Submitted 11 months ago by cameron_vale@lemm.ee to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
You can!
But you are by definition speaking from a position of less knowledge that the person claiming to suffer. So, you are most likely wrong.
Given that arguing like that is disrespectful and arrogant (due to talking without knowledge) in the first place, people will not hesitate to call your argument bullshit loud and clear.
Surely the “people” are using the same powers of observation that I am. What proves that their judgment trumps mine?
False.
They can see their own hurt. You can’t.
With all due respect (read: none), if they are the one speaking about their own troubles, their judgment about their own personal situation does trump your own.
Further, human relationships being boiled down to “whose judgment trumps whose” exposes your entire argument for its purpose: which is to allow you to dominate others and tell them they are “wrong” for feeling ways. Exactly the thing you are complaining of happening to you. Conversations are not attempts to dominate one another, and your view of conversations as an argument to be “won” reveals why no one likes your company.
I don’t know that I understand the question. Whose claims of suffering are we talking about?
I am addressing the general case. Which appears to be ubiquitous but I could be wrong.
There might be a case where questioning suffering is popularly allowed. It might get kinda science fictiony tho.
Ok here’s an example.
Bob : “When I put on a dress people look at me funny, which is hurtful.”
Rob : “Meh, you don’t look very hurt to me.”
BAM. Rob has argued against Bob’s suffering, which is a sin. And now everybody will justifiably hate on you. Granted.
But why, exactly? What’s the logic here? Why does suffering get excepted from analysis?
What’s the point of the analysis? It doesn’t seem needed in any way in the example you gave.
This isn’t even really an “argument”, it seems like Rob is being judgemental for no real reason
No one asked for his opinion. No one put anything up for debate. It seems like he’s just being a dick to his friend.
Perhaps Rob should try having a bit more empathy?
I think you’re suffering from thinking people care that much about what you have said. Your comments are not so important that they matter to anyone.
What does Rob know about Bob better than Bob knows themself? You don’t have to look outwardly hurt for it to be true. Rob should mind their own business. It’s not a “sin”, it’s just inconsiderate. If Rob weren’t a jerk they would take Bob’s word for it and say “that sucks” despite their judgement.
Rob's is assuming he 1) sees everything, 2).didn't or can't miss anything important, and 3) that his interpretation is correct.
That's why it's arrogant and stupid and people get annoyed.
Seriously, have you never been upset or hurt and had someone try to tell you that you're not?
The logic is that you don’t get to decide how other people feel. It’s not hard.
You can logically say these things (l although it would still make you an asshole):
I don’t care that you suffer
I believe you are exaggerating your suffering to gain an advantage
You deserve your suffering
Etc.
But you can not tell people how or what they feel since that’s inherently subjective.
It’s really not hard.
Also, if you get into these conversation often, you really ought to look in the mirror. It’s a sure sign of MAJOR assholery.
Do you have some reason to think they’re not suffering? That they’re feigning suffering to manipulate you or something? If not, don’t be a dick and tell them they’re not. That’s basically gaslighting.
Imagine going to the doctor and saying you’ve been having terrible headaches and the doctor’s response is “I don’t think you’re having headaches.”
No one can prove they’re actually having any particular feeling. But everyone has feelings constantly. If they’re saying they feel a certain way, their assertion is automatically more valid than your denial. You don’t live in their head. They do.
People sometimes feel a certain way for no apparent reason. (Depression, for instance, is sometimes idiopathic.) But it’s not as if people aren’t really having feelings. And you have no basis on which to tell them they’re not. Nor that their feelings are baseless (or for that matter not baseless.)
If someone says they feel a certain way, there’s usually no constructive benefit that can come from denying that they even have those feelings.
I personally suspect that in most cases even those who use their own feelings to manipulate others (folks suffering from “cluster B” personality disorders, for instance) generally are still subjectively having the feelings they use to manipulate. If they say “you hurt me deeply” because you set a reasonable boundary or some such, it’s probably the case that they do indeed feel “deeply hurt” even if they are using that feeling as a weapon against you. (And, again, don’t be assuming they are unless you’ve got good reason to.) Denying that they feel that way is a) probably strictly false and b) completely unconstructive even if you are (in some sense) correct. Better would be to work out a solution/compromise that works even in the presence of those feelings. (And in extreme situations, it can theoretically be best to, for instance, cut off all contact with a manipulative person. But even in that case, I don’t really see how denying the manipulative person’s feelings could be helpful.)
All that said, when it comes to manipulative people, I can understand the impulse to deny their feelings. It’s cathartic in a really unhelpful vindictive kind of way. But still, it’s unhelpful.
