Loyalty Is Not Stupidity & "Violence Isn't The Answer."

[virtualinsanity]

One thing that grinds my nerve about humans is the confusion between being loyal and being stupid.


When truth and logic are at stake -- There is no room for mercy, concern for subjective nor objective reputations, or consideration of idiots talking out of their anus out of not being loyal, but stupid.



For example: A random person puts up a blog telling everyone that your friend is a liar and being curious..You don't say anything but in secret, you at least check it out. As you're going through the blog, it turns out your friend has been lying to you the entire time and insulting your intelligence. Yet, you still proceed to go argue and insult this random person because your "loyalty" lies with your friend. - Stupid.

Another Example: You see your friend arguing with someone you've never heard of before but because that's your friend and you're being "loyal" -- You go jump in the argument without knowing what the argument is about nor who started it. -- Stupid.

Trust and loyalty alike are sometimes used as guilt trips to stop someone from seeing the truth as well. For Example:

Enemy: Friend 2 has been lying to you, Friend 1! I have the evidence!

Friend 2: Friend 1, if you even entertain the thought or go see what the evidence is, you're not my real friend because you should trust that I wouldn't do something like that.

I've been in situations where types like Friend 2 would try to guilt their friends out of looking at my hardcore proof and instead, they'd argue with me in the name of Friend 2. (Highly irritating.) That argument would never work with me. If you have nothing to worry about, you should be understanding why I would like to check out the evidence and you should be confident that nothing will come of it.




Another huge thing that irritates me about society is the whole, "Violence isn't the answer" community.

These are the people who talk a lot of trash but expect not to get socked by somebody with little patience or those with impulses.

These are also the people who claim, "Someone's opinion or words shouldn't get under your skin that much" or use the "You're too sensitive" statement, simply because they are too chicken sh*t to fight or directly confront whoever they were talking about.

These are also the people who don't care to know why someone got the crap beat out of them. They only persecute/judge the "aggressor" or .. the "violent" ones because "Violence isn't the answer." Did it ever occur to you that someone got the wind knocked out of them because they were spreading rumors, teasing, or etc.? Apparently, not. (..short-minded fools..)

If I should control my temper and my hands you should be able to control that mouth, too. If you feel so strongly that you have to open your stupid mouth to say something to me that you know will probably make someone a little less patience want to knock you the F out, then you might have a slight bit of sensitivity too. The principles are the same. So, to say, "You're too sensitive" because someone wants to punch your lights out?.. Well, I can use the same argument had I wanted to wrestle and punch you for fun. (which me and my sister grew up doing for play.)

Well I'll tell you what -- Running your mouth isn't the answer, either. Bullying doesn't start with violence, it actually starts with insults and having a reckless mouth. Yet bullying doesn't get the recognition it deserves until someone commits suicide or is sent to the hospital from getting jumped because a lot of people are too dumb to analyze and observe things as they are.

I can't stand people. A lot of people lack the proper analytical skills to figure that not everybody has patience for their bullcrap. Take my sister for example -- If someone stays in her face too long, she just hits them. It's not because what they said triggered her but rather they are staying in her face for awhile.

As far as I go, there are a million reasons why I want to punch people. I do admit to having pint up anger issues but also people irritate the crap out of me.. but I also enjoy physical altercation, even if just for fun. However, I'd rather not go back and forth with words. What's the point? I view most people as cowards, anyways.

If it weren't for jail, I'd probably have more than 100 fights on my head right now.

 

[Red Ribbon]

Loyalty, imo is bidirectional. For it to work, both parties have to be loyal to each other. In your very first example and the one with Friend 2, if isn't true loyalty. In the first example, though you are loyal to your friend, your friend isn't loyal to you. In the second example, if Friend 2 really is loyal back to you, they are right in demanding you trust them but you are also right in demanding explanations for if they really are loyal to you, they have nothing to worry about. Consider the situation where two people are dating. If person 1 starts suspecting person 2 of cheating, when person 1 asks person 2, they should be able to tell person 1 with conviction that isn't true. In case person 1 has proof, then there is no loyalty there.

As for your violence thing, I disagree because if you're allowed to punch people, then there should be an objective standard for when I'm allowed to hit someone. Because what I consider inoffensive may be the one thing I should never have said to someone else. For example, cows are sacred in some states in India. I'm from a place where they aren't and if I went to one of those places and say, 'cow's meat is delicious,' I might get punched in the face. Also if it means I have to hold my tongue in fear of physical harm, that's against my freedom of speech, which I disagree with.

