Why is life so hard for good people?

[DetroitEWarren]

Me going purely into tech as an example was kind of to emphasize, like most things, it depends. There's nuance to apply for everything, so saying things like "Life is harder for good people" ain't a fact as the opposite can clearly be proven.

It really just depends.

Some people can absolutely ruin their life if they go onto be more of an a$$hole while a nice person who who stands up for themselves more from being walked all over, while still being respectful will have an enormous quality of life improvement. There's so few W's to stack if you're an ordinary person and an a$$hole.

It's more excusable the more talented you are at something, and even then most people will not want to work with you. A lot of artists have actually destroyed their musical careers for being a known a$$hole, while some good-natured people have aged gracefully and continue to get work and respect for example.

The thing is, strong minded people who are going to stand up for themselves will definitely be targeted by certain faucets of life. Especially supervisors and folks of the same cloth. I've had supervisors approach me combative about things that weren't my fault or that I was never trained on. If I'm trying to explain it to you, in good faith, even admitting the faults I might be responsible for, I would assume that a supervisor would prefer to listen. If you are combative abd wrong, there is no way I'm not about to set that shyt straight on the spot, abd it's a strong possibility you might get punched if you continue the combative approach.

In life, good people are expected to be passive and I've never let anything I didn't agree with slide without my input on the situation. That is not something that's should amount to termination, unless of course I end up rocking your shyt. Then it's worth a charge and I'll take it in stride

 

[Complexion]

You're using a real small subset of people very very very top of life. Most people won't ever reach that level because they aren't as naturally talented or lucky.

Think of your ordinary people. Many good folks don't have ambitions to be billionaires, but they're doing completely great and content in life. Where are you accounting for them in your posts? That's how it'll work for most people. Suburbs are full of people like this.

Ah, I see your lens. You know I've often said that a poor single mother could actually run a country far better than collective people entrust because of her on the ground experience of whats needed and how to balance the budget by choosing wisely what to spend. The facts as they stand are that most people, on the here and there, are actually quite decent and upstanding.

Their beliefs, finance and the rest is by the by as I'm talking about intrinsics. Thing is its been proven, again and again, that psychopathic traits at the extreme end of the scale often equate with commercial success and undue influence. Thats the point of the entire thread.

The Psychopathic CEO

When it comes to the corporate world, non-violent, corporate psychopaths are not running from the law, but instead, rushing to the executive suite.

www.forbes.com

To run it back again:

Walter White got no respect from anyone around him. He did his best to be "good" (however you define it), was far more talented than his circumstances and generally took it all with reasonably good grace as the way it is. When he'd had enough of this he got ill and suddenly felt freer and realer than he ever had plus he was rich, powerful and alone in his own zone as the meth kingpin. He himself admitted which life felt correct and thats a stunning implication worthy of consideration because are the psychopaths simply more honest and thus they win (which sounds nuts even typing it) or are most people living lives of quiet desperation because they are simply too scared to go for it and are defeated from within before they even make the attempt?

 

[Guess Who]

Well, we obviously move in different circles as most of those I know are self employed and own their own things but I can see what you're saying. It seems a bit naive though. Even in the field of tech. If you take it up to the scions who look at those beneath them they have often done things quite ill to rack up those billions and that is the entire point of this thread. Thing is you already know this though and yet want to speak from a limited perspective on purpose whilst missing the details.

Why is that?

I find it fascinating that this topic is creating these type of reactions though. Quite new in that respect and very interesting.

Maybe your blind spot in this discussion is the assumption that accumulating resources, women/men, status etc. means someone is living a good life…but maybe that’s not the case.

Most “bad” people are miserable, even if they’re successful, unless they’re psychopaths. I’d also argue that most bad people don’t do well in life. Hard to make it in a social world as someone who burns bridges.

 

[Turbulent]

Because the "good people" are too concerned with pleasing every one when it's impossible. They don't stand for anything and are ruled by the opinion of others which they will never satisfy.

 

[DetroitEWarren]

Ah, I see your lens. You know I've often said that a poor single mother could actually run a country far better than collective people entrust because of her on the ground experience of whats needed and how to balance the budget by choosing wisely what to spend. The facts as they stand are that most people, on the here and there, are actually quite decent and upstanding.

Their beliefs, finance and the rest is by the by as I'm talking about intrinsics. Thing is its been proven, again and again, that psychopathic traits at the extreme end of the scale often equate with commercial success and undue influence. Thats the point of the entire thread.

The Psychopathic CEO

When it comes to the corporate world, non-violent, corporate psychopaths are not running from the law, but instead, rushing to the executive suite.

www.forbes.com

To run it back again:

Walter White got no respect from anyone around him. He did his best to be "good" (however you define it), was far more talented than his circumstances and generally took it all with reasonably good grace as the way it is. When he'd had enough of this he got ill and suddenly felt freer and realer than he ever had plus he was rich, powerful and alone in his own zone as the meth kingpin. He himself admitted which life felt correct and thats a stunning implication worthy of consideration because are the psychopaths simply more honest and thus they win (which sounds nuts even typing it) or are most people living lives of quiet desperation because they are simply too scared to go for it and are defeated from within before they even make the attempt?

