What made you laugh today?

Talk about anything and everything.

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby PopTart » 12 April 2020, 11:47

Severelius wrote:I... I really didn't mean to start all this by posting that tweet I got a chuckle out of....

Looks around at a buring village, bloody bodies laying all around, the signs of battle evident for all to see.. All I said was maybe we could gather for a post hunt feast on odd nights, rather than even... what ... what happend? :rofl:
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 2825
+1s received: 2333
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 12 April 2020, 11:49

Jesus fuck, now you're forcing me to quote tree all this.

PopTart wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:I know I'm not one with the strongest of grounding to criticise someone for an excessively loquatious response, but Jesus fuck that's a lot of wasted language to stay within reach of the fence in an argument you aren't actually on the fence about. Spend less time trying to overtly advertise a sense of balance and more time concisely making your point. It's outright difficult to get through.

Hey! I like being talkative :P and your quite right, your one for being verbose, as you have confessed! :D Hypocrit. :lol:

But your completely right, in that I do go about the houses, I take the scenic route, which is no doubt annoying for many but thats more because, thats how I tend to arrive at conclusions. I'm not direct and yes, while I wasn't aiming to advertise my desire for balance, I have a deep rooted personal philosophy that revolves around it. It's important to me, its central to my reasoning in most things and causes no end of annoyance for other people :shrug: I'm not about to change that, because it is, in part, my ideas on balance, that helped save me from a period of near self destruction in my turbulent past. ;)


I've no issue with the scenic route, but this paragraph is a fine example of a whole side-trip taken wholly seperately from the trip at hand.

PopTart wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:Firstly, I would like to again encourage a distinction between attention seeking behaviour and "wearing your mental health issues on your sleeve". Attention seeking behaviour, as you are obviously railing against, is foundational to the modern social media web of interaction. Why is me posting on facebook that I went to a bar, or posting a holiday photo on instagram, or otherwise "flexing" on social media apparently unchalleneged and wholly accepted? Why is this an acceptable means of garnering likes, support, encouragement or an elevation of social standing? Where is the demarcation? If it's not, why are you singling out those with mental health issues within that sphere and not challenging the behaviour in general? Is it just because someone is sad and, you being unsympathetic, that's annoying to you? Why can't you ignore it and let them take from it what they're looking to? Who are you to enforce upon someone else how best they should seek validation?

Oh I do challenge the shift in social priorities with the advent of social media, I believe that social media, while having some benefits, has a net negative effect on modern soceity. It's just few people are willing to entertain the idea, it's far too useful, convenient and has too many superficial surface benefits, for people to want to take a serious look and undertake real change, should it be found to be as negative as some suspect. There is little apetite for discussion on the matter and even if there were, I'm not entirely certain I'm upto the task, though I'll try.

As such, the best we can do, is try to formulate "damage mitigation" approaches to it's uses. Today, in the world of publication, we have well established societal checks and balances to aid readers in identifying truth from fiction, good information from bad, it's not perfect, but it's there and perhaps with time, this new medium of digital social interaction will develop along the same lines, but it isn't there yet. It's still too new, it's still evolving and it's orders of magnitude more complex, it might never get there.


While I can understand how you conflate mental health in this instance, with the above arguement, since it's the starting point of the conversation, I think, this is merely a spur or a wider arguement and no-one is homing in, specifically on mental health as such, but the unhealthy tendency of people to fail in the recognition, of their own social responsibility. Of which, utilising the suffering of others, for your own benefit, is neither healthy nor socially acceptable.

The real issue I suppose, is the lack of social responsibility on online, digital identity and presence? I dunno. But I think this goes to social conduct, social responsibility and the like.


I took the liberty of offering a strike-through editorial suggestion of the obviously wholly irrelevant waffle. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying in the remainder of this diatribe, or how it forms a counter point. Please revise.

PopTart wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:Secondly, on the broader point of people discussing mental health, what's the point of demarcation at which someone's desire to feel seen and acknowledged carries sufficient psychiatric merit to have it be valid?
I think this is a great question and it definately needs answering. I'm going to admit, I don't have that answer, I don't know if anyone does, instead, we are all feeling it out as we go.


