More importantly, most people universally want some other group to outlet their bottled issues at.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
Whorechata said:QuietBeef said:My mind tends to go back and forth on it, depending on emotional states and circumstance, which makes my own assessment all the more dubious. Especially since I've noticed that typically when I strongly feel I'm a good person is when I'm indignant about someone else not being one, which is a major red flag.I don't understand, why is it a red flag?
You're kidding, right?
Um, no?
Like it's not like she sees someone doing something bad and instantly thinks "they are doing thing that is bad and therefore this makes me a good person for recognizing this is bad thing!"
It's more often that people will put it on themselves to do "good things", because that's what "good people" do.
If they then see someone "reprehensible", they as "good people" are allowed as an ingroup to haze and ruin the time of the "reprehensible" individual. It's the Scientology model if you replace "bad" or "reprehensible" with the term Suppressive Person, and it teeters towards the vigilante mindset. It's inherently predatory in nature, and allowed to take form through extensive justifications.There's certain recognition right? A moral trespass that someone else has committed that marks them a bad person in that situation.
That really depends on the culture around you, the company you keep.
Most of it's relative unless it breaks something inherently "human", and even then when another is bad people tend to use relativism to tell themselves they're still good, ie "better than them".
Wait is that not a good thing?
More importantly, most people universally want some other group to outlet their bottled issues at.
Way to dodge the question. In fact, you dodge almost every question people ask you for with a faux-witty answer.
whorechata said:Wait is that not a good thing?
It makes good vs bad look more like social self defense, like a morality based pecking order of justified acts.
It's the way of the Paladin.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
1/3/2021 5:11:39 AM
More importantly, most people universally want some other group to outlet their bottled issues at.
Way to dodge the question. In fact, you dodge almost every question people ask you for with a faux-witty answer.
Mostly saying; Irrelevant to this being a yes or no answer, odds are that a "no" still means some other group would seem worthy of the chopping block.
Whether I side with that side or the other one in this case simply serves as a predatory outlet for baser feelings of being trapped, powerless, helpless. Left vs Right these days essentially uses Team sport politics and Ingroup narratives to ignore existential dread in a country where our most commonly felt expression is over how we can't fix it ourselves.
"We don't have to fix the problem if we can just destroy/censure someone who wants the opposite of what I do" is the overall message from both sides.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
1/3/2021 5:17:49 AM
whorechata said:Wait is that not a good thing?It makes good vs bad look more like social self defense, like a morality based pecking order of justified acts.
It's the way of the Paladin.
Listen need i have no idea what that means.
But usually isn't that like, social law? Like in order to participate you need to be willing to play by the set upon rules and breaking them means others have to to remind you that these rules exist and that you're overstepping them, is that still social self defense or vigilantism? That's less boxes and more agreed upon er not wording but like you know?
Crow chose to not answer and instead assume this is a grab for positive attention- safe
Doesn't feel like the safe option. I could ramble about my inner conflict and no one would give a shit. That's safe. I think it's more interesting to talk about why you made a thread blatantly fishing to be reassured, especially when you'd call out anyone else doing the same thing in a heartbeat. Does it actually alleviate guilt or shame for you, when people online who barely know you tell you that you're moral?
I'd love to read about your inner conflict- unless is paragraphs without any sort of spacing.
Alright, I am actually interested in discussing this, so I'll indulge it in the hopes that you're being sincere.
It's an extremely broad question, which makes it difficult to answer.
I think I see that..? I guess I just assumed you all have your definition of bad so that's what you would be answer it to, my idea of bad may not be your idea of bad- i guess it doesn't really make sense now that I think of it
Even without anyone else's ideas of good and bad, it's a complicated question to answer within my own.
Idunno, i feel like it's easier for me to just accept that I'm a bad person because then I dont have to keep thinking about it,
Yet here you are, talking about it again. You're thinking about this regardless. This seems more like an ongoing botched attempt to not think about it.
but at the same time because I am a bad person i should therefore put more effort into being good and doing good things. It's overly simplified (?) But it helps me out to be less conflictive irl, i don't think my own logic is very sound, but it's helpful to me.
I get that. There are times that I recognize my motivations or method as being faulty, but it's getting results, so I actively don't address it further.
Does putting more effort into doing good things alleviate anything for you, or is it just what you feel you need to do to get by?
I like that last bit, the dog bit it feels like a fantastic way to describe it. Existing and sharing within the same chaos?
Basically, yeah. Creating it, as much as existing in it, I'd say. But even in creating it, that's essentially something that's happening to us, just as much. It's our nature, and it's inherently ignorant of itself.
