Kuro's anti-PC thread (warning: you will probably hate what you read)

[dman11235]

Calling someone a douchebag should have that readily apparent consequence, as should calling someone a racial slur or something....

[Dkonen]

I think there's a disconnect in this argument between provoked knee jerk reactions to pre meditated "offense".

Anyone who *chooses* to be offended, which is to say, has the time to think about it and then reacts is indeed 100% responsible. That person is not reacting, but choosing. I don't consider them to be "truly" offended. I consider them drama queens. If you have time to think about certain words, then you're callously choosing to display something. That's not an emotional reaction. That's premeditated, it is a choice.

However, an instantaneous reaction is instinctive, and the speaker has a greater responsibility for remaining civil and being aware of blatant provocations. You can choose to provoke a response. In those circumstances, the onus of responsibility is on the speaker, who has to actually choose to speak. Having the forethought to speak requires enough conscious control to communicate, to make sentences and observe their own word choice. As the instigator of conversation, theirs is the primary responsibility, since they are the catalyst for the social engagement. Where it goes from there is a give and take, but it can be remarkably rapid and charged fairly quickly, and at that point, is generally instinctive, not premeditated.

I would like it if we could all control our instinctive responses and I wish the whole "positive thinking" and "wishing yourself happy" worked, but all it generally leads to is repression of negative emotions, which can lead to long term psychological harm. Communication is key.

That being said, it is as much my responsibility to communicate my emotions as it is the speaker's to respect me in the methods of communication by not outright offering a number of slights or aggressions towards me. I can choose to let my temper demonstrate, but I cannot choose if I am angry. I can choose to be visibly upset, but not whether I am upset. There is a significant difference there.

How I truly feel simply is. How I choose to demonstrate that feeling is a choice. It can be hard to condition oneself and sometimes my emotional response may be so immediate I respond before I have time to rein it in. It happens. Those of us who are more social usually learn how to do so over time, but it does take time and patience to recondition oneself. I believe I am responsible for choosing to slap you, however, you are responsible for saying words you know will provoke it.

There is a line of provocation that crosses into the point of baiting, at which point, the speaker is pointedly goading someone. Yes, people will react. While I'm usually good with such things, there are still "buttons" that will drive me to acting irrationally. None of us are perfect. If it is someone who doesn't know me, I try to walk away, or point out that I'm vehemently in disagreement. If it is someone who *does* know me, it's a provocation and is planned and intentional. At that point I usually let free a verbal barrage to make the point that their words are decidedly unappreciated and if they continue there will be further consequences.

I also, however, am well aware that some people simply cannot. In fact, you are more likely to run into those who cannot than can. Knowing that it is an uncommon.. education, means you are aware that some people, in fact a large amount of people are unable to condition their responses, so yes, in choosing to use certain phrases, you would, indeed, be taking advantage of their inabilities.

I am a very staunch equal rights activist. I support what I can where I can and as openly as I can. That being said, I know that bringing up gay rights will start an unproductive argument in certain circles. As much as I stand for my beliefs, I am not going to push my philosophy and beliefs upon individuals if I simply cannot reach them. It only offends them and makes the defensive and aggressive, which does nothing but provoke angry responses. Instead, I choose more subtle means.

Also, people can...to a mild extent... control others. We call it charisma, social smarts, mind games, head games, manipulation, brain washing, etc etc.

Yes, you can manipulate another person's emotions. Yes, you can cause reactions in others. Yes, if you study and do well, and probably dedicate a great deal of time to it, you can probably get people to do whatever you want. Why do you think books like "how to be successful" and "how to win friends and influence people" and a thousand (multoiple thousands more like) are so often published?

People can be manipulated. People can be influenced. People can be conditioned. The militaries of the world all use such techniques with their fresh recruits. We do it to our children as we raise them, to our friends as we interact with them, our peers, our coworkers, everyone we interact with, we influence and coach into appropriate responses.

The idea that we are without influence, and cannot be controlled by others is... interesting... but patently false. We are conditioned by every single person we meet. Everything that happens in our days, hours, minutes and moments has an effect on us and shapes us as people. This includes what other people say to us.

It's the idea of the mob mentality. Trends. Fads. Social uprisings, rebellions, governments, culture itself is based on the premise that people establish and condition those others around them. Popular demand. Populace. Consensus. People influencing people is the very bones of a society...and words are a very very great part of it. Otherwise, how else do we debate, argue, convince, stir up, calm down...your premise of humans not being able to control others means we could not stir up or calm down, or convince or subvert, but it happens every day and all around us.