Thank you for taking the time to write all that shit about something I wasn't talking about, and then take the key point I made and dismiss it out of hand with nice, concise "I don't know". Definitely makes me feel like I'm spending my time constructively reading all this.

PopTart wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:Say, for instance, I'm a person in a deeply conservative social standing which it is currently beyond my ability to be free of. A child, or dependent. Within my circle, I do not feel at all comfortable talking about issues, I don't feel that there is support or understanding there. I don't feel seen, and thus I feel worthless. I feel like I don't matter and the world wouldn't notice if I was gone. What I do find helpful is from time to time posting online, on a community such as this, about my thoughts or feelings. I'm not doing it to make change, I'm not doing it to resolve my issues. I'm doing it simply for the therapeutic benefit of knowing that someone, somewhere has seen me. Someone knows I exist and knows how I feel. That provides me relief. Why am I now being discouraged from seeking it? What negative does this cause anyone else that they can't simply choose not to engage with? Heaven forfend, just on the off-chance, there's someone else in my position who doesn't have the courage to make even the small steps I'm making. Who sees what I post and realises that they're not alone in how they feel, even if they don't acknowledge me or say so.


Oh, absolutey, this is a perfect example of how I think many people do indeed utilise this site and others and I'm not advocating against that. I think this is both healthy and beneficial and does alot for many people, I can think of a few here who may have benefited from such and I go on record as saying, please, if it helps, continue, don't be discouraged.

I also have to acknowledge, that different people, are ready to move beyond and overcome their mental health issues, at different times or at different rates, hence the reason, I might offer positive encouragement, but I never demand they accept it. To do so would be objectionable in the least. Harmful at the worst. :nono:

That then is perhaps, the litmus test by which, I feel we must demand some measure of social responsibility, is what I'm/this other person, posting hurting anyone else? Doing harm to someone else?

If we had an IRL, depression support group meeting, in which 10 people attended and 9 of those 10 people were genuine sufferers of mental health problems, but that other 1, was pretending, because they get a boost from recieving attention, we would be thoroughly angered by that. We could argue that person too, has a mental health issue, that they need help with, but we would also agree, that they have done something ultimately, underhanded and morally wrong. Now add a bunch of cameras to that room and an audience in the tens of thousands and we acknowledge that, the 1 faker, was doing what they did, for attention from that audience. Perhaps, recieving support, that might have otherwise gone to people, for whom it would have been more beneficial or constructive. Is that not wrong? Would we not object? We might admit, this 1 faker, has some pretty serious issues of their own, but does it excuse the deception? I agree, there is a challnge, even here, on where the demarcation lies.

But if it is unacceptable in a real world setting, why should it be acceptable in a digital one? If we have a social responsibility in real life, why not in our social media presence?


So, hang on, your whole stake in this debate is being hung around a metaphorical support group. A group in which support is a finite resource, apparently they only get what? Two buckets of support for each session? Is support measured by the bucket? Ok, I'll play make believe.

Sure. We're sat in a circle, there's two buckets worth of support. 1 person in the group has a mental health issue, you've conceded that much, just not the mental health issue they claimed to have. The mental health issue that the group is formed around. The liar happens to recieve...a spoonful? Of advice from one of the buckets. How is advice something that I can't appreciate empathically? Because it was given to someone else, no matter how readily I might be able to adapt it to my own situation, it was given to someone else and so I must disregard it? The liar has recieved the spoonful of advice, and whilst it isn't advice on an issue he actually has, the recieving of the advice is cathartic to them. The buckets of advice are still distributed amongst the group. Nobody is in the group is any the wiser and everyone came out with what they were expecting.

In this world of advice being a substantive property type, subject to ownership, very much not subject to sharing, where is the victim in this support group? Everyone has come in, got what they wanted and left again. Sure, there's a deception at play there. But it's a support group, a degree of atristic license is par for the course. Why is it wrong?
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 7202
+1s received: 2198
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 12 April 2020, 11:50

Brenden wrote:I concede nothing! NEVER.

