You base embracing fear on it being natural. It is natural to want to kill others, and because it is natural we have many things to try to avoid it… so it is baseless too
1 Like
actually it was anger not fear, though I happen to have the same position on fear. But you calling it fear along with some other things below makes me wonder if you read my posts with any care. I talked about expressing emotions not violence. I can mount a lot of reasons why one should not be violent except in certain specific situations. Let’s see yours about anger. Expressing anger. I assume that’s Stalin. Please justify your radically fear based slippery slope implicit argument that my saying that it’s ok for people to express anger when other people classify them and treat them in ways they think are false leads to psychopathic dictator behavior. And notice I even talked about how a DISCUSSION could then follow. It seems to me your reaction is a reaction that fits when people are driven by fear they are not acknowledging - what you are feeling I have no idea. I don’t know where you could assume that what I wrote leads to Damnatio memoriae. Why is it alright to react like you did here but not to react with anger?
1 Like
Ho boy….
First: Im asking a question not stating a claim, so no. I dont reject anything.
Second: Even rejection does not require condemnation of those who have different views.
Third: I will give you a rundown of what you just did. Okay?
Your views are simplistic and childish →
that means you reject everyone else’s views →
that means you are a perpetrator of hatred →
so those who hold different views are victims and are fighting for justice. →
So even if i were to attack you for your views, that’d just mean that you perversely see yourself as a victim
Lastly: None of the above even matters because its a red herring that does not touch on the question that was asked: Why’d anyone seek the affirmation of their SELF from other people?
Instead this is a rain of moral claims and statements without a single justification or explanation.
- Your views are just childish
- You act out against those who disagree with you
- Questions are hatred
- Not understanding means you reject
- So i am a victim and i fight for justice
- all grievances you’d hold because of the way i am treating you, just means that you perversely see yourself as the victim
- and so i live in reality and you dont
This is also an interesting topic btw.
What kind of brainwashing is required to turn a functioning human being into someone who reasons that “You asked a question so you should be shot”
No. Pretty much nobody would unless they perceived the incorrect identification as intentional and meant to offend.
And from there its another extra step to articulate that offense is taken and not given, because f that infantile clown who thinks its an “own” to misgender me. Its about as insightful as calling you fat or short.
Sure. Lets say i suffer from dwarfism or something similar that gives me child like features and even tho im 40, ppl would still treat me like im a kid.
Would that become annoying?
Sure. It affects my relationship with the world and the rest of society.
Being handled like a child would affect my life, probably also remove most of my chances at having a functioning relationship on multiple layers because even if i did have one, i’d be asking myself if my partner is just fetishizing me as a pdf file.
And yet, that IS my reality.
That IS my identity.
That IS who i am.
I am the 40 year old that looks like a kid, and even though its f-ed, i cannot blame other people for perceiving me as a kid cause i look like one no matter what i do.
The most counter productive and f-ed thing i could do in my situation is to know that everyone sees me as a child, but i’d put a legislative gun to their head and tell them that they have to disregard their own perception and “affirm me” as something i am not.
That does not fix my issue.
That just makes everything worse for me because now i am living in a world where everyone PRETENDS to see me as something they do not. Now THAT would piss me off. Knowing that nobody means a single thing they tell me.
I can own my problems.
I can own being a dwarf.
I can own the beyond sh-t cards life has dealt me.
What i cannot own is a reality that is play pretend, where everyone who looks at me is lying through their teeth out of either consideration, or because i hold a proverbial gun to their head.
The TL;DR is that forcing people to affirm me, does not solve my issue. It makes it worse.
And that is assuming that i am not literal about affirmation, which i know for a fact that many people are.
BUT:
Point taken.
You made a good argument about not everyone is trying to literally outsource their internal processes such as identity. Some of that might just be futile attempts and struggling against a sh-t fate and life one has been dealt.
I can by all means understand that even though its 700 shades of counter productive.
It would take a pattern for me, I will give you that. But if I was taken as angry and I wasn’t, or a teenager and I was an adult or as a member of a certain religion and I wasn’t or having a different job than I have, sure I think most people would get angry.
I don’t understand the ‘own’ part.
I would get irritated if I was identified as physically not what I am, but I’m not quite sure what that sentence means in context.
