sonamtashi's recent activity
-
Comment on Against the Stoics, Skeptics, Epicureans, and Buddhists in ~humanities
-
Comment on Why is billionaire George Soros a bogeyman for the hard right? in ~misc
sonamtashi Link ParentI'm not a Marxist. I'm an Anarcho-Communist. From what I have observed, Marxists, Anarchists and Democratic Socialists (not Social Democrats like Sanders) are all pro-gun. So what Socialist,...I'm not a Marxist. I'm an Anarcho-Communist. From what I have observed, Marxists, Anarchists and Democratic Socialists (not Social Democrats like Sanders) are all pro-gun. So what Socialist, Communist or Anarchist group is anti-gun? Certainly some individuals of those groups might be, but as a whole, the groups I mentioned are all pro-gun.
-
Comment on Why is billionaire George Soros a bogeyman for the hard right? in ~misc
sonamtashi (edited )Link ParentNazis weren't/aren't leftists at all, and the left is pro-guns. This is what Marx said on the subject: Liberals are pro-gun control, not leftists, and liberals are not leftists. Leftists are by...Nazis weren't/aren't leftists at all, and the left is pro-guns. This is what Marx said on the subject:
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
Liberals are pro-gun control, not leftists, and liberals are not leftists. Leftists are by definition anti-capitalist, and liberals are capitalists.
-
Comment on Why is billionaire George Soros a bogeyman for the hard right? in ~misc
sonamtashi LinkHe's the bogeyman of the right because he's a Liberal Jewish billionaire activist/philanthropist, with the last two only being bad to the right because of the first two.He's the bogeyman of the right because he's a Liberal Jewish billionaire activist/philanthropist, with the last two only being bad to the right because of the first two.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~movies
sonamtashi Link ParentThey could bring Palpatine back as a clone, like in the Dark Empire comics.They could bring Palpatine back as a clone, like in the Dark Empire comics.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~movies
sonamtashi Link ParentI'm kind of hoping they borrow from the Dark Empire comic books and return Palpatine as a clone. IMO this would be one of the best ways to bring Palpatine back and not have it feel totally cheep.I'm kind of hoping they borrow from the Dark Empire comic books and return Palpatine as a clone. IMO this would be one of the best ways to bring Palpatine back and not have it feel totally cheep.
-
Comment on Pansexuality 101: Five key facts you need to know in ~lgbt
sonamtashi Link ParentAs a bisexual person, I'll respond to that part. The article addresses this pretty well in my opinion: To me, they're basically the same thing, so it largely falls to the individual I guess...As a bisexual person, I'll respond to that part. The article addresses this pretty well in my opinion:
bisexuality isn’t inherently binary. Bisexual people are attracted to people of both the same gender and different genders from their own. There’s even the emerging term bi+, which makes it more explicit that the term isn’t limited by binary definitions of gender and sexuality. Many people use both pansexual and bisexual to describe themselves, depending on the context.
To me, they're basically the same thing, so it largely falls to the individual I guess whether they identify as one, the other, or both. Frankly, it is a failing of dictionaries when they define bisexuality as binary, as the bisexual community has defined the term as nonbinary for decades. Also, I've encountered plenty of trans and non-binary individuals who identified as bi, so honestly defining bi as exclusionary and anti-trans doesn't make any sense.
-
Comment on Marxism and Buddhism: Life is suffering, whether you sit under a Bodhi Tree or stand with the workers. But do the two schools agree on the remedy? in ~humanities
sonamtashi Link ParentAs a Buddhist and an anarchist I'll try to address some of this. This is a pretty common concern and misconception, so I'm just going to copy and paste from another time I responded to something...As a Buddhist and an anarchist I'll try to address some of this. This is a pretty common concern and misconception, so I'm just going to copy and paste from another time I responded to something like this. The comment itself pertains particularly to the eco-crisis, but I think it applies equally well to activism and working for change and the easing of suffering of any kind:
"There is an excerpt of Ecodharma: Buddhist Teachings for the Ecological Crisis by David Loy in the current issue of The Wisdom Journal that deals with almost exactly this issue. I'll share a few quotes that I think directly address the criticisms in this article.
