When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
i was rofl when i read the replies to you question.
for all others it went like this:
q: where's the line?
a1: murder is bad.
a2: murder joe perez.
Yeah, that was pretty much it.
The OP was "man shoots teenager for stealing property."
The predictable outcry followed.
I asked (paraphrasing): "Where do you draw the line between 'it is acceptable to use force to defend yourself' and 'this is an outrage?'"
It went downhill rapidly from there.
The part which really scared me was not the threats of retaliation by contacting my employer (they already know that I'm an arrogant *******), but rather the realization, having experienced a doxing first-hand, that this sort of behavior has already become normalized. And that Orwell missed the mark slightly, in that We The People have willingly volunteered to act as Big Brother.
Today, I made the mistake of asking a question in the midst of a highly pro-SJW thread on FB, which happened to be populated in part by a couple of people I actually know in real life.
Within 30 minutes, I'd been called a troll, received several threats, and had one snowflake post "Hey, this guy's employment info is in his profile! Everyone needs to contact his employer and let them know what an evil person he is!"
Literally I just asked a question.
So, lesson learned. No more straying outside of my very small clan on any social-media site. Kind of considering just withdrawing from it entirely. It's just not worth the funny cat pictures.
I also learned that the definition of troll is "Someone who has a different opinion from mine, and wishes to engage in a conversation about the apparent conflict between these two points of view."
I'm being 100% serious here. I've been active on the internet since before the world wide web existed. I honestly thought that I'd pretty much seen the worst of the online community's seedy underbelly. I've had warez-sites of which I was a member busted (think FTP, not WWW), ditto private trackers. I came pretty close to being arrested at one point while in college. (They did, in fact, arrest, try and convict a good friend and classmate of mine. To be fair, he got careless and a tad arrogant. But I also had an account on his personal Unix machine, which was seized in the raid. That's "Unix," with a "U," not an "L." Jordan was a purist.)
But this was the first time that I have actually been afraid as the result of something which occurred online.
This is why I have stopped sharing controversial stuff on Facebook and mostly just share silly meme's I find amusing.
I used to post much of the same stuff Brainy does regarding watching the police and such on Facebook. Out of nowhere, I see many different LEO's are checking my profile on LinkedIn. Since you can see who views your profile, and this is common knowledge, this was an obvious intimidation tactic from the various LEO's who disagreed with what I had shared.
I learned a new way to be offended this morning. Apparently, accusing people of ordinary racism is no longer sufficient, so now you can accuse them of colorism. (eg: one non-white person can accuse another non-white person of the same race of bias, because their skin is too light or too dark a shade to be considered "us" for any given race / ethnicity.)
The headline is depressing. The body of the story does little to ameliorate it. And this isn't Huff, this is the Washington Post, an entity which I generally respect. Apparently, we have a generation of Americans who find the normal functioning of the electoral process to be unbearably traumatizing. In all honesty, this fact frightens me more than North Korea, the FCC, road salt and venomous insects all combined.
A quarter of college students could develop PTSD because of the 2016 election, a new study suggests
By Isaac Stanley-Becker, October 24
U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) talks with James Simmons, right, during a get out the vote rally Monday at Des Moines Area Community College in Iowa. New research suggests that a large share of young people had clinical stress symptoms following the 2016 election.
Are college students “snowflakes” — triggered, traumatized and all together too delicate for the real world?
Or are they apathetic — so unconcerned that they can’t be bothered to purchase stamps to send in their absentee ballots?
The two characterizations of young Americans are in conflict, observed Melissa Hagan, an assistant professor of psychology at San Francisco State University. Her research has led her to believe that neither captures what’s going on in the minds of young people. Their intense reaction to political events runs contrary to the charge of apathy, she said, while the emotional trauma they report should not be dismissed as hypersensitivity.
With a team of researchers, she surveyed 769 introductory psychology students at Arizona State University in January and February 2017, asking about their satisfaction with the 2016 election, whether they were upset about the outcome and whether the results of the race had affected their close relationships.
The results were published Monday in an article, “Event-related clinical distress in college students: Responses to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election,” in the Journal of American College Health, a bimonthly, peer-reviewed public health journal. The article finds that 25 percent of students had “clinically significant event-related distress,” which it argues can predict future distress as well as diagnoses of PTSD, commonly associated with veterans and defined by the Mayo Clinic as “a mental health condition that’s triggered by a terrifying event — either experiencing it or witnessing it.”
The research speaks to the personal toll of partisan battles, and it offers insight into the perspective of young Americans coming to political consciousness in the era of President Trump.
Hagan, the article’s lead author, said she believed it was the first of its kind examining an election’s psychological impact on college students. She was motivated to conduct the study by what she saw in her classes the day after Trump clinched the presidency.
Her students were “visibly upset,” she recalled in an interview. “Some were even crying.” They told her that they were scared and anxious about policies that had been discussed on the campaign trail, she said, as well as about the elevation of “a candidate who had an audio recording of him describing sexual assault.”