We know we influence those around us. We do it all the time. It is our responsibility to use it wisely.

[Kuroimaken]

How about the fact that the goalpost keeps moving?

Sure, you don't normally tell drunk jokes at an AA convention, or dead baby jokes at a maternity. That's common sense. Unless you want to be morbid and/or that's exactly what the audience wants to hear.

The problem is that we've come to a point where the mere thought that you might SOMEHOW be offensive in any way turns you into a social pariah. And to top it off, these assessments are often at odds with each other.

"[Random Girl], have you lost weight, you look fantastic!"

"Oh, so I'm only good-looking if I fit into a predetermined weight range for you?"

"[Random Girl], you're looking better now, you looked so sickly before!"

"ARE YOU IMPLYING I'M FAT?!"

"Nice weather we're having."

"No, it absolutely sucks because it's RAINING MEN, and why haven't you complimented my haircut?"

This one time, I was talking to a coworker and someone's birthday came up. While we were sharing, we found out hers was the week after. And I figured, "You know, I think a woman should get flowers on her birthday." To which she said, "Me too! I'd really like that!" "OK, I'm bringing you some next week then!" "Ha, no you won't. I doubt you'll remember." "Don't underestimate me. Bring a vase next week."

I made good on my promise, and gave her flowers. Later, another coworker came up and said she was embarassed because she was married and stuff. So I asked why didn't she tell me it wasn't okay. She said she didn't believe I'd do it and thought I was joking.

It almost landed me in hot water, but thankfully the misunderstanding was cleared up. My being nice was almost misconstrued as a public, romantic advance on a coworker.

So while I can understand where the big deal came from, I didn't understand WHY it was such a damn big deal in the first place.

[Dkonen]

Almost is the key there. She did think you were joking and while she felt somewhat awkward she didn't accuse you. Therein lies the difference.

I have never been large, so I don't usually jump to the "I'm fat" conclusion-that's merely an expression of inexperience, not a humblebrag (see what I did there?) . I have however, been called scrawny and I personally joke that I didn't hit puberty until my later twenties. If someone remarks that I looked like a twelve year old, sure I'll be a bit irritated, but not really offended, after all, I started it.

I am largely of the opinion that people who look to be offended at innocent comments are instigators looking for a reason to bitch. If it's a valid problem, they'll be willing to talk about it. In most cases a side eye/look of puzzlement and a "Uh...no... why would I think that?" Usually remedies the situation.

I *have* had the sickly comment -.-. Maybe I'm weird but I take people at their word. If they say they think I look good, but that I looked sick before, well that's what's referred to as a "left handed compliment". It's a compliment, but not really because it's also negative. Pick up artists I believe call it "negging" and while it can happen by accident, most people know how to give an actual compliment without being insulting. People who consistently use it are usually rather slimy and are, indeed, looking for a way to tear a person down while semi endearing themselves in a circuitous complicated statement. When intentionally used and repetitively, that's often a reason to start watching the speaker a bit more carefully. It's a basic and very clumsy manipulation tactic.

People looking for compliments...well they're not exactly class A folks that you want to spend a lot of time with either. So far, all of your examples are of people giving off social cues that you probably don't want to spend time around them. I wouldn't. The first is looking for a reason to be bitchy, the speaker in the second is being a clumsy manipulator, and the third is just personality disorder material with possible psychotic episodes (non violent outbursts of anger are still outbursts, and I would say that using the trigger you gave is well in realm of unreasonable).

You said common sense is in place here, so....if someone lost weight, you tell them they look fantastic-if you think it might be a problem you can also add something not technically appearance related, like "you seem to have so much more energy" or "wow how did you do it?" Both imply a personal investment in them, not only their appearance. Basic social cues.

I covered left handed compliments-they're a dick move if on purpose, and clumsy to boot, and if by accident you can always apologize, or mumble something about how that didn't come out like you meant it.

If someone however, goes off the deep end about an errant comment about something utterly unrelated to them, well they're just stirring up shit trying to drama queen. Walk away, and never look back. It is just not worth it. Trust me, I lived a few years with one -.-

Don't forget that sometimes people are just having shitty days and taking it out on whoever happens to be in the line of fire. Sucks but it happens.

