Random Dharma

andy wrote: The link goes to an error page now. What was the topic about?

I'm going to take a completely wild stab in the dark and guess it's something involving Sawfoot.

Ha it was. And some other supposedly threatening behavior, and a woman complaining about being victimized and treated in a sexist fashion, and complaining about the administration not doing anything about it.

Didn't make much sense to me, much complaining about just words on a page not even words from an important member of the community, and she wanted it to be censored.

I have no idea if there's a dharma component, but I bet you can invent one if necessary. It's too weird/hilarious not to share, especially for those who work corporate:

www.betabrand.com/mens-business-suit-onesie-hybrid.html

Chris Marti wrote: Tom, you're in luck. The thrashing about is still occurring over on the DhO:

www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discu...#_19_message_5589043

Might want to check it out soon. Florian just got involved.

Whoa! More "random" (typical internet behavior among a subset of people) than "dharma."

Reminds me why I don't wander into that "virtual bar" anymore; "too big, too noisy."

EDIT: Thought better of leaving this up. People have enough to deal with without me editorializing.

I can understand why it is important to keep touchy issues out of a forum because these issues do effect people in very personal ways. This seems like a simple thing to agree on to me, and it seems like that Mr. Bill is thinking of larger consequences than the other person is considering. What if it really does make a schism in pragmatic dharma? What if it really does create infighting? Seems to me like he wrote that concern pretty clearly with "do not hold this forum hostage", and it just goes in one ear and out the other. Even if you are a feminist, can't you respect that?

edit, create infighting or even worse

Moderators, would it make sense to move this into a separate thread rather than leaving it in Random Dharma?

Femtosecond wrote: I can understand why it is important to keep touchy issues out of a forum because these issues do effect people in very personal ways. This seems like a simple thing to agree on to me, and it seems like that Mr. Bill is thinking of larger consequences than the other person is considering. What if it really does make a schism in pragmatic dharma? What if it really does create infighting? Seems to me like he wrote that concern pretty clearly with "do not hold this forum hostage", and it just goes in one ear and out the other. Even if you are a feminist, can't you respect that?

edit, create infighting or even worse

Femtosecond, you've brought up a lot of stuff here and I'd like to have a conversation and try to unpack some of it. First, though, I'd like to bring up something that hasn't been mentioned and that's important to start with. I haven't heard any mention of Bill's tactics: his attempts at force and coercion, his threats, and his hateful language and tone to try to get his point across. Whether or not there is anything to what he claims, until Bill can act respectfully, he is out of the running as someone to have a reasonable conversation with. Anything he says will "just go in one ear and out the other" for most people.

That being said, I also hear you saying that we should not discuss touchy issues in a forum. You also say that that it should should be an easy thing to agree on. I disagree with both of these statements, and here's why: first, what constitutes a touchy issue is in itself not easy to get agreement on. More importantly, though, I disagree with the idea that there are things that we simply should not talk about on a forum. That's like saying that there are simply some things that are too difficult, too dark, too emotionally-provoking. I'm pretty sure you don't mean that we should all just look away and let these things fester. I thing you would probably agree, though, that it take a lot more work and sensitivity to talk about some things than other.

Finally, I hear you imputing motives to Bill's comments ("seems like he's thinking of larger consequences"). I absolutely agree that Bill is thinking of larger consequences, but perhaps just not in the way you suggest. I think Bill has expertly trolled not only Jen, but has gotten the rest of the forum involved. He's forced his view into the thread and the forum, and has held the forum hostage by preventing reasonable discussion. He's affected lots of people in very personal ways, and has tried his best to start infighting. He's effectively diverted discussion from what could potentially be an interesting discussion topic and instead forced everyone to watch him act out. I'm guessing that Bill is getting exactly what he wants out of this and would probably be fairly disappointed if he got a different reaction.

So, I've talked a lot about my own take on what Bill has said, and some of the conclusions I've drawn. I'd like to hear what you have to say. How does what I've said strike you? Does it make sense?

I don't know if he's using manipulative tactics, it just seems like he has a distinct position on this. Obviously he isn't very flexible. But what he brought up was only really responded to by Laurel. Just because something is like an overgrown toe nail doesn't mean there can't be a sensible response to it. Seems like that's whats rubbing him the wrong way to me.

It also seems like, assuming the guy isn't a troll, that theres a lot he isn't saying, for whatever reason. So who knows what his words really mean.

Thinking a bit more about it, it does seem a little silly that letting that stuff go and not making a big deal out of it could amount to any real change or something more drastic in that community, consisting of mainly more enlightened people. So maybe he is a troll. But in other circles it could be combustible, don't you think?

edit, meant the DHO, not here.

Anyway back to the random dharma thread!

