It should be everyone's problem, as you say, to work to prevent harm to others. The societal benefit far outweighs the rather minor individual burden, to say nothing of simple morality.
Non sequitur; we'll try it this way: Actually being smart enough to understand the difference between
"hating someone" and
"working to prevent future harm" should be your own problem.
Yep... it's a Tiassa™ post!
It will be helpful when you learn the difference between discussing the issues and petulant egotism, which is why you need to understand, Kittamaru—
See, here's the thing Tiassa ....
—that when all you have to run on is ignorance and egocentrism, it kind of stands out: Your assessments are unreliable. Your late appeals to emotion are unbelievable, which is why they aren't having any useful effect.
So when
you boast↑ that you're happy when you look in the mirror; when you need to reach out and attack people as you have, bratty declarations such as, "I've no need for such toxic folks in my life", are about on schedule. You know who other people don't need in their lives? Rape advocates.
Start thinking for yourself, Kittamaru. You don't even know how you got in this deep; you show no apparent knowledge, skill, or other faculty for extricating yourself from the pit you've dug.
It is not insignificant to observe that at no point in recent threads about these subjects have you actually had a clue what you were on about.
You are not happy with what you see when you look in the mirror if you need to treat people as you have. Stop lying to yourself, and stop putting the people around you through this. If your behavior is worth more to you than cheap aesthetics, then please consider that no, you are not believable when you say you are happy with what you see in the mirror else you wouldn't need to reach out to sustain the conflict. Go back and look through your own posts in these threads; you will find yourself answering others, such as Iceaura, about other issues, such as superficial electoral politics, and in some of those posts reaching out to call in other people, such as Bells or Tiassa. When you invite dispute, as you have, and then to pretend to be a victim when people answer, no, you don't convince anyone of anything by reciting the sad portions of your life story in order to tell us how happy you are with yourself, denounce others, and wash your hands of a discussion you refuse to leave be.
Thus, like your unreliable self-assessment, neither is your judgment of toxicity reliable.
Remember the contrast, please: You failed basics about due process and employment alike; see also our exchange at #
50↑ -
51↑; in the latter you lead with an expression of confusion about elitism and classism and then fall back into electoral politicking; it would seem you also failed basic classism. Furthermore, if we look to another recent thread there is a brief post in which I
respond to your inquiry↗ by pointing out that I explained something most recently when I explained it after already having explained it. There is a reason you kept asking, and it's very similar to the reason why another might
intervene↑ with dismissal and a change of subject to what would otherwise be laughably stupid except for its deliberate disruptive purpose. And if it seems nearly emblematic that this little bit can orbit #50 above, that's part of how the behavior you display works once it sets in any given circumstance; you don't know, so you won't recognize, so you keep asking. But, yes, in that moment, when one of our neighbors began putting on his mgtow, you blew basic classism. You ignored the answer to your own demand such that you would eventually make the demand again a little over
a week later↑, and appear to have ignored
the response↑, as you
asked again the next day↗. So go back to that confusion about elitism and classism in #51. Think about it, not only were you answered, but you were also pointed to a class issue; not only did you pass over the answer to your demand, you declared your confusion over the classism issue and tacked to electoral politics.
There is a certain degree to which the subject changes are understandable; people generally prefer to feel empowered or, at the very least, not utterly disempowered, when discussing these issues. So you keep switching back to what looks like something you think you know; it's very human behavior. But at the same time you seek empowerment, as I
noted last month↑ by telling people what they think and argue, and as much as you might wish to
protest such notions↑, it does not escape notice that when
given examples reminding of your own posts↑ you dropped that part long enough to
botch up due process↑.
Looking over pattern of unattended loose ends about your argument and presentation is not entirely unsurprising; sustained determination, however, does not say anything about the character of your argument, so the difference between what you think you're doing and what other people see really is invested in how you see yourself in the mirror. It's not quite axiomatic that everyone says they're happy with what they see in the mirror until they are angry at everyone else for not helping them feel better about themselves, but, still. It's kind of like reminding,
repeatedly↑, look what you called "reason"; we can even tell you
why we perceive a problem↑, and all you're interested in is
bawling your way to political speculation↑.
And when
ignorance is the persistent theme about why it is somehow unfair to be disdainful toward your conduct—(really, you're innocent, and didn't know, and how dare anyone fail to properly appreciate that!)—it might help if you actually showed signs of learning something, now and then, instead of repeatedly invoking a coincidence of changing the subject and then, later, asking anew for reiteration of what you already ignored.
†
Here is a trivia question, Kittamaru, that is not necessarily trivial:
Do you know what I learned from a very early age, Kitta. Empathy. You should look it up.
If I choose that today is the day to split a hair with my friend, on this occasion 'twixt
empathy and
sympathy, am I zinging her or reiterating for broader consumption something she already knows?
And I won't even hold that one in suspense: Empathy is one step removed, compared to sympathy. Empathy requires translation before it projects; sympathy does not. Neither is it any mystery that sympathy can be wrong in its presuppositions; for our purposes, though, empathy is much more vulnerable to such errors, and also according to implications, and what that means, more simply, is that while sympathy can estimate wrongly how any given person perceives a common experience, ego defense priorities of emapthetic projection can be dangerously revealing, less a rorschach than a series of cryptic neon signs telling us what that empathy really finds important.
Oh, right, simply: She can say all she wants about learning empathy; at some point, you learned it, too; the danger of empathy is the subjectivity of its priorities in projection.
But here is the danger of splitting hairs: She will not quite raise an eyebrow, but perhaps halfway flare a nostril, and suggest a thing or three about subjectivity in prioritizing objects of focus, or, in language she and I both would disdain according to the dangers of your and other discourse in these subjects, the subjectivity of target selection. And she would be precisely correct.
Then again, if we wanted to do the demonstrative solidarity bit, we could sit back, say nothing to the misogynists directly, but merely go back and forth 'twixt ourselves, psychoanalyzing the latest typal model reminding that as go variations on themes, desperation really is not so much the father of invention as a not-quite hilarious anthropomorphization of purpose; the homophobes were wrong, for instance, because Y was not about specifically getting into X like we humans do, but, rather, as nature has so aptly demonstrated for millions of years, distributing gamete in general; similarly, albeit figuratively, these aren't quite masculinist inventions proper we witness, but, rather, recombinant sprays of stale impotence.
†
Good luck on the new adventure, Kittamaru; it's been a rough forty for you, I know, but even rougher for her. And if you're going to get her through what comes next, you're going to need to learn how to address these toxic aspects of self you would rather pretend your way around, and you're going to need to learn how to listen to her, and figure how, when you don't like the news, to not make an utter mess of things for the sake of pride. And don't get me wrong; on this trip, that's precisely human.
But it's really, really important. Good luck.
This from a pair of moderators no less.
