Look who I'm having to explain it to Fail... (I guess I should count myself lucky, you at least Engrish good...)
You sure do write long excuses for someone so occupied, but I"m sure the most gullible liberals are convinced.
Conservatives aren't backing away from your drivel @agent00f for whatever conspiracy you're proposing (I'm honestly having trouble following), but rather because chucky etc. are helping them distinguish you being a dick from a credible attack on their viewpoint.
Look who I'm having to explain it to Fail... (I guess I should count myself lucky, you at least Engrish good...)
For a psychologist you're sure willing to pretend to suck at psychology in order to carry water for the conservatives.
Psychiatrist. Regardless, in this thread I am attacking the person who is counter to my idea of progress. This does not mean I do not find fault with others. But as long as the conversation is productive, I am quite happy with that. If we are respecting Psychoanalytic theory, though, you'd recognize the importance of neutrality within a therapeutic frame. Saying little does not mean I have observed little (hence the signature).
Even though there's no mistaking you for chucky, it's a tight competition between the two which can say the least despite all the words.
I have to laugh, as that may be close to a compliment for a therapist.
But if you want to ask questions on something I'm happy to clarify.
When in doubt, lash out!
Here's one. Consider the situation of the german nazis. Just before the end of the war their ideals ruled the country and just after even the germans thought it was the worst thing ever. I would say the only real difference is that beforehand it was in personal self-interest to align with the nazi cause, and afterwards there was a heavy social cost to it. The nazis didn't read a book and become enlightened at the error of their ways. Similarly, there's significant self-interest for american conservatives to maximize their status over some ethnic underclass, and no real price to be paid in many cases. I could explain in further depth, but you're smart enough to get the picture.
Now obviously your opinion on this transition differs, so why don't you explain your view of how those events transpired.
WaPo update:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-protests-over-race/?utm_term=.69806c944562
The school remains closed while they sort out the security situation. The article also contains a statement released by the Board of Trustees which is pretty good overall. Hopefully this is starting to turn around.
Eh, then if an incident happened they'd be accused of not taking the situation seriously enough (you knew there was a threat and you didn't close?!).I saw a very interesting comment on their discussion boards regarding violence. One poster suggested that it was time to simply put a sign at the entrance to classrooms that says "We are currently under threat of violence. Be aware before you enter." Then let school continue. That has always been my personal standpoint - don't be afraid, just continue with your life. Give the students a choice (attend online etc) and continue the schooling. THAT would be brave, and "American".
"Just a heads up that people in it for the lulz don't compose long winded explanations"
I saw a very interesting comment on their discussion boards regarding violence. One poster suggested that it was time to simply put a sign at the entrance to classrooms that says "We are currently under threat of violence. Be aware before you enter." Then let school continue. That has always been my personal standpoint - don't be afraid, just continue with your life. Give the students a choice (attend online etc) and continue the schooling. THAT would be brave, and "American".
Eh, then if an incident happened they'd be accused of not taking the situation seriously enough (you knew there was a threat and you didn't close?!).
Eh, then if an incident happened they'd be accused of not taking the situation seriously enough (you knew there was a threat and you didn't close?!).
Decisions like that should not be made because you're worried about the optics. Comes up all the time in medicine. I try to, at the very least, get my residents and students to look at what is actually in the interest of the patient without thinking about liability at all. It's really hard for most people to do this. When something is happening that is inherently risky, the natural urge to cover your own ass is really strong.
Separately, I think I'd probably have shut down the school because it's the right thing. As things evolve, that opinion may change.
I thought you were answering questions instead of pulling a conservative.
I'll reply to your post in my own time because it's interesting to do so.
But I was intending to convey that I would be happy to clarify my statements if you would ask questions about them. You did not ask a question about one of my statements but instead about my position on a new hypothetical. Be patient.
It's hardly a new hypothetical given you were rather critical of enforcing consequences for bad behavior. If that wasn't obvious, keep it in mind.
I believe bad behavior should be punished with humane and just punishment. We may differ widely in what we consider bad behavior and/or humane and just punishment.
Would you say revealing how someone's degeneracy works is in anyway inhumane or injust? For example, a common observation I make is that one conservative is obliged to always carry water for another no matter how racist or whatever, even if the latter's bigotry is leveled at the former's family, etc. Now I guess it stings since that fealty basically reveals the former to be a "brilliant gentleman" to the cause. Another common observation is conservatives playing dumb in return for diverting/misdirecting a topic, where their perceived intelligence is on exchange to prevent any enlightened understanding. Documenting these behaviors certainly don't come even close to excess punishment IMO, and if anything inadequate.
The marker of an effective punishment (just and humane) is that the person receiving the punishment is left with a feeling of guilt that is proportional to the offense and a logical connection between the crime and the consequence.
I don't think that you are achieving that outcome with your attacks. I suggest that a major deficit here is not with justice but rather with humanity. If you mark someone as a degenerate other whose behavior is a product of inherent and toxic badness rather than any understandable human process, then their acceptance of guilt for wrongdoing is contingent on acceptance that in some way they are immutably bad. Not only do I find this untrue in nearly all cases, even in sociopaths where it may be true, such a condition will never be embraced, and thus the only possible benefit of punishment will be based on fear conditioning alone, a weak arbiter of behavior unless the threat is perceived to be real, likely, and extreme.
People have the same operant conditioning mechanisms as animals, so it does influence behavior. However, people also have 2 distinct? or at least advanced mechanisms to determine their behavior.
The first and most powerful for the overwhelming majority of people is through identification. People gravitate to a position that is socially advantageous to them through identifying with the group whose values are compatible enough with their own and whose behavior is also to their advantage. This is an unconscious process.
The second method is through intellectual reason. People can make changes to their behavior and reprioritize or reinterpret their values when data is presented to them. For the overwhelming majority of people, if this new data, regardless of how objectively compelling it is, requires that they sacrifice their beneficial identifications without a bridge to new positive identifications, they will not accept it.
If someone finds themselves in a position where their identity is under such attack that they can no longer sustain it and they can find no acceptance in a new group that meets their needs, then they may respond in very violent ways to destroy the badness they can't escape from, (i.e. suicide and murder-suicide).
Interestingly, there are a good number of people who don't attach strongly to social identification who still function healthily in society. These people feel little or no empathy and do not particularly feel invalid and unlovable if peers don't readily accept them. Instead of using that as a bridge to take advantage of others, they have learned that following societal rules is in their interest and thus are most affected by fear conditioning and secondarily reason, and could not be expected to experience guilt in response to punishment. That doesn't mean they could not learn from a punishment that a behavior is "wrong" and best not repeated. I quote wrong the because it's not actually what's learned even though they are likely to use that word. They learn instead that a behavior is counterproductive.
No, the marker of an effective punishment is that it's effective, ie stops the behavior being punished, not some other arbitrary metric. Granted, guilt is effective, which is why it's pretty obvious the targets do often feel guilt/shame when their behavior/opinions are observed to largely correspond with the @Roflmouth/ @chucky2 types,.
You "forgot" to provide any evidence whatsoever that any of your "targets" feel guilt or shame, or anything other than pity, when you make your "observations." Go ahead and provide some right here -------------->