Topic: I hate that famous Gandhi quote (Read 11191 times)

I think it means those who win or are successful in life have faced criticism in some part of their life. So when someone laughs at you or fights against you for a cause you believe in, that shouldn't discourage you. Move on.

For me, that is a pretty decent motivational quote.

Edit: Not sure it is Gandhi's quote after reading the above post. I don't think I have noted that particular quote anywhere before. Anyway, I still think it is a good one.

I just looked into this as it relates to bitcoin and Gandhi probably never said it

"A close variant of the quotation first appears in a 1918 US trade union address by Nicholas Klein:
And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America."

But still it has been true for bitcoin in the first 3 out of 4 steps which I detail in this post where "they" is the legacy financial system.

The "and then you win" part is not clear cut, to a large extent bitcoin has already won and it does not have to be binary win or lose given bitcoin is succeeding alongside the legacy financial system.

Meta: yes I know this is a 4 year old post, that is what I like most about it!

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they get pissed that you cite Gandhi quotes,
then they freak out,
then you win
unless somebody starts a forum thread
then it's 360 all over again

On a side note, I dug up a little something about Theymos before he changed his name:



(hope you enjoyed the humor, theymos)

I'm currently at the 'people laugh at you' stage.
I just need to drink a few more beers and I'm ready for stage 3.

Which is simply impossible. You can never know in advance who is going to win. Let alone prove it.

The Gandhi quote refers to one instance. Just as many ideas in history were simply ignored and never got anywhere. Or popped up again hundreds of years later, far after the first person to come up with the idea died.

Anyway, too many people think their computer screen is a crystal ball, these days... or at least many of the internet "predictions" are simply meant to discourage people from pursuing their ideals or ideas.

hmm that page doesn't allow editing, even while logged in.

and unfortunately one of the contributors has a misconception that precision = accuracy

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they get pissed that you cite Gandhi quotes,
then they freak out,
then you win

Actually, quite the opposite.

Desire = discontent.  You are unsatisfied with the present moment.  This leads to selfishness since you want to fulfill your desires.
No desire = contentment.  You are totally satisfied with the present moment.  This leads to selflessness since you have no desires to fulfill.

Edit:  Also, no desire is not the same as no emotion.

I've seen it a few times on this forum, though I posted this topic after reading it used (in the simplest, most stupid form) in a highly-rated comment on Reddit's Libertarian section.

I guess that is annoying but I thought you were talking about bitcoin. I really have never once heard anyone use that quote so I can't really give any input without a specific situation.

Any situation. As I mentioned, people usually just write the quote and then imply that they're bound to win because it's possible to place themselves somewhere within the sequence. You need to prove it.

It would be valid to use the quote and then explicitly draw parallels between your situation and Gandhi's situation. But I've never seen anyone do this, and I wouldn't do it because the quote is still a cliché.

No offence, but I have no idea what you are talking about. What situation? Your original post was about the quote angering you; you didn't even mention a situation.

So if that is bad thing for you, why exactly is it a bad thing for someone else?

If you have no emotions or desires then you go around full of apathy.

You have not donated any money to me.

Theymos, I think your analysis is an oversimplification.

The quote is grounded in context, and religious context especially plays a large role here.  Keep in mind that the interdependence of all people/events is emphasized far more in the east than in the west.  Karma is also emphasized (karma does not simply mean 'what goes around comes around' but is more directly related to cause-and-effect).  According to this belief, when a person get's angry, they lose because anger is suffering (how can a person be angry/vengeful if they are happy?)  In fact, ANY desire (the desire to attack, the desire to retaliate, etc.) is considered suffering because desire implies a lack of content in the present moment;  if you want something other than what 'is,' are you not dissatisfied?

In line with interdependence, if you do not retaliate against your attacker, you are adding positivity to the cumulative system....so, the attacker = negative contribution and the lack of retaliation = positive contribution.  If you retaliate, then you have attacker = negative contribution and retaliation = negative contribution.  According to this view, retaliation hurts not only your attacker, but you as well.  If  you don't retaliate, you win cumulatively since your individual identity is determined by a larger systemic identity (in Hinduism, this is the relationship between the atman and Brahman where the Atman is the individual manifestation of the universal Brahman). 

Then, there's the reincarnation argument which is entirely plausible.  If negative causes have negative effects, and if positive causes have positive effects, then it is possible that your 'positive' decision not to retaliate against an attacker (even if it means your own death now) may be better for you in the long-run.

These are just a few things to think about.  Keep in mind, what I stated is an oversimplification of the quote-in-context as well, and I barely even scratched the surface of the implications of the quote as applied to the context for which it was likely intended.

ok, 230 BC, now what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

First they've never heard of you, then they find out and start laughing, then when you stop being entertaining they poke you a bit, then you let something compromising slip and they take it as a cue to dredge up your sordid past while still laughing, then they win.

Couldn't agree more.

Also, it astounds me that people will use Ghandi's non-violent protest as an argument against any other kind of protest.

How many people starved to death in China under Mao?