Sure, so there is some overlap between our positions. But pretty much any act of repeatedly mischaracterizing/identifying me would lead to anger. I suppose if it was completely neutral - they think I work in a bank and I work in a shopping center - it would take more time for me to get pissed off but the oddness of them not listening to me would eventually piss me off.
Sure, but once you have corrected them, then you would get angry. Or, I would in any case. Wouldn’t you? And I can imagine that little people often get infantalized even when the other person knows they are an adult. This is also to some extent natural. They know I have a job and a wife, but on some level they talk to me as if I am a kid. Well, that would piss me off. I see no reason why such a person needs to hold back their anger.
Going bat shit enraged every time a first time encounter has this issue would be too much, sure.
All I am saying is that anger can be a fine reaction. That’s not a gun against your head. You can choose not to interact with this person. You can state why you continue to identify them a certain way and see where the discussion goes. The dwarf who is repeatedly identified by someone - a boss, a coworker, a store clerk - who the dwarf has told ‘I am an adult’, it would be utterly appropriate socially, it seems to me, for the dwarf to express anger. I sure as shit would. And that is not holding a gun against that clerk’s head.
Thank you. I mean I entered a topic with a specific situation and that situation has a hysterical carrying out of that aggression from the get go, at least if one looks at online videos. People explode when misgendered and threaten. I have no idea how common this is, but I see it happening in videos. And I know how powerful woke rules are right now. I was teasing out of this situation the general rule. What other people say/think about me…ah, who cares, getting angry is a problematic reaction, for me and others. No external feedback is required to tell me that I am. That’s the main idea I don’t agree with, in the sense that it leads to, so getting angry is a problem or wrong response. I don’t think it is.
If there is no way to reconcile the two points of view on one person’s identity and we think the person who feels misidentified should accept that other people view them a certain way, we can turn this the other way and say, the other people can accept that person’s anger. Both can be ignored.
In other words, a similar argument to the one used in the OP could be used about people reacting with anger. I don’t need other people to always like me, accept me, hold back their anger for me to feel good about myself. It is not required that they hold this reaction back.
This doesn’t mean, at all, that every time someone gets angry they are right. And it doesn’t mean one can’t get angry back or decide to avoid this person or ignore them. I’m saying that emotional expression is to be expected when we identify/characterize someone differently then they identify/characterize themselves and it’s ok, and we would likely do the same. They might be nuts, wrong, confused, etc. But I don’t want a general rule based on the idea that it doesn’t really matter what other people think. If so, then it doesn’t really matter if they get pissed off either. And I don’t think it is necessarily at all a problem ever for the person who feels misidentified. Patterns of expressing any particular emotions can be a problem for any of us. And you also have to know when to give up on a person and start to ignore them.
Even better it seems to me is to allow emotions to be able to flow freely, keep violence off the table, and see where it goes. I don’t need a transperson or dwarf to stifle their anger. I can deal with that in any number of ways. Just as people can deal with me when I react with anger or irritation to the ways I think they mischaracterize/misidentify me.
1 Like
Oh, I miswrote.
My what about anger? List of reasons not to express anger?
What radically fear based slippery slope implicit argument? What dictator behavior?
What reaction?
That’s Stalin’s famous photo editing, just because you wrote about Stalin
React like what?
1 Like
Its more like pointing out that there are grey areas, and i acknowledge that.
Though my question was more about those who actually mean this line of thought. Who think that other people not affirming them is genocide.
Getting frustrated with your situation is understandable.
I live in a similar situation so i can first hand understand it.
But that being said, getting angry might not be the “wrong” response, however it absolutely is counter productive and wont help you in any way. It most certainly wont resolve anything.
Correct me if im wrong about this, but ultimately your only solution is coming to terms with who you are and what the consequences of that are.
That was the case for me too.
I can get angry all i want. At myself. At life. At the world. At other people.
Who tf does that help? Especially if i internalize that anger and start to act insane, making claims like “anyone who does not mind read me and perceives me as i’d want them to, is an abuser, a phobe, someone who commits violence on me”.
What’s the consequence of that?
It does not resolve my problem, but now on top of everything, everyone also thinks that i am a “mass shooting” waiting to happen.
Do you think that people who go down this route have in fact no rational behind it at all?
Only frustration and anger?
Cause personally i was trying to view this from the rational side, assuming that even these people have a logic by doing this, and i am just incapable of understanding it.
Well surely. You need to somehow balance out your emotions if they are offset.
