👍

Yep, that’s exactly what it is. There isn’t a reasonable perspective held by anyone else. Only you. You are so virtuous and kind, and we are all heathens before you.

I’m not engaging anymore.

You have a warped view of the world. That’s a you problem. Go be outraged somewhere else.

I’ve struggled with being passive aggressive before. It was related to an uncomfortable living situation with a roommate, and no real answer being available to me besides to leave. I did not want to be read, and the aggression came out as begrudgingly, frustratingly cleaning up after him because I couldn’t stand a messy communal area, and he couldn’t be bothered to clean up the space (despite me asking him to do it and him spending literally 16 hours a day there). He saw me cleaning, noted the frustration, and called me passive aggressive over it. I just wanted to knuckle through it till I could afford to leave, and that makes me behave like a passive aggressive asshole. C’est la vie.

Using people is using people. Change the definition all you like, but you’re limiting yourself on purpose.

Listen man, your feelings don’t require a villain. You make a conscious choice to infect your mind with ill will, and that’s your prerogative. I can only say I’m glad the OP is the one dealing with this, and not you. They’re handling things with an admirable amount of grace, and you’d handle it with less than admirable amount of animosity. Good luck with your life. I hope you don’t hurt anyone.

That explains your dug-in heels and disregard for emotional intelligence.

Outrage exists as a signal that can guide us. It is not an imperative to mete out harm merely at its existence.

If using people is a negative, never ask another soul for a favor again. Never work for another person. Never pursue a relationship. Never ask for help. Never respond to a plea for help. You are alone and no one is here for you, nor are you here for anyone else. To cooperate is to use and be used. Therefore, you should reject cooperation.

So then outrage can be irrational. And when directed at someone, it becomes hostile. As rational people, we can parse and understand the outrage and turn it into something healthy, instead of caustic.

“Using” someone only has negative connotations to you because that’s what you’ve ascribed to the term. But relationships are literally two people using each other, constantly. For love, support, stability, understanding, and yes, to find ourselves. When you enter into a relationship with someone, they become a reflection of you, and this reflection helps define who you are.

We are constantly, relentlessly finding ourselves, and we use everything and everyone around us in the process. This is so normal and widespread a process that I’d consider it a default human behavior. “I think I’m bi, but I might be gay, but I definitely love you” is just…something that someone can go through, and I genuinely can’t think of a better way to parse that situation than to take a leap of faith into the arms of the person you love. Had she not discovered she was gay, it’d be a heartwarming story about finding love through uncertainty. But that’s not how it played out, which is unfortunate for both parties. However, outrage would only serve to scar you both in that situation, instead of come away with a better understanding of how someone becomes who they are. No one’s saying you can’t be upset, but imo it’s wiser to temper your emotions into something that deepens you into a more caring and understanding human. That is the harder choice to make, but it’s also more mature than blind reaction.

Hurt is understandable. Outrage assumes malice.

Struggling to discover who you are isn’t the same as using someone. Most people commit to things before they fully know themselves. Pretending otherwise just turns human growth into a crime.

Eh, depends on the subject matter. Some things definitely have trends that divided down gender lines, and it’s not sexist to point this out. Men trend towards violence, women trend towards relational and social dynamics. The raw numbers back this up, but there are exceptions (obviously).

Really, how many people came here with no relationship to reddit? Why does this place even exist in the first place? It takes quite a bit of time for a culture to evolve. The reddit mannerisms were always going to be a given.

I actually wasn’t referring to this case when I mentioned anger issues. I used it as an example of a common trait that a person can have while also wielding a weapon, which is insane to allow. Obviously someone who demonstrates the capacity to harm others shouldn’t have firearms either. But it shouldn’t even need to get that far to begin with. Sounds like we agree on this point.

Literally everyone is a potential harm to others regardless of if guns are involved. You’re talking about delving into massive gray areas and applying black-and-white logic to them. Someone with anger issues shouldn’t have a gun, but they shouldn’t be in prison either. Same deal with people with mental health issues and children. No one should have a gun imo, but confiscating them on a case-by-case basis is a better solution than the jack shit some groups would prefer to do, and it shouldn’t only happen in criminal cases.

I think you’re cool. I’ve been wanting to do a similar project, but I don’t have a camera ready yet, and life is happening quite a bit these days. I’ve got a few liminal space photos in my phone’s camera reel that I think are neat at least. I’d like to see what you’ve got if you ever decide to share. Would be cool to see.

You’re not making a very strong point. That link doesn’t help illuminate things either. I’m assuming you’re pointing at PBS saying something pro-America or teaching American history in a way that makes the country appear more sacred, which, sure, is probably true. But it’d help your point to specifically point those things out and actually state why they’re harmful, instead of being vaguely hostile while defining civil religion. As an aside, there are significantly worse offenders than PBS when it comes to espousing America’s civil religion.

Had a similar encounter when I was a kid. Went for a walk in my neighborhood one night, got a bit lost, found my way, then got pulled over 30 seconds away from my house for walking suspiciously. Let me off with a warning and watched me enter my home to make sure I wasn’t bullshitting, so at least I didn’t get hauled away for a reprogramming.

I’m convinced those words are priming buzzwords to tell you how to feel. Just today, I caught the same words: “chilling moment gunman stops to put on his glasses” with ominous music over the footage. The man was killing people. Him putting glasses on wasn’t chilling. It was a mundane moment in an otherwise gruesome event.

Looks are usually only part of the formula. Maybe Pete Davidson’s a sweet and genuine guy? And Adrien Brody has a charming look imo. He seems kind.

Speaking as a straight man.

Are you sure this is usdefaultism, instead of merely stating that something doesn’t happen in America? If he were in Belgium and stated this doesn’t happen in Belgium, would you think he was assuming Belgium is default? Feels like you’re (ironically) assuming something that isn’t actually happening.

You’d be surprised which things affect our personalities and actions. I’d bet my left hat that you have some silly influences over you that you think are mundane and normal. And I bet those things make you more fun to be around too. Or less fun, depending on your company.

That goes deeper than simple horoscopes. If it wasn’t horoscopes, it’d be religion. If not religion, race. If not race, diet. If not diet, hobbies. It’s like talking shit about someone because they don’t use your favorite distro. Is Linux the problem? Or is it someone’s capacity to pass condescending judgements over silly things? Some people are insufferable. That’s a people issue.