The fine line between Angels and Demons
While my views seems to be in the minority, I do know that the ideas that I share here are spreading and taking root in the hearts and minds of many people. We are ALL spiritual beings, whether you believe that to be true or not. I know it to be true in my heart. I also know that we are here to do specific work assigned to us by Creator before we even arrived. To call each of us an angel is not much of a stretch. Just ask anybody who received help from others when they needed it most.
Angel: a spiritual being believed to act as an attendant, agent, or messenger of God - dictionary.com
We are all angels, sacred spiritual beings sent here to fulfill our life purpose, experience, learn and grow as spiritual beings. To treat others any differently is an attempt to turn somebody into a demon. This is the most repugnant, vile and violent act any one of us could ever do to another spiritual being. None of us has the right, authority or jurisdiction to demonize another spiritual being. Yet many engage in that level of behaviour.
William Etty [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Just a few days ago I ran into a social media thread where somebody was attacking another. If I kept scrolling, then my silence is consent to the attempt to demonize and attack with violence. If I remain silent, then I am just as guilty as the one uttering the vile and abusive language. I share the threat now, not to expand the violence, but instead, as a demonstration on what each of us can do to end the violence in our lives. It requires courage to confront it, even if we feel we are unworthy to do so.
While the subject matter is about violence itself, cannibalism specifically, it does not justify the abuse and violence that Kira started spouting off. I'm going to share the rest of the thread. See if you can catch the subtle attempts she uses to turn the tables away from her and onto me. This is classic passive / aggressive sociopath behaviours. Also take note how I did not get sucked into her attempt to draw me into the original issue rather than just focusing on the one specific issue: her violent behaviour.
When I did not fall for her tactic to suck me into the argument, her only response was to tell me to 'fuck off'.
The other attempt that she made was to claim that I was being the passive / aggressive individual instead of her acknowledging her violent passive / aggressive behaviour. I rejected that claim and continued to focus on her own violent behaviour.
This is another common tactic. They will admit to their wrong if I admit to something. However, she had no intention of apologizing. She just wanted to suck me into the argument and away from confronting her behaviour. I did not fall for that tactic and continued to focus on her behaviour instead. As a result, her true colors came pouring out as she continued her violence and abuse.
She did not want to continue with the conversation. I suspect it is due to her being unable to suck anybody into the argument. I forgave her, did a prayer and smudge as I said I would and I've not heard from her since. Please know that if you do this yourself, it is critical that you not get sucked into the abusers arguments. They will do anything to get the attention away from their own behaviours so that the focus is on you.
While I was having that exchange on Facebook,
I was tagged by two others here on this blockchain.
A few days ago I was tagged on two separate posts from two separate individuals about flagging and trolls. Coincidence? I think not!
I think The Lesson to draw from the flag wars of antiquity (ie haejin :) is simply that Force/Violence Does Not Work - have to hand it to @wwf on this one! - @barge (link to original post is here)
Don't give these people power by interacting with them. It takes an incredibly strong, dedicated, forgiving, and righteous person to communicate with a troll without sinking down a level or two. Odds are you are not that person (I know I'm not). - @edicted (link to original post is here)
While I am honoured that these two bloggers feel this way about me, I must point out that each and every single one of us has the capacity, capability and duty to confront violence in all its forms. @edicted may feel unworthy to confront trolls, but I know deep in my heart that he is capable of doing so. What is required is a solid foundation of the Pacem Arts (The Art of Peace) within so that we don't get sucked into the abusers protocols. I am forever grateful that people like @barge can see now what I'm talking about. I am deeply saddened that the war unfolded and that my prediction was correct. One can hardly call it a prediction when I've witnessed shit like that for years.
These two bloggers brought up some conflict that is flaring up here on this blockchain again. I checked it out and found people still demonizing others and engaging in violence. I confronted people during the first flag war about the violence and demonization of others.