I caught you in your own contradiction, it was a KO.

I was just offering you a blade by which you may regain your honour in the next life through sepuku.
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 7202
+1s received: 2198
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 12 April 2020, 11:51

Severelius wrote:I... I really didn't mean to start all this by posting that tweet I got a chuckle out of....

This started from a tweet?
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 7202
+1s received: 2198
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby PopTart » 12 April 2020, 12:20

Marmaduke wrote:Jesus fuck, now you're forcing me to quote tree all this.

:lol:
PopTart wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:I know I'm not one with the strongest of grounding to criticise someone for an excessively loquatious response, but Jesus fuck that's a lot of wasted language to stay within reach of the fence in an argument you aren't actually on the fence about. Spend less time trying to overtly advertise a sense of balance and more time concisely making your point. It's outright difficult to get through.

Hey! I like being talkative :P and your quite right, your one for being verbose, as you have confessed! :D Hypocrit. :lol:

But your completely right, in that I do go about the houses, I take the scenic route, which is no doubt annoying for many but thats more because, thats how I tend to arrive at conclusions. I'm not direct and yes, while I wasn't aiming to advertise my desire for balance, I have a deep rooted personal philosophy that revolves around it. It's important to me, its central to my reasoning in most things and causes no end of annoyance for other people :shrug: I'm not about to change that, because it is, in part, my ideas on balance, that helped save me from a period of near self destruction in my turbulent past. ;)


I've no issue with the scenic route, but this paragraph is a fine example of a whole side-trip taken wholly seperately from the trip at hand.

I was expanding on my perspective, to better illustrate where I'm coming from, I know you like to make that inference for yourself, but I do like to offer my reasoning or line of thought, leading upto a conclusion, for myself, but if you would prefer to define my opinions origins for me, then I shall desist.

Marmaduke wrote: why are you singling out those with mental health issues within that sphere and not challenging the behaviour in general? Is it just because someone is sad and, you being unsympathetic, that's annoying to you? Why can't you ignore it and let them take from it what they're looking to? Who are you to enforce upon someone else how best they should seek validation?

You ask if my problem is with sad people and how annoying I find them (again, your making inferences, but just because you have infered such, doesn't make it true Marmaduke, you may have a gift for reading between the lines, but that doesn't make you a mind reader) or with a more generalised issue, I answered your question, expanding upon the fact, that it is a wider issue, with this instance of mental health being but a microexpression of that wider issue, but apparantly, that isn't conforming to your narrative of what my problem is, which, as far as your concerned, is me hating sad people for being so noticeably sad. So, why ask the question, if you didn't actually care for a response? :confused: If you just want to have the experience of having challenged wrong headedness and schooled someone on correct thinking, to have "won" the arguement, point to you, then, by all means, consider me schooled and no longer of wrong headedness. I will parrot your opinions back to you Marmaduke, please, send me a list so I know the right topics and the stance you wish me to take.


Marmaduke wrote:
PopTart wrote:While I can understand how you conflate mental health in this instance, with the above arguement, since it's the starting point of the conversation, I think, this is merely a spur or a wider arguement and no-one is homing in, specifically on mental health as such, but the unhealthy tendency of people to fail in the recognition, of their own social responsibility. Of which, utilising the suffering of others, for your own benefit, is neither healthy nor socially acceptable.

The real issue I suppose, is the lack of social responsibility on online, digital identity and presence? I dunno. But I think this goes to social conduct, social responsibility and the like.


