Message Boards Message Boards

The DhO Itself

Enough Drama

Toggle
Enough Drama Florian 9/23/14 1:41 PM
RE: Enough Drama Nikolai . 9/23/14 4:36 PM
RE: Enough Drama katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 9/25/14 7:16 AM
RE: Enough Drama C P M 9/25/14 1:48 PM
RE: Enough Drama M C 9/23/14 6:26 PM
RE: Enough Drama ftw 9/25/14 7:14 AM
RE: Enough Drama Derek 9/25/14 1:50 PM
RE: Enough Drama Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/25/14 2:42 PM
RE: Enough Drama Jenny 9/26/14 1:30 AM
RE: Enough Drama ftw 9/26/14 2:23 AM
RE: Enough Drama Nikolai . 9/26/14 3:52 AM
RE: Enough Drama Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/26/14 11:22 AM
RE: Enough Drama . Jake . 9/26/14 12:49 PM
RE: Enough Drama Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/26/14 1:04 PM
RE: Enough Drama . Jake . 9/26/14 1:22 PM
RE: Enough Drama Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/26/14 1:38 PM
RE: Enough Drama Laurel Carrington 9/26/14 1:44 PM
RE: Enough Drama Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 9/26/14 1:56 PM
RE: Enough Drama J J 9/26/14 3:05 PM
RE: Enough Drama . Jake . 9/28/14 7:38 PM
RE: Enough Drama Jenny 10/8/14 7:28 PM
RE: Enough Drama Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 10/8/14 9:00 PM
RE: Enough Drama Jenny 10/9/14 3:26 AM
RE: Enough Drama Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 10/9/14 2:07 PM
RE: Enough Drama CJMacie 10/12/14 7:20 AM
RE: Enough Drama katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 10/12/14 8:42 AM
RE: Enough Drama Psi 10/12/14 4:39 PM
RE: Enough Drama katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 10/12/14 7:51 PM
RE: Enough Drama Psi 10/12/14 8:38 PM
RE: Enough Drama Psi 10/12/14 8:41 PM
RE: Enough Drama M C 10/9/14 2:24 AM
RE: Enough Drama Jenny 10/9/14 3:36 AM
RE: Enough Drama M C 10/9/14 5:39 AM
RE: Enough Drama Jenny 10/9/14 4:02 AM
RE: Enough Drama Florian 10/9/14 5:21 AM
RE: Enough Drama Dada Kind 9/26/14 2:18 PM
RE: Enough Drama ftw 9/26/14 3:13 PM
RE: Enough Drama Laurel Carrington 9/26/14 1:13 PM
RE: Enough Drama . Jake . 9/26/14 1:28 PM
RE: Enough Drama Florian 9/26/14 8:34 AM
RE: Enough Drama sawfoot _ 9/25/14 12:49 PM
RE: Enough Drama katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 9/25/14 1:12 PM
RE: Enough Drama katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 9/25/14 1:33 PM
RE: Enough Drama Jenny 9/26/14 1:40 AM
RE: Enough Drama Not Tao 9/25/14 7:27 PM
RE: Enough Drama CJMacie 10/9/14 6:09 AM
RE: Enough Drama Florian 10/9/14 6:41 AM
RE: Enough Drama CJMacie 10/9/14 7:06 AM
RE: Enough Drama Laurel Carrington 10/9/14 10:36 AM
RE: Enough Drama katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 10/9/14 4:41 PM
RE: Enough Drama CJMacie 10/12/14 1:32 AM
RE: Enough Drama katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 10/12/14 6:18 AM
Enough Drama
Answer
9/23/14 1:41 PM
Ok, the past few days saw a couple of drama eruptions here, among many fine discussions being held.

Please, if anyone still has the urge to vent about their problems with self-confident women, they can do so on one of the many fine forums run my MRAs.

If anyone has fundamental problems with the existence of moderators, reddit offers almost endless alternatives.

If anyone can't meditate because there are some mystics and occultists and fairy-seeing hippies in the world whose views they have to correct first, please by any means get that out of your system, the secular humanists and related groups do amazing work fighting modern day snake-oil salesmen and charlatans exploiting the hopes of the terminally ill and their families, fight for the (continued) separation of curch and sate, and many other worthy social causes.

If you wish to discuss your adventures in meditation and other forms of mind training, and want more of that, please lead by example, and continue to contribute here on the DhO.

In other words, let's tone down the drama.

Cheers,
Florian (no mod hat, appealing to internet common sense and general goodwill and courtesy)

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/23/14 4:36 PM as a reply to Florian.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/23/14 6:26 PM as a reply to Florian.
if anyone still has the urge to vent about their problems with self-confident women, they can do so on one of the many fine forums run my MRAs.

Why would you go there? I agree, let's leave all of that alone.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/25/14 7:16 AM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Thanks for the thread, Florian.

So I want to say two things from the "lurker mod" pespective that I have:

1) I like that DharmaOverground has not been heavily moderated. As far as I can tell there's still a lot of anger and frustration at this time in the world so I like that DhO is a place for people are frustrated, angry, even what seems to be fantastically delussional-- I like that a huge range can practice here. People get a change to run out their "oats", so to speak, to sort of pour out what their minds want to do in a pretty non-harm way: posting. 

(I know, I know, posting can be harmful

In my head there is a wet-wood to dry wood gamut here. For people who want to spark up and just burn off mental argumentation and rigtheous views, they will bump-threads and ignite for some times-- a hot burning thread. For people who are currently "wet wood"-- they are not provoked by these things: akupam mi vimutti is the (mispelled) Pali: "unprovoked is my release".

Neither can be fabricated: If a person has sparks to ignite they can't help but deal with that biting-outgoing frustration. And if a peron is more "wet wood" they are going to need a major fuel to get them to fight or use affrontive-approach or they simply may no longer be ignitable. The wet wood mind has just found other ways to work out the source of their mental frustration in a non-combat way. Having the chance to combat-verbally spar is a great way to naturally move to non-combat because one can learn the limits and effects of verbal combat/affront in their own life experience: To what extent is combat gratifying and when does it cease being gratifying and become self-punitive or contrary to own well-being?

Maybe combat feels gratifying for some people all their life. That's okay. I think Christopher Higgins was famous for his verbal fight. Totally fine, he could always be a spark with someone else who needed to fight. Same goes here in this place: maybe some people have a life of this. Sometimes that's really useful to the benefit of whole communities.

I have been in both mental roles here on the DhO: I started as dry wood with trigger topics (which still exist). And for the moment, there's a lot of hot topic material that I feel people are testing on each other in "hot threads", extending something that occurs regularly in the world and that irritates their minds and they get an opportunity to burn it off the frustration of this with one other person they find here is equally happy to burn off their frustration at them, too.

This part of the site reminds of Tibetan's deliberate practice of debate: they know that argumentation, anger and debate are going to happen in people's minds, so they make it part of the training: finger pointing, shouting, hand slapping rhetorical emphasis. 

2) For people who've been here longer than I and moderating, I hope you will be careful about double-standards based on old ties and friendships. To me it was clear that Nathan (triple think) was able to make some very aggressive comments without rapproach and sawfoot_ was not afforded the same wide birth. I enjoy reading both of their practices; they sort of ignited together a bit in the last year, but it's okay. That said, I would like violent-plans-against-someone comments to be checked.  As a lurker mod, if someone makes a blatant threat to you, please point me to the thread if you think a moderator or moderation confab will help.


I appreciate the site and that it was founded by Daniel in the first place. It clearly fills a needed niche akin to venting hard mental stuff.

Thank you.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/25/14 7:14 AM as a reply to Florian.
Florian Weps:

Please, if anyone still has the urge to vent about their problems with self-confident women, they can do so on one of the many fine forums run my MRAs.



Is that how you percecived these events or is this some kind of test/provocation?
I don't understand why else would you open a new thread relating to a subject in the topic that _you_ closed?
Are you just bored or do you want drama?

emoticon

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/25/14 12:49 PM as a reply to Florian.
Florian Weps:
Ok, the past few days saw a couple of drama eruptions here, among many fine discussions being held.

Belittling of others, and belitting of others by way of contrast.

Please, if anyone still has the urge to vent about their problems with self-confident women, they can do so on one of the many fine forums run my MRAs.

Designed to provoke and offend and cause more drama (e.g. see other some responses to the OP).

If anyone has fundamental problems with the existence of moderators, reddit offers almost endless alternatives.

Belittling again. Inability to realise fundamental problem is not with their existence, but their behaviour, and in provoking drama in non-meditation related posts e.g. see the OP, and post by OP which led to recent drama. 

If anyone can't meditate because there are some mystics and occultists and fairy-seeing hippies in the world whose views they have to correct first, please by any means get that out of your system, the secular humanists and related groups do amazing work fighting modern day snake-oil salesmen and charlatans exploiting the hopes of the terminally ill and their families, fight for the (continued) separation of curch and sate, and many other worthy social causes.

Belittling and sanctimonius dig at me (though am honoured to get the biggest bit)

If you wish to discuss your adventures in meditation and other forms of mind training, and want more of that, please lead by example, and continue to contribute here on the DhO.

Drama provoking thread not example leading. Use of the DhO "brave fellow adventures" meme. Tacit threat perhaps. No discussion of meditation and other forms of mind training by poster. 

In other words, let's tone down the drama.

Patronising, belittling again. 

Cheers,
Florian (no mod hat, appealing to internet common sense and general goodwill and courtesy)

Has obvious mod hat on, goodwill and courtesy absent, as highlighted above. Common sense would be not to start threads like this. Behaviour inconsistent with stated goals.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/25/14 1:12 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
Hi SF, 

I am glad Florian opened it. I wanted to reply to some of the verbal combat stuff, but don't have time to read the entire threads in which some heat is happening. 


So, for me, if DhO is akin to a garden, I hope it mainly grows attracts meditative and contemplative practicioners. 

I find several people like myself had started practicing here with rough edges, confronationalism, over-the-edge debate.. For example, I could simply have said, "I don't see how one chooses specific music to listen or to create while also have the conviction of no agency." Instead, I launched an affront many two years ago? So the practice taught me to either butt out or, if I sincerely want to engage with someone, to make sure my approach is sincerely friendly, as just one example. This doesn't prevent me from raising challenges with people.

Else there is something like evangelistic anger  happening over and over in hot threads, not helpful mental development and training if it goes on and on gratifying the practitioner by offending others.

Sometimes if people will just ignore posts, a person will peter out there posting journey. So it's a two-part play. One can just leave a lot of posts alone. For example, I didn't know what was going on with Triple Think (why should I?) this past winter. So I left those threads alone. That's his practice. When things got heated between himself and another practicioners, I avoided those posts until I felt I should comment on a threat of physical violence.