I don't think I'm fishing to be reassured as I've for years have told others that I am a bad person, terrible really and that I'm okay with that.
I wouldn't think you'd keep bringing it up unprovoked for years, if you were actually okay with it.
i was hoping to avoid "this", the long drawn out theories of what op may or may not be saying that leads to long drawn out replies that essentially are just "what do you really mean though?" Silly me.
See? You even thought about this beforehand. lol
I want to know if others here think they are bad people and see how their answer swerves. The title question was, again, already answered.
You know people well enough to know what kind of responses you were likely to get to making a thread literally titled "Am I a bad person?", answered or not.
I feel like the only person I know well enough to answer in the way I know they would- would be tc.
I don't mean individually. I mean social nature. You know people. You know how they'd react to you saying you're a bad person. It's like when you see a skinny person telling everyone they're so fat. : P
The secondary question was how about you? Then Are you a bad person? The safe question was provided about food because I'm also interested in what others are today. I opened up a can of tomatillo sauce and dumped it in a bowl with avocado chunks and lemon juice and I've been kinda drinking it up with bread all day. I'm out of groceries.
I don't doubt you'd enjoy hearing people's answers to those questions, and had you asked them in a different context, I wouldn't bat an eye. But you understand how a question about what you ate today looks immediately after making a big, attention-grabbing statement like "I'm a bad person", right?
Ive asked the unrelated question, especially about food in other topics I've made as well. I haven't recently but it is something I've done. Safe question. But also I'm out of groceries and i need ideas for food. I'm definitely getting cheetos.
Dude, cheetos are not even food.
whorechata said:Wait is that not a good thing?It makes good vs bad look more like social self defense, like a morality based pecking order of justified acts.
It's the way of the Paladin.Listen need i have no idea what that means.
You use a perceived hierarchy of good vs bad to justify a sense of ingroup versus others and to protect yourself, which is then used as an outlet for bottled feelings gathered from feeling as if others are judging you on the same system.
It becomes about enablers, but across a sort of moral ranking system, like some sort of karmic social credit system.
But usually isn't that like, social law?
Social laws are more like averages, ones that show deviations based on that culture's individuality. Social laws can even be pit against eachother, as we often see, having each side's good guys seen as no different from infidels when you simply move over a few miles.
Like in order to participate you need to be willing to play by the set upon rules and breaking them means others have to to remind you that these rules exist and that you're overstepping them, is that still social self defense or vigilantism?
Yes, especially if you don't otherwise agree to these practices inherently.
You're effectively trying to not lower your position on the social ladder so that when someone's gonna be struck down the odds will be lower over it being you. From what I can tell you project how to treat "reprehensible" people based on how threatened you likely feel over others finding the room to justify treating you equally, and see it as a crime that said "reprehensible" people can get away with this when you're otherwise sitting there feeling inhibited by both your own hand and the imagined eye of collective society.
Like in order to participate you need to be willing to play by the set upon rules and breaking them means others have to to remind you that these rules exist and that you're overstepping them, is that still social self defense or vigilantism?
No, the vigilantism kicks in once it becomes about kicking the other guy, like cheering on an execution or wishing ill will on someone who doesn't fit your idea of status quo.
It's using others to enable and justify predatory actions, it feeds a dark area all the same while in this case building a sense of hazing fear over how justified you'd once felt yourself, much like the idea of never betraying a Fraternity after being hazed enough times to learn to not cross their "sacred laws" to the point of putting others through the hazings and punishments yourself.
It is the way of the dark side.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
1/3/2021 5:45:28 AM
Whorechata said:QuietBeef said:My mind tends to go back and forth on it, depending on emotional states and circumstance, which makes my own assessment all the more dubious. Especially since I've noticed that typically when I strongly feel I'm a good person is when I'm indignant about someone else not being one, which is a major red flag.I don't understand, why is it a red flag?
You're kidding, right?
Um, no?
Like it's not like she sees someone doing something bad and instantly thinks "they are doing thing that is bad and therefore this makes me a good person for recognizing this is bad thing!"
It's more often that people will put it on themselves to do "good things", because that's what "good people" do.
If they then see someone "reprehensible", they as "good people" are allowed as an ingroup to haze and ruin the time of the "reprehensible" individual. It's the Scientology model if you replace "bad" or "reprehensible" with the term Suppressive Person, and it teeters towards the vigilante mindset. It's inherently predatory in nature, and allowed to take form through extensive justifications.There's certain recognition right? A moral trespass that someone else has committed that marks them a bad person in that situation.
That really depends on the culture around you, the company you keep.
