Ever so often, I come across cases where some members of discussion forums tend to bully another, either for opinion or going straight for a personal attack. I like to see argumentative blows dealt out with humor, intelligence and respect when to people are discussing, but sometimes it gets really obvious the way some people use arguments just to prove their “superior way of thinking” to an “inferior”person.
What do I think about it? Well, I don’t stand bullies. I was bullied in school for being different, for being creative, for not being one with conformity, and for not being heterosexual. My tormentors of the time were as insecure and incomplete as they were – I later met them as an adult and they explained how bulling did something to them inside – a kind of damage not easily repaired. Of course I have emotional scars from that time but I am happy that I didn’t kill one of them at the time (which I considered) or myself (which I also considered).
While the other kids in school listened to MC Hammer and Public Enemy, I enjoyed Tchaikowsky and Beethoven. They were into skateboard and grafitti, I was building my first computer, and tinkered in my alchemy labs with dusty old manuscripts from a forgotten age. They drank beer, I drank red wine. Culturally, intellectually and spiritually I didn’t mix with anyone my age at that time, other than the neighborhood kid, who was just as weird as myself.
So I grew up in a Twilight Zone episode, of sorts, with some epic memories of hacking into military bases, driving around with laptops and jumper cables (this was in 1993 before the interwebz) and really being just out of normal society.
So now look at those popular kids today. I see some of them have jobs at the grocery store where I used to live 15 years ago. Some of them died as junkies. Others are unemployed or have low-income jobs.
Lessons learned: Focus on yourself. Don’t hate others, (or hate will consume you) and ignore the haters (or you will hate yourself). You don’t have to be Buddhist to believe in the law of karma.
So about the people who claim to know what Social Darwinism is, first of all, Nietzsche, who seems to be most of the narcissistic Satanist’s favourite idol, argued against it, and the expression comes from Oscar Schmidt of the University of Strasbourg who mentioned it in an academic publishing in 1877, in a discussion about social evolution, where socialists used the concept of darwin in social science, (even though they opponents of the theories of darwin) to add fuel to their arguments.
In “Nietzsche, Friedrich W. Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits. Trans. Marion Faber, and Stephen Lehmann. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.” p138-139, Nietzsche writes:
Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it. Something similar also happens in the individual. There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any physical or “moral” loss without an advantage somewhere else. In a warlike and restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser; the one-eyed man will have one eye the stronger; the blind man may see deeper inwardly [if there is a “inward” in Nietzsche – isn’t surface all?], and certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race.
So it would seem that the hero had a reflected view of weakness, that one part weakness of oneself can strengthen another. This holds valid for one’s own persona as well as the body of a society, it is the same function of balancing one for the other.
I will then argue that weakness can be a subject of a person’s inexperience, so that an older, wiser person can and should correct the lesser individual, such as in the case of different levels of knowledge. But with finesse and respect. The lesser person today can be the stronger tomorrow, and the weak one in a discussion will learn from mistake.
Strength and weakness should be acknowledged as a matter of fact, and it should be left as that. Just as a Sumo wrestle ends quickly, the weaker and stronger should depart from a battle once the score has been set, with respect and dignity, and nothing more needs to be said. For as any one who knows about Sumo wrestling, sometimes a small weakling can win over a heavy champion by sheer will and determination, and experience from a thousand lost battles.
Strength is not just measured by those who are quick in their tongue, or one who debates well, in front of an audience, and often at the expense of another human being.
Strength is to endure a thousand losses with patience.
Weakness is to give in to your only true enemy – doubt.