Provided he makes and wins an argument about Buddhism with those who live there, any wondering monk can remain in a Zen temple. If he is defeated, he has to move on.
In a temple in the northern part of Japan two brother monks were dwelling together. The elder one was learned, but the younger one was stupid and had but one eye.
A wandering monk came and asked for lodging, properly challenging them to a debate about the sublime teachings. The elder brother, tired that day from much studying, told the younger one to take his place. “Go and request the dialogue in silence,” he cautioned.
So the young monk and the stranger went to the shrine and sat down.
Shortly afterwards the traveler rose and went in to the elder brother and said: "Your young brother is a wonderful fellow. He defeated me.“
"Relate the dialogue to me,” said the elder one.
“Well,” explained the traveler, “first I held up one finger, representing Buddha, the enlightened one. So he held up two fingers, signifying Buddha and his teaching. I held up three fingers, representing Buddha, his teaching, and his followers, living the harmonious life. Then he shook his clenched fist in my face, indicating that all three come from one realization. Thus he won and so I have no right to remain here.” With this, the traveler left.
“Where is that fellow?” asked the younger one, running in to his elder brother.
“I understand you won the debate.”
“Won nothing. I’m going to beat him up.”
“Tell me the subject of the debate,” asked the elder one.
“Why, the minute he saw me he held up one finger, insulting me by insinuating that I have only one eye. Since he was a stranger I thought I would be polite to him, so I held up two fingers, congratulating him that he has two eyes. Then the impolite wretch held up three fingers, suggesting that between us we only have three eyes. So I got mad and started to punch him, but he ran out and that ended it!”
Never back down from a debate. Let it get heated. Let it drag on. Let your debate partner give you every argument they’ve got. Let them hear everything you have to say. This is how we learn about controversial topics. We learn how to refute opposing views and we learn how our views can be refuted. We learn how to communicate with people on “the other side”. We learn how to understand their perspective, and how to make them understand ours. Don’t get personal. Don’t get defensive. Pay attention to what is said and ignore who is saying it. Fight ice with ice. Don’t tell me “it’s not worth the effort”. Understanding the barriers that exist between members of our society is the first step towards overcoming those barriers, and debate is the mechanism through which that understanding is most effectively achieved.
It’s so interesting going back and forth between tumblr and tiktok because everyone misses the point on both so so hard.
No, minors should not be reading traumatic NSFW fanfics. However, as someone who was once a minor in fandom spaces, I had times where I read things I thought were fun and light and ended up deeply traumatizing me to this day. I didn’t seek this stuff out, it was hidden behind happy tags for a variety of possible reasons. But, I also actively sought out bad stuff. You guys like to claim that there is no black and white issue (and there isn’t. POINT BLANK.) But then both sides ignore the nuances of the issue and look at the lighter issue which is “Should minors be reading NSFW fanfic.” Which, why this is a debate is insanely ridiculous because it depends on the NSFW, honestly. There is nuance.
I don’t personally think it’s wrong for minors to read NSFW fanfiction that is light in themes. Unlike what adults would love to believe (myself included) minors do experience sexuality and most minors are sexually active, even if just with themselves. You guys demanding minors never read NSFW fanfiction in an effort to avoid purity culture is just pushing it in a new and fun way.
But the problem is, this debate is such a nuanced problem. Because while yes, minors can learn about sex in a healthy way, most fanfiction does not present sex in said healthy way.
Also, minors lack the reasoning to understand that they should be policing themselves and the content they consume. However, it is NOT on random strangers to also police the content they consume. And, quite frankly, while it is on Corporations to not actively push this content and push content that can cause harm to minors, but it’s not their job to actively police it either.
Which leads to the next problem that even if they DO police minors’ content, then you lead to problems of minors’ faking their ages, which I did. This also leads to the massive censorships happening on places like this website and tiktok.
But guess what, guys? I can’t actively debate these topics because everyone only cares about the surface issue of “SHOULD MINORS BE IN FANDOM SPACES?” And it makes me want to slam my head into a wall.
And for anyone wondering, this post isn’t just about minors in fandom space. This is for many many topics. NSFW content on social media. Parenting. Abortion. War. Pride spaces. No one wants to talk about the deeper issues. So they pick the lightest smallest issue and debate that and all the deeper darker issues are left up to people who do not have the best intention in mind.
If you can’t question or challenge something, then you can no longer call it science. Real science can stand up to scrutiny, debate, and anything else that is tossed at it.
Furthermore, questioning the status quo is how new scientific discoveries are made… so all this banning of debate is standing in the way of progress and will hurt future research.
Nothing is ever settled, that is not how science works.
Good evening, friends, let me tell you some Secrets on how to argue like (and with) assholes. I’m writing this because I keep running into a particular asshole, and I need to stop engaging with them, and so this is an instruction sheet for myself as well as you guys.
