[edited out]
Instead of
easy i'd use
convenient. The more unconvenient way, but only in short term, is to just tell them friendly and straightforward. In the long run, getting out of interactions that are fruitless and kept up mainly for good manners, even current and regular ones, is freeing time and energy to engange in more fruitful interactions with other people. It's normal to let relationships just fade out, sometimes even end them abruptly (ghosting as an extreme example), but i switched to just "thank you... i can't... because..." and go on. Before that i was used to (try to) keep up relationships for good manners, but that wasn't either honest nor "free" at all.
Sure with strangers and even casual relations, we might be able to gracefully exit, yet there are some relationships we are not able to play in that direction, perhaps with relatives, work colleagues and/or other similar kinds of relationships.
Nope. We are always able and free to change our relationships, but we like to choose comfort over freedom. If your environment sucks, change it by looking for new grounds.
I abandoned my family completely for four years, followed by a time of careful, autonomous decisions to allow contact to a few relatives a few times. This made me able to begin developing from my retarded motherland culture.
That describes most of what i tried to say before in a more straightforward way, thanks. My explanations were based on concepts of how we feel when interacting. The two examples you were showing, the after 5-year vs. 20-year interactions are set apart by feeling slightly uncomfortable, vs. feeling comfortable in interacting, and i advocated for letting these feelings decide to truly keep up or end these interactions, even if we'd fear disadvantages (at first glance) to do so - sometimes. You know, like being (seemingly) friendly to the boss at work, while constantly having a sense of feeling awkward because you don't really like his personality or motives. In this case it might be hard to just stop interacting with him, but if you choose to keep acting, you're a slave to him anyway, no?
Yes. Fair enough example.. a boss with whom we may well need to continue to have relations, and even in a peer to peer relationship at work, we also might have to find some kind of a socially acceptable kind of balance rather than just acting/behaving as if we were to live in a vacuum.
Yet, i accelerated my career by changing bosses, until i got to the one(s) that didn't try to regulate my growth in occupational success (at the time).
Getting self-employed changed everything. Customers became dependent on my skills, the quality of social relationships in business changed drastically, in a positive way.
On the other hand, sometimes we might behave arrogant to people that don't really deserve it (nocoiners?), but to be honest: who really does?
You seem to be generalizing without knowing the circumstances. Yes there could be reasons to "be arrogant."
True, i was talking about that particular case when a nocoiner chooses to be nocoiner.
But even if a nocoiner would be laughing at me because of my Bitcoin philosophy, i'd still feel sorry for him.
I also feel sorry for EXPhorizon, who thinks of himself of being enlightened, but in reality can't see through his own ego.
Imagine being (like) him... Does feel miserable, doesn't it?
This is just feeding our Ego.
Perhaps, yet I am not going to presume the interaction to be ego-driven without knowing more facts.
I am not sure if i understood you correctly there.
It's sufficient to just stay passive, in a more understanding way, without having to "i told you so", because if they are honest to themselves, they already well know that you told them so. Just like one would deal with a crying child that got hurt after he was warned about the possibility of injury. "I told you so" just gets the child embarassed and maybe mad at you, because it well knows you did. But then, they need your loving consolation.
Surely, since these are discretionary matters, there are likely a variety of ways to deal with the same situation, and sure I am not very inclined to either do the "I told you so" or the laughing in their faces approach, yet there still could be times in which either "I told you so" or laughing in their faces might be a sufficiently adequate and/or appropriate response. I am not going to blanketedly agree that always employing lovey dovey is better than a twist of arrogance from time to time, even though I tend to not be much of a fan of "I told you so" and/or laughing i the face of another person, so it would likely be a kind of a response that I would sparingly reserve for exception al kinds of circumstances.
It's like swearing all the time, and if every other word out of my mouth is fuck, it becomes way less affective as compared with the guy who might end up ONLY using that word on relatively rare occasions and so the emphasis would be more noticed when the rarely-used guy ends up using such f-emphasis.
I considered "told you so" to be speaking the truth, one could take in a straightforward, informational manner, but people choose to feel offended or at least blamed.
That's why i decided to quit speaking it out to others. It doesn't help. It just underlines that i was right, the other one was wrong about something. He didn't respect my warning (i exaggerate here), my better knowledge or experience. There's no gain in making an idiot know he's an idiot. Sometimes i would say this makes more of an idiot about ourselves.
Lovey dovey, if we agree on this term for the sake of discussion, would imho be better expressed as "gracefulness", and it just feels better overall, compared to showing how much better we are in something (which we told him about) over somebody else. There is a difference, mainly about caring more about your inner self than your outer environment.
One thing about laughing at nocoiners: Believe it or not, i am the type of guy that never laughs at someone, ever. My kids always wondered how i was able to watch those "don't try to laugh" clips with them without showing a reaction, with the exception of "ouch, that must have hurt, big time!".
Maybe you should go to the doctor to get an exam and make sure that you are not a bot?
I did so, quite a few times, and i even got a certificate and official health status, but as a bot i'd have to be blind to feelings, which i am not.
But i think i have to take your reply with a grain of salt, no?
TL;DR They claim that "This redistribution of wealth and purchasing power is unlikely to occur without detrimental consequences for society. Even if the Latecomers cannot attribute their loss of purchasing power, they will feel a malaise and frustration, that will contribute further to an ever more split society." I cannot disagree more.
#metoo
The true reasons of splitting society are much more complex, while the assumption that money can buy happiness is quite the root mistake of this particular plot. I won't go into more detail here, because i'd lose myself in many words, possibly without really being successful in getting to the point.
It seems to me that too much attempts to direct redistribution contributes towards misaligning incentives and rewarding behavior that does not necessarily deserve to be reward
ded.
True, but the game was changing since institutions and banks stepped in. I'd care more about them. But as usual, folks are blind to common sense in some way, but very open for envy and fear. You know which kind of people are dealing these kinds of arguments, generally.
Yeah.. what a retard.
Almost anything goes with that guy, which seems kind of nuts that such a nutjob is even able to get on the ballot, stay on the ballot and also have decently good chances of receiving votes from a lot of frustrated folks who seem to consider him to be the cure to their ails.
What a world?
What a world?
Most people like retards, because they make them feel better about themselves.
On the other hand, when you have the audience, you just have to shout out loudly what they want to hear to earn their attention.
I wouldn't go as far as alleging that voters and advocates are just tools (in the meaning of the word), but the truth seems not to be too different.