And as i said, i can understand the frustration.
But not when it goes so far that it starts to take legislative shape, compelled speech and such.
I mean its one thing to be frustrated, but its another to have these things like the “WeSee”-s post where i am basically labeled as an abuser for asking the question.
1 Like
This is a modern topic with a lot of emotions involved.
I have seen many interesting ideas here. I do not want to enter into specifics (which side I support).
As a general remark, I believe that this question and similar questions boil down to clashing rights:
- The right of the person for self-identification.
- The right of the person to accept or reject claims by others.
X wants to identify as trans. Fine, no problem with that.
X wants Y to accept the new X’s identity. That is the tricky part.
For the tricky part there are no easy answers. Two counter-examples:
- Black people want to identify as equal with white people. This was rejected by white people in US for a long time, now it is accepted.
- People with fascist ideology want to identify as citizens that respect democracy. This claim is frequently rejected by others.
My examples are rather simplistic (sorry, I couldn’t think of any better at the moment), but I believe they give the picture. Only in ideal imaginary worlds, every person’s self-identification claim is automatically accepted by others. In our societies, new self-identification claims can become widely acceptable if and when the social conditions allow them.
1 Like
I think the emotions involved are those written before: fear, disgust, anger. But the emotions have nothing to do with the topic at hand, truly.
I disagree that those are rights. Those seem to simply be things people can do - and I think all people agree that people can do those things. You can even accept 1+3=2, but of course it doesn’t make it true.
I’d rewrite that, just to be more precise (even if not clearer at face value) as:
X wants Y to talk about X as how X self-identifies.
What would you say is tricky about that? I don’t see that as tricky, nor clashing with what you named as 'rights’ but rather an exercise against free speech (we’re not even going into making Y identify X as how X self-identifies). What do you think of my Australian-British-Canadian-Dutch example I pointed out?
In fact, if someone self-identifies as a honest person, that person may well say that for doing what the other wants (be talked as if identified as how X self-identifies), that honest person self-identification must be breached.
Other problem is that identification by others is not just one, but depends on people, nevermind just how identification is used in talks
1 Like
Your example illustrates the complexity of the issue, indeed.
I call them ‘rights’ because I focus on the society globally, not just the individual. The trans community first and foremost asks acceptance of the claims on a political level. If the country accepts the claims, the individuals that disagree will have to comply eventually. Some white people in US may feel superior to black people, but the law prohibits racial discriminations.
I may claim that I have the freedom of self-identification, but no authority in my country will accept to provide me an ID that writes “identity-horse”.
In the way you re-wrote my 2nd point there is nothing tricky, indeed, but you moved further than my intentions. Noone can force Y legally to start talking about X’s affairs, the legal question is if Y should accept X’s claim.
1 Like
Well, sure, I think that’s absurd, even if Peter Dinklage gets treated like a child by his brother-in-law, he doesn’t have a good attempted murder charge on that guy - however much an idiot that guy is.
I am pretty sure a dwarf getting talked to like a child who then reacts with anger is going to get some people, probably most, to not make that mistake again. I don’t see why it wouldn’t work in many other situations with other not being identified the way you want. And sure, he could just say to himself - whatever, I know I am an adult. If that works for that dwarf, great, but I really see no justification for telling the dwarves who do get angry that they are causing themselves or other people a problem.
I’m all for that. I am saying there is no reason to rule out anger in such situations, no reason to suppress it and it can even be a part of what you wrote here. We don’t have to choose between expressing anger and sorting it out internally. I think anger is a motivator both for the person who feels it and for others who hear it or have it aimed at them. Sure, one can be a dick with anger, one can get into some of the extreme patterns you mentioned. But if people mischaracterize me I will likely get angry at least some of the time. If it is repeated, after correction, probably most of the time. In part because it is in fact effective. It gets people’s attention, it’s honest, they now realize what they are saying has effects. If they still believe how they framed me, well, they may not change their position. But now they know it matters to me. We move on to next steps or decide to ignore each or….etc. Once you are making a natural reaction in this case an emotion, anger, problematic I think there is an onus to demonstrate this. If I am going to stop a natural reaction, I’d need to understand clearly why. I haven’t seen it yet. Sure, some people are very extreme. That can be a problem. Some people do horrrible things with hands, but I’m going to continue to have hands.
