Jirh

The coke example is a repetition of the same strawman argument that I responded to by saying permission is not promotion. You are equating the two again, even though they are completely different and their effects are completely different. No one is advocating that you should commit suicide. In fact, you are told to avoid it at all costs. But if you've exhausted all of your options, then suicide might be a possible solution. That's very different from marketing coke. You cannot compare the two. The permission is specified with rules and conditions, while marketing plays on your basic desires unconditionally. Interesting example. Reminds me of when "13 Reasons Why" first came out. I watched it and thought it was stupid as all the reasons were silly from my pov. Hannah had no real reason to commit suicide. All that's happened to her was high-school scandal and some light bullying. And yet she killed herself and recorded 13 reasons for why she did so. By your logic, Netflix is directly responsible for many suicides. Yet, the law gave Netflix the right to broadcast it even after it was sued for it. If you have a problem with the law, that's another story. Yes, I'm serious. I'll take that as you conceding. Message is not delivery. Someone can be bad at delivering a message. That doesn't make the message false or harmful, just the way it's delivered.

@Joseph Maynor What do you mean? It's confusing to me. Because they could be coming from trauma, or misunderstanding, or pure malevolence, or maybe something else that I am not yet aware of. What would be the right action in each case? Would be delightful to discuss this deeply.

Not everyone. Some people are playing life. We actually have little time for games.

I was pondering about the topic of boundaries (the absolute most important topic in relationships); how and where and when to draw them. Most of that process seems subconscious and automatic. On observation (of myself and others), it's clear to me that boundaries are regulated by our emotions in the moment. Because it's too much effort to be constantly alert and consciously monitoring our boundaries with others, so we delegate that to our subconscious, which acts as a bridge between our conscious and unconscious minds. The subconscious mind (ego) has access to both layers and characteristics of both. It is fast, and responsive. Cost-effective. Anyway, right now, I am trying to understand the role of boundaries on a deeper level in order to make this part of my psyche more conscious, to make it less reactive and more proactive. But I'm kinda having trouble with knowing what's right and what's wrong. How do we even know right and wrong in this case? If identity is imagined, then boundaries are imagined too, and we can push in any direction with no real limits until it's already too late, and even then what can we conclude from that stretch? As an example, how do you know when to forgive and when to withhold forgiveness? This questions your boundaries directly. When someone you've known for a long time acts in a certain way that violates your boundaries, what do you do in that case? Do you try to understand them? Give them excuses? Do you give them second chances? Or do you let your subconscious take care of it and react impulsively? Which one is the right choice? And what if understanding and excusing become a pattern of your subconscious? Then you become a doormat, no? It all seems way too complex, not even context is enough to draw a conclusive boundary or set of boundaries. Not even being flexible with boundaries helps, because the original premise is compromised. I don't know what's right and what's wrong. It's not arbitrary, but it's also not easy to discern at all. I guess I'm just generally confused as I'm not really familiar with or used to being a "self". Not the old, completely unconscious and reactive self, at least.

You cannot prove that. This has nothing to do with the discussion. The permission doesn't cause the tantrum or the suffering. You're arguing for a causal effect of messaging, so you need to prove that case before using it as a counterpoint. You haven't done that. Finally, this is your argument. But since you don't have any data or numbers, it remains fair to assume the total net is zero, because the two effects seem to cancel each other out. So, it remains a fact that you cannot prove permissive messaging has a negative effect. You have a point here, and I agree with you. This was terrible in many ways. The least I could say is that it's immature. There are many better ways to convey the same message more carefully and responsibly, yet he chose this. The advice became rhetorical and pointless after that terrible first statement.

@Miguel1 Hey man, nice music you shared. I believe dancing is therapeutic for oneself and can inspire healing in others too. I'm excited to see your dance and to see you spread your message across the world. Such a beautiful vision! And lol at your last statement. You already have enough evidence of the opposite. You are deep and beautiful. Why would you assume beauty and depth cannot coexist? There's someone out there for you. And there's a place for you both in this world. Live your life the way it's supposed to be lived. Those that matter don't mind, and those that mind don't matter. ✨💗

@Miguel1 Good luck brother 🙏🏻

More: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZwV3hfT6L9/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWmm239D3EI/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZ40aV5xqHy/

AI is getting out of hand: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaLjby-Nlxh/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZ93w7iu9bR/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZ1ErTpoyvX/ 😂

Permission is not promotion. No one would even consider suicide unless they're going through unbearable suffering. And when things gets real, people will do what they have to do, regardless of my opinion or anyone's opinion. Permission also helps. In many cases, the sense of freedom and agency can be the wall between life and death. Would you rather know that there is an end to the suffering? Or believe that you're eternally stuck?

@cetus 👍🏻 I meant contain as in emotionally. More of an allowance than restriction.

@Joshe Suicide is not a philosophical inquiry. It's a torturing experience. You cannot reason someone out of suicide. It never works. But you can understand and contain them and allow their expression of suffering a space to exist, so they can feel safe again, which might lower the chances that they would actually go through with it. It's paradoxical like that.

It's not realistic or pragmatic to select a partner based on this criterion of disablement. Nobody counts for this possibility because it's rare statistically.

@Someone here

@Someone here Do you believe in jynxing?