Yeah, that’s not what Stockholm Syndrome is.
Correct. Also, fun fact: the actual origin of Stockholm Syndrome was due to the fact that the hostages were afraid of police incompetence and sided with the terrorists from fear of being killed by over aggressive poorly trained police. Source
They also successfully worked to negotiate with the hostage takers when the police didn’t.
After they negotiated their own release they criticised the police in the media, and the police realised that since the hostage leading all of this was a woman, they could just employ a standard abuser’s tactic and call her crazy. Apparently it worked.
Mind sharing some link that actually shows a book? Maybe its just google not liking adblockers or something
I was thinking about a character in a TV show. He’s a Christian monk who is captured by Viking raiders and kept as a slave. He’s still quite young though. And while he has no freedom, he isn’t whipped or treated like an animal, he just lives as a very low status person. Eventually, after years, he starts wanting to improve his status with the tribe around him. Maybe he’s tired of being at the bottom. Maybe he’s just starving for some kind of human connection. When they come under threat, he asks to join the Viking fighting force. This seems like pretty clear Stockholm Syndrome to me - fighting for the people who enslaved you.
But is it really that different from waking up as a child in a certain culture and over time, absorbing its ways, and feeling the desire to grow your status in that society? How many people absorb their home culture’s ways because they think about them and deem them best? It’s a process of absorption.
So yes, while there’s always a little sass and irony in showerthoughts, I think there’s a connection here with pondering. You didn’t elaborate on your “yeah no” comment at all. Perhaps now you will?
Yes, siding with your captors is different from being raised in a culture.
You’re really big on bald assertions.
I remember when I was 14 and I had everything figured out
LOL yes.
Mate… Read it again. The irony here is almost too strong.
I’m big on words having meaning and not using words with specific meanings incorrectly.
Apparently you’ve also never heard of similes or learned anything through comparisons. Enjoy your robotic application of strict denotations to the objects in your world.
You can compare anything with a simile if you abstract it far enough. It doesn’t make it an accurate statement, though. I’m sure you could find similarities between Bambi and Hitler, but that doesn’t mean the two are interchangeable.
Stockholm Syndrome and cultural indoctrination are two different things. Stockholm Syndrome is a defense mechanism.
Oh my god you actually included one explanatory sentence there at the end. Imagine if you built an entire argument.
Yay Vikings is a great show
Is the last samurai a story about Stockholm syndrome too?
What about dances with wolves? Avatar?
This is one of the ways that I know none of the religions claiming to be the “truth” are true.
99.99% of the time, your religion is based on who your parents are and where you were born, not what is actually true.
I’ve always been stifled by people getting born into one of religions and suddenly thinking it is the true one.
Like, how likely it is for you to be born straight into the correct religion when the world is full or heresy?
How do you differ for all those believing, with same dedication, in something else?
Not in my case, I think. Very stereotypical conservative, religious parents. Have rejected many of their bigoted values, kept the work ethic, tried to carry empathy to it’s logical conclusion rather than stopping when they thought it was hard. I’ve changed religions. I think my country’s military policy is abhorrent.
That’s exactly what a person with Stockholm syndrome would say!.. /s
“But not me!”
—everyone
You wrote “all”. Seems a lot of people disagree with “all”.
deleted by creator
Didn’t I just say that everyone thinks they are special? I’m quite aware that they do. That doesn’t make it true.
Then don’t make generalising post titles with the words “we are all” when you are happy to contradict that with barely any persuasion.
Or just admit you wanted internet points and intentionally used a rage bait title like a filthy redditor
Bruh it’s a showerthought, not a doctorate thesis
Dude this is a shower thought. Like saying we are all in a VR. Most shower thoughts can start with we.
You’re essentially saying that “nobody is special”, which seems unlikely. Someone’s gotta be!
Now now. I said everyone thinks they are special but that doesn’t make it true. I absolutely did NOT say that no one is special. That’s a different statement.
But how do you feel about universal healthcare?
That it’s a wonderful thing and to let people suffer because of profit is evil.
Good on you
I mean, yea. The whole idea is that you want to survive in whatever environment you were born into, whether that’s North Sentinel Island or the Siberian taiga or downtown Mexico City. So, the homo sapiens operating system is pretty flexible, you can put whatever you want on it. This food, that food, this music, that music, it’s all subjective. You just calibrated to your environment.
Started in the womb, your moms amniotic fluid can change flavors depending on what mom ate, which has some influence on a baby’s preferences.