I took the liberty of offering a strike-through editorial suggestion of the obviously wholly irrelevant waffle. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying in the remainder of this diatribe, or how it forms a counter point. Please revise.
What you took to be irrelevant, I took to be a broadening of the conversation, because I thought we were having a conversation, I didn't realise that we were having a contest in which the ideas expressed there in, had to be pitted against one another, survival of the fittest and only those ideas that survive the crucible of your judgement and scathing rebuttals, could have the glory of being seen in the light of day... how, gladatorial of you Marmaduke, I'm almost aroused. :naughty: :devil:

PopTart wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:Secondly, on the broader point of people discussing mental health, what's the point of demarcation at which someone's desire to feel seen and acknowledged carries sufficient psychiatric merit to have it be valid?
I think this is a great question and it definately needs answering. I'm going to admit, I don't have that answer, I don't know if anyone does, instead, we are all feeling it out as we go.


Marmaduke wrote:Thank you for taking the time to write all that shit about something I wasn't talking about, and then take the key point I made and dismiss it out of hand with nice, concise "I don't know". Definitely makes me feel like I'm spending my time constructively reading all this.
Must we all stick to our opinions without the capacity to say, "you know what, here, right here, you might have a point on this. Can there be no give and take? Or is everything crush or be crushed! Grrr! Me big winner! slaps dick in face of defeated opponent

PopTart wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:Say, for instance, I'm a person in a deeply conservative social standing which it is currently beyond my ability to be free of. A child, or dependent. Within my circle, I do not feel at all comfortable talking about issues, I don't feel that there is support or understanding there. I don't feel seen, and thus I feel worthless. I feel like I don't matter and the world wouldn't notice if I was gone. What I do find helpful is from time to time posting online, on a community such as this, about my thoughts or feelings. I'm not doing it to make change, I'm not doing it to resolve my issues. I'm doing it simply for the therapeutic benefit of knowing that someone, somewhere has seen me. Someone knows I exist and knows how I feel. That provides me relief. Why am I now being discouraged from seeking it? What negative does this cause anyone else that they can't simply choose not to engage with? Heaven forfend, just on the off-chance, there's someone else in my position who doesn't have the courage to make even the small steps I'm making. Who sees what I post and realises that they're not alone in how they feel, even if they don't acknowledge me or say so.


Oh, absolutey, this is a perfect example of how I think many people do indeed utilise this site and others and I'm not advocating against that. I think this is both healthy and beneficial and does alot for many people, I can think of a few here who may have benefited from such and I go on record as saying, please, if it helps, continue, don't be discouraged.

I also have to acknowledge, that different people, are ready to move beyond and overcome their mental health issues, at different times or at different rates, hence the reason, I might offer positive encouragement, but I never demand they accept it. To do so would be objectionable in the least. Harmful at the worst. :nono:

That then is perhaps, the litmus test by which, I feel we must demand some measure of social responsibility, is what I'm/this other person, posting hurting anyone else? Doing harm to someone else?

If we had an IRL, depression support group meeting, in which 10 people attended and 9 of those 10 people were genuine sufferers of mental health problems, but that other 1, was pretending, because they get a boost from recieving attention, we would be thoroughly angered by that. We could argue that person too, has a mental health issue, that they need help with, but we would also agree, that they have done something ultimately, underhanded and morally wrong. Now add a bunch of cameras to that room and an audience in the tens of thousands and we acknowledge that, the 1 faker, was doing what they did, for attention from that audience. Perhaps, recieving support, that might have otherwise gone to people, for whom it would have been more beneficial or constructive. Is that not wrong? Would we not object? We might admit, this 1 faker, has some pretty serious issues of their own, but does it excuse the deception? I agree, there is a challnge, even here, on where the demarcation lies.

But if it is unacceptable in a real world setting, why should it be acceptable in a digital one? If we have a social responsibility in real life, why not in our social media presence?


Marmaduke wrote:So, hang on, your whole stake in this debate is being hung around a metaphorical support group. A group in which support is a finite resource, apparently they only get what? Two buckets of support for each session? Is support measured by the bucket? Ok, I'll play make believe.


