brainwater314 t1_jawi54h wrote
Reply to comment by TryingTruly in Game Theory's ultimate answer to real world dilemmas: "Generous Tit for Tat" by TryingTruly
It is discussed weekly throughout the world. It's called church.
[deleted] t1_jawivbn wrote
Don't disagree, but they don't say it this way, so the actual message gets lost. They always talk about 'turn the other cheek', not 'paste him back if he hits you'. All carrots and no sticks is just as ineffective as all sticks and no carrots.
brainwater314 t1_jawjgi6 wrote
Don't forget when asking "What Would Jesus do?" Flipping over tables and chasing people out is in the cards Matthew 20:12 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021%3A12-13%2CMark%2011%3A15-18&version=NIV
ariehn t1_jax2w50 wrote
Not the tit for tat part: what they say is that it's beneficial -- even essential -- to reset when the other guy seems to have discarded his aggressive ways. Or to borrow from the article,
> you can always make the choice to generously give someone the benefit of the doubt, relinquish a justified retaliatory response, or most gently of all, simply decide to forgive.
> Why? All for the sake of valiantly fighting to keep the option for peace and collaboration open at all times, lest it get closed off forever to everyone’s mutual detriment.
It's absolutely central to the whole faith. And this part, too:
>In the long run, the cost incurred each time you attempt to co-operate and get exploited, usually pales in comparison of the cost of never trying at all.
Adventurous-Text-680 t1_jaxj83x wrote
However it's not central to religious faith.
Why do more religious communities have more retaliation against things like gays?
People want to marry and love who they want but religious people have decided they can just others be happy if it doesn't follow their world view. Same with dressing in drag. Nothing that impacts them but they feel the need to aggressively pursue ending the happiness of others by trying to create laws to make it illegal. They also don't care about other religions.
If highly religious people were really forgiving and wanted to cooperate they would never try to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. Hell they push ideas like conversion therapy which goes fully against the idea of letting people be.
kagamiseki t1_jax1197 wrote
Some moderation makes sense -- like you said, all carrots, all sticks, neither of those approaches will work.
You can't turn the other cheek every time, but you also shouldn't be pasting him back forever.
At some point, somebody needs to turn the other cheek. Somebody needs to be the one to forget past grievances, and give another chance. And of course, hit back again if they squander that opportunity for reconciliation.
porncrank t1_jax7dj5 wrote
I went to church my entire youth and this was not what was discussed. And when they did talk about being nice they didn’t get the dynamics right - infinite forgiveness, for example. Or the rationale — “if you don’t fall in line you will be tormented forever”. In any case it was always presented as a vague thing without understanding how or why it worked. Which left a lot of church people not following it consistently.
If wasn’t until I read about this decades later that my natural desire to be nice with boundaries made perfect sense.
thirdbrunch t1_jaxtfye wrote
Eternal punishment in hell doesn’t seem like being generous and giving people a second chance.
Wireman29 t1_jawjmn3 wrote
No shit. All I see here is the golden rule plus a simulation.
TryingTruly OP t1_jawmo18 wrote
Golden rule + Retaliation if you're being exploited + Self-Correction mechanism to cut negative feedback loops
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments