It's the same concept as 'Achille's heel', a Greek mythology concept about a single vulnerability, which all beings have, even seemingly strong and all-powerful ones.
It could be in your mind, your relationship, or any other part of life.I'm not really sure what mine would be.
On a physical level, I cannot handle thrill rides, adventure sports, and spicy food. I stay away from all of that stuff. It's not fun for me, it's unpleasant-stressful.
On a psychological level, it might be hyperactive people who can't sit still, and even all conversation with them bounces around frantically so that you can never get in-depth with anything with them. I'm the complete opposite. Calm physically, and I like to go deep when I do learn about or talk about things. Surface, shallow stuff drives me bonkers if that's all there is. Levity and playfulness is great in between depth, but I need both. I can't be around people with no attention span or focus.
Most Helpful Opinions
I think I'm very intolerant to intolerance coming from hypersensitivity, which might make me as guilty as the types of people who upset me. I want to cancel the cancel culture, so to speak. :-D It upsets me a lot that people are amassing to censor controversial thoughts and works of art.
On a related note, I had a little sister (we are half-Asian and half-white) who constantly got offended when strangers would ask her a question as seemingly innocent as "where are you from?" She seemed to assume that the only reason she was being asked that question was because of her biracial looks. This might have been before sociology departments started coining the term, "micro-aggression", but I think she felt "micro-aggressed" to put it in today's terms.
Yet I think that's an untenable assumption to be making and not giving others the benefit of the doubt and faulting the speaker for offending the listener rather than the listener. Even if she was sometimes correct in her assumption that people who approached her and asked her where she's from only did such things to people who looked like a foreigner to their eyes, that's still a pretty petty reason to get upset and potentially get into an argument. I only see a world where wars are fought over increasingly petty matters if everyone were to be so easily offended like this.
So, as odd as it sounds, I'm somewhat hypersensitive to hyper-sensitive people which might make me a little bit of a hypocrite. I get easily offended over the fact that they are so easily offended. :-D But I look at such people and just see a world of endless and needless arguing and fighting and stifling, workplaces where everyone feels the need to walk on eggshells, and more underground cliques forming among people with controversial opinions who just amplify and reinforce each other's thoughts to the point of turning into a mob.
Yet I also think it's a heavily censored world is going to be a world where people are slower to change their minds in a way that reduces conflict -- not faster -- since I suspect a stifled mind is more likely to simpy seek out an environment (perhaps even an underground group) and reinforce its most divisive and conflict-ridden opinions. I think it's far less likely for the stifled mind to simply change when it's not free to express itself. Meanwhile, when the mind is free to express itself in an open environment, that's when I think it has the highest probability of gradually changing for the better as it meets some open resistance without being stifled.
* Yet I also think [/a] heavily censored world is going to be a world where people are slower to change their minds [...]
I'm glad you're back.
I'm still trying to interpret your latest incarnation, but not quite sure what persona it will represent.
"... and more underground cliques forming among people with controversial opinions who just amplify and reinforce each other's thoughts to the point of turning into a mob."
I don't think it's the stifling causing this. It's the broadcasting which is causing this. It's creating an amassing.
It sounds fairly logical, what you're saying. But I think it's just one angle; it could go another way, also.
Speaking one's mind, fully, completely, is not every human's right. It's only the internet that has made this the crowning glory, something that's either without impunity and represents full freedom, or is the marker of oppression and dictatorship or some other such nonsense. There are risks, and repercussions to speaking one's mind. I think parts of the world (and especially America) is absolutely obsessed with this idea right now. It's because the internet has separated everyone, while simultaneously providing a loudspeaker.
Females tend to huddle together and whisper these thoughts. It may be to one person at a time, or a small group. Men gather in dark bars and talk to the guy sitting on the next stool over. (For example.)
Now every motherfucking asshole and entitled bitch can make a channel and spew their absolute crap out into the ether, AND gain millions of views, and sometimes followers. They're looking for their tribe - an often pathetic mini army of misguided like-minds to band together, and 'fight' the world, as only 'keyboard warriors' can.
Speaking your mind puts you at risk of 1. Getting knocked out with a good swift punch, or 2. Being ostracized. There are no stop-gaps anymore, except blocking, which is in full use, often recklessly (but that's debatable and pointless to try and dissect each and every occurrence.)
"... a heavily censored world is going to be a world where people are slower to change their minds in a way that reduces conflict -- not faster..."
I don't know. We're both censored, and uncensored. I think it's a pretty equal push-pull, two opposing forces, that are each creating the presence of the other.
I used to be quite clearly on one side of this. Now I am dead square in the middle, of two minds about sensitivity run amok, and freedom of speech run amok. It's fucking exhausting, is what it is.
Anyway, thanks for the thoughts. It is mentally-stimulating as usual.
I agree with the bulk of that. I think there's a big difference between expressing opinions in a civil way and a belligerent way though. When I see people though that angry mobs are seeking to cancel, like even a JK Rowling whose overall views I disagree with, I don't think her opinions are expressed in an incendiary or particularly offensive way. If there's any ignorance to her opinions, then I think people should be free to express their ignorance provided there's no hostility or inflammatory aspect behind it if only so that other people using an equally reasonable tone can challenge their thoughts in a civil discussion.
To give an idea of where I'm coming from, I love this video from an ex-Westboro Baptist church member (it's a very incendiary church where the members used to hold very offensive signs like "God hates fags!" at funerals of deceased homosexuals).
You can skim through it but she converted and left that hate group not by being censored but by talking to people in a civil way on social media. Then she found them so reasonable and kind with their opinions and perspectives which were so different from hers that she started gradually questioning her views on things to the point of leaving that church.
If she was simply censored, like banned from social media, she might still be a member of that hateful church.