Yes, I agree here. And too far depends on the situation. But generally speaking the ‘too far’ includes things like policies, laws, violence etc. as you mention. It’s not the expression of or the feeling of the emotion, it is when force of some kind comes into play. I don’t see any reason to just accept the behavior of others and suppress my emotions. I can accept the reality of what other people think and express my emotions, and hell this might lead to positive outcomes, but at root it’s more, why the heck shouldn’t I just let my emotion flow there.
I wonder what do you mean by “acceptance of the claims on a political level”.
Now, if something is just, and people go against that, it makes sense for it to be a law that punishes going against it. Now, the question is if that is just and true. To compel others to do so, that has to make sense and be just. Is it just and true?
So you are saying speech must be compelled. For example, you should say some things (positive) and if not, you’d be punished by law. There are lots of cases when that is wrong and I think you can come up with those by yourself quite easily.
Now, the gender used in language and such, on the whole, refers to biological sex - it’s quite evident when we talk about cats, maybe not much when we talk about boats. It refers to biological sex or to how someone identifies other (not the self-identification - that only when talking about oneself).
Well, the ID is not about identification but identity. If not, I choose to identify with a different ID number and that ID number would have to change. The point of the ID is to, for example, charge an individual guilty of the crimes commited. If one robs a bank and then changes hair or gender, one is equally responsible of the consequences of such choices, even tho the identification changes.
You see how there the confusion between identification and identity seems to be popping up quite frequently here.
I find that there is usually a large wat of misrepresentation involving both sides of such topics and examples, very often generated by the mass media, which is then often attributed to divide and conquer tactics by the elites.
This kind of stuff comes to mind:
But ofc you could say that this is nonsense because there is a very real, irreconcilable, fundamental differences between the groups.
To a certain extent yes, but also no. Enter the horseshoe theory.
I will offer a very simple example. The issue of transitioning minors.
One side of the aisle wants to protect trans children who are at risk of self harm because of their affliction.
The other side of the aisle wants to protect non trans children who at risk of irreversible, life long damage because some activist or well meaning r-tard has talked them into something 5 years before they even developed a sexual identity.
So now you have a situation where both sides of the spectrum want to protect children and are willing to go at eachother’s throat for it.
Thats the horseshoe theory.
The polar opposite ends of political questions are always way closer to eachother than to any other point of the spectrum.
Take feminists and anti racists for example. Women’s rights and empower blacks.
Unless they criticize the narrative coz then they are uncle toms, pickmes and need to be beaten.
You get this kind of “artificially made to be irreconcilable” bs with everything now days INCLUDING hot topics like racism.
So to circle back to your comment:
I disagree with you a bit.
As a general rule of thumb any of these issues can be reconciled.
Do people have problems with the LGBTQ community? 99.9% dont. What they do have an issue with affirmative action, positive discrimination, wanting to screw with their children and the constant bs narratives flowing from every faucet.
Are people racist against blacks? 99.9% are not, they will however have their doubts about the entire prison culture, raised by the streets, thug life, ghetto style, aggressiveness and more. In short: The contents of certain people’s character. NOT the color of their skin. But this will get always misrepresented as racism, even tho you get the same kind of attitude with i.e. rednecks. Are whites racist against whites too then?
People with fascist ideologies want to identify as citizens that respect democracy?
Break it down. What do you mean by fascism? And the moment you start adding nuance, you will find that it has NEVER been a black and white question that cant be reconciled.
TL;DR:
You bring up a valid point because these kind of topics and irreconcilable opposites do exist, but they are usually very, VERY fringe concepts peddled by VERY fringe people and you will find that just about every time, none of these people are coming from a rational or good faith position.
Under almost every circumstance there is no problem with accepting people’s “identity”.
Everyone has their personal opinion of other people, but thats not outright denying other people’s identity or way of life.
Heck, go back to the entire gay marriage thing.
Even those who opposed it were like “marriage is a religious concept so they should leave it alone”.
Nobody said “no, gay people should not exist, they should be hunted, we cant allow this to exist”
And the great majority? The great majority was like “bro, wtf does other people’s bedroom have to do with me?”
Gay marriage was one of those very hot button issues in the past.
But the moment you took a closer look, it was just a narrative used to pit people against echother. Nothing more.
The same as today. The same as with racism, trans people, lgbtq, feminism, metoo, and the rest.
