Just post whatever comes to mind.
Please refrain from excess venting in this thread. Talking about negative emotions is fine but it's best not to dwell on them for too long. TV Tropes is not suited to deal with mental health situations.
If Oscar Wilde had lived in our time, he would be a /b/tard.
Actually, scratch that. He does, and goes by Jethro Q Walrustitty.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Nov 11th 2022 at 8:59:26 AM
@Blixty: I was thinking of that as a general, overaching sentiment among most of the population, which appeared to be so from what I've seen, though I may have been wrong. Point taken - my apologies.
edited 19th Oct '11 5:49:06 PM by MilosStefanovic
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.Maybe.
It's still very annoying, though.
No problem. I see a lot of "lol America sucks" on the internet, it kind of makes me raeg. Sorry for snapping at you.
go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagineOur current foreign policy is the result of a long line of politicians who simply don't know any better. Personally, I agree with you, but it's a bit more complicated than simply telling everyone to come home. Military-Industrial Complex, and all that.
Also, I have only a very vague notion of what our operations in your country are, so I can't speak on those.
go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagine![]()
From all I can tell, they're a scourge on humanity, and guilty of all kinds of terrible crimes, but I don't really understand what our purpose is in sending "advisors". What do we know about this issue that the local militaries don't?
I'm also slightly annoyed with them because yesterday my professor quizzed us on them and my not knowing about them cost me 5 points.
edited 19th Oct '11 5:59:44 PM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><![]()
![]()
I don't know much aout the issue, but if the governments of the countries where the LRA is in operation have called for US aid, I'm fine with that. Otherwise, no.
![]()
Yes, I understand that pulling out all forces at once and taking a more pasisve diplomatic stance would annihalte the economy. The world is fucked up, basically.
edited 19th Oct '11 6:00:27 PM by MilosStefanovic
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.Well, they could be "CIA in Vietnam" sort of "advisers".
edited 19th Oct '11 6:03:58 PM by Tzetze
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Blizzy has got it right, for the most part.
The US's current stance on foreign affairs comes from the period between the two wars.
The isolationist practice of the US meant that the League of Nations was weak, blah, blah, blah.
Eventually, the weak strength of the League was one of the key factors in allowing Hitler's expansionist policies, leading to WW 2. The Americans, learning from their mistake post-WW 1, decided to play a less isolationist role in world affairs.
So, the intention of the US's current foreign policy is well-meaning, but not very well executed.
I'm not really sure if the United States' international involvement is out of good intentions (with an idiotic, Leeroy Jenkins approach), self-interest masked as the former, or a combination of both.
edited 19th Oct '11 6:08:23 PM by MilosStefanovic
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.I don't know if you could talk about the United States having intentions like a monolithic entity. The government is run by a lot of people, and out of those people who are responsible for [foreign policy action], they're all going to have differing motives.
edited 19th Oct '11 6:10:30 PM by Merlo
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am...Well, their original focus, IIRC, post-WW 2, was Europe, but considering the formation of the European Economic Community shortly afterwards, and NATO, - meaning Europe would be pretty okay - they shifted that kinda thinking towards the world at large.
Sadly, those nations who were communists. So, at the very start, it was a noble and dignified effort, that got rerouted into what you've suggested Milos.
![]()
Well, yes, but those people have to ultimately come to a compromise on what will America's exact involvement in the issue be like, and America's exact goals and actions turn, more-or-less, monolithic by then. What's important is the end result and its consequences. Otherwise, point taken.
That depends on who's making policy at the time. Anything done under Bush is usually the former.
That's true at any given static moment, but it changes over time.
edited 19th Oct '11 6:15:57 PM by BlixtySlycat
go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagineOh look, something on Tumblr that's actually interesting.
So, let me tell you a story. There’s a man and a woman who get married. Let’s say their names are Tom and Lauren. There’s a clear power dynamic in the relationship. Tom often orders Lauren around. He tells her what to do, and yells at her if she doesn’t follow his instructions. Normally, eventually Lauren agrees to do what he says and the issue subsides. But occasionally, things go different.
For example, suppose Lauren wants to go out with her friend from work, but Tom is jealous and wants her to stay home. Lauren insists on going out, because it’s important to her, and Tom, in a fit of anger, slaps her, pours tabasco sauce on her tongue, pinches her, washes her mouth out with soap, etc etc.
Horrible, right? Your first reaction, I’m guessing, is that he is an abusive awful husband, and Lauren needs to divorce his ass and get away from him ASAP.
Okay, now let’s look at the same situation, but with a child and a parent. Why is it suddenly acceptable?
It doesn’t matter what you call it. Discipline, consequences, punishments. It’s all the same thing. If you are touching your child in a way that causes them pain or discomfort, if you are non consensually taking control of their body and hurting them - YOU ARE ABUSIVE.
That is child abuse. Spanking is child abuse. And it is no more acceptable than violence between peers. It doesn’t matter if you’re not beating them but it’s just a ‘few swats on the butt.’ It doesn’t matter. I am tired of hearing excuses.
There is nothing loving or beneficial about physical discipline. By hitting your child, you are teaching them that violence is an appropriate way to respond to situations that you don’t like. You are teaching them that they deserve to be hurt. You are teaching them that it’s okay for the bigger person in the situation to misuse that power.
We need a generation of people who respect their bodies and boundaries, and other people’s. We need a generation of people who resolve issues with gentle communication. We need a generation of people who will not tolerate violence.
I strongly believe that children being hit disciplinarily makes a strong contribution to abuse culture.
If someone is hit as a child, because their parents are angry, what’s to stop them from hitting their partner when they are angry? If someone is hit as a child, they learn that boundaries don’t matter, that saying ‘no’ isn’t important, that if you are bigger and stronger you are allowed to touch other people without their consent.
And on the other hand, if someone is hit as a child, they learn that they are powerless. They learn that the people they trust in their lives will hurt them. They learn to associate love and pain, and will often recycle that experience by getting involved in abusive relationships. They learn that they do not deserve physical safety.
It’s not okay. It’s hurting everybody. So, for fucks sake, for the sake of children and adults and future generations and everyone - stop hitting your children.
Well it just seems like they're taking two sort of similar things and assuming they're connected.
Now don't get me wrong, it's very possible and perhaps even likely that corporal punishment contributes to the current culture of violence in the western world, but I'm not sure that there's such a direct and specific link between it and spousal abuse.
go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagineThat depends on the child's age and its reaction. Under the exactly same circumstances as the ones mentioned in the husband-wife example, it would be unacceptable. But if the child was throwing around a temper tantrum, it needs to be shown that it's not the way it can react, and should be spanked a few times until it calms down. You can't reason with someone in a fit of rage, and just letting it go will eventually lead to having a spoiled brat in the house. Of course, age is an important factor - if a child older than six or seven is throwing such a tantrum for something as small, you're a horrible parent for not teaching it how to behave when you should have, and any corporal punishment for the sake of teaching them discipline probably wouldn't work by then.
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.*shrug*
I disagree. Of course, tantrums are not common in my family for some reason. I never really had them all that often. When I did, I was sent to my room, not hit. Likewise the three of my younger siblings that I live with.
I don't know about my other two.
go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagine

It's seen as at least closer to trying to do something about it?
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.