Masked up in an obvious way. Times of ridicule ones own existence.
First, I want to state (the obvious):
online wars can only lead to online death, not real world death.
After all, those who retire from a battle as defeated need only leave their keyboard or joystick.
Of course, combined with financial losses or gains, such a virtual game can hurt and one fears the financial loss one supposedly needs so badly to "survive in the real world." But if that is the only source to live on, it could be said to be an unwise strategy. Kind of like when a farmer plans to live only on cherries and then faces a failed harvest. No one would consider that a good strategy.
I observe in the online existence of this hive blockchain that in fact no battle understood as a battle is fought. Battles, i.e. those that have to be strategically planned in the event of war, logically need warriors who accept that the enemy only gives you the choice between winning or losing. It is difficult to avoid a declaration of war - or skirmishes that have already been carried out - that (supposedly or actually) hits you unexpectedly without giving the least thought to how you intend to react. Yet not impossible.
Of what mentality are you then?
Are you a ...
- warrior with muscles and a fighting spirit?
- a strategical mind?
- a recruiter?
- a negotiator?
- a fool?
Everything or none of those identities? Bummer. In war, you got to pick a character.
But of course - in the virtual world - you can also choose not to fight, even not to have to leave the field.
A Vamp and me, somewhat trashed, if you know what I mean.
The difference between the virtual world and the real one is that in real life, if someone wants to kill you or chase you off your land, you have no choice but to defend yourself and either win or die. Or run, if the gun or weapon is still not precisely directed at you - and you yourself are not armed.
On the blockchain, you can just take a break,
move on to something else entirely if you don't want invaders downvoting you. It depends on ...
whether you consider such a strategy a loss of face.
If you already feel defeated because you don't seem to stand up to your attacker, you fulfil this prophecy in the same second: you are defeated. Not by your opponent, but by yourself.
You can ignore the attacker and, for example, turn to other topics than your usual ones. You could take the opportunity to find joy and ease in paying little attention to the subject of pain. Visit other peoples places for a change.
It is probably one of the biggest misconceptions that topics that generate little response are perceived as negative precisely because they don't involve pain/pleasure response, and a post that offers little sensation results in a yawningly empty comments section (or little upvotes).
It is easy to deal with pain/pleasure feedback, because a lot of exciting things happen, but it is difficult to assess the situation when there is no resonance at all. Pain is well known, joy is well known. Neutrality, on the other hand, seems to be a very irritating "guest", an almost complete stranger.
The beauty of Battle
It is a done deal. Very clear in its direction and intention. It has been made clear to each other that no conversation is desired. Inquiry: Is that so? Someone who is obviously engaged in a fight and then receives indifferent statements from his chosen opponent will probably either ask himself irritably whether the person has not understood him or he will dismiss the indifference as "superfluous gossip" and continue to follow his war path.
The "why" of someone attacking you is of irrelevance, it can make no sense. Otherwise, if it would make sense to the self, one would not see the need to fight back.
Someone who is indifferent to fighting will annoy the other person
by being undecided whether he wants to fight or not and additionally confuse himself. One day he is in a fighting mood and screams for revenge, the next moment he wants to be a reasonable guy and not "childish".
Surely this does not represent a warrior mentality. Just imagine how little we would enjoy films like "Spartacus" or "Troy" if our heroes behaved in this way. The hero has long since made his decision, that much is clear to us as viewers.
But to fancy oneself a warrior, to shake one's fist at one's opponent and then to threaten him that if the opponent does not leave one alone, one will go elsewhere and, by one's own absence, cause him the harm of, say, a departing member of the community, is answered (directly or indirectly):
"HaHa! That is exactly my intention! Either you leave the field to me or you triumph over me!"
Someone who declares war on you can be defeated with his own means. Those that he knows or accepts. On the other hand, victory can also be achieved if the provocation comes to nothing and the fight is transformed into non-fighting. By whom? By oneself.
I nod appreciatively at the words:
"Your greatest enemy is you."
