News Us politics - read first post before comment

[joeylittle]

I think something like George Haidt coming on ptsd board and saying there needs to be affirmative action in psychology to bring in ostracized conservatives might sound like trolling, but it wouldn't be.

No, because he's connected to the field of psychology.

This isn't a general-discussion forum, it's a psych forum focused on PTSD, and it has some discussions that are unrelated to PTSD because, as you said, sometimes it's just nice to think about other things. I only needed to know if you had a connection to PTSD, and you do. I did not mean to imply that I think conservatives are automatically trolls. They are not; and there a quite a few on this board.

Things like this:

The David hogg kid is super skinny and seems like he might be gay

This is fine, as your opinion. My opinion is that "seems like he might be gay" is veiled homophobia, and I'm going to call that when I see it.

Like it's great that suddenly gay kids who to me seem a bit odd are now cool and have their own social groups and they are protected from harassment and things about them maybe even make them media darlings

And this is uninformed. Gay kids are not ‘cool’. They are not protected from harassment any more than any minority or marginalized group is protected. Which is to say: the rights have been in place for a while, but american society is still in the early years of understanding how to apply those protections.

I think you’re looking to blame the peers for not reaching out, and that makes no sense, given how high the odds are of every single teenager in that age group being heavily occupied with their own mental instability.

The teenage brain is, literally, unstable. It's a neurological mess. Growth, development, lots of stuff going on in there, hormones...you name it. I think it's the rare teenager who can rescue another teenager. The best they can do is try and vent their confusion safely.

Peer groups - like a gay/lesbian alliance - are a way of creating that space to express, vent, problem-solve...all the things peer support does. And they function like social clubs as well.

Really not unlike peer support for adults dealing with mental illness. We know that suicidal thinking is something many people with PTSD struggle with. We know that they are statistically rather likely to kill themselves. And because of that - even though we all have PTSD - we keep a little separation between the posts about suicidal thinking by having a sub-forum for it. Not every member is capable of reaching out to give that kind of support at any given time. So how could any group of teenagers, who are struggling with their own neurological challenges (for developmental reasons) - whether they are the popular kids or the outsiders - how could any of them be held responsible for doing crisis intervention on a peer?

It's not reasonable.

I am certain that many, many people failed the Parkland shooter. But I wouldn't include his peers on that list. It would be a rare, unique teen individual who was capable of that.

Fixating on the students who are expressing their thoughts and feelings as if they are really the ones to blame...or as if they should shut up and sit down because they did nothing...and especially because they are gay/maybe gay/skinny/have shaved heads...to me, that's all just noise and nonsense.

 

[Mee]

Thank you joeylittle.

I really hate the idea thatthe kids who are the victims in these scenarios are being shamed fo speaking out.

It’s not good.

 

[EveHarrington]

Did we really expect Russia to not retaliate?

60 diplomats being expelled.

 

[blackemerald1]

No! It's no surprise really. Russian Diplomats are being expelled, last count I heard over 26 Nations. And...rightfully so in my opinion. The least any Western democracy can do is expel Diplomats. It is probably the 'softer' option first.

Russia seems to be popping up in all manner of not so good situations lately:- Their rather stifled re-election of their President. The US election investigation. The downing of a plane load of people . Annexing other countries. Their permanent status in the UN therefore being capable and actually vetoing some resolutions. Making the UN pretty much a 'toothless tiger' - if it has anything at all to do with their interests which is not really the Charter of the UN. Now and not the least, 3 people effected by a known Russian made nerve agent.

Dam glad I don't live near where those people were affected. Or was first on the scene...

I'm not well informed on this, but this all seems to be trending towards another cold war climate or it could heat up very quickly.

If Russia really wants to take offence because they say 'there has been no proper investigation, there was nobody effected by any nerve agent and it's all a blatant lie by the UK government'. Then yes! they can counter expel Diplomats as well and their fat cat diplomats can go back and sit with their President and be, I don't know PROUD of themselves? I could take an a guess that they were not going to say "oh oops sorry about'.

 

[Deleted member 46276]

Thank you joeylittle.

I really hate the idea thatthe kids who are the victims in these scenarios are bei...

David Hogg, the kid that's on media the most, bragged about hanging up on the White House, and other shooting survivor says that was maybe not the best idea.

Hogg also referred to his parents as "old ass parents", says the F word on national television a lot, seems to accuse leading politicians of being the moral equivalent of child killers without this tendency to slander being questioned, and, to me, he seems to be reveling in his power to punish those who disagree with him or cross him. In the past day or so he is getting close to forcing a Fox commentator to lose her job because she said he shouldn't have gotten into a college that complained about not getting into because his grade point average didn't merit it at a highly selective school.

