this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
423 points (97.3% liked)

Funny

10886 readers
408 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 114 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The point of the movie is that suppressing sadness is a bad thing

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's supression if it's dead?

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

No, but the act of killing it is.

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 86 points 8 months ago

The kid would become a psychopath that never gets sad at anything and lacks empathy

[–] Dasnap@lemmy.world 45 points 8 months ago (2 children)

They literally have a 'cease to exist' pit.

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but Joy got out of it in like 5 minutes. If I know sadness, it'll float right out while eating my last cheez-it.

[–] Dasnap@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You can still float without functional kneecaps.

[–] Dasnap@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Break her brainstem.

[–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

And yet I will never forget bing bong.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 25 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Killing sadness just leaves us utterly empty.

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 16 points 8 months ago

Wait, that make sense, depression is the lack of feeling, everyone dead, at least in my experience

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

One of these days I shall visit the grave of my misery

[–] danekrae@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You can never know happiness, without knowing sadness.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 38 points 8 months ago (4 children)

That just sounds like philosopher dribble peddled to make sad people feel better.

You can very well know happiness without sadness. It's called ignorance and from what I've heard it's bliss.

[–] TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 37 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Most the ignorant people I know are the most angry, miserable people I've ever met, so idk maybe that's bullshit too

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Are they ignorant or all their "knowledge" just revolve in being racist and an asshole?, a truly ignorant person would be like a toddler no? Without racism and such

[–] TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Being a toddler is traumatic! They have no knowledge of the world around them and it's frequently terrifying. Why do you think young children cry so much? Ignorance is scary.

[–] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago

It's not about knowing. It's about appreciating.

[–] DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

It is possible to know one without the other, however the first experience becomes the baseline upon which other experiences are compared and measured against forming a spectrum.

Take a baby for instance, early in life they are exposed to milk, the feeling of being close to their parents during feeding and the feeling of a full stomach (happiness). However, this becomes the reference point to compare feelings of being alone and hungry (sadness).

If a child experiences nothing but absent parents and malnutrition, the child will not know it is sad because there is no comparative reference point. Its just normal.

Another example, a long time ago when life expectancy was much lower and daily life was very hard, the circumstances needed to feel happiness were much lower. A woman living a hard life in an isolated wilderness suddenly receives a fine dress from a distant city and, compared to her daily harsh reality, it brings her extreme happiness.

Compare that to modern times where daily life is much easier and we have access to almost anything we want. Not surprisingly, people find it harder to find happiness. Why? Because they don't have the comparative negative baseline.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What do we call this, an Appeal to Balance fallacy?

[–] DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

False Balance or Appeal to People, which one are you referring to?

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Are those like, official ones? I was making a name up

[–] DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Common fallacies are well documented with generally similar names. Might be worth reading up on them so that when you label something a fallacy, you are doing so from an informed position. Labelling something a fallacy, without understanding whether it is or isn't, is a subtle form of disinformation.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's a rather rigid view of rhetoric. I know common fallacies have been documented (mostly in infographic form) but the way that you categorize them and how you define them isn't some immutable law of the universe, and neither are their names. Collections of fallacies aren't very reliable. More official sources exist but they don't tend to name very specific fallacies.

Anyways, what really bothers me is this:

Labelling something a fallacy, without understanding whether it is or isn’t, is a subtle form of disinformation.

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding that I cannot allow. Something isn't a fallacy because some guy said it is; that, ironically, is an Appeal to Authority Fallacy(TM). Memorizing a list of fallacies by name does not teach you what a fallacy is and it certainly doesn't grant you understanding like you claim. The list doesn't decide what a fallacy is. A logical fallacy is simply a mistake or nonrigorous section in an argument that follows a common pattern. If you can identify the pattern, and you can identify that it's not logically sound, you can call it a fallacy. That's not disinformation just because you didn't read about it on logicalfallacies.com.

[–] DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If only you had put this much effort and consideration into your original post. Was it fun shuffling through your vocabulary for maximum effect?

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

That's because my original post was casual conversation, and this response was part of an argument. If I want to be clear in an argument I have to be more specific, which means choosing my words carefully. I'm not posing lmao, the most complicated word there is probably "nonrigorous" and that's really not that hard. Anyways, since you neglected to respond to the actual content of my argument and decided to act in bad faith, I'm done here.

[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 21 points 8 months ago

Someone who hasn't seen the manic phase of bipolar.

[–] justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 8 months ago

Somebody didn't get the point of the movie

[–] felykiosa@sh.itjust.works 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Tbh sadness is normal but they have to throw depression in an hell if she appear

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Depression is all of the other emotions being thrown into jail.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 11 points 8 months ago

I mean...

Maybe anger would have, but he wasn't consistently specifically angry at sadness.
And maybe sadness would have killed herself, but she didn't.

It'd be out of character for any of the others to do it.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

That’s just called repression or dissociative amnesia

[–] lemmyknow@lemmy.today 5 points 8 months ago

Because the night

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 5 points 8 months ago

Unleash you bing bong feels

[–] DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Because happiness can only exist when outlined by sadness. You only know times are good if you have bad times to compare to.