If it’s not an actual thing, it probably should be.
9 Likes
Ah, I’ve been waiting to start that until its over and I hear your collective sigh of satisfaction (or grousing about the lame ending). Thanks!
2 Likes
What you imagined. You did not see it, like, with your two eyes. That would be a lie to say that. It would too be a lie to say it ‘might be’ imagination. What you describe IS imagination. Only. And your imagination, alone.
You held it in your imagination, “saw” it in your ‘minds eye’ - but that’s not the same thing.
I’m glad for you to share it, but not glad to feel lied to when you claim your imagination has more objective reality than mine or his or hers. That would be, in the parlance, bullshit.
no. it isn’t pleasant. I agree.
Don’t be afraid to reach out to professionals, intrusive thoughts are not a fun thing, and aren’t based in a shared reality, and can prove very disruptive to your well being. I don’t wish that on anyone, even someone whose visions I find concord with.
Peace be with you in these scary times, new community member.
12 Likes
“A Skeptic” and “The [pseudo]Skeptic Community” are two things.
I think these days they have less to do with the Dawkins-brand “Skeptic” cargo cult, they’re first and foremost sciencebloggers not the more Cato following, likely MRA islamophobes.
I doubt PZ et al really self-identify so tribalistically since the splintering of the skeptics/atheists. Maybe more distinction should be placed on the New Atheist Movement?
2 Likes
Ok, you said it.
1 Like
If it helps move these intrusive thoughts out of your mind, you could be seeing 30 or 33 EVs, not 300 or more.
And of course Trump is prevalent in your waking nightmares…he is for all of us! Fortunately, we all collectively won’t be waking up in a cold sweat in only a few more days. Just hang on that long. It will get better.
12 Likes
I have found that what I choose to pay attention to influences what my mind wanders to.
7 Likes
A strawman is when someone addresses you (or a group) directly and ascribes false reasoning/motivation to you, erecting a straw-man (a persons who thinks that false thing) between he and you personally, for him to attack.
It is not when you take a comment about someone else personally like it was said to you, because you identify with the label used. In fact, what YOU did is the strawman argument, putting yourself in between the comment and it’s intended recipient.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
Don’t be so thin skinned, maybe.
5 Likes
So someone creating some imaginary “skeptics” in his own head, so he can easily paint them all with the same broad brush, instead of learning what they actually believe, isn’t a strawman. OK, thanks. I like how I’m thin skinned for being annoyed at such a weak sauce argument. Your mansplaining game is on point, btw. Golf clap.
maybe it is.
Pretending they were calling you out personally because you ascribe that term to yourself, rather is.
It may be bad form, so is what you did there. Same brush, other end.
yeah, that end exactly.
Yes, thin skinned. Like when someone calls all Sports Team X fans a name. And as a sports team X fan you choose to take it personally.
Removing/ignoring nuance is a tyranny. Hope it serves you well. it probably won’t.
3 Likes
One of the two of you has a much longer history on this forum to check to see where they fit along the mansplaining continuum. I can’t say conclusively that @AcerPlatanoides is a paragon of virtue in that regard – my memory isn’t good except for the extreme examples – but they’re not known as one of the more egregious transgressors.
6 Likes
I’d go with ‘false generalization’/‘over generalization’ rather than ‘straw man.’ The point of the straw man is to create a false proposition to have something easier to construct an argument against - that wasn’t how the characterization appeared to be intended or used.
5 Likes
15 Likes
Not to be confused with ‘making money selling this stuff to OTHER people who think it works’, which corporate accountants and actuaries have zero problems with.
17 Likes
At the very least I understand that as a man, my explaining something to someone might be interpreted that way, and might be interpreted by individuals based on their own experiences of which I am unaware - and I’m fine with the experiences of others being something I ought to be sensitive to if I expect the same.
7 Likes
Refusing to allow for magical thinking as evidence (for anyone but the one doing the thinking) is not closed mindedness. I believe you have an image of what you said you ‘saw’ in your mind. Totally believe YOU beheld that in your ‘vision’. Just not using senses that normal people are limited to.
I don’t think that’s how to run a society though - by relying on feelings as facts.
It makes sense that someone who believes in personal exceptionalism would support Trump and not Clinton. That totally makes sense.
It also makes sense to turn to a professional when intrusive thoughts interrupt your day (as you said) and lead you to be disruptive and dismissive towards people you disagree with (as you did - more dismissive than disruptive, to be fair).
But what do I know, I’m so closed minded. Be well. Enjoy the fantasy football.
12 Likes
I really wish I knew what this comment said. I too have struggled with invasive thoughts. It is downright terrifying.
1 Like
Our loss, certainly.
4 Likes
Not for nothing, but I worked with someone who claimed to have invented an aura detector, and who pitched this idea to the Department Of Homeland Security. The DHS could have used this to identify people who have terrorist intent. Having read through the proposal, I think it could have had potential had it been packaged as a remote polygraph rather than a literal aura detector.
Then again, I think polygraphs are bullshit, remote or not, even if they are commonly used.
6 Likes
Someone made claim to privileged information via visions from the future, and mentioned that it was an intrusive thought, of the sort that often proved correct in their experience.
Compassion required.
9 Likes