The fact that our environments vary so much, and there’s a lot of rng in general, gives us a lot of the diversity we’re so fond of. None of it stays static either, it’s all flowing and changing over time, so, the flexible operating system really is necessary. No fucking clue what a baby is gonna be asked to do in 30 years, might be anything from a soldier to a doctor. Well, doctor might take a few more years…
Exactly. We all adapt to what’s around us. Which, for me, explains how prisoners can eventually come to help their kidnappers. People consider Stockholm Syndrome incredibly strange, unexplainable. But it’s the basic thing we are built to do.
Pssh, not me. I was born into a homophobic redneck culture and I hated it. I now consider myself an LGBTQ+ ally and computer nerd.
Same. I grew up in rural Ohio (USA) going to churches talking about the “synagogues of satan”, people at school saying “that’s Jewish” for something lame, lots of words I won’t repeat here about a number of ethnic and sexual minorities, etc.
It all basically never sat well with me. I moved out when my mom remarried which was a bit before my senior year of high school. Bigger city, bigger school, more diversity, etc. quickly proved what I had long felt: humans are humans and neither their religion nor ethnicity nor gender identity changed that. This would have been in the late '90s.
I now live on the other side of the world from that place (Japan, of course, having its own issues with things like gender and racism, but that’s (a) mostly the older generations and (b) a story for another time). Before I quit facebook years ago, I did catch up with a couple of people. Most of them did not change, but many of the bad ones got worse (this would have been around 2016) and emboldened by far-right groups growing in popularity. Living as a minority in another country also taught me a lot of about privilege and accidental racism.
So you agree with it but escaped it?
Then again maybe you are subject to some other form of Stockholm syndrome?
Was there a pivot point where you stopped just accepting what was around you and started resisting it?
One of the reasons this is such an insidious effect is that children just don’t have the critical capacity to step outside their home culture and even see it for what it is, let alone meaningful push back against their parents and other people in their lives. By the time this capacity develops, a lot of indoctrination has been done.
It’s even more fucky when you start to consider if the ideals, values, and beliefs you hold are actually ones you yourself have determined, or if you’ve just chosen those because it’s been passed onto you either by culture, society, or your environment.
Take the old adage “treat others how you would want to be treated” - is that something you believe because you’ve just been told that for so long? Or is that something you intrinsically believe in regardless of what others have said? It’s only an example, and I’m not honestly even sure if it conveys that idea 100%, but shit like that keeps me up man lol.
Take the old adage “treat others how you would want to be treated” - is that something you believe because you’ve just been told that for so long? Or is that something you intrinsically believe in regardless of what others have said?
For what it’s worth, this is essentially the “tit-for-tat” strategy from game theory, and you can rigorously prove it to be a superior cooperative strategy in many situations. Essentially, cooperation with others enables greater community success than everyone going alone, but trusting others always exposes you to selfish people that will take advantage of you. The optimal strategy is to cooperate by default, but if someone reveals themselves to be untrustworthy, stop cooperating and ideally work with others to punish them.
You actually see this bear out in nature in other animals as well. Vampire bats will share blood with other vampire bats that didn’t successfully feed, but they also keep track of individual contributions, and if they identify that a bat is freeloading, they’ll stop feeding it. By default, they cooperate to help each other, but if a selfish actor is identified, they stop helping it.
In the abstract, so long as most actors aren’t selfish and the cost of being betrayed isn’t too high, tit-for-tat is the optimal strategy.
Some things just make sense, and some truth can be found with just honest debate.
Even if you chose them, did you simply chose from the presented options?
It’s a good sign that it keeps you up. Few people ever think about this stuff.
Basically what I think about gun support. It’s statistically awful to be around guns or be around those with guns. But we still have them and some of us fight for them because they feel safer when they’re really, really not.
Guns aren’t safe. They aren’t supposed to be safe, or at least they aren’t supposed to be any safer than any other tool. They are a tool that is very specifically designed to grant their user an increased ability to injure a target with ease from a safe distance. This ability grants the user an increased ability to hunt, to defend themselves, to defend their property and family, and yes to harm or kill other people and predators.
A hammer, a knife, a blunt object, and a car can all provide these same abilities with differing efficiency, but we still have them, too, even though they aren’t necessary. You don’t need to drive. Walk or take a bus. You don’t need a hammer to drive nails. Use a rock instead. Although there is a famous story about a guy named Cain, that makes a strong argument for getting rid of rocks, too. No one needs a baseball bat. Those are only used for recreation, so it should be easy to get rid of those dangerous weapons, right? I’m sure we can get rid of those dangerous knives, too. Our ancestors didn’t need them to survive, so I’m sure we can do without them to make the world a safer place.
