Yes Bhairitu, I hear you, there are 'goofballs' in the US too!!! But before we lose all hope in humanity let us pause for a few moments to value those who actually serve (others).
And if anyone here has ever wondered what would happen to them if they got ill, but really ill in a third world country, maybe they might want to read the following account:- http://www.paulmason.info/Raksha/Raksha.htm --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Americano no room here (lactose intolerant). :) > > I don't know about the UK but here in the US we have a lot of goofballs > like this. We call them "self-entitled" and if it can be done they will > do it. I don't know how many times I back out of a head-in parking spot > in a lot with barely any room for a car to pass and some moron will come > screaming through that thin spot. I figure these are highly neurotic > individuals who are someday not going to be so lucky and get their car > smashed into and *then* they'll try to bend things to make it look like > it is the other guy's fault. I think we put so much wrongly placed > emphasis on "self-esteem" that we now have a bunch of buttheads in society. > > Now sometimes in a case like yours I will get another reaction like > "sorry, I a really stupid person and do this all the time." Like being > stupid is a valid excuse. "Sorry" would have sufficed. > > Maybe its time to bring in the asteroid. ;-) > > Paul Mason wrote: > > >TurqB, mine's a capuccino. > >What you are going on about people trying to avoid personal criticism > >by deflecting it on to others, it reminds me of something that > >happened a while back, something that still galls me... > >I was walking along a pavement (the stip of pathway running down the > >side of a road & reserved solely for pedestrians) and I was shocked > >to find a car backing down towards me at speed. Though I hardly had > >time for evasive manoevures I jst managed to dodge out of the way in > >time. I then whacked my hand on the car to gain the driver's > >attention and pointed out to him that he had come that close to > >mowing me down. > >And do you know what he does? Does he apologise? Does he try to > >explain his actions? Does he heck? Instead he shouts and gestures > >angrilly denying everything. And do you know what seems to get to him > >most is the fact that I touched his vehicle! > >Now, as this incident happened a while back, I have had time to > >reflect on this ^!*?*$'s behaviour. I think what happened is that he > >chose denial because he feared any confession might be used against > >him. > >Clearly, this car driver's behaviour stems from a misplaced self- > >interest, as does Rama's, with his brushing off personal criticism > >as 'Anti-Buddhist'. > >But, I'd like to know what, if anything, is actually achieved by such > >twisty behaviour? Personally I think that in spite of deflecting > >attention from their own misbehaviour they eventually pay the price. > >Even the mighty fall - for surely none can dodge the karma? > > > > > >--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > >>I've grown fascinated with this phenomenon over the last > >>few days, not so much on this forum (although it has > >>certainly shown up here), but because it's reared its ugly > >>head on a number of other spiritual forums that I'm a part > >>of. So I thought I'd rap about it a little. Those of you > >>who don't enjoy Sunday morning café raps by weird old > >>farts who live in France can hit the Next key now. :-) > >> > >>The phenomenon I'm talking about goes like this. Whether > >>in person (in some kind of interview) or on an Internet > >>forum like this one, someone takes a member of a spiritual > >>group to task for his or her *personal* behavior. For > >>example, the person criticizes a poster for consistently > >>trying to make excuses (often lame and rather strained > >>excuses) for behavior on the part of the leader of his > >>group or the group's organization that *most* people > >>in the world would consider unethical. > >> > >>And so how does the person whose personal behavior has > >>been criticized respond? By trying to portray it as > >>criticism of (or an attack on) the *group*, not him. > >> > >>Thus suddenly you've got the person whose *personal* > >>behavior was questioned spouting phrases like "anti- > >>Buddhist" or "anti-TM" or "anti-Christian" or what- > >>ever. So what's the purpose of this dodge, and where > >>does it come from? > >> > >>I think it's learned behavior, taught in many cases > >>by the organizations to which these people belong. > >>They've watched the teachers of their organizations > >>or the other representatives do this so often that > >>they've come to believe that pulling this stunt is > >>acceptable behavior. > >> > >>Some examples, from the Rama guy I studied with for > >>some time. He came under a lot of fire for the amounts > >>of money he charged as tuition, and for the flamboyant > >>ways in which he spent that money (not to mention his > >>unorthodox lifestyle). And whenever a bout of this > >>criticism would come up, he'd try to turn the criticism > >>of *him* *personally* into criticism of the entire group > >>of students. "The people saying these things are the > >>enemies of enlightenement." "They resent the light they > >>feel coming from us." "They are attacking Buddhism." > >> > >>Well, they *weren't* attacking Buddhism; they *weren't* > >>criticizing his students: they were attacking "him*. But > >>to *deflect* that criticism, he tried to convince his > >>students that these criticisms were aimed at *them*, > >>because they practiced Buddhism, and were not directed > >>at him (the teacher) personally. > >> > >>I've seen the same thing in TM, and in lots of other > >>spiritual groups. The point of this dodge is twofold. > >>On the one hand, it is an attempt to defuse the things > >>the critic is saying by portraying him as some kind of > >>bigot who has an issue with the spiritual group to > >>which the person or persons being criticized belongs. > >>On the other hand, it is a "rallying cry" for the other > >>members of the group, a transparent attempt to make > >>them stop thinking about the criticisms themselves > >>and the person or persons the criticism were really > >>aimed at, and instead get all paranoid and start to > >>believe that *they* personally (as fellow members of > >>the group) are being attacked. > >> > >>I find it fascinating. It shows up in *so* many > >>spiritual contexts (not to mention political ones, > >>such as how the Bushies deal with criticism of them, > >>personally). And it's often effective. When this ruse > >>is employed, often otherwise rational people start > >>joining in with the paranoia, *ignoring* what and > >>who the original criticism was about, and feeling > >>all persecuted because they've been convinced that > >>the critic is attacking their group, and thus them. > >> > >>I'm mentioning it here because this dodge has been > >>tried here a few times lately. A poster or posters > >>make some comments about how one or more of the other > >>posters at FFL handle themselves *personally*, and > >>their *first* response is to trot out the phrase, > >>"anti-TMer," and attempt to brand the critic with it. > >> > >>I might suggest a strategy when this next happens. > >>I've seen it work, and work well, on other forums > >>on which it has been suggested. Whenever anyone tries > >>to label another poster who has criticized *them* > >>*personally* as an "anti-<fill in group here>-er," > >>notice whether the person doing the name-calling > >>has actually dealt with or attempted to refute the > >>behavior of theirs that was questioned in the first > >>place. I think you'll find that they rarely do. > >> > >>It's like they believe that if they use the olde > >>tried-and-true "Call the critic an 'anti-whatever-er'" > >>trick, the other people on the forum (who still, after > >>all, feel some allegiance to the group in question) > >>will abandon their critical faculties and become so > >>emotionally upset that someone has attacked *them* > >>(which no one has done, of course...they criticized > >>the name-caller, not them, not the group) that they'll > >>ignore the fact that the name-caller has never denied > >>the original criticism. > >> > >>If you think back (or watch posts in the future), I > >>think you'll be as amazed at how often this tactic > >>appears as I am. It's like the people who employ it > >>think that it's the Ultimate Answer to any criticism > >>of their personal behavior -- attempt to convince > >>the other posters on the forum that it's not them > >>that's being criticized, but the group to which they > >>belong. Sadly, often the Ultimate Answer seems to work > >>exactly that way. > >> > >>So I'm just posting this rap to see whether this tactic > >>works as well after someone has exposed it for what it is: > >>cult-think. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