...the bodhisattva acts without attachment to the results of the action. Aphorism 28 of the Tibetan lojong training offers a classic formulation: "Abandon any hope of fruition. Don't get caught up in how you will be in the future; stay in the present moment."
I refer to "spiritual activism" rather than Buddhist activism because this principle is also an essential aspect of karma yoga in the most important Hindu text, the Bhagavad Gita: "Your right is to the work, never to the fruits. Be neither motivated by the fruits of action nor inclined to give up action."
Yet acting without attachment is easily misunderstood, suggesting a casual attitude. "Yes, our local power company needs to convert from coal to renewables. We organized and protested for a while, but there was a lot of resistance. It just didn't work. But that's okay because what's important are the intentions behind our actions, not the results."
This is the mistake that arguments like the ones in the article make. But Loy shows that this misses the point:
...consider the difference between a marathon and a 100-meter dash. When you run a 100-meter race, the only thing that matters is sprinting to the goal as quickly as possible... But you can't run a marathon that way, because you'll soon exhaust yourself. Instead, you follow the course without fixating on the goal line somewhere far ahead. If you run in the right direction you will eventually get there...
This is a taste of what Daoists call wei wu wei--literally, "the action of nonaction..." This type of nonaction does not mean doing nothing. The runner does not give up and sit by the side of the road in the belief that there's really no need to go anywhere. Instead, the running is a kind of "nonrunning" inasmuch as one is not rejecting the present moment in favor of a goal that will be achieved sometime in the future. Nonetheless, one is approaching the goal because one is doing what is needed right now: just this!
...
practitioners daily recite the four "bodhisattva vows..." If we really understand what this commitment involves, how can we avoid feeling overwhelmed? We are vowing to do something that cannot possibly be accomplished...
That the vow cannot be fulfilled is not the problem but the very point... what the vow really calls for is reorienting the meaning of one's life, from our usual self-pre-occupation to primary concern for the well-being of everyone... what becomes important is not the unattainable goal but the direction of one's efforts--a direction that in this case orients us without providing an endpoint. What does that imply about how we respond to the eco-crisis? Someone who has already volunteered for a job that is literally impossible is not going to be intimidated by challenges because they sometimes appear hopeless!
Articles such as the above are missing all of this added context that makes mindfulness and Buddhist practice so powerful. However, I do think they are right to an extent if you apply their argument mainly to McMindfulness. I don't think it can be denied that businesses, schools and Capitalism in general have misused mindfulness as a tool to manipulate workers in order to boost productivity. But I think this is a natural result of stripping mindfulness from its spiritual roots in a Capitalist context. For the reasons in Loy's article, I think Buddhism and mindfulness can actually be good models for activism, climate change or otherwise."
My point here is that Buddhism doesn't argue that you should just accept suffering and live with a defeatist attitude. Instead, Buddhism, especially the Mahayana, argues that you need to work to reduce suffering against all odds, no matter how futile it seems. Thus, rather than being passive, Buddhism actually can and should act as the fuel for societal change and the fuel for activism, even when it seems like it doesn't make a difference.
It should be noted that Buddhism doesn't share the materialist perspective of Marxism, and it does propose a broader, more long term perspective. But every Buddhist, particularly those on the Bodhisattva path, vows to end suffereling for all beings, and it can be said emphatically that if that doesn't show up in their own lives, i.e. if the practitioner doesn't actually try to help people, whether it is in their personal lives or broader society through activism and similar things, then that practitioner has magnificiently missed the point.
-
Comment on Fox News didn't "steal" your parents in ~tv
sonamtashi Link ParentYes! This is exactly it. My partner and his parents talk about the chans a lot.Yes! This is exactly it. My partner and his parents talk about the chans a lot.
