The Dudeism Forum

I've been pondering for a while, about how practical or achievable abiding is, if one is living in some seriously disadvantaged circumstances. For example, what if someone lives in poverty in a war-torn or third-world country?

I often lose my train of thought on it. But I'd be interested to read what other people here think about the practicality of it.

Sometimes, abiding is all one can do. Having to make the best of what you have, if only a little, can at least lead to hope. Without hope, all is lost.

The have nots and those dudes from war-torn or impoverished society, have the hardest time abiding. I guess you have to play the cards you're dealt, even if those cards are in someone else's hands.

Quote from: Rev. Geoffrey Burrows on September 09, 2016, 03:30:22 AM
I've been pondering for a while, about how practical or achievable abiding is, if one is living in some seriously disadvantaged circumstances. For example, what if someone lives in poverty in a war-torn or third-world country?

I often lose my train of thought on it. But I'd be interested to read what other people here think about the practicality of it.

In my experience... these people are sometimes the best abiders on the planet.  I've visited a few third world countries in my single days, and on christian missions trips so we were supposed to be helping the poorest, orphans, prisoners, refugees, etc. and nearly every one I've been to has taught me that I was the one who was worse off because here were these people with next to nothing and in the lowest of circumstances who were content, surrounded by compeers, kids who could find more creative uses and hours of entertainment from my chewing gum wrapper than people in the states can with an Xbox, adults who are never too busy to stop and have chai with a new friend or who take a siesta every day for several hours and spend it with their families or just napping.  Here I am in a country where we have so much excess crap we don't need and I thought of every minor inconvenience as a big screaming deal and we never EVER take a break!  Those people practice abiding every day, some of them were even taoists so they kinda remind me of dudes in retrospect.

Sure a lot of these other countries end up ravaged by war or rampant with much worse racism and xenophobia and sexism than people bitch about in first world countries, but it's just so surreal how many more ecstatically happy people I met in my travels compared to my friends and family back home.  I wonder which is truly worse, going through hell but happily or inventing a hell because you don't know how to enjoy what you have.  It's not a contest though so I guess I just take the lesson and learn that whatever problems I think I have here... there are those abiding much worse circumstances and doing a great job of it... I can deal with whatever I have going on.

Abiding is IMO a luxury available to those who live in relative freedom.
In another context it would be equivalent to submission.
In 1984 by Orwell, the state certainly demanded something like abiding.
Winston Smith claims to have "won a victory over himself"
This is to say that his natural inclination to resent his situation was overcome and he claimed to finally be "free" by accepting big brother. Doublespeak.
Freedom = submission.
War for peace. Yadda yadda.
Abiding as a strategy for overcoming intolerable circumstances certainly walks pretty close to this sort of submission.
While most people find the "the dude abides" scene the big payoff. I've always had mixed feelings. The dudes trajectory in the story starts with the uncharacteristic putting of his foot down with the statement "this will not stand".
After near castration, run in's with the cops and his car finally being killed he ends up back at square one. Content and unemployed.
The moral of the story?
I can't escape a slight whiff of Winston Smith's acceptance of big brother.
Or Big Lebowski?
I guess it should be noted that Taoism and Islam are often called similar because both hinge upon submission.

Quote
Taoism and Islam have a few general points in common. Both rely on a central holy text, and both advocate peacefulness at their cores. In addition, both Taoism and Islam hinge upon the concept of "submission" in one form or another: Taoists give themselves over to the Tao, the natural state and flow of the universe, while Muslims submit to God, who is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

Quote
The Arabic term "Islam" itself is usually translated as "submission"; submission of desires to the will of God. It comes from the term "aslama", which means "to surrender" or "resign oneself". The Arabic word salaam (????) ("Peace") has the same root as the word Islam.

Quote
a·bide
??b?d/Submit
verb
1.
accept or act in accordance with (a rule, decision, or recommendation).
"I said I would abide by their decision"
synonyms:   comply with, obey, observe, follow, keep to, hold to, conform to, adhere to, stick to, stand by, act in accordance with, uphold, heed, accept, go along with, acknowledge, respect, defer to
"he expected everybody to abide by the rules"

So we find ourselves back to the dreaded "can a dudeists be a theist" question.
Surrender to God or surrender to something more esoteric (order of the universe or some such new age crud) One being similar to Islam the other Taoism.
Have you accepted Big Brother as your personal Savior?

I'm not a huge fan of surrender. But I'll allow that I've met some nice people there. But pacifism is not something to hide behind. Just look at our situation with the camel fuckers.

Personally in times of strife I turn to the words of my favorite philosopher.
The great Al Swearengen.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dSkOyhmt_-g

And so many others in the great Deadwood.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b7uaFhs9wrY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tleSL7uk74s

BikerDude, that Al Swearengen video really hit me. "Stand it like a man" makes abiding sound pretty tough and noble, doesn't it? Kinda makes me respect the Dude a little bit more. You pointed out that

Quote from: BikerDude on September 11, 2016, 04:03:06 PM
Abiding as a strategy for overcoming intolerable circumstances certainly walks pretty close to this sort of submission.

I agree, but  think it goes further than that. I'd say that abiding and submission brush shoulders often times. In some cases they go hand in hand. What feels like abiding to the little guy looks an awful lot like submission to the big guy.  So maybe there isn't a definable difference between the two. The only difference is what scope you're looking through. It may just be the perspective of the little guy. I think that abiding could just be the positive version of submission. If the little guy is in a positive state of mind, he would call it abiding. If the little guy feels oppressed he would call it submission. I'll take you back to the limo scene. The Dude is enjoying a White Russian and the company of the driver. They're talking about life.

The Dude: "I was feeling really shitty man. Really down in the dumps. Lost a little money..."   

The Driver "Hey you know what? Forget about it huh, forget about it."

The Dude: "Yeah, fuck it man! I can't be worried about that shit. Life goes on man!"

This is where he exhibits an abiding state of mind. His situation hasn't changed. He still has the threats of the Nihilists and the Big Lebowski hanging over his head. He is far from out of the woods. He just doesn't care. Were he a different man, he might be stressed out and the scene would play out differently. A different man might be downtrodden and sad.

So yes. Abiding might be almost the same as laying down and taking it, but the similarity doesn't matter. If someone is being oppressed but they don't care, doesn't that take power from the oppressor?

I guess the question that started this thread came up for me because abiding feels like a 1st world luxury to some extent. But having said that, my perspective is limited to that of someone living in relative comfort. Sure, I've had my share of ups and down, but I've always had food to eat and felt relatively safe from physical harm. But even with this degree of freedom and luxury, the slight inconveniences of such a life have gotten the better of me at times. So I was thinking, if I struggle to abide in such favourable circumstances, how much harder it would be for someone living in really tough conditions.

Quote from: Rev. Geoffrey Burrows on September 12, 2016, 03:26:35 AM
I guess the question that started this thread came up for me because abiding feels like a 1st world luxury to some extent. But having said that, my perspective is limited to that of someone living in relative comfort. Sure, I've had my share of ups and down, but I've always had food to eat and felt relatively safe from physical harm. But even with this degree of freedom and luxury, the slight inconveniences of such a life have gotten the better of me at times. So I was thinking, if I struggle to abide in such favourable circumstances, how much harder it would be for someone living in really tough conditions.

Exactly.
And for me the really thorny issue is when the struggle is not a personal struggle but the struggle of others.
If the world was depending on the Dude to march on Selma Alabama or get his head cracked on the front lines of the labor wars then we'd have a long wait. "I can't be worried about that shit. Life goes on." Sounds fine when it's your own suffering. But if it's applied to the big real world issues like racism and poverty and oppression etc well it it comes out sounding pretty cold.
OK probably more like lazy. He is a lazy man. And not a hero. But what is a hero?
What makes a man? Is it being ready to do the right thing no matter the cost?

Quote from: ScholarlyDude on September 11, 2016, 09:02:05 PM
BikerDude, that Al Swearengen video really hit me. "Stand it like a man" makes abiding sound pretty tough and noble, doesn't it? Kinda makes me respect the Dude a little bit more.

