Mad at everything?

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Mad at everything?

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

Seems as though everyone has thin skin these days and become (seemingly) happily mad at the drop of a hat: post something on a public forum, don't cry when someone else disagrees; make an opinion don't get mad when someone voices the opposite view; make a factual claim without supporting evidence, be prepared to be challenged; claiming the sky is dark blue when someone else things it's light blue; and on and on. I've even seen people mad at David Beckham for the way his kissed his own child in a photo - people calling him all sorts of things.

It's gotten so bad, many places are hindering what can be said or posted, what words can't be used...even 'tone' can be taken into account (strange as toned can't be determined by mere words), with admins somehow 'knowing' what the poster 'meant' of 'inferred'.

Take, for instance, the below, that came to my feed today:
https://neurosciencenews.com/religion-a ... ence-8391/
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/01/26/ar ... -atheists/

Even with the noted caveats in the articles, people got upset. Why? Surely there are people who are smarter than other people on the planet, no? Or is everyone on the same level with it comes to such things?

For discussion:
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, as they say. If you know you'll get upset at the color of the sky, why get online at all?
What is behind the seemingly never ending parade of angry, upset people?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Mad at everything?

Post #11

Post by William »

[Replying to nobspeople in post #10]
But as you bring up theist/non-theist, I do tend to see more complaining (mad?) theists than not. At least on here. I haven't thought of that much lately, really (maybe it's happened so much it's become background noise...?). But it is something to consider, perhaps.
It does not appear - from a non-bias position - that theists are more angry than non-theists .

Humans are humans and there is a history of violent furious reaction to the situation we are in.
Because we are effectively trapped in our individuate states, yet nature Herself makes it that we cannot survive independently of each other, this apparent contradiction feeds those fires of discontentment.

What we have learned so far from the experience, is that we can accommodate some semblance of calm by 'finding our individual place' among the "like-minded" which allows a respite of sorts where we can get about whatever purpose we have tasked for our self - but I think by and large the anger still bubbles away under the surface...because we haven't figured any way in which to gather the groups together...and so all we are left with, is gathering the troops together...

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Mad at everything?

Post #12

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to William in post #11]
It does not appear - from a non-bias position - that theists are more angry than non-theists .
To clarify, that's not what I said:
"I do tend to see more complaining (mad?) theists than not. At least on here." is exactly what I said, not what you replied to. Exactly.
Nor did I say or infer that the believers 'on here' succinctly and accurately portray ALL believers that ever existed. Just to be clear.
To me, it does seem, at least on here, believers do more complaining.
And there is no 'non-bias positions' within humanity (unless humanity includes robots programed without bias as 'humans') that I've ever, EVER, been able to see (no matter how much one may like to think they're special and 'non-bias').
It is what it is.
Maybe, you should have said "To me, it does not appear - from a non-bias position - that theists are more angry than non-theists"...? That would have been accurate, if accuracy is what you're trying to get at I suppose. If not...?
Humans are humans and there is a history of violent furious reaction to the situation we are in.
LOL yeah. People are people. Apples are apples. Horses are horses. That goes without saying. Yet, there is also a history of positive, good reactions to many situations (among people - not sure about apples). Let's be clear about that.
Because we are effectively trapped in our individuate states, yet nature Herself makes it that we cannot survive independently of each other, this apparent contradiction feeds those fires of discontentment.
I find a few things 'wrong' and or 'needs expounding' with this.
Who says we're trapped in any state? And what state is that? Can not a state vary from individual to individual, from time to time? Without identifying to what 'state' this ambiguous states refers, it's open for interpretation.
And who says we can't survive independently? And what does 'survive' mean, exactly, as used here? True, humanity can't 'survive' (continue as a species) with the individual, but isn't there more to 'surviving' than that? I would hope so!
I also don't see any contradiction in the obscure statement you provided here. But let's move on past that, as to remain on scope.
What we have learned so far from the experience, is that we can accommodate some semblance of calm by 'finding our individual place' among the "like-minded" which allows a respite of sorts where we can get about whatever purpose we have tasked for our self - but I think by and large the anger still bubbles away under the surface...because we haven't figured any way in which to gather the groups together...and so all we are left with, is gathering the troops together...
One would think. Yet, among these 'like-minded', we oft seem discourse - some petty some not so petty. So yes, it seems 'anger bubbles under the surface', as you say. But why, if we're with 'like minded' folk?

