Funny because I came to the exact same conclusion by disagreeing with every human in humanities academia, until I realised old the Taoist wisdom of "the name that is the name is not the constant name". And guess what, now I'm in tech because I'd rather spend time with computers than hiveminds of leftists. (Check out my latest post if you're interested)
I think there is a case to be made that communciation can be a method of inducing harm to other people, but these questions are phrased in a really exaggerated and awkward way.
Masculine-brained types can understand this attitude if we translate it to visual stimuli. Are there videos that can have these effects on people? Absolutely yes there are.
The devil is in the details. If I make video content it's unlikely to give someone PTSD no matter how hard I try, just because there are personality features I can't overcome. But the cartels sure can.
Now just remember that some people, namely women, read pornography rather than watch it. Their preference for words goes deep into their hindbrains.
I should have finished my thought in the second paragraph: censors will always want to take down videos they don't like, and some people may truthfully experience some trauma from them, and we just have to be okay with harming those people without being ghoulish about it. But cartel videos do need to get taken down. I'm personally opposed to pornography as well for similar reasons, but I understand that may be a minority position.
This is unserious scholarship, Emil. At least since the time of St. George Floyd's ascent it was demonstrated that 'silence is violence'. This important contributor to trauma is not even included in the questionnaire. Dark times. Also, genocide by non-affirmation (of trans-people) is missing from the questionnaire. How do you investigate multigenerational PTSD without including the cutting edge contributions from comrade scholars? Factor loadings > 1.
These people (and you as well) should get the Cofnas treatment.
Very interesting. But why call them "magic words"? It's probably just physiology that mediates the hurt, not magic. E.g., I imagine a central case of words that hurt are words of rejection: simple correlative data is probably robust about people with no friends and those who get verbally bullied having overall higher general inflammation rates and worse health outcomes. Plus some short-term RTCs that show cortisol/inflammation/other non-healthy things rising after verbal assault/rejection. Should also be very robust. I think there's no question that words can hurt (try "It's not about you - it's completely about me"). Some people just feel it stronger, the same as with physical pain.
Funny because I came to the exact same conclusion by disagreeing with every human in humanities academia, until I realised old the Taoist wisdom of "the name that is the name is not the constant name". And guess what, now I'm in tech because I'd rather spend time with computers than hiveminds of leftists. (Check out my latest post if you're interested)
I think there is a case to be made that communciation can be a method of inducing harm to other people, but these questions are phrased in a really exaggerated and awkward way.
Masculine-brained types can understand this attitude if we translate it to visual stimuli. Are there videos that can have these effects on people? Absolutely yes there are.
The devil is in the details. If I make video content it's unlikely to give someone PTSD no matter how hard I try, just because there are personality features I can't overcome. But the cartels sure can.
Now just remember that some people, namely women, read pornography rather than watch it. Their preference for words goes deep into their hindbrains.
I should have finished my thought in the second paragraph: censors will always want to take down videos they don't like, and some people may truthfully experience some trauma from them, and we just have to be okay with harming those people without being ghoulish about it. But cartel videos do need to get taken down. I'm personally opposed to pornography as well for similar reasons, but I understand that may be a minority position.
This is unserious scholarship, Emil. At least since the time of St. George Floyd's ascent it was demonstrated that 'silence is violence'. This important contributor to trauma is not even included in the questionnaire. Dark times. Also, genocide by non-affirmation (of trans-people) is missing from the questionnaire. How do you investigate multigenerational PTSD without including the cutting edge contributions from comrade scholars? Factor loadings > 1.
These people (and you as well) should get the Cofnas treatment.
Oh hush.
Very interesting. But why call them "magic words"? It's probably just physiology that mediates the hurt, not magic. E.g., I imagine a central case of words that hurt are words of rejection: simple correlative data is probably robust about people with no friends and those who get verbally bullied having overall higher general inflammation rates and worse health outcomes. Plus some short-term RTCs that show cortisol/inflammation/other non-healthy things rising after verbal assault/rejection. Should also be very robust. I think there's no question that words can hurt (try "It's not about you - it's completely about me"). Some people just feel it stronger, the same as with physical pain.
This feels like the sort of scale that would benefit from more concrete items, a la https://tailcalled.substack.com/p/towards-an-objective-test-of-compassion