I'd say that "standing it like a man" is different from abiding.
Standing it like a man is refusing to cry out while the slave holder whips you.
Abiding is to submit. Literally. The dictionary meaning.
The most important part is the "and give some back"
Jackie Treenhorn sends around some goons who invade your home and stuff your head in the toilet. What should you do? Compliment him on his house?
Hmm. Call me crazy but that doesn't appeal to me. Just saying.
Yes abiding certainly can help a person to not sweat the small stuff but it really does have its limits.
It's about context.

This all goes to the central core of the entire flick.
The Dude. What does it mean to be a man.
Branded.

Quote
All but one man died,
There at Bitter Creek,
And they say he ran away ...

Branded!
Marked with a coward's shame.
What do you do when you're branded,
Will you fight for your name?

He was innocent,
Not a charge was true,
But the world will never know ...

Branded!
Scorned as the one who ran.
What do you do when you're branded,
And you know you're a man?

And wherever you go
for the rest of your life
You must prove ...
You're a man!

Quote from: ScholarlyDude on September 11, 2016, 09:02:05 PM
So yes. Abiding might be almost the same as laying down and taking it, but the similarity doesn't matter. If someone is being oppressed but they don't care, doesn't that take power from the oppressor?

No. It doesn't!
Tell it to the Jews. Or the native Americans.
These are the lies that I personally find the most infuriating.
Like the term speaking truth to power.
The powerful know the truth.
It is the powerless who need truth.
All things being equal most people will take the path of least resistance and there is a level at which they will no longer take it. The utility of the false promises of religion is to make that level even lower. That is exactly the power that the oppressor demands. Submission. Religion calls it a virtue. No wonder that fascism and the church have always been such close bedfellows. They appear for all the world to be employed by the oppressors. Power seeks power. If the powerless are content to be so all the better for the powerful. That is wonderful to them.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MBIcdDmFHbc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iynNvY8yYdc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bx96GKeWp4

Quote from: BikerDude on September 12, 2016, 03:13:02 PM
No. It doesn't!
Tell it to the Jews. Or the native Americans.

Okay that's a really good point. It seems that I overlooked those examples in my thinking. I hadn't considered situations where violence was taken against the oppressed. That definitely complicates my point, doesn't it? It's possible I was too uptight in my thinking. I still can't help but thinking that, excluding situations where physical harm is coming to the victim, there's something to be said for letting it roll off your shoulders. Your point seems to center around standing against "the man". (Correct me if I'm wrong) Almost like you don't want the powerful to have the satisfaction of keeping people down? That kind of thinking requires a certain level of ego. Like the Buddhist type of ego. A sense of self. A perfectly respectable way for one to live their life, mind you. Nothing wrong with having a sense of self. The thing is that it can cause problems. Like when people feel slighted, they also feel vindictive or bitter. It's not completely black and white. You're correct that abiding has it's limits and isn't the end all be all. Genocide for example, with the Jews and Native Americans, would be a situation where standing up and doing something is necessary. I'm saying abiding can be a helpful tool.

I might be completely out of my element here. Am I wrong? Or am I just an asshole?

Quote from: BikerDude on September 11, 2016, 04:03:06 PM

Personally in times of strife I turn to the words of my favorite philosopher.
The great Al Swearengen.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dSkOyhmt_-g

Relevant advice.

Quote from: BikerDude on September 12, 2016, 06:49:41 AM

Abiding is to submit. Literally. The dictionary meaning.

Nah. Webster's dictionary gives several definitions, such as definition 2a, "to endure without yielding." I prefer this definition for my own Dudeist practice. From the context, I think the movie is using definition 2b, "to bear patiently." This does not include the resolute sense provided in definition 2a.  2a or 2b are what are meant when discussing "abiding" on this forum.

The other usual definition of the word is definition 3, "to accept without objection" (abide by a law, etc.). This is the sense being used in this discussion, but it does not match with the sense indicated by the context in the movie. The Dude did not accept his circumstances without objection.

As for definition 2a, can one endure oppression without yielding to it? Of course. That is the preferred course of action.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abide

Quote from: SagebrushSage on September 12, 2016, 09:54:42 PM

As for definition 2a, can one endure oppression without yielding to it? Of course. That is the preferred course of action.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abide

Ghandi endured without yielding and helped (by "helped" I mean that he wasn't utterly alone. I don't want to diminish his huge contribution in the slightest) to non-violently liberate an entire country despite the despicable brutalities being visited upon India by the British.

I take great comfort in that and can only hope that if I was in a similar situation that I could endure as peacefully as he did.

I don't think that abiding is or should be a privilege or a luxury. I think it is a very practical, natural state of mind available to all. It is a way of dealing with strikes and gutters with patience and reason. (Not that you guys don't know that).

Also, it's not about submission (in an oppressive sense) either. Going with the grain is easier than going against it.

Sure, some folks don't get to take it easy and relax, but it doesn't mean they don't abide. Even occupants of nazi concentration camps had to make the best of things, even during their horrific experience.

Quote from: Brother D on September 13, 2016, 07:29:55 AM
I don't think that abiding is or should be a privilege or a luxury. I think it is a very practical, natural state of mind available to all. ...

I agree, in that I don't think that abiding should be a luxury. But I'm still unsure of how people in really tough times can do it. With my limited personal experience, I struggle to imagine what it would be like to try and abide outside of a relatively comfortable existence.

As it is, I sometimes lose my cool when I'm hungry; how much harder would it be for someone that hasn't eaten for days?

I find it hard to be patient when I'm sick; how much harder would it be for someone that has long-term untreated illness?

I sometimes feel under siege when someone nearby loses their temper; it must be hard to abide in the face of a bunch of reactionaries waving their guns around.

But yeah, I really hope that those pour unfortunate souls who have the worst of it, can still abide through it all.

As for definitions - I quite like the concept of enduring without necessarily yielding. I definitely don't see abiding as meekly letting oppressive folks dictate what someone else's state of mind should be.

Since we've shifted from the everyman scenario to extreme duress like oppression and discrimination, here's a quote from Auschwitz camp survivor and psychologist, Viktor Frankl:

"Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." - Man's Search For Meaning

I think when observing the Dude, there's plenty of things that get under his skin, but he doesn't always "submit" in the sense of just rolling over and taking it.  Someone pees on his rug, but he doesn't get up and try to punch the guy, he looks for an opportunity for compensation from someone he knew could afford it and was indirectly responsible.  When The Big Lebowski goes on his rant about "bums", he doesn't join the argument, he walks out and swindles a rug out from under him instead of going to blows.  He knows rent is due on the 10th, but he doesn't fret, because a call from the Big Lebowski affords him the opportunity to make $20 grand.  The only time you ever seen him really fret is over the safety of Bunny and of his own life and johnson but he's not a nervous wreck... he's just painfully aware of the danger but nonetheless awaits that opportunity he needs to present itself.  His response to meeting Jackie Treehorn is far from submission too, he flippantly derides the guy's livelihood and place in society to his face, he plans to extort him, and then crash his beach party just to spite the guy... of course we all know the dude was way out of his league and playing a player isn't the wisest decision he ever made.

My point is, I think the way the dude abides applies in all situations.  He doesn't submit, he stays true to himself, but he doesn't retaliate or start squabbles or fights, he just keeps a limber mind and looks for an opportunity to rectify the situation when it presents itself.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, at the end of the story he's lost more than he's gained, including a dear friend, but he is hopeful that there will be a new opportunity and he'll get to balance it all out if he just doesn't let it get him down.  The dude will abide... and so everything will carry on and be ok eventually.

Maybe the idea is not to value the things that can be taken away... even our basic freedoms aren't really freedoms if they can be taken away, disregarded, or exploited are they?  In truth the only thing that can never be taken from us is our ability to choose our own attitude, and wait for the opportune moment to act.  In the interest of avoiding political opinion bias and having to get bogged down with discrepancies in facts, One of my favorite shows with a more eastern perspective, Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, had another scenario that I think is relevant to the discussion.  A terrorist named "Scar" bears a lot of hatred against the military state that had destroyed his homeland and decimated his race for no real reason other than being ordered to by their dictator.  He then hunts down and murders elite members of the military in retaliation but this has made him a fugitive and has caused him to do some fairly morally reprehensible things of his own to avoid capture and among those things is forsaking the rules and religion of the very people he's supposedly fighting for.  His old teacher eventually beseeches him to end the bloodshed and stop seeking revenge and abide but makes an important distinction:

"Abiding and forgiving are two different things.  You must not forget the unjustness of society.  As a human being, you must hold the event in contempt.  Yet, you must abide it.  You must put an end to the chain of hatred!" (from the dubbed version)

Eventually this influence sinks in and leads him to better identify and undermine the puppetmasters behind the whole situation in the first place, but first he had to stop seeing the world through his anger.