I wonder, if this 'being mad' (across the species, not limited to one group or another - just to be clear) has always been or if social media has made it more apparent?
Or maybe, this 'being mad' is made more allowable by social media? These angry people 'get off' by making others angry and or spouting their anger for more to see?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Mad at everything?

Post #13

Post by William »

[Replying to nobspeople in post #12]

To clarify, that's not what I said:
"I do tend to see more complaining (mad?) theists than not. At least on here." is exactly what I said, not what you replied to. Exactly.
Nor did I say or infer that the believers 'on here' succinctly and accurately portray ALL believers that ever existed. Just to be clear.
To me, it does seem, at least on here, believers do more complaining.
Be that as it may, my reply was that I see an equal balance of anger rather than it being a case of more theists hereabouts displaying anger.
It is no different 'here' than anywhere else.
And there is no 'non-bias positions' within humanity (unless humanity includes robots programed without bias as 'humans') that I've ever, EVER, been able to see (no matter how much one may like to think they're special and 'non-bias').
To be clear, one can train oneself to handle 'things' the way "robots programed without bias as 'humans'" might handle things - and like all training programs, this takes time and effort on the part of the individuate mind to accept such programing and externalize the effects of such programming.

You seem to be implying that being 'human' prohibits this from being able to make happen.
It is what it is.
And - in that - it is able to become what it currently isn't.
Maybe, you should have said "To me, it does not appear - from a non-bias position - that theists are more angry than non-theists"...? That would have been accurate, if accuracy is what you're trying to get at I suppose. If not...?
Perhaps I should have, in relation to getting to know how you think...I assumed that you would know about the possible reality of the non-bias position...
LOL yeah. People are people. Apples are apples. Horses are horses. That goes without saying. Yet, there is also a history of positive, good reactions to many situations (among people - not sure about apples). Let's be clear about that.
Preaching to the choir - lets be clear about that.
I find a few things 'wrong' and or 'needs expounding' with this.
Who says we're trapped in any state?
Did you not imply it with the message "there is no 'non-bias positions' within humanity"?
Can not a state vary from individual to individual, from time to time? Without identifying to what 'state' this ambiguous states refers, it's open for interpretation.
This is what I have been saying. Nature says that we are currently trapped. The mind can make any prison acceptable. By either ignoring it [as a trap] or by accepting it and moving freely within it.
And who says we can't survive independently?
Nature Does.

The evidence speaks for itself on that matter of fact.

Do you have any examples which you think prove otherwise?
And who says we can't survive independently? And what does 'survive' mean, exactly, as used here? True, humanity can't 'survive' (continue as a species) with the individual, but isn't there more to 'surviving' than that? I would hope so!
You hope so? Wouldn't you rather know so?

Scientists are currently working on ways to ensure some vestige of humanity survives - in particular, the usefully intelligent among us. That work is not based in 'hope' but in practical application.

Even so, it is a group effort because Nature forces it to be so. We cannot survive independently from what Nature dictates.
I also don't see any contradiction in the obscure statement you provided here. But let's move on past that, as to remain on scope.
Placing something pertinent to one side is unwise. Best to at least attempt to be on the same page.
The apparent contradiction is that we see things through the lens of our individuate subjective experience but cannot survive as said individual without incorporating the assistance of others who are also having individuate subjective experiences, - all within an environment which dictates that survival = recognizing our interdependency - so are forced by that, to deal with the contradiction by seeking out the like-minded in order that we will survive longer than we could others survive.
One would think. Yet, among these 'like-minded', we oft seem discourse - some petty some not so petty. So yes, it seems 'anger bubbles under the surface', as you say. But why, if we're with 'like minded' folk?
We do not fire shots at the forts of the like-minded but at the thoughts of the non-like-minded.
Underlying this process is the energy translated into "anger" and pointed toward the external reality we are [temporarily] trapped within.
I wonder, if this 'being mad' (across the species, not limited to one group or another - just to be clear) has always been or if social media has made it more apparent?
Why not just cut to the chase and source the anger with the universe for existing and trapping us within it?

Social media acts as a mirror to current collective mind-trends. It shifts as we shift. What is hard to accept today may be easy to accept tomorrow.