This is why we have a rule that none of these things can be used for that thing about killing other people under threat of harm or death unless it was done under pretty specific circumstances.
You are statistically safer around a gun than you are around a ladder, but I’m guessing ladders aren’t on your list of things to rid the world of for some reason.
I like how you ignore the fact you’re statistically less safe if you own a gun.
No need to change the subject to ladders.
The point is whatever perceived safety you get from your human killing device is negated by having the device itself.
Oh he didn’t ignore it, he gave you some enthusiastic whataboutism concerning ladders.
I am in fact incredibly careful around ladders, fwiw. And power tools. But those things have constructive applications, where the gun is by its nature destructive.
I didn’t ignore it. It’s just a dumb statement for someone to make. You are statistically less safe if you own a toaster. You are statistically less safe if you own a coffee table.
How many toes must be stubbed before we outlaw those tables and their dangerous and harmful legs! Think of the children!
You are statistically less safe from a lot of stuff, but we keep them around because they have an important use.
My gun isn’t going to break into my house and kill me for the 10$ in my wallet, but my cracked up neighbors might. I’ll take my chances with the gun.
What purpose do guns have other than violence? All the other things you mentioned are used for other things. Guns are for killing, and nothing else.
You seem to be implying that violence doesn’t serve a purpose. But it certainly does, for instance in stopping violence.
Yes, but gun regulation has historically been proven more effective than gun against gun protection. For example, Australia’s NFA in 1996.
Violence stopping violence. You have an interesting way of getting the world completely wrong.
Good luck with your non-violent protests in WW2 Normandy then I guess. Non-violence is a fine ideal, but breaks badly when the other person doesn’t share your ideals.
You have an interesting way of getting the world completely wrong.
I’m completely amazed that people can be this oblivious to how the world works. Perhaps you’re very young and haven’t read any history, or perhaps I just read you wrong?
Completely ignoring that a lot of guns are used for hunting and even more are used for sport (hey, just like a baseball bat). Guns are a deterrent and an equalizer. They increase a person ability to defend themselves and others from threats stronger or deadlier than they would otherwise be able to face or defend against.
I don’t know who you are, but let’s pretend you are a 4’10" 100lbs girl that lives in a small 6th floor apartment. What do you do to defend yourself from a 7’ tall 280lbs man that just kicked in the door to your apartment? Do you grab a gun and try to put as many rounds as possible in his chest or do you just sit in the apartment and let him have his way with you until the police show up and then continue to stand outside because they think it might be too dangerous for them to actually help you? I mean, what if the man has an illegal gun? Imagine! A criminal with the audacity to have an item that you, a law-abiding citizen, are not allowed to have because they, as you put it, are only used for violence, something criminals are known to not take part in. 🙄
Guns are the best defense against someone or something that is trying to do you harm. That’s the reason it’s so high up on the Bill of Rights. Because life, liberty, and justice are only possible if you have the ability to stop someone from taking them from you. It’s like our forefathers knew what life was like to come from a place where you were nothing more than a peasant and everything you had and were could be just taken away if the person with the shiny crown wished it or some back alley ripper would stab you dead for your pocket lint alone.
Yeah, because countries outside US are hellscapes. And everyone there is dying of illegal gun violence. No wait, US has one of the highest rate of death from gun violence. It’s also one of the most unsafe countries in the western world. Makes you think…
Also, sports is a secondary usage for guns. They were developed for violence. Some people figured out that they’re skilled at shooting. Hunting is a valid use, I’ll give you that.
No wait, US has one of the highest rate of death from gun violence.
That’s not really true if you look at per capita figures. USA is #18, with 4.46 firearm-related homicides per 100K. Compare to something like El Salvador, which was 71.60 per 100K in 2015.
USA is not fabulous in this departement obviously, but it’s not like latin america. Specifically, it doesn’t seem like the number of legally owned guns directly correlates with the amount of gun homicides. If you look at the top ten countries on gun ownership, all of them have the firearm-related homicides figure < 5.0 and 8 of them under 0.8.
Also, sports is a secondary usage for guns. They were developed for violence.
You think cavemen invented clubs and bats way back in the day to play baseball before they decided to use them to murder things?
Violence was pretty much the only thing contributing to human advancement until about the 14th century. Funny enough, the first gun was made around the 11th century.