But then, when life gives me the chance to realize that this is so, I pretend that "another one" is my biggest enemy. So, obviously I don't believe my own thoughts, or, if you will, I believe too much in what I think.
All those wise words from the big shiny internet and the big block busting movies, the rub my nose right into it:
"If you respect your enemy he'll respect you, too."
So, when I am unable to believe in this, it makes really no sense to even think about fighting. It's the self (you) which deprives oneself from this beautiful realization that can only be made through experiencing it.
A huge mistake is to ignore the opponents intelligence and ascribe him as stupid or diagnose him in this or that way. For, simply asked: You yourself do have intelligence, don't you?
Anni Lennox did not sing of what exactly "sweet dreams are made of". She only said "of this".
A really charming, because indirect way to get common with your own shadow. It also doesn't say, "oh, how awful that you want to abuse others or that others abuse you!" She merely says that some abuse you just as you abuse others. A simple matter of reality.
The trick is, through this indirect way, to make something resonate within you that you know is true.
But if I come along and give an intellectual presentation or lecture on the subject of "abuse," wouldn't I actually be better advised to pick out some artistic examples that, because of their lack of heavy-handedness, get my message across much more quickly and you can get right down to swapping stories with the recipients?
Here I go.
Once, when I was sweet twenty something, I made fun of using others.
As a regular visitor to the club scene,
people knew each other at the entrance and it happened that some of the cashiers or those standing at the door gave the scepter into the hands of the guests and let them collect for a while.
Stimulated by some disinhibition accelerators, I faked my name without further ado, exchanged it for an absurd-sounding one and greeted the nightly newcomers with great flirtation and trallala. Many of them will have felt addressed in a unique way, so much honor already directly at the entrance to the dance bar has flattered all those who were taken with just such a desire for mutual abuse. One was simply "who else" in these nights. Overboard with the chatter, from where you came, what you worked, instead ...
spontaneous wit!
In fact, I was not the least interested in who the people "really" were. Neither their sensitivities, their past nor future I wanted to know. It was the fun of meeting the only true present that counted. Excessive honestly meant compliments wanted to be exchanged, obvious flattery to surpass each other. "Welcome!", I shouted, "welcome here with Gertrud! The true, the real club of the city!"
Elsewhere, I was enjoying my existence as a bar tender in a large-scale disco in the countryside, where I could hardly believe that I was actually being paid (!) to not only enjoy myself, but to express a form of hospitality that I had hitherto only known from movies.
I quickly advanced from being a paid bar staffer to a "I own the bar" attitude,
freely and openly handing out tequila shots and other free drinks. Of course, the enthusiastic guests who wanted to quench their thirst at my little corner immediately paid me back in cash. Because the good host knows: Whoever spends something, gets it back threefold. The managers of the place would have been fools in hindering me acting out my "thievery".
The complete indifference to who the visitors "really" were led precisely to getting to know what was real about them in the first place!
Watching someone having the greatest fun "of his life" in front of your eyes, but then not understanding the whole thing and sourly emphasizing that this funny noodle is just living out her diva-like ego, my dear people, that is the proverbial shadow that cannot be driven away even in the club by the stroboscope or the basses drowning out everything.
You certainly know in an instant, if someone fakes fun or if one truly has it.
The abuser lying in wait often becomes one only when it is smeared on his bread afterwards and his convivial evening, with all the funny fun fellows degraded to a disreputable and damned binge, of which the so addressed then "have to be ashamed". Then this abusing mind robs itself of spontaneity and becomes all too aware beforehand. When you caught yourself to be on a self aware hunt - how much pleasure did it actually cause you? I bet, not much.
Instead of admitting right away: "Sin committed!", which prevents you from suffering afterwards or tiptoeing beforehand.
Usually, I like to finish off a post by asking you for your real life experiences. I am not very much gifted with them, but then, I probably am too absorbed with myself. HaHa!
Pics from a time, far, far away from the present
All pictures are from my own archive. I wish, I could have provided you with some more party pictures, but mostly, I did not think of taking them back then.