Here is an image from 8 months ago when the first Flag Wars began. It depended heavily on demonizing the enemy so that it was easier to attack a fellow spiritual being AND garner the support of others to help with that quest.
The image came from this post.
The majority of the original Stewards of Gondor joined the quest. I refused as I work hard to be at peace. I even had an individual who started studying the Pacem Arts with me, reject the information I was teaching and join the quest. She then blocked me when I questioned her choices. The Pacem Arts demand that we confront violence, forgive others and stand in the way to protect the vulnerable.
Now I see another skirmish unfolding between two titans, @berniesanders and @fulltimegeek. If you are not familiar with the violence I speak about, just check out @berniesanders wall. Once again, the violent act to demonize unfolds in order to justify the violence. My question to all of you:
Can you see the divine spiritual being inside those that you hate, are frustrated over or attack? Can you acknowledge that you are engaged in violence when you demonize them, attack their rewards and write vile comments about your brothers or sisters? Is there a more peaceful way to resolve conflict? Are we capable of forgiveness?
I wrote 8 months ago that violence was NOT the way to confront @haejin. I refused to participate in the war and as a result I lost a great deal of support, friends and influence. I am not a Steward of Gondor nor a Friend of Gondor either. I refuse to vote for @fulltimegeek as a witness due to his behaviour. I think that the dolphins, orcas and whales have a duty to work together to foster an environment of cooperation, peace, freedom and especially high moral and ethical standards within this blockchain. That is done through leadership by example, not attacking people you disagree with. @fulltimegeek did a spectacular job with that concept when he started the Stewards of Gondor. I encourage him to end the violence and return to the spiritual work he once did.
War has no redeeming spiritual benefits. Instead it turns angels into demons and I refuse to support that shit.
I've been welcomed into the group Tribesteemup, which was started by @kennyskitchen. There is 8 main pillars of the tribe to help establish the foundational expectations on how each of us will govern ourselves.
With that said, I hold the tribe to those standards and more. If I found out that individuals within the tribe are participating in the violence, I will leave despite the rewards I receive from my participation in this group. I expect that others within the tribe will hold me accountable to the same high standards of ethics and morals as well. That is how healthy tribes are created. That is how we end the violence. That is how we confront greed, violence, abuse, rape, pillage, etc. That is how we bring prosperity to this planet and ALL life upon it!
We do it through leadership by example. Those who engage in violence, whether it is here on this blockchain, other social media sites, government, corporations, etc are NOT leaders. They are thugs and I refuse to support, fund, vote or participate in such abhorrent behaviour.
The Pacem Arts demands that each of us find within ourselves the peace, freedom, love and patience that Creator needs from us. When we do that, we can then reverse the trend and turn demons into angels. That is the ultimate goal in my view. We all have darkness within ourselves. Time to confront that darkness so that we can walk in the light, peace, love, freedom and prosperity of that light. Being afraid to confront the darkness does not help facilitate that process.
We cannot change anybody but ourselves.
But we can influence people to change by walking the path and leading by example!
A spiritual warrior is one who practices the Pacem Arts and has the courage to confront violence, no matter the form that it takes. If people want this blockchain to succeed, then we need to find peace. The pond is still much too small to accommodate two whales fighting. It scares the shit out of all the red fish, minnows and even the dolphins. Fear drives people away.
You guys are not the police. Down voting people out of spite, revenge or some other justification is morally and ethically wrong. Demonizing each other is abusive, violent and repugnant behaviour. In an environment of anarchy, mutual respect, honour and self governance is mandatory. Otherwise the platform will degrade into chaos, violence, atrophy or even death.
I love you all. I miss my friends from the Steward of Gondor days deeply. I think we helped make this platform rock back in the day. It was rare to run into somebody who never heard of the group. I pray that we can do the same with Tribesteemup and all the others who are working to build a strong community through positive support and encouragement rather than through punitive behaviours, violence and war.
We counter the violence of others by building strong community. I rebuke the violence and support those who are interested in building strong community through peaceful actions.