All of them were artificially overblown issues used to pit people against each other, because the moment you stopped and rationalized the problems, the entire thing vanished into thin air. Both sides have grievances and issues, and all of them can be talked out as long as people are willing to do so.
There are just certain groups interested in the idea that you should NEVER get to talk it out and realize that you are being bs-ed.
Because its after the fact.
You already know how they view you, and even though you can correct them on it, you know for a fact that every person who walks past you, perceives you like that, because that is simply what you look like.
So yeah. You can by all means correct the people around you, and pretty sure that most of those people will have no problem with accepting your request.
Yet that doesnt change anything about the overarching issue, does it?
If i am morbidly obese and someone mentions it to my face, then i tell them that i am going to cave their head in if they ever mention my size again, wont change a damn thing about my morbid obesity or the fact that everyone can see it and everyone perceives it that way.
The only difference is that in the case of obesity, i can alter how i am being perceived, by hitting the gym.
But i hope you get my point.
Fundamentally the perception issue does not go away, even if i correct the people who engage with me.
I fundamentally disagree with you on this one.
Emotions are simply a fact. They cant be right or wrong, they just are.
Your brain wont ask you about whether or not its rational to get frustrated or angry. You just feel it.
Thats the part i can agree on, because its mostly without agency. Its perfectly natural and normal to have emotions.
What i cant agree with is that its something beneficial.
They are really not.
They CAN serve as a motivator to enact beneficial things, but… its like claiming that a heart attack is beneficial because it got you to change your lifestyle.
No it was not. A heart attack is most certainly not beneficial for you or anyone else involved.
In conclusion: Yes. YOUR TAKEAWAY by all means CAN be beneficial, but you know fully how that entirely differs from person to person. As much as it can be beneficial, it can be very VERY detrimental and harmful.
Every trauma, every conflict, every negative thing that happens in your life can be an engine that benefits you. Even on the simplest of scales.
Hunger. → Hunger bad, you go to eat → You ate that means you wont starve.
That really does not translate to hunger being good though.
As stated above, i can give you two different answer to this:
-
By all means you can let your emotions flow. Its normal to have emotions and… its in their nature to flow regardless of whether or not you want them to. In fact, trying to make them not flow usually results in severe problems down the line.
-
You run a risk with them.
In fact, multiple risks.
Someone insulting you to your face and as a result you getting angry and punching their nose in… well on one hand its perfectly normal in a sense because their provocation has resulted in the normal response: anger.
On the other hand you will be charged with assault and bodily harm and you might get fired or they come back for payback; the person’s friend group try and pay you a visit… etc etc etc… you understand my point i think.
Ofc something good can come of it too, but… well its… usually not the case?
In Germany, certain expressions are not allowed in public speeches. Also, no parent can give the name “Adolf” to a newborn boy. These laws are in place for very good reasons, given the history of the country.
Hate speeches or certain expressions are prohibited in many countries. It is easy to say “this is wrong” if you want to ignore the historical reasons that led to these prohibitions.
On that you are correct, identity and identification are usually confused.
With regard to ID, in my country prior to 2000 the IDs included the religion of the citizen. While this seems at superficial level not problematic (freedom of religious expression), I can assure you that non-religious people felt always uneasy. In theory everything is fine, in practice a policeman/policewoman in a highly religious country reacts differently when he/she reads an ID that has “non-religious” in the relevant position.
Eventually the law changed after long political discussions, and now the IDs do not include religion.
I mean people who still admire Hitler and consider that the concentration camps is a myth. In countries where fascist ideology is prohibited by law, certain fans of fascism pretend to respect democracy, because they want to legitimize their political presence.
In modern western countries perhaps yes. In Afghanistan or other countries with strong religious fundamentalism, you will find plenty to declare that gay people should not exist. Similar was the case 200 or 300 years before in Europe
I do not restrain myself in the discussion to modern era and western countries. History unfortunately has the bad habit to be repeated when people choose to ignore it.
1 Like
Hitler is also one of those topics which are never given any nuance or proper explanation.
I think we can all agree on the fact that you wont just get that kind of mentally damaged individual into power over nothing. And that “over what did this happen” is the part that everyone skips.
In more than just one way the Hitler thing is a perfect example of what you said about emotions.
The german people elected that animal because the gap between the rich and the poor became so wide that the public sentiment bordered on public hangings.