Sure. We're sat in a circle, there's two buckets worth of support. 1 person in the group has a mental health issue, you've conceded that much, just not the mental health issue they claimed to have. The mental health issue that the group is formed around. The liar happens to recieve...a spoonful? Of advice from one of the buckets. How is advice something that I can't appreciate empathically? Because it was given to someone else, no matter how readily I might be able to adapt it to my own situation, it was given to someone else and so I must disregard it? The liar has recieved the spoonful of advice, and whilst it isn't advice on an issue he actually has, the recieving of the advice is cathartic to them. The buckets of advice are still distributed amongst the group. Nobody is in the group is any the wiser and everyone came out with what they were expecting.

In this world of advice being a substantive property type, subject to ownership, very much not subject to sharing, where is the victim in this support group? Everyone has come in, got what they wanted and left again. Sure, there's a deception at play there. But it's a support group, a degree of atristic license is par for the course. Why is it wrong?
Your amusing sarcasm, notwithstanding, my stake in this arguement, is that we must be wary of encouraging, or through disregard, encrourage the proliferation of behaviours that, in aggregate, are harmful to wider society, such as those evidenced by narcissistic types. In order to avoid wide spread issues resultant from the proliferation of such harmful behaviour in the future, we should be proactive in applying social conventions and responsibilities upon our online behaviour, endeavour to identify and differentiate the various expressions, of various forms of mental health issues, and apply the correct support or treatment.

Having someone, with clinical depression, feel able to openly express their sorrow in a public setting, is potentially and ultimately, beneficial for someone with clinical depression.

Feeding into a narcissists desire for attention, even at the expense of others, is not. There in is the problem. It is neither helpful nor beneficial for anyone concerned.

It is not about shaming anyone, it is about taking some personal responsibility and also, about social responsbility to ourselves and others. It is about creating an environment that is enriching and not endorsing harmful behaviour.
Last edited by PopTart on 12 April 2020, 12:26, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 2825
+1s received: 2333
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby erti » 12 April 2020, 12:22

I’m siding with Marmaduke on this but I don’t see anyone getting angry enough not to say, “hey fuck y’all I’m leaving”. A healthy debate can be beneficial. Like knowing where people stand.
User avatar
erti
 
Posts: 1105
+1s received: 695
Joined: 30 November 2018, 09:58
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States (us)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 12 April 2020, 13:01

Look, for the benefit of the reader, I'll again trim out your excessive narrative before you have all of our backs up against a quote wall no man could scale.

You weren't "exapnding your perspective". You were talking about yourself. It was narrative, again only serving to keep the fence in reach. Heaven forfend you should commit to staying on one side of it.

I'm not saying things are true, but I will concede to making inferences. I'm taking the broader tone of the point being put against my by you and others and playing out to it's various conclusions. I offer you these conclusions not as a verdict on the debate, but as a means of examination. A means by which you may see how I'm interpreting your position and offer a response which might change my mind. A response, incidentally, you have yet to provide. You didn't answer my question, you went of on a tangent about social media at large. I'm not talking about social media at large. I offered it only as contextual framing.

If you would like to revise your post and make it about the dismissive generalisation of those suffering with mental health issues - that being the point at hand - I will happily retort. But I'm not discussing the pros and cons of social media, nor societies responsibilities in response to it, and you haven't framed those points within the context of this discussion. You're again veering off into the weeds. Yes, we're having a conversation, but the conversation has a topic already and you don't get to just throw any old topic you like in the middle of it and expect me to pick up these vague, intentionally non-commitable tangents about something else and debate them at the same time. Staying on topic with the people you're talking with is a courtesy. Constantly clouding your point in extended haranging about something altogether different just wastes my time and seeks to make me divest from the conversation through sheer disinterest in expending the effort to read it and pick out what we're actually talking about. It's clumsy. Stop doing it.

I'm not asking people that they have their spiteful opinions be able to withstand my scrutiny, just any degree of scrutiny. So far, people have been all too keen to come back and try and defend themselves, but nobody actually wants to address the questions put against their reasoning. That's reddity bullshit, it's somewhat my theme du jour.

I'm all for being swayed. But to sway people, you need to stay on topic and address people's position with queries or insights relevant to the point. You haven't done that. You keep talking about anything but, or offering up terrible metaphors.

