Empathy, Solidarity. Openmindedness.
Also, teaching them to be independent and self assured, being able to speak their mind.
That every action has its consequence, good or bad.
Read lots of books and never stop reading lots of books. Punching up is good, never punch down. Be compassionate but not to your own detriment. Think critically. As long as you’re not hurting anyone, do what you want. Taking chances is good but make sure they’re informed chances. Find things/careers/courses that you enjoy, rather than their potential for riches. Value listening over talking.
Punching up is good, hurting others isn’t? How does that work?
Might be a cultural translation issue here :)
‘Punching up’ means its OK to question and protest/argue with those perceived to have more power than you - i.e. laws you don’t agree with, overly powerful/shitty politicians etc. ‘Punching down’ is by contrast attacking people who might have less power than you in a particular situation i.e. you never report someone stealing baby food in a supermarket etc.
I think that there’s a better way to handle this:
- Be careful to not be an arsehole. Specially towards people who have less power than you.
- Criticise world views, ideas, and decisions. Specially the ones of people who have more power than you.
I feel like this gives it a more nuanced view. It’s fine to criticise the worldview of someone less powerful than you, but you need to be extra careful to not be an arsehole. Similarly, it’s also fine to be civil towards people more powerful than you, but you need to avoid being a fool manipulated into doing their bidding.
(It doesn’t sound as cool as “always punch up, never punch down” though.)
That is more nuanced yes. Criticism is of course fine, because in your scenario, you’re criticising ideas, which is always fine. I think what I should’ve said was “don’t make things worse for people in bad situations, especially if you have some form of power over them.”
I don’t quite understand the significance of the perceived level of power in this context. Shouldn’t it be acceptable to criticize virtually anything you disagree with? I get the sentiment, but it seems to break down when you consider the edge cases. To me, it sounds like this would justify the most underprivileged individuals acting poorly towards everyone else, while someone like the president couldn’t criticize even the most fringe extremists.
Downvoted for literally questioning the highest voted response…
Can we please leave the “I don’t understand” meaning “I understand it but I disagree with it” redditism in Reddit? Let’s call a duck a duck; you disagree with that view, it’s fine, no need to mask it behind lack of understanding.
That said, this sort of rule of thumb always breaks down when you consider the edge cases. It’s still useful as long as you have a default like “treat people decently”, because it makes you consider that, when you go against someone more powerful than you, the person can fight back; people less powerful than you can’t.
Sorry, am I being impolite, hostile, jerk or something or why I’m not allowed to discuss this? ‘I disagree’ is too simplified definition and does not represent my view. I’m interested in hearing how people think, and even if it turns out I disagree, then that’s fine. Atleast I can now properly steelman the position of the people I disagree with.
[Off-topic]
Personally I think that your “I don’t understand” sounds disingenuous, since the rest of your comment shows that you understood the comment that you were replying to. Beyond that, I don’t think that you’re being impolite, a jerk, hostile, or touching a “forbidden” subject.
Given the four downvotes, other people may or may not found something else that they don’t like in your comment, I can’t speak for them.
‘I disagree’ is too simplified definition and does not represent my view.
“I partially agree”, “I partially disagree”, “I think that it’s complicated”, there are multiple ways to convey this. Or simply going straight to the parts that you disagree with, without the “I don’t quite understand”.
I know that I’m being obnoxious with this, and I apologise for that. It’s just that people who use[d] Reddit - including me - often bring its obnoxious culture into Lemmy, often not noticing it. One of those is to disguise disagreements as lack of understanding. I can go deeper on that if you want.
[On-topic] The whole “punch up, never down” thing is about acknowledging that sometimes you need to oppose people. And it’s morally better to oppose the ones “up” than the ones “down”. That’s it - in some situations it will break, but:
- since you’re expected to behave nicely by default, it doesn’t justify underprivileged people acting poorly towards everyone else
- it still gives room for people in power to criticise others, specially in defence of people with less privileges (note that “fringe extremists” often target vulnerable groups and individuals)
I disagree with the statement ‘punching up is good’ but I wasn’t sure I disagreed with what the person making that claim actually means by it, so before writing an essay on why that is wrong, I’d rather first ask them to clarify their stance to make sure I’m arguing against their actual view, instead of the view I’m only imagining them holding.
‘Don’t punch down’ is a rule I mostly agree with it. There are exceptions, but you’re probably not a bad person even if you resist “punching” in those cases. ‘Punching up is good’ however not only says that it’s okay to do so, but that it’s actually a virtuous thing. That I disagree with, and since most people in this thread seems to think “the golden rule” (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is a good rule to live by, then I’d also like to draw attention to the apparent conflict between these two.
Personally I’m of the mind that punching, be that literal or figurative speech, is almost never good. Punching, to me atleast, sounds like something that’s directed towards a person instead of ideas. There is nothing too holy to criticize or anyone too privileged to criticize it. That doesn’t mean all critique is valid, but that’s what discussion and debate is for. As long as you’re coming in good faith, then all critique is fair game.
Showing how to cope with a loss. I don’t mean death i mean like losing in a game or failing in math. I never lost as a kid so didn’t develop how to cope with losing. So when i failed for the first time in university and i dropped out(Completed it later). but to this day i never attempt anything out of fear of losing. Im still trying hard to overcome it. So don’t let your kids win every time when playing board games or something.
Kindness, empathy, and compassion.
Understanding, common sense and a sense of justice for what is morally right…
Pride in themselves, love for others, and fairness to those they don’t agree with…
Being a ‘good’ person even when they don’t feel like being one… because it is the kind, correct and morally right thing to do.
The golden rule. Treat others the same way you want to be treated. Society exists solely because of this
deleted by creator
Honesty, tolerance, treat others as you want to be treated, leave everything the same as or better than you found it. Critical thinking to protect yourself and others from misinformation. Advocate for privacy, some random website does not need your real name, address, and birthdate.
- critical thinking
- love
- do whatever you want, but do no harm
pretty much all you need. everything good flows from this
Value yourself, just don’t overdo it. Value others as equal to yourself.
Important because many of the ways people take advantage of each other rely on the individual not valuing themselves. Whether it’s underpaid work or abusive relationships, people who have balanced self worth make terrible targets.
Other traps arise from valuing yourself too highly and treating others as less valuable. It pushes away kind and wise people, it justifies harming others for personal benefit.
Acceptance and tolerance of others, being able to get along with people. Being able to see things from another’s perspective. Also self-acceptance.
Inquiry, wondering about the world, wanting to know things, learning and not getting stuck in their thinking, openness to change.
I guess in short be nice and be smart are the top two.
It’s okay to be happy alone.
You don’t need a wife. You don’t need to have kids. It’s cool to just enjoy yourself.
Being wrong isn’t bad, it’s an opportunity to grow.
When you stop thinking for yourself someone else will do the thinking for you.
It’s ok to lose, it’s an opportunity for personal growth.
Every person has a rich history and complex life they lived. Avoid the urge to pigeon hole, label, or otherwise treat people as a group.
Already good values here (empathy, solidarity), i would also add to love life/living. We will enter a harsh time and it will be important to remember why they are here and what they fight for.
Why are they here? What are they fighting for?
Climate Change will be harsh.
Empathy.
Some people seem to struggle to learn this one.
