don't actually HAVE to change. Just pointing out the inconsistency as you see it is enough; they can choose to respond in any way that pleases them.
Of course. The obvious alternative is lashing out at me. That seems to please them.
It tends to be a thankless job, what you do so well...
hola, tereza.
i found how you presented banality very interesting. it brought some different and new insights to me that i hadn't thought of in that way before.
all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and exuberant joy.
🙏❤️🧘♂️☯️🧘♂️❤️🙏
Thank you, Guy. I thought of you when I read a post by Katie Grace yesterday: https://revkatiegrace.substack.com/p/awakening-to-future-you. Her subtitle is "Claim your sovereignty by swapping "could" for "should," which seems right along the lines of what you've been saying. I would have told her about you also but only paid subs can comment.
hola.
i took a look and yes. she seems to have come to the same basic understanding. i left her a chat message because i wasn't able to comment.
🙏❤️🧘♂️☯️🧘♂️❤️🙏
The problem with these kind of exchanges (And I’m looking at you, ND) is that they are public and it’s almost impossible not to take criticism as a personal offense. Said one-on-one, challenged ideas are perceived as more of an expansion than as a shrinkage under a spotlight.
Well, I dunno, Tonika. I've never been successful (or rarely) challenging someone's ideas one-on-one. It seems like that's even more of a spotlight. But ND certainly brings out the worst in people, especially as the circle gets wider.
Yeah, social media interactions are shit for conveying “love the person, challenge the idea.” My experience is usually challenging ideas in person. In those cases, it’s much easier to express loving the person because my disagreements are often between people I already love and there’s prior context to our relationship. Although it is easier to express oneself through writing, at least for me and I imagine people have to practice patience as I try to convey what I mean verbally. Either way? Grateful to continue expanding my understanding of this little thing we call the human condition. I appreciate the experience you bring to the table.