In short “emotions”.
Well… this is one way to have emotions result in one of the darkest outcomes humanity is capable of.
And then there is the question whether or not democratically elected fascism is democratic or not.
Which is the part i referred to when i was talking about :
When one’s position is not rooted in rationality, the outcomes can be extremely absurd.
But thats “belief” in general for you.
As long as you are willing to rationalize, most problems are virtual and can be resolved amicably.
1 Like
People very frequently rely on the emotions to pass their agenda.
In your first post you mentioned the guilt-tripping that is used: you commit genocide or murder if you do not accept my self-identification and my pronouns. And this is promoted as “rational idea”.
Words lose their meaning sometimes.
PS: I guess it was inevitable to express opinion on the specific topic. I agree that such agressive approach and guilt-tripping from the trans community is not reasonable. In fact, it eventually turns against them, as it appears from the current political agenda of the US government.
1 Like
Emotions don’t have to change everything. Talking doesn’t have to solve everything. If someone says ‘expressing anger solves all your problems or immediately resolves and issue’ ok, that loopy.
I’m not advocating for threats of violence which is actually a crime.
Again, I am not saying it is a solution in every situation. But if I expressed my emotion, I haven’t suppressed that emotion. I wasn’t split against myself. If some general reason can be shown for why I should do this, well, then I can reevaluate. It works sometimes. I expressed what I felt even if it doesn’t.
I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with me on here.
I don’t think it’s like that at all. After a heart attack my body is damaged. After telling someone, hm, how have I been mischaracterized….Searching for a memory. Ah, yes. Someone told me a bunch of things about why I wasn’t performing in a certain art form. They told me what I was thinking and feeling. I told them 1) they were wrong and I said it angrily and 2) that I didn’t like someone telling me what I was thinking and feeling. After telling them it pissed me off my body was not damaged. And they did not ever apologize. I did not get sick. I didn’t need medication or a special diet. And after a while we weren’t friends because of continued disrespect.
If people get violent, which can be caused by suppression and intolerance for feeling certain things, sure it can be harmful. So, what. Swimming can be harmful if you swim where there’s a rip tide. Making love can be harmful…come up with your own examples. Not expressing emotions can be harmful. Anger inhibition can be bad for your health: Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA
I see no reason to not get angry at people, as a rule, who misidentify/mischaracterize me. Or to not express anger in lots of other situations where people do things. Not at two year olds, not at gangsters. But seriously the reactions and examples are so extreme.
Hey, I’m adult. I told you that before, says the dwarf in an angry voice.
Why, seriously, am I suddenly having to explain that this is not like a heart attack?
Hunger is not analogous to expressing anger. In fact, I would encourage people who are hungry to express that need if they can’t feed themselves. Angrily bang your bedpan if they haven’t fed you in the nursing home.
Great.
If you know yourself and you know that expressing anger leads to you being violent, then please by all means suppress your anger. If someone knows that about themselves. But it is very likely that that person is suppressing fear and has not dealt with trauma. So they are likely suppressing other feelings and they need help.
What you presented was a general idea that expressing anger is a problem per se. Not if you are prone to violence. and of course suppressing anger can lead to violence and lead to being victimized which can lead to the violence of others and your own violence.
I have repeatedly said that I don’t condone force and using force in these situations is a problem.
I wonder what the consequences would be if everyone just stopped expressing anger except in the most dire circumstances. The psychopaths, the entitled, the rude, the controlling, the narcissists, the disrespectful, would end up taking up even more space than they ready do. And you don’t need to express anger to be in any of those categories.
1 Like
The constructive nature of emotions.
Didnt your anger damage your social relationship with someone in your example?
Nothing. Thats the end of the sentence. They can be harmful, thus counter productive, thus a detriment. You feel emotions, but having no control over your emotions is neither self-explanatory nor beneficial.
It was an analogy to having a negative reaction creating a beneficial outcome.
And what you presented was a general idea that anger can be a net benefit as a motivator.
All i said was that its not that simple and (often) not beneficial at all.
You locked in too much on the violence part in my examples. Thats not the only damage your anger can cause, whether its subtle damage that comes out in your relationship with others or extreme damage that lands you in prison, the point i presented was that feeling emotions is natural, but the end results can be anything but beneficial so neither naturalism nor the occasional benefit is working as an argument for playing russian roulette.