People who mock the difficulties of others

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sorry, Sweetleaf. I saw, "Why would you expect someone to care about your feelings?" and I said some things I shouldn't have. I'll just scrap the whole post. I think you and iamnotaparakeet and others deserve to know you do have a right to talk about your feelings and that it's the responsible thing to do really, but I shouldn't tear down others just over that. That's wrong.

I have a good friend who whines constantly. Nothing is ever good enough for her, but she's really got it pretty good. The other night I had had it with her whining and told her. I pointed out all the good things in her life and told her that so many have it worse, she should realize how lucky she is. It actually helped. I apologized the next day but she told me I had no reason to apologize, that she felt she truly needed that kick in the pants to put things in perspective.

I don't spend all that much time so thinking. However, seeing the mendacious, the stupid, the shortsighted, and illogical folks of the world go down in flames can be quite amusing.

Evil is self defeating and seeing it defeat itself can be a source of joy.

ruveyn

Hi Vexcalibur,

I've been looking for the manual that separates symptoms from secondary complaints about the very same symptoms. I cited previously the article "When All Else Fails, Blaming the Patient Often Comes Next" that posed the question "But why did his therapist collude with the patient’s depressive symptoms and tell him, in effect, that he didn’t want to get better?" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/healt ... nted=print

To "collude" with symptoms is certainly distinct from any activity that "enables" secondary complaints of the symptoms. But how is the distinction between the symptoms and secondary complaints made by any observer, or the person with symptoms themselves?

Another version of this distinction is with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), which, for instance, makes such a distinction between "clean" pain and "dirty" pain ("Acceptance and Commitment Therapy", Second Edition, by Steven C. Hayes PhD, Kirk D. Strosahl (2011), pages 281-284). I still haven't found a reliable "manual", or rule-book, to make a valid & objective cut between the two sets of phenomena around any impairment that could be regarded as having "clean" versus "dirty" aspects.

ACT has been compared to other programs that use words like "enable" for semi-professional responders that might be regarded as detrimentally & needlessly reinforcing secondary complaints, and these other programs have at least the same seemingly flaw in differentiation between the two sets of phenomena.

This possible mistake concerns myself because I often have severe migraines, especially after grand mal epileptic seizures, which result in observers frequently calling 911. When ER responders became frustrated over a sequence of nearly monthly calls, they started offering only the advice of to bear out the following consequences of migraines. But, when I called them over an unusually long and severe migraine causing near total body paralysis, the first responders again tried to refuse services to an ER. After a delay in arguments, service was finally provided, and ER said a CT-Scan revealed a frontal subdural hematoma requiring neurosurgery within the following three-hour window. with the nearest adequate facilities over 70 miles away.

Now, I'm a whiner over additional brain damage with six more holes in my skull, and medical providers pushing expensive patients off on each other with every opportunity possible. Do you think enabling whiny people might ever be beneficial? With more abstract impairments, the non-enabled whining occasionally stops with acts of desperation between "dirty" and "clean" treatments:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539515/
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/04/ ... syc_1.html

Tadzio

I never did consider that any Dracula would consider a source of joy in a mirror.

My Draculas were most always satisfied with at least turkey neck & giblets.

Uncle GodBucks is only concerned now about turning into inconsequential dust.

Tadzio

That sounds rather batty.

Looks like my handiwork.

Hi Raptor,

The layer was quite delicious, but life does devolve around otherwise. Your trains are certainly headed toward the Second Law, and it is a wonderful laugh, except for the rapturous vultures wishing for the victorious worms to win more quickly.

Sorry about the worms being no more cooperative in the future than with Archbishop Ruggieri, but the vacuum's broken and such dirt is just going to have to deal with itself at best in the ice. Too bad your cupcake didn't make it out of the ice either.

"I saw two shades frozen in a single hole
packed so close, one head hooded the other one;
the way the starving devour their bread, the soul
above had clenched the other with his teeth
where the brain meets the nape."

The Gods Are Great!! !

Tadzio

Ummmmm.............whatever

Hi Raptor,

I'm really sorry, but, though Beelzebub agrees with my reluctant observation that such has helped in Satan's attempts to defeat God and that Christian Spawn, Satan is hereby giving notice of copyright violation of your posting of his infringed works. Beelzebub views the conduct as being done much better for succumbing and infecting than that oraclely viewed Godly awful faithful Job, & though Satan doesn't subscribe to what's reasonable, with your delivery of gold currently being stopped for infringement damages, still, lucre reservations and delivery to the ring are assured of Ruggierian quality.

Tadzio

I don't know about that. Your location says you're in the Southeast whereas the person who wrote that is from the North Midwest.

it is obvious that people who mock the difficulties of others are wanting to shine the limelight on something they perceive as inferior to themselves. it is also obvious therefore that they wish to be seen against that backdrop as a more successful being. therefore it follows that they are insecure about themselves.

a potentially conceited person who thinks they may be not as beautiful as their ideal, may go to a serious burns unit and have their photo taken beside a horribly disfigured person so as to appear beautiful by comparison. in the same way, people who mock those who are less fortunate are calling attention to those people so their audience will see them favorably in comparison.

someone who is truly beautiful will see beauty everywhere they look, and someone who is jealous of beautiful people will shine a light on people who they think are inferior to themselves so as to seem beautiful by comparison. it is an ugly personality who does that.

everyone has an equal right to live, and no one designed who they were going to be born as. it is just luck that someone may be born beautiful or smart or into a rich family, and people should not be rewarded for good luck.

people who have no luck and who are born "ugly" and not very smart can not be blamed for how they are, so it is wrong that luckier people penalize the unlucky people by rejecting them and ridiculing them because their luck was not good.

no one makes their own luck. no one had any control over the luck that they were born with. no one can claim they are deserved of praise for being pretty or smart, because they had no hand in it.

all lives are equally valuable in my mind. life is the most important thing to me. if something is alive then it is valuable beyond my comprehension.

I was joking. A few of our more sensitive brethren say that I’m an insensitive jerk so I thought I’d try and lay claim to it.
The truth is that I’m not creative enough to have created something like that.

Well, I mock your creativity impairment.

lol everything about you is mockable.

Yeah, but at least I don't have a creativity impairment.