Sure... it's fiction... but so is The Big Lebowski... and so is the idea that we will ever be able to right all the wrongs of the world... or that the world in the end will ever give a shit whether we behaved rightly or wrongly when we've all evolved into new creatures or annihilated ourselves before then.  Hell even 100 years later, history can turn heroes into monsters and vice versa.  We have the freedom only to choose our own way and our own attitude.  If we choose to sacrifice our lives, our time, and our emotional and physical energy, in service of or in aggressive defense of others... then that is ours to choose.  If we choose to abide oppression for a time, until we are able to exploit a way to subvert it... then that is ours to choose.  If we choose to abide oppression in perpetuity and find comfort in spite of it... that is ours to choose.  We can choose to take the wheel, or let Walter drive, or just let them kill the fucking car.  Abiding is literally the ONLY basic freedom that we are guaranteed as human beings, regardless of our circumstances, and no matter how bad it gets.  But that's just like, my opinion man.

And a valid opinion it is man, mark it 8.

I have been fortunate enough to live in a society where I can afford relative luxury and can only sympathise with the less fortunate.

When times are tough, using your situation to your advantage while standing on the right side of morality is an acceptable attitude to have. I believe it is an aid to survival and can only benefit yourself and others.

Given current global affairs, I have a massive amount of respect for those staring adversity in the face with a positive and pro active demeanour and think it's our responsibility as human beings to help those in need.

Well I'll go on record as saying that the entire flick is depicting the extremes of the male identity.
Abiding as in the dude sense has its place. But when they are threatening castration? Well the dude doesn't need fucking sympathy he needs his Johnson. Of course by this point one does need to wonder what he needs that for.
Basically the ideal lies somewhere between Walter and the Dude who are intended to depict ridiculous extremes. A person shouldn't go around drawing a lines in the sand over every silly thing and pulling a firearm during league play.
But on the other hand it's equally absurd to sit by and be abused by rug pissers nihilists and known pornographers. Eventually they really will cut off your dick unless someone is willing to open up a can of Walter on them.
The ideal is somewhere between the 2 extremes.
I like the dude but I don't respect him.
I respect Walter but I dont like him.
Ideally a person would be chill enough to not need to constantly draw lines in the sand but not such a coward as to be repeatedly abused without putting up any resistance. And yes the dude is a stone coward. As I've said I believe they wrote character that way on purpose. The other extreme. There is no hint of an ideology in his lack of resistance. He has no problem threatening to cut off Larry Sellers dick. Yet when the nihilists demanded money he folded. Yes I agree with Walter. What's mine is mine. And I believe that it's everybody's responsibility to resist the likes of such nihilists. Sadly in my experience most people who claim a moral aversion as the excuse for a lack of backbone are likewise nothing but cowards. I'll grant that true pacifists exist and are pacifists for the right reasons. But in my experience, for every one of them their are 100 craven cowards. Experiences may vary.

It's wonderful that people in the concentration camps kept a shred of their humanity but it didn't diminish the need to defeat the Nazis. And to be honest I'd rather go down with a fight.
Gandhi is another matter all together. The strategy of passive resistance was effective in that circumstance as a matter of cost vs reward. Yes that is the cold calculous of colonialism. India had many people and little in the way of resources. High cost and low reward. If India sat atop a large oil field things would have gone very differently.

As to the main point of the topic, dreadful circumstances IMO should not be abided. I believe that because I believe in the idea that all human beings have the right to better. And all human beings have the RESPONSIBILITY to resist the forces that inflict these sort of circumstances on others. To me this is what it means to be a man. Being willing to do the right thing no matter the cost.

Well, if being a man boils down to being willing and able to inflict violence upon others (for any reason) then I'll be eternally happy to not be a "man". If being unwilling to inflict violence upon others, finding violence of any kind for any reason to be abhorrently sickening to the very depths of my being, means that I'm a coward, then I will embrace being a coward.

I will take a bullet for, almost, anyone. I'll take a beating so that others don't have to (and I have, several times). But I will not, I absolutely refuse, to inflict violence upon another human being.

Quote from: BikerDude on September 13, 2016, 04:27:30 PM
[We have to be] willing to do the right thing no matter the cost.

Ultimately, you determine whether or not something is the right thing to do by using a cost-benefit analysis. All other ethical systems are subject to verification by this method. So, I think that doing the right thing "no matter the cost" is not prudent or desirable. I believe that failing to consider ALL costs, including negative externalities, is a major cause of ethical errors.

Heroism is overrated. If people are of similar moral value, then harm to the self is just as relevant in one's consideration as harm to others. For those in impossible situations, the chance of rescue is a relevant consideration when deciding whether or not to actively resist. Those in the concentration camps knew that Germany was at war against powerful opponents, so I think that they had good reason to expect to be rescued. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to conclude at that time that awaiting rescue was the ethically preferable option.

Those who survived the Holocaust without performing any resistance actions became a valuable source of information and inspiration after the war. Additional resistance by those in the camps would have done nothing but increase the death toll. This would have been a great loss to history. When a great atrocity occurs, somebody has to survive to tell the tale. Otherwise, justice might not be served. So, I would be reluctant to question someone's decision about abiding impossible circumstances versus resisting.

Quote from: SagebrushSage on September 13, 2016, 06:25:03 PM

Quote from: BikerDude on September 13, 2016, 04:27:30 PM
[We have to be] willing to do the right thing no matter the cost.

Heroism is overrated. If people are of similar moral value, then harm to the self is just as relevant in one's consideration as harm to others. For those in impossible situations, the chance of rescue is a relevant consideration when deciding whether or not to actively resist.

Holy shit.
So then the firefighters who ran toward the falling towers are over rated?
The men who rushed to the shot down helicopters in  Mogadishu to protect the injured helicopter pilots despite knowing that they would likely die doing so are over rated. The many men who have put themselves into harms way selflessly are over rated?
It is precisely because they put consideration of their own safety second that they are far from over rated!

You sir are a horses ass!

Quote from: BikerDude on September 13, 2016, 07:09:40 PM

Quote from: SagebrushSage on September 13, 2016, 06:25:03 PM

Quote from: BikerDude on September 13, 2016, 04:27:30 PM
[We have to be] willing to do the right thing no matter the cost.

Heroism is overrated. If people are of similar moral value, then harm to the self is just as relevant in one's consideration as harm to others. For those in impossible situations, the chance of rescue is a relevant consideration when deciding whether or not to actively resist.

Holy shit.
So then the firefighters who ran toward the falling towers are over rated?
The men who rushed to the shot down helicopters in  Mogadishu to protect the injured helicopter pilots despite knowing that they would likely die doing so are over rated. The many men who have put themselves into harms way selflessly are over rated?
It is president because they put consideration of their own safety second that they are far from over rated!

You sir are a horses ass!

Could not agree more

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

Quote from: Liam_123 on September 13, 2016, 07:59:00 PM

Quote
Holy shit.
So then the firefighters who ran toward the falling towers are over rated?
The men who rushed to the shot down helicopters in  Mogadishu to protect the injured helicopter pilots despite knowing that they would likely die doing so are over rated. The many men who have put themselves into harms way selflessly are over rated?
It is president because they put consideration of their own safety second that they are far from over rated!

You sir are a horses ass!

Could not agree more

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

"Overrated" does not mean "not valuable." Ass.

It is ethical for firefighters, police, etc. to do heroic acts because they have the training to do so as safely as possible. Untrained bystanders often just add to the body count or get in the way, so non-emergency personnel are routinely discouraged from doing heroism.