Like I said in the past, this blockchain is a microcosm of the macrocosm. If we cannot govern ourselves here, then how in the hell are we going to govern ourselves out there? I call upon all participants in the steem blockchain to embrace the Pacem Arts and learn how to govern oneself as we learn how to interact with one another without some centralized authority getting involved. We MUST figure this out or else the centralized authority will take over as they specialize in war management. I refuse to let that happen and I refuse to stand by and witness it without saying something.
In your opinion, is violence okay if it is self-defense?
I am actually talking about the use of the flag right now.
When I have made a post of my own, and people come over to my blog, and post spam comments that take away from the comments of people that are actually engaging in my content, I might flag those comments.
Usually no rewards are removed (so it is not theft). Steemit rules about spam are clear, and they are making a mess of my personal property,
Another time I have employed flags, is when someone is being violent in their approach with me first, and keeps following me around with their violence. In that case, I have first established a clear boundary with them, that they must cease and desist from comments to me (on my own posts/comments) OR I will start flagging those comments so that they are invisible.
Another example, would be using the flag to defend others. For instance if someone is claiming to be a known author/content creator, and posting other people's work as their own. The use of the flag protects the actual author.
If there is no theft of rewards, then all you are doing is impacting their reputation. I see no harm in that, rather it is the natural consequences of people behaving poorly.
But to answer your violence question more specifically, I'll use an analogy from the martial arts to explain the difference between violence and self defense.
If I come up to you and punch you with the intent to harm, injure or kill you, that is violence. However, if you block my punch with the intent of defending yourself from my violence, that is self defense and is not violent at all. However, if you counter that block and throw a punch to hurt me, you have crossed the line and went from self-defense to violence.
Does that help? The problem with this platform is that we don't have the capability to set boundaries. So if somebody is harassing us, we cannot 'block' them. So maintaining boundaries in a hostile environment is challenging. I make my boundaries clear and should they cross those boundaries I will mute people and not give them any of my energy. I will flag spam shit as 99 times out of a hundred there is no rewards associated with the spam.
Your last example is a tough one. It feels like that action is more of a police action. That would require due process to make a determination with facts on whether people are actually engaged in plagiarism. In most judicial systems, people are innocent until proven guilty. What checks and balances do you engage in to ensure they are guilty? Do they have an opportunity to defend themselves from accusations? Is there due process? Do you have the authority to act as the judge, jury and enforcement? My gut is telling me that the last example would be crossing the line. However, if you posted on those posts with your claim and testimony towards the plagiarism, then at least others could make up their own minds on whether they would reward the post or not. Even contacting the original author so that they too can testify to the theft would be helpful. I see many actions that could be taken to apply pressure to these individuals so that they don't get away with theft without engaging in violence.
Self defense is NOT violence. Intent determines whether it is violent or not. That is why most courts use a guilty act with a guilt mind as the burden on whether an individual is found guilty of a crime. Mind you, that is starting to wear thin as the state slips deeper and deeper into tyranny.
You said:
In that analogy, I think that 'blocking the punch' would be flagging their actual comments left for you (or directed at you) whereas the punch thrown back at them would be if you start flagging random posts/comments of theirs to get back at them.
In the last example I left, I would flag someone pretending to be someone else only if I had proof (like by contacting the actual author) OR if only 95% sure that it is stolen material, then I would leave a comment that the flag will be removed upon proof. The proof is usually provided by adding a Steemit link to their own site to the web / Facebook / Youtube, etc.
I think that the flag was designed to serve the Steemit community this way. If anyone claims to be someone well known, and wants to be rewarded for that well-known person's work, then the onus is on them to provide proof of identity. Without people like you and me to police the place, they could scam a lot of votes out of well-meaning people on here, AND possibly ruin the reputation of the person that they are impersonating.
On the otherhand, if you aren't pretending to be anyone famous, or you even want to stay anonymous, then there is nothing to prove to anybody.