Anyway, happen shikantaza (just sitting),

Katy

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/25/14 1:33 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Also, I have slow Internetz, limited access right now so I'm banning myself for about four weeks at least. I can't access DhO messages or chat well, no skypies or gmail-chatties. Soooo, uhm.. I weigh in and I make like a tree and leave ;)

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/25/14 1:48 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Interesting observations Katy.

Maybe combat feels gratifying for some people all their life.

I've wondered about the nuances of this within myself.  For example, I really enjoyed fighting within a martial arts context.  In this case, there is nothing personal against the opponent, it's just sport/exercise/training.  However, I can feel the pull of anger and resentment in other situations, and this is not at all pleasant.  There is the initial rush of adrenaline that can feel empowering, but then other sensations move in afterword that feel very unpleasant.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/25/14 1:50 PM as a reply to ftw.
ftw:
Florian Weps:

Please, if anyone still has the urge to vent about their problems with self-confident women, they can do so on one of the many fine forums run my MRAs.



Is that how you percecived these events or is this some kind of test/provocation?

emoticon



 It's called "favored child syndrome." The parent intervenes in a conflict and deems one child to be okay, the other not okay. It is a parent-child rather than an adult-adult transaction. See Berne, Games People Play (1964).

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/25/14 2:42 PM as a reply to Derek.
Derek Cameron:
ftw:
Florian Weps:

Please, if anyone still has the urge to vent about their problems with self-confident women, they can do so on one of the many fine forums run my MRAs.



Is that how you percecived these events or is this some kind of test/provocation?

emoticon



 It's called "favored child syndrome." The parent intervenes in a conflict and deems one child to be okay, the other not okay. It is a parent-child rather than an adult-adult transaction. See Berne, Games People Play (1964).

The implications are unsettling. To be fair Bill did take quite an abrasive approach, which ultimately proved unproductive, but it seemed to me his perceptions had a legitimate foundation, given what Jen said. Unfortunately, she deleted her side of it so now we can no longer verify that. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I am against the deletion of anything.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/25/14 7:27 PM as a reply to Florian.
You know, it's weird. In all the Buddhist forums I've looked at, the general tone is aggressive and condescending. Maybe that says something about Buddhism in the west...

By comparison, everyone at The Tao Bums forum recites poetry, posts nature photos, and talks about channeling earth energy in the woods (except in the Buddhist forum, where everyone yells at each other and posts huge quote blocks from the scriptures, haha).

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 1:30 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
He asked me to take my voice and GET OUT. None of you so-called moderators moderated, except for Florian. So I took my "voice" and got out. So, BCDEF, since you agree with "Bill's" so-call perspective, made up of screaming and ranting for 2 days, you ought to fully support my being silenced (ie, taking down my posts as Bill asked). Congratualtions, cause I'm out of here. Now you have, what, three women here? Nice! Please try to at least be consistent with yourself.

What I learned is that I can never even discuss here whether "feminism," which apparently few here even understand, is actually consistent with Buddhist morality, which I reiterate it is, because this site is a hostile environment pretending to be "diverse" and tolerant, but which is with no civility, no code of conduct, no policies, no sense of fairness, and no responsiblity on the part of the moderators, except Florian.

So 4th Pathers don't feel safe to share their practices here. People into the occult don't either. And neither do "feminists." Cease to pretend you are diverse. This is sickness and this is not Path. You are fostering chaos and discord. You are emmeshed and codependently addicted to argument. You are cultivating hedgemony. You are cultivating hate. It is poison. And I'm done. Congratulations on the silencing. May you someday stop being impervious to learning something you have not already run over and over again into the ground a million times in your combat-word-skeins.

I have a practice to foster. This is not Path. This is not "diversity." This is Internet forum foolishness. This is distraction from my practice.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 1:40 AM as a reply to sawfoot _.
Sawfoot, shut the hell up.

Love your former dharma sister,

Jenny (aka "Silenced")

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 2:23 AM as a reply to Jenny.
Silenced:
He asked me to take my voice and GET OUT. None of you so-called moderators moderated, except for Florian. So I took my "voice" and got out. So, BCDEF, since you agree with "Bill's" so-call perspective, made up of screaming and ranting for 2 days, you ought to fully support my being silenced (ie, taking down my posts as Bill asked). Congratualtions, cause I'm out of here. Now you have, what, three women here? Nice! Please try to at least be consistent with yourself.

What I learned is that I can never even discuss here whether "feminism," which apparently few here even understand, is actually consistent with Buddhist morality, which I reiterate it is, because this site is a hostile environment pretending to be "diverse" and tolerant, but which is with no civility, no code of conduct, no policies, no sense of fairness, and no responsiblity on the part of the moderators, except Florian.

So 4th Pathers don't feel safe to share their practices here. People into the occult don't either. And neither do "feminists." Cease to pretend you are diverse. This is sickness and this is not Path. You are fostering chaos and discord. You are emmeshed and codependently addicted to argument. You are cultivating hedgemony. You are cultivating hate. It is poison. And I'm done. Congratulations on the silencing. May you someday stop being impervious to learning something you have not already run over and over again into the ground a million times in your combat-word-skeins.

I have a practice to foster. This is not Path. This is not "diversity." This is Internet forum foolishness. This is distraction from my practice.



This is life Jen. This is your practice. Be mindfull. Don't think of practice as something to runaway to. If you think you need a break from forum, go take a brake but do come back.

"If you see things with real insight,then there is no stickiness in your relationship to them. They come – pleasant and unpleasant – you see them and there is no attachment. They come and they pass. Even if the worst kinds of defilement come up, such as greed or anger, there’s enough wisdom to see their impermanent nature and allow them to just fade away. If you react to them, however, by liking or disliking, that isn’t wisdom. You’re only creating more suffering for yourself."

Ajahn Chah

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 3:52 AM as a reply to Jenny.
Silenced:
He asked me to take my voice and GET OUT. None of you so-called moderators moderated, except for Florian. So I took my "voice" and got out. So, BCDEF, since you agree with "Bill's" so-call perspective, made up of screaming and ranting for 2 days, you ought to fully support my being silenced (ie, taking down my posts as Bill asked). Congratualtions, cause I'm out of here. Now you have, what, three women here? Nice! Please try to at least be consistent with yourself.

What I learned is that I can never even discuss here whether "feminism," which apparently few here even understand, is actually consistent with Buddhist morality, which I reiterate it is, because this site is a hostile environment pretending to be "diverse" and tolerant, but which is with no civility, no code of conduct, no policies, no sense of fairness, and no responsiblity on the part of the moderators, except Florian.

So 4th Pathers don't feel safe to share their practices here. People into the occult don't either. And neither do "feminists." Cease to pretend you are diverse. This is sickness and this is not Path. You are fostering chaos and discord. You are emmeshed and codependently addicted to argument. You are cultivating hedgemony. You are cultivating hate. It is poison. And I'm done. Congratulations on the silencing. May you someday stop being impervious to learning something you have not already run over and over again into the ground a million times in your combat-word-skeins.

I have a practice to foster. This is not Path. This is not "diversity." This is Internet forum foolishness. This is distraction from my practice.

Hi Jenny,

Sometimes a bit of patience allows things to play out. Why so quick to storm off in a huff? 

Nick

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 8:34 AM as a reply to Derek.
Hi Derek

Derek Cameron:
ftw:
Florian Weps:

Please, if anyone still has the urge to vent about their problems with self-confident women, they can do so on one of the many fine forums run my MRAs.



Is that how you percecived these events or is this some kind of test/provocation?

emoticon



 It's called "favored child syndrome." The parent intervenes in a conflict and deems one child to be okay, the other not okay. It is a parent-child rather than an adult-adult transaction. See Berne, Games People Play (1964).


As you accurately observed, as a moderator, I totally had a parent's function in that situation.

Men still overwhelmingly tend to be the favored children in our society, even in this modern times and age.

I do not think it is "ok" at all to attack a woman for advancing women's interests. The status quo and the sheer momentum of millennia of this status quo having prevailed historically make it totally "not ok" for a man to do this, no matter how much or little benefit he may actually be getting from that status quo.

The existence of poor white people still does not make it ok for them to be racist, agreed? Understandable, maybe, but definitely not ok.

In the same vein, the existence of men who have been unfairly treated by women still does not make it ok for them to be sexist. Understandable, maybe, but definitely not ok, and not something I want to watch.

Cheers,
Florian

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 11:22 AM as a reply to Jenny.
Hi Jen,

Silenced:
He asked me to take my voice and GET OUT. None of you so-called moderators moderated, except for Florian. So I took my "voice" and got out. So, BCDEF, since you agree with "Bill's" so-call perspective, made up of screaming and ranting for 2 days, you ought to fully support my being silenced (ie, taking down my posts as Bill asked). Congratualtions, cause I'm out of here. Now you have, what, three women here? Nice! Please try to at least be consistent with yourself.

1) To be clear, what I agreed from Bill's posts was that feminists tend to see sexism where there is none. I didn't agree that you should stop posting about feminism. I'm not sure how you got that I would support you not talking about feminism anymore, given how I just sent out an email how I could potentially see anything going on in one's life as being on-topic.
2) You weren't silenced. One member told you to stop talking about a given topic. A mod stepped in and told him to stop and closed the thread when he didn't. Plus you've gotten a lot of supportive PMs. Now we the mods are discussing whether and how to change our moderation policies as a result of your input. How is that being silenced?
3) I would appreciate it if you'd stick to the facts. He never asked you to take down your posts. He even said "Do not delete this thread. You can not just delete anything you do not like." Note also that he never engaged in name-calling. This stuff is... actually pretty important to get right, when making judgement calls.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 12:49 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Jen's posts on the thread being deleted I can't comment on them; this is the first I'm catching wind of these events. But Bill's posts were clearly over the top and counterproductive and it seems an offense to reason to suggest they aren't straight up sexist. Zoom out from our computers and look at his words in the context of the real world: come the fuck on. Get real. And he suddenly shows up and that's his contribution? Seriously. Jesus. This is emberrassing.

Yes everybody's got to be an adult and deal with their own reactions to this stuff-- but I simply couldn't reccomend a female friend to check out this site if comments like Bill's aren't moderated. Seriously. Ridiculous. There is nothing 'pragmatic' about letting people get away with that kind of stuff. This isn't about being politically correct; there's TONS of room for folks to articulate unorthodox or dissenting viewpoints about issues of race, gender etc. as long as it's done in a thoughtful and communicative way.

