I think this might be the biggest issue that I have with you. Trying to get you to admit that there is a problem seems to be impossible for you to do.
It's funny, because I get this mostly from people who really can't provide even a lick of evidence. Instead, I've merely "internalized it" or I'm a "liar" or worse. It's kind of silly. I'm willing to look at any evidence available, and I will discuss the evidence and accept it if its there. It's the only way I can come to a conclusion.
People, moreso here than most anywhere else I've discussed political issues (exceptions being the ontd network and some SJ-aligned areas), are extremely afraid of examining angles that make them uncomfortable or challenge their viewpoints. It's a bubble mentality to the extreme that does little to expand ideas.
The reason that emotions even show up in dialogue is because personal problems usually have emotions tied to them. Saying that because an issue is emotional means it is not a problem doesn't work.</>
Sure! No doubt about it. The problem, however, is that emotion is a terrible way to handle a situation. Are you more likely to make a good decision or come up with good choices when you're fired up and angry, or when you're able to examine the situation and what surrounds it? Emotional thinking appeals to our base instincts.
Saying that an isolated problem isn't a problem doesn't work. A problem is a problem no matter how sparse because if something happens once, it is viable to happen again.
This then leads to pretty much anything being on the table simply because someone feels a certain way. What, should we then pretend, for example, that convention culture has a misandry problem because some guys were offended by the "anti-harassment" measures? It's an unserious complaint and should be treated as such as opposed to elevated to the level of actual problems.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-07-26 03:36 pm (UTC)It's funny, because I get this mostly from people who really can't provide even a lick of evidence. Instead, I've merely "internalized it" or I'm a "liar" or worse. It's kind of silly. I'm willing to look at any evidence available, and I will discuss the evidence and accept it if its there. It's the only way I can come to a conclusion.
People, moreso here than most anywhere else I've discussed political issues (exceptions being the ontd network and some SJ-aligned areas), are extremely afraid of examining angles that make them uncomfortable or challenge their viewpoints. It's a bubble mentality to the extreme that does little to expand ideas.
The reason that emotions even show up in dialogue is because personal problems usually have emotions tied to them. Saying that because an issue is emotional means it is not a problem doesn't work.</>
Sure! No doubt about it. The problem, however, is that emotion is a terrible way to handle a situation. Are you more likely to make a good decision or come up with good choices when you're fired up and angry, or when you're able to examine the situation and what surrounds it? Emotional thinking appeals to our base instincts.
Saying that an isolated problem isn't a problem doesn't work. A problem is a problem no matter how sparse because if something happens once, it is viable to happen again.
This then leads to pretty much anything being on the table simply because someone feels a certain way. What, should we then pretend, for example, that convention culture has a misandry problem because some guys were offended by the "anti-harassment" measures? It's an unserious complaint and should be treated as such as opposed to elevated to the level of actual problems.