-
Comment on Fox News didn't "steal" your parents in ~tv
sonamtashi Link ParentThanks, I'm working on it. I've told several people in my life what's going on. While they don't seem to understand just how bad it is, I'm pretty sure they would help me out in a pinch.Thanks, I'm working on it. I've told several people in my life what's going on. While they don't seem to understand just how bad it is, I'm pretty sure they would help me out in a pinch.
-
Comment on Fox News didn't "steal" your parents in ~tv
sonamtashi Link ParentYeah it is not something I can really handle either. I'm working on an escape plan because I think he's turning into a literal Nazi. He basically just describes it in grandiose terms. He's with...Yeah it is not something I can really handle either. I'm working on an escape plan because I think he's turning into a literal Nazi. He basically just describes it in grandiose terms. He's with the good guys. The Democrats are the villains, satanists, evil etc. It seriously seems like he thinks he's in a movie or comic book. He describes it all as himself being on the right side of things, seeing through liberal communist brainwashing, things like that (he has no idea what communism actually is).
-
Comment on Fox News didn't "steal" your parents in ~tv
sonamtashi (edited )LinkI like and agree with this article to an extent, but I think the situation is more complicated than what both Price and O'Neil/Senko are describing. Price assumes that these people who were...- Exemplary
I like and agree with this article to an extent, but I think the situation is more complicated than what both Price and O'Neil/Senko are describing. Price assumes that these people who were "radicalized" were always conservative. O'Neil/Senko assume relatives were radicalized by conservatives. But not all people who have been radicalized are the same, and not all of them have traveled the same path to radicalization.
One of the big problems, so far, is that all of these articles, documentaries, etc. are based on anecdote. My response is also based on anecdote to be fair. But I will share an example that I feel contradicts, in some small ways at least, what Price is trying to say. I am a bisexual male whose gay partner was radicalized over a very short period of time. During the 2016 presidential election cycle he was a Bernie supporter. He wanted Universal Healthcare, free/affordable college, he was of course supportive of the LGBTQ+ community etc. In short, he was not a conservative. Being a conservative wasn't the prior cause of his radicalization.
To give an idea of how this has changed, quite recently he told me: "the gay agenda is to make pedophilia acceptable to the mainstream." He frequently rants about the Jews now. He hates Bernie Sanders. He thinks Universal Healthcare, education, etc. are evil Socialism. He is terrified of Europe being taken over by Muslims. He is an extremely avid supporter of QAnon. Not only has he moved right politically, he is legitimately Fascist or Fascist-adjacent. He wants nearly all Democrats and celebrities rounded up and executed by military tribunals on live TV.
You can't tell me he hasn't been brainwashed. You can't tell me he isn't in a political cult. I used to try to argue with him, but he would only get angry and ask why I "always have to be right." So I slowly stopped arguing. I still try to ask devil's advocate type questions and subtly challenge his opinions, but I seriously do not think it is safe to openly argue with or directly contradict him. He is in a cult. Having grown up in a cult I know you should not argue with cultists. This is the major thing the author of the article does not understand. Arguing and talking with cultists does not work. It only ever results in a backfire effect. The only reason people ever leave cults is a dissatisfaction with the cult itself. Dissatisfaction with the cult is what opens the mind to question the cult and to be open to discussion on the subject. Before that, arguing only pushes people further in. So you're left with two options: cut these people off or let them have their ideas and hope they eventually let it go.
The author basically admits this is the case. Consider these quotes:
When challenged on their views by their liberal or leftie children, they shut down, get defensive, or recite empty, Fox-News-approved platitudes that don’t invite further discussion.
I understand why O’Neil chooses to avoid talking about politics with his mother. I deeply relate the sense that any attempt at fighting on these issues will lead nowhere. Hell, last year I wrote a piece on Medium about giving up hope of my conservative relatives ever changing their views. I know how hard it is to try and make someone see the light; how painful, draining, and traumatic those fights can become.
They decided to shut out critical discussion.
