Was it an act of compassion?

The post:

Yes, what Martin was trying to do was demonstrate to her that she is behaving badly, and being very hurtful. But the way he chose to do that was itself harmful. He did not operate with compassion towards her. He was hurt, and lashed out. This got her to stop, but is every bit as wrong as what she was doing, and can't be considered a decent way to act or be considered brilliant.

Martin did not operate from his highest self. He allowed lower impulses to direct him. His actions were not intended to bring love and harmony to this encounter. His actions were intended to bring discord and conflict. Martin indulged his ego and his addiction to self-righteousness.

The results Martin got speak for themselves. The world is not better off because of Martin's actions. Love and compassion was not brought into the world because of Martin's actions. Martin accomplished the opposite of that.

Ego taking over

The post:

Martin's ego runs rampant. Martin's need to get her to stop her hurtful comments (a need I acknowledge is real) gets subsumed with his need to feel superior. Martin needs to feel that he can set her straight, that he can teach her how to behave. Martin's ego has taken over this exchange, and his genuine need to get her to stop making her comments has become an opportunity for his ego to have a field day, and feel perfectly justified in doing so.

Martin has a genuine complaint; she is being very hurtful to him. But this in no way grants Martin the license to correspondingly hurt her. And hurting her is precisely what Martin's actions do. And Martin is clearly aware of this. His statements are clearly designed to provoke her, and cause her distress.

Martin did indeed hurt someone who was hurting him. As I've explained, this is not justice, and I struggle to see how deliberately hurting another can be considered brilliant.

Did he accomplish what he wanted?

The post:

What Martin Goldsmith was trying to do was to find a way to teach this person a lesson. He wanted to teach her that what she was doing was wrong and hurtful and to get her to stop, and to see the error of her ways.

I acknowledge that Martin was definitely being hurt here. He does not deserve what was happening to him. That needed be stopped, definitely. That should have been his only goal, and that could have been accomplished very simply in a non-hurtful way. Ignoring her completely would have worked fine (she would not have commented beyond her first post, if he hadn't have responded to her, I would bet), or, if not, then a very simple statement saying that he found her comments to be uncomfortable, and he would like to ask her to please stop. Respectful and causes no harm.

But Martin Goldsmith did not limit himself to the easily-accomplished goal of getting her to stop. He took the opportunity to set himself up as a teacher, to try to get her to change, to become better. This was a movement of his ego, and this caused the problem.

Martin's goal was to get her to break free from her spiritual bypassing. Martin tried to get her to see what she was doing was wrong, to get her to grow, to improve, to become better, to become more sensitive and compassionate to others, to become more empathetic to others. Obviously, he didn't. He failed to break her of her spiritual bypassing, he failed to get her to see what she was doing was wrong, he failed to get her to grow, to improve, to become better, to become more sensitive and compassionate to others, to become more empathetic to others. He did not accomplish any of this. He did not come anywhere close. He botched it completely.

Martin Goldsmith's goal should have been to get her to stop saying hurtful comments, and this goal could have very easily been accomplished (ignoring her is the first and best method, very simply asking her to stop is an excellent second place method). Instead, Martin took on a much grander project of being a teacher to her, to demonstrate to her her bad behavior, and try to get her to become better. It is this move of Martin's ego that tripped him up, and why this interaction is the sad, depressing encounter it is.

Sad Irony

The post again:

“A long while ago I was on facebook saying something about missing my father after he died. Someone came on the thread and said that there is really no such thing as death, it just appears to be so, and that I shouldn't be sad about my father's absence since he wasn't truly absent. After a wee tit for tat on this, in order to make a point, I deleted one of her messages in which she 'proved' that there was no such thing as death. She got extremely upset that I deleted her message but I explained to her that her message was not truly deleted, it just appeared to be so. She continued being upset and defriended me at which point I suggested that she might want to look at why she is so upset with the death of her facebook comment while saying that I had no reason to be upset about the death of my father.”

When this was posted, there was a swell of supportive, laudatory comments and likes, and comments on its brilliance. I was greatly saddened by that. This action by the guy (named Martin Goldsmith) was mean-spirited and hurtful. He had the intention of hurting the person who was hurting him. It is sad that this is considered an appropriate action, even considered just and commendable. It is especially sad that this mean-spirited, ugly attitude comes from a community that considers itself as operating from a more developed orientation.

Martin Goldsmith's action was a deliberate move designed to cause distress, discomfort and pain to his commenter, and the people who liked this and thought it was brilliant considered this to be just and laudable, because the commenter was behaving inappropriately. An eye for an eye. Such primitive morality. Not what I would have expected from a community that considers higher perspectives.

Perpetuating pain

Here's the post again:

“A long while ago I was on facebook saying something about missing my father after he died. Someone came on the thread and said that there is really no such thing as death, it just appears to be so, and that I shouldn't be sad about my father's absence since he wasn't truly absent. After a wee tit for tat on this, in order to make a point, I deleted one of her messages in which she 'proved' that there was no such thing as death. She got extremely upset that I deleted her message but I explained to her that her message was not truly deleted, it just appeared to be so. She continued being upset and defriended me at which point I suggested that she might want to look at why she is so upset with the death of her facebook comment while saying that I had no reason to be upset about the death of my father.”

This guy was hurt by her. And he decided to hurt her. That's what happened. That was wrong. An action that hurts someone should not be considered laudable. Even if the person was behaving inappropriately. That's not moral. That's revenge.

Hurting those who hurt us only perpetuates pain. Pain continues to circulate and build, incident after incident, generation after generation. This action did nothing to bring more peace and love into the world. It perpetuated pain. There was an opportunity for compssion and kindness in this incident. That is not what he chose. He chose to perpetuate pain.

Two wrongs

This was re-posted:

“A long while ago I was on facebook saying something about missing my father after he died. Someone came on the thread and said that there is really no such thing as death, it just appears to be so, and that I shouldn't be sad about my father's absence since he wasn't truly absent. After a wee tit for tat on this, in order to make a point, I deleted one of her messages in which she 'proved' that there was no such thing as death. She got extremely upset that I deleted her message but I explained to her that her message was not truly deleted, it just appeared to be so. She continued being upset and defriended me at which point I suggested that she might want to look at why she is so upset with the death of her facebook comment while saying that I had no reason to be upset about the death of my father.”

The poster who re-posted it commented, “A brilliant example of how to deal with a person stricken with the being an ------ syndrome brought on by spiritual bypassing.”

While it is clever, what happened here is gravely problematic, and should not be held up as an example of how to correctly go through the world.

It’s clear that the commenter was behaving inappropriately. Yes, she was being a jerk. Yes, she was violating this guy’s boundaries, being inconsiderate, rude, terribly offensive and insensitive. But this guy’s response was also these things equally, to her. That’s not right. Both actions are wrong.

We cannot live in a morality of eye for an eye, fighting fire with fire, you hurt me so I get to hurt you. That is no way to build a society, and no way to live an ethical life. Injuring one who has injured you is not justice, it’s revenge. It’s an impulse that comes from a low version of ourselves, not the highest we are capable of. We have to be better than that.

What’s the point of fighting the injustice, if, in doing so, you commit the same? If the hero of the movie behaves as bad as the villain, then what’s the difference? Who cares who wins? Whoever wins, it comes to the same thing. Morality only means something if one way is better than the other. This was an example of two wrongs. Neither was more morally correct. They both deserve to be seen as inappropriate actions.