Author Topic: Pervnado - Harvey Weinstein, Louis C.K., Roy Moore....Who's Next? And Why?  (Read 1614 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11002

The bottom line is if "PTSD" is going to be expanded to mean anything from seeing babies burned to feeling bad because your boss grabbed your ass then the term no longer has a useful meaning. This also means it will be necessary to find out exactly why someone suffers from PTSD before one can determine what level of sympathy/support is appropriate. For many of the more trivial claims of PTSD the most appropriate response will be "grow up and stop whining". It is mystery why people think that making language meaningless is a useful approach to these issues.

There it is !  Why not just empathize, assuming it costs you nothing.  You have arrived at the beachhead of one of the great left-right gulfs.  Which side am I on ?

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
There it is !  Why not just empathize, assuming it costs you nothing.
Except it does not "cost nothing". It creates a society where people are free to make up whatever BS they want and demand compensation and/or punishment of the innocent. A fair society requires balance and a willingness to tell people they should just "grow up and stop whining" when it is appropriate. More importantly, allowing the word to be used in contexts where it is not appropriate debases the meaning of the word so people who do deserve a lot more support will find that society less willing to provide it because of the shysters.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 06:25:14 pm by TimG »

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11002
Except it does not "cost nothing".

Your emotional reaction does cost nothing.  Any rational decision that comes from that may involve costs.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8311
There it is !  Why not just empathize, assuming it costs you nothing.  You have arrived at the beachhead of one of the great left-right gulfs.  Which side am I on ?

Since when did the "left" get a monopoly on empathy? Sometimes empathy is appropriate, Sometimes empathy is harmful to people who just can't grow up. It's how kids get spoiled and adults think they are entitled.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
I would challenge that - empathy does none of that.  Sympathy on the other hand....
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
I would challenge that - empathy does none of that.  Sympathy on the other hand....

So what, people should show empathy in their heads? Because the moment you show it in reality it's sympathy. Do you think those snowflakes demanding safe places on university campuses and trigger warnings in texts and such got that way through people showing empathy or through people telling them to grow the **** up and quit whining?
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
I have some experience dealing with addicts. While it is necessary to provide some support to an addict if you want them to recover it is also very important not buy into the BS they construct to rationalize their addiction. If you do that you simply make the problem worse by enabling their addiction. It is not an easy line to draw between providing support and avoiding enabling but no one who wants to help an addict can afford to forget that a line exists and it must not be crossed if the objective is to help the addict. I feel that similar problems exist with other psychological issues.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 07:55:56 pm by TimG »
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
So what, people should show empathy in their heads? Because the moment you show it in reality it's sympathy. Do you think those snowflakes demanding safe places on university campuses and trigger warnings in texts and such got that way through people showing empathy or through people telling them to grow the **** up and quit whining?

Through the latter of course.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8383
[sarc]Who are you to judge the pain caused by stubbing  your toe? If someone says that they experience recurring nightmares and other PTSD symptoms then you have NO right to dispute. You must accept the self-selected diagnosis and demand punishment for the people responsible.[/sarc]

The stupid thing is our society has gotten to the point were the sarcasm is actually the reality and we get people like you willing to blindly defend the claims of any self-identified victim as long as they belong to one of the anointed victim groups. This needs to stop. With PTSD it could start by dismissing PTSD claims unless there is real and serious trauma which could be the trigger. Without he trauma any psychological issues are likely pre-existing.

PTSD is a medical diagnosis, and I think should remain such.  Therefore, no self-diagnosis.  Other things can be traumatic psychologically, but not PTSD.  That means people will claim "trauma".  I really think it's irrelevant to sexual harassment.  The damage it causes doesn't matter, touching people inappropriately is illegal.  Unwanted verbal sexual advances that continue despite telling the person "no" is also harassment, but one flirty comment that's not horribly inappropriate isn't harassment by law, so if it bothers someone but wasn't wholly inappropriate & not pattern of unwanted comments then ladies gotta grow some skin, because then it's not fair to the fellas.  The whole Weinstein thing really comes down to we as a society and our workplaces finally starting to enforce the law.

Empathy is a 2-way street.  Women have rights, so do men.  Women don't deserve abuse or to be touched unwantedly, men need to be given some reasonable kind of leeway when it comes to speaking to women.

I was taught never to touch a woman sexually unless it was pretty clear she wanted it, which includes both people flirting etc.  I was taught never touch a woman period unless it was socially appropriate (handshake, friendly hug). I've never touched a woman inappropriately in my life, it's not hard to figure out.  When in doubt, err on the side of caution.  I don't even touch women on the shoulder etc unless i'm friends with them.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 08:17:04 pm by Moonlight Graham »
I queef, therefore I am.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8311
I would challenge that - empathy does none of that.  Sympathy on the other hand....

I can have empathy for someone for what happened to them. How they react to it is on them. I don't have to respect that if I think it is over the top.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8383
I have some experience dealing with addicts. While it is necessary to provide some support to an addict if you want them to recover it is also very important not buy into the BS they construct to rationalize their addiction. If you do that you simply make the problem worse by enabling their addiction. It is not an easy line to draw between providing support and avoiding enabling but no one who wants to help an addict can afford to forget that a line exists and it must not be crossed if the objective is to help the addict. I feel that similar problems exist with other psychological issues.

The same thing with bringing up a child, or raising a pet, or being a school teacher, or being a boss etc.  You can't be tough to the point of heartlessness, but you can't be too lenient and enable bad behaviour. There's a balance there, I find that works well in life in general.  Don't let people walk all over you, don't be jerk.
I queef, therefore I am.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8311
There is a petition going around to remove Mat Damon from Oceans 8 because he had the temerity to suggest that a slap on the ass is not the same as ****. A no brainer I would think. To turn it the other way around, how would a **** victim feel if they were told not to be so upset because **** is no different from a slap on the ass. Logic is a two way street.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8383
There is a petition going around to remove Mat Damon from Oceans 8 because he had the temerity to suggest that a slap on the ass is not the same as ****. A no brainer I would think. To turn it the other way around, how would a **** victim feel if they were told not to be so upset because **** is no different from a slap on the ass. Logic is a two way street.

That's not all that Damon said though.  He also was kinda sorta defending Louis CK
I queef, therefore I am.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
That's not all that Damon said though.  He also was kinda sorta defending Louis CK

Louis CK can be kinda sorta defended in a way. No teenagers. Nobody he had real power over. And no physical force. I haven't even seen any allegations of groping. Kinda gross and icky, but you can't really put this into the same league as **** allegations or a guy screwing peoples careers and hiring private eyes to watch them.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum