They’re shooting the wrong people!

In philosophy, ressentiment (/rəˌsɒ̃.tiˈmɒ̃/; French pronunciation: [ʁə.sɑ̃.ti.mɑ̃] ⓘ) is one of the forms of resentment or hostility. The concept was of particular interest to some 19th-century thinkers, most notably Friedrich Nietzsche. According to their use, ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed toward an object that one identifies as the cause of one’s frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one’s frustration.[1] The sense of weakness or inferiority complex and perhaps even jealousy in the face of the “cause” generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one’s frustration. This value system is then used as a means of justifying one’s own weaknesses by identifying the source of envy as objectively inferior, serving as a defense mechanism that prevents the resentful individual from addressing and overcoming their insecurities and flaws. The ego creates an enemy to insulate themselves from culpability.

Take my up-vote!

Endeavour is really good

Dude, tomorrow’s already the 13th!

Not at the same time, but in alternation, sure. It’s all reactions to underlying shame and inadequacy beliefs/feelings which are there all the time I expect.

This tracks with my assessment of the two likely personalities of software engineers, either narcissistic or anxious with imposter syndrome.

I’m no expert on this topic but I do recall having seen brain scans showing different patterns of neural activation while speaking for language learned in infancy vs adulthood. That suggests that there is more than one route to language learning and one of them closes off after a certain age

There are so many things that one might want in a partner which are not changeable, that something like this, where it can be taught, shouldn’t be high on the list of reasons to reject. If you discuss the issue with someone you’re dating and they 💩💩 it, then you might want to reject, but not because of the knowledge they lack but rather because of their insensitivity to your anxiety.

An engineer should be at the helm. MBAs fuck tech companies up.

Good take

You’re describing the political reality and I get that, it’s expedient. But that doesn’t mean it is also moral.

Who would be the servants and sexual submissives if women were free to do as they pleased?

We don’t need to respect their customs. We need to respect their people, including their people’s need for emotional healthy relationships which are often in conflict with elements in their cultures that only feel entitled to dominate.

This might be the best example of pareidolia I’ve ever seen. Perfection!

That’s more than half the battle if the neighbors aren’t crazy paranoid.

Quite frankly, it is unethical for a licenced psychologist to be conservative. Number one principal of the psychology ethical code is beneficence and non malefacence. Do good and do no harm. Conservatives hurt vulnerable people via their hateful intolance. They harm people by invalidating people’s organismic preferences. Peterson hurts vulnerable people at mass scale. He should lose his licence to practice at the very least. Ontario board of psychology being spineless cowards here.

A picture is worth a thousand words

His being a transgressive monster is well known and also the primary source of his appeal. I think pointing out his amorality alone won’t help. However, perhaps linking his amorality to how he will personally hurt voters by harming women and LGBTQ+ rights and by destroying social security might land. He might say he won’t do that and the retort would be he is lying. A monster is only appealing when he will attack the right people and not you personally.

Low energy