Eating isn’t gross and that’s not what the Ego is. Ego is the idea that you have of yourself as a concept in your mind, the image of yourself. From that comes the idea that rhis imaginary image can be enlarged or diminished by other fictional things. Like how you think if someone insults you you have to fight them back, or if you people like you, you’re more important. It’s a complete absurdity where people fight over mental images and go to wars over ideas that do not exist in reality.

Finally some sports I want to watch

Truly

You know the funny part? It goes all the way. Let’s look at this dialogue from a Zen master from a 1000 years ago:

Q: What instructions have the Masters everywhere given for dhyana practice and the study of Dharma?

A: Words used to attract the dull of wit are not to be relied on.

Q: If those teachings were meant for the dull-witted, I have yet to hear what Dharma has been taught to those of really high capacity.

A: If they are really people of high capacity, where could they find people to follow? If they seek from within themselves, they will find nothing tangible; how much less can they find a Dharma worthy of their attention elsewhere! Do not look to what is called the Dharma by teachers, for what sort of Dharma could that be?

Q: If that is so, should we not seek for anything at all?

A: By conceding this, you would save yourself a lot of mental effort.

All good. What I’ve given you here is worth more than all the power and all the riches in the world, but it’s no more than a gift.

Enjoy! Or not.

Of course, at first it appears that our frustration comes from other people - but then some people get frustrated by one type of behaviour, while other people get frustrated by another type of behaviour - suddenly it becomes difficult to justify frustration as innately arising from certain behaviours, doesn’t it? It all ends up being completely arbitrary and therefore without any central truth.

You get frustrated because the behaviours you perceive (which are rarely even the behaviours actually displayed) trigger uncomfortable emotions in you, which you are not aware you can simply turn your attention inwards and allow and sit with, so you believe you must fight the external cause for your frustration for your system to settle down - a paradigm that leaves you feeling completely dependant on other people’s ability to adhere to whatever system of behaviours you believe to be the “proper one”, for your emotions to stay in control.

Your points are actually irrelevant at this point, because the discussion is no longer about your points, your points are now being used as a weapon to win a fight in which you believe something is at stake. It’s no longer just an interesting exchange of opinions.

So because you have exchanged clarity for frustration and blamed it on something external, the discussion is no longer about the discussion, so we’ll have to discuss the thing that’s in the way of the discussion first of all, so that you can recognize that your frustration is yours, give you the tools to sit with it and not need me to change for you to be calm, and only then can we return to yours and mine points in a friendly matter.

What a gift you’ve stumbled into really - a lifetime ahead of you where other people will never seem like the problem again, and you’ll have the power to always take responsibility and regulate your own mental state.

A crossroads! But do you take a moment to turn inwards and discover your inherent power? Or do you explode outwards again.

These opportunities come once or twice in a person’s lifetime. Wat will you do?

Discussions are meant to be in the service of uncovering the truth, but you went and got angry and now perceive this discussion as a fight for your sense of self.

This doesn’t lead us anywhere, and regardless of who wins this perceived “fight” the truth will lose either way.

You take the time you need to settle back into clarity and then write a new reply, and we will doubtlessly get a fruitful conversation out of it.

And in the future don’t be so willing to give away your emotional clarity, it is your most precious possession.

They do, and it’s been studied too. People with autism for example both score higher on a sense of justice and a willingness to go against peer-pressure to uphold it.

The famous Milgram experiment showed how neurotypicals were even willing to harm people as long as an authority told them to do so.

It’s not a perspective, it’s established science.

But you already knew this, right? If you are neurodivergent you can’t have failed to observe this, regardless of your desire to live in a positive delusion. Reality is not so easily tuned out.

We live in a world of constant strife and lack of empathy, and every answer you’ve given here has been full of unnecessary contentiousness and zero signs of empathy.

You yourself have proven your own argument to be wrong with your conduct, it was never necessary to bring in the rest of humanity or any studies.