I have said this before, people can and should be thoughtful of what they say but it doesn't mean they have to. But yes, I also dislike going back and forth with words and yes, most people are cowards but there's not much to be done about it. Sometimes one just has to keep going back and forth verbally and it's unpleasant. People do have the right to be offended by something someone has said but violence doesn't further anything. Neither does name calling.

 

[Population: 1]

This is why there's the expression 'loyal to a fault'. Loyalty to me is completely dependent upon trust. If I can't trust you then family, friend, or girlfriend you are out the door. Don't bother looking back make sure you have all your stuff. Honesty and trust are sacred to me. You will have my loyalty as long as honesty and trust are reciprocated.

As for friends getting into disputes. I'll defend you but if I think you were wrong you will hear about it after the incident. I expect the same in return. If you're unwilling to point these things out and let your friend stumble into these situations again and again you're not much of a friend.

Violence if possible shouldn't be the solution but there are definitely circumstances where it's unavoidable and the only alternative is to be crushed. It's important not only to know how to fight but when to fight.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Solve a man's problems with violence, help him for a day. Teach a man to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime. - Belkar Bitterleaf

 

[virtualinsanity]

This is why there's the expression 'loyal to a fault'. Loyalty to me is completely dependent upon trust. If I can't trust you then family, friend, or girlfriend you are out the door. Don't bother looking back make sure you have all your stuff. Honesty and trust are sacred to me. You will have my loyalty as long as honesty and trust are reciprocated.

I understand your position but I do think even 90% trust is unattainable. I also see it as a bit foolish as people are good at putting on a face and making you think you can trust them. (For years).. I could say I trust someone, for the "most" part but I'd have to take a peek at the "evidence" someone claims to have on a friend.

As for friends getting into disputes. I'll defend you but if I think you were wrong you will hear about it after the incident. I expect the same in return. If you're unwilling to point these things out and let your friend stumble into these situations again and again you're not much of a friend.

That's the thing for me -- I wouldn't do a thing for my friend if I didn't know the situation. It seems dumb to jump into something before knowing what's going on -- then realizing your friend was in the wrong, later. You end up having to own up to making a dumb choice to jump in something that you were wrong about & had no business in, in the first place. The only time I've done this was via my impulses, with my sister. Otherwise, people would call me disloyal and what for? -- Because I didn't blindly jump into a fight I knew nothing about?

It's important not only to know how to fight but when to fight.

This is a very wise statement/lesson I've yet to learn. Then again, I've not been to jail yet.. so yay!

 

[virtualinsanity]

Solve a man's problems with violence, help him for a day. Teach a man to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime. - Belkar Bitterleaf

I'm not trying to be sarcastic but if you killed a man, that's another way to solve his and your problems, forever.
Overall, I agree with the quote, though. -- Very wise.

PS - I'd never kill a man on purpose. It was just an impulsive idea.

 

[Population: 1]

I understand your position but I do think even 90% trust is unattainable. I also see it as a bit foolish as people are good at putting on a face and making you think you can trust them. (For years).. I could say I trust someone, for the "most" part but I'd have to take a peek at the "evidence" someone claims to have on a friend.


That's the thing for me -- I wouldn't do a thing for my friend if I didn't know the situation. It seems dumb to jump into something before knowing what's going on -- then realizing your friend was in the wrong, later. You end up having to own up to making a dumb choice to jump in something that you were wrong about & had no business in, in the first place. The only time I've done this was via my impulses, with my sister. Otherwise, people would call me disloyal and what for? -- Because I didn't blindly jump into a fight I knew nothing about?




This is a very wise statement/lesson I've yet to learn. Then again, I've not been to jail yet.. so yay!

Well that's the thing about trust- you're giving it and hoping it's returned. The same thing with love. You're opening up to someone and they can just strike at your core and rip you to pieces. Yet if you never trust or never love you'll never let people know you. It's a tricky thing, trying to judge when it seems worth the risk. I've known a person (thought I did anyway) for almost twenty years who turned around and betrayed me. Needless to say they are gone but they must have always had the capacity for betrayal. Even when you're fairly good at reading others you can be duped.

As for jumping in on conflicts friends are in it probably is best to let them handle it. Unless they're in physical danger then regardless I'd jump in. I should have said I have their back. Not necessarily jumping in but standing nearby. I try to figure out the situation. I won't start yelling at the person they're conflicting with.

