I don't do it, but consider this: obituaries are clearly capsules of what people consider valuable and worthy about a person. This has nothing to do with whether they're true, or plausible: they're little windows into what one would consider surpassingly important.
It's like the saying about the Velvet Underground: 'very few people came to their concerts but everyone who did, started a band'.
Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved it's not. It's just a critical mass of people having opinions you don't like and voicing those opinions.
If the market of ideas decides your ideas are not valuable anymore for whatever reason you're going to suffer what scarcity feels like.
> Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved
Last time I checked the mob called for these people lives to be destroyed by asking for them to lose all possibility of ever having a job and threatening anyone who would employ them or support them of dire repercussions while slapping themselves in the back for what a positive impact they made.
The fact is that many people actually follow through on their desire to boycott something, to the point that it’s not a trivial branch of the population.
Taken in the fullness of its meaning, it very much shows that peoples positions and sentiments have changed.
Should we be proud that a non trivial branch of the population is apparently wedging their power to silence another part who would like to say things they don't like?
Personnaly, that doesn't sound very healthy to me.
Putting pressure on people in order to destroy someone life definitely is violence, yes, especially considering the point is preventing someone from having the capacity to have a livelihood. Pushed to its logical conclusion, if it worked perfectly, it's more or less murder (or ostrasism if you want to be nice but as some vocal opponents are openly implying murder would be okay I feel founded in saying it is murder).
Violence is not limited to physical violence. The fact that this apparently eludes some is probably the most worrying part of the current American trend and I think in no small part responsible for the sorry state of the country.
Not consciously, no. But our conscious mind is just the tip of the iceberg, half-filled with post-hoc rationalizations for numerous unconscious urges. We don't have to call them "wants", but maybe "desires" works better.
The problem is we know people are capable of seeing through their own ego and witnessing these urges for what they are. This usually leads to them gaining control over them. This is mostly what therapy is supposed to be about.
Taming our internal animal nature is possible. People don't for all kinds of reasons. This leaves them susceptible to simple addictions.
Not if access to those things are limited while providing opportunities for other things that people enjoy.
You don't replace enjoyable things with unenjoyable things and expect the child to become a well-adjusted adult. You give them alternative enjoyable things.
Managing a child's burgeoning dopamine regulation system is a primary function of a parent. Abdicating that function for quick fixes is a form of neglect, in my opinion, just like feeding kids sugary cereals.
True, but a Terms of Service document is the vehicle by which you are informed and consenting. If you're not willing to read the information you're choosing to remain uninformed.
When it takes multiple lifetimes to read the Terms of Service for everything a normal person uses to get through daily life, it’s not a case of willingness
reply