But Walt wasn't honest or 100% comfortable with himself in that position, so I wouldn't say that's who he REALLY was.


Y'all know I pump shyt about fukking people up who fukk me over. No matter how bad it would look with that being the definition of me, I'm completely comfortable with people knowing that is a part of me. If you choose to think that's the only part of me, then that's your fault. There's a lot to my character as a person, but if the "vengeful" title is used to define me, I'm fine with that. More people would at least know not to play stupid games with me, because I don't give away prizes.

 

[Afrodroid]

So, are you saying that with a hands on your ears "Im not listening" kind of flex or if there was a way to be truly certain with your own direct gnosis of the ground as it stands would you take it? Even then, lets say you find its the flip from what you expect would the dissonance make you discount it versus your investment in what you think it is or could you accept the cold new reality that sets in when you know you know, first hand and direct.

Or is that something you can't even imagine and thus won't even partake in this thought experiment as you bump against the self imposed limits of perception you've tacitly accepted based on previous experience.

You seem confused or confused by what i said. I have my own convictions regardless of faith and i'm willing to pay the price for some of them.

I believe in God even though i don't always agree with His ways, but He knows what is in everyone's heart and i believe in His judgment.

 

[IIVI]

..
Their beliefs, finance and the rest is by the by as I'm talking about intrinsics. Thing is its been proven, again and again, that psychopathic traits at the extreme end of the scale often equate with commercial success and undue influence. Thats the point of the entire thread.
..

Which is what I'm kind of saying, when you take that route you better be willing to go all the way because your competition will be just as batshyt nuts. I remember someone saying once: if you want to be a cutthroat musician, be ready to attract other cutthroat musicians.

Most people would do well for themselves and end up in a very good spot in life if they chose to lead being a good person rather than be an a$$hole. Most managers I've met for the most part are managers because the people rock with them. Most seniors I know are seniors either because they're good at what they do or simply have managed to keep it respectful and not burn any bridges.

I know for a fact when I was an arrogant engineer it only made my life/career more difficult for example. People were not willing to help until I became much more chill and genuinely recognized how crappy I was being. As a bonus, I didn't realize how much easier life could get when I stopped being like that. Now shyt is easy street and work so much less because people will reach out and collaborate with me rather than getting work dumped on me.

 

[re'up]

Me going purely into tech as an example was kind of to emphasize, like most things, it depends. There's nuance to apply for everything, so saying things like "Life is harder for good people" ain't a fact as the opposite can clearly be proven.

It really just depends.

Some people can absolutely ruin their life if they go onto be more of an a$$hole while a nice person who who stands up for themselves more from being walked all over, while still being respectful will have an enormous quality of life improvement. There's so few W's to stack if you're an ordinary person and an a$$hole.

It's more excusable the more talented you are at something, and even then most people will not want to work with you. A lot of artists have actually destroyed their musical careers for being a known a$$hole, while some good-natured people have aged gracefully and continue to get work and respect for example.

great point. A friend had that kind of misguided idea, he would reference Steve Jobs, guys like that, when he was running his business, and kind of being an a$$hole, to everyone and himself, even our boys who all worked for him, the kind of very 2010's hustle culture nonsense,

and I would tell him, but you're not Steve Jobs, you are just some guy, it's not the same.

and truthfully all that really hurt him in the end, that kind of belligerence, instead of being a good leader.

 

[Complexion]

Because the "good people" are too concerned with pleasing every one when it's impossible. They don't stand for anything and are ruled by the opinion of others which they will never satisfy.

You hit it on the head there and I was waiting for someone to mention it. The "good guys" are often people pleasers, par excellence and we all know thats a fools errand as its impossible. The psychopaths are always "Me first!" and that is the main difference when it comes down to their programming.

Excellent observation.

Isn't it strange that people will try and get in the psychos good graces but will take for granted when the good guy accommodates them as its nothing special and expected. Implications are immense with this because we're examining the bedrock upon which reality is built.



Yabbadabbadoooo!

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/fred-lived-in-a-cave-and-was-married-to-wilma-what-was-his-last-name.992892/

Maybe your blind spot in this discussion is the assumption that accumulating resources, women/men, status etc. means someone is living a good life…but maybe that’s not the case.

Most “bad” people are miserable, even if they’re successful, unless they’re psychopaths. I’d also argue that most bad people don’t do well in life. Hard to make it in a social world as someone who burns bridges.

Nah, I know that isn't a good life and one of the main reasons we were kicking it is I'm one of the few people that they can speak to about their inner emptiness and potential solutions. The King Midas effect. Granted many lack the insight and are little more than automata of destruction made flesh but those of whom I speak are charming, intelligent and capable that have climbed the hill, against all odds, and still haven't found what they're seeking even though they've ticked the boxes of their programming in excess.

In that respect the poor fishermans tale rings true as its a question of scale and perception but those are tangents to the thread yet still interesting:



There is another guy who lives the simplest life you can imagine, has a past that is horrific and would be called "poor" by anyone merely glancing but he's the happiest, most self actualizing and wise person I'd known as he truly gets it. Interestingly he's not a nice guy by any stretch as folk that don't know him say that he can range from brusque to cantankerous but those he lets in class him as warm and generous because, quote, "Stupidity is contagious. I don't have time for idiots. Life is far too precious to waste it".