He says we need to challenge their views; make it known that their ideas and actions are not okay. This sounds nice in theory, but I think anyone who has significant experience with cults will tell you that this simply does not work. It just makes them angry. It makes them shut down. It pushes them further in. How are you supposed to talk to, or even argue with someone, who "shuts down critical discussion," or who "gets defensive and replies with empty platitudes" and simply won't listen? This is the very problem, and it is exactly why people in this situation have elected to stop arguing with radicalized friends and family members in the first place. Perhaps we should challenge them at every turn, but in order to do so we have to give up on having anything but toxic relationships with our family and friends. Perhaps the best option is to cut them off, but I don't think so (except maybe in extreme cases). I've seen a number of people eventually leave cults. The only way this ever worked was to accept them as people, even if you don't accept their ideas, and leave them to sort out their toxic ideas on their own. This doesn't mean you let them think you accept their ideas, but it doesn't mean you directly confront them regularly either. You let them know what you think, and you let your example as a regular, good person show them that their ideas are unfounded.
Right wing politics is based on fear and hatred. To the far right, Democrats and leftists are not just wrong--they're evil. More and more this is the case. Immigrants are evil criminals. Democrats are sacrificing babies. The left is trying to introduce pedophilia as acceptable and they worship the devil.
But normal, good people can slowly show them that these ideas are baseless. It doesn't work all the time and it takes a long while. But it is the only thing that ever seems to work.
Certainly what I've described is mainly the far right and not more grounded conservatives. But to me those are the "radicalized" ones, the ones that are truly in the cult-mindset I've described. Most of my family is conservative. None of them have turned into this. None of them have turned into Fox News zombies. None of them support Trump. Of course this is all anecdotal, but so was the article. My family may be an exception, but they seemed to stop watching Fox News altogether when they started openly supporting Trump.
So I don't think mere conservatism is the reason these people are being radicalized. I think the reason is fear and anger. This radicalization started around the time of the recession. Could part of it have been because Obama is black? Almost certainly. but the larger reason was because of the fear, anger and hopelessness people felt because of the economic collapse. Right wingers blamed things like "immigrants taking all our jobs" and the groundwork for what we see today was laid.
Not all of the people who have been radicalized were conservatives. But they all were and are easily motivated or manipulated by fear and anger. Are conservatives more likely to be manipulated by fear and anger? Some studies suggest this is the case, but I don't think it is true of all of them. Many are just raised in conservative environments. Conservatives such as this are not motivated quite as much by these negative emotions, and they're less likely to be radicalized. Some Democrats, centrists and Leftists are motivated by these things, and some of these people have been radicalized without having to have been conservatives prior to the radicalization. My gay partner is just one example. His fear and anger (something he already had in spades prior to all of this) have convinced him that the LGBTQ+ community, a community that is directly fighting to protect and secure his civil liberties, is secretly a plot to introduce pedophilia. He has been convinced through fear and anger to accept an idea that directly hurts him.
Such being the case, I don't think conservatism is what leads to radicalization. Fear and anger do.
-
Comment on The young are regarded as the most tolerant generation. That's why results of this LGBTQ survey are 'alarming' in ~lgbt
sonamtashi LinkThis is really discouraging. That's a huge drop in just two years.This is really discouraging. That's a huge drop in just two years.
-
Comment on Do you practice any form of meditation? in ~health
sonamtashi (edited )LinkI started meditating when I was 19, and have been meditating more or less consistently (less at the beginning, more later on) for the past 6, going on 7 years. I grew up Mormon, and when I left I...- Exemplary
I started meditating when I was 19, and have been meditating more or less consistently (less at the beginning, more later on) for the past 6, going on 7 years.
I grew up Mormon, and when I left I started studying different religions because I wanted to both understand people and come to a satisfying conclusion that they were as empty of truth as Mormonism. I looked into Christianity generally, Islam, Baha'i, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism. Probably more as well, but those are the ones I remember most. But it was reading the Dhammapada, a Theravadan Buddhist text of short sayings of the Buddha, that kind of shocked me out of how I was approaching it all. Previously I had been trying to disprove everything, but suddenly I saw that it actually held value. This is what led me to decide to meditate.
