You were raised right. What you are describing is the “fundamental attribution error” bias. As an interesting side point, you are doing it with this post right now.

All humans tend to judge others more harshly than we judge ourselves. It is just the way our brains are wired. If it wasn’t that way, then your parents wouldn’t have needed to be so insistent on you being responsible and accountable. The fact is that, it is not a moral failure in itself. Everyone does it spontaneously and it takes a good deal of life experience and maturity to recognize it in oneself and to correct for it.

This is a different point from institutional and cultural patterns that you identify as hypocrisy or irresponsibility. Corporations are not individuals so they can’t have morals. At most they can have ethical codes and people willing to police and enforce them. This is different from individual human morals.

I’m sorry, What?

I invite you to go to the top of the thread too. The part where I made a comment to a third person, not you BTW, and then you decided to interject with aggression and insults. You tell me who is the petulant child. Because I did gave you the benefit of the doubt and attempted to deescalate this idiotic conversation being patient and reasonable. But you had to win the conversation, didn’t you?

You gave me the win? Do you think all conversations are about win or lose conditions? That’s the most immature and stupid way to go about communication in general, and specially the internet. This is precisely the kind of Manichean worldview I identified and referred to previously. I don’t need your win, not everything is win-lose, not everything is black and white.

Then you try and give me a lesson? Yes, I have downvoted the whole conversation because after the second reply or so, this whole thread has not contributed at all to Lemmy as a whole and I regret the time I have invested in trying to educate a childish doorknob. I will not be replying anymore. Have a day.

This whole post—not just this comment thread—is precisely the definition of “my ignorance is equal to your expertise”. Bunch of people spouting opinions from common understanding on things they don’t understand. It’s not the first time that common usage of groups of people is entirely off with scientific facts. Like, the whole point of OP is that they disagree with something because they don’t understand it. It’s a tale as old as time itself. If we only followed common usage you would not be using soap and treatment for fever would still be bloodletting.

Not to nitpick, but a dictionary definition has no bearing. When I have more time I could share part of the scientific literature on violence that has a more integral and exhaustive definition. For example: in psychology we differentiate between violence and aggression. Violence being the umbrella term, and aggression—the specific acts of physical violence, and further we add extreme aggression.

On this point:

Can they be reasonably lumped into the same group? I would think no,

And they are not. No one is proposing that. Again, it is a strawman of your own creation.

Just to point out. This trivialization that you fear, does not happen. But the trivialization of victim’s experiences because they didn’t suffer “actual” violence, is widespread and happens all the time.

EDIT: I offer you the following articles on the complexities of working with the topic of violence. There’s a nice discussion about the cultural, sociological, methodological and ethical challenges of defining violence. But this is, I think, a nice opening for where I’m coming from (emphasis is mine):

The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation

The world report on violence and health, WHO (2002)

Methodological and ethical challenges in violence research

Hey, sorry. I actually work and had no time to follow up. Thanks for the insightful response. Even though I still don’t agree with most of your point. You are, indeed, conflating all of violence and reducing it to just assault. Which is hurtful and trivializes the suffering of victims of harassment, rape, and many more. Yours is the same logic by which rapists argue that it was not “actual” rape.

The confusion seems to derive from a desire of making violence be a binary flip. Violence or not violence. And that is just not how any professional working with victims and aggressors ever thinks about violence. Violence is a gradient.

Of course that hitting a child in the face is not equivalent with calling them a racist slur. But, the point is, that although they are of different degrees, they are both acts of violence. Is it better being called an asshole than being punched? absolutely. But this doesn’t make it a good thing to do. It was still psychological violence.

It’s an atrociously disingenuous strawman to pretend like I, or anyone here, equates verbal violence with life threatening physical violence. Because it is just not what I have suggested, anywhere, ever. But only mentally ill people think it is alright to verbally abuse people as a normal and appropriate response to any situation. Again, I’m not using metal illness like a binary flip concept. Mental illness is also a (multidimensional) gradient. I’ve met very nice and well adjusted sociopaths in my practice. With family and a thriving social circle. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t need help and support from professionals to get there, or that they didn’t occasionally struggled and needed help to point out morally dubious or potentially dangerous behaviors.

