Truly Kind and Gentle People

CindyLou said:
Also, and I'm thinking out loud...creating consequences isn't anger and it's not revenge imo.
Click to expand...

Too true. If people don't learn that there are consequences for doing sh*tty sh*t, they'll just keep on doing that sh*t and hurting people. It's part of growing and learning, which isn't pretty, but it's life. People ought to be held accountable for their actions. Sometimes silence is as good as ensuring that a person will just keep on doing the wrong things they do.
 
Agree with @CindyLou about true kindness being as much about, motives or intentions, as actions. I think idealizing someone through a view of them as pure of heart or innately kind puts them a pedestal they may not fit or easily fall from. My mom always said there's good in the worst of us, and bad in the best of us. So, people can be kind, but I don't think innate kindness is naturally present in everyone or even in those who seem to be so. I thinks that a lot to live up to. People can be genuinely kind and that's good but we're human, but idealizing ourselves takes away from its value. Mother Theresa is my ideal of pure kindness.
 
CindyLou said:
Also, and I'm thinking out loud...creating consequences isn't anger and it's not revenge imo.

And also again, with the Jesus/moneychangers..etc.. God said that vengeance is for Him, but if that is true I'd rather face a vengeful person than a vengeful God. Sometimes it might be more merciful to create consequences for a person now than let life/God balance the scales later?

I don't know.
Click to expand...
I think the idea is that if we went around taking vengeance ourselves, then we'd just end up killing each other (even worse than we are now) and we wouldn't even think about kindness, because our default would be getting back at everyone. There'd be no chance for peace or forgiveness if our mind was on vengeance all the time.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Are implicitly kind people rare? ... I mean people who never have a snarky, annoyed look, or word for anyone.

People always seem to have a kindly bias towards others who are variously; useful, agree with them, are agreeable, are interesting, who they pity, who they love, vulnerable, etc. What about people who are kind to everyone without exception?


I think such people are very rare and I'm always stunned and delighted to know they exist.
Click to expand...

That is nice. Not kind.

I am not nice. But I am most certainly kind to everyone. It's all about intention.

I would advise everyone to read this link below:

http://meditationmag.com/meditation-psychology/nice-vs-kind/

It will explain in-depth the differences between the two words. I have always said that I do not trust people that are always nice. It is a form of manipulation.
 
Last edited:
I think it depends on whether this someone is supposed to have no ill feelings even to someone who hurt a good friend, say. If it's sufficient to be gentle, loving, nonjudgmental, in the sense of never really being the initiators of conflict, I strive to be that way, and I know at least some of my friends succeed at it. Basically people where unless they're really hurt repeatedly, remorselessly, etc they're essentially teddy bears.

I mean, most people it seems to me have some snark to them, namely you'll catch them judging people who really didn't do anything to them -- they just judge them because they form strong likes and dislikes easily.
I/some known to me find this sort of company toxic/don't identify with the 'well we're human!' slogan, because we're just gentler spirits I guess.
This means we don't snap at each other even if we're having a bad day (because it would kill us inside).

On the flip side, I might lose this title to some, because I'm (maybe true to my type) one of the most vigorously anti-dogma people out there, and this can lead to seeming overly argumentative, but on the flip side, the only people who get stepped on are those who hold overly strong opinions (meaning, where there's at least some level of bullheadedness behind it, not just pure and simple evidence/good reasons), and they don't tend to be the typical gentle spirits anyway.

Also, I'm not pacifist at all. I do believe in civil rational discussion/find fights crude/try to be gentle in how I resolve things, but in absence, I'm not above anger, as ultimately it's just acknowledging some things are unacceptable
 
Last edited:
I also like ABH's article, as I think when younger, I was misled that some are kind when they're what the article calls 'nice'. In truth, I really don't understand that "nice" thing because I don't see the need for society beyond basic legal things. As a result, I find the idea of needing to gain a kind of power in the societal arena very weird and in some sense can better identify with someone who makes no pretense of being kind than with someone who is "nice" but not "kind"
 
hush said:
Yeah, I've been used quite badly and hurt in the past because of this, walked all over and stepped on. Badly. I think I hardened a little bit because of it, but I'm still very much the same person.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I find anger useful (personally); I really, really really prefer that this not happen -- I think I retain a certain naive optimism in the idea of completely kind people/placing full trust in people because I'm particularly ruthless in screening out when one can't do that. I find without that ruthlessness eventually doubt creeps in, because being hurt often implies having one's trust shattered by someone that one might've thought is safe.