Actually now that I think about I think a guy friend of mine might have used the "oh so I'm only attractive if I fit into a specific weight range???" retort before. We all laughed. Something that over the top has to be either a joke or someone with some serious issues that has nothing at all to do with your words.

You're not responsible for checking to see if people are crazy before you open your mouth. Crazy people be cray.

[EjoThims]

Because people are not perfectly rational, emotions are fast,

So they should not be held responsible for their own actions, just because it was a quick, emotional response?

"Yes, I stole that pizza, I just wanted it. No, I'm not starving, it just looked good."

"Yes, I hit him until he stopped moving. He called me a name and it hurt."

"Yes, I raped her. I just wanted to. I was horny and drunk, and since it was a reaction I'm not responsible."

That is why I hate this ideal.

Any action you take, you are responsible for. That includes actions taken when you choose to give up control of self, whether to your own instincts or to an outside substance.

Which I am currently doing. But I don't think that excuses me from anything I may do. Nor does it justify any reactions I may have.

and you are claiming that people have messed up if they don't react to everything like some generic 'normal' person.

I am claiming nothing of the sort. Normal people, in fact, I find to be quite boring.

But, if anyone was to react in a way they did not desire, they would have, indeed, messed up.

Or should we not seek to avoid doing things which we do not desire the consequences of?

Everyone has their weak points, and it isn't their fault if they're prodded.

This is 100% true. But any response to that prodding, internal or external, is their responsibility, just as every other action they take.

If it happens twice, THEN it's the instigator's fault.

This is also true. At that point the instigator is clearly choosing to inspire that response.

A person cannot always choose how they emotionally receive something, especially if it is upsetting. Having emotional instinctive responses is by no means dehumanizing, as anyone can tell you who has had outbursts, flares of temper, or really *ever* gotten swallowed by their emotions, it's a human state. Without emotion, we are not human.

This is all accurate.

I myself have had major temper and rage issues in the past.

But the other part of being human (and an adult especially) is taking responsibility for the actions that come from those emotions. This includes the self inflicted turmoils of things like obsessive doubt, over avoidance of conflict, low esteem, chronic lack of motivation, and a myriad of others (assuming they aren't tied to physical or chemical alterations beyond your own immediate, physical control). I still have problems with some of these (and others as well). But I own up to those (not always publicly, but responsibility does not require that) and am constantly working at changing my responses and habits to create consequences that I am pleased (or at least content) with instead of creating consequences which are undesirable.

And when I fail, I bear that responsibility.

(as an aside, there are multiple studies going on into the nature of emotional responses, whether they actually serve both social and evolutionary purpose to our continuing survival as a species-so far the response is "yes", as we are a social species and dependant on weeding out undesireables to keep our strata capable of continuing to coexist without destroying each other)

But of course. As long as it doesn't immediately hinder the individual, the common good is always desirable. The problem in modern society with that angle is where to draw the line on 'hinder,' especially to those who believe that 'hinder' and 'moderate' are synonymous. But that is a completely different rant. 

Arguing that your words should not have consequences is foolish and self centered.

Which is why I have never done so.

I think you may have been exposed to a number of faux offended drama queens in the past

I have, indeed. And they are, obviously, the worst of the worst.

The issue is when others give their ability to make choices over to these types of people. And now people who would otherwise not actively choose this path are still walking it because they have made the choice to allow their future actions to be dictated for them by those who do actively make such choices.

Choice implies premeditation.

Not at all. Choice implies choosing between two (or more) options and nothing more. We unconsciously make choices all the time.

We should still own the consequences of those choices.

If you say "X is a slob" and X hears you, you're responsible for calling him a slob. He is not responsible for figuring out if you meant to be offensive or if you were pointing out that his sanitary habits needed to be amended.

Correct. But missing the point. He is under no obligation to figure out why I said it. But it is still his obligation to own how he responds to it.

As nice as it might be to be able to always be in control of our emotions, it can be argued that sometimes we actually do need them to be out of our control because action before thought, in certain circumstances, is required or otherwise beneficial.  That doesn't give anyone a free pass to let themselves go of course, but it should let people think on exactly what times might it be better to let our emotions take hold of us.  In my opinion. one of the best examples of that is passion.  Being able to let ourselves go full bore into something without even thinking about it gets stuff done whereas stopping to think can actually screw us over.  Don't think about doing that freethrow, just let yourself do it.