My intention was to provide an explanation why any particular Holocaust victim might have had good ethical reason to do nothing about their situation. I'm sorry if making an ethical argument in favor of many Holocaust survivors' actions was offensive. I did not have any reason to believe that supporting Holocaust survivors would cause offense at the time of posting.

As for emergency personnel, emergency personnel are discouraged from doing heroics. Most emergency work, even when it involves risk to life and limb, is better described as "following procedure" than "heroics." "Heroics" in this context would refer to unusually risky actions not covered in the procedures. Firefighters, etc. who take stupid risks tend to be a danger to themselves and to their teammates. Good firefighters avoid heroics, stay calm, and follow procedure, even when it means letting somebody die when the risk is too great. This is how you live on to save somebody else another day, and again and again for many more days after that.

Quote from: SagebrushSage on September 13, 2016, 10:28:26 PM

"Overrated" does not mean "not valuable." Ass.

It is ethical for firefighters, police, etc. to do heroic acts because they have the training to do so as safely as possible. Untrained bystanders often just add to the body count or get in the way, so non-emergency personnel are routinely discouraged from doing heroism.

So your message to the families of those who gave their lives trying to help others would be that while indeed over rated their sacrifice was somewhat valuable?

I stand by my statement.
You are a plutonium powered, supercharged ass.

I am tired of being told that I am a bad person whenever I apply my genuine love of formalities, technicalities, and minutiae to the topics that matter most to me. I thought Dudeism was partly about being true to yourself. Society needs people like me who are willing to stare unblinking into cold, cruel, heartless logic and report what unpleasant things I see there.

If this seems to contradict my late emotionality, consider, how else besides studying logic and reason would I equip myself to deal with this problem?

Quote
So your message to the families of those who gave their lives trying to help others would be that while indeed over rated their sacrifice was somewhat valuable?

I would say nothing of the sort to a parent or family member of an actual hero. If you do something heroic and it works, great! I just don't want anybody on this forum to over-emphasize heroism vs. caution and get themselves killed or injured unnecessarily for some goal that didn't have a realistic chance of success. So please pardon me for being concerned about the health and well-being of my fellow forumites if that offends you. If I can potentially save a fellow Dudeist from harm by being a "plutonium-powered ass," then so be it.

Actual heroes usually say that they do not want to be idolized. Here I am, not idolizing them, per request.

I have done stupid, heroic actions on a couple of occasions myself. Specifically, I broke up a few bar fights over the years that I should not have involved myself in. I can recall four incidents off the top of my head. I have been told that I almost got myself shot once. These actions worked out fine, but I regret them. Maybe I can encourage people to have more sense than I did.

I would also disagree that heroism is over rated, acts of true heroism are rarer than you think.

Diffusing a situation is one thing, (i have done similar acts, sorry to trivialise), but
disarming a bomb or saving a life for example, is another.

I wouldn't say I've done anything other than my job and be a good Samaritan, because what's a hee-ro?.

I thought heroism was a perfectly ordinary personality trait, something that everybody has to some degree. Are we discussing something different here?

Quote from: SagebrushSage on September 14, 2016, 09:54:19 AM
I thought heroism was a perfectly ordinary personality trait, something that everybody has to some degree. Are we discussing something different here?

Your contention that breaking up a few bar fights constitutes heroism would laughable were it not for the constant stream of infuriating blather that has been your hallmark.
No, heroism is not a perfectly ordinary trait.
It is an exceptional trait.
It is the exceptionally selfless and courageous nature of the act that marks it as rising to the level of heroism. And for someone to have gall to criticise the actions of a person who puts themselves in harms way and perhaps even pays the ultimate price in the service of others constitutes a level of arrogance that grinds my gears big time.
The hint of even making such calculations as you suggest is something that I can't understand. If my neighbor's house is on fire and I know that there is a child in there I don't believe that I would have the capability to simply stand by on the basis of my chances of success. At least I would like to think that I would lack the ability to stand by. But it is the nature of such acts that no one can really say what they would do. I do know that if I didn't do everything I could I would need some serious counciling for quite some time. I certainly would not be sleeping for quite q while and I would have a hard time looking anyone in the eye.
Death might literally be preferable to living in self disgust at that level. The most courageous of any of us have regrets along these lines. To one extent or another we all have at least swallowed some shit from people and lost sleep over not having kicked ass. To not have that streak is something I don't get. To me this is the utility of dudeism. Being able to walk away from tivial and sometimes not so trivial bullshit without eating your own guts out.

But criticising the choice that a person makes to risk their own life is despicable.
I personally would be overcome with genuine grief over their sacrifice and I simply honor and respect their courage. And I certainly would not call their actions over fucking rated!

I'm not saying that their actions are overrated. I am saying that the personality trait of heroism, that is, one's own tendency towards risky, altruistic actions, is overrated with regards to one's own decision-making process. The scope of this discussion with regards to what people should or should not do only refers to the participants in this discussion. I am not saying that the actions of actual, historical heroes were not valuable. I am saying that people tend to overvalue or overemphasize the natural heroism in themselves, when caution works better in most circumstances.

You may recall that I was criticizing myself for my actions, regarding breaking up bar fights. So, your contention that I am aggrandizing myself here is without merit. The actions were "heroics" in the sense that I did them due to my own small amount of the personality trait "heroism." But the situations were not sufficiently serious to merit heroics. So, those "heroic" actions were the stupid, unnecessary sort of heroism that just gets people killed or injured without compensating benefit.

I'm tired of everyone, myself included, kicking me around. I will defend myself in this thread for as long as anyone cares to speak against me. Anyone who has anything negative to say about me can go fuck themselves. I get more than enough of that from myself as it is, and I'm tired of hearing it.

Heh. Being the son of a nuclear safety process engineer (one who writes procedures for dealing with nuclear waste cleanup), I suppose it should not be surprising that I grew up to be a plutonium-powered arse.

Quote from: SagebrushSage on September 14, 2016, 11:43:13 AM
I'm tired of everyone, myself included, kicking me around. I will defend myself in this thread for as long as anyone cares to speak against me. Anyone who has anything negative to say about me can go fuck themselves. I get more than enough of that from myself as it is, and I'm tired of hearing it.

Honestly I don't really think there's any disagreement here on anything but the semantics.

If anyone's personal goal is to go out and be a hero though, I think that kinda flies in the face of dudeism completely, not the hero part so much as the goal part... I'm not even concerned about making the finals.  Do I think it's possible that dudes can be heroes or vice versa?  Sure.  We are people for our time and place and if the time and place necessitates heroism then that's cool.  But running out and looking for daring do or wrongs to right or a purpose and a calling, that just doesn't seem what we're about nor does it seem to really lead to any kind of happiness or peace in life.  No disrespect to those who do... all told some of them are nice folks... some are reactionary assholes with unhealthy personal obsessions... that's not really for me to decipher though.

The original discussion was about abiding in places with oppression and war and the answer is yes... it is possible and it definitely exists in abundance and sometimes even better than in "privileged" society.  Folks overseas are abiding all kinds of hardship and keeping their personal room tied together and not letting it get to them.  Folks in concentration camps abided atrocities left-and-right and survived them with their psyches intact.  There are folks abiding even in the worst of circumstances and it all just has to do with how they frame the world and what they place importance on.  Are these folks deadbeats?  People the square community shouldn't give a shit about?  I don't think so.  For me, these folks give me hope that I can abide whatever comes my way just by staying limber and not getting so attached to things that can be taken away.  I can fret about the injustices of the world, but my efforts will never rectify them as long as there are imperfect people on the planet.  I can fret about the dictators oppressing their people, but history has shown that unseating one just leads to another popping up somewhere.  I can fret about the man trying to hold me down, but I'm never going to beat him at his own game.  Should I roll over and take it?  No... I should just sidestep and watch the world learn the lessons it needs to... then forget them and go back to unrest... shampoo rinse repeat.  Back and forth the waves of light and dark undulate but I won't get swept up in that noise.  I can only control one thing and only in one moment: myself and the present.  So that's where I choose to live and I choose to do only that which is necessary... and move back to a state of content, striving only not to be the person who seeks to control his universe, and letting it go when I fuck up.

