Toribash
Nah I just think you misread what I said. I guess wibbles got too boring for you, so you tracked me down here lmao.
<a href=https://imgur.com/gallery/AnXm6 target=_blank>https://imgur.com/gallery/AnXm6</a>
Dargon Moderated Message:
Infracted for having the best goddamn replays in Toribash history.

No.

It's saying that our identification of 'violent'/'problematic' acts becomes broader and more encompassing over time, for a variety of reasons. That's concept creep (the first article).
The other part of this is that as things become rarer, if we're looking for them, we can still find them even when they're not there, solely because we are trying so hard to look for them. That's prevalence-induced concept change (the second article).

If you take these two articles together, it explains something that's happening in our culture. We look for shit to complain about in the absence of really big smelly shits (we complain about farting perhaps, which isn't even shitting).
We whinge and cry about stuff that people who've dealt with actual existential threats would brush off. We get mad at Smaiva for making a 'did u assume my gender' joke.

"Although conceptual change is inevitable and often well motivated, concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing everyday experience and encouraging a sense of virtuous but impotent victimhood."

Modern living absolutely has its problems. I'm not denying that. I am asserting, however, that some 'modern problems' are only problems because people are looking to make mountains out of mole-hills (pathologizing everyday experience).

My recommendation for everybody to go get punched in the face is aimed at getting people to put their threats into perspective. Life doesn't need to be violent to be normal, but having some violence in your life can put things into perspective.

ty for coming to my ted talk
Last edited by Ele; Feb 10, 2020 at 05:27 PM.
Good question. I'll think about it.

First thought is just 'If I see it, I'll know it'. Present me with a problem and I can tell you if it's a real problem or not. In my opinion it would be fairly self-evident.

That leads to my second thought of 'Well, it's not self evident to everyone, is it? Some people think it's a real problem'.

Which leads to my third thought of 'The problem can be subject to a 'reasonable/almost any person'' check'. In the first article it talks about the concept of 'trauma' and how conceptual change affected it. It used to be that for an experience to be considered 'traumatic' it would only be traumatic if 'almost everyone' would agree that it was indeed a traumatic experience. Another way to look at it; many countries have the concept of a 'reasonable person' embedded in their legal system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person). If any 'reasonable person' would consider x to be x, then x is x. If any reasonable person considers microaggressions to be a bullshit problem, then microaggressions are a bullshit problem.

Which leads to my fourth thought 'Shit, what if a 'reasonable person' isn't actually reasonable anymore'. Pretty much nothing is safe from concept change (except maybe hard, concrete realities). What if almost everyone gets sold on the idea of microaggressions being valid (microaggressions are now 'reasonable'). What if everyone decides it's a reasonable thing to no longer clap (it's 'anxiety-inducing' for some), and everyone starts jazz-handing instead. What if that becomes the new norm?

Which leads to my final thought (for now) of 'No, that's ridiculous, people won't just accept bullshit because SJWs tell them they should'. So, I guess I stand by my 3rd thought. We can distinguish actual modern problems from pathologized problems through an 'almost everyone/any reasonable person' check. For the purposes of that check, anyone with super-strong leanings, one way or the other (SJWs or Nazis), can be safely ignored. That said, I'm not saying the SJW camp can't ever identify a problem that 'almost anyone' would agree is a problem - I'm sure they could (and probably have). I'm saying that everybody else (reasonable people) would have to agree with them in order for the problem they raise to be recognised as a legit problem.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 10, 2020 at 07:13 PM.
All of this assumes that the majority of people are reasonable and understand the implications of their actions.

For instance, the majority of people are still queerphobic and casually spread queerphobic ideas through jokes or otherwise. Just because the majority doesn't see it as an issue doesn't mean it's not an issue. The majority of people have been bigoted for the entirety of human history. Leaving any of this up to "most reasonable people" is ridiculous because of this context. Centrism doesn't help us here (or ever).

This argument is coming from a cishet white guy... who would've guessed.
<Hush> the beat feature sounds like the main event at a circle jerk festival
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
No.