Keeping yourself out of jail is definitely a worthy goal.

 

[virtualinsanity]

Well that's the thing about trust- you're giving it and hoping it's returned. The same thing with love. You're opening up to someone and they can just strike at your core and rip you to pieces. Yet if you never trust or never love you'll never let people know you.

I live my life in a wold of distrust so I am out of touch with how I know I truly trust someone. Plus, I'm super impulsive and at times, I vomit things to strangers and don't care at the moment what they do with the information. All I think to myself is if they try anything slick, I'll get slick back or will combat it with the truth and logic.. and that's it. I've never been in love and am not sure I'm capable of such a thing but I have been in lust.. and.. infatuation.. and.. when it comes to that, it's not that I trust folks I share those moments with, I just don't care enough to consider anything because they give me what I want in the moment. (Maybe later on, I do consider...).

I had an associate, who called herself my best-friend.. who I knew was 2-faced ...go behind my back twice.. and the most I wanted to do was confront her because she wouldn't own up to doing it. She was a coward and was bragging everywhere else about what she did except to my face. Otherwise, I was happier that she was finally out of my life ..(as she was too clingy )...way more than I was mad that she told my "business".. . For me, it also became more about the inaccuracies of what she said about me than it did about a "friend betraying me." I don't hold grudges and sometimes, I'm so nonchalant about "friends" and what I tell people to the point of, I guess what some would call foolishness.. However, I don't see things as foolish.. I just have this, "If that happens, I'll deal with it, then," and an "I don't care right now" type of attitude...If someone betrays me, owns up and apologizes, we can talk again.. I just don't give a crap at times.. As long as everything is all good, again...

It's a tricky thing, trying to judge when it seems worth the risk. I've known a person (thought I did anyway) for almost twenty years who turned around and betrayed me. Needless to say they are gone but they must have always had the capacity for betrayal. Even when you're fairly good at reading others you can be duped.

I agree with this, that's why I think that's why I just choose to live or whatever. I don't have time to decide whether or not someone is worth a risk because if I'm desiring something, it will always be worth the risk, except if that risk is jail. Needless to say, I've gotten myself into some really hot a$$ mess, living like this.. but I wouldn't want it any other way. I've got a pretty bad reputation because of my moral-less lifestyle/mindset..

As for jumping in on conflicts friends are in it probably is best to let them handle it. Unless they're in physical danger then regardless I'd jump in. I should have said I have their back. Not necessarily jumping in but standing nearby. I try to figure out the situation. I won't start yelling at the person they're conflicting with.

Keeping yourself out of jail is definitely a worthy goal.

Yeah, sorry. Sometimes I can be too literal.. but if any friend other than my sister starts some crap with Mike Tyson and gets beat up, that's not my issue to deal with. I naturally wouldn't give a $h!t..as the friend shouldn't pick fights he/she can't win.

And yes! I'm happy in a way to have been stricken with mental illness because it has kept me inside so long. I think if I didn't have my issues, I'd be in a whole lot more doo-doo.

 

[Thursday]

Loyalty is more of a premium service that only a select few should be able to attain with you: those who are loyal to you.
Violence is a last resort, and should all other options be exhausted and unlikely, be so violent that onlookers cry out for "peace"

 

[Poki]

Loyalty is overrated. Being loyal to a person should come second to being loyal to yourself.

 

[virtualinsanity]

Loyalty, imo is bidirectional. For it to work, both parties have to be loyal to each other. In your very first example and the one with Friend 2, if isn't true loyalty. In the first example, though you are loyal to your friend, your friend isn't loyal to you. In the second example, if Friend 2 really is loyal back to you, they are right in demanding you trust them but you are also right in demanding explanations for if they really are loyal to you, they have nothing to worry about. Consider the situation where two people are dating. If person 1 starts suspecting person 2 of cheating, when person 1 asks person 2, they should be able to tell person 1 with conviction that isn't true. In case person 1 has proof, then there is no loyalty there.

This idea is true but it's also super unrealistic among society. Most people in society don't seem to be this intellectually deep when it comes to the idea of what real loyalty is. It seems to all boil down to the fact that people use the word, "loyal" superficially and out of context.