I apologize if these comments are out-of-whack due to Jen's posts not being there for me to see. What I can see of their residue in other posters' quotes does not appear to me to be anything that would warrant the tone of Bill's posts. Which were pathetic. God there's nothing more aweful than watching a bigot spout on and on about how not bigoted they are and why nobody should bring up race/gender/etc discrimination. Jesus. The resentment and twisted projection simmering beneath those comments... yuck.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 1:04 PM as a reply to . Jake ..
. Jake .:
Jen's posts on the thread being deleted I can't comment on them; this is the first I'm catching wind of these events. But Bill's posts were clearly over the top and counterproductive and it seems an offense to reason to suggest they aren't straight up sexist. Zoom out from our computers and look at his words in the context of the real world: come the fuck on. Get real. And he suddenly shows up and that's his contribution? Seriously. Jesus. This is emberrassing.
Hmm, yes, some serious sexism oozing from Bill's posts:
Women will come to participate in this forum when they actually have a practice to participate about. We do not do anything that deters them.

Women are welcome to come and talk about their practices.

Women can come and talk about their practice if they have a practice, no one will stop them, and people will say what they know to say.

I think the mistake that you and Jen and Florian are making is that you are equating feminism with gender equality, and therefore anti-feminism with sexism. But this is like saying, if you're against welfare, you hate poor people; if you're against the minimum wage, you hate unskilled workers; if you're against public education, you don't want people to be educated; if you're against government-paid healthcare, you want everyone to get sick and die, etc. That's not actually the case. I *do* care about gender equality, but I think feminism actively works against that.

This, I think, is where Bill was speaking from. That he did it in a highly offensive and non-productive way, yes, I agree, and I think I would be okay with moderating for reasons of politeness. But I would not be okay with moderating anti-feminist discussions on grounds of sexism, because I don't think those are necessarily the same. To actually make the case for that, would require a lot more posts and a lot of patience and it seems extremely liable to heated discussion, and I'm not sure it would be worthwhile, but I at least wanted to share my perspective.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 1:13 PM as a reply to . Jake ..
Bill's posts do tend to look worse coming at us one after another with nothing in between; OTOH they were pretty awful even with Jen's posts included. So Bill wasn't doing his POV any favors. Still, I was also queasy about Jen's position, which tended to take on the whole culture of DhO as sexist, and declare an intent to change it. 

I remember about a year ago there was discussion about merging DhO with Awakenetwork. The Dharma Overground people recognized their culture as more combative than that of Awakenetwork, and the people who weighed in wanted to protect that aspect of it. People do have tantrums, even over on Awakenetwork (and I've had my own tantrums on different forums in the past emoticon), but with this exchange the question is coming up once again: does the culture need to change in some essential way? Does the forum need a different approach to moderating than what it's had? 

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 1:22 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
 
 


I think the mistake that you and Jen and Florian are making is that you are equating feminism with gender equality, and therefore anti-feminism with sexism. .


No, in fact I said, any view that is brought up in a reasonable and communicative way I would welcome and expect the community (and mods) to welcome. I have no problem with intellectual disagreements with feminism, and I don't think everyone has to call themselves a feminist. I see feminism as about gender equality and I think that's the mainstream view-- I don't personally know any (actual) women (in the actual, not imaginary, or internetty world) who use 'feminism' as an attempt to put one over on men and flip the script on domination, turning patriarchy into matriarchy. But I'm sure there are some out there who do. Not only that I'm sure there are lots of folks who are feminists and have all sorts of opinions about all sorts of things that I disagree with. And maybe you've encountered actual woman who are actually like that and it left a bad taste in your mouth (or Bill's or whomever's) about 'feminism'. Seems to me like that's a good reason to articulate what feminism REALLY is about, but to each his or her own on that front.

So, no, I'm not conflating those two things and even was clear about that in my post I think!~ But-- surely you are aware that some men use anti-feminism as a screen to hide their sexism behind? Bill sure seems to fit the bill on that front. The guy's a caricature of mysoginistic internet trolling. Jesus. Start a thread about feminism and anti-feminism and what's wrong with feminism if you want. Just don't be a complete dick about it. This guy's a joke (and the joke's on us, obviously).

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 1:28 PM as a reply to Laurel Carrington.
Jane Laurel Carrington:
Bill's posts do tend to look worse coming at us one after another with nothing in between; OTOH they were pretty awful even with Jen's posts included. So Bill wasn't doing his POV any favors. Still, I was also queasy about Jen's position, which tended to take on the whole culture of DhO as sexist, and declare an intent to change it. 

I remember about a year ago there was discussion about merging DhO with Awakenetwork. The Dharma Overground people recognized their culture as more combative than that of Awakenetwork, and the people who weighed in wanted to protect that aspect of it. People do have tantrums, even over on Awakenetwork (and I've had my own tantrums on different forums in the past emoticon), but with this exchange the question is coming up once again: does the culture need to change in some essential way? Does the forum need a different approach to moderating than what it's had? 

I think it's worthwhile having periodic conversations about 'the culture of the community' so to speak. This is indeed a very tricky issue. Simply assuming that there is such a  monolithic 'culture' that all DhOers participate in equally is definitely problematic, I agree. Folks come on here all the time making comments about 'The Dho" and what "the Dho" thinks. It's pretty silly for sure. However there is a general tone and certain patterns. For example, there appears to be a lot more of a gender balance on Awakenetwork than here. There seem to be a lot more young men posting over here. The ways male youth internet culture in the 21st century may be affecting the tendency of females to post on DhO is worth addressing, if we can do it in a way that is inclusive to all and not abrasive or accusatory.

we need to remember that we are just a step or two away from sites all over the internet in which any talk of feminism is quickly met with vitriolic trolling. Let's get fucking real about it.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 1:38 PM as a reply to . Jake ..
Hi Jake,

Okay, I see now that you did indicate you'd be open to anti-feminist discussion if it's done in a reasonable and communicative way. So I take back my comment that I would not be okay with moderating anti-feminism on grounds of sexism, since nobody actually suggested that. And I do agree with you where you say "just don't be a complete dick about it."

Even so, as of now, I still wouldn't classify Bill's posts as sexist or misogynistic. I couldn't find any instance where he denigrates the female sex in any way. He rails against feminism, yes, and at Jen in particular because she brought up said feminism, but not against women in general. Could you point out something in particular which indicates he was being sexist/misogynistic? I think it's important to be clear about these things. My impression is that his posts are being called sexist and misogynistic solely because of their brash tone and anti-feminist content, but not because of anything actually sexist or misogynistic in them. Again, unless to be anti-feminist is to be sexist or misogynistic, which I don't think is necessarily the case.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 1:44 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Maybe we could ask whether Bill's posts would be an issue if he had aimed a similar volley at a man, and on a subject other than feminism.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 1:56 PM as a reply to Laurel Carrington.
Jane Laurel Carrington:
Maybe we could ask whether Bill's posts would be an issue if he had aimed a similar rally at a man, and on a subject other than feminism.
Challenge accepted.

Jim, are you seriously bringing communist theory into this?

This is not a forum for communist theory. Why would you do anything like that?

This is a forum for practice. I will tell you right now why there aren't more lower-class people here, it's because 95% of the time I talk with lower-class people about practice, they actually find the idea of a goal oriented practice weird, and aren't interested in meditation as anything more but a general stress reductive. So they don't come.

Please get out with this nonsense. Please leave with this nonsense. You can not demand that everything be covered in protective padding because of some negligent, unintelligent rambling.

Lower-class people will come to participate in this forum when they actually have a practice to participate about. We do not do anything that deters them.


Yes. Please. When we consider the total volume of lower-class people I've conversed with about practice, rather than just those interested in meditation, it's 99.9% who think it's weird or don't care at all.

I just want to say, before this leaves and never comes back (about which I just could not give birth to a large enough shit about why that should happen) that the way you just announce this and expect everyone to cater to this point of view absolutely and unequivocally is just disturbing.


Yes: It is not and never was a class thing.

Please remember this is a forum to discuss practice.


Please. For being so well versed you should be able to put two and two together. It is referring to communist theory. This is not a discussion grounds for communist theory, and it is not okay to wrap everything in shrink wrap because of completely superficial appearances.

Get out. Get out of here with your communist theory.

This is a forum for practice.

I value this forum as a forum for practice.

It is a forum for practice.

Respect this and leave with your communist theory.

Lower-class people are welcome to come and talk about their practices.

I value it. Do not fuck with it by broad sweeping generalizations that have no root in fact.

This is just a forum for practice. Just participate in it as a forum for practice.

I VALUE it as such. It gives actual value to my life.

Do not hold this hostage because of communist theory and flimsy superficial appearances.

Thank you. If you think this is an over reaction, you need only pay attention. My trust with your communist type has worn thin, and I am making this clear:

This is a forum for practice.

Thank you for your participation.


IF you can not stand to participate without foisting about communist theory, then yes, get out. Thank you for recognizing the value of this place as a forum for practice.


No. It's not funny. There is absolutely nothing funny about this and your arrogance stemming from something that was trivial and superficial. All of this "cognitive dissonance" is purely manufactured by you and has no substance in reality.

There is no effort to contain or curb you. There is no classist discrimination going on. This is a stupid illusion on your part, especially in this particular circumstance. It is not okay to parade yourself around and happily turn everything you encounter into a communist space.

I reiterate myself again: This is a forum for practicing. Not some a lower-class acceleration program. Get out of here with your claims of classism and worker exploitation. It simply does not exist.

I do not tolerate you telling us that we are capitalist pigs. It is simply unnacceptable. You have a preremptory, pretentious beliefs that this is the case, that everything here is a class issue.

No: This is a forum for discussing practice. You just waltz around claiming that the world is a certain way without regard for the feelings of other people, Get Out.

This is not acceptable. Your narrow black and white thinking is just Not Acceptable. And more so: it is not acceptable for you to hold this place hostage just because you want everything to be about worker's rights.

Leave us alone. Mind your own business.

Get out if you feel absolutely compelled to foist communist theory over the smallest reaction. Nothing can be done for you if you can not distinguish triviality from things that are actually significant to speak about. Get out with your communist theory.

Your resposne that you've "heard" me and you "reiterate" is primitive.

Do you not realize what you are doing?

Leave other people alone. Stop bullying and shaming and intimidating with your communist ideology. Get out with your communist ideology.

Your 100% black and white responses to me are proof that you actually think this way, when I say you are not allowed to hold this forum hostage for your communist ideology, you just unbuckle your belt and let it all hang out. This is ridiculous. There is actually something at stake here: a forum, and you crassly make a communist oppression issue over unintelligible banter.

This is not okay. Get out with your communist delusions that have no regard for other people.