First, try to avoid assholes; they don’t deserve your time and energy. But, if an Argument is unavoidable, here are a few tips on how to emerge unscathed.
Let go of the idea that you’re going to win.
You’re not gonna win. Nobody wins in an argument with an asshole. But, on the other hand, you can make them lose. You can deprive them of their entertainment and their triumph.
How???
Do not present your side of this debate.
This is so counter-intuitive for most of us who believe in things like, oh, science, or real facts, or the idea that real facts can be determined by science. Here’s a cool terrible thing about humans: certainty has nothing to do with facts. And when people are certain, that is when they become assholes.
When someone’s only goal is to win an argument, any real evidence or facts you give them is just ammunition for them to turn against you.
You will not convince them. So what should you be doing?
Destroy their arguments.
This is a thing of joy, because it’s what assholes are used to doing. They are, at heart, morons who don’t know how to construct, only how to destroy.
I used to be super emotional about arguments like this. I couldn’t think of anything to say while the other person ranted on about their horrifying bigotry. Now I’m a lawyer, and I’ve learned to weaponize my essentially nitpicky nature. For money.
So here are some easy tactics you can remember and deploy:
- Make them define the words they use. Nitpick the definitions.
-Turn questions back on them. If they ask you “why do you believe x”, ask them why they believe y. If they pull some “I asked first” shit, ask them why they’re afraid to defend their beliefs.
-Call them emotional. If possible, pick out specific emotions. This is especially devastating when you’re debating a man, as he will get more emotional as a result.
- “Why is that funny? I don’t get it.” Making people explain mean jokes can be a delight; they just wilt the more you question them about the underlying assumptions.
-Laugh at any especially dumb shit. Like they use some slogan or catchphrase that’s obviously untrue, due to science, or essentially ridiculous, like “we’ve made America great again,” and you just blurt out laughing. If they get mad, tell them – oh, so sorry, I’ll shut up, I’m giving you the floor to talk about your beliefs. I’m respecting you. This is a goddamn power move. It gives you the high ground, and also the implied control over the situation. The floor belongs to you, but you are yielding it to someone because you can.
-If they make an awkward exit, let them. Especially if they call the discussion “political.” It means they’re feeling attacked. Graciously allow them to retreat with their tail between their legs. If they storm off, allow them to do that too. Congratulations; you’ve ended the argument and you don’t have to deal with it anymore.
Basically:hand the asshole a shovel, and let ‘em dig. Relieve yourself of the burden to convince them they are wrong, and just sour their fun instead.
–
Additionally, these are the tactics that assholes use, consciously or subconsciously, all the time. Recognize them. Once you know what they are, you can become immune to the intimidation and belittling tactics.
Good luck.
One asshole encounter I had involved him complaining about how nobody was talking about some event or incident. Rather than discuss the incident itself, I pointed out that if he’d heard about it, someone must have been talking about it for the news to get to him. If it was just that nobody in other areas and social networks wasn’t discussing it - well, it still got to him, right?
He didn’t talk to me again after that, which I took as the victory it was.
Has anyone done a creative writing masters? I’m 21m in the UK currently at university. I’ve always wanted to do creative writing. I’m just about done with my history degree. I’ve been accepted to do a creative writing master as some pretty good unis but I’m now trying to decide if the extra work money and stress will pay off or if I should just go get a job. To those of you who have a creative writing masters do you think you have benefited either as a writer or in terms of employability?
When dudes get drunk and give the “I love you guys” speech, that’s a green flag. You wanna date/be friends with those kinds of people who are nice drunks and not violent or anything else really.
I was having a conversation with my mate and I’m a bit worried that Tolkien was an antisemitic. I’m a huge middle earth fan but we started seeing some things about the dwarves. They’re hairy, fat, greedy, craftsmen, kicked out of their homeland who are obsessed with gold. Sounds a bit antisemitic right? The fact that they are made by a different god, live underground, don’t go to heaven and have women that look like men seems to be an extra flavour of antisemitism.
The Meghan Markle interview is a pair of millionaire nobles getting questioned by a billionaire in what I assume is the waiting room for paradise about their time with a monarchical dynisty and now people are discussing the rich tory propagandist who has just quit over a personal dispute with the millionaire super model. Screw them all I don’t care. Come the revolution.
You know that guy Jake Angeli from the storming of the capitol?
This guy? Yeah?
I think he’s a knobhead but his look is pretty sick. Well look at all his tattoos. They all have a Norse mythology theme, certainly the ones over his heart ie ‘paganism’.