I feel like no on the entire planet has as power to do or say whatever they want and not be criticized as much David Hogg because he happened to be in a school, but not actually shot at, when a shooting took place and he is only a senior in high school.

@joeylittle "No, because he's connected to the field of psychology."

I meant that if Haidt didn't identify himself as a leading academic in the field of moral psychology, and he started talking about how there needs to be affirmative action for conservatives in fields like psychology and started talking about why he thought this was considered necessary what are chances it would be considered trolling?

I tried to post a link, but it says I can't, but, again background is he took poll at a conference of around 1,000 at a conference for personality and social psychology and only 3 out of 1,000 said they were conservative.

Haidt is liberal and he got into political psychology because he disliked George bush and wanted to help democrats.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

I meant that if Haidt didn't identify himself as a leading academic in the field of moral psychology, and he started talking about how there needs to be affirmative action for conservatives in fields like psychology and started talking about why he thought this was considered necessary what are chances it would be considered trolling?

Do you know the definition of trolling is (related to internet forums)?

troll2
trōl/
verb
gerund or present participle: trolling

1. 1.
   informal
   make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them

Link Removed

 

[Muttly]

@j

This article reflects a lot of what I have been thinking and trying to say. This is written by a classmate of Cruz who was a peer counselor to him. She does not feel that students should be held responsible for befriending their troubled classmates and points out that they are only kids and are there to learn.

@Endofwar I am going to throw out a challenge to you. I wonder if you can carry on the conversation without slapping labels on folks. You've identified peoples, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, in talking about this. Even if you are trying to make a generalization, like the kids who didn't fit in, the labels seem unnecessary and make lead the conversation of the path of what you are really trying to say. Things that you assume are issues, as far as acceptance, might be cool at one high school, a non-issue at another high school, and a reason to be bullied. The US is a big country with a lot of variation.

ostracized kid who had at a young age witnessed his parents death and maybe he sees a psychologist or goes on social media or even on ptsd board and complains about his heterosexual brother bullying him and maybe there is support, but what about if he complains about his black brother bullying him?

This is an example. It's his brother who is bullying him in your example. And if he came on to a forum or talked to a psychologist about his brother bullying him, he would get support. Why add the labels? They don't matter and they derail the conversation. I bet, if you came to this forum and kept referring to your "heterosexual" brother or did that with a therapist there would be questions as to why you feel that's important. That's not lack of support, that's trying to get past defense mechanisms or bias to the real issue, "being bullied by my brother.".

I think you over rate the value of peer groups and what they can accomplish. I'm part of a peer group for a bunch of transgender folks. In that group, there is support for some. Some don't fit in. Some are more outspoken and get more attention. Some don't get enough. If you walk into that group with a whole lot of emotional issues, you are probably going to wear out the resources of the group. And that's among a group of adults. So supposing there was a group that Cruz had joined, similar to the lgbtq group, he might have felt similarly ostracized there when the group couldn't meet his needs.

From a speech Emma Gonzalez (the shaved head Hispanic girl who was 3 years president of gay straight alliance) made about Parkland shooter: "Those talking about how we should have not ostracized him? You didn’t know this kid! OK? We did!”"

Did you actually watch her speech? I saw it and this is a small clip of the whole thing. It's taken out of context. She is making the same point I've been trying to make. We don't know. We weren't there in the high school. What if friendly overtures to him were met with verbal abuse. Would you still say that the students should be trying to make friends with him?

 

[Justmehere]

how there needs to be affirmative action for conservatives in fields like psychology and started talking about why he thought this was considered necessary what are chances it would be considered trolling?

@Endofwar - It has already been explained by @joeylittle that one does not get labeled as a troll here for having conservative viewpoints. If David Haidt posted those viewpoints or liberal viewpoints, without any posting history expressing a connection to PTSD or the field of psychology, he would likely be asked what his connection is to PTSD. This should not be surprising on a forum for PTSD suffers and supporters.

In order to keep this thread on track, I’m going to ask that you not continue to post here about what is and is not labeled as trolling at myPTSD. If you would like to further discuss it, please take it to a help ticket instead.

 

[Deleted member 46276]

@Muttly: "I think you over rate the value of peer groups and what they can accomplish. I'm part of a peer group for a bunch of transgender folks. In that group, there is support for some. Some don't fit in."

But your peer group must allow for a bit of venting and concerns about certain frustrations. And I feel like there should be certain allowances rather than hypersensitivity. I will explain, please bear with me for a second and give me a little bit of a break because I find it difficult to talk about politics and social issues without using some sort of categorization.