And my response to your "argument" wasn't sarcastic. They were genuine questions. Questions you have again not addressed, and simply side-stepped and started talking about yourself again. Seeing as you don't want to talk about how you percieve advice to be an object of finite availability and limited applicability, I'll simply move on to the new point you're making. A point which, again, is painfully overstated through an obscene commitment to staying on or near the fence. I mean, I know I've kicked you a few times for lunging for the fence, but I genuinely don't get what you're getting involved for if you're occupying the middle ground and have nothing to offer the point at hand?

Your new argument manages to be middle of the road, and still outright scaremongering. Seeing as you'll just skip over my asking you again how anyone is actually hurt if nobody knows that anyone is lying, I'm going to offer you the next paragraph as a new point of response;

You're describing attention seeking behaviour. My entire point for the last several posts is that it's damaging to people with mental health issues to address attention seeking behaviour under the banner of addressing open discourse of mental health issues. You can say you agree or disagree all you want, but you've flip-flopped so much that you're now arguing it with me as if I haven't be quite clearly and vocally for the separation of addressing attention seekers from the issue of mental health altogether. That aside, you're describing attention seeking behaviour as a harmful threat to society at large. Who is it that's being harmed? And how does this harm present a threat to society?

Why is accepting that narcissism will always be present, and simply offering all people, indiscriminately, the benefit of the doubt a bad thing? Who is harmed? The narcisist? How? Especially within an anonymous forum such as the internet. Who is harmed? What expertise do you offer to support the claim that in all instances, giving attention to narcisists is harmful?
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 7202
+1s received: 2198
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby PopTart » 12 April 2020, 14:20

I will address your questions (hopefully to your satisfaction) but before that...You do understand, do you not, that when you seek to frame the narrative of someones discourse, by ascribing intent to their words, that is merely infered by you, that you invite them to then explain their position, to expound upon their thoughts, reasoning and motivations. Indeed, they are obligated to do so, if only to refute your assertions or risk having someone else, inaccurately and unfairly portray what they are saying in a misleading light. You don't get the right to open that door, then complain when someone walks through it. You made that choice.

You speak of narrative, yet you are the one that seeks to shape the flow of that narrative, you seek to define and colour others opinions through your own, somewhat cynical lense, then chastigate them for seeking to counter you on that fact. Play the game, you say, just don't play by my rules, I have a different set, just for you.

You're not saying things are true, you're not making the arguement you are making, you are instead, seeking to lull people into expressing personal opinions, with the intent to deconstruct them, so as to demonstrate what exactly? So as to reach the kernal of truth at the heart of the conversation at hand or to dismantle peoples notions and shine a light on what you perceive to be their inadequacies? I suspect, both. You can treat discourse like a game of chess if you like, but honestly, I have no interest in such combative talk. Should I then not engage with you?

If you are going to ask a rhetorical question, to which you don't expect an answer to, and yes, I will admit, my answer is hardly well structured or particularly well written, but it answered the question you asked, then why ask it all? Perhaps, make a note, for the person to which you put the question, this is rhetorical, I don't actually care, because it doesn't serve to advance my point further.

If you wanted an answer, but you wanted the answer to be strictly focused exclusively on the subject at hand, without any broader subject or context, then again, perhaps you should say so. You got an asnwer, but it was one you couldn't be bother to engage in, because it was too far off the main path. Or it wasn't the one you wanted.

I personally take a more free wheeling approach to conversation, I head into the thicket sometimes, only to re-emerge further down the road, or not at all, I get lost along the way never to return. :shrug: We don't all have your laser focus.

I did offer my wider point as contextual framing, that the matter under discussion, can't be taken out of the context of social media at large and the manner in which it is changing the way people interact with one another, that there are evolving behaviours that can be percieved to have a negative affect, either on an individual or society as a whole and since no individual is entirely divorced from society, it all has a wider impact. How does that relate to people pretending to have mental illness, when they don't, for personal gain?