And if, in that passion, you did something, you are still responsible for making the choice to allow that passion to run.

I'm not saying passion is a bad thing. I'm not saying we should be Vulcans or Robots or Golems.

Just that I'm tired of the idea that there is no choice to be had and we (or more accurately, the 'I' that happens to be whoever is making this false claim) therefor cannot be held responsible.

you are aware that some people, in fact a large amount of people are unable to condition their responses

This was the main thing in the first part of your next post I feel I have not already addressed (at least that I can quote succinctly - I'll address other points as well).

Yes, I am well aware that many are ignorant of that ability. It is one of the reasons I am venting here instead of simply caving their stupid faces in with rocks. It is a choice I have made, in order to facilitate conditioning my response away from such actions.

But part of what drives me to seek said venting as an alternative, since I do not desire the consequences of such actions, is the prevalence of such profound stupidity. I had become accustomed to seeing it in the old, dangerous ideologies of most organized religions and the classism that is the root of most of our other social disparities (including, but not limited to, most racism and sexism). But I find myself surprised by the degree to which it is found amongst those who seek an end to such plagues upon this earth. Those who claim to want equality but would instead simply invert oppression the first among them.

This is a thing which I had not prepared for, and thus I often realize that my initial reactions (were I to chose following them) would end me in a position I do not desire under the influence of consequences I choose not to accept. However, silence on the subject could possibly lead to it's continued spread, which may eventually cause this corruption of both personal responsibility and individualized power to overwhelm all legitimate social progress that has been made in favor of simply shifting the injustice.

And that is also a consequence I choose not to allow. A consequence I will fight by attempting to educate (or at the very least, hopefully guiding them to be more responsive to the ideal so they can seek such education on their own) a wider spectrum of people on how to take personal responsibility for their actions and reactions and own up to even the long term consequences of both.

It seems you have made similar choices with other issues.

Also, people can...to a mild extent... control others. We call it charisma, social smarts, mind games, head games, manipulation, brain washing, etc etc.

Yes, you can manipulate another person's emotions. Yes, you can cause reactions in others.

These are all true. But you must first make a choice to cede that control to them. Sometimes that choice is one between allowing the control and death, but that is still a choice you make.

The idea that we are without influence, and cannot be controlled by others is... interesting... but patently false.

But of course. Even when we do not choose to allow others to dictate our actions (a choice which, as we both noted before, is generally in our own best interest, both as individuals and as a species), we are always influenced by the events around us.

your premise of humans not being able to control others means we could not stir up or calm down, or convince or subvert, but it happens every day and all around us.

I acknowledged that humans can control each other. But it comes at the caveat that you give power over your choices to another. And that is exactly what you do when you choose to allow such things.

All this said, though...

I want to make sure something is clear.

I don't think having reactions is bad. I don't think ceding power over your choices to another is always bad.

I just want people to understand that those are choices they have made. At this moment, in the past, and in the future, each and every thing you do is a consequence of your own choices.

And no matter what else, you always, always have a choice. You may not like the consequences of them, but you always have a choice.

And I honestly believe that is the most important oft over looked fact of life.

You're not responsible for checking to see if people are crazy before you open your mouth. Crazy people be cray.

This, really, is a great summary of the initial source of my frustration. There are too many people who seem to think that I (and the rest of the world) are responsible for checking to see if they are crazy.

[Gazzien]

Because people are not perfectly rational, emotions are fast,

So they should not be held responsible for their own actions, just because it was a quick, emotional response?

"Yes, I stole that pizza, I just wanted it. No, I'm not starving, it just looked good."

"Yes, I hit him until he stopped moving. He called me a name and it hurt."

"Yes, I raped her. I just wanted to. I was horny and drunk, and since it was a reaction I'm not responsible."

That is why I hate this ideal.

Any action you take, you are responsible for. That includes actions taken when you choose to give up control of self, whether to your own instincts or to an outside substance.

Interrupt, though I am only half-paying-attention:
I think the point they're making is that the emotion is a response; the actions that you then go through, you are accountable for. Feeling hurt when he calls you a name? Response. Hitting them (at all/ until they stop moving)? Action, deliberate.

At least, that's how I interpreted it / makes more sense to me that way...

[Dkonen]

Gazzien is correct.