 

[IIVI]

great point. A friend had that kind of misguided idea, he would reference Steve Jobs, guys like that, when he was running his business, and kind of being an a$$hole, to everyone and himself, the kind of very 2010's hustle culture nonsense,

and I would tell him, but you're not Steve Jobs, you are just some guy, it's not the same.

and truthfully all that really hurt him in the end, that kind of belligerence, instead of being a good leader.

EXACTLY. There's only 1 Steve Jobs per TENS of BILLIONS of people.

Most people who take that template get labeled as a "tryhard" or a "wannabe" and they'll be avoided or laughed at. Basically outcast. In fact, many teams now hire based on "culture fit" rather than getting a "rockstar" nobody can work with.

Only those really who got it like that and built for it can get the last laugh.

Most people who take that path though, they going to have it tough and get labeled as delusional at best or dangerous at worst. There are a lot of really smart people like that who thought they were going to be winning awards left and right, have thinkpieces written on them, etc. but fell far short of it and now go to lunch on their own because nobody wants to even bounce ideas off them or talk to them.

 

[Complexion]

But Walt wasn't honest or 100% comfortable with himself in that position, so I wouldn't say that's who he REALLY was.


Y'all know I pump shyt about fukking people up who fukk me over. No matter how bad it would look with that being the definition of me, I'm completely comfortable with people knowing that is a part of me. If you choose to think that's the only part of me, then that's your fault. There's a lot to my character as a person, but if the "vengeful" title is used to define me, I'm fine with that. More people would at least know not to play stupid games with me, because I don't give away prizes.

Thats pretty much an overcorrection and a very common error in that respect. Like when the girl that was always the fat friend discovers thermogenics and becomes thin or the ugly duckling that splashes out of plastic surgery to finally live her dreams as a bad bish. These are veneers that lack the experience that come with the natural and hence an overcorrection that is not balanced, sustainable or authentic. A masked existence.

The truth of Waltenberg was in the middle of those two characters and it boils down to a simple event:



That is who he could've, would've and always felt he should've been. A leader in his field and that one deal plus how he handled it changes everything and, in that respect, who we met and he became was in response to this. As is true of many reading this thread because its exceedingly common and even though they won't admit it they all know, deep down within, where they rank on the scale of being the best or wackest version of themselves and this is why (I suspect) this thread unfolded as it did because people are taking it personal, even if they don't realize this as a motivation or even prescience:

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/multiverse-time-are-you-the-wackest-or-best-version-of-you.932396/

Or maybe thats a stretch. Who knows? Either way its a dope discussion, yes?

 

[Guess Who]

EXACTLY. There's only 1 Steve Jobs per TENS of BILLIONS of people.

Most people like that will label you as "tryhard" or a "wannabe" and you'll be avoided and laughed at. In fact, many teams now hire based on "culture fit" rather than getting a "rockstar" nobody can work with.

Only those really who got it like that and built for it can get the last laugh.

Most people though, they going to have it tough and get labeled delusional. There are a lot of really smart people like that who thought they were going to be winning awards left and right, have article written on them, etc. but fell far short of it and now go to lunch on their own because nobody wants to even bounce ideas off them.

Yeah you can be an a$$hole if you’re extremely talented but if not…good luck in life lmao.

 

[DetroitEWarren]

Thats pretty much an overcorrection and a very common error in that respect. Like when the girl that was always the fat friend discovers thermogenics and becomes thin or the ugly duckling that splashes out of plastic surgery to finally live her dreams as a bad bish. These are veneers that lack the experience that come with the natural and hence an overcorrection that is not balanced, sustainable or authentic. A masked existence.

The truth of Waltenberg was in the middle of those two characters and it boils down to a simple event:



That is who he could've, would've and always felt he should've been. A leader in his field and that one deal plus how he handled it changes everything and, in that respect, who we met and he became was in response to this. As is true of many reading this thread because its exceedingly common and even though they won't admit it they all know, deep down within, where they rank on the scale of being the best or wackest version of themselves and this is why (I suspect) this thread unfolded as it did because people are taking it personal, even if they don't realize this.

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/multiverse-time-are-you-the-wackest-or-best-version-of-you.932396/

Or maybe thats a stretch. Who knows? Either way its a dope discussion, yes?

Great post. I'm doing my mama yard now but I will definitely come back to this bro bro

 

[Complexion]

Great post. I'm doing my mama yard now but I will definitely come back to this bro bro

Word, it really is dope how this evolved and I appreciate everyone who contributed as it really made me think as it obviously struck something. Everyone thinks they're good, even the bad. Hell, Nino gave out turkeys:

 

[MMS]

life isnt necessarily easy for bad people

which is the inverse of what the thread implies

what is "good" is the real crux of the issue, and without invoking deeper thoughts on belief you cant really get to the heart of it

so comparing peoples material positions in life will just have you appearing as though you believe hedonism = barometer of how good you are