What would happen to me if someone else did this to me?

Suppose there is a person who is in a state of self-definition, then he must not have any morality in common with me.

His actions will be unexpected, because what drives his actions and words is no longer the self-definition we know, the character who has been forcibly distorted by society. But for us, that twisted character is familiar.

We don't guard too much against the customers in the mall, and even if it's crowded, we don't have to worry about someone pulling out a machete and hacking everyone around us to death.

Who worries about these when they go to the mall?

Although everyone's personality traits are different, we know in our hearts that this difference is only superficial. We have common ethics to follow, we have conventions, and these are the things we are familiar with.

And the person who kills the self-definition, his behavior and words no longer rely on morality or customs, and it is a completely different level of operation.

Then there's a good chance he'll hack me to death, or snatch my stuff or something. Even, in order to make himself happy, he doesn't care about the feelings of everyone else.

It's like a rude child, recklessly snatching other people's toys, pushing other children, all self-centered, as long as you want to don't care what others think.

What would happen to me if he did this to me?

Uncomfortable, angry, wanting to quarrel, wanting to defend, even resorting to force as a means of settlement.

So what's the difference between us and rude kids?

In today's society, isn't it just competing with each other to trample on others for their own pleasure. On weekdays, I constantly want to convince the other party, just like a scolding war before I make a rough move.

If words don't work, and the other party still snatches our toys, then the only way to do that is to use force.

We will have countless whitewashed words, "it is they who are in injustice", "it is they who provoke first", "it is they who do not return what belongs to us", "it is we who are forced to start the war". ”

What's the difference between this and the explanation that children fight with each other after snatching toys?

We are all children!

Adult, political, scheming, means, maturity?

It's just an upgraded version of the rude child, and the essence is no different.

Isn't it the best proof that so many people preach "you scold me, I will kill your whole family" and are sought after countless times?

I haven't grown up yet, I'm just a rude little kid. Wild and irritable inside, with the urge to kill at any time. If this impulse is not released and relieved, then the mind keeps fantasizing about its success in order to comfort the restless heart.

"The world of adults is not understood by children. ”

Who is a child? The person who says this is a child.

What children don't understand is not that they don't understand the rules of the adult world, but that they don't understand why things that can be solved by force have become so complicated.

Perhaps, adults are nothing more than a miniature version of a rude child, not an upgraded version at all.

Children don't get scared in fights and don't think about what happens when their parents come. I just want to hit him, I'm just angry, and I won't be satisfied until I beat him.

What about adults?

It seems that they are a lot calmer with each other, but they replace their inner irritability with verbal conflicts, and even fantasize about killing people in the depths of their hearts. Of course, as long as you can win, you don't have to kill, but the fantasy content must be your own victory, and the other party is crying at your feet.

Is this maturity? This is control?

Or, is it just that I'm afraid that I won't be able to beat the other person?

Fear of being despised by others, "an adult, and fight like a child." ”

It seems that there is a convention in the adult world, which is to try not to do it. Doing it means being low, saying you can't win, and it's the end of the road.

However, the behavior of oppression, rudeness, and stealing other people's things has not changed. It doesn't have to be a physical snatch, as long as it can give me a sense of victory, I can snatch it.

For example, "I'm right and you're wrong." ”

For example, "I'm doing this for your own good." ”

For example, "I'm going to be successful, and then everybody isn't, so they can adore me very much." ”

Adult?

Haha, I didn't know that I had been a kid for so many years.

I want this, I want that.

When I was a child, I knew it was useful to cry, so I cried. I knew it would be useful to ask my grandparents, so I always asked my grandparents to pay for it.

I know that I am the king of fights, and all my classmates are afraid of me, and when I want something, they will obediently hand it over. You don't have to give it to me, just let me use it. Because I know that once I involve adults, these advantages of myself are gone.

Growing up, I knew that it was useless to fight. It's not that force is useless, but everyone's force is about the same, and there is a concentration of force like gangsters. Relying on force on your own can't bring more, so you will choose other ways.

Rudeness, always rudeness. And the way to achieve rudeness may seem elegant and harmonious.

Is this what is called a relationship? through what is called emotional intelligence, to achieve rude goals.

It's funny that I never found out about it. I was just a kid who was always snatching other people's toys at all costs.

We must not only fight, but also put ourselves on the right and righteous side. Like a child, the explanation for a fight is always "what he did first." ”

Anything, almost any quarrel can be attributed to this. Even, any discomfort in interpersonal relationships is also the root of this.

Are adults more in control than children?

However, adults believe that mental damage is secondary, and physical injury is more serious than mental injury. Therefore, it is better to scold each other, to fantasize about the scene in your mind, than to beat each other.

Not fighting is more control?

Another set of plays, another set of rules, but after all, it's still a rude child.

What could be funnier than defining "a gentleman who doesn't use his hands" as the evolution of civilization, and "fighting and brawling" as barbaric backwardness?

Yes, it is foolish to accept this definition, and then integrate into that distorted society, and successfully integrate into the definition of a mature social person.

In a civilized world where "gentlemen don't use their hands", fighting and acting rudely will be despised and looked down upon.

But in a "barbaric" world, the "civilized people" who try to fight through scolding wars look like idiots.

Civilization is nothing but a coat of barbarism.

It seems that the degree of civilization is very high, and all kinds of food and clothing are worry-free. But the brutal looting still exists, and it used to be offered to the one who fought the most, and now it is also offered to the most powerful.

Ha ha!

In today's society, the most powerful one is not necessarily the most powerful. Once force is used, it is very likely that the most powerful in society will be easily destroyed.

In order to avoid this situation, is it that "a gentleman does not do it"?

And the masses at large also know that force cannot bring more, so they will agree to a different way of grabbing?

Damn it!