I agree, nuance is much needed. But your position is not one that provide such. As it relies on Manichean, all or nothing, good vs. evil, logic. Reality is much more complex than that. I’m offering nuance, you are just arguing about where the line lies, I’m telling it’s not a line.

I believe it’s valuable to recognize that the knee jerk reaction was a result of tone and not content. It’s the whole point of nonviolent communication to refer explicitly to facts and to address emotions directly in order to prevent “tone issues”. However, I never implied any form of moral responsibility over the malaise, mental or otherwise. Communication is a two party process, it’s not just what is given as communication by the sending party, it’s also about what the receiving party does with it, how it is interpreted. So the tone problem is a result of two people communicating, the one writing and the one reading, in this case.

You see, I worked psychological care three years with people in detention and learned that mental illness, with the affected person, is better to address it directly without euphemisms or roundabouts. Most people (not all, just most) who end in detention, have or develop mental illness, many of which are personality disorders. These disorders mean people who have them don’t react too well to any sign that you’re hiding thoughts or secretly passing judgement of their conditions. So I did just that, actually debated over replying and wrote my reply with intent and complete transparency over my feelings and thoughts about the comment. Apologies if my intentions didn’t land, but they don’t come from a place of ill will or bad faith. Quite the opposite. Here’s my rationale.

If you are punched in the face that is, inequivocally, violence. If you insult a person calling them names or threatening to hurt them that is violence. If you do the opposite, being honest, direct and transparent with emotions, then that is almost impossible to be construed as violence. Most people know this intuitively. As you can see by other comments in this very post, most people find it baffling that you have to explain to other human beings that using insults or threats is a form of violence. However, the OC called nonviolent communication violence. How is that? Well, typically, most people understand the relationship of words, interactions and violence from a place of empathy. The ability to imagine and feel what others would feel like in such situations. To consider intentionally nonviolent communication as violence, one must dissociate actions from emotions. This is only possible if one either, can disconnect empathy selectively, or cannot feel empathy at all. Both are strong traits of sociopathy. Violence is not defined by harm, emotional or otherwise, to others in the mind of sociopaths, but as a form of negative transactional process. Material loss and functional inconvenience to a special party, them. The emotional side is erased, because they can’t relate to it healthily. A sociopath doesn’t consider a punch to the face as violence, unless it is detrimental to them, personally. I need to remove a person, so I do. You hurt someone I care about, so I hurt you back. People are objects. No feelings involved. This is how nonviolent communication can become violent, because it disarms the typical instruments of sociopathic behavior. Manipulation, lying, backstabbing, gaslighting, intimidation, etc. are viable tools for the sociopath that carry no remorse. If you take away their tools with clear, direct, honest communications, you disarm the veil of concealment that enables sociopaths to thrive. Thus it is violent, against them. Also, consider the underlying insinuation that people who are kind and compassionate have a hidden agenda or are being secretly hyprocrites and manipulative themselves.

What to do with it? I learned that addressing the elephant in the room is the best policy. I clearly stated what was wrong, to suggest that proper, clear, honest and direct communication is violence is incorrect. “Your kindness is violent” sounds mad and nonsensical, because it is. I can offer further examples, if you look closer to the comment:

distinguish between actual violence and hurt feelings

Separation of material actions and emotions. Dismissive of emotional consequences. Disconnect with other’s people emotional experiences. The term “actual violence” itself is troubling as it implies an objective definition of violence, which, by the way, implies that it is their definition, disregarding other’s subjective definitions, lived experiences or even socially normative definitions of violence.

I’m not trying to negate shitty bosses or toxic work environments, not at all, but I hate that this is now called violence.

Dismissal of emotional suffering as trivial or inconsequential.

calling everything rape

Disregard for emotions and trivialization of sexual violence.

anything that isn’t sweet and nice

Normalization of rudeness, plus the insinuation of hidden agendas from people who are genuinely being nice.