Emotions are an automatic response. An instinct. How one chooses to act on them is entirely different.

I actually had a very pertinent discussion last night, which involved my brother yelling/screaming at me for about two hours about how dare I post something that encouraged the gay lifestyle to be regarded as equal and a thing to be permitted.

I understood he was angry and asked him several times what was wrong and why it bothered him, he continued to scream. He was rather incoherent, fragmented and illogical. His responses made no sense and often contradicted themselves. He asked for certain rules to apply to him when they favored him but not to apply when they didn't. It was highly unpleasant.

Was he responsible for yelling at me? Yes he was. Was he responsible for keeping his anger in check? Yes, he was. Was he responsible for his reactions to my words? Yes, again, he was.

However, I also spoke with him evenly and didn't raise my voice. I asked him specific questions and tried to point out that his arguments were full of holes. I asked him why he was so upset over it, and then ended up asking him why he was acting the way he was, since this was my first instance of him getting so upset and I knew he got upset at me only when something in his life was bothering him. I did not, however, lash back out at him, bait him, or any other such action.

*My* responsibility was not to change the content of my actions, but on recognizing his distress, to moderate *how* it was said in order to find a constructive solution. It was not *my* responsibility to make him not react, but to not make it worse, and if possible, to assist in it's development into a cogent discussion so we could both came to a realization of what might be the actual underlying difficulty.

That being said, he's in desperate need of psychological help, and I'm concerned that his current lifestyle and reaching a certain point in his life has caused him to regard what he has with extreme dissatisfaction. He .. in succinct terms.. is losing his shit. I just happened to be the target.

*his* responsibility was, when presented the opportunity, to either step away from the discussion or to moderate his behaviour. He knew what he was doing was wrong and what his emotions were prompting him to. He was responsible for changing the subject when I told him that his opinion and mine were never going to coincide and perhaps we should leave it alone. His responsibility involved not ranting about how certain groups should be executed en masse, that mobs should tear them limb from limb, and ultimately to tell me I should die in an anarchists dystopia with "all my fag friends".

Those words are indeed, his full responsibility. As an adult he knew saying them was wrong, and word choice is more conscious than emotion. Therefore, it takes precedence in the responsibilities of mature speech and interactions. He was trying to provoke me, I was able to not be provoked for the most part, but individuals who have not had my personal education likely would have. I would not have blamed them. His words were designed to provoke. He was poking on purpose. He is responsible for his words.

Choosing how to respond takes a long time and a lot of people don't have the education to know how to. That needs to be taken into account.

Reactions, however do receive legal indulgence. That's why there are crimes of passion with significantly lesser sentences than pre meditated. Even the law recognizes that sometimes your emotions get the better of you. That doesn't mean they don't have to take responsibility for the actions they made as a result (as actions are more a choice than emotions), but those who are considered unable to mitigate their actions are deemed criminally insane.

A person my feel how they like, it's natural. What they choose to do with how they feel is entirely their own responsibility.

The more conscious (note I did not say subconscious) effort is used, the more responsibility they take. Words are more conscious than emotions, actions are more conscious (in most cases) than words.

(as an aside I know someone who would indeed, steal items whenever they wanted them-again-mental imbalance and many jail terms)


Subconscious "choices" are not choices. They are automatic functions of a portion of the brain one has no conscious control over. Other wise they would be conscious choices. Subconscious emotional responses are things that have been conditioned via upbringing, abuse, manipulation and ultimately brain chemistry. While some people claim to be able to control their autonomic responses via mental conditioning and conscious choice, it's rare and bears llittle true evidence. It's also, in the few cases where it's been shown, of limited use. In states of heightened activity or where one is unable to take the time to institute such things, not possible. If you are being attacked, for example, you hardly have the time to tell your heart rate to slow and your breath to even out (barring of course, more ...civilized..attacks). In the middle of a brawl you're not going to be able to rely on those, instinct takes over and you react because you merely haven't the time. Such with words.

Actions as a result of the words are *ENTIRELY* the responsibility of the individual. feeling upset at what someone said... not so much.

I guess it comes down to the fact that there's a line between emotion and acting on those emotions. Within your own head you may feel upset, angry or dissappointed. If it's strong enough you may blurt something out that you later regret. This is on the point of heightened emotional states that you may be blinded by it and in fact, no longer rational. However, if you choose to slap someone, that's your fault. All your fault.