There is a protocol outlined in scripture that I found to be very effective and helps me to ensure that I don't engage in violence against my neighbour.
I for one refuse to be the police here on this platform. I would rather ask questions and confront behaviour than punish people for bad behaviour. I don't think I'm worthy to judge people and I don't want to cause harm either. For those of you who have a lot of steem power, it is challenging as you have the weight to really influence where this platform goes. I can easily see how the whales, orcas and even the dolphins may feel a duty to police the platform. But with great power comes great responsibility. I fear that later on, the powerful will create their own courts and enforcement protocols if we fail to learn how to self govern. At that point I would be leaving this platform as I refuse to participate with that type of system.
I know you to be an honourable individual who works hard to uphold a high level of integrity and commitment to moral and ethical standards. I know that to be true as you are here having this discussion about morality and ethics. I can only share with you my comprehension of the topic as I am still learning, exploring and praying on these issues. I am honoured that you would approach me with these topics. I find them challenging and I learn a great deal through the exchange.
I also know that there are many on this platform who don't ask these questions and continue behaving in ways that you and I find violent. I will open the conversation up, talk about my own views and hopefully influence them to make changes or at least contemplate what they are doing. I thank you for this wonderful conversation and I am honoured that you are open to exploring the implications of these issues. Please don't believe what I say. Do your own research, explore your heart and make up your own mind. Something that I know you would do anyway. :) <3 Peace to you Linda.
The church is the people coming out from their homes to hear the case. This is the foundation of a jury in common law jurisdictions.
You, sir, are an inspiration. There is a caged demon that lives inside me, and I let him out to play all the time, as it gives me great satisfaction. Perhaps I'll let him rest for a while.
It's hard to argue with your points, but let me give it a whirl as I play devil's advocate.
There's nothing wrong with flagging, it's the way people act when they get flagged; like they've somehow been stabbed in the back. This attitude stems from living in scarcity and/or greed.
At it's core, flagging is simply taking your reward and someone else's reward and throwing it back to the reward pool. I believe hyper intelligent flagging, leadership, and organization is the key to making this platform the best it can be (proof-of-brain).
I am also someone who believes in balance. As such, there could actually be "too much good" in the world, as foolish as that sounds.
Seeing as the 'Dark-Side' controls the 'galaxy' right now, there is currently no argument to be made on this front. Even if you were personally off balance the world is tipping the scales so far in the other direction that it's like standing against a tidal wave.
Those who stand against the infinite darkness 'deserve' the world's respect, now more than ever. I use the word 'deserve' loosely because no one really deserves anything. It's all about synergy and giving as much as one can to the greater good.
Thank you for sharing your views.
My views differ from yours. I've explained it in the past but few 'see' it the way I do. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as it appears you may not have read my posts from 8 months ago. :)
In short, the reward pool is a commons. It is there for the benefit of everyone, owned by no one. An upvote is a gift (reward) taken from the commons and put into the basket of a fellow individual by the one giving the upvote. That gift is a reward for content that the individual feels has value in their eyes. Yes, granted, sometimes the intent is based on greed and other works of the flesh. No matter the reason, the individual who received the rewards must now try to get that basket to their home fire (wallet) before it is pillaged by other people (down votes).
In my view, the upvote is a gift and a down vote is a violent act against somebody else to take away that which was given by somebody else. Yes, I acknowledge the the developers of the blockchain designed the down vote to provide a balance. However, that does not make it morally or ethically right!
If the down vote only impacted reputation then I'm all for it. However, down votes also impact rewards as well. I see the rewards that sit there as gifts and I have no moral or ethical right to take them away. Once they are gifted, they represent the spiritual energy of the giver. Is it then any wonder why people feel like they have been stabbed in the back?
In my view, they have been stabbed in the back as people take away gifts that were given to them by others. Just because the system was designed a specific way, does not mean we are allowed to morally or ethically use it as designed. The legal system is designed to have a monopoly on force, but that does not mean we have the moral or ethical right to engage or participate in that system. Doing so would allow us to leverage that force against others.