This kind of statements are not opinions I have heard any mentally stable and sound of mind individuals make. But I heard them a lot, in detention, from mentally ill inmates. So, my choice was to be direct and speak my mind. Because I’d rather offend a mentally ill person but get them to seek help and be less of a threat to others around them than to ignore it and let someone with a harmful belief system continue to think that what they’re thinking is ok or normal. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I don’t mind to risk mistakes that hurts nobody if it carries the chance of doing good.

I just want to take this time to thank you for teaching me a new word. It is important to learn everyday and I appreciate your contribution. However, I am sad that you considered my comment as violence. Some people are not aware that they’re sociopaths. And well adjusted sociopaths do exist in greater numbers than people assume.

However, unlike you, I do not consider it an insult. I’m sorry if it was misconstrued that way. Sociopathy is a disorder, a personality disorder specifically. Just like narcissism, borderline personality disorder and others. I understand that it is a heavily stigmatized word and used as an insult frequently, specially on the internet. But unless we talk about it appropriately and dispel misinformation, we won’t be able to bring mental healthcare to people who have such conditions. Mental disorders are not a moral failing on anyone’s part. And being aware of it is the first step to get help.

You wouldn’t be offended if I told someone with a broken leg to go see a doctor. Why is reminding people that lack of empathy is a disease and they might benefit from mental health care suddenly an offensive attack?

Well, this is not something you do, as in a once and done action. Like, you don’t schedule a meeting to talk feelings. It’s an approach. The idea is to practice it consciously to reach the goal of just doing it spontaneously. Stressed people with deadlines are exactly the kind of people who can take advantage of and appreciate nonviolent communication. It can help teams in highly stressful circumstances reach high levels of performance while keeping dysfunctions from stress to a minimum. Not to mention negative effects in their personal lives. Angry, burnout and fatigued people are actually really lousy workers and the least effective overall. Dealing with negative feelings can help reduce these ill effects.

You are nearsighted.

Psychological violence is violence. It doesn’t matter if you disagree. Because you are wrong. I invite you to search online the stories of people who have been victimized and try to empathize with their lived experiences and emotions. If you cannot find this empathy and feel the urge to dismiss them as overreactions or as trivial, I suggest you seek psychiatric attention. Lack of empathy is the leading trait of sociopathy. Therapeutic and psychiatric treatment can help you to adapt well in a nonviolent manner to society.

Partially. Now they’re trying to withhold payments to developers. GOG still sells most of the removed games because Europe and fuck PayPal.

Just because you have always done it and it doesn’t affect you, personally. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t have consequences or it is ok. Flushing toilet paper is a logistical and maintenance nightmare, and it is costing you and your neighbors exorbitant amounts of money on otherwise unnecessary extra processing.

Don’t flush anything that isn’t human waste.

Toilet paper also wrecks drainage systems.

First time? Paradox games are the definition of learned helplessness. This game will be a dlc shitfest in time, just like all of their other scammy games. They just learned to not announce it ahead of time with this IP.

For a long time he was told by everyone in public and in private that he was awesome and perfect, and the greatest game developer, which made him a ton of money and very famous. Now his latest game is failing and his overinflated ego is panicking.

If they didn’t work, you wouldn’t need dearrow. You would just ignrore them spontaneously and channels who didn’t do it would thrive with your viewership. But if dearrow didn’t exist, you would hate them but you would still watch them far more than videos without.

Some youtubers have done analysis on this. Unfortunately it has a huge impact on views. Arrows, circles, distorted faces, etc. All the clickbaity tropes, they don’t just work, they work disproportionately well, and they work on you even if you hate them and are aware of them. It can sometimes be up to double the viewership and thus revenue of a video during the first 72 hours. The impact is so hard that it has grown into a special skill on its own do craft these shitty promotional material.

Many channels use the clickbait titles and thumbnails during the first 48 hours, then switch to a more sane and on-brand title and thumb. Because if they did away with the clickbait altogether, they would lose all revenue soon after.

There are both open source and commercial apps that do PTT over internet. It turns phones into radio, it even has the capability to have central radio operation rooms for companies and such. It’s all automated.

Fuck Nintendo

We already know what happens with long term sunk cost fallacy. It is a scam.