Leave the US if it’s such a hellhole. Go live in those other countries where you don’t have to worry about how unsafe the US is if they are so great. And don’t give some bullshit excuse like it’s expensive, refugees from hellholes do it everyday and it’s a great option for them to escape their shitty countries from what i hear. I hear Russian is really nice this time of year, maybe Ukraine? Last I heard, they were looking for more citizens. Maybe somewhere a little warmer like UAE? They seem to be doing pretty well for themselves, at least until that oil money runs out from the world switching to EVs and Green power.
I’ll take my chances with gun violence. At least I can see a person with a gun coming for me. Can’t say the same for a Malaria ridden bug or some refugee coughing TB all over the place.
According to this, guns would only be making the US a safer place since 2/3 of all US gun “violence” is the gun owner using it on themselves.
That would put the actual total gun violence deaths in the US at 13704, just a couple hundred higher than the 13384 drunk driving fatalities that happen in the US in 2021. So when are you going after Alcohol and Weed to be banned? Or do you feel drunk driving is just a secondary use for those so it doesn’t count when worrying about how people are killing one another?
How’s the ban on cigarettes going since you really care about people doing unsafe things and dying from it? Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. More than TWELVE times, the number of people that die from guns, including the suicides. Almost 4000 more people die a year from just living in a country with smokers than those who die due to gunshots.
Really let that last sentence soak in! 41000 people died not because they chose to smoke but because other people then themselves decided to smoke near them. Only around 38000 people died from guns in 2019, and out of those around 23000 of them killed themselves, I can only assume so they wouldn’t have to put up with people like you that are really going to try and skip around all this other information just to try and take away people’s right to defend themselves using the best tool for the job.
Fuck off you, God damn lunatic!!!
A toaster and ladder have constructive applications.
No. Just no.
Maybe?
No. You know your argument is not appropriate. I don’t need to tell you that.
You argueing that way, because you want your guns and have to find a moral excuse so that it doesn’t look like your only argument is “Boom Boom Manly Man Boom”.
You are argueing in bad faith, so no need to engage in that argumentation.
You’re one to talk. The only excuse you have is that you seem to have something against people who identify as men. Yea, real amazing argument there. Congrats on identifying as a basic leftist bitch with no common sense.
I don’t appreciate someone trying to steal my right to bear arms away from me, risking my safety and restricting my right to defend myself from criminals simply because they don’t like tools that go Boom Boom Boom.
Go back to reddit where you belong.
So, I am a man. I do identify as a man. What does that have to do with anything?
I hate idiots who need dangerous toys to feel manly, because they have nothing else that would make them a man.
If a gun is the only thing that makes you a man, then you are no man, but just a little boy who never grew up.
Tag along, kiddo. Maybe one day you’ll understand what a man is.
You seem to be the only one here that thinks gun = man.
Have fun defending yourself with your so call manhood when some crack head pulls a gun on you someday.
🖕
You sound white and privileged; try being a minority in a place where cops are racist/sexist/genderist and crime is high and see how fast you will change your mind.
Do you think pulling a gun against a cop will help you get home safely?
(I am not argueing against your point that there are bad cops. I just don’t think pulling a gun against a cop will help you stay safe.)
You know how I know you’re a white privileged kid that never grew up with any adversity? You never considered that cops will delay their response, if respond at all, to help you because of your skin color, income demographic, sexual preferences or gender identity.
You went straight to the ignorant thought of a gun owner addressing cops with violence and not a criminal trying to rob you in front of your family or being trans living in a community that wants you not to exist.
You sound white and privileged and trying to shove pro-gun arguments into the mouths of minorities because you think that’s some kind of uno-reverse card to liberals.
Non-sequitur. Do you have any argument to refute anything I said so as to help change my mind and make us both better people, or just continue to remain a useless loser your entire life and leave it at that?
Hit the nail on the head, didn’t I? ;D
Thanks for confirming.
I am honestly too dumb to understand what I confirmed here with you. Please elaborate
The asshat is clearly privileged, but don’t stoop to racism like them. Be the change you want in the world. The right to bear arms and defend yourself from criminals and tyranny alike is a right that every American should practice and cherish no matter what they look like. One day, we’ll get that dream even if we have to deal with a few nightmares first.
No.
Signed, a serial immigrant
Ah, you are a person of culture(s) as well, I see
i like the water-puddle analogy.
were just water filling whatever sized and shaped hole in which we are dumped.
I say! I’m filling out this dumpster quite nicely.
You guys are getting a culture?
Same has been said regarding the way we feel towards parents. I dunno tho. I think I Kindly disagree with both sentiments.