And though I phrase it as ruthlessness, in a way I just approach it like a detached calculation: does it make sense that X is totally harmless? No? OK, that's a fact of life, just like don't ingest a poisonous chemical! This keeps cynicism at bay, which for me is important

Maybe some would already see this as hardened, and of course there's some leeway in how one defines that; to me, hardened is basically tantamount to a blow to the innocent optimism/good will, and I guess thinking of it as "you don't go give a mountain lion a hug" makes for a less cynical kind of guardedness to me at least

(ramble ramble)
 
Actually, nice means appropriate, pleasant.. the definition includes the word kind. Kind means benevolent or humane or charitable. You can even look these words up in the dictionary! There is nothing fake or narcissistic about being nice... I think the animosity towards niceness is strange in that article. Maybe nice isn't the word they are looking for.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Are implicitly kind people rare? ... I mean people who never have a snarky, annoyed look, or word for anyone.

People always seem to have a kindly bias towards others who are variously; useful, agree with them, are agreeable, are interesting, who they pity, who they love, vulnerable, etc. What about people who are kind to everyone without exception?

..

I think such people are very rare and I'm always stunned and delighted to know they exist.
Click to expand...
I aspire to be one of those people everyday.
 
charlatan said:
This is exactly why I find anger useful (personally); I really, really really prefer that this not happen -- I think I retain a certain naive optimism in the idea of completely kind people/placing full trust in people because I'm particularly ruthless in screening out when one can't do that. I find without that ruthlessness eventually doubt creeps in, because being hurt often implies having one's trust shattered by someone that one might've thought is safe.

And though I phrase it as ruthlessness, in a way I just approach it like a detached calculation: does it make sense that X is totally harmless? No? OK, that's a fact of life, just like don't ingest a poisonous chemical! This keeps cynicism at bay, which for me is important

Maybe some would already see this as hardened, and of course there's some leeway in how one defines that; to me, hardened is basically tantamount to a blow to the innocent optimism/good will, and I guess thinking of it as "you don't go give a mountain lion a hug" makes for a less cynical kind of guardedness to me at least

(ramble ramble)
Click to expand...
Very well said. Though, I will probably die someday because I can't stop trying to hug mountain lions. I'm kinda broken like that, lol.
 
Free said:
Very well said. Though, I will probably die someday because I can't stop trying to hug mountain lions. I'm kinda broken like that, lol.
Click to expand...

I just tell myself "Hey, I still love the mountain lion!!!" Even if I am too cowardly to offer it a hug :)
But it's true I wish I could hug one too.
 
acd said:
Actually, nice means appropriate, pleasant.. the definition includes the word kind. Kind means benevolent or humane or charitable. You can even look these words up in the dictionary! There is nothing fake or narcissistic about being nice... I think the animosity towards niceness is strange in that article. Maybe nice isn't the word they are looking for.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much the impression I got as well.
 
acd said:
I just see no point changing definitions of words... When words like disingenuous and affectation exist. Derp!
Click to expand...

I think the thing is sometimes, the word "nice" really is used by people in a way that doesn't coincide with genuine caring; like, "if you're very nice to your rich grandfather, maybe he'll leave you something in his will." These are real lines I've seen, and they convey exactly the sense that someone is submitting -- not so much genuinely caring, even though they act in a way that's somewhat similar to what you'd associate with "genuine" niceness, they're just doing it in a self-interested way.

In the end, I'm super loose about words as long as at some point we can all define what we mean by them/the meaning is coherent :)
 
charlatan said:
I think the thing is sometimes, the word "nice" really is used by people in a way that doesn't coincide with genuine caring; like, "if you're very nice to your rich grandfather, maybe he'll leave you something in his will." These are real lines I've seen, and they convey exactly the sense that someone is submitting -- not so much genuinely caring, even though they act in a way that's somewhat similar to what you'd associate with "genuine" niceness, they're just doing it in a self-interested way.

In the end, I'm super loose about words as long as at some point we can all define what we mean by them/the meaning is coherent :)
Click to expand...
Well I'm a crotchety, mean-spirited hag scowling at all of you butcherers of language.
 
Yeah I mean, someone has to reel us in. At some point, we could use the word "pig" to mean "president", because hey, as long as you're internally consistent!!! But it's true at some point, having some language conventions is helpful in reducing time wasted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top