But I think I’ve gone way off on a tangent here. You’re not asking about manipulative people so far as I can tell. The example you gave was just transphobic conspiracy-theory-level bullshit that you’re trying to pass off as somehow lOgIcAl.
Ok, who told Elon Musk about Lemmy?
whew, thank you for bringing up elon musk.
I was worried I would see a thread without his name in it.
It’s tempting to point out that no one’s treading on you, sweetie.
I smell an argument but it’s hidden under the rhetoric.
Speak plainly for us. We are simple folk.
?
I'm not even sure exactly what you're asking here, but emotional states like suffering are subjective expressions of feeling, not opinions.
Trying to arguing about some else's experiences with regards to suffering is like trying to argue that someone isn't happy, sad, cold, warm, hungry, thirsty, tired, scared, etc.
As always the ultimate authority on how a person thinks and feels is the person themselves. In other words, you can argue opinions (hopefully based on a foundation of unarguable, objective facts), but it makes no sense to try to argue against another person's feelings.
You could also argue that people lie. Again, it's quite hard to prove, as you say, but it's entirely possible. Especially when someone gains sympathy or recompense for that perceived suffering.
Often people of privilege, who lose some of the benefits of their privilege, claim suffering and demand to be treated in a way they prefer. One can't say they don't suffer in some way, especially from their perspective, but one can't say they do either.
Of course people lie, and they could easily lie about how they're feeling. But what possible basis do you have to argue against what someone else says they're feeling?
If I tell you that I'm feeling hungry, for example, how could you possibly make an argument that I'm not?
You could see that I just ate a sandwich, but that doesn't mean I don't still feel hungry. In fact, you could see that I just ate 10 sandwiches, but it's entirely possible for someone to still feel hungry, based on how the brain and human psyche work.
The best case arguement is that a person's actions are seemingly inconsistent with a certain stated feeling: for example a widdow who says that she's crippled with sorrow, only to be caught going on dates with other men. But again, you're not arguing feelings there, you're arguing an opinion about the consistency of behavior.
The feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable to us. Expression (words, facial expressions, body language, behavior, etc) is our only window into the feelings of others.
You see how this creates a privileged class of information, right? Any information based upon a claim of suffering becomes inscrutable. That’s a good argument for disallowing it. It kind of breaks the system.
You see how this creates a privileged class of information, right?
No. It simply reflects the reality that human feelings are only knowable to others by means of expression.
If I tell you that I'm feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I'm not?
You have none. How I feel inside is unknowable to others. It is a fundamental truth of subjectivity.
Any information based upon a claim of suffering becomes inscrutable.
Objective truth and facts cannot be argued, only uncovered.
Likewise feelings, while subjective, cannot be argued, only expressed. (Again, because the feelings of others are unknowable.)
If you want to argue something, then I recommend arguing subjective opinions, and hopefully you do so based on a bedrock of facts.
That’s a good argument for disallowing it. It kind of breaks the system.
Disallowing what? Feelings? And what system?
Price is Right failure horn
be beloved problematic cishet white comedian man
I don’t get to decide whether or not I hurt somebody
sad trombone noises
Most of you would rather get mad at me for not taking this as a self evident truth, instead of just explaining it to me. That’s interesting.
So here’s my perspective, as somebody who took many years of struggle and therapy to come to grips with the idea that I was abused and raped by a romantic partner:
For the person from the position of power, or a third party, you don’t get to decide the reality of the person experiencing the suffering. For the person it’s happening to - whatever their suffering is, it’s valid and real. That doesn’t belittle someone who has experienced worse. Everyone has their personal struggles. We’d all do better to consider other people’s experiences as valid and come at disagreements from a desire to learn and care.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is furiously jacking off your privilege boner for no real progress or useful outcome, other than feeling superior to someone lesser than you.
I have no earthly idea the context of why you’re asking though.
What are you talking about?
I don’t get it. You can argue against claims of suffering.
According to most of the people here, no, you can’t. Ask them.
Since when is truth up to popular opinion?
An experiment is called for.
Why?
Looks as if someone were training a trolling bot with this account.
Do you feel trolled?
jeffw@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Oh this guy has some cringe history on here. Looks like he complains about “censorship” when mods delete his shit. He also has a recent comment implying that minorities don’t suffer that much
cameron_vale@lemm.ee 11 months ago
I am suffering from bad thinking. Please correct me.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 11 months ago
So you’re aware that you’re an idiot, and it hurts?
karobeccary@lemmy.world 11 months ago