For those of us who aren't in that dilemma-riddled position of being the chosen one equipped to overthrow that oppressive regime... thus rebooting the cycle all over again, that's really the best state we could be in for our own benefit and those around us.

Quote from: Dudeist Monk on September 13, 2016, 05:51:49 PM
Well, if being a man boils down to being willing and able to inflict violence upon others (for any reason) then I'll be eternally happy to not be a "man". If being unwilling to inflict violence upon others, finding violence of any kind for any reason to be abhorrently sickening to the very depths of my being, means that I'm a coward, then I will embrace being a coward.

I will take a bullet for, almost, anyone. I'll take a beating so that others don't have to (and I have, several times). But I will not, I absolutely refuse, to inflict violence upon another human being.

No it doesn't depend on inflicting violence.
I'd say it means standing up for your convictions.
Which I commend you for.
Pacifism is refusing to inflict violence on others and importantly being willing to absorb violence in defense of your convictions and the welfare of others.It is not about avoidance of risk. Of course if being a man also depends on your Johnson, I'd have to say that a refusal to be willing to inflict violence on the likes of the nihilists would put things into jeopardy. If you are willing to have her dick cut off without a fight I can say that I don't understand it but on a weird level I guess my hat is off. But I'm in part scratching my head, in the parlance of our times.
Genuine pacifism is admirable.
Especially when so many lacking any real convictions hide behind the label of pacifist.

Quote from: thevideoartist on September 14, 2016, 01:42:42 PM
Honestly I don't really think there's any disagreement here on anything but the semantics.

I know, right? I didn't think I'd encounter so much grief here for encouraging caution.

Like it or not, I'm not Audie Murphy or Edward Snowden. I don't have exceptional courage or any exceptional skills save for technical writing and manual labor. What I do have are creditors. When you risk injury, you risk letting down the people that are depending on you. My job is to survive and avoid injury so that I can pay my debts. I can afford heroism when my debts are paid.

QuoteThe original discussion was about abiding in places with oppression and war and the answer is yes... it is possible and it definitely exists in abundance and sometimes even better than in "privileged" society.  Folks overseas are abiding all kinds of hardship and keeping their personal room tied together and not letting it get to them.  Folks in concentration camps abided atrocities left-and-right and survived them with their psyches intact.  There are folks abiding even in the worst of circumstances and it all just has to do with how they frame the world and what they place importance on.  Are these folks deadbeats?  People the square community shouldn't give a shit about? 

I think that they aren't given a shit about, which is why they are easier to subjugate. I agree with the rest though.

Quote from: thevideoartist on September 14, 2016, 01:42:42 PM...(a bunch of great stuff)...

Nice post man.  :)

As for the rest of the recent discussion dudes, will you just make sure that you're takin' it easy? I know that tone, inflections, and all that stuff can be hard to pick up on with written discussions, so I could be way off the mark here.

But all the same, thanks to everyone for some great thought-provoking stuff. I'm glad that I decided to drop by the forum again, and seek out wiser fellas than myself.

Quote from: Brother D on September 14, 2016, 03:21:06 PM

QuoteThe original discussion was about abiding in places with oppression and war and the answer is yes... it is possible and it definitely exists in abundance and sometimes even better than in "privileged" society.  Folks overseas are abiding all kinds of hardship and keeping their personal room tied together and not letting it get to them.  Folks in concentration camps abided atrocities left-and-right and survived them with their psyches intact.  There are folks abiding even in the worst of circumstances and it all just has to do with how they frame the world and what they place importance on.  Are these folks deadbeats?  People the square community shouldn't give a shit about? 

I think that they aren't given a shit about, which is why they are easier to subjugate. I agree with the rest though.

OK well I just ask politely isn't it important also that they should give a shit about themselves?
I mean if people simply abide at every stage don't they eventually own some portion of their lot in life? Not calling them bums or deadbeats. Is the advice every day to abide as they become more and more subjugated until finally it's up to others to come to their aid?

I am the most liberal person that you are likely to meet. I've never met a social program I didn't support because I do believe that the game is totally fixed. And I am not a pacifist. I wish that this country lived up to the foundational ideals and opposed oppression. Unfortunately they are only lip service.
So not only do I applaude black lives matter I have huge respect for the black panthers from the sixties. And the Students for. A Democratic Society (you know the port Huron statement) later the weathermen and then the weather underground. None of these could be considered very mellow organizations.
They refuse to abide. I applaud every time that people take measures to at least try to steer their own destiny.
So when a group takes no interest in standing up for its self isn't it a bit selfish to then claim that nobody gives a shit about them and depend on their own personal Walter to pick them up?

I'm not referring to the Jews here. Just making a generalization.

Quote from: SagebrushSage on September 14, 2016, 03:12:38 PM

Quote from: thevideoartist on September 14, 2016, 01:42:42 PM
Honestly I don't really think there's any disagreement here on anything but the semantics.

I know, right? I didn't think I'd encounter so much grief here for encouraging caution.

Like it or not, I'm not Audie Murphy or Edward Snowden. I don't have exceptional courage or any exceptional skills save for technical writing and manual labor. What I do have are creditors. When you risk injury, you risk letting down the people that are depending on you. My job is to survive and avoid injury so that I can pay my debts. I can afford heroism when my debts are paid.

This is exactly the point.
We are fortunate that heroism is not required of us.
In dire circumstances heroism becomes the very act of caring for those who depend on us. Heroism is always demanded by circumstance. For me suggesting abiding as a substitute in those circumstances is not appealing. Sorry it starts to resemble cowardice.

The discussion is about abiding in dire circumstances. When one gets way past worrying about the cable bill.
This is why my contention is that abiding is a first world luxury. And at the risk sounding like a Walter it's a luxury that has never persisted for free. Freedom isn't free. Eventually somebody has to be a Walter.

Quote from: thevideoartist on September 14, 2016, 01:42:42 PM

Quote from: SagebrushSage on September 14, 2016, 11:43:13 AM
I'm tired of everyone, myself included, kicking me around. I will defend myself in this thread for as long as anyone cares to speak against me. Anyone who has anything negative to say about me can go fuck themselves. I get more than enough of that from myself as it is, and I'm tired of hearing it.

The original discussion was about abiding in places with oppression and war and the answer is yes... it is possible and it definitely exists in abundance and sometimes even better than in "privileged" society.  Folks overseas are abiding all kinds of hardship and keeping their personal room tied together and not letting it get to them.  Folks in concentration camps abided atrocities left-and-right and survived them with their psyches intact.  There are folks abiding even in the worst of circumstances and it all just has to do with how they frame the world and what they place importance on.  Are these folks deadbeats?  People the square community shouldn't give a shit about?  I don't think so.

OK so once they get out what do they do?
Abide?
Were there people in the concentration camps before them?
Did they do anything to help those people?
Did they expect others to help them?
Of course they will but wouldn't it be ridiculous to call their actions over rated?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/heroism

See definition 1, "the qualities or attributes of a hero."

We all will act bravely in defense of our homes or loved ones. Such acts would be rightly called heroic. All humans, more or less, have the potential for great courage in the right, or perhaps wrong, circumstances. So, since we are all heroes in potentia, we therefore all have at least some of the qualities or attributes of a hero. Heroism is an innate human ability, not a rare trait accessible only to a privileged few.

To be clear, even though we all possess heroism, we are not all heroes. I am not a hero, for example. One only becomes a hero upon performing a justified heroic act. We do not call people who act heroically unjustly, such as terrorists, or such as bystanders taking unnecessary risks against the instructions of emergency personnell, "heroes." Such people are usually called either "villains," "loose cannons," or "casualties."

It is very common for people to use poor judgement in the application of their own innate heroism. For example, see this story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-donald-trump-attacker-indicted-20160629-story.html. It is a perfectly valid topic of academic discussion to consider what circumstances where heroics might not be justified.

I used to be a fellow of the loose cannon persuasion, and I provided an anecdotal example of my foolish behavior to demonstrate this point. Saying that I acted wrongly out of a misplaced sense of heroism is the opposite of calling myself a hero. It is calling myself a fool. This is why I say that I am not aggrandizing myself here.