The things is - why do we be mad with each other - take out our shared predicament on one another [on different groups] and how can we transform the anger-energy into something more productive re our overall shared reality experience?

What is standing in the way of us achieving that?

The universe? Nope.

The planet? Nope.

Something as yet not well defined? Perhaps.
Or maybe, this 'being mad' is made more allowable by social media? These angry people 'get off' by making others angry and or spouting their anger for more to see?
There is that element for sure, but as I wrote, it is evident in most fort-positions - theist and non-theists are equally angry at each others positions but there is another position which is really neither or perhaps better described as a mix of the 'good' parts of both...I am still contemplating what 'it' is as I am getting to know "it".

For example: [LINK] = a conversation I am having which is directly related to this conversation we are having.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Mad at everything?

Post #14

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to William in post #13]
I see an equal balance of anger rather than it being a case of more theists hereabouts displaying anger.
It is no different 'here' than anywhere else.
Which makes more sense when it's worded this way. Ain't it neat how people can have different views on the same thing?
To be clear, one can train oneself to handle 'things' the way "robots programed without bias as 'humans'" might handle things - and like all training programs, this takes time and effort on the part of the individuate mind to accept such programing and externalize the effects of such programming.
I can't say I agree with this in any way. But to each their own.
You seem to be implying that being 'human' prohibits this from being able to make happen.
Absolutely, if 'this' mean total unbiasedness. But that's not what this thread is about. Perhaps this is better served in a new thread?
And - in that - it is able to become what it currently isn't.
Only if what it becomes allows for variances within the human condition (ie not perfectly one way or the other as humans aren't perfect).
Perhaps I should have
Yes you should have
I assumed that you would know about the possible reality of the non-bias position
Assuming is dangerous - I thought you would know that. But no matter; I've stated my opinion on biasness already. No need to rehash it as this thread isn't about that.
Did you not imply it (trapped state?) with the message "there is no 'non-bias positions' within humanity"?
This doesn't address the 'who' of which I spoke.
This is what I have been saying.
Well great!
Nature Does.
The evidence speaks for itself on that matter of fact.
Do you have any examples which you think prove otherwise?
Again, you didn't address what you mean, specifically, about 'surviving. People have 'survived' (meaning living alone) before. People don't 'need' each other to survive individually. But, if you're speaking about 'a species surviving' (continue with the species), that's different. You're 'survive' as you used it is ambiguous at best.
You hope so? Wouldn't you rather know so?
Absolutely. But people can't know everything. Not even you. :(
Scientists are currently working on ways to ensure some vestige of humanity survives
Ah NOW you specify! Well done. I don't believe the human race will endure forever, but that's a different topic best not addressed in this thread.
We cannot survive independently from what Nature dictates.
Nature doesn't guarantees nothing, including survival.
Why not just cut to the chase and source the anger with the universe for existing and trapping us within it?
Go for it!
theist and non-theists/quote] Again, 'being mad at each other' isn't only about these groups. Being mad surpasses all human constructed groupings and, it seems, stems from internal. Which is the same amongst humanity no matter their assigned group.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Mad at everything?

Post #15

Post by William »

[Replying to nobspeople in post #14]
Did you not imply it (trapped state?) with the message "there is no 'non-bias positions' within humanity"?
This doesn't address the 'who' of which I spoke.
So essentially the thread topic isn't about things which might relate to the cause of human anger, even that the question asked was "What is behind the seemingly never ending parade of angry, upset people?"

I see.

[William leaves the room, quietly shutting the door behind him so's not to upset anyone...]

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Mad at everything?

Post #16

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to William in post #15]
So essentially the thread topic isn't about things which might relate to the cause of human anger, even that the question asked was "What is behind the seemingly never ending parade of angry, upset people?"

I see.

Not even a nice try - come on. :lol:
You mentioned the 'who'. I asked who this 'who' was as asked here: "Who says we're trapped in any state?". No where - NO WHERE - did I make the claim of being 'trapped'. You're the one that made that claim and no amount of clever 'william-word-twisting' can change that. Thus, your response didn't answer that but went on to pontificate another one of your points'.
So no, you do see. And I skipped your baiting attempt.
[William leaves the room, quietly shutting the door behind him so's not to upset anyone...]
That won't upset anyone.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

Post Reply