So one night I walked across the street from my apartment complex out into this area that had some hills and almost no development. There were some construction vehicles, and for some reason I decided to sit on a big pile of gravel. I had done very little research on how to meditate, I didn't count or follow my breath. If I had to compare it to any kind of meditation I'm aware of now, it was probably most similar to either shikantaza, or Dzogchen or Mahamudra present moment awareness. I sat there for the next 20-30 minutes and that was enough to convince me how useful and powerful it was.
I continued studying Buddhism, but I had no intention of being a Buddhist for a long time. I started out studying Theravada because it seemed the most down to earth and least superstitious (as time has gone on I've seen that that's not necessarily true). During this time I moved north, across the state I live in. At the time I had family and friends there and I had access to a pretty great library, and that got me into Zen and Mahayana more generally. This is around the time where I started to consider becoming a Buddhist. Then I tried reading the Lotus Sutra and that sent me the other way (I definitely wasn't ready for the more religious elements). But something made me stick with it and I kept studying Buddhism. Eventually every single one of my family and friends moved out of the area for one reason or another. So I moved back down to where I was before because I was getting really lonely.
I kept studying Mahayana in general and Zen in particular. That's when I learned about Pure Land Buddhism, and I guess what you could call voice meditation (Pure Land practices the nembutsu; it is comparable to mantra meditation but it is a little different). This was the first time I really heavily considered becoming a Buddhist. Although I had previously lived in a city that had lots of Buddhist sanghas, when I moved back "home" I was moving back to a place that had no Buddhist presence to speak of at the time, outside of a Buddhist reading group.
About two years went by and I decided to officially become a Buddhist. I had become aware of certain groups that held refuge ceremonies with the help of technology (by phone, internet broadcast/Skype etc. as well as a thriving community on Second Life of all places). So I took refuge in August of 2018, and by chance I ran into a Buddhist sangha 15 minutes away from me that had just started up about a year before. So I checked it out. It was a Tibetan Buddhist group that was associated with a well established group up north where I'd lived before. I took refuge again in December of that year, and I've practiced with that group ever since. Honestly, having a teacher involved in a traditional practice has been very helpful to me; I think too many people write that kind of thing off because of fears of religion, which, while understandable, in my opinion often gets in the way of actually learning about meditation and developing a practice in a significant way. I'm not saying everyone should be a Buddhist, but most groups will allow you to practice with them without being a member. Often when people try to figure it out on their own, they get frustrated, don't get anywhere with it, or even hurt themselves (remember when you're meditating you're dealing with your mind and literally rewiring your brain. Meditation can be harmful without guidance, particularly for people who have mental health conditions).
The Tibetan tradition has an amazingly wide array of techniques and meditation practices. All the major categories of Buddhism ended up there, so Tibetan Buddhism contains teachings and practices belonging to the Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana varieties, and they all converge into one school (actually there are 4 schools of Tibetan Buddhism, but they all individually contain Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana). So rather than listing one thing I practice it is more accurate to make a list. Tibetan practices include:
counting the breath, following the breath, focusing on an object (like a statue or painting) for shamatha/concentration meditation
physical yogas
Lojong/mind trainings
metta/loving kindness/exchanging self and others meditation, where you visualize your breath taking blessings out to people while taking there sufferings into yourself.
mantras, visualization and Dzogchen/Mahamudra
Most formal practices will have any number of these meditations, and they often contain or are directly involved with each other. For example, any mantra will have a visualization, and after any mantra and visualization comes Dzogchen or Mahamudra practice (these are referred to as creation, perfection and dissolution stages), although Dzogchen can sometimes be practiced on its own. There are lots of other practices as well, like walking meditation and sky gazing. Another common thing is to combine walking, mantra, breath and visualization. So for example, for every breath you might take one step, and say one recitation of the mantra while holding a visualization. You might hold a mala (prayer beads) in one hand, and move up a bead each time you say the mantra, while in the other hand you spin a prayer wheel.
Tibetan Buddhist practices often try to engage you as much as possible, so you're using both your hands, you're using your mouth/speech, you're moving your feet and you're focusing your mind on both the mantra and the visualization, as well as all the movement. In this way your mind is totally focused and it is almost impossible to get distracted.