The analysis reveals that women, racial minorities, people from working and lower-middle social classes, Democrats, non-Christians and sexual minorities reported significantly more election-related distress. Accounting for connections among various factors, the most useful predictors of stress were sex, political party, religion and perceived impact of the election on close relationships — more so than race and social class. Controlling for party affiliation, other demographic factors still influenced stress symptoms. In other words, Hagan said, it wasn’t just a case of sore losers.
The findings are in line with those of related surveys, such as a poll conducted in January 2017 by the American Psychological Association indicating that two-thirds of Americans were stressed about the future of the country. Seventy-six percent of Democrats said they were stressed, compared with 59 percent of Republicans — still a majority. The previous August, the APA added a question about the outcome of the election to its annual survey on stress to reflect what was on the minds of clients seeking counseling.
The 2016 election itself was not a trauma, Hagan said. The term implies the threat or actual experience of personal injury, and usually applies to events such as mass shootings or armed conflict.
“But what’s underneath that is helplessness and fear,” she said. “We can think about the election campaign — with discussions of deportation and how women are treated, for instance, and the extreme language used by both candidates — as driving these experiences of intrusion,” Hagan said. “Young people can’t stop thinking about it. It interferes with their concentration."
“Or else,” she added, "there’s avoidance, where they don’t want to talk about it.”
Most notable, Hagan said, was “the extent of the clinical impairment” — the proportion of students whose symptoms rose to the level that could entail risk of subsequent PTSD. At the same time, she said, the accounts of individual survey subjects demonstrate why this would be the case. One of the students, Hagan said, was fearful that her parents were going to be deported.
It would be wrong, she said, “to turn to that person and say, ‘toughen up.'”
Hagan rejected the notion that distress was a sign of emotional weakness, even when political events don’t reach young people directly. The fear can still be real, she said, pointing to the more recent example of the dramatic accounts of children being separated from their parents at the country’s southern border.
The data does not spell out the long-term consequences for mental or physical health of election-induced distress. Nor does it establish the cause of the trauma-like symptoms. But the researchers speculated that "issues of identity and social inequality prominent in election-related rhetoric” played a role, as they wrote. “Repeated exposure to visual stimuli and words relevant to one’s identity, when perceived to be threatening or priming negative stereotypes regarding social group membership, can negatively impact psychological well-being.”
One of the conclusions that Hagan drew from the results was that young people, contrary to prevailing narratives, “are paying attention.”
“Often there is a criticism of individuals in their early 20s, that they are these special snowflakes waiting for things to happen to them,” she said. “Young people are not just waiting. They’re absorbing and observing, and hopefully that will not result in clinical impairment but rather inspire them to seek out and find ways to take care of themselves.”
Next month’s election will test that hope. Turnout among young Americans has been strikingly low, especially in midterm elections, according to Pew analysis.
There is some reason to believe that young people could outperform expectations, though. An online survey of 3,633 college students conducted in September by College Reaction, a polling and news site, found that nearly 50 percent say they would “definitely” vote in November, compared with 18 percent participation in 2014. Seventy-seven percent said they were registered to vote.
I know some of these people. They really thought the world was ending after the election. It was insane to me how poorly some people took the results of an election for a temporary position. It's okay people. He only has 4-8 years in office. There is light at the end of your tunnel.
I'm consistently bothered by the political terms used by pseudo-professionals to describe people. The article above refers to "working and lower-middle class" students. I dislike the euphemism "working class" since so many who are lumped into the category do not work at all or work so little as to require support from others. I prefer accurate labeling and would have the continuum separated as: dependent class, lower class, middle class, upper class.
Etymology of the term working class dates back to the 1630s and was used to describe the Third Estate of people behind the aristocracy and the clergy. It included attorneys, physicians, and tradesmen as well as simple farm laborers. The term was later used by the marxists to separate and denigrate those who received higher education prior to joining the workforce as not really working in the same way as the man who had only his labor to sell. This idea carried over from the marxist communists and socialists to the National socialists as they celebrated physical labor in their art and propaganda as being pure and noble. But none of these groups tolerated the lazy man or the unable to work. Those were seen as a burden and were commonly imprisoned into forced labor or euthanized. The children were required to work in addition to their studies to help earn their keep, as had been the practice since the beginning of recorded history.
Today we fret about the feelings of those who contribute nothing but vape fumes to our society and I know not why. They and others of the dependent class should be receiving instruction and not contributing to the discourse until they have become self-sustaining.
Tl:dr - sixshooter hates lazy people and pop psychology.
But apart from the fact that I just don’t think that’s a good idea, it might be impossible to do that show today and have people accept it the way it was accepted 10 years ago. The climate’s different. I mean, the whole idea of that character, Michael Scott, so much of it was predicated on inappropriate behavior. I mean, he’s certainly not a model boss. A lot of what is depicted on that show is completely wrong-minded. That’s the point, you know?
...
But I just don’t know how that would fly now. There’s a very high awareness of offensive things today—which is good, for sure. But at the same time, when you take a character like that too literally, it doesn’t really work.
10-20-2018, 11:03 AM
0