As for your violence thing, I disagree because if you're allowed to punch people, then there should be an objective standard for when I'm allowed to hit someone. Because what I consider inoffensive may be the one thing I should never have said to someone else. For example, cows are sacred in some states in India. I'm from a place where they aren't and if I went to one of those places and say, 'cow's meat is delicious,' I might get punched in the face. Also if it means I have to hold my tongue in fear of physical harm, that's against my freedom of speech, which I disagree with.

The first time I read your example of the cow, I died laughing because I actually have a bad habit of insulting others on accident by dissing their beliefs, tastes, or etc.. (Not them.. but things I don't think they should take personally.) I saw myself getting punched in the face by cow-worshipers.

Sure, there could be an objective standard of when you're allowed to hit someone: I'll make the rules. I wish there were a law though that was called, 'Freedom Of Punch' the same as FOS. There'd be no limit, we can just punch each other like fight club until someone is knocked out.


Kidding -- I know what you mean and I agree with you. People have mouths, they're going to speak. However, there is no way to measure offense or irritation to where there could ever be a law deciding when someone is allowed to punch. Most of the time, when I talk about punching people, I am speaking out of the irritation I feel for certain groups of people on a regular basis.

I have said this before, people can and should be thoughtful of what they say but it doesn't mean they have to. But yes, I also dislike going back and forth with words and yes, most people are cowards but there's not much to be done about it. Sometimes one just has to keep going back and forth verbally and it's unpleasant. People do have the right to be offended by something someone has said but violence doesn't further anything. Neither does name calling.

I admit that trash talk and other annoyances can build strength of character and patience... but.. Most of the time, violence is foolish..and.. Impulses are the devil's child.

 

[FemMecha]

*reads OP*...

 

[virtualinsanity]

Loyalty is overrated. Being loyal to a person should come second to being loyal to yourself.

My sentiments, exactly.

 

[FemMecha]

But more seriously, [MENTION=30406]virtualinsanity[/MENTION]
That stuff you described would blow out my circuits, and I couldn't really follow the Friend 1 & 2 scenarios. I minimize my social interactions because once it gets weird like that I don't see the point. I'd just give up on it and adopt a puppy or cat. I agree that trust and loyalty are earned qualities based on demonstrating consistent and honest behaviors.

 

[Shiver]

I always liked to think of violence as the question. The answer is "yes".

 

[virtualinsanity]

But more seriously, [MENTION=30406]virtualinsanity[/MENTION]
That stuff you described would blow out my circuits, and I couldn't really follow the Friend 1 & 2 scenarios. I minimize my social interactions because once it gets weird like that I don't see the point. I'd just give up on it and adopt a puppy or cat. I agree that trust and loyalty are earned qualities based on demonstrating consistent and honest behaviors.

I've found myself in countless arguments where one friend was arguing with me for the other, (lying) friend. It took my head in circles as well but I actively participated just to expose whoever. If you ever deal with a Narcissist, you will definitely run into those scenarios, if you choose to try to expose them.. (The flying monkeys are the dumb friends who stick by the liars' side.).. but good for you.. having control over who you choose to interact with.

 

[geedoenfj]

*reads OP*...

Thanks God I'm not the only one!

 

[Agent Washington]

I honestly enjoy reading OP's posts because so far, they've been... hmm
... I can't say I disagree with the sentiment.

 

[ceecee]

I have a feeling you love this kind of friction, drama and aggression. Hence you love people that feed you friction, drama and aggression. Of course blaming it all on them is far easier than admitting this. Violence itself eventually gets you two things - a lawyer and jail. Loyalty isn't stupid but it is when you give it to the wrong people.

 

[Red Memories]

I tend to fall into loyalty to a fault. If you don't give me a reason to doubt you or sorts, then I am bound to loyalty to you. But.
I also see loyalty as being able to tell the person they are doing wrong. A loyal trust that you can be honest without being thrown out of someone's life.
When I see my friend arguing with someone, I tend to gather both sides of the story and become a mediator between them. If the fight is with me, I confront the friend about any issues I have. Sometimes it is just small, built up fights.

Now, to violence is not the answer. It actually is not. I am constantly making points that words can be as hurtful as a fist to someone's emotional state, and we should be as in control of our words as we are our fists. I admit, as someone who gets impulsive with high emotions, this isn't always something I abide by. I get mad at someone, I spew some pretty mean words. Then I regret it and try to make amends for it, when it would've been better that I had not said anything at all. It is important to assess, one, is it really that important? Or can it be let go? If you feel it cannot, find a calm, mature way to discuss the situation. Just because you tend to fall into it does not make it "right".