If you did not think in such black and white terms you would notice that there is actually something important and significant here that matters for people, like having this forum, and instead, you are fancifully making it so it's all about you and your communist narrative, ignoring any consequences you might have, ignoring the effects it could have on the people who use this forum, ignoring everyone but yourself and your narrow ideology.

Stay away from this forum with your communism. There is no oppression here. Lower-class people can come and talk about their practice if they have a practice, no one will stop them, and people will say what they know to say.

That is all. Your quasi oppression and claims that I am oppressing you belay nothing but your insensitivity towards others.

Get out with this communist ideology. It is not okay to project this onto innocent bystanders.


Excuse you? This is not apeshit but a measured response to the zeitgeist of the times, but thanks for diminuating my response. It's proving to be the only thing we can expect from you out of this.

You do not respectfully disagree with me.

This is not an attempt to subterfuge the system and tilt it in my favor. It is a direct declaration from me to you which you insist to interpret in all the nefarious Big Brother ways.

You please take a break. You consider yourself and your callow communist ideology. I have no idea why you think it is meaningful to show me the ropes of administration. You are merely ignoring a declaration I am making from myself to you, without regards for me and others.

Like I said, if you can not distinguish between trivial matters and those that actually deserve attention, then nothing can be done for you. The only reason you got an apology is because you bullied it up and made a huge stink about it.

You say "How realistic is it that my entire experience on this site is ruined by your one comment above?" Please. Please. How realistic is it? I do not want to find out. Therefore my response to this posting.

I do not want to find out. So I say take your callow communist ideology away and do not hold this site hostage because of it. If you can't respect that, then what the fuck are we talking about?

I think that is pretty clear. It is a memorandum from me to you. You are just choosing to interpret it as a greater struggle, and you are ignoring everyone but your self in this.

Take your callow communist ideology and leave.

This is a site for discussing practice, and I value it. Take your callow communist ideology and leave. I have no interest in seeing what communist elan will do to a what is basically a sanct environment of discourse and views.

Would you like me to make the retarded declaration that YES it is obvious I am being highly reactive, but then say that NO it is that I am being highly RESPONSIVE? Please. Trivial minutia that means nothing. You can not grok the underlying meaning/importance of my communications? Please, Jim, do you not understand the world is bigger than you?

Get away from this site with communism. Do not harrass it.

Please. Get out with your extreme analysis.

It is not "territory" it is UTILITY. This site is a valuable utility to us all.

Keep your communism away from it.


AS IF I have been telling YOU to leave.

You can not tell that I am only talking about your communist ideology? This is not the place for it. This is not okay. You think you are "Right"? Please. You got a whole thread censored because you can't distinguish between nonsense triviality and something that's actually important!

And you do not respect the forum. You demand the forum cater to you. You do not say "oh, yeah, I can respect the forum and the people here and keep discussion non politicized over meaningless trivialities". You don't say this, you say " I am not leaving ".

It is not okay to bully people and turn everything into a communist space in which you may object to absolutely anything Just Because, regardless if it was even a problem or intent in the first place.


And YES this thread HAS BEEN hijacked, and it was hijacked by YOU and your COMMUNIST POLITICAL AGENDA.


It's not okay to shame everyone into being nice to you Jim. It is not okay to censor the forum in the way you have done.

Seriously: what are we even talking about!

You have even yourself said that you were not offended! That you didn't personally care!

You have not said all you will say about it, you have just taken a bully role and ignored the nuances of all the potential participants here.

For the last time there is nothing classist about this forum and it is not okay to censor the forum thanks to meaningless trivialities.


You have not "said all you have to say", you have haughtily ignored us and just decided you're right without consideration for others.


Do not delete this thread. You can not just delete anything you do not like.


I don't see a single instance on here I "engaged in name calling". You want to tergiversate and ignore the important substances that fall under this discussion? I bring these serious concerns up and these are the only measures of yourself you respond with?

You are just representing your kind, or, wait, are you not?


Sorry, no, I'm not a troll. I wrote those messages over and over again because they were meant to be read over and over again.

I do not respect this type of behavior and have actually seen such thinking ruin innocent people's lives, so I am here to say No and to hold her accountable.

I honestly do not understand what this big hooplah really is, in total seriousness, I'm wowed that respect for the forum at large isn't touched on by our friend Jim here.

You think this is a troll? Please. I have seen real life communist trolls ruin peoples real life lives. It's not alright to just parade it around this place for those squirrel reasons.

End of discussion. I am happy I am understood.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 2:18 PM as a reply to . Jake ..
But-- surely you are aware that some men use anti-feminism as a screen to hide their sexism behind?
The funny thing about psychology is that it's a meta-model that can be used to fit virtually any behavior into any preconceived assumption. For example:
But-- surely you are aware that some people who get overly indignant at perceived social injustices are just using their indignation as a reaction formation against unconscious elements of agreement with the social injustice, and the subsequent guilt involved.

The statement "____ is offensive" confuses orders of abstraction. Whereas, the statement "___ is offended by ___" does not. For example, in this thread Jenny responded to
I'm not going to go into this too much lest I be accused of bragging but I feel I can "enter" the other person while having sex. I can give her an experience she's never had before, and dozens of orgasms easily even if she's not had them before (their words, not mine). It's like a powerful kind of state transfer; I feel like I "am" her temporarily. One woman did a painting of me as Jesus Christ after such an experience. Sex is always transcendent for me.
this part with a comment about her experience with men. The comments have been deleted, but, IIRC it was something along the lines of "O Brother. You must be God's gift to women... I've heard that one before". Her post didn't seem to contribute at all to the topic of the thread.

Now, suppose Edd was really insecure about his sexuality. Suppose he really was lying to bolster his confidence and revel in the fantasy. Suppose that Jenny's comment had sent him off the edge: Edd's sexual confidence was absolutely destroyed by that comment, and that shortly thereafter Edd killed himself.

Whose 'fault' would it be? I imagine there would be a lot of argument about whether her comments 'were' offensive or not. But, ultimately, those arguments have nothing to do with how Edd reacted to the comments.

My point with this example is not to bash Jenny or to stick up for men's rights or anything like that. My point is this opinion: the responsibility for interpreting and reacting to posts lies solely with the reader. If you can't contain your reactions to the glowing symbols on the glass in front of you then maybe you should look away.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 3:05 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Jane Laurel Carrington:
Maybe we could ask whether Bill's posts would be an issue if he had aimed a similar rally at a man, and on a subject other than feminism.
Challenge accepted.

Jim, are you seriously bringing communist theory into this?

This is not a forum for communist theory. Why would you do anything like that?

This is a forum for practice. I will tell you right now why there aren't more lower-class people here, it's because 95% of the time I talk with lower-class people about practice, they actually find the idea of a goal oriented practice weird, and aren't interested in meditation as anything more but a general stress reductive. So they don't come.

Please get out with this nonsense. Please leave with this nonsense. You can not demand that everything be covered in protective padding because of some negligent, unintelligent rambling.

Lower-class people will come to participate in this forum when they actually have a practice to participate about. We do not do anything that deters them.


Yes. Please. When we consider the total volume of lower-class people I've conversed with about practice, rather than just those interested in meditation, it's 99.9% who think it's weird or don't care at all.

I just want to say, before this leaves and never comes back (about which I just could not give birth to a large enough shit about why that should happen) that the way you just announce this and expect everyone to cater to this point of view absolutely and unequivocally is just disturbing.


Yes: It is not and never was a class thing.

Please remember this is a forum to discuss practice.


Please. For being so well versed you should be able to put two and two together. It is referring to communist theory. This is not a discussion grounds for communist theory, and it is not okay to wrap everything in shrink wrap because of completely superficial appearances.

Get out. Get out of here with your communist theory.

This is a forum for practice.

I value this forum as a forum for practice.

It is a forum for practice.

Respect this and leave with your communist theory.

Lower-class people are welcome to come and talk about their practices.

I value it. Do not fuck with it by broad sweeping generalizations that have no root in fact.

This is just a forum for practice. Just participate in it as a forum for practice.

I VALUE it as such. It gives actual value to my life.

Do not hold this hostage because of communist theory and flimsy superficial appearances.

Thank you. If you think this is an over reaction, you need only pay attention. My trust with your communist type has worn thin, and I am making this clear:

This is a forum for practice.

Thank you for your participation.


IF you can not stand to participate without foisting about communist theory, then yes, get out. Thank you for recognizing the value of this place as a forum for practice.


No. It's not funny. There is absolutely nothing funny about this and your arrogance stemming from something that was trivial and superficial. All of this "cognitive dissonance" is purely manufactured by you and has no substance in reality.

There is no effort to contain or curb you. There is no classist discrimination going on. This is a stupid illusion on your part, especially in this particular circumstance. It is not okay to parade yourself around and happily turn everything you encounter into a communist space.

I reiterate myself again: This is a forum for practicing. Not some a lower-class acceleration program. Get out of here with your claims of classism and worker exploitation. It simply does not exist.

I do not tolerate you telling us that we are capitalist pigs. It is simply unnacceptable. You have a preremptory, pretentious beliefs that this is the case, that everything here is a class issue.

No: This is a forum for discussing practice. You just waltz around claiming that the world is a certain way without regard for the feelings of other people, Get Out.

This is not acceptable. Your narrow black and white thinking is just Not Acceptable. And more so: it is not acceptable for you to hold this place hostage just because you want everything to be about worker's rights.

Leave us alone. Mind your own business.

Get out if you feel absolutely compelled to foist communist theory over the smallest reaction. Nothing can be done for you if you can not distinguish triviality from things that are actually significant to speak about. Get out with your communist theory.

Your resposne that you've "heard" me and you "reiterate" is primitive.

Do you not realize what you are doing?

Leave other people alone. Stop bullying and shaming and intimidating with your communist ideology. Get out with your communist ideology.

Your 100% black and white responses to me are proof that you actually think this way, when I say you are not allowed to hold this forum hostage for your communist ideology, you just unbuckle your belt and let it all hang out. This is ridiculous. There is actually something at stake here: a forum, and you crassly make a communist oppression issue over unintelligible banter.

This is not okay. Get out with your communist delusions that have no regard for other people.


If you did not think in such black and white terms you would notice that there is actually something important and significant here that matters for people, like having this forum, and instead, you are fancifully making it so it's all about you and your communist narrative, ignoring any consequences you might have, ignoring the effects it could have on the people who use this forum, ignoring everyone but yourself and your narrow ideology.

Stay away from this forum with your communism. There is no oppression here. Lower-class people can come and talk about their practice if they have a practice, no one will stop them, and people will say what they know to say.

That is all. Your quasi oppression and claims that I am oppressing you belay nothing but your insensitivity towards others.