Lost in your idealist platitudes about the goodness of mankind, you completely failed at empathy right here and now in a real human interaction, and when called out about it, you literally said: “Toughen up buddy”.

This whole thing reads like a comedy sketch.

You were the quintessential refutation of your own argument from your very first reply, and it only got worse from there.

Making me wanna Inshallah up

I mean they’re killing enough people on their own

For me it’s been the opposite, the less I mask the more I actually end up with people and in environments where I am accepted and cherished for the person I am, not who I force myself to be to fit in. Trying to do that nearly killed me.

What do you mean “advancing”? Every great person in history was clearly neurodivergent. They were clearly described as weird even for their time.

And of course every moral person was neurodivergent? Why do you think moral people are emphasized in our history? Why do you think people talking about morals are emphasized in our history? Do you think that’s because morals are normal?

If someone was moral it was noteworthy, because it was abnormal. They were literally divergent.

It is important to keep an eye on the blight, Morrowind taught us that

The term of sociopathy was retired in the 60’s, so no, it doesn’t mean anything. You aren’t talking to anyone who was alive back then, so if you’ve heard it used it’s been misused.

The idea that children are born with empathy is hilarious, while there are interesting baby studies suggesting this, any school yard or classroom will quickly dissuade anyone of that notion. Anyone who has gone to a school or worked as a teacher knows this.

And it’s a good example to go into, because once again, the only thing that keeps a large subset of children from doing bad things is punishment, and usually that just makes them better at avoiding it.

And humans… come from children, and they largely don’t change or mature as they grow up, studies who have tried to estimate the general mental age of humans find that they are stuck around 13-16 years old and stay there. And when we see how most people are just one bad day away from exploding, getting out and fighting someone in another car, or similar, that’s not much of a surprise to anyone.

I don’t know what “thin blue line” is, I assume it’s American thing, but no when it comes to greater civilisations throughout history we actually do find that law enforcement looks about the same, and that people can be exceptionally cruel and callous even when they don’t gain anything from doing it except the pleasure of inflicting pain, emotional or physical.

There’s no evidence that people are naturally empathetic, and if they can be found to be so at the toddler stage we are effective at growing out of it. But you are right to point out some important point, we have invented Capitalism, probably the least empathetic system of governance we could come up with in which the individuals ability to take as much from everyone else is celebrated and deified - and whoever fails is seen as a loser who just didn’t try hard enough. As expected, it’s no manifestation of some innate empathy there.

Then there’s the fact that at any given time there’s at least a 100 different armed conflicts going on on the earth at any time. Oh, and currently a Genocide too.

Then there’s our enormous system of law, which is always in an armsrace trying to illegalize the new ways in which people attempt to break the rules so that they can gain from taking from others, or just destroy what others have so that they have less. From giant corporations fighting each other, to simple neighbour feuds where two people simply cannot manage to coexist even if there weren’t any problems between them to begin with - strife is the nature of humans on all levels and it needs constant arbitration to find out who was wrong, who was right, and how much they need to be punished.

And they certainly don’t need any religious excuse for these things, they’re quite happy to do it without any divine justification. The ills of religions are simply an extension of the ills of humanity.

I appreciate you pointing out that if you’re on the internet you apparently should be ready to be insulted, because otherwise you’re what, weak? Or naive? Once again the default human assumption is that we should expect there to be no consideration, probably that someone will hurt us, and if we don’t like that, we better just toughen up because humanity is just so damn empathetic!

I’m coming over with a magnifier

That sounds kinda dystopic indeed

I mean, code violation rules are there to protect people?

Ask your momma, she thinks you’re handsome

You do not need to be neurodivergent to be vegan, but if you have arrived at veganism through rationality, you are neurodivergent.

Neurodivergents have very strong empathy, so it is nearly psychologically impossible to see neurotypicals for what the really are. The truth is simply too painful that even though confronted with it thousands of times, and hurt deeply by it, most neurodivergents prefer the delusion to reality.