I was having dinner with my father tonight and brought up this picture here of Mel Gibson and Jesus Christ, and he told me that some time ago there was a just immaculate man who looked just like Jesus who for some time was wandering our area of Philadelphia, thinking that he actually was Jesus. lol

I wonder where he ate

Reminds me of The Three Christs of Ypsilanti, about three mental patients in the same institution that believed they were Jesus.

I haven't read it.

We need teachers because they can be relentless...

Maybe not really "random"-- but right on, anyway:

Status Update
By Joseph Campbell
"Now the key story for me about Buddhism concerns the sermon where the Buddha was seated, and there was a group around him and he just held up a flower. Just a flower. One in the group got what the Buddha was on about. For him, the flower itself was enough to spark enlightenment. The rest of the crowd were still in the dark, so to speak, so the Buddha delivered a sermon—the Flower Wreath Sūtra—to explain what he meant, which was this: there is nothing to say about life. It has no meaning. You make meaning. If you want a meaning in your life, find a meaning and bring it into your life, but life won't give you a meaning. Meaning is a concept. It is a notion of an end toward which you are going. The point of Buddhism is This Is It."

Joseph Campbell, Myths of Light, p. 135

Discriminatory harassment when it is based on race, national origin, color, sex, age, disability, or religion is rarely funny to the person experiencing it.
The afore mentioned threads are dealing with these issues...one thread have been deleted and others have had individuals delete their comments....
There have been consistent remarks that make it feel like someone is disparaging your religion...where you practice it...
I do not have a local group of practitioners, so I have the Dho as my church...and here. When people come in and engage in troll like behavior and surf the edge of discriminatory harassment towards others....well we shall see what happens....people are getting hurt and the moderators are discussing this stuff...
The Dho is down now...I do not know if this is related to this stuff or not.
~D

Eh, doubt it. They would just shut off that one thread, it doesn't seem like this thing has reached gastronomical proportions that the whole site needs to be taken down.

I still don't know how to feel about just characterizing that guy as a troll. The whole thing might be dumb but these might be real people... on both sides

BTW that isn't meant to call these people dumb. Life itself is just dumb. If we were gods we would not deal with any of it. we would not have to. We wouldn't bother with fingers, ganglias or even space and time!

It was just meant to remark that there are greater perspectives to keep in mind and experience.

Well, I'm feeling bad about the situation, sorry that I didn't do more sooner to express my disapproval of Bill's verbal attack. The trouble is, in any discussion having to do with gender, you're going to find men and women dragging their personal experiences and unprocessed baggage into it. This is just how it is. There was a Twitter campaign soon after the murders/suicide in Colorado, #notallmen, followed by a response, #yesallwomen, or something to that effect. Not all men are abusive, but yes all women (or nearly all) have faced abuse at some point in their lives, even if it's only aggressive street hassling. Men become indignant at the presumption that they are being blamed for what other men do, and rightly so. But there's this little problem called transference, and yes all people do that most of the time. So men who have had bad experiences with women will also experience that reactivity with other women, just as women can be threatened or intimidated by men's behavior that brings back the feelings of helplessness and victimization.

Jen came across as critical, and men were angry at being criticized. But Bill came across as abusive. Is there a safe place for people to express anger, reactivity, vulnerability, and be understood rather than slapped down? In his last post Bill said he was happy to be understood. Isn't that all that anyone wants? It was easy enough for me to be understanding, because I wasn't the one in the firing line. For Jen, I'm sure the experience was a nightmare.

Have to go now, but I'm still trying to make sense of this.

To me he just comes off as aggressive. Obviously it's a dumb way to do it, but its also just text, so can we really say its abusive? I mean, he's actually saying Jen is abusive.

I think as for any characterizations of abusive to really be true it would have to be continued behavior beyond just one thread.

I suppose you're right; he didn't make vile threats or call her obscene names, although I could feel rage jumping off the screen at me as I read his posts. As for her responses, I might call them belittling. Probably the threat to make people on the forum change the way they handled themselves caused him to see her as abusive.

Really, though, there's a bigger question here, and that is how much reactivity is acceptable on forums like ours. I mentioned in one of my posts that a psychologist in the audience of last summer's retreat commented on Buddhists' response to anger. He was concerned that often the effect was for Buddhists to try to suppress it. Is this true? How do Buddhists and/or pragmatic dharma types process anger? I'm thinking in particular of participants' angry comments on forums. Overall people don't do well when someone unleashes a torrent on them. I've certainly had my problems with it. But I get the impression that people on DhO in particular tend to be patient with it, allowing nature to take its course.

Just some thoughts. I really do hope that all concerned find insight and peace of mind, even if there's some pain in the process. Metta to them.