you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You can't be "right-wing" and feminist, unless you are extreme right-wing. Being conservative is about being an INDIVIDUAL. Feminism by definition is COLLECTIVISM. It destroys the individual. Feminism destroys your individual personhood and you take on the suffering of a whole group of people.

[–]ech[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Basically I think women deserve to be seen as individuals.

[–]proc0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Agreed. This means one's life is a product of one's own actions, and therefore blaming anyone else for one's suffering is irrational.

[–]ech[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

therefore blaming anyone else for one's suffering is irrational.

Well, I'm certain you can think of instances of suffering for which you'd blame others.

[–]proc0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Only to the extent we confuse the word with physical pain. Unless someone is physically harming you, consider that suffering is only occurring as a process of your own brain. Consider PTSD, people who in the past experienced something horrible, but it haunts them in the present. We can understand that suffering, but it's irrational nonetheless because it only occurs in that person's brain, and if we knew how the brain works we could offer an instant fix, perhaps like uninstalling unwanted or malicious software on your computer.

[–]ech[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If you were capriciously doxed and cancelled by the New York Times over something innocuous you did on the Internet 10 years ago, and your family consequently got evicted from housing and got assaulted by marauding rioters, I'd blame the NYT and the rioters for what could fairly be called suffering (even in excess of literal physical pain). But if you have some kind of ~zen problem with that approach, and you instead insist that most human experience is manufactured in the subject's brain, to each his own I guess.

[–]proc0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

most human experience is manufactured in the subject's brain

I think this is scientifically true. How else do you interact with the real world if not 100% through your own senses and ultimately through your own construct/model of your own senses?

Also your example includes physical pain, so let's say someone just gets banned and doxxed and no one follows through with physical threats, I'd still argue there's no need to suffer there. It sucks, and you have to do something about it, but no need to suffer while fixing the problem.

[–]ech[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think this is scientifically true. How else do you interact with the real world if not 100% through your own senses and ultimately through your own construct/model of your own senses?

I think demarcating physical pain from other phenomena registered by the brain is artificial and dualist. We know that certain human interactions reliably produce adrenaline, oxytocin, and whatnot. If you experience a predictable nervous-system response because someone kisses you vs. slapping you, are those responses so different? It seems reasonable to "blame" others for the predictable consequences of their behavior, although that doesn't mean divesting the sufferer of any agency or locus of control. In the scenario I described, I would absolutely blame the NYT. But this could be a very abstract difference of opinion we are litigating.