By creating a secondary social strata (online) in which, the conventions for acceptable behaviour are radically different, than those we find in the real world, we begin to introduce behaviours, that once would have been unacceptable in the real world, that through their acceptance online, become more so, IRL. This isn't inherently bad, but we can all agree that some behaviours are negative. One small example, would be the manner in which people are comfortable talking to eachother online, where, in the real world, telling someone to go kill themself, would be considered not just rude, but also incredibly irresponsible, online, this is all but acceptable by the majority, who might denounce it somehwat, but engage in the same behaviour, safe behind anonymity, but I can say, from personal experience, I have heard the behaviour translated into the real world, having found general acceptance online. Is this a generalisation? To a degree, I concede that, I have no empirical data to back up the experiences of this shift in social mores but, I infer, as do you, as do we all.

Now what does this have to do with mental health issues? You point to my awful metaphor, not my forte. But personal life experiences kind of are.

Having suffered mental health problems of my own in the past, I've had the chance to meet plenty of others with similar issues, I've also met those that have instead, claimed to, when infact, it has been revealed, that they have only sought the attention, they saw others, with genuine mental health issues recieving. Let me add, by the way, that attention and the resources that come with it, are indeed finite and even online, the amount of "real and constructive" support is also finite. But more on that later.

In the later parts of my state education, there was a support group for young people with problems, that, out of which a social circle evolved. Now amongst these people (myself included) was a girl, who it would turn out, lied extensively about having problems she didn't actually have, it could again be argued that she had other problems, but that is beside the point, because the nature of her real problems were such, that in order to conceal her lies and deceit, she manipulated, lied and abused, people who were already vulnerable. Through her actions, she prevented other members from getting the help they needed, while being afford help she didn't actually need, it may have satisfied her need for attention, but people who undertake to get support, do not do so lightly, were being deprived of the limited time, expertise and emotional support, that she was taking from them, not only that, but to hide what she was doing, she actually caused emotional harm and pain to other members of the support group, actively working to undermine the support some people were getting. She was always actively working against anyone actually working on there problems, she would go out of her way to prevent it even and when it finally came out, what she had been doing, the lies she had told, setting people against one another etc she self destructed. Spectacularly. Last I heard, she is living a very bitter and unhappy life and has left a trail of broken relationships and lives in her wake.

Did she deserve to get the right support. Ofcourse she did. Do I in retrospect, have sympathy for her, I guess in a sense I do, but i recall all to clearly the handful of people, who really wanted to fix their life, that she threw a grenade amidst, at a critical time, all for her own sense of ego. Socially, as a community, we made it clear that what she had done was unacceptable, that it was wrong, we tried to support her after the fact, to face the problems she really had, but she wasn't really interested. I know the people she personally wronged, never forgave her and I will say, they have good reason not to.

Online, just as in real life, meaningful support is indeed limited, we can all offer an ear to listen, and tell someone, Keep going! Don't give up! but the number of people that are in a position, either through expertise or personal time, to actually offer genuine support to those that are suffering, is limited. Those who make claims to mental health issues, that they do not have, are in effect wasting that finite resource, they do so selfishly, perhaps, because they have different underlying problems. But their deceit and selfishness, can lead to someone else, who might have got that opportunity for help and support, for whom, even asking for it, might have taken the gathering of a great deal of courage and strength, not to get it.

By ignoring the cost that has, by ignoring that such behaviour has a negative impact, we are endorsing a form of selfishness, that can and will find expression in the real world, be it via normalisation or because the degree of return someone is gaining online, is of diminishing impact and those that seek such validation, are very much like addicts that need a fix.