If you know you're someone who gets violent or has undesirable actions when provoked it *is* your responsibility to seek out help. You know, in your quiet times of not being provoked, that your actions are wrong. You need to find someone to teach you how to control them.

I think we're having a disconnect between abusive types and average people. Yes, drama queens are often abusive in other aspects of their life for a variety of reasons we won't get into here.

Average people may feel certain ways but will not have overblown reactions. They'll typically tear up, flush, raise their voice, or clench muscle groups. They will let you know what you said was a provocation before they're driven to act.

Abusive people refuse responsibility as often the type is looking for another to blame. They will take actions, a myriad of abusive unpleasant ones in order to get their "fix" , which only drives them further into the dissatisfaction that drives them, for lack of a better term, batshit crazy.

You are responsible for being a mature adult. You are not responsible for someone who flips the fuck out at the slightest provocation.

There's a level of acceptable, and a level of responsibility. If you're being a mature responsible adult, and not purposefully pushing buttons, then your responsibility is fulfilled.

Our current media conditioning is designed for the purpose of teaching people what is considered acceptable social behaviour. You can certainly choose not to follow it, but be aware that you will be outnumbered. You can't stand away from the crowd and against what they desire and expect them to still support you. If you want people to like you, there is a certain amount of her mentality involved. Social species and all.

I think people need to find out how much outcast they can take in order to support their beliefs. Being socially ostracized is the penalty for choosing to not follow accepted mores. It even happens in animals, so I suspect it's genetic and serves an evolutionary purpose.

Now this is being said as a Geek (there are cons I need to stay away from lest I over fangirl the guests), a goth (in my younger days), and a (not quite pretentious) artist (we all know how weird *those* people are). I walked in a pride parade as a hetero female, and helped raise money for it, in a conservative town that banned wearing leashes. I have stood outside the social mores and yelled at them from outside their conformity bubble.

However, I knew people would dislike me simply because I was different. It was part of why I chose to be. I wanted to be able to point out that appearances do not dictate actions-I like to think I changed a few people's minds. I knew and was aware of what I was going into. I knew there was a price and I quite willingly paid it.

If someone, for their words, finds the reaction to be too much of a price to pay, there is a thought that, perhaps, they may wish to reexamine it.


Edit: EEK! really long rambly post...necessitates TL;DR

TL;DR: responsibility from least to most: emotions->words->actions

Some people have anger issues, mental instabilities and others just want to be pissed off at you. Those people are idiots. Ignore them as you will, life is too precious to waste on stupidity.

Be reasonable, expect reasonable responses.

Voicing things that aren't socially acceptable have penalties and prices. Provoking people has a price. Be willing to pay it, or don't say it.

[EjoThims]

Gazzien is correct.

Emotions are an automatic response. An instinct. How one chooses to act on them is entirely different.

The emotions themselves, possibly. But what triggers certain emotions within us is a learned thing. And just as all learned things, we are responsible for not reeducating ourselves when our prior education is a detriment to those around us.

Or are racists that were raised that way exempt from scrutiny? Are homophobes who grew up religious allowed to still persecute others?

*My* responsibility was not to change the content of my actions, but on recognizing his distress, to moderate *how* it was said in order to find a constructive solution. It was not *my* responsibility to make him not react, but to not make it worse, and if possible, to assist in it's development into a cogent discussion so we could both came to a realization of what might be the actual underlying difficulty.

The one thing I would disagree with you here is in that it is not your responsibility and duty to do those things. You chose to do so because you are (based on this and your other postings in this thread, probably) a good person.

But you have no obligation to be so good other than that which you choose yourself.

My preference would be for everyone to make similar choices, but many will instead choose the consequences of being douchebags. Which unfortunately, do not (usually) include being beaten severely.

Those words are indeed, his full responsibility.

But of course. But you should not confuse being responsible for what you do say with having a responsibility not to say it in the first place. The one is taking accountable for actions you have specifically committed. The other is attempting to hold someone accountable for that which may or may not be done.

Subconscious "choices" are not choices. They are automatic functions of a portion of the brain one has no conscious control over.

They happen without current input. This is true.

But they are not by any means beyond our conscious control. Thus, the programmed response in any given situation is indeed a choice that has been made by the one running that program.