I believe that the hero-worship in this country tends to lead to people such as George Zimmerman taking stupid risks or harming others unnecessarily. I believe that the gung-ho over-emphasis on heroism in our country produces a lot of harmful, "loose cannon," often violent, behavior. So, I say that heroism is overrated, and advocate caution in its application.

Are we splitting hairs here? Are we talking about drawing a line in the sand here dude?

Even when you feel like you have nothing left, there can still be a line of personal morality or ethics you won't or can't cross, like some great dudes of history, there are those who are lucky just to make it to the finals,  eg Dr MLK, Emily Pankhurst, Gandhi. (Maybe not my best examples). Us normo's just fit right in the middle.

Am I rambling here?

Some dudes got beat down and shat on from a great height and achieved anyway. Those are who we can learn our greatest lessons from. They are those that deserve our utmost respect.

What's going on in Tibet is a good example of abiding in adversity. The country has been occupied by China for like 60yrs or so, their culture is being eradicated, Tibetans are being imprisoned and tortured for just having a flag of their own country or images of the dalai lama, (who, like many others is exiled from his home), but they still want to end this thing cheap, but can't, because no one wants to piss off China.

Where is the justice? Fuctifino, probably in the same place as everything else!

Quote from: SagebrushSage on September 15, 2016, 01:04:05 PM


To be clear, even though we all possess heroism, we are not all heroes. I am not a hero, for example. One only becomes a hero upon performing a justified heroic act. We do not call people who act heroically unjustly, such as terrorists, or such as bystanders taking unnecessary risks against the instructions of emergency personnell, "heroes." Such people are usually called either "villains," "loose cannons," or "casualties."

To say that people who die in the defense of others e casualties do not qualify as hero's fly's in the face of common usage. Just look at the numerous recipients of the meddle of honor who received it for actions that resulted in their death.

As far as George Zimmerman goes it's simple he is neither a hero nor motivated by false heroic impulses. He was predominantly motivated by racism and then by cowardice by shooting an unarmed boy.

You have been back peddling on this in post after post. Your tactic seems to be an insistence on walking as close as possible to conflating heroism with less heroic and even despicable acts in an effort to have it both ways. To back peddle on your "over rated" nonsense by conflating heroism with something else.

I'll spell it out. Heroism is not over rated. Ever. This does not include acts of cruelty racism or any such things which are not heroism.

And if a person acts in the interest of others by putting themselves in danger it is IMO an act of extreme arrogance to categorize their efforts as unworthy of praise by judging them as reckless or any other sort of derogatory terms.

I'm leaving it alone because I gets sick of the way you tend to put your foot in you mouth and then spend pages back peddling it and splitting hairs trying to defend yourself.
Opinions may vary.

@BikerDude

Hey, did you read the definition that I linked you to? I also provided the definition in the text. Also, did you read when I said that people who perform justified heroic acts, including those who die in the process, are rightly called heroes? Where did I say that failing in a heroic deed or injuring oneself while performing a heroic deed indicates that one is not a hero? Try reading my words again, correctly this time.

I am right. You are wrong. Quit putting words in my mouth. You have a more negative opinion of me than is justified by a fair reading of my words.

Have a nice day :)

Since i have already proven exhaustively that I am not making the offensive claims that BikerDude seems to think that I am making, I see no reason to continue participating in this discussion.

Quote from: SagebrushSage on September 15, 2016, 02:06:28 PM
@BikerDude

Hey, did you read the definition that I linked you to? I also provided the definition in the text. Also, did you read when I said that people who perform justified heroic acts, including those who die in the process, are rightly called heroes? Where did I say that failing in a heroic deed or injuring oneself while performing a heroic deed indicates that one is not a hero? Try reading my words again, correctly this time.

I am right. You are wrong. Quit putting words in my mouth. You have a more negative opinion of me than is justified by a fair reading of my words.

Have a nice day :)

@dickhead

Although you are interested in continually pouring out your drivel after making assinine  statements like "heroism is over rated" I'm content to conclude that you are either a complete ass or you walk close enough to it you lack the normal instincts that would cause an individual pause before pouring forth such garbage. I would judge either case worthy of scorn. And I'm not interested in splitting hairs as you perform gymnastics in extricating yourself.

@BikerDude

As I stated previously, go fuck yourself.

Whoa! Chill out guys, go smoke a j or something!

Not cool, man.

@Brother D, @BikerDude

Fine. I am a terrible, disgusting person, not worthy of the respect or kindness of the members of this forum. I do not deserve to be forgiven for accidentally breaking taboos, or any other consideration for my human fallibility. I apologize for maligning and undervaluing our heroes, and for making a big deal out of a minor disagreement.

Having different points of view is fine, man, it's the name calling that I think is below the belt.

You're not a bad guy, sage, we can all get passionate about our views from time to time. Nothing is fucked here dude.

I respect you both even if I don't agree with you.

*Passes doob of peace*

I likewise apologise for contributing to another endlessly tedious scuffle with SS

Yay!, Let's go grab us a lane! First round's on me!

@BikerDude

I have no quarrel with you. I appreciate and respect good debaters like yourself. I also apologize for apologizing in a passive-aggressive manner.

My judgement is impaired due to long-term stress, which is painfully apparent whenever I review or recall my statements in a calm state of mind. I have good days and bad days.

I can't help thinking of the scene in kingpin where the Woody Harrelson character asks the bum "how's life" and he replies "taking forever".
At the risk of being accused of bravado the term "give me liberty or give me death" comes to mind.

I'm just not sure that in general striving to find contentment in misery is a good thing. Seems sort of a perversion of the human spirit.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB-LXIdM1fU

Yeah, I got a rash, man.

Misplaced aggression is something that we all should be aware of. If a pet is held or restrained, it can bite you or get stressed out because it can't get to what it wants. It's a way of communicating that us humans should know better, like it's trying to tell us something.

Sometimes I snap at people because I'm anxious about something else not related to them, but because I've let my emotions get the better of me, it comes out the wrong way.

Like when the dude's thinking becomes uptight, it clouds his judgement.

Anyhoo, what were we blathering about?  Lost my train of thought there....

I'm one of those old fools that believes people are inherently good and looking for contentment in misery is a good thing. It gives us something to hope for and a small amount of peace of mind.

I'm gonna have to watch more of this saxondale, bikerdude, good stuff there, mang.

How's Life? Taking forever. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSb_KZBW-j0)

*grin* Yep. I'm Herb these days lol. Love it!

Man, I wish I was named "Herb." What a perfect name for a stoner.

I haven't had a J in so freakin' long. Ugh. I wish society would just chill and let me do what I want. Weed prohibitionists are a bunch of nihilists and reactionaries.

It's worse than that, man, we're being governed by the love children of grade-school student council members and tyrannical corporate overlords.

Quote from: Brother D on September 15, 2016, 04:22:41 PM
I'm one of those old fools that believes people are inherently good and looking for contentment in misery is a good thing. It gives us something to hope for and a small amount of peace of mind.

I'm gonna have to watch more of this saxondale, bikerdude, good stuff there, mang.

Is that some kind of eastern thing?
I'm an old fool who thinks misery sucks.

I think individuals are good.
But centuries of colonialism, oppression racism etc leads me to believe that there seems to just maybe be a tiny bit of a trend there when it comes to groups of people. Call me crazy but it sort of looks like even in a relatively civilized country like this there isn't any shortage of hate. Let's see who got killed this century MLK, Kennedy, Bobby yadda yadda. Before that Lincoln. Seeing a trend here?  The Tuskegee experiments? It goes on and on. Has it gotten better?
We are set to elect or almost elect Trump.

Everywhere it looks like every group that constitutes a minority ends up at least on the short end of the stick and usually worse. Doesn't matter where. You'd almost think that power is more influential than the better angels of our nature.
Yeah hope springs eternal and that's a beautiful thing but as for me I'd council people to organize around our better angels and be ready to kick ass.

That is to say that taken in aggregate groups of people seem to generally end up being a teeny bit on the cranky side. And the ones who aren't end up downtrodden.
It's a generalization but it's a bit hard to miss a trend. I don't think it's a passing fad.

It's true, it's not a passing fad, at least not from where I'm standing. But enough of those minorities get together and you have a revolution.

