Dak
mentat
I agree, and this negates the validity of the position Mort and FD's FB friend occupy.
Types of people you don't like
- Thread starter SentinelSlain
- Start date
I agree, and this negates the validity of the position Mort and FD's FB friend occupy.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I've only just jumped in, but I don't see how it does, Dak.
@Vimana:
No, I don't meditate.
I want you to prove that there exists some pure spot inside you that persists, that is aware, that is cognizant, and that needs no recourse to language. You can't prove it to me. All you can do is tell me. But we can tell each other anything. Another great thing about language.
Language is material. Meaning is material. I don't meditate or use hallucinogens because I know something for sure: the sensation of wholeness, unity, and transcendence that people experience when on drugs or when meditating is an illusion. It may absolutely be wholeness to you; but only to you. It has no claim to meaning because meaning only makes sense between subjects. Meaning is social and intersubjective. Meaning does not subsist on its own.
You can tell me I would understand everything if I only meditated; but I know that I wouldn't, because any such experience can be grounded in a previous cultural context that fantasizes about such experiences.
Pre-linguistic beings don't meditate. There's a reason for that.
@Vimana:
No, I don't meditate.
I want you to prove that there exists some pure spot inside you that persists, that is aware, that is cognizant, and that needs no recourse to language. You can't prove it to me. All you can do is tell me. But we can tell each other anything. Another great thing about language.
Language is material. Meaning is material. I don't meditate or use hallucinogens because I know something for sure: the sensation of wholeness, unity, and transcendence that people experience when on drugs or when meditating is an illusion. It may absolutely be wholeness to you; but only to you. It has no claim to meaning because meaning only makes sense between subjects. Meaning is social and intersubjective. Meaning does not subsist on its own.
You can tell me I would understand everything if I only meditated; but I know that I wouldn't, because any such experience can be grounded in a previous cultural context that fantasizes about such experiences.
Pre-linguistic beings don't meditate. There's a reason for that.
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
If something bothers someone, they can let it go or you can do something different and then it's over and you get over it. You don't need some static law for everyone. I say if you've been traumatized, you'd be a dumbass to try to silence someone saying something not aimed at you that triggers you. Oddly enough, I find that it's the people who aren't the victims that keep advocating not to trigger people. Probably because actual victims are focused on getting over it more than they are with stopping the world from reminding them of it. Because if they're over it, it doesn't matter if they're reminded.
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
Actually try meditating daily for months and get back to me. Otherwise this argument is simply an inference that agrees with you. I am sitting here knowing what you say is false, but you're right, it's all words. They go nowhere. You can take the steps to understand, but instead you've predicted the future which is only an idea.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Words can go anywhere. I could believe what you say about meditation. I acknowledge that you believe what you say about meditation. The network of meaning consists in that - the relationship between words, between what we say and what we write. Any meaning that is perceived to subsist within us is merely a projection of an ideal origin to the words we say. The truth is, meaning is retroactive. We feel the need to speak, and so we do; and after we do, the meaning we intended could be any number of different meanings.
The entire context of meditation - the need for it and the sensations it effects - is circumscribed by a linguistic system.
The entire context of meditation - the need for it and the sensations it effects - is circumscribed by a linguistic system.
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
By all means argue about meditation without doing it. My mind is not swayed because my experience does not fit your idea.
You may as well tell me I don't have a cat sitting on my lap. You are in a different place going through different experiences. You can simulate things in your mind and relay them to me with symbols, but I have cleared my mind of concept, emotion, culture, etc. and language through meditation, a task you have not done. I speak from different experience you have never had that you seem to not believe and to my knowledge, only a method you believe won't work (based on my experience) is what can change your mind.
You may as well tell me I don't have a cat sitting on my lap. You are in a different place going through different experiences. You can simulate things in your mind and relay them to me with symbols, but I have cleared my mind of concept, emotion, culture, etc. and language through meditation, a task you have not done. I speak from different experience you have never had that you seem to not believe and to my knowledge, only a method you believe won't work (based on my experience) is what can change your mind.
Dak
mentat
Because the general position of the trigger-crusaders et al is that we should not possibly say (or by extension do) something that might "Trigger" someone. The problem is that everything is or could be a trigger. It is not inherently calloused etc to say "damn you got raped" back and forth to your friend while killing each other at Halo or whatever, anymoreso than grilling is callous and insensitive behavior to everyone who is in some way upset or whatever by some aspect of the action.