It's saying that our identification of 'violent'/'problematic' acts becomes broader and more encompassing over time, for a variety of reasons. That's concept creep (the first article).
The other part of this is that as things become rarer, if we're looking for them, we can still find them even when they're not there, solely because we are trying so hard to look for them. That's prevalence-induced concept change (the second article).

If you take these two articles together, it explains something that's happening in our culture. We look for shit to complain about in the absence of really big smelly shits (we complain about farting perhaps, which isn't even shitting).
We whinge and cry about stuff that people who've dealt with actual existential threats would brush off. We get mad at Smaiva for making a 'did u assume my gender' joke.

"Although conceptual change is inevitable and often well motivated, concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing everyday experience and encouraging a sense of virtuous but impotent victimhood."

Modern living absolutely has its problems. I'm not denying that. I am asserting, however, that some 'modern problems' are only problems because people are looking to make mountains out of mole-hills (pathologizing everyday experience).

My recommendation for everybody to go get punched in the face is aimed at getting people to put their threats into perspective. Life doesn't need to be violent to be normal, but having some violence in your life can put things into perspective.

ty for coming to my ted talk


There is a psychological term used for this in a nutshell, though it passes my mind currently, that indicates a person who actively looks for problems through their nature that is a little more detailed and less negative in terms of connotation than "pathologist".


But.. I think the best way on DEALING with such problems is to teach people that the right question is more important than the right answer. We underestimate and overestimate ourselves in believing we have the ability to understand things without speculation and without asking the right questions, the right speculations about the wrong things will be made as a predatorial instinct. Imo, the most important things that can be said are the things that actually make people "think" rather than "bow down."


The reason I argue so much with maya is that I believe she doesn't understand that notion that took me years to get to. I don't argue because I expect change to happen overnight, but I do argue so I can atleast envelop such change at the pace which was meant to be through my actual investment.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Originally Posted by Enclave View Post
I mean Ele has a point lmfao. I used to get beat with a belt or tanned with a spoon if I acted up. Nowadays that's "child abuse" to those who must've had senseless parents and god forbid those people ever have children. A perfect reason for how to ensure discipline in kids. Corporal Punishment is the term.

This post is from 2010 facebook groups where parents happily join the "I will discipline my kids my way" groups and explain away any child abuse case they felt compelled too with "i wouldnt do it that way but its fine because x/y/z"

I GOT MY ASS BEAT AND I TURNED OUT FINE is one thing

but if you think its a reasonable conclusive thought is "so clearly i need to beat my kids" you ain't fine yo.
Addicted-re 07-16
Custom Profile Shop
24/07/2019. I'll find you again my friend.
Replay thread thing
Have any reports or issues?

a boston cream pie is when u let an irish catholic nut in u raw
Beating them senseless isn't the same as disciplining them for doing something wrong -_-.
<a href=https://imgur.com/gallery/AnXm6 target=_blank>https://imgur.com/gallery/AnXm6</a>
Dargon Moderated Message:
Infracted for having the best goddamn replays in Toribash history.

Well yes officer, but I only beat that defenseless child a little bit. You see, they were annoying me.
-----
Originally Posted by Greg View Post
The reason I argue so much with maya is that I believe she doesn't understand that notion that took me years to get to. I don't argue because I expect change to happen overnight, but I do argue so I can atleast envelop such change at the pace which was meant to be through my actual investment.

"the pace which was meant to be"
What the hell does this mean? There is no pace which is "meant to be." I see bigotry, I tell people to fucking knock it off. If they don't, I explain why their behavior is problematic. You, in particular, have been incredibly resistant to understanding your own bigotry. There is no "pace which was meant to be" which prevents you from removing that bigotry more immediately. It's a very poor excuse not to be more tolerant. The only thing stopping you is your ego.
Last edited by Maya; Feb 11, 2020 at 05:36 AM. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
<Hush> the beat feature sounds like the main event at a circle jerk festival