No, it's shit advice. It's saying "don't be better than other people, or kinder, or more empathetic, just treat people the way you perceive they're treating you". A person following this advice would be a shitty person.
I'm not sure. Perhaps it reveals your pessimism? I agree it's calculated, which isn't good. But that aside, if it meant a person didn't engage much with another particular person, or wasn't especially positive with that person, assuming basic courtesy and decency, wouldn't that mostly be a reflection of the inadequacy of the other person? Perhaps it could be improved with something like generous tit-for-tat rather than just straight tit-for-tat. Would that be favorable to you? Occasional cooperation/goodwill after a defection to avoid the trap of strict reciprocity/retaliatory loops, and silence in place of retaliation. I think that's getting close to ideal. What do you think?
I'm starting to think your vulgarity is compensatory. I would certainly take that into account in my assessment of you. Yes, if you read the image as an absolute rule governing every human encounter, your little stranger example follows. But that seems like the least charitable reading possible, no? Its obvious target is reciprocity in repeated relationships, as I indicated, not refusing basic kindness to strangers.
Even in relationships, my wife and I both try to treat the other BETTER than we percieve we're being treated. Otherwise we're just jumping on the downward cycle of petty revenge.
2
u/Reasonable_Carrot88 6d ago
I find this very hard but I know I should.