Young audiences, upon watching Dunkirk, wondered where all the black British soldiers were. They were astonished to discover that, back before 1970, there were essentially no black people in Britain.
I agree with what you said, but it's a huge leap for the vast majority of people. One of the most profound things I ever read was this: Logic is used to justify the decisions already made by emotion.
Emotion can run thrice around the world before Logic gets its boots on.
Which is also said of lies and the truth. No, this isn't easy. But it's worthy of the attempt, I think, and most of humanity would be better for some self-awareness.
As much as I don't want to defend the idea of safe spaces.... they grow out of the requirement to respond, loudly, and in the "correct" manner.
It seriously freaks folks out if you just go "not enough information" when they ask what you think of something.
If you think on something, if you work through something... then you're putting yourself in danger, because you absolutely will be shunned. If you haven't already been there, by being odd? That is not something you can deal with.
You can't think, because you might think *wrong*. With wrong meaning, "in a way that will get you punished."
It's abusive.
THAT is what makes me angry. So many people, so hurt, for such stupid reasons.
Neither you nor Codex read what I actually wrote, did you. You flashed in on something that made you uncomfortable, and reacted to that, rather than what you were ostensibly reading. Why - and no, I don't expect nor want an answer. As in my post, this is intended to be a wholly internal conversation that challenges oneself to define why you are uncomfortable, thereby growing and becoming a more stable thinker.
I didn't argue with your statements because I did not disagree with them; I looked at associated issues to try to actually improve the problem.
Which purely internal aims cannot, as you and I both know from different abusive situations-- when your thinking is unstable because you're being beaten about the head every time someone thinks you've strayed, it has effects.
While it is possible that there's a pain-and-leap response, it's just as likely to be on your side for this.
You’ll note my point above is all internal, asking that a reader assess why they are reacting the way they are - it may be a valid reaction and then the challenge is be able to make their point logically rather than based in emotion.
Young audiences, upon watching Dunkirk, wondered where all the black British soldiers were. They were astonished to discover that, back before 1970, there were essentially no black people in Britain.
I agree with what you said, but it's a huge leap for the vast majority of people. One of the most profound things I ever read was this: Logic is used to justify the decisions already made by emotion.
Emotion can run thrice around the world before Logic gets its boots on.
Which is also said of lies and the truth. No, this isn't easy. But it's worthy of the attempt, I think, and most of humanity would be better for some self-awareness.
As much as I don't want to defend the idea of safe spaces.... they grow out of the requirement to respond, loudly, and in the "correct" manner.
It seriously freaks folks out if you just go "not enough information" when they ask what you think of something.
If you think on something, if you work through something... then you're putting yourself in danger, because you absolutely will be shunned. If you haven't already been there, by being odd? That is not something you can deal with.
You can't think, because you might think *wrong*. With wrong meaning, "in a way that will get you punished."
It's abusive.
THAT is what makes me angry. So many people, so hurt, for such stupid reasons.
Neither you nor Codex read what I actually wrote, did you. You flashed in on something that made you uncomfortable, and reacted to that, rather than what you were ostensibly reading. Why - and no, I don't expect nor want an answer. As in my post, this is intended to be a wholly internal conversation that challenges oneself to define why you are uncomfortable, thereby growing and becoming a more stable thinker.
I didn't argue with your statements because I did not disagree with them; I looked at associated issues to try to actually improve the problem.
Which purely internal aims cannot, as you and I both know from different abusive situations-- when your thinking is unstable because you're being beaten about the head every time someone thinks you've strayed, it has effects.
While it is possible that there's a pain-and-leap response, it's just as likely to be on your side for this.
THIS
Unfortunately, struggle sessions frequently began with the gaslighter stating "we all need to be made uncomfortable at times..."
Usually right before crossing a social or emotional boundary.
I stop listening, or walk out now.
You’ll note my point above is all internal, asking that a reader assess why they are reacting the way they are - it may be a valid reaction and then the challenge is be able to make their point logically rather than based in emotion.
Always best to be honest. But not maliciously so.