Get out with this communist ideology. It is not okay to project this onto innocent bystanders.


Excuse you? This is not apeshit but a measured response to the zeitgeist of the times, but thanks for diminuating my response. It's proving to be the only thing we can expect from you out of this.

You do not respectfully disagree with me.

This is not an attempt to subterfuge the system and tilt it in my favor. It is a direct declaration from me to you which you insist to interpret in all the nefarious Big Brother ways.

You please take a break. You consider yourself and your callow communist ideology. I have no idea why you think it is meaningful to show me the ropes of administration. You are merely ignoring a declaration I am making from myself to you, without regards for me and others.

Like I said, if you can not distinguish between trivial matters and those that actually deserve attention, then nothing can be done for you. The only reason you got an apology is because you bullied it up and made a huge stink about it.

You say "How realistic is it that my entire experience on this site is ruined by your one comment above?" Please. Please. How realistic is it? I do not want to find out. Therefore my response to this posting.

I do not want to find out. So I say take your callow communist ideology away and do not hold this site hostage because of it. If you can't respect that, then what the fuck are we talking about?

I think that is pretty clear. It is a memorandum from me to you. You are just choosing to interpret it as a greater struggle, and you are ignoring everyone but your self in this.

Take your callow communist ideology and leave.

This is a site for discussing practice, and I value it. Take your callow communist ideology and leave. I have no interest in seeing what communist elan will do to a what is basically a sanct environment of discourse and views.

Would you like me to make the retarded declaration that YES it is obvious I am being highly reactive, but then say that NO it is that I am being highly RESPONSIVE? Please. Trivial minutia that means nothing. You can not grok the underlying meaning/importance of my communications? Please, Jim, do you not understand the world is bigger than you?

Get away from this site with communism. Do not harrass it.

Please. Get out with your extreme analysis.

It is not "territory" it is UTILITY. This site is a valuable utility to us all.

Keep your communism away from it.


AS IF I have been telling YOU to leave.

You can not tell that I am only talking about your communist ideology? This is not the place for it. This is not okay. You think you are "Right"? Please. You got a whole thread censored because you can't distinguish between nonsense triviality and something that's actually important!

And you do not respect the forum. You demand the forum cater to you. You do not say "oh, yeah, I can respect the forum and the people here and keep discussion non politicized over meaningless trivialities". You don't say this, you say " I am not leaving ".

It is not okay to bully people and turn everything into a communist space in which you may object to absolutely anything Just Because, regardless if it was even a problem or intent in the first place.


And YES this thread HAS BEEN hijacked, and it was hijacked by YOU and your COMMUNIST POLITICAL AGENDA.


It's not okay to shame everyone into being nice to you Jim. It is not okay to censor the forum in the way you have done.

Seriously: what are we even talking about!

You have even yourself said that you were not offended! That you didn't personally care!

You have not said all you will say about it, you have just taken a bully role and ignored the nuances of all the potential participants here.

For the last time there is nothing classist about this forum and it is not okay to censor the forum thanks to meaningless trivialities.


You have not "said all you have to say", you have haughtily ignored us and just decided you're right without consideration for others.


Do not delete this thread. You can not just delete anything you do not like.


I don't see a single instance on here I "engaged in name calling". You want to tergiversate and ignore the important substances that fall under this discussion? I bring these serious concerns up and these are the only measures of yourself you respond with?

You are just representing your kind, or, wait, are you not?


Sorry, no, I'm not a troll. I wrote those messages over and over again because they were meant to be read over and over again.

I do not respect this type of behavior and have actually seen such thinking ruin innocent people's lives, so I am here to say No and to hold her accountable.

I honestly do not understand what this big hooplah really is, in total seriousness, I'm wowed that respect for the forum at large isn't touched on by our friend Jim here.

You think this is a troll? Please. I have seen real life communist trolls ruin peoples real life lives. It's not alright to just parade it around this place for those squirrel reasons.

End of discussion. I am happy I am understood.


Re-quoted for emphasis.

Bill viewed Jen's posts about feminism as an intrusion on the DhO's practice-oriented culture. He did not want to divert any on-topic discussions about practice to feminism.

He never once gave his views about gender-equality or feminism. His beef was with sidetracking discussions and creating a "new problem" where there "previously wasn't one". He didn't view the DhO as a place to discuss feminism.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/26/14 3:13 PM as a reply to Dada Kind.
Droll Dedekind:
But-- surely you are aware that some men use anti-feminism as a screen to hide their sexism behind?
The funny thing about psychology is that it's a meta-model that can be used to fit virtually any behavior into any preconceived assumption. For example:
But-- surely you are aware that some people who get overly indignant at perceived social injustices are just using their indignation as a reaction formation against unconscious elements of agreement with the social injustice, and the subsequent guilt involved.

The statement "____ is offensive" confuses orders of abstraction. Whereas, the statement "___ is offended by ___" does not. For example, in this thread Jenny responded to
I'm not going to go into this too much lest I be accused of bragging but I feel I can "enter" the other person while having sex. I can give her an experience she's never had before, and dozens of orgasms easily even if she's not had them before (their words, not mine). It's like a powerful kind of state transfer; I feel like I "am" her temporarily. One woman did a painting of me as Jesus Christ after such an experience. Sex is always transcendent for me.
this part with a comment about her experience with men. The comments have been deleted, but, IIRC it was something along the lines of "O Brother. You must be God's gift to women... I've heard that one before". Her post didn't seem to contribute at all to the topic of the thread.

Now, suppose Edd was really insecure about his sexuality. Suppose he really was lying to bolster his confidence and revel in the fantasy. Suppose that Jenny's comment had sent him off the edge: Edd's sexual confidence was absolutely destroyed by that comment, and that shortly thereafter Edd killed himself.

Whose 'fault' would it be? I imagine there would be a lot of argument about whether her comments 'were' offensive or not. But, ultimately, those arguments have nothing to do with how Edd reacted to the comments.

My point with this example is not to bash Jenny or to stick up for men's rights or anything like that. My point is this opinion: the responsibility for interpreting and reacting to posts lies solely with the reader. If you can't contain your reactions to the glowing symbols on the glass in front of you then maybe you should look away.

I remember that thread and Jennys comment DD. I even posted a link to it in the "original drama"
thread. Of course that thread got deleted. I wonder what else is getting censored around here.
Someone is working very hard to erase evidence and make things appear differently as they were.
This is getting more and more pathetic.

This forum is losing credibility fast! I think owner should deal with the issue fast and surgicall.
If possible threads should be restored from backup. This would give DhO some credibility back. 

What we have now is people stating their opinions based on speculation.

Way out of this mess:
1. Restore old threads for the sake of truth
2. Subject can be discussed in 1 thread only
3. Reconsider who should have OP status

That's it. I'm off to have my mini weekend retreat. I want things back to normal when I come back!

hahaha 

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
9/28/14 7:38 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Hi Jake,

Okay, I see now that you did indicate you'd be open to anti-feminist discussion if it's done in a reasonable and communicative way. So I take back my comment that I would not be okay with moderating anti-feminism on grounds of sexism, since nobody actually suggested that. And I do agree with you where you say "just don't be a complete dick about it."

Even so, as of now, I still wouldn't classify Bill's posts as sexist or misogynistic. I couldn't find any instance where he denigrates the female sex in any way. He rails against feminism, yes, and at Jen in particular because she brought up said feminism, but not against women in general. Could you point out something in particular which indicates he was being sexist/misogynistic? I think it's important to be clear about these things. My impression is that his posts are being called sexist and misogynistic solely because of their brash tone and anti-feminist content, but not because of anything actually sexist or misogynistic in them. Again, unless to be anti-feminist is to be sexist or misogynistic, which I don't think is necessarily the case.


Hmmm, I think you accurately picked out several instances where Bill was oozing sexism up thread (unless you were subtly mocking or something?). But I thought those were great examples. Also, in your rephrasing which substituted communism for feminist theory, I think you made the point again very well-- namely, that came off as blatantly classist bullshit-- wow, 95% of poor people you know think a goal oriented practice is lame? Huh... not 95% of Western Buddhists, which might be accurate in that case ;)

But 95% of poor people... so poor people can participate here when they (whatever whatever)... 95% of homosexuals I talk to roll their eyes when I talk about goal poriented practice... homosexuals can participate here when they (whatever whatever blah blah). Yup I'd say anyone who comes in talking like that is wearing their prejudices on their sleeves, pretty much. 
Thanks for the clarity on the moderation policy btw, that's cool! 

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/8/14 7:28 PM as a reply to . Jake ..
Hi, everyone,

I want to make just a few points here. 

Women and Men Are Not Entitled to the Same Speech Constraints under the Law

What the throwaway sockpuppet identity "Bill" said to me was a form of ridicule and intimidation based firmly in sexism, for he was attacking me merely for voicing a post-feminist theoretical point in passing after the OP raised the issue. Feminism is the radical notion that women should be treated as equals. In attacking my voicing forth of this ideal to Bill's extreme extent of ridicule, defamation, and intimidation, he was attacking the very notion that women should be treated as equals and therefore he was attacking, denigrating, me, a woman.

It is and would be seen in a court of law to be sexist to accuse me, moreover, one of the few women on this forum, of coming on here expressly to run a "Female Acceleration Program" and to intimidate me into leaving this forum merely for giving voice to the question, Why are there so few women on this forum? This is what happened. What is wrong with asking this question or observing that the energy here, as Jake has pointed out, is decidedly masculine? FTW speaks of censorship, but can this question not be asked here? We have a section on the forum named "the DhO Itself," so can no woman here raise questions about the lopsided sociodemographic characteristics of the DhO itself even though we actually have several sections here that invite just these sorts of questions? Hmmm? I never said that there was anything wrong with "men" or the DhO masculine energy in itself. I only questioned and continue to question what it may be systematically, if unconsciously, excluding--namely, and very obviously to anyone paying the least attention and not in denial, women who would otherwise perhaps post here. 

What many of you seem to be missing, when you ask if it would be wrong if the tables were turned and Jen said this stuff against a man, or if a man said this stuff against a man, or Bill said something analogous against communists, is that women are a protected class under the law, at least under U.S. law (I used to be a certified litigation paralegal). Men, as a sociodemographic group, traditionally have enjoyed privileges and power women have not. So, in strictly legal terms, yes, women enjoy a double standard under the law. Now, you may not like that law, but it is the law nonetheless. It was designed on purpose to be so by our legislators. I suggest, therefore, the law being the law and all, that this forum follow the laws against hate speech, which is defined as applying only to protected classes of people: women, minority race/ethicities, people with disabilities, gay people and lesbian, people of certain religious preferences, and you can look up the rest. . . . Men are not a protected class; women are. Please understand, therefore, that reversing the logic or replacing "feminism" with "communism" is completely bypassing the protected class issue at stake, which is one of legality.

An anti-feminist is, by definition, someone who thinks that the traditional, systematic disempowerment of women throughout history should be left as the status quo. In short it is the belief and theory that women are not equal or should not be made so by correction of past sociodemographic wrongs.

Realize that openly accusing with falsehoods, intimidating, and attempting to oust one of the very, very few women on this forum for questioning why there aren't more women on this forum is ipso facto sexist hate speech and discrimination. If you do not grok this, then I suggest that you up your knowledge of U.S. federal law.

I've Never Deleted Threads or Others' Comments on the DhO, Period. Not One. Not Ever.

I have not ever taken one action in the role or with the technical capacity of a moderator on this forum. I have not ever deleted a thread, nor have I ever deleted a comment authored by another member, not ever, not in any capacity.

There Are Trolls and Troll Aliases (Sockpuppets) Among Us

It is important to realize that there are insincere persons, or at least one person, among us dharma friends who are deliberately trying to polorize groups here, including the moderator team; bait and inflame passions; and drive wedges and seeds of distrust. I have certain evidence that "Bill Glamdring" was created just in order to bait and target me after Sawfoot's thread was deleted just hours beforehand by Daniel when I requested that one comment be deleted. Think hard about that timeline when you think about whether Jenny and her post-feminist theory is really the enemy here. I would suggest that, above all, we who are here with geniune practice and genuine, compassionate intentions to help each other end suffering close these wounds, come together, stand together, and remain vigilant against detractors who hope we won't.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/8/14 9:00 PM as a reply to Jenny.
I just wanted to point some things out about feminism.
Jenny:
Women and Men Are Not Entitled to the Same Speech Constraints under the Law

What the throwaway sockpuppet identity "Bill" said to me was a form of ridicule and intimidation based firmly in sexism, for he was attacking me merely for voicing a post-feminist theoretical point in passing after the OP raised the issue. Feminism is the radical notion that women should be treated as equals. In attacking my voicing forth of this ideal to Bill's extreme extent of ridicule, defamation, and intimidation, he was attacking the very notion that women should be treated as equals and therefore he was attacking, denigrating, me, a woman.

Not quite. I don't know what Bill's motives were, but it is *not* necessarily sexist to be an antifeminist. The dictionary definition of feminism is, as you say, the notion that "women should be treated as equals". However, in practice, it doesn't work out that way. There are plenty of legitimate complaints against feminism that are not rooted in sexism, but rather, in equality for the sexes. For the first example, we need look no further than this very post of yours that I'm replying to. You say:
Jenny:
What many of you seem to be missing, when you ask if it would be wrong if the tables were turned and Jen said this stuff against a man, or if a man said this stuff against a man, or Bill said something analogous against communists, is that women are a protected class under the law, at least under U.S. law (I used to be a certified litigation paralegal). Men, as a sociodemographic group, traditionally have enjoyed privileges and power women have not. So, in strictly legal terms, yes, women enjoy a double standard under the law. Now, you may not like that law, but it is the law nonetheless. It was designed on purpose to be so by our legislators. I suggest, therefore, the law being the law and all, that this forum follow the laws against hate speech, which is defined as applying only to protected classes of people: women, minority race/ethicities, people with disabilities, gay people and lesbian, people of certain religious preferences, and you can look up the rest. . . . Men are not a protected class; women are. Please understand, therefore, that reversing the logic or replacing "feminism" with "communism" is completely bypassing the protected class issue at stake, which is one of legality.
Do you realize how incredibly sexist that is? How can you say you want women to be treated as equals, and a few paragraphs later specifically advocate treating women differently than men? Someone who is actually pro equality of the sexes would certainly be anti such discriminatory laws. Here then is the first example where feminism is clearly not about equality of the sexes.

Jenny:
An anti-feminist is, by definition, someone who thinks that the traditional, systematic disempowerment of women throughout history should be left as the status quo. In short it is the belief and theory that women are not equal or should not be made so by correction of past sociodemographic wrongs.
An example of what an anti-feminist would be against is sexist, discriminatory laws such as the ones you listed above. In this case the anti-feminist cares more about equality of the sexes than does the feminist.

In any case, I fully support dispelling the trolls and getting on with it. Let's just not lump "critizing feminism" together with "hate speech" together with "trolling". Those are all separate things, although the comorbidity rate might be high.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/9/14 2:24 AM as a reply to Jenny.
 Men are not a protected class; women are....


I think this is a cop-out when it comes to gender relations. Laws change, new ideas get formed. 

Men are reduced to their utility. They are validated to the extent of their usefulness. And they are often seen as disposable. They work in the most dangerous jobs, they are the first ones that get sent to die in wars, their value in personal relationships is often reduced to how much they provide.

The way men's value is reduced to their utility is analogous to how women are reduced to their physical appearence.

I'll take my moral reference not from the law but from compassion for all human beings.

Just wanted to put this here if we are going to talk about gender issues.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/9/14 3:26 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
I just wanted to point some things out about feminism.
Jenny:
Women and Men Are Not Entitled to the Same Speech Constraints under the Law

What the throwaway sockpuppet identity "Bill" said to me was a form of ridicule and intimidation based firmly in sexism, for he was attacking me merely for voicing a post-feminist theoretical point in passing after the OP raised the issue. Feminism is the radical notion that women should be treated as equals. In attacking my voicing forth of this ideal to Bill's extreme extent of ridicule, defamation, and intimidation, he was attacking the very notion that women should be treated as equals and therefore he was attacking, denigrating, me, a woman.

Not quite. I don't know what Bill's motives were, but it is *not* necessarily sexist to be an antifeminist. The dictionary definition of feminism is, as you say, the notion that "women should be treated as equals". However, in practice, it doesn't work out that way. There are plenty of legitimate complaints against feminism that are not rooted in sexism, but rather, in equality for the sexes. For the first example, we need look no further than this very post of yours that I'm replying to. You say:
Jenny:
What many of you seem to be missing, when you ask if it would be wrong if the tables were turned and Jen said this stuff against a man, or if a man said this stuff against a man, or Bill said something analogous against communists, is that women are a protected class under the law, at least under U.S. law (I used to be a certified litigation paralegal). Men, as a sociodemographic group, traditionally have enjoyed privileges and power women have not. So, in strictly legal terms, yes, women enjoy a double standard under the law. Now, you may not like that law, but it is the law nonetheless. It was designed on purpose to be so by our legislators. I suggest, therefore, the law being the law and all, that this forum follow the laws against hate speech, which is defined as applying only to protected classes of people: women, minority race/ethicities, people with disabilities, gay people and lesbian, people of certain religious preferences, and you can look up the rest. . . . Men are not a protected class; women are. Please understand, therefore, that reversing the logic or replacing "feminism" with "communism" is completely bypassing the protected class issue at stake, which is one of legality.
Do you realize how incredibly sexist that is? How can you say you want women to be treated as equals, and a few paragraphs later specifically advocate treating women differently than men? Someone who is actually pro equality of the sexes would certainly be anti such discriminatory laws. Here then is the first example where feminism is clearly not about equality of the sexes.

Jenny:
An anti-feminist is, by definition, someone who thinks that the traditional, systematic disempowerment of women throughout history should be left as the status quo. In short it is the belief and theory that women are not equal or should not be made so by correction of past sociodemographic wrongs.
An example of what an anti-feminist would be against is sexist, discriminatory laws such as the ones you listed above. In this case the anti-feminist cares more about equality of the sexes than does the feminist.

In any case, I fully support dispelling the trolls and getting on with it. Let's just not lump "critizing feminism" together with "hate speech" together with "trolling". Those are all separate things, although the comorbidity rate might be high.

Claudiu, I find your arguments flimsy and spurious. It is hard for me to believe you actually believe you have a viable position in what you just wrote, but whatever. . .  It is emphatically not "sexist" of me to cite U.S. federal law. And as a fellow moderator, I would expect you to hold people here accountable to the law governing speech. I didn't make the law, although I absolutely agree with its existence as necessary to level out the long history of disempowering women on the basis of their being women. Surely I don't have to recite history to you--you have heard of the long history of disenfranchisement, right? You are aware that women still make a fraction of what men do for the same jobs, right? That women only recently got the vote, that they couldn't own or inherit property, right? Yeah, so, please, for crying out loud, come off it. Are you also against affirmative action for black people? Are you against all hate speech laws then? That is quite an unpopular view in the united states, even among the unprotected classes. No one I know over here would be less than embarrassed to say such things in public. How many people do you think would agree with you that American civil rights are a disgrace? 

Now listen here: I've wasted enough of my precious time and energy on this issue to spend any more on people who will never understand or put themselves in others' historical and cultural shoes. I was just on another thread here where a man was basically yelling at Megan and John, graphic designers offering free Web design presentations for this site, because in their presentation they said the current logo here was "too masculine" and unwelcoming of diversity. This member here who insulted them, a man, claimed that 99% of meditators are men and that this draw to meditation is hardwired biologically to sex; he said these two "just alienated 99%" of the membership by saying the logo was too masculine and that they wanted to welcome diversity. So, you see, don't you? I land on threads here, and there is all too often someone here spouting some unsupported nonsense like this and turning it into a reason to verbally attack someone. So if you choose to persist in thinking you and certain others here have no learning to do with regard to gender and other diversity, and that the culture has no part in the fact that so few women post here, then you have an entrenched sociopolitical and cultural pathology manifesting here indeed.

I want to add that I have wonderful friends here who are men and who do understand.

Sincerely,

Jenny

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/9/14 3:36 AM as a reply to M C.
If you are part of the men's rights movement, then I'm afraid I can't help you or even intelligibly converse with you. So, happy trails.

Regardless of where you take your personal moral reference, here members are expected to follow the new DhO conduct rules, which specifically name the legally protected class provisions I've referred to.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/9/14 4:02 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Claudiu,

If a black man were on here and made one mention (which is all I did) in advocacy for civil rights for people of color, and because of that advocacy of people of color someone else ranted, yelled, called that person a bully, and for 2 entire days intimidated this person with "GET OUT" until that person did get out of such a hostile environment, would you not say that the intimidated man was a target of dicriminatory hate speech?

Right. So same deal.

As I've noted before and you refuse to hear or acknowledge, many other sociopolitical hierarchies were mentioned and even listed on that thread. When I added on to that with a brief mention of post-feminist theory, which you still seem not to even understand, all hell broke loose. Which does tell me some things about the nature of the turf that is being defended. 

