How do we solve the modern Western hypersensitivity problem?

Post Reply New Topic

It's hard to take the concept of "human dignity" seriously when our ancestors crawled through the mud and relied on external fertilisation instead of what we call sexual intercourse.


^^^
This is Tikaalik, and he doesn't care what you call him.

Now, we have reached an evolutionary level in which we can be harmed by mere vocal grunts. I guess this busts the myth that evolution always makes us better than we were before.

The evolution of intelligence is proof that there is no God. No loving God would create something as horrible as intelligence. Thanks to intelligence, our survival instincts have been destroyed and clouded by verbal illusions. This lends weight to the idea that the human brain is not a superior piece of machinery, but merely a tumor created by random mutation.

Our reptilian hindbrain is more reliable. It never tells us to be offended. It only tells us to survive.

The individual in the left of that video thumbnail is actually an MRA. If she were a cis female she would probably be a feminist.I'm sure there are plenty of things she is offended by and she doesn't have the final word on whether or not people are too sensitive.

Our emotions actually originate from the more primitive parts of our brain. Those are what kept us alive before we could do much thinking.

I think people tend to take offense at things that strike them as threatening in some way and for a human, being social animals, rejection can be perceived as a threat.

Are you saying that cis women are more likely to be feminists? That's transphobic if you ask me.

What I said is right above your comment.

Overall, I find it odd how so many people are so emotionally attached to things that don't really matter, and are so obviously artificial. This sort of behavior is common on both the right and the left.

A lot of people on the political right think that flag-burners should be arrested ... even though the American Flag is nothing more than a two-dimensional color pattern with no inherent meaning or value. I have a similar attitude towards the concept of national borders. In prehistoric times, people freely wandered across the earth, just as animals do today. Nobody had a well-defined territory.

It seems to me that some people have been raised on nationalistic propaganda, and they cry out in protest when this indoctrination is challenged. They've never attempted to think outside the nationalistic bubble, and so they emotionally collapse whenever nationalistic propaganda is challenged.

This sort of nationalism is often called "tribalism" ... but I've never liked the term "tribalism". Prehistoric tribes frequently traded with one another and people often joined other tribes. Tribal hostility was only common during times of famine.

When are people going to snap out of the nationalism trance? That's what I want to know. It all seems very childish ... like a small child who places immense value on a toy that's just made of plastic.

"I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world."
- Socrates

If you want to examine seriously the concept of offence, just remember what it used to mean: that you were challenging the alleged offender to a duel. Before claiming something offends you again, ask yourself if you're willing to start a sword fight to the death against whoever did or said whatever you think is offensive, for the sake of suppressing it. You'd better be a well-trained fighter, and I hope you're not sensitive to blood. Oh, and even if you win, and even if you don't end up severely crippled, remember your former opponent may have had friends or kinsmen who now feel offended because you killed him. What are they gonna do? Challenge you, of course! The feud may spiral out of control and drag on for centuries, long after anyone remembers its original cause.

Needless to say, this worked historically, and still works in cultural environments removed enough from any meaningful rule of law, with the assumption that all parties are physically male. Fighting a woman would have been dishonorable in and of itself, so they needed to be kept away from any public arena where they could say or do anything challenge-worthy. It's therefore hard to imagine how cis women, let alone trans or non-gender-binary people could fit in this scheme of things. Two things remain clear, though:
1) The concept of offence, if it must exist at all, should not be invoked lightly.
2) It's never about who is right, but who is left. We're living beings and our ultimate law is the law of the jungle.

I also think that the hypersensitivity of religious people is a problem too.

Apparently, man was created in God's image ... so who do men exist only on earth? Why would God devote so much space to stars, planets and nebulae that clearly aren't made in his image? If men are made in God's image and God is good, why is there so much evil in the world? If God can see into the future (as most Christians claim) why did he create the Devil?

Satan, as a concept, makes absolutely no sense, which is why I possess no fear of Hell.

There are some fundamentalist Christians who see spiritual forces in everything. This almost reminds me of Banjo-Kazooie. In that game, everything has eyes and talks.

In the prehistoric era, people imagined spirits in everything. We humans are naturally programmed to imagine humanlike traits in non-human matter. That's why people see images of the Virgin Mary in grilled cheese. It's modern animism. It's like taking bath salts and imagining that all the food is alive. It's pareidolia.

Religion seems to be part of human hypersensitivity. It's hard for people to emotionally handle a world in which the only humanlike things are human beings ... but ... when you accept this reality ... it is quite liberating. You will be liberated when you accept that nature is not humanlike. The face that you see in the clouds is not a real face and it cannot see you.

I understand your perspective on this; there are certainly things in this world which I think are stupid and shouldn't matter, but the fact remains that to some people, they just do. A great example of this is gold. Gold does have some "inherent", tangible value in electronics as it's a good conductor and doesn't corrode. However most of the value of gold is intangible. At some point in history, gold was valued because it was unique in an organic world, and it was pretty and easy to work. People probably bartered it for high value items from the beginning due to it's uniqueness, and being impossible to sythensize, and the sources being easy to control, at some point, it became an official, controlled currency of civilizations. Today we have many cheap, easy to come by, pretty things, including things that look similar enough to gold, yet gold still retains it's historical value.

One can argue how silly this is, and that it's just a cold lump of metal dug out of the ground, but that doesn't change the fact that it's valued at $1,355.10 per ounce at the moment.



I would think Socratese would have said "Am I Athenian or Greek, or a citizen of the world?" But then again, I know nothing. Did Socratese even have a concept of Greek? The country did not exist, only "Greek" speaking city states.

The Chinese are far more nationalistic than Americans are, and I see that as problematic and would like to see Americans become more unified/nationalistic, though within the context of a pluralistic, multi-racial, and immigrant friendly setting.

Female MRAs don't exist?

A+

Female MRAs do exist.

There are 3.5 billion women on the planet. Naturally, there are some disagreements between them.

They do but that is beside the point. I was pointing out she is an MRA because typically those who strongly associate with movements such as the MRA movement or feminist movement or even civil rights movement do so because they take offense at something.

Well ... it's generally easier to take an MRA seriously if she's female. This demonstrates that she isn't being merely self-serving.

If I remember correctly, she used to be a feminist and/or trans activist, but had a bit of a wake-up call whilst protesting the lack of gender-neutral bathrooms at some university. She realized that they were only protesting in the men's rooms and leaving the women's bathrooms alone, essentially making it a campaign against men's rooms more than anything else.

There are, arguably, self-serving reasons for women to be MRAs. In the words of Jordan Peterson: "Well, what kind of partner do you want?".

I think what appears as sensitivity is actually the fact that our society is overly focused on the individual ego. It's the whole "self esteem movement" that George Carlin famously ridiculed in one of his routines. I think a lot of people would feel a lot better if they simply weren't so self-conscious all the time. People are so focused on themselves that they hardly experience life itself.

I am familiar with this Youtubers videos and I believe she may be self serving because she grew up as being related to as male, and having male gender expectations imposed on her, none of which were consistent with her as a person, and as an MTF she is rejected by a vocal and "offensive" segment of the feminist population known as "trans exclusionary feminists" also called TERFs, who maintain that she is male gendered, and that most, if not all MTFs are perverts or sexual predators who get a secual thrill out of dressing up as female. So she was treated like a male when she was not and then rejected as a female by these feminists.