The choice to do nothing is still a choice. And everyone who makes it is still responsible for the consequences of doing so.

ultimately brain chemistry

This is the one factor (which I have noted previously repeatedly) that creates a lack of choice. Not always, as, for example, I deliberately choose not to take anti-depressants and am therefor still responsible for the brain chemistry conditions that I am wholly aware of but choose not to take available means to alter.

But I accept those responsibilities and the consequences of that choice, but I do not wish to alter my brain chemistry in that way.

If you are being attacked, for example, you hardly have the time to tell your heart rate to slow and your breath to even out (barring of course, more ...civilized..attacks).

These are physical responses, not mental. But even still, proper training controls them to be a useful thing instead of the beginnings of a panicked response. I personally have neglected my physical training for far too long (something I am currently trying to fix), but our society as a majority has as well. And not just bullshit sports gym garbage. Legitimate, directed, personal body control and discipline.

In the middle of a brawl you're not going to be able to rely on those, instinct takes over and you react because you merely haven't the time. Such with words.

I must thank you for providing the exactly best observable example of exactly what I am discussing. While it is true that your programmed responses often take over in a fight (highly skilled individuals actually still have the time to make decisions the whole way through, but even they often rely on triggered body responses while doing so), the very point of training is to create the most beneficial set of programmed responses.

And those who choose not to train will panic and usually hurt themselves more than those they are attempting to combat.

You are responsible for being a mature adult.

To me, part of the responsibility is learning your instincts and how to direct them to create the most beneficial (from your own vantage and in reference to your own choices, of course) set of programmed responses.

I consider the vast majority of our (or at least my, not sure if you're stateside) society to be wholly immature.

Be reasonable, expect reasonable responses.

Voicing things that aren't socially acceptable have penalties and prices. Provoking people has a price. Be willing to pay it, or don't say it.

We agree wholly on these.

[Dkonen]

Of course, all of this is entirely dependant on being a mature reasonable adult.

I can't agree on the training physical and mental responses, there are far too many factors in play for me to suggest or even imply that it should be mandatory for everyone. There are still far too many things about the subconscious that we don't know, and if we all set about altering that, we may never know.

Also, knowledge of triggers for emotional responses is usually only imparted when someone has an unreasonably over reactive trigger. We just don't have the resources to educate every single person on triggers and acceptable means of coping. Hell, even people who have unreasonable triggers have problems often enough finding them and reconditioning them, and that's with the knowledge of how to find them and what to do. It's a lot harder than it sounds and requires a presence of mind and impersonal detachment (to examine oneself impartially) that may not be strictly psychologically healthy.

That kind of compartmentalizing is often seen as an illness in and of itself, for a variety of reasons. Those of us who have it usually have other issues, and using it to our advantage merely is putting to positive use something that is already present.

I think it was my responsibility, but then again, I believe in social responsibility, that each and every person is responsible for the world they create around them, by their actions and words. I don't enforce it, proselytize it, but I adhere to it, and am encouraging of those who choose to do the same. Yes, it's a choice to have that philosophy, but it's a philosophy that puts the onus on me to try and make a bad situation better if I can. Partly due to why I'm on medication (you can imagine the stress it creates), partly because well.. society sucks and you can't change it en masse, but you can try to modify it from within, person by person.

Programmed responses are often put in place by those who may not even understand what they're programming. I highly doubt that those who put in place my triggers were purposefully implanting triggers against abuse of authority, damned if you do/don't situations, and a few others (I expect there's more I'm unaware of, as they may be rarer occasions). They were "programming" me to anticipate, obey and attempting to remove my own will. What they didn't understand is that to anticipate requires abstract reasoning and critical thinking, which pretty much nullifies the other two. It also provides neat party tricks for reading people.

I do blame my programmers for my coded triggers, but I'm working to soften them as much as I can. I do blame them for a number of "programs" they put in place. I do not say they are *my* program *I* am running because they were indoctrinated in me from the time I was 6 years old. I don't consider that I had the ability to resist at the time.

Most people who are "programmed" have it done in a similar manner. From an early age they are implanted with a series of good behaviour/bad behaviour conditioning. They may not even understand unless you take the chance to sit and talk with them. It's not just parental either, there are any number of individuals and actions that occur that can impact and "program" someone.

I do not believe we are fully formed by our experiences, but I do believe that they can shape our reactions and interactions in a way we may not even be aware of. Yes, it's wonderful that many of us can move beyond that, but I don't think anyone has ever managed to separate themselves entirely from their "conditioning". I don't think it's possible (think child raised in a vacuum theories).