So next go ahead and say I started it. Again. I mean, why not? Let's feed the trolls. Let's divide and conquer. Let try really hard not to hear and not to understand the Other. Let's let this sockpuppet have another laugh at the Buddhists and AF practitioners here! 

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/9/14 5:39 AM as a reply to Jenny.
If you are part of the men's rights movement, then I'm afraid I can't help you or even intelligibly converse with you.

You are right. It is clear that you can't intelligibly converse with me.

In addition to that you are mocking a group on the basis of sex. And you are mocking a contributer based on the assumption that they belong to that group. That is rude, offensive, uncalled-for and also against the newly announced rules.

  • No taunting, mocking, or intimidation of an individual or a group on the basis of race/ethnicity, sex, disability (including mental illness), sexual orientation, religious preference, or spiritual practice

Your comment, especially coming from a mod, makes me feel unwelcome in this forum.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/9/14 5:21 AM as a reply to Jenny.
Jenny:
So next go ahead and say I started it. Again. I mean, why not? Let's feed the trolls. Let's divide and conquer. Let try really hard not to hear and not to understand the Other. Let's let this sockpuppet have another laugh at the Buddhists and AF practitioners here! 


Nah. This is not really serving any good purpose any more. I for one would welcome the end of this thread, even if I started it myself.

I'm all for discussing stuff which I find difficult to wrap my head around. And the kind and intensity of the reactions to discussing women's (and men's - men get hurt by patriarchy, too) interests in questioning and changing the social status quo is indeed telling, and, in my opinion, worthy of very close inspection, contemplation, tracing back, fully comprehending, and uprooting by anyone interested in the Dharma or similar teachings.

I don't like the "but not in front of the children/trolls/neighbors" sentiment at all.

So I would like to keep it well separate from the important and, to me, very interesting subject of the intersection of spiritual and social liberation.

Cheers,
Florian

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/9/14 6:09 AM as a reply to Florian.
Yesterday was an 'uposatha' day (new or full moon) for Theravadan (and other traditional) buddhists. In Theravadan tradition, at least, they pay extra attention to metta (and it's close cognate mittata, 'friendship') on these days.

Looks like the 'pragmatic' Buddhists, in their greater wisdom, are developing a different sort of tradition?

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/9/14 6:41 AM as a reply to CJMacie.
Hi Chris

Chris J Macie:
Yesterday was an 'uposatha' day (new or full moon) for Theravadan (and other traditional) buddhists. In Theravadan tradition, at least, they pay extra attention to metta (and it's close cognate mittata, 'friendship') on these days.

Looks like the 'pragmatic' Buddhists, in their greater wisdom, are developing a different sort of tradition?


Looks like you are somehow disappointed by something, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

That we are not pretending to be nice to each other all the time? That we don't collectively observe the lunar calendar? That we don't discuss metta bhavana enough? That we are not wise enough? That we are not orthodox enough? Not Buddhist enough? Not lineage-approved? Sangha-Splitters? Something is bothering you, obviously.

If you want to pursue this, feel free to start a new thread. This one is past its "best before" date.

Cheers,
Florian

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/9/14 7:06 AM as a reply to Florian.
I'd be disappointed if DhO fell apart. It's the closest to a kalyana-mitta-community I've found, in terms of breadth and depth, even though it's not quite transcended samsara. No need to pursue further -- this thread inspired a sort of gratitude for anicca. Maybe it was all a subtle reflection of the 'blood-red' full moon lunar eclipse; maybe Mara just had a good day. (Pardon the pre-occupation with Pali words.)

There was some hesitation to deploying the dig at 'pragmatic' Buddhism, but given the overall irritation level, it seemed satisfying to share in the spirit of the occasion.

Thanx for replying.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/9/14 10:36 AM as a reply to CJMacie.
I too don't want DhO to fall apart. And I endorse your sense that Mara has been having a good day. Mara has been walking all over people's faces and having a good laugh at our expense!

Metta practice is a terrifically effective antidote to aversion, although for some people it's an impossible practice. But putting it out there is a good thing. In any situation where people's views become polarized, and wars of words lead nowhere, backing off and taking another tack is the best strategy. Everyone suffers, and sometimes suffering manifests in ways that pit one group of people against another, and somtimes one group can rightfully claim a special place in the hierarchy of suffering. But as one of my therapists once told me, this isn't a contest. It does make sense, I think, to craft policies that minimize opportunities for people to harm one another. But what must underlie such policies is attention to the goal of waking up, which is our primary focus here.  

I have confidence that all will be well. 

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/9/14 2:07 PM as a reply to Jenny.
Jenny:
Claudiu, I find your arguments flimsy and spurious. It is hard for me to believe you actually believe you have a viable position in what you just wrote, but whatever. . .  It is emphatically not "sexist" of me to cite U.S. federal law. And as a fellow moderator, I would expect you to hold people here accountable to the law governing speech.

It's true, it's not sexist of you to cite U.S. federal law. However, I made the leap, from the way you presented it, that you supported the law, and that's what I was referring to. Now I don't have to make the leap since you said you "absolutely agree with its existence as necessary". [EDIT: To be clear, if you had instead said something like, "I understand this law is sexist, and as a feminist I can't support this law as it is against my ideals of treating women and men as equals, but the law's the law", then I would have withdrawn my point.]

So, here is my argument again. We have two statements:

1) "Feminism is the radical notion that women should be treated as equals."
2) "I absolutely agree with [the existence of the law which says that "women are a protected class under the law" and that "men are not a protected class"] [...]"

Now clearly, such a law is completely against the notion that women should be treated as equals, as it is specifically written to treat women differently than men. It is a sexist law because sexism is "prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender", and the law specifically discriminates based on sex or gender. You can argue that it is "necessary to level out the long history of disempowering women on the basis of their being women" but that's an argument from effect - from what the effect of the law should be - and not an argument based on what the law actually is, which is the systematic, institutionalized treatment of women differently from men. Do you agree?

So we have only two possibilities:

1) You are not a feminist, because feminism is the notion that women should be treated as equals, and you support a law that treats women differently than men.
2) You are a feminist, but feminism is *not* the notion that women should be treated as equals, because feminists support laws that treat women differently than men.

Which is it?

If you can't follow this argument and acknowledge it or reply meaningfully to it, then there's really no reason for us to continue discussing feminism.

Jenny:
Now listen here: I've wasted enough of my precious time and energy on this issue to spend any more on people who will never understand or put themselves in others' historical and cultural shoes. I was just on another thread here where a man was basically yelling at Megan and John, graphic designers offering free Web design presentations for this site, because in their presentation they said the current logo here was "too masculine" and unwelcoming of diversity. This member here who insulted them, a man, claimed that 99% of meditators are men and that this draw to meditation is hardwired biologically to sex; he said these two "just alienated 99%" of the membership by saying the logo was too masculine and that they wanted to welcome diversity. So, you see, don't you? I land on threads here, and there is all too often someone here spouting some unsupported nonsense like this and turning it into a reason to verbally attack someone. So if you choose to persist in thinking you and certain others here have no learning to do with regard to gender and other diversity, and that the culture has no part in the fact that so few women post here, then you have an entrenched sociopolitical and cultural pathology manifesting here indeed.

Yes, I just saw that thread, and it was a bit ridiculous, especially after someone looked up the stats and found that there are actually more woman meditators than men. Clearly it has something to do with the way the DhO itself is, and I am entirely open to discussing these things. I'm even open to discussing feminism, as you can see here by me discussing feminism with you. I am not sure why you think that I think that I have "no learning to do with regard to gender and other diversity", I'm just pointing out some contradictions inherent in feminism. Feminism is not the end-all be-all of gender and diversity. Being pro-feminist does not necessarily entail being pro-equality of the sexes. Not being a feminist doesn't necessarily entail being a sexist. To conflate these things is to invite a lot of discord into these conversations!

Jenny:
I want to add that I have wonderful friends here who are men and who do understand.

Okay, so it's not just me being a man that causes me to disagree with you, since other men do agree with you. Similarly, it's not just you being a woman that makes you a feminist, since there are many women who are not feminists.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/9/14 4:41 PM as a reply to CJMacie.
Chris J Macie:
Yesterday was an 'uposatha' day (new or full moon) for Theravadan (and other traditional) buddhists. In Theravadan tradition, at least, they pay extra attention to metta (and it's close cognate mittata, 'friendship') on these days.

Looks like the 'pragmatic' Buddhists, in their greater wisdom, are developing a different sort of tradition?
Hi Chris, 

Thanks for your first paragraph. Uposatha days do offer a chance to deepen practice including social practice.

And about your second comment, I think you well put your finger on it:

There was some hesitation to deploying the dig at 'pragmatic' Buddhism, but given the overall irritation level, it seemed satisfying to share in the spirit of the occasion.

So I'd like to say, please considering take a note from my mistakes' experience, and be careful with gratifying these emotions, that this is a part of metta: to train in restraining one's hostile outgoing feelings in order to encouter them observantly  in quiet meditation. One starts with restraining small digs at low-hanging fruit and learns to not spark bigger, more volatile fuel, because sometimes the consequences are tragic and un-correctable.

The dhammapada (paraphrased): [ill-will begets ill-will, this is the law, ancient and immortal]. This is causlity: a seed grows its plant. So to take a dig at another grows more "take opportunisitic, gratifying digs" in the world in which you live, and this undermines trust and care and assures that you live in a place in which people feed aggression with aggression. Such a small comment can cause a huge field to grow in ripe terrain, like posion ivy.  

While if I just read your first paragraph-- a reminder to metta ~ friendliness ~ it is a simple reminder in a thread with a some angry posters and that metta is probably a field you want to live in and seed, I speculate. "The man who planted trees" still my all-time favorite animation. (et puis, pour les francophones: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Rn6trL3-54)

And, yes, bring on the Pali. Maybe we should have a Pali study group here? I am waaaaay behind my peers in study there and it's neat linguistically, to me.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/12/14 1:32 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
re: katy steger (10/9/14 4:41 PM as a reply to Chris J Macie)

Thanks, Katy, for the skillfully relevant analysis. (And thanks to Jane Laurel Carrington: "…backing off and taking another tack is the best strategy…")

Equanimity (the 4th Brahmavihara) would have been more helpful – upekkha -- a skillful resting place in self-sufficiency (or pehaps better, 'a refuge, an abiding free-from-self') in the face of recognizing lack of power over others' kharma, or samsara in general.* A stronger establishment of this could have pulled my writing back from that dig at 'pragmatic' Buddhists.