Spinky
Destroyer of Worlds
Funerary_Doom
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Agreed. I definitely agree that no one knows for sure what could be a "trigger" therefore, monitoring and legislating exactly what we say (especially joking with friends) and the jokes we say is not only fruitless but absurd. It's a contradiction in of itself to not only define what a trigger may be to a sexually assaulted victim (which i think is a bigger offense tbh), but it is also a contradiction to also define what humor means to each individual personally then calling it "flippant" because you believe that you alone (or theorists) can define where or what place humor comes from.
Yes language is important, but lets face it we do not use language the same way when talking to a close friend, a colleague, a boss, etc. There's tons of code-switching in language and yes I code-switched with my friend from HS because that is how we speak to one another, and if someone on FB becomes upset with the way we are using language, honestly that's really their problem. It wasn't meant for or directed to them at all, and even after apologizing to the girl who was offended she still had something to say. Therefore, it leads me to believe that there's no pleasing such people who butt in on other people's conversation with their own woes (which is ironic because my HS friend who made the joke is actually a sexually assaulted victim herself) just for the sake of being argumentative. Overreaction is just a disease tbh, and once it happens I really don't care to deal with it.
Like seriously where's the line on being this overly "sensitive" with others? I could argue she triggered my PTSD of apologizing to people who in turn instead of accepting said apology decide to send me longer messages about how I was wrong, causing me anxiety and panic attacks. :rolls eyes:
Edit: and before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not insensitive to rape jokes. I've stated earlier what my personal boundaries were when making them (the victim not being made fun of, not a real situation, raped being portrayed as something acceptable) and would never ever laugh or make a joke over a real rape scenario. However, saying to my friend from HS "my iPod was sexually assaulted! LOL" does not cross any personal boundaries of ours, and therefore we found it funny. We are not going to take back our laughs, because that is just bullshit.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Oh. Well, I agree insofar as I don't think we can ever hope to successfully censor ourselves entirely.
On the other hand, if while playing Halo you say to your partner, "Damn, you got raped" and your partner responds by saying, "I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't say that" (or some more heated form of response), I don't think it's good form to reply: "Screw you bitch, I can say whatever I want! I didn't mean anything by it." The best thing to do is say, "I'm sorry, I realize that could be offensive. Won't happen again."
The fantasy of those opposed to the whole "don't say anything offensive" movement is that, eventually, we won't be able to say anything because everything will be offensive. If people truly stop and think about how language lets us discuss these issues, they will realize that avoiding offense is actually incredibly easy; and correcting such behavior is even easier.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Or maybe there is no best thing to say. Or maybe the best thing to say is what's honest and genuine instead of fake and/or possibly condescending?
I have a friend, for whom even the word "rape" is a trigger. Its actually really uncomfortable because when she is around, let's say I am gaming with other friends, I can't even say the word "rape" without her getting indignant. And sometimes it just slips out.
Hell I can't even jokingly teabag someone in Halo without her freaking out from over my shoulder. It makes me feel like I am walking on eggshells, and not only is it unpleasant, its actually really annoying.
Hell I can't even jokingly teabag someone in Halo without her freaking out from over my shoulder. It makes me feel like I am walking on eggshells, and not only is it unpleasant, its actually really annoying.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Matt
Active Member
I hate people that do not have the balls to say no, or even slightly uncomfortable things. I have a friend that will just agree to anything, and then flake out, arrive incredibly late, or not how up at all with no notice. Fucking pisses me off to no end.
Dak
mentat
Are they unable to say no, or are the doing the annoying New Gen thing of "keeping all options open"? Agree to everything and then see what turns out to be the best thing for them.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
When I first started dating, I would flake out a bunch just because I was nervous. I would also flake out with events my friends planned because the more I thought about it, the more I didn't want to do said thing and just ended up staying home.
I'm way better about being spontaneous and open to rolling with the punches and rarely do I flake on shit anymore because I'm 30 and ain't nobody got time fo dat
I'm way better about being spontaneous and open to rolling with the punches and rarely do I flake on shit anymore because I'm 30 and ain't nobody got time fo dat
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
I hate people that can't watch a football game, have a beer and just shut the fuck up. Talk about the game, players, football etc in between is cool but constant chatter about non sense or politics and/or yelling and screaming fans make me sick.
