← volver a la publicación›Editar / bifurcar

Publicación sin título

#4h3yqND7hbpublic / publicnueva versión

anónimo creado 4 days ago Caduca en 3 days 4.8 KB sintaxis: text

Tus cambios crean una nueva publicación enlazada a esta — la original no se toca.

nueva versión Tus cambios crean una nueva publicación enlazada a esta — la original no se toca.

Visibilidad Feed público Acceso public

Nota de cambio (opcional)

Esta publicación aparecerá en el feed público. Cambia Visibilidad si solo quieres compartirla por enlace.

Cancelar

> Incorrect. If you want to discuss "the topic and evidence at hand", admit what is true.

The single most upvoted post in response to your question was the one in which /u/adeleu_adelei said in bold, "**You are a dramatic person**".  Supporting comments included Pangolin pointing out in response to #4, "yeah but no more than typical Labreuer ;)", and ExplorerR pointing out the drama of the situation in general and asking you to reflect on your role in it.  Detracting comments got overall less vote support and almost always, with the exception of pyker, pointed out the inherently dramatic nature of how you asked the question.

Tell me what is false about the above assessment, as that is my honest basis for concluding that people generally think you're dramatic.  If nothing is false, then my basis is real, and "what is true" that I'll admit is that public perception is that you are a dramatic person.  Given that people with much longer histories with you were much more emphatic than me that you were dramatic and especially given your history of apparently telling people that, quote, "you should be burned at the stake", that seems like pretty strong support for the notion.  (I'm aware you claim that it was a joke.  I don't make jokes like that for a reason - it is very easy for evildoers to test the waters with such "harmless" quips and push the envelope on what is normal and justified this way.)

If you are to continue to insist this is not true, give me what you believe I need to "admit is true", and why what I believe is true is not so.  Maybe clarifying what I mean by the label will help.

It is fascinating to me that you consider the label of "dramatic" a moral or intellectual deficiency.  I consider it neither and merely view it as a temperament that distinguishes the probability of various reactions to various discussions and situations.  A dramatic person in my eyes is heuristically more likely to issue ultimatums, treat their Reddit account as negotiating leverage, joke about people deserving violent and painful ends, and react highly negatively to even the accidental implication that they aren't a perfect moral or intellectual paragon than one I consider not dramatic.  But they're also more likely to not accept BS trends and call out wrongdoing and push for real change and make people actually consider alternatives as true possibilities and not just hypotheticals.

I think you'd quite like the concept Meursault's mother discusses in the most recent Canto of Limbus Company - that of being nailed and affixed in others' minds by perceptions that forever trap you as a lacking modeled facsimile of your true self in the minds of others.  It highly reminds me of your concept of wanting humanity to be unmodeled and unmodelable - and yet, your behavior is predictable and classifiable, though you may balk at the classification, and all humans, inherently, classify the behaviors of others so that they may react to it appropriately.

I am dramatic when it comes to discussing innocuous topics and can get far too invested in debating if a hot dog is a sandwich or not.  I have been dramatic regarding board games, and have changed the components of my dramatic behavior I did not like (namely, reacting with untoward anger to losses and losing situations), but kept the dramatic behavior I do like (namely, reacting with over-the-top expressions that are intended to be humorous and which specifically never make people feel nervous or worried about potential violence), and do not consider the drama I do engage in negative as a result of careful, refined honing of my actions with respect to how I want to be perceived and my awareness of the common reactions others have to common behavioral patterns I hold and held.  Your dramatic nature is not inherently negative, but it is interesting to me that you appear to me to believe the label is inherently negative, considering your implicit support in the statement "the idea that citizens could stand up and push for a different way to organize might well be inherently "dramatic"", and "But I'm beginning to better see how my actions could legit be construed as "dramatic", in the sense of making a big deal out of things and pushing for large-scale change."

I agree!  All disruptions to the status quo are, will be labeled as, and should be recognized as, dramatic.  This is why I'm so confused that you seem to believe the label inherently negative, or that you believe that *I* believe the label inherently negative.  You do make a big deal out of things!  You do push for large-scale change!  And you should own that and be proud of it and not view the label as exclusively a personal attack.  It's a complex and nuanced term that I believe most precisely describes your overall temperament, for worse **and**, I flipped the normal order and bolded for dramatic emphasis because this is the part I really want to emphasize and make stick, *for the better*.