If you know about it, then yes, you have to take responsibility for it, if you don't, well...it's a lot easier for me to see objectively than you. At that point I can tell you, make observations, or question. No, I don't think anyone *has* to, but the fact that we are all "programmed" to some extent does need to be taken into account. You may not even realize that you're being unreasonable, such is the extent of conditioned responses.

It's great that you can recognize your cues, and that you can set them aside, but I may submit that even you do not know every trigger you have implanted in you from your upbringing. I hate the colour orange. I have no idea why. I see orange clothing and I think it's bloody awful. I have no idea why, but I will automatically, no matter how lovely the garment, immediately dislike it because of the colour. there are millions of these in each of us, from parents, teachers, peers, idols and media.

It's easier for me me to spot it and say "Wow, that really pisses you off/upsets you! Was there a reason, or should I just....?" on a case by case basis than to expect you to self examine every incident and decision you make to find each and every trigger.

It would be lovely if we all knew our cause/effect, but some of these start being implanted in us at an early enough age we may not even be able to remember them. And some people do find triggers and completely misidentify them, because, well, they're biased. Noone wants to be the unreasonable jackass, we all want to think we're perfectly reasonable, cogent and well put together, truth is much farther than that.

Someone may get angry any time someone uses a phrase, and blame it on the fact that it's associated with a social group, while in truth, the reason they're angered immediately at it's use is because of a childhood enemy who used to humiliate them with such phrases.

Someone may get upset at children with cellphones because they always wanted X but were denied it, so instead  they direct their anger at "spoiled" children. It's not that the children are spoiled, it's that they felt neglected in childhood.

Older generations denigrate the youth periodically, it has nothing to do with trends or changes, it has to do with being upset at their own mortality and age.

There are some triggers we just are too embarrassed about to let out conscious admit it to ourselves, let alone anyone else.

As an aside: Psychological meds don't work like that-as someone who tried everything and fought against taking them for years (I had to give up when nothing else worked), they're more like placing a coloured lens over pre existing thoughts. They don't make you think different thoughts, or change your "self" (unless you're woefully over and miss-prescribed), it's more like the feeling you get when you're having a good day. You still think the same, hold the same beliefs and talk the same way, act the same way, it's just a tiny bit of an edge filed off. Things are less likely to make you explode, though they'll still probably piss you off, to make you upset, though you still won't like it, in effect, it gives you more control over your own actions and reactions, when you're body isn't capable of giving it to you any other way. Think of it like medication for a chronic illness.

That being said, if you haven't tried everything, try everything first. You'll know when you have to give up, if you have to, but don't avoid getting help just because of pride or fear. Sometimes the consequences can be far too dear.

[Kuroimaken]

This video feels relevant to this discussion.

[bhu]

They don't make you think different thoughts, or change your "self" (unless you're woefully over and miss-prescribed),

Sadly this is all too common.  Several of my friends used to be fairly well off, but then got diagnosed with depression and got put on up to 5 psychotropic meds at a time.  Now they're raving conspiracy theorists who barely leave their home and make threats that could get them arrested if the wrong person heard.   

[Dkonen]

eeeeeee!

I guess it also depends on having a competent doctor. Should have mentioned that.

It is a very relevant video. Comparing the fact that people shouldn't be assholes and spew whatever nasty venomous virtriolthey feel like to the church banning Galileo is exactly how I feel most people who revolt against civilized conversation are. Completely and utterly overblown.

Be civil adults. It's really not too much to ask people not act like dickwads.

 We're not trying to make a flat earth here, or burning anyone at the stake, we're just telling people to shut up and grow up. Be an adult or be a child. Your choice, but be aware that whichever you are, *that's* what you'll be treated as.

Believing that acting like an adult means you're being persecuted is the most ridiculous sense of entitlement bullshit I have ever heard.

Oh yeah...my migraine's back too. Pardon the attitude but people like him piss me off.

(for those who missed it: oooo see what I did there?)

[Kuroimaken]

I was "properly medicated" once.

I vaguely remember my IQ dropping by about ten points and feeling as if someone shot me with elephant tranquilizer.

It took three months (and a LOT of me complaining) before both my mother and my therapist realized I wasn't fucking around.

[Dkonen]

Hm.. maybe move this to another thread?