It is widely accepted that a tendency to be religious has a genetic factor. Also, there are genetic factors in personality, so there probably is genetic factors in political inclinations.

I would expect, and have no problem with someone in your group complaining about their "religious" or "Christian" family. Nor would I be surprised if they complained about "conservatives". But if you were very strict about hate speech and intolerance, every time someone said something negative about "Christians," it would be intolerance and hate because religious inclinations are influenced by genetics.

I am saying people in your group should be allowed to complain about certain things, but just imagine if there was almost a real threat of punishment anytime someone mentioned "Christians," and if not punishment maybe some understanding that there might be accusations of hate and intolerance if they complained about their "Christian family" very much.

I am not talking about this for no reason, nor is Haidt mentioning the need for diversity in psychology to include more conservatives for no reason. I really think even just implied threats of punishment keep certain people from being helped. Like I think Cruz was not racist, but he was upset about his ex girlfriends black boyfriend and probably bullying by his black brother had an effect, but it can become very daunting to mention a problem if it is difficult to express yourself, and if open expression might result in condemnation. Like imagine if people in your group wanted to talk about difficulties with their families, employers, politicians, etc but using words like "Christian" and "Religious" were completely off limits because these words are intolerance and hate.

 

[Muttly]

@Endofwar what science has shown is a tendency to believe in God/have faith, not to be part of a certain religious group. And in my peer group, you are correct, that if someone said that they had a hard time growing up because of their parents religious *practices* there is going to be understanding from the group. However, if the same person starts labeling all people christian or jew or nonbeliever, there would be a problem. If the words "Christian" and "Religious" were completely off the table, the conversation might require a few more words, but the conversation could continue just fine because it's what the parent (or boss or politician) did. He told me I was a bad person and called me names because he was gay. In fact, I just worked with a guy last night. I don't actually know his religion nor do I care. His ethnicity and skin color don't matter. He has a problem with gay people. It's well known. It makes working with him harder than it would be otherwise. There, I just had the conversation without using a label. As far as his ex-girlfriend's boyfriend being black, that is not material. Just like if his ex-girlfriend's boyfriend was white. Cruz could have easily mentioned his feelings about his ex-girlfriend's boyfriend and brother, without mentioning the label "black".

I dated a guy that was black. I was with him for months before that got mentioned in therapy because it didn't really matter. I think when I did mention it, it was because someone had made a comment about me dating a black guy and I was venting about that in therapy. The issue with my boyfriend wasn't his color, it was his behaviors. I said bad things about the guy because he was borderline abusive, manipulative, alcoholic and became a stalker. As I wasn't constantly saying "my black boyfriend", his color was never even discussed.

As far as being condemned by counselors for using certain words, are you sure that's what happens? I suspect it probably does in some cases but I suspect more often, what is happening is the person is being challenged. That's part of why we go to therapy. If I talked about my tall boyfriend and my short boyfriend and my short boss and tall coworker, my therapist would probably ask me why it was so important to me to label them all as tall or short. And that might be a worthwhile discussion for me to have with therapist.

I suspect you and I are not going to find agreement, I never have much stamina for debates, and I feel like we've wandered from US politics, so I may not respond back to this thread, but I wish you well.

 

[EveHarrington]

David Hogg, the kid that's on media the most, bragged about hanging up on the White House, and other s...

Hogg is for all intents and purposes, still a kid. I don’t think it’s exactly appropriate for news anchors to be tweeting about a kid’s rejection from a school. At least 3 of that news anchors sponsors do not agree with her behavior and have pulled funding.

These kids are doing more to change the course of history than most of us. Disagree with their politics, but don’t hit below the belt.

 

[Deleted member 46276]

@EveHarrington: "Hogg is for all intents and purposes, still a kid. I don’t think it’s exactly appropriate for news anchors to be tweeting about a kid’s rejection from a school. At least 3 of that newsanchors sponsors do not agree withher behavior and have pulled funding."

I just looked and thing I saw says she has lost 11 advertisers. And today Hogg is agreeing with her that it was fair for colleges to reject him, leaving the sole objectionable detail in that tweet the inclusion of the word "whine".

I agree with you that it was inappropriate general behavior and she shouldn't have made that tweet and she has apologized for it, but Hogg won't accept her apology and I don't think it interests him that she might lose her entire career.

To me this is power, and I don't mean Donald Trump power, Trump can't punish a journalist who crosses him like this for saying he said something in a whining fashion. More like Joseph Stalin/Roman Emperor type power.