Did that my first sentence above just hurt the feelings of the author or or many of the readers over here? Please read on.
This kind of philosophies (be kind-hearted, be tolerant etc) are the ones making humanity loose their natural vigor and push people into unnatural soft-minded, lame and vulnerable population.
These self-restricting rules makes you neutral and weak against someone who goes by natural and wild instincts. This is what is happening in the case of extremism of different kinds. The natural attitude always wins.
Be yourself. Be natural. Don't let your supremacy go without gains. Don't impose restrictions on yourself, just to please others.
Look at this. The author says that the other people didn't like him because the author was always right and winning without regard to the feelings of the people who lost the argument. But still those people complain about the winner and forces the winner to mend his ways, just by holding team work to ransom, instead of improving their own thinking. And the author and his boss asks us to give in such unfair play.
Sometimes I feel most of the men in the developed world are feminized (weakened or neutralized) by their schooling and social restrictions. They are forced to present themselves always in a very pleasant form to others, instead of their natural form. Being social and well-mannered is taken to a little too far, and creating the lame populations all over world.
Please, let the better thought win and prevail. Don't let it loose to the unfair demands by the weak minds who don't want to accept the legitimate supremacy of others.
I don't think anyone thinks disagreement should lead to hurt feelings. There's a difference between being right and KIND and being right and a total ass.
We live in a civil world and as much as you promote "natural vigor" as an anthesis to kindness, there are ways to have vigor and drive while also being kind and respected. Difficult? Yes, but as a society we should aspire to do great things while also having a regard for the feelings of the other people we share this planet with.
My point is, you should not be unjust to others. And you should not be unjust to yourself. But you need not pretend to appease others just because they expect it. This messes up the whole communication. You are hiding your real feelings. They loose opportunity to learn and grow up. Infact this is more serious in case where the communication is across different cultures. People can't read the unsaid stuff.
As a scoiety, we should learn to not get offended easily, not depend on kindness from others, or beg for regard. That's the strong and ideal society. That makes it easy to achieve great things, because we are not burdened by the task of checking if it hurts anyone's feelings and to modify our work to make everyone happy.
BTW, whether somneone is being ass or not, also depends on your own expectations and pampering.
Think again, about the roots of necessity for pleasing everyone.
Disclaimer: I didn't downvote you, I just comment to offer some insight (unrequited perhaps).
You said:
>> People can't read the unsaid stuff.
Buy many people CAN read the unsaid stuff, so maybe I'll spell this one out for you:
You said:
>> feminized (weakened or neutralized)
So I think you might have gotten downvoted for comparing femininity to weakness.
And not sure about this one, but maybe also for sounding a bit like a nazi supremacist.
Being kind is not about displaying inferiority.
I don't think you're a bad fellow, but it sounds like, for you, it feels cool to consider yourself superior because you are "right" most of the times and you "win" a lot of arguments.
Many times you can end up thinking you were right because no one present was able to overthrow your reasoning, and sometimes you end up thinking you were right because you stated your arguments with "natural vigor" and people just lost motivation on engaging with you in conversation.
You might be of the opinion of "who cares about downvotes if I'm superior because I know I'm right", but you might consider caring about the message those downvotes entail in this particular case.
Why? To make it relevant to you: Because learning to read the unsaid stuff is powerful.
I don't know what your environment is like, but I notice a lot of people who are pointlessly aggressive and competitive, or who premise their aggression on being right about something they're actually wrong about. That doesn't make these people stronger and it doesn't make the world better. It would work better if everyone just focused on doing their own best job, and constantly checked themselves for correctness, rather than acting like they're never wrong, tearing other people down and trying to make themselves look better than they are. Those activities are not producing anything real.
Most of the time we are really all just trying to get by and perhaps achieve some shared goal, there is no game to win, and the people who are acting that way are just being asshats. It is not somehow clear-minded and objective to constantly strive for "supremacy" by aggression toward others, it's just messed-up and insecure.
(And what gives with implying that weakness is inherent to women? That's something that has no proof at all.)
Speaking as someone who has been painted with this brush from time to time:
I try to limit myself to getting into arguments over things that will at some point become my responsibility to fix. On some projects, with certain people, that can be a pretty big fraction of the code and so I'm, well... pretty damned nosy. I try to be rough the way you'd expect a good coach to be rough. Not like some snotty know-nothing asshole. But some people don't see it.
The way I see it is something like this:
Think back to the last four or five Big Emergencies you had. Split everybody into two groups. Team A is all the people who were still working hard on a fix right up until the end. Team B is all the people who gave up, or merely looked on with concerned expressions instead of being helpful.
You listen to the people on Team A. Even the people who were part of the problem in the first place (unless there's a pattern of "Test it in Production"). Why? Because Team A is living with the consequences of the bad decisions. The people on Team B get to raise concerns, offer suggestions, and disagree, but they're really spectators.
The people who are on Team B -and- who are involved in the problems are the people you really have to watch out for. They have poor judgement and don't clean up after their own messes. Honestly these people should be on performance review, but for reasons I'll never fathom we always seem to forget these indiscretions at annual review time. I honestly wish I knew why. If anyone has a theory, I'd love to hear it.
Women are not weaker? Ofcourse, physically they are. Otherwise why do we have sport events segregated by sex? There is a reason why they are weaker sex.
This one more instance how everyone has been educated/trained to pretend that women are not weaker. And how women are educated to feel offended if they are called weaker sex.
That has nothing to do with the earlier discussion, which wasn't about physical strength and wasn't about women being offended. You made a claim, and you were challenged to provide any support of that claim. You have not provided any support for it; and where you could have admitted you were unsure or withdrawn the claim, you tried to change the subject.
Remember, you have stated that women are not weaker and even asked for a proof. When I provided a proof for physical strength, you say something incoherent.
Ok - So let's see if women are equally strong mentally at least. How many great thinkers, world leaders, mathematicians or philosophers are out there who are women? You might say - oh they were suppressed through ages, which again proves that point that they are weaker. No point in not taking things at their face value. What's wrong for someone to accept they are weaker if they really are?
