141–150 of 154 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, that's how I know I've found the people truly dedicated to rational discourse: when somebody speaks honestly, just like they advocate for, they threaten violence. Sorry to hear your family relationships are so brittle, though.
You misunderstand friend, rather completely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, NSFL type warnings (and experience) might provide an alternative explanation? The warnings don’t help when people’s curiosity (morbid, compulsive, or otherwise) has not been counteracted by learned experience (or tools via therapy) that they don’t like it or it doesn’t help them. The warnings are generally not generic (aka ‘bad stuff here’), they’re usually quite descriptive of what category it covers. Far more t…
Makes me wonder what the overlap is between those demanding trigger warnings and those habitually stumbling upon NSFL material. I'd venture very little. Notwithstanding, I have avoided virtually all NSFL stuff and don't understand trigger warnings. However, I think content should be described when rating media.. for instance, R/M ratings could have "rape" in its description when depicted which would make trigger warn…
How?
Trigger warning = NSFL tag on the post
Allows you to have informed consent to consume content - or nope out of it.
For most people, "NSFL" is stuff like extreme gore.
For survivors, NSFL also includes whatever experience nearly did them in (so, literally NSFL). Hence more words needed.
Did this clear it up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of overly fragile people have hang-ups, and lots more will claim them — or wallow in them — if there’s an advantage to do so, and even if that advantage is merely a boost to their ego: you’re special, you’re unique, your problems and inability to control them are not a failing, but a genuine disability society should accommodate. We can’t possibly account for every possible form of extreme emotional fragility, n…
Good lord, who shit in your Cheerios? This is not the kind of thing someone weighing societal costs says, this is resentment and it runs deep. You do not have to stoic. Feeling emotions is good for your mental health and is not a sign of weakness. You are allowed to want attention. You are even allowed to ask for it. It is a normal part of being a social creature. You deserve to be loved, cared for, and have your nee…
Yes, we’re allowed to feel emotions, but no, they’re not the responsibility of strangers, acquaintances, or coworkers.
If you’re semi-regularly crying, curling up, or shaking in a non-familial environment, you need to seek professional help, not burden those around you with what is clearly a serious personal mental imbalance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of overly fragile people have hang-ups, and lots more will claim them — or wallow in them — if there’s an advantage to do so, and even if that advantage is merely a boost to their ego: you’re special, you’re unique, your problems and inability to control them are not a failing, but a genuine disability society should accommodate. We can’t possibly account for every possible form of extreme emotional fragility, n…
Hey, you sound like people haven't been very kind to you, and have taught you their cruelty is normal. I just want to say I'm sorry and I hope you find someone who can teach you that people can genuinely care about your wellbeing and do things that they know increase your quality of life, such as avoiding topics that they know make you uncomfortable. I hope you find someone that teaches you that kindness doesn't have…
Unconditional kindness is reserved for parents’ relationship with their very young children.
With anyone else and in any other circumstance, unconditional kindness is pathological.
It is enabling, not helping, and it is detrimental to those who need to build resilience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its disappointing on HN to see posts like yours voted down, presumably because somebody disagrees with it, rather than them taking the effort to post a sensible rebuttal.
I downvoted because before the comment was edited, it contained a snide 'that sounds like a you problem'. Others may have been reacting to that as well as it's not a productive addition to the discussion. (Also why I was snarky in my reply, which I will not be editing.)
Frankly, I now wish I hadn’t.
If you actually get triggered by seeing “happy families”, that’s absolutely a serious mental illness, and not only is it not anyone else’s concern, but by advertising it, you almost certainly are reinforcing it.
Being unwell is not something to celebrate or wallow in, and the creation of spaces that encourage such self-destructive antisocial behavior — tumblr comes to mind — has been to the detriment of society at large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes me wonder what the overlap is between those demanding trigger warnings and those habitually stumbling upon NSFL material. I'd venture very little. Notwithstanding, I have avoided virtually all NSFL stuff and don't understand trigger warnings. However, I think content should be described when rating media.. for instance, R/M ratings could have "rape" in its description when depicted which would make trigger warn…
>Notwithstanding, I have avoided virtually all NSFL stuff and don't understand trigger warnings. How? Trigger warning = NSFL tag on the post Allows you to have informed consent to consume content - or nope out of it. For most people, "NSFL" is stuff like extreme gore. For survivors, NSFL also includes whatever experience nearly did them in (so, literally NSFL). Hence more words needed. Did this clear it up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You misunderstand friend, rather completely.
Feel free to explain then. But otherwise I'll take this as the kind of faux-superior vaguery you get from people who can't address the actual point.
And earns you enemies from all but a tiny fraction of people, regardless of the validity of your point.
You can always say no, politely. Or leave. Or refuse, etc.
I don’t care for the original persons point, but I also don’t care for you. To be clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I downvoted because before the comment was edited, it contained a snide 'that sounds like a you problem'. Others may have been reacting to that as well as it's not a productive addition to the discussion. (Also why I was snarky in my reply, which I will not be editing.)
I removed that line within seconds, in an attempt to communicate more productively. Frankly, I now wish I hadn’t. If you actually get triggered by seeing “happy families”, that’s absolutely a serious mental illness, and not only is it not anyone else’s concern, but by advertising it, you almost certainly are reinforcing it. Being unwell is not something to celebrate or wallow in, and the creation of spaces that encou…
I also mention my Multiple Sclerosis when it's relevant. Is discussing my spasticity 'wallowing' in it?
Why is your first instinct to shame the suffering person for talking about it? We shouldn't celebrate it, but nor should we ban any discussion of it socially because it makes you uncomfortable. I'm sorry that you clearly have emotional reactions to frank discussions of mental illness; are you in therapy for that?
And again, work on your reading comprehension. I'm arguing against trigger warning culture because even if I take its assertions at face value, it doesn't help the people it purports to help. It's a refutation of the argument that 'trigger warnings help people with PTSD'. I have PTSD, which is relevant to refuting that argument. That's why I mentioned it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, you sound like people haven't been very kind to you, and have taught you their cruelty is normal. I just want to say I'm sorry and I hope you find someone who can teach you that people can genuinely care about your wellbeing and do things that they know increase your quality of life, such as avoiding topics that they know make you uncomfortable. I hope you find someone that teaches you that kindness doesn't have…
Of course kindness is conditional. Unconditional kindness is reserved for parents’ relationship with their very young children. With anyone else and in any other circumstance, unconditional kindness is pathological. It is enabling, not helping, and it is detrimental to those who need to build resilience.
Enabling someone isn't kindness, unablement often occurs because confrontation is deeply uncomfortable and is a completely different wiring than choosing to be kind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feel free to explain then. But otherwise I'll take this as the kind of faux-superior vaguery you get from people who can't address the actual point.
My point is that being nasty just gets you nasty back, regardless of the validity of your point. And earns you enemies from all but a tiny fraction of people, regardless of the validity of your point. You can always say no, politely. Or leave. Or refuse, etc. I don’t care for the original persons point, but I also don’t care for you. To be clear.
To my mind that's quite nasty, even when it's cloaked in false, high-minded BS about free speech and the like. So am I going to be frank in return? You bet.
If you really care about people being nasty, I am sure you'll now start hectoring those nasty pro-kyriarchy types. But what I think is actually happening here is that you'll continue to only object to anti-status-quo frankness, while happily accepting pro-status-quo nastiness as long as it's got a modicum of civility glossed over it.