Top | Newest First | Oldest First
TinyViolins · 31-35, M
In general, probably. If you don't learn to fight back, you're going to take a lot more Ls than you need to. It doesn't necessarily have to be physical harm either.
But there's an important distinction between being assertive and being aggressive that I think people need to really delineate. You can stand up for yourself without attacking or harming another. Let them know where they wronged you and there's a chance they will realize their mistake. I find that more often than not, people aren't really out to harm you as much as they're just stupid and ignorant and fail to realize the error of their ways.
You can remedy a fair amount of conflict by simply talking it through. You don't have to immediately go to war. That said, a quote I tend to live my life by is 'si vis pacem, para bellum'. Some people can't be reasoned with
But there's an important distinction between being assertive and being aggressive that I think people need to really delineate. You can stand up for yourself without attacking or harming another. Let them know where they wronged you and there's a chance they will realize their mistake. I find that more often than not, people aren't really out to harm you as much as they're just stupid and ignorant and fail to realize the error of their ways.
You can remedy a fair amount of conflict by simply talking it through. You don't have to immediately go to war. That said, a quote I tend to live my life by is 'si vis pacem, para bellum'. Some people can't be reasoned with
BlueVeins · 22-25
Depends on the circumstances, but broadly yes. It's obviously possible to do more than be a victim of circumstance w/o a willingness to hurt someone in some cases (i.e. a scientist who goes around discovering cool shit). But violence is, of course, appropriate in others, and yeah it can do that.
ElwoodBlues · M
Disagree. Underlying this claim is a view of life as a zero sum game, meaning I can only win to the extent that other people lose.
But life is NOT a zero sum game. There are plenty of lose-lose interactions, from bar fights where both parties get injured to wars where both nations weaken themselves and become prey to other nations.
And offsetting those lose-lose interactions there are plenty of win-win interactions, where people make agreements, alliances, treaties, and end up better off than they would without the other party.
The secret of success is to avoid lose-lose interactions and maximize win-win interactions. Viewing life as a zero sum game is a way to blind yourself to the possibility of both lose-lose and win-win.
But life is NOT a zero sum game. There are plenty of lose-lose interactions, from bar fights where both parties get injured to wars where both nations weaken themselves and become prey to other nations.
And offsetting those lose-lose interactions there are plenty of win-win interactions, where people make agreements, alliances, treaties, and end up better off than they would without the other party.
The secret of success is to avoid lose-lose interactions and maximize win-win interactions. Viewing life as a zero sum game is a way to blind yourself to the possibility of both lose-lose and win-win.
Eternity · 26-30, M
@ElwoodBlues i feel like life is indeed a zero sum game. There is no purity; no absolute good and no absolute bad.
Even in that win win scenario you described, it may be a win win to you and to others involved but if you dig deep enough eventually you will find someone effected by that deal that would have been better off if said deal hadn't happened at all.
I feel like a lot of good hearted people get so obsessed with the idea of being good for goodness' sake that they basically turn themselves into eunuchs. So scared to move for fear of stepping on an ant that they never get anywhere
Even in that win win scenario you described, it may be a win win to you and to others involved but if you dig deep enough eventually you will find someone effected by that deal that would have been better off if said deal hadn't happened at all.
I feel like a lot of good hearted people get so obsessed with the idea of being good for goodness' sake that they basically turn themselves into eunuchs. So scared to move for fear of stepping on an ant that they never get anywhere
ElwoodBlues · M
@Eternity
If life were a true zero sum game, there would be no lose-lose scenarios either. And we know lose-lose scenarios are part of life. After WWI most of the nations of Europe were decimated; many families had lost loved ones; most workforces had lost a big cohort of productive members.
And although noncombatant countries and less involved countries like the US ended up somewhat better off, our gains did NOT in any way match the losses of 20 million deaths and 21 million injured.
WWII was an even bigger lose-lose, with more than double the deaths and all the bombed out cities, factories, infrastructure, etc.
Since lose-lose scenarios exist, life is not zero sum.