Even with the legal system, due process of law is a foundational principle to ensure that things are not taken away at the whim of any individual. That is not the case here. There is no due process, no moral or ethical reasoning to justify such violent behaviour.
Spirit and the foundations of the Pacem Arts don't allow for such behaviour. However, people 'justify' the behaviour as they feel like they are better able to judge what constitutes good content or punish those who they think are acting out of greed. I refuse to judge people and punish them based on my judgements. Instead I will confront and rebuke them, stand in their way if possible, but I will not engage in violence against them to teach them a lesson or out of some righteous justification.
I am not worthy or interested in being the judge, jury and executioner. Anybody feel worth to hold all three positions?
Instead I forgive all involved and pray that I can influence them to change their ways and find more peaceful ways of resolving differences of opinion or conflict.
I can respect that viewpoint, although I don't agree.
Idealistically one would not be able to gift themselves.
Idealistically one would not be able to gift others with the intent of being gifted in return.
We don't live in an ideal world. We're never going to and I don't think I'd want to anyway. Be careful what you wish for.
The fact we don't live in an ideal world means that complications arise where we are faced with decisions that need to be made where no ideal outcome can be achieved.
You could see how it could be a little frustrating to try to make these hard choices while those on the sidelines make comments about how the decisions being made are not ideal. They are never going to be ideal, ever.
I can and will make the argument that downvoting is more altruistic than upvoting. When you upvote someone, one person gets the reward. When you downvote someone, two people lose rewards and those rewards get distributed to the entire community.
Is it ideal? No.
Is it an attack? Only by extension.
It can only be viewed as an attack if one needs the reward. The only reason one needs the reward is due to scarcity and corporate slavery. Shit rolls down hill.
Many would argue that while pacifism has merit in many situations, it's not a silver bullet. It often plays right into the abuser's hand.
I feel bad posting this though because it seems a lot more aggressive than what I was going for. Keep on keepin' on! Respect.
I see no aggression in your response as you have not resorted to name calling and instead you are focusing on the issue directly. So no need to feel bad about posting what you did.
Why would one not be able to idealistically gift something to themselves? If I walk into an apple orchard, there is nothing stopping me from plucking an apple for the tree to eat. Perhaps I could even put a few in my basket as well to take home to can or bake. The blockchain is no different. I could upvote my own post if I wanted to.
If I gift to others, I do receive a gift in return. It is experienced when we feel that warm, fuzzy feeling in our heart when we give to others. It is unrealistic to expect that we are not rewarded ten times over when we give freely to other people. I see that as a foundational law of nature!
I agree though, that I don't want to live in a idealistic world. If we did, then we would not be confronted with these moral and ethical questions to help us work through the foundations upon which we want to live our lives. It provides the resistance we need so that we can grow stronger physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. I welcome the debate and resistance so that I can help myself and others come to terms with their own spirituality and by extension, their moral and ethical foundations.
This is where you and I disagree. To take something away from somebody else in order to share it with the whole group is theft. This is the very foundation of taxation that the state uses. Even your quote from Star Trek is socialistic in nature. As a result, there is an inherent danger that the whole will engage their coercive power to subdue and take from the individual to benefit the whole and be justified in that action. This is how democracy works too as they follow the protocols of mob rule. With every political system, the individual MUST have the capacity and right to defend themselves from the mob. This is the foundations of a republic where everyone has a veto to help ensure that the majority don't trample on the rights of the minority. To suggest that this protocol is altruistic violates everything that I've come to know about peace, freedom, love, prosperity and joy.
Again I will state that down voting does not allow for due process or provide an individual any level of veto to protect themselves from unwarranted or unjustified actions from the mob. The individuals 'need' is irrelevant and should never be a consideration when engaging in such behaviours.
This is no different than me walking home with my basket full of apples and somebody mugging me along the way and returning the apples to the trees. What right does anybody have in doing that to somebody? If that is a right that people want to justify within this platform, then I will stand and rebuke them for it.