As far as my own practice, I do ngondro as well as some sadhanas, all of which includes an assortment of the practices listed above. I also still do a little nembutsu practice from my Pure Land days. This went a lot longer than I meant it to, but it was nice reflecting where I am and where I've been.
-
Comment on Conservative Christian group launches campaign against “Buddhist meditation” in public schools in ~humanities
sonamtashi Link ParentI know this is old, but I haven't visited this site in a while. I posted this article to /r/nottheonion on Reddit, and it was removed for "not being oniony enough."I know this is old, but I haven't visited this site in a while. I posted this article to /r/nottheonion on Reddit, and it was removed for "not being oniony enough."
-
Comment on Users thoughts on groups? in ~tildes
sonamtashi Link ParentFaith doesn't quite work because Buddhism isn't a faith based religion either. I think the only one that works for everyone is spiritualityFaith doesn't quite work because Buddhism isn't a faith based religion either. I think the only one that works for everyone is spirituality
-
Comment on Users thoughts on groups? in ~tildes
sonamtashi Link ParentWell there is also the problem that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. So theology may be the wrong subgroup name. Maybe just straight up make it religion?Well there is also the problem that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. So theology may be the wrong subgroup name. Maybe just straight up make it religion?
-
Comment on Elizabeth Warren unveils bold new plan to reshape American capitalism in ~news
sonamtashi Link ParentYeah, but from the context of the article Kevin Kelly is clearly referring to shareholders specificallyYeah, but from the context of the article Kevin Kelly is clearly referring to shareholders specifically
-
Comment on Elizabeth Warren unveils bold new plan to reshape American capitalism in ~news
sonamtashi (edited )Link ParentThanks for posting the Vox article. I think it is interesting that the author contrasted Warren's plan with ideas such as free college and universal healthcare. It doesn't seem like these ideas...Thanks for posting the Vox article. I think it is interesting that the author contrasted Warren's plan with ideas such as free college and universal healthcare. It doesn't seem like these ideas conflict at all, and I think it would be a good idea to look into implementing both sets of ideas (I lean Social Democrat).
In regards to the bill itself, I'm confused why it gives shareholders the right and responsibility to "sue if they believed directors weren’t fulfilling those obligations." Isn't the whole problem that shareholders do not have in mind the best interests of the other stakeholders involved? It seems like this could seriously limit the effectiveness of this bill. Shareholders have no motive to make sure workers are paid fairly at the expense of their own profits. Why not give workers or unions the right to sue in that situation (and of course expand unions)? I seriously doubt any majority of shareholders is going to say "Hey, you know what, we're giving too much to ourselves and not enough to workers."
Another thing I thought of was in addition to limiting how much executives can be paid in shares, perhaps those shares could be divvied up among workers. It would probably stretch a little thin at that point, but it might be a nice little bonus as long as it isn't used as an excuse to pay workers less in salary and hourly wages.
Either way, I seriously doubt this bill is going to get passed any time soon. Republican voters might seem to like it now, but I doubt Republican politicians will get behind it. Plus the numbers they showed of actual Republicans supporting something like this was lower than I expected from how the author was talking about it in the article.
-
Comment on Users thoughts on groups? in ~tildes
sonamtashi LinkIt may be a good idea in moderation. One thing I've been thinking is that perhaps religions should be in a separate group from humanities, just because religion could have so many sub-groups in...It may be a good idea in moderation. One thing I've been thinking is that perhaps religions should be in a separate group from humanities, just because religion could have so many sub-groups in addition to the other things covered under humanities (such as philosophy) that it could quickly become overly cumbersome if large categories like religion and philosophy are grouped together. This doesn't necessarily require user-made groups though, so I'm not sure. Anyway, the Buddhist subs on Reddit are the ones I'm most heavily involved in, so when I joined here it was the first thing I noticed.
What you're talking about is largely what is called McMindfulness.
Also Secular Buddhism.