valentinesmith

Auf englisch unter „butlerian jihad“ findest du eher was: „The Butlerian Jihad, an event in the back-story of Herbert's universe, leads to the outlawing of certain technologies, primarily "thinking machines", a collective term for computers and artificial intelligence of any kind. This prohibition is a key influence on the nature of Herbert's fictional setting.“

Aber basically dass thinking machines verboten werden und ein hartes Limit darauf gelegt wurde wie weit Technologie gehen darf.

For what it‘s worth I think you are correct. Even if I feel triggered in feeling that you came in hot, but you are speaking truth and in a mental health forum I think that is most important.

I think in my response I should have rather touched upon that what the other poster is touching upon is that for a Glimmer we sometimes have to learn to experience them fully, which is not a clear distinction between the two. There can also be negative triggers you do not catch up on.

So yes, I drew a false dichotomy and should have approached this differently, thank you for correcting it.

I mean I think we are joking here and I did chuckle, but I would agree that there is a clear distinction.

A trigger is a conditioning you have that brings up negative past experiences and associations.

These glimmers are basically you conditioning yourself to check-in with yourself and appreciate a moment and be more conscious of positive emotions or associations. So yes both conditioning, but one is a totally involuntary conditioning and the latter is a trained conditioning.

And I would say in their intensity they will also be very different. We are just very wired to feel negative emotions incredibly visceral to immediately change our behaviour. The same is not really true for conditioning ourselves to appreciate a moment or perspective.

aaay that's so cool! Thanks for setting it up Kaity! I'm looking forward to giving it both a try and thanks for providing a space (again)!

uh interesting. I think I like the setup of the joke in this one more but it is basically the same joke yes.

Possibly, but I also honestly find it an interesting idea.

The way it is described it doesn’t sound like they recommend doing it with total strangers but have a conflict/discussion with a group that can chime in but is not focused on resolving the conflict but more processing it together. And honestly I think for some people that could be a good way to potentially learn and hone their way of speaking to each other.

I also really like the contra-culture idea they establish that conflict does not have to be uncontrollable and that we are responsible and accountable for our behaviour in conflict. So I think this could be an experience where you are able to air things that unsettle you while reaffirming that you bring it up because you care about the other person.

But I‘m sure this is not for everyone and is most likely a potentially energy intense way. I think the meme as well is more aimed in: I wanna butt in and say my piece without really having skin in the game.

Hmm okay I think I get your point but I don‘t know if I follow the premise that a narrow definition of rape is ultimately better for rape survivors/victims.

I think I would argue that especially in public discourse opening up what sexual harassment is and how we define rape allows more victims to step forward and share their experiences.

In the example for male rape survivors for example a common contention to not believe them is that they could physically overpower their abuser. And awareness work aims to show that even strong men can be forced and coerced. (The actor from Brooklyn 911 was an example for that discourse)

So that’s why I would not feel its a disservice if we call it rape because as the others have mentioned, it hinges a lot on the fact that we have learnt that the victim was dead at that time.

Just wanted to share my perspective but I feel I get yours a bit better now

Thanks for posting this!

As a cis man I have to admit I always enjoy it when experiences of women are put in the spotlight in discussions. I think if we keep our ears open and listen empathically we can learn how to do better and the knee-jerk reaction of: „But men also suffer!“ Always feels so weird because I think why isn’t our reaction: „God this really is happening to all of us, let’s finally combat it!“

Thanks for bringing the topic up and I hope future discussions will not be met with such a barrage of trolling and opposition. Thanks for the moderation as well.

I think I also wanna highlight that WHEN we listen we also hear that the demands and wishes being proposed by women especially in a health setting are not only totally achievable and doable but would also improve service for EVERYONE. So there is also a lot of good stuff to gain from listening and acting on it.

I see yes. Thanks for giving more context.

I do think they should actively start talking about candidates for sure yes. So I very much agree with her on this.

I mean I can kinda see the point of using kings instead of oligarchy. But using oligarchy is a bigger stab at the billionaires in the room as well so I still think it captures a bigger part of the problem.

Otherwise I think I‘m down for her saying that she wants to get stuff done but I mean is she? I‘m totally uninformed but being highly ignorant it reads a bit like a whatever statement. Like you mentioning it is also just a performative act so yeah shrug

I do think the Dems have a problem in establishing words and totally losing the plot or narrative control over their words. Woke totally slipped into an insult and I don‘t think that was an unavoidable thing. I think if Dems would go for more public social policies they would get a lot of the votes back they have been shedding but I think their oligarchic interests are in their way. Like Harris could’ve just campaigned on getting SOME change done and I think more people could’ve warmed up to her but that particular ship has sailed.

Thanks for linking the article and centring the discussion.

Ja genau, lass sie uns noch mehr normalisieren und so tun als wenn sie nicht den ganzen Staat aushebeln wollen. Sollte man definitiv entspannt und locker mit umgehen, is ja auch voll die legitime Partei /s

Ich habs wirklich nicht vermisst Spahn‘s Ideen zu hören.

Ich denke viele Leute werden dir da unterschiedliches Feedback geben, wann sie es als rassistisch empfinden. Es ist aber ein sehr typischer Moment von Alltagsrassismus. Vor allem weil ich als Empfänger der Frage ja auch niemals wissen kann, ob du es „nicht abwertend“ meinst.

Alleine die Erfahrung immer in eine andere Schublade gesteckt zu werden, ist meist schon die Rassismus Erfahrung.

Ich finde die Frage in vielen Kontexten legitim, wenn klar ist das mein Gegenüber wirklich an mir als Person interessiert ist und nicht versucht mich schnell zuzuordnen.

Leider fühlen sich halt auch viele PoCs (mich eingeschlossen) nicht wohl in dem Therapie Setting wenn unser Gegenüber weiß ist. Ich muss halt hoffen, dass meine Erfahrungen Ernst genommen werden und ich nicht in der Behandlung selber wieder mit ner Rassismuserfahrung konfrontiert werde. Ich denke diese Spannung sorgt auch dafür, dass je nachdem wie früh oder wie die Frage gestellt wird, es auch negativ wahrgenommen wird.

In deinem Beispiel ist es zum Beispiel real ein Dialekt, der die Frage triggert und nicht die assumption: ah andere Hautfarbe du kommst von bla. Manchmal sind es solche Kleinigkeiten an denen ich es zum Beispiel festmache ob ich die Frage komisch/weird/unangenehm finde oder ob jemand einfach interessiert ist. Aber auch PoC experience is natürlich kein monolith.