As I said earlier, this is a view that I find myself in a minority. However, I continue to stand on this principle, whether people agree with me or not. I will continue my work as the foundation for the rewards are spiritual in nature, not physical or even fictional.
While this whole platform is fictional and all of life is physical, I'm working towards spiritual rewards. As such, I'm willing to forgo physical or even fictional advantages to gain spiritual growth. I know most people don't see this the way I do. Yourself included. However, if people were to explore the violence they engage in and recognize that violence is not just associated to physical means, but also emotional, mental and spiritual, then simple acts like taking stuff away from people may be viewed in a much more serious and significant light.
I work hard to love my neighbour as myself. That means that I work hard not to steal from them or bear false witness or even to covet what they have. So what if somebody has lots of apples in their basket. If I think it is unfair or unjust, am I not coveting what they have? If I empty their basket did I not just steal? If I do that for the benefit of the whole, does that justify those behaviours? In my view, the answer is an emphatic NO!
Those types of behaviours cannot be justified as they violate the foundational principles upon which we are supposed to be learning how to govern our lives by. But if you want to ignore or justify these types of behaviours then that is on you. I won't engage in violence to stop you, but I will ask you to reconsider your position and work hard to explore your spirit to see if these points resonate with you in any way.
I choose to walk this path in the hopes that I can influence others to change the way they interact with people. It is not easy. In fact, this path is very difficult with lots of temptations. But I will not empty somebodies basket after somebody else filled it. To me that is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Having a mob do it for the benefit of the whole is wrong, wrong, wrong!
Well said, I guess I just don't agree with the whole analogy that upvotes are a physical gift. They are a contract, one that doesn't resolve until a week later. Built into the contract is a way to destroy it. I view the apples as the coins themselves. Which are in fact not allowed to be taken away from you.
Having a contract taken away from you that said you could pick apples isn't the same as having the apples taken away from you.
I hear you. I really do. Most people see the system the same way you do and make the same arguments.
I have a question for you. If you don't see an upvote as a gift, then what is it? I looked up the word 'reward' and found this definition:
I think the reward pool is aptly named as people are gifting steem (apples) from the reward pool (commons / apple orchard) which is full of steem (apples) to authors for their efforts and achievements on the blockchain. That steem then sits in their payout (basket) waiting for the author to get his haul home (wallet). That is, by definition, a contract between the giver and receiver.
What disturbs me is that the developers created a mechanism to allow gifts and contracts to be destroyed (basket pillaged) by other users. While that choice may have merit in order to allow for checks and balances within the system that they designed, my argument is that using that mechanism has significant spiritual implications.
All I ask is that people at least contemplate the spiritual costs associated with the behaviour before they engage in that behaviour. It is challenging for most as the intellectual exercise makes it easy to justify, but the heart screams out in pain. My heart aches as I witness the destruction of gifts given by others. My heart sees violence where most other people see checks & balances or even justice.
All I ask is that people at least contemplate the idea. We live in a social structure that has normalized violence soooooo much, that it is often difficult to discern what is actually violent or not. Violence is normalized, encouraged and even legal. That does not make it right, just, ethical or moral. All I ask is that people question EVERYTHING that they do.
That is what is required for spiritual enlightenment, decolonization, peace and freedom. Thank you for having the wisdom to see this conversation through. Most people would have lashed out or given up by now. I applaud your willingness to work through these ideas that I am sharing. Peace to you.
Violence is massively normalized in the West. In the West sex is taboo and violence is okay, in the East the opposite is true. I saw the movie 300 in theaters... I don't know why so many people thought it was cool to bring their kids to that. That's alright, just cover their eyes during the sex scenes but not the deplorable violence. The hypocrisy of America knows no bounds.
Unfortunately I think this platform would be a lot worse off if downvotes were not allowed. I will certainly consider this mechanic to be a "necessary evil" now rather than "checks & balances". Thank you.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.