Looking at it more closely, though -- perhaps it takes a really high level of skill to express equanimity in a convincing way to others -- the kind of skill G. Buddha is said to have shown in shaping his sayings to the mental biases of his listeners. (Which skill, btw, is s/t said to have involved his mastery of 'psychic powers', though he also didn't encourage their use in general.)

Lacking such skill, one might well blurt something out just to get noticed -- lacking the sukha of internal equipoise, indulging the delusion that attracting attention will give one some sort of satisfaction (sukha), and failing to assess the dukkha that's often more likely to ensue.

It's a constant challenge in that people often can't help but express biases (viewpoints, 'ditthi'), subtly or not so subtly, when they post in forums. This happens less frequently in DhO, than, say, in the Secular Buddhism website, where some of the main-stay contributors there can't seem to make a point (often good points) without adding some disparging comment about 'Theravada' or monastics. And that triggers my particular biases, such that I should perhaps not even open that website without doing first an hour or so of 4th-Jhana sitting, or other practice cultivating equanimity.

* A great quotation from Stephen Levine (no doubt quoted from elsewhere): All that samsara out there is much
to big
to think you can in any way control it; BUT it's the perfect size for letting-go of!"

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/12/14 6:18 AM as a reply to CJMacie.
Hi Chris,

Thanks for looking to the "high bar", equanimity. While certainly I don't have the brahmaviharas all the time, to me they are the only sane mental states when I consider cause-and-effect, and I would want not to buffer myself from seeing a failure to practice in myself by instead applying a lower standard of practice.

In terms of easy-to-practice and hard-to-practice, it's interesting that how many comfortable physicalities I have in common with my community make mental practice easy or hard: indoor plumbing like shower and bathroom, hot water, environmental heat during the cold, personal space. When I don't have these things in common with my community for a period of time all of possessions, hair, clothes, privacy-- these things, and when different from the community norm, become objects with potential for irritation and the mental practice of brahmaviharas requires fresh effort. T

Thanks for mentioning the four sane mental states: friendliness/benevolence, compassion, empathetic joy (happiness for others' happiness) and your own reflection of equanimity here. 

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/12/14 7:20 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
RE: Enough Drama (and RE: the dharmaoverground logo)

(If this starts off rather boring, skip to the big paragraph at the end…)

Initially, someone mentioned (in RE: the dharmaoverground logo) "The ratio of men to women in meditation is something like 99:1."

I added (in the same thread) evidence that women out-number men in Insight-Meditation circles (in the USA), and likewise in (at least some) Asian meditation retreats in the USA.
 
Then someone added (in RE: EnoughDrama): "Yes, I just saw that thread, and it was a bit ridiculous, especially after someone looked up the stats and found that there are actually more woman meditators than men…."

Actually, there's nothing really conclusive in this data. We don't have numbers for the 'post-modern' groups (SB, Bgeeks, DhO,…). Nor world-wide – how many bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, how many laywomen/men attend retreats internationally (yogis), particularly in Asian countries. Nor across sects. (There is, however, data – via google, wikipedia, etc. -- as to Buddhist populations around the world.)

All the above was sketched several days ago
, but shelved as not conclusive or relevant to the discussion. But then today I happened across this remarkable passage in Ajahn Sujato's "A History of Mindfulness", page 287 (emphasis added):

"From here to the end the text [Smrtyupasthāna Sūtra] refers to 'bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs', both as the audience of the discourse, and as the meditator in the discourse itself. This is quite extraordinary, and I don't know if it is representative of the Sarvāstivādin Suttas in general. There must have been nuns and laywomen present at many of the teachings, but the texts were put into the male voice. In the Theravāda, even when a discourse is addressed solely to nuns, the hypothetical practitioner of the discourse is usually a monk. Only rarely are the female practitioners acknowledged. This is rather a shame. The inscriptional evidence, according to Schopen, attests approximately even numbers of monks and nuns in the early schools. Many of the nuns are said to have been learned in a sutta, or in a Pitaka, and so on, so they played their part in the transmission of the Dhamma.These inscriptions usually record substantial donations, of temples and suchlike.The Jains, unlike the Buddhists, made a census of their followers, and the figures consistently recognize far more nuns than monks. Given the patriarchal climate of the times, this is hardly a situation they would have invented, and the numbers of Buddhist nuns may also have exceeded the monks in India, as they do in some modern Buddhist countries."

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/12/14 8:42 AM as a reply to CJMacie.
Chris: I happened across this remarkable passage in Ajahn Sujato's "A History of Mindfulness", page 287 (emphasis added):
"From here to the end the text [Smrtyupasthāna Sūtra] refers to 'bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs', both as the audience of the discourse, and as the meditator in the discourse itself. This is quite extraordinary, and I don't know if it is representative of the Sarvāstivādin Suttas in general. There must have been nuns and laywomen present at many of the teachings, but the texts were put into the male voice. In the Theravāda, even when a discourse is addressed solely to nuns, the hypothetical practitioner of the discourse is usually a monk. Only rarely are the female practitioners acknowledged. This is rather a shame. The inscriptional evidence, according to Schopen, attests approximately even numbers of monks and nuns in the early schools. Many of the nuns are said to have been learned in a sutta, or in a Pitaka, and so on, so they played their part in the transmission of the Dhamma.These inscriptions usually record substantial donations, of temples and suchlike.The Jains, unlike the Buddhists, made a census of their followers, and the figures consistently recognize far more nuns than monks. Given the patriarchal climate of the times, this is hardly a situation they would have invented, and the numbers of Buddhist nuns may also have exceeded the monks in India, as they do in some modern Buddhist countries."


Thank you for this, Chris. 


This is an area where I think Western buddhists can bring something substantial to the schools of buddhism: gender parity.

Currently, monastics are held to different rules  and afforded different roles based on their genitals.  Goofy.

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/12/14 4:39 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
katy steger:
Chris: I happened across this remarkable passage in Ajahn Sujato's "A History of Mindfulness", page 287 (emphasis added):
"From here to the end the text [Smrtyupasthāna Sūtra] refers to 'bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs', both as the audience of the discourse, and as the meditator in the discourse itself. This is quite extraordinary, and I don't know if it is representative of the Sarvāstivādin Suttas in general. There must have been nuns and laywomen present at many of the teachings, but the texts were put into the male voice. In the Theravāda, even when a discourse is addressed solely to nuns, the hypothetical practitioner of the discourse is usually a monk. Only rarely are the female practitioners acknowledged. This is rather a shame. The inscriptional evidence, according to Schopen, attests approximately even numbers of monks and nuns in the early schools. Many of the nuns are said to have been learned in a sutta, or in a Pitaka, and so on, so they played their part in the transmission of the Dhamma.These inscriptions usually record substantial donations, of temples and suchlike.The Jains, unlike the Buddhists, made a census of their followers, and the figures consistently recognize far more nuns than monks. Given the patriarchal climate of the times, this is hardly a situation they would have invented, and the numbers of Buddhist nuns may also have exceeded the monks in India, as they do in some modern Buddhist countries."


Thank you for this, Chris. 


This is an area where I think Western buddhists can bring something substantial to the schools of buddhism: gender parity.

Currently, monastics are held to different rules  and afforded different roles based on their genitals.  Goofy.

Hello Chris and Katy, 

Indeed, it is rather odd that there would even have to be a discussion about gender parity within true dharma teachings.  This just seems kind of absurd from a universal view.  

Let me make a story to see how absurd this is:

Reporter:  " So, this monastary has been established here for hundreds of years, is that correct?"

Practioner:  "Why yes, that is so."

Reporter: "And out of the number of practioners, just how many of them are human?"

Practioner: "Currently, it is hovering at 100%"

(This isn't to say that cats don't meditate, maybe they are just not recognized.)

From my view to separate Humans into classification is a fool's folly.  (Though a game that's being played in the world constantly)

I like to imagine humans as spines with skulls on top.  Though , then we are reduced to more of a non-gender snake-like entity, which is kinda creepy, kinda real...

Back to the show...

Psi Phi

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/12/14 7:51 PM as a reply to Psi.
All day I regretted writing
"(...)Western buddhists can bring something substantial to the schools of buddhism: gender parity.

Currently, monastics are held to different rules  and afforded different roles based on their genitals.  Goofy."



Anyone (not just Western buddhists) can support and cause gender parity. : )


_____

(This isn't to say that cats don't meditate, maybe they are just not recognized.)
Yeah, I don't know and I don't verify so I let sleeping cats lay or meditate or ...? : )

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/12/14 8:38 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
katy steger:
All day I regretted writing
"(...)Western buddhists can bring something substantial to the schools of buddhism: gender parity.

Currently, monastics are held to different rules  and afforded different roles based on their genitals.  Goofy."



Anyone (not just Western buddhists) can support and cause gender parity. : )


_____

(This isn't to say that cats don't meditate, maybe they are just not recognized.)
Yeah, I don't know and I don't verify so I let sleeping cats lay or meditate or ...? : )
But no, have no regrets, it's true, and it's foolish, and it is goofy, and it's not Dharma.  How can one have true equanimty with views of imparity?  This doesn't even make sense.  Any discrimination, of any kind, seems to be a practice in non-equanimity.  This isn't saying that when discriminating thoughts arise in our minds we have to claim them , or take them personally, thoughts simply arise of their own nature sometimes, and sometimes thoughts are just non-sense when examined, just as easy to let them arise and fall away.  I like to think of thoughts when they arise as mere suggestions, that way one has already taken a step back from them and can see them as suggestions to act upon, rather than thoughts that should be carried out.  And , I know you already know this, it just helps me learn to write it all out sometimes.

One last thought, what is frustrating is not just the training of our own minds, which is difficult enough, but the understanding that there are worldviews numbering in billions of other minds that are not readily agreeable worldviews, but, of course it is that way, most of humanity is not systematically training their minds.  Even look here at the average "views" of a typical Dharma Overground post, it is about 30 + or -, this increases over time of course.  Or look at web hits on Youtube for some silly video, LMFAO Party Rock Anthem (754,042,160 views), then look at Ayya Khema' web hits for first jhana, (14,000) views over a 5 year period.....  

I do wonder how many people in the world are really practicing, it must be a very small percentage....  So, no wonder, these primitive ideas of gender, nationality, religions, materialism, etc. still exist.  

And, OH NO!!, now I am watching Party Rock !!!!!   add one more fool....  Everday I'm shufflin' ..... emoticon

Easier to just smile at it all

Psi Phi 

P.S.  Okay, back to Mindfulness ....

 

RE: Enough Drama
Answer
10/12/14 8:41 PM as a reply to Psi.
Wanted to clarify, what you said is not foolish, but that gender imparity, and that different roles based upon genitals is foolish, it's primitive.

Okay?
Psi