Most of it's relative unless it breaks something inherently "human", and even then when another is bad people tend to use relativism to tell themselves they're still good, ie "better than them".
While I agree with this in general, that's more about feeling justified in acting on my own moral judgments of another, which is a whole other can of worms.
I moreso called it a red flag because having that consistency of context calls into question the validity of the subconscious mental and emotional processes that brought me to that conclusion. If I feel most confident that I'm a good person almost exclusively when I feel anger at someone else for doing something that I think makes them a bad person, then it's obviously not coming from a place of independent and unbiased self-assessment. It's clearly more about them and the feelings their actions evoke in me, than a true examination of my own actions. It's arbitrarily comparative primal bullshit.
Crow chose to not answer and instead assume this is a grab for positive attention- safe
Doesn't feel like the safe option. I could ramble about my inner conflict and no one would give a shit. That's safe. I think it's more interesting to talk about why you made a thread blatantly fishing to be reassured, especially when you'd call out anyone else doing the same thing in a heartbeat. Does it actually alleviate guilt or shame for you, when people online who barely know you tell you that you're moral?
I'd love to read about your inner conflict- unless is paragraphs without any sort of spacing.
Alright, I am actually interested in discussing this, so I'll indulge it in the hopes that you're being sincere.
It's an extremely broad question, which makes it difficult to answer.
I think I see that..? I guess I just assumed you all have your definition of bad so that's what you would be answer it to, my idea of bad may not be your idea of bad- i guess it doesn't really make sense now that I think of it
Even without anyone else's ideas of good and bad, it's a complicated question to answer within my own.
Idunno, i feel like it's easier for me to just accept that I'm a bad person because then I dont have to keep thinking about it,
Yet here you are, talking about it again. You're thinking about this regardless. This seems more like an ongoing botched attempt to not think about it.
Don't think about pink elephants.
but at the same time because I am a bad person i should therefore put more effort into being good and doing good things. It's overly simplified (?) But it helps me out to be less conflictive irl, i don't think my own logic is very sound, but it's helpful to me.
I get that. There are times that I recognize my motivations or method as being faulty, but it's getting results, so I actively don't address it further.
Does putting more effort into doing good things alleviate anything for you, or is it just what you feel you need to do to get by?
Hmm I think I'm about to explain it in a really stupid way so forgive me it it comes across as mishmash wording but like that saying "wake up on the wrong side of the bed" being foul mood or feeling especially irritated has trying to do more good things to kinda balance that out and i guess it would be the first one?
I like that last bit, the dog bit it feels like a fantastic way to describe it. Existing and sharing within the same chaos?
Basically, yeah. Creating it, as much as existing in it, I'd say. But even in creating it, that's essentially something that's happening to us, just as much. It's our nature, and it's inherently ignorant of itself.
I don't think I'm fishing to be reassured as I've for years have told others that I am a bad person, terrible really and that I'm okay with that.
I wouldn't think you'd keep bringing it up unprovoked for years, if you were actually okay with it.
i was hoping to avoid "this", the long drawn out theories of what op may or may not be saying that leads to long drawn out replies that essentially are just "what do you really mean though?" Silly me.
See? You even thought about this beforehand. lol
It what tends to happen to most threads... The lack of Actually sticking to op and derailing with "what do you really mean. It's why I try not to make serious threads outside of drama and meme threads.
I want to know if others here think they are bad people and see how their answer swerves. The title question was, again, already answered.
You know people well enough to know what kind of responses you were likely to get to making a thread literally titled "Am I a bad person?", answered or not.
I feel like the only person I know well enough to answer in the way I know they would- would be tc.
I don't mean individually. I mean social nature. You know people. You know how they'd react to you saying you're a bad person. It's like when you see a skinny person telling everyone they're so fat. : P
Some people have body dismorphia and truly do believe they appear differently from what you see,
The secondary question was how about you? Then Are you a bad person? The safe question was provided about food because I'm also interested in what others are today. I opened up a can of tomatillo sauce and dumped it in a bowl with avocado chunks and lemon juice and I've been kinda drinking it up with bread all day. I'm out of groceries.
I don't doubt you'd enjoy hearing people's answers to those questions, and had you asked them in a different context, I wouldn't bat an eye. But you understand how a question about what you ate today looks immediately after making a big, attention-grabbing statement like "I'm a bad person", right?
Ive asked the unrelated question, especially about food in other topics I've made as well. I haven't recently but it is something I've done. Safe question. But also I'm out of groceries and i need ideas for food. I'm definitely getting cheetos.
Dude, cheetos are not even food.
You are wrong.
They are google certified food.