Now back to win-win for a moment. The invention of electricity generation and transmission was a win for most of humanity. It paved the way for labor saving devices better safety thru outdoor lighting, rapid communication, all kinds of stuff.
So where's the win-win? Imagine if it had been invented 100 years earlier - five more generations of people could have reaped the benefits of less drudgery etc etc. The invention of electricity was a big win-win, and inventing it earlier would have been a bigger win-win.
Both lose-lose and win-win scenarios exist in life; avoid the former and seek the latter.
Even in that win win scenario you described, it may be a win win to you and to others involved but if you dig deep enough eventually you will find someone effected by that deal that would have been better off if said deal hadn't happened at all.
But would that third party be so badly affected that they would lose as much as you and your ally win? Zero sum is pretty strict.If life were a true zero sum game, there would be no lose-lose scenarios either. And we know lose-lose scenarios are part of life. After WWI most of the nations of Europe were decimated; many families had lost loved ones; most workforces had lost a big cohort of productive members.
There were 20 million deaths and 21 million wounded. The total number of deaths includes 9.7 million military personnel and about 10 million civilians. The Entente Powers (also known as the Allies) lost about 5.7 million soldiers while the Central Powers lost about 4 million.
And although noncombatant countries and less involved countries like the US ended up somewhat better off, our gains did NOT in any way match the losses of 20 million deaths and 21 million injured.
WWII was an even bigger lose-lose, with more than double the deaths and all the bombed out cities, factories, infrastructure, etc.
Since lose-lose scenarios exist, life is not zero sum.
Now back to win-win for a moment. The invention of electricity generation and transmission was a win for most of humanity. It paved the way for labor saving devices better safety thru outdoor lighting, rapid communication, all kinds of stuff.
So where's the win-win? Imagine if it had been invented 100 years earlier - five more generations of people could have reaped the benefits of less drudgery etc etc. The invention of electricity was a big win-win, and inventing it earlier would have been a bigger win-win.
Both lose-lose and win-win scenarios exist in life; avoid the former and seek the latter.
Eternity · 26-30, M
@ElwoodBlues
That is kind of irrelevant, who is fit to judge whose stake is more or less important? It's all relative. Im sure it would matter a great deal more to that person than it would to you and yours.
Little difference to the world, "world of difference to the one" and all that.
I mean yes the human toll of ww1 was immense but big import/export businesses are still spending money they made in ww1 to this very day.
And as for electricity generation...global warming. Enough said.
You could list scenarios that are supposedly pure win or pure lose and i could point out the dirt floating in the water every time. It isn't hard. I could do it all day (but i really really dont wanna).
To me, life is indeed a zero sum game. You can choose an altruistic goal if you want and work toward it but ultimately you are doing it to pass the time because for every person you help you are stepping on another's toes.
And in order to help your chosen, you must be willing to step on those toes. Or at least able to rationalize it in such a way that it will seem like, to you, that you arent stepping on toes even though the reality is that you are...which is what most people do.
But would that third party be so badly affected that they would lose as much as you and your ally win? Zero sum is pretty strict.
That is kind of irrelevant, who is fit to judge whose stake is more or less important? It's all relative. Im sure it would matter a great deal more to that person than it would to you and yours.
Little difference to the world, "world of difference to the one" and all that.
I mean yes the human toll of ww1 was immense but big import/export businesses are still spending money they made in ww1 to this very day.
And as for electricity generation...global warming. Enough said.
You could list scenarios that are supposedly pure win or pure lose and i could point out the dirt floating in the water every time. It isn't hard. I could do it all day (but i really really dont wanna).
To me, life is indeed a zero sum game. You can choose an altruistic goal if you want and work toward it but ultimately you are doing it to pass the time because for every person you help you are stepping on another's toes.
And in order to help your chosen, you must be willing to step on those toes. Or at least able to rationalize it in such a way that it will seem like, to you, that you arent stepping on toes even though the reality is that you are...which is what most people do.
Mamapolo2016 · F
Eternity · 26-30, M
@Mamapolo2016 either 🤷🏽♂️. I'm being very general. A better way to phrase it would be: do you think someone can live a full life being as meek as a lamb 100% of the time?
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M