How much of a radical Christian can you be with tattoos to another religion on full display? It just seems oddly inconsistent. ♂️
ABSTRACT: Examination of the U.S.-backed wars on drugs in Colombia and Mexico reveals that, apart from the hegemonic discourse about narcotics control, these wars reinforce the power of transnational corporations over resource-rich areas owned and used by indigenous people, peasants, and the urban poor. Case studies in Mexico demonstrate that recent assassinations of activists and intimidation of communities that are organizing against large-scale mining must be understood within the framework of militarization justified in terms of an anti-narcotics discourse. Drug war politics may thus be understood as a mechanism for promoting business-friendly policies and militarizing resource-rich areas. This politics is enshrined in the Mérida Initiative, which includes a national U.S.- style legal reform, modernization of the prison system, and the militarization and training of the federal police and other security forces, equipment transfers, and development funding designed to encourage foreign investment and further transnationalize the national economy.
And the their powerful military IRON DOME has intercepted ALMOST ALL OF their shitty man made rockets that wouldn’t destroy massive buildings. And shall we remind each other, that Israel was the first to violate the long loong overdue ceasefire.
I’ll take that response one point at a time. First, you’re implying that because Israel can usually defend itself that the rockets somehow don’t count. This logic makes no sense. Israel spends millions of shekels per year to fund the Iron Dome because its always being barraged by rockets.
Second, you seem to be unaware of the fact that Hamas is not using “shitty man made rockets,” but rather are being supplied by Iran. You can check out a few articles on that like http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-celebrates-use-of-rockets-supplied-to-hamas/ or http://www.antena3.ro/en/world/iran-supplied-gaza-with-weapons-hamas-political-leader-193044.html http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/26/iran-finding-ways-to-supply-more-weapons-to-hamas/ and many more. Note that I did not cite a single Israeli site.
The last point you made is that Israel, not Hamas, broke the ceasefire which is simply false. Israel always documents what Hamas has done to violate the ceasefire before retaliating to avoid such false accusations.
Scientific research today occurs on a massive scale, but what’s the most important thing to focus on; the thing that benefits us or the world in the most significant way? Cancer cures, clean energy and water purification are all at the forefront of today’s work, but what would matter most in your opinion? Take a moment to think, and leave your answer here.
over his whole nose or over the bridge? if you answer, please also provide an explanation. thank you.
JSKCKSKX CALLIN ME THE FUCK OUT!?
I draw both actually, mostly over the bridge, but sometimes over the whole nose. Over the nose is great if your brain says “can’t art” and you can’t get the nose right. Over the bridge is the most common one and can give more room for the curve of the mask’s ‘cheeks’ to show, as well as designs or scars on his face if you want that “hurt magic boi” look. I sometimes even so a ¾ or full face mask for Marvin, since I tend to vary.
How will the Lakers get back to the top? Will it be the draft, will it be in free agency? If history repeats its self the Lakers should hit big in the draft and pick up a quality free agent.. Time will tell.. GO LAKES
This is why Mr. Fry will always have a seat at my table.
Amen.
I was having a conversation about religion with this guy and he asked me what I would do if I got into heaven and had to sit next to God. I told him I wouldn’t take the seat.
as an atheist i agree with Fry- BUT…i can´t unsee this!
maybe it´s just me- but doesn´t the old fart looks like one of these rumphops from the old Ronja the Robbers Daugther movie???
I was a high school and college debater. Lincoln-Douglas, parli, humorous interpretation, extemp. I was on one of the top teams in the country. (I was not one of the top debaters personally, I was just okay, but just-okay at a high level. If you get me.) I’ve got trophiesin being an “um, actually” dude.
And this is why I don’t believe in the power of debate for settling serious issues. Because teams alternate positions over the course of a tournament, but teams with better preparation and training tend to win no matter which position they take. The whole sport wouldn’t work if the morally right side of an issue was always the one with the strongest arguments.
(In fact, being personally invested in the rightness of your argument is sometimes a detriment, because you can get flustered and emotional while the other guy is projecting nothing but calm confidence.)
I learned to speak passionately about why the US needs to retain nuclear supremacy for world peace, and also to speak passionately about why the US needs to lead the world in nuclear disarmament. I can’t say “I can convince you of both,” because your own preconceptions are such a huge factor, but if you agree to be an impartial judge, I can absolutelyconvince you of both. The “but in the end the truth wins out” factor is so much smaller than you’d like to think.
This isn’t to say you shouldn’t ever engage in debate. If you think you can win, go in and kick some ass. It’s a valid way to present and defend your beliefs. But don’t trustdebate as a truth-finding process. Don’t leave human welfare up to “whoever wins the debate.” Don’t get sucked into believing debate is somehow a morally superior tactic to deplatforming or protest. There’s so much style and technique involved in debate, it’s little better than saying “we’ll agree the truth is on the side of whoever wins this arm-wrestling match.”
Impartially moderated debate is a great college sport for people who don’t work out. But there’s absolutely nothing sacred about it as a political process.