And yes, misery doth sucketh, but letting it warsh over you, keeps you down in the dumps. I don't think anyone really wants to be unhappy, I mean, what's the point?
You can't be worried about that shit, life goes on, man.

The oppression of the minority thing, while a historical reality and though it inevitably remains as to given individuals, has largely been overcome in the aggregate. Minority status is now, all things being equal, a boon and not a detriment. You can argue certain minorities find themselves disadvantaged from the start. And fair enough. But, even in those circumstances, the minority will generally be advantaged in comparison to a white person born into the same situation.

Okay, that was way more vague and generalistic than intended. Let's put some meat on it. A black kid born into a poor family is going to get advantages that a white kid born across the street to similarly poor parents won't get. Higher education quotas (call it what you will but it's essentially a quota). Specialized scholarships. Minority loan benefits. The perceived benefit of having a critical mass of minority employees. Qualification of minority (and women) owned businesses, particularly in the arena of government contracts. It's a lot. It just is.

I dunno, man. I just don't see how we destroy the last vestiges of prejudice by being prejudicial.

Quote from: jgiffin on September 15, 2016, 06:28:02 PM
The oppression of the minority thing, while a historical reality and though it inevitably remains as to given individuals, has largely been overcome in the aggregate. Minority status is now, all things being equal, a boon and not a detriment. You can argue certain minorities find themselves disadvantaged from the start. And fair enough. But, even in those circumstances, the minority will generally be advantaged in comparison to a white person born into the same situation.

Okay, that was way more vague and generalistic than intended. Let's put some meat on it. A black kid born into a poor family is going to get advantages that a white kid born across the street to similarly poor parents won't get. Higher education quotas (call it what you will but it's essentially a quota). Specialized scholarships. Minority loan benefits. The perceived benefit of having a critical mass of minority employees. Qualification of minority (and women) owned businesses, particularly in the arena of government contracts. It's a lot. It just is.

I dunno, man. I just don't see how we destroy the last vestiges of prejudice by being prejudicial.

So then can I assume that you attribute the disparity in things like family income and educational success to some inherent aspect of blacks as being fundamentally inferior? I'm just trying to understand your position. You contend that the effects of racial prejudice has been overcome but offer no explanation for these disparities. As well as the disparity in prison population. Would you contend then that blacks are inherently more prone to crime?

Don't worry Brother D assumes that you are inherently good.

Quote from: Brother D on September 15, 2016, 05:50:55 PM
It's true, it's not a passing fad, at least not from where I'm standing. But enough of those minorities get together and you have a revolution.

And yes, misery doth sucketh, but letting it warsh over you, keeps you down in the dumps. I don't think anyone really wants to be unhappy, I mean, what's the point?
You can't be worried about that shit, life goes on, man.

I'm down with revolution thing. And I would suggest that it is the best tonic for misery. And misery as the best motivation for revolution.
Contentment in misery to me resembles that abandonment of hope.
In fact blacks used to have a slang term "mad and glad"
The idea was that once you lose your anger over your situation you had lost your humanity.

The inherent good thing, is from the view that no one is born an asshole and unless someone intentionally makes a bad impression, or deliberately tries to upset or hurt another, they are going to be nice and good when first met.

Also, I believe in the same way, that disrespect is earned. (A view I learned from a dude on this forum).

Also, is Black the preferred nomenclature? It's a PC minefield nowadays!

Quote from: Brother D on September 16, 2016, 03:09:43 AM
The inherent good thing, is from the view that no one is born an asshole and unless someone intentionally makes a bad impression, or deliberately tries to upset or hurt another, they are going to be nice and good when first met.

Also, I believe in the same way, that disrespect is earned. (A view I learned from a dude on this forum).

Also, is Black the preferred nomenclature? It's a PC minefield nowadays!

Black is obviously correct. Black lives matter?

The fact that no one is born an asshole is an eternal source of hope but in practical terms irrelevant. The issue is that for some reason people seem to pretty universally express their will through xenophobia and racism and hatred.
Again this often collapses when speaking about individuals. But once people organize themselves into societies the net will of the society seems to pretty consistently express it's self in these ways. If we look for instance at MLK. The level of resistance that his movement met from the usual suspects (southern racists Klan etc) is unsurprising but the fact is that the government, specifically the FBI, led a coordinated effort to undermine him should more clearly illustrate things. As an obvious example. Don't even get started about the government and native Americans. Yes I know the same government eventually passed the civil rights act.
How should a native american living in pine ridge for instance react when mostly privileged white people who deem themselves decent are primarily concerned and guided by the principle that everyone is born good. It's irrelevant. Clearly they somehow turn into xenophobic racist pricks. To focus primarily on how people inflicting real misery on others decade after decade were "born good" seems calloused in the extreme and the product of privilege. All houses are built not on fire. Once they catch fire it's irrelivant.

So to bring it back around to the topic.
I do see the issue of the real big important stuff as a big problem for dudeism. Well that's obvious from the get go.
Are we really basically a bunch of spoiled pissy privileged white kids spouting vague sort of eastern sounding platitudes while we GLORIFY callously ignoring the plight of everyone less fortunate because dealing with it harshes our mellow?
In fact counciling that they should be content with their misery.
(Or at best profess to deeply care but choose feel good mumbo jumbo that has the net effect of inaction)

This is our concern dudes.

I'm not sure it's about ignoring the less fortunate, the difficulty I have, is though we (the editorial), acknowledge the ills of the world, we're powerless to do anything about it.

Quoting a film, sending prayers or liking it on Facebook, changes nothing sadly, so maybe you're right man.

All we can do as dudes, is think global, act local and get involved. Petition parliament/ congress, actually help where we can.

Reminds me of this.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3De3C9rMIRuF8&ved=0ahUKEwjfmbqJl5TPAhXrI8AKHSSDBjMQ3ywIHDAA&usg=AFQjCNFkhiEpkzggvTsegJ0aQeA3gEwVsA&sig2=QLpWgiJHTkEwWn65PjXmcQ

Quote from: Brother D on September 16, 2016, 11:17:37 AM
I'm not sure it's about ignoring the less fortunate, the difficulty I have, is though we (the editorial), acknowledge the ills of the world, we're powerless to do anything about it.

Quoting a film, sending prayers or liking it on Facebook, changes nothing sadly, so maybe you're right man.

All we can do as dudes, is think global, act local and get involved. Petition parliament/ congress, actually help where we can.

Reminds me of this.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3De3C9rMIRuF8&ved=0ahUKEwjfmbqJl5TPAhXrI8AKHSSDBjMQ3ywIHDAA&usg=AFQjCNFkhiEpkzggvTsegJ0aQeA3gEwVsA&sig2=QLpWgiJHTkEwWn65PjXmcQ

The question arises about whether it a good thing to recommend inaction as a principle. I'll grant it has its place.
Dudeism helps me where it's appropriate.
For instance when I'm called upon to clean up mountains of steaming shit created by people that companies hire from india. Yet despite breathtaking ineptitude these people brought over on work visas maintain a staggering level of arrogance. Dudeism allows me to mellow and not sweat it and surf the web. Fuck it! I don't end up dwelling on the uselessness of an infrastructure of directors and potentates who if there was justice in the world would earn their keep servicing sailors orally.
Fuck it dude. I can't be worried about that shit.

I think we're on the same page, dude.

Im not sure I would suggest inaction, it helps no one. I would suggest non violent protests etc. If you can act in a peaceful, proactive way, then by all means do.

It bums me out that I can't help all those that need it, I wish I had the necessary means, but I, (like most of us), can only do so much.

(Is this what is meant by Engaged Dudeism?).

As for what to do in the meantime, do what you will, but harm none.
Same for the rest of us really.

Quote from: BikerDude on September 16, 2016, 07:52:30 AM

...

So to bring it back around to the topic.
I do see the issue of the real big important stuff as a big problem for dudeism. Well that's obvious from the get go.
Are we really basically a bunch of spoiled pissy privileged white kids spouting vague sort of eastern sounding platitudes while we GLORIFY callously ignoring the plight of everyone less fortunate because dealing with it harshes our mellow?
In fact counciling that they should be content with their misery.
(Or at best profess to deeply care but choose feel good mumbo jumbo that has the net effect of inaction)

This is our concern dudes.