You may not agree, you may feel that I have taken too much liberty of failed to reason something or present my opinions in a form that meets your stringent requiremens, but this is my opinion, I share it as best I can.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 2825
+1s received: 2333
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 12 April 2020, 14:21

Image
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 8925
+1s received: 2294
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 12 April 2020, 14:22

You know what? Believe me or don't, I'm not reading all that. Not at all.
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 7202
+1s received: 2198
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby PopTart » 12 April 2020, 14:23

Fair enough, its not that much longer than what you wrote. :shrug:
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 2825
+1s received: 2333
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 12 April 2020, 14:25

PopTart wrote:Fair enough, its not that much longer than what you wrote. :shrug:

It'll require something as long, which will in turn get something as long again. If you wanna stitch such an intricate tapestry, by all means, but I'm not spending my time picking out the details.
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 7202
+1s received: 2198
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby PopTart » 12 April 2020, 14:28

Marmaduke wrote:
PopTart wrote:Fair enough, its not that much longer than what you wrote. :shrug:

It'll require something as long, which will in turn get something as long again. If you wanna stitch such an intricate tapestry, by all means, but I'm not spending my time picking out the details.

I'm sorry, I'm not very good at being succinct :lol:
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 2825
+1s received: 2333
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 12 April 2020, 14:31

Image

Problematic Paradox: One is being problematic by posting problematic memes that are unaware of being problematic.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 8925
+1s received: 2294
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby erti » 12 April 2020, 14:42

Image
User avatar
erti
 
Posts: 1105
+1s received: 695
Joined: 30 November 2018, 09:58
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States (us)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby René » 12 April 2020, 14:47

^Hahaha, that's cute.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 6064
+1s received: 1891
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland / Maryland, USA
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby Frigid » 12 April 2020, 14:54

I have no idea why but I can't stop laughing at this part "Just making some soup". (3:25)

poolerboy0077 wrote:Aren’t you a vegetarian? I hear your people’s farts are quite lethal. It doesn’t matter much if a volcano’s lip is clean when there lava pit is ready to burst at any unexpected moment.
User avatar
Frigid
 
Posts: 1601
+1s received: 282
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:23
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby erti » 12 April 2020, 15:24

Image
User avatar
erti
 
Posts: 1105
+1s received: 695
Joined: 30 November 2018, 09:58
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States (us)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby Derek » 12 April 2020, 17:26

Marmaduke wrote:
Derek wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:You just find them annoying and worry it’s distasteful to say so.

When was the last time I said so? I am GFO's most improved member, if you'll recall. I am exceptionally polite and considerate and I haven't insulted anyone in weeks. I think the burden is on you to prove that I haven't been incredibly compassionate this whole time.

Nah, I’m the shady lawyer in this legal drama. I know the court and jury I’m presenting to, this is me asking the question I know I’m not allowed to. The one where your defence objects and the judge sustains it, but it makes no real difference because the jury already heard it. This is the bit where I apologise to the bench and you’re left holding the bag.

I have faith that the jury will see past your rhetorical tricks and gratuitous ad hominae. You're the slimy, big-money barrister, while pooler, Brenden, Tart and I are the common man daring to say what everyone was thinking.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6237
+1s received: 2268
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: What made you laugh today?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 12 April 2020, 17:37

Derek wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:
Derek wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:You just find them annoying and worry it’s distasteful to say so.

When was the last time I said so? I am GFO's most improved member, if you'll recall. I am exceptionally polite and considerate and I haven't insulted anyone in weeks. I think the burden is on you to prove that I haven't been incredibly compassionate this whole time.

Nah, I’m the shady lawyer in this legal drama. I know the court and jury I’m presenting to, this is me asking the question I know I’m not allowed to. The one where your defence objects and the judge sustains it, but it makes no real difference because the jury already heard it. This is the bit where I apologise to the bench and you’re left holding the bag.

I have faith that the jury will see past your rhetorical tricks and gratuitous ad hominae. You're the slimy, big-money barrister, while pooler, Brenden, Tart and I are the common man daring to say what everyone was thinking.

You plaintiffs have Tart at your table. Your story is meandering and all about him and they fell asleep halfway through it. Mine has theatrics, bad guys caught in traps, I've painted myself the mere David versus your oppressive Goliath. The best story wins. The jury loves me. You're sat next to a Mexican, you're guilty by association. I'd just give me the settlement money now.
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 7202
+1s received: 2198
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot], John27, kotek91, LewisG, poolerboy0077, Severelius, Seznam [Bot], squiresj0924 and 116 guests