With every problem I come across, I would definitely rather deal with something that is more tangible although difficult and tough than try to work something out with something that isn't even close to being down-to-earth.
I have several key articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28corner.html?pagewanted=2&ref=business&src=me
http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=26199835>1=32023
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/far-east-mayor-faces-abuse-case/425249.html
The first article is my main focus, the latter two are reminders to abrupt one-sidedness and that there are other people out there who have different sight as well.
But, before I want to tackle some of the tough stuff, if there is any hand I would hold and squeeze, I would want to squeeze Sid's hand. I see other scatterings where he may feel uncomfortable and I'd want to squeeze him while we are both uncomfortable. Right now it is situational where I feel triggered and if there was any way to react, that is how I would act in this situation. But again, I give no promises.
But, since I am on my own, I want to give a little more say, and as much as I try to be a little reasonable, it is going to have to be more of a brutal route.
This is the article I'm working with:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28corner.html?pagewanted=2&ref=business&src=me
I begin by saying that I appreciate that he acknowledges the trust issue and how much it is of a determiner concerning whether a person chooses to open up to another or not. Other times, people are simply forced to open up for whatever manipulated reason.
But, even in the beginning, he ruins himself when I read in between his lines at some probable sick perversions he may be trying to say. And, it is the most predictable thing to assume he is most likely not thinking about personal history or even present examples as to why I wouldn't trust him. Thinking further ahead, because of having already experienced and heard things, is the issue of "authority, wealth, and battle of dominance." Anyone can say what they want, but in this article alone, I have already concluded that I see tyranny, one-sided, unchosen authority of him over me.
I think most of the article brings mostly nothing but argument from me.
First issue is the issue of defense. Like I have already stated, I already do not trust him. I have felt emotionally murdered though years ago for the issue of defense. I'm not literally dead, it is not a battle I have decided to lose to. When I see other people hate on me for me being defensive, it don't feel cut at all. I see them as manipulators and aggressors. It is my personal right to choose if I do or do not want to say or give anything at all. People can name call me all they want; they can give me all the psychological diagnosis' they want for what I choose or don't choose to say. I remain unmoved. It makes me hate socialism even more for its ways of literally treating people as they are another's property when it comes to deciding the rights of that individual and trying to manipulate and push them out of their rights. Some socialists have major issues concerning their systematic circuitry. I see demands to make their Sim world at their command and control.
A reminder about the "manager" issue. I don't feel I am really in a literal setting where he is my real manager. He could be the matrix man that does have some kind of control of where I may work and be a higher up of the company. I really don't know. He not even be a matrix man in my literal setting but may be a matrix man in another setting where he wants me to be a wired, programmed, and presented Sim in his world to his matrix followers. I can't clearly see the setting in this instance.
How self-centered I am? I unashamedly say you will probably never comprehend it. Ok, I can be selfless when I want, but it is an area that I wish you no control over and to remain ignorant with. Yes, defenses are definitely up. Speaking of being self-centered, the thought of meeting another person's expectation is not even a thought I have thought much of. In a literal work place, I can meet literal work demands. In a socialist setting, I have to be sincerely won over or have an obvious life-threatening manipulation where I feel the need to meet whatever expectations.
I have a major issue with passion and personality. I highly disagree on his judgement of character when he writes it off more as behavior. I will be open enough to say there are liars and corruption in this world that really does know tormenting triggers and things to get under anothers skin that they would rather redirect the blame on the person who is being provoked and tormented. Incase he hasn't noticed, I grow more numb and thick-skinned everyday to torments and provokings. As far as personality? It is not something to compete with. I can see how in the workplace that personality can be related to being in a certain position in general terms. At the same time, I think it is wrong to compare and judge one to another as being inferior/superior on the basis of having a personality. It is just not something to compete with. It is not something where a person will change because one person may be "superior" to them.
I still conclude this article as a very tyranical article that is beating around the bush, but beating around the bush with a little more intelligence. (not meant in a perverted way).
No comments:
Post a Comment