That's worth thinking about. It goes a step further than my initial pondering, and raises an important question. I'm wondering if I'm struggling to crack this case because of my idea of "abiding" has been partially framed by The Big Lebowski, which is set in a time and place far from serious hardship.

Quote from: BikerDude on September 15, 2016, 08:35:22 PM

Quote from: jgiffin on September 15, 2016, 06:28:02 PM
The oppression of the minority thing, while a historical reality and though it inevitably remains as to given individuals, has largely been overcome in the aggregate. Minority status is now, all things being equal, a boon and not a detriment. You can argue certain minorities find themselves disadvantaged from the start. And fair enough. But, even in those circumstances, the minority will generally be advantaged in comparison to a white person born into the same situation.

Okay, that was way more vague and generalistic than intended. Let's put some meat on it. A black kid born into a poor family is going to get advantages that a white kid born across the street to similarly poor parents won't get. Higher education quotas (call it what you will but it's essentially a quota). Specialized scholarships. Minority loan benefits. The perceived benefit of having a critical mass of minority employees. Qualification of minority (and women) owned businesses, particularly in the arena of government contracts. It's a lot. It just is.

I dunno, man. I just don't see how we destroy the last vestiges of prejudice by being prejudicial.

So then can I assume that you attribute the disparity in things like family income and educational success to some inherent aspect of blacks as being fundamentally inferior? I'm just trying to understand your position. You contend that the effects of racial prejudice has been overcome but offer no explanation for these disparities. As well as the disparity in prison population. Would you contend then that blacks are inherently more prone to crime?

Don't worry Brother D assumes that you are inherently good.

No problem. As to the first question (fundamental inferiority), not at all. And I don't deny that, as an overall statistical proposition, white people in the US are born into more advantaged circumstances than most minority populations. The explanation for these disparities is the whole of US and world history. But we're all individuals, not statistical groups.

As to the second question (prone to crime), well, yes. That's also borne out by the statistics.

But my point was just to compare the majority and the minority born into the same situation. In that case, though we pretend all people are to be treated equally, the minority actually enjoys some rather substantial and easily pointed to benefits to the detriment of the majority. And it's not as if those benefits come as the expense of Clintons or Bushes - they come from those similarly situated and disadvantaged majorities. What's the logical or ethical foundation for that?

Those in power, need something to control. Without it, they're powerless. It's logical, not necessarily ethical. It's a scam, man.

I suppose in order for growth, the disadvantaged are used to fuel the needs of the advantaged. Survival of the fittest or whatever.

It sucks ass, but you can live with it, choose to do something about it or use it to carve out a life of your own. I know there are many many people who don't have a choice too, which are the one who need help the most.

The next question is how?

Quote from: Brother D on September 16, 2016, 02:58:11 PM
I think we're on the same page, dude.

Im not sure I would suggest inaction, it helps no one. I would suggest non violent protests etc. If you can act in a peaceful, proactive way, then by all means do.

It bums me out that I can't help all those that need it, I wish I had the necessary means, but I, (like most of us), can only do so much.

(Is this what is meant by Engaged Dudeism?).

As for what to do in the meantime, do what you will, but harm none.
Same for the rest of us really.

Whatever or specifically if (and it's a big if) we do anything at all it should be in the spirit of the Dude. (Or Tommy Saxondale but that's just a personal favorite.)
Imagine a global collective united in the pursuit of celebrating the spirit of the Dude in service of social awareness. Olympic swimming pools full of mister bubble along with a spray painted silhouette of the Dude doing tie chi in his robe. Hacking the presidential debates are replacing them with whale songs.
And video of a man with a paper bag over his head saying that unless the plight of the American Indians in pine ridge is addressed there will be further acts of senseless stupidity. That sort of thing. Metaphorically occupying various administration building and smoking a lot of tie stick. Most importantly the occupation of people's psychic administration building. Putting a likeable face on social action rather than the typical douchebag in dreadlocks singing folk songs.
Nothing very destructive.  We're not hero's. But what's a hero? They come in all forms. Why shouldn't this experiment we call dudeism do some research into the realm of heroics?
That sort of thing. Some men ask why.
We ask why the fuck not.
Fuck it dudes. Let's get a lane.
A fight club of stoners who go about their lives yet are part of a global collective ready and willing to make a complete spectacle of themselves in service of the higher good.

Well fuck it.
It's fun to talk about anyway.
Every dude's ambitions should exceed his reach.

Fuckin' A Bikerdude, I dig your style, man!

First rule of Dude club; Don't blather about.... what the fuck was i talking about?, is this a? Lost my train of thought there!

We could go on segway protests, (because fuck walking, right?) Hotbox administration buildings and raid their fridges if they don't take it easy, or blare out The Fuckin' Eagles, man!

Quote from: Brother D on September 17, 2016, 01:01:35 PM
Fuckin' A Bikerdude, I dig your style, man!

First rule of Dude club; Don't blather about.... what the fuck was i talking about?, is this a? Lost my train of thought there!

We could go on segway protests, (because fuck walking, right?) Hotbox administration buildings and raid their fridges if they don't take it easy, or blare out The Fuckin' Eagles, man!

A loose collective of "cells" each with their own style yet falling under one umbrella. A group of operatives who specialize in bursting into government offices dressed in penis costumes. "The Johnsons". Their motto is "Where One Falls another rises in his place" A group of hackers called the video artists. The possibilities are endless really.

"From each according to his ability" dude.

His name was Jeffrey Lebowski
His name was Jeffery Lebowski

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iKsarmCy2Y0

I have t shirt that says "Buddhist Death Squad - revenge of the pacifists"

Maybe the hackers are the Knutson's, because no one knows who the fuck they are! (Well, maybe Da Fino, (RIP), was the head honcho, as he had information, man).

Maybe this should move to the dudeocrat party thread.

Well first step is to switch over to the sativa strains so we can get off the couch.
One small step for man one giant step for dudekind!

"For where two or three gather in his name the dude is with them."

Quote from: Brother D on September 17, 2016, 02:38:50 PM
I have t shirt that says "Buddhist Death Squad - revenge of the pacifists"

Maybe the hackers are the Knutson's, because no one knows who the fuck they are! (Well, maybe Da Fino, (RIP), was the head honcho, as he had information, man).

Maybe this should move to the dudeocrat party thread.

Go for it

Quote from: BikerDude on September 17, 2016, 02:47:20 PM
Well first step is to switch over to the sativa strains so we can get off the couch.
One small step for man one giant step for dudekind!

"For where two or three gather in his name the dude is with them."

I got 4 bucks, almost 5! Maybe the dude could spot us the rest, as he does have 20 grand and a beeper.

Quote from: Brother D on September 17, 2016, 02:53:32 PM

Quote from: BikerDude on September 17, 2016, 02:47:20 PM
Well first step is to switch over to the sativa strains so we can get off the couch.
One small step for man one giant step for dudekind!

"For where two or three gather in his name the dude is with them."

I got 4 bucks, almost 5! Maybe the dude could spot us the rest, as he does have 20 grand and a beeper.

Please dude.
You are thinking small.
We need to be global.
How many are we?
Only 2 dudes?

"for where two or three gather in his name, the Dude is with them"

That makes 3, anyone else want on this?

That's an open question to anyone else, how many of us are there?, Where is everyone?

The optimistic voice would say to give it time.
From the tiny acorn grows the mighty oak.

Quote from: Brother D on September 17, 2016, 03:54:22 PM
                    ...That's an open question to anyone else, how many of us are there?, Where is everyone?

Sitting back thinking deep thoughts about how some of the points raised fit into ones own life and actions.

I'm staying.
Finishing my coffee
Finishing my coffee

Abide, to me does not mean to let go, or not engage in betterment for all. It is giving into those things that must be done to make things easier and thus more enjoyable for those around, so we can get rolling

An absurdist protest movement like this would be a good response to the absurdity of current events these days. I've been fixating on the news lately instead of doing my freakin' job. That's my fault. I have traveled deep down the rabbit hole, and the crazy shit going on these days is truly surreal. Lewis Carroll must be spinning in his grave.

Interesting approach to the subject, it's all good, you keep going!