2 ms·

> Instead, they want to hear that it is okay to feel said emotion. That's not the definition the others are using, but this seems to be a game of whack-a-mole

by Aurornis 10mo ago

> Instead, they want to hear that it is okay to feel said emotion. That's not the definition the others are using, but this seems to be a game of whack-a-mole with everyone's different ideas about what it means. That said, I think your definition highlights the problem: By telling someone it's okay to feel the emotion, you've implicitly endorsed the response. The situations I'm speaking about involve people developing inappropriate emotional reactions that lead to self-harm. When they surround themselves with people who do this "validate emotions" game, they're implicitly gathering consensus that it's okay to react that way. The cycle continues. It's clear that a lot of people have picked up this idea of "validating emotions" being virtuous and good, but some times what people need is for people around them to explain that their reaction is not actually appropriate or okay.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10mo ago
> That said, I think your definition highlights the problem: By telling someone it's okay to feel the emotion, you've implicitly endorsed the response. This tells me that you've not understood my meaning. One is not condoning or endorsing any behavioral response when they say the emotional response (which motivated the behavior) is valid and natural. They are distinct things and one does not necessarily follow or precede the other. > their reaction is not actually appropriate or okay I suspect we are talking past each other here. If "their reaction" refers to their emotions, that is not your concern; to think otherwise is wildly antisocial. If it instead refers to their actions and/or behaviors, you simply are not bemoaning emotional validation.
- danielmarkbruce 10mo ago
  >> emotional response (which motivated the behavior) is valid and natural. This is obviously nonsense. If an old woman falls over and breaks her knee, and one's emotional response is happiness - they have real problems - it's not natural or valid to feel that. If the idea of choking women to death makes one feel excited - no it's not natural or valid to feel that emotion, they have serious problems. One could go on. Maybe you haven't met any really bad people in life - when you do you will often find they have very strange emotional responses to things.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10mo ago
    I guess I should make explicit my general assumption that we are not talking about psychopaths given the overwhelming odds that a given individual is not a psychopath. That said... > If the idea of choking women to death makes one feel excited - no it's not natural or valid to feel that emotion, they have serious problems. I disagree. That is surely a natural and valid emotional response for whatever reason this hypotheticals individual feels it. Yes, they also surely have serious problems but I contend that said problems are obviously what lead to this "very strange" emotional response. Their problems are also valid, regardless of the personal damage (read: devoid of outward violence) they cause. In this case, the response might affect their behavior such that they actually do it and that would obviously be tragic; that behavior is not valid regardless of the emotions (or lack thereof) which motivate it. Otherwise, speaking of their emotional response, I don't see a reason to condemn them for a reaction they have such little control over.
    - danielmarkbruce 10mo ago
      You keep talking in circles around a definition of valid. You are just wrong on this. You want to seem sophisticated and understanding, and it's just lazy stupid thinking.
      - n4r9 10mo ago
        I think their definition of valid is consistently aligning with the meaning of "acknowledging and accepting someone's internal experience". As soon as you start trying to apply normative judgements to someone's feelings, as opposed to their behaviour, you inevitably end up drawing an arbitrary and cutlurally informed line between what you or socirty think is okay and what's not. It's only a problem if I feel excited by someone else's pain if my consequent behaviour actually leads to the other person suffering. I have no direct control over my emotions, but I can control my reaction to them. You just telling me it's wrong to feel excited is futile and potentially counter-productive.
        danielmarkbruce 10mo ago
n4r9 10mo ago
> That's not the definition the others are using For what it's worth, imo this is included in the definition of "accepting" someone's feelings. You are saying "it is acceptable" to have the feelings.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10mo ago

> That said, I think your definition highlights the problem: By telling someone it's okay to feel the emotion, you've implicitly endorsed the response. This tells me that you've not understood my meaning. One is not condoning or endorsing any behavioral response when they say the emotional response (which motivated the behavior) is valid and natural. They are distinct things and one does not necessarily follow or precede the other. > their reaction is not actually appropriate or okay I suspect we are talking past each other here. If "their reaction" refers to their emotions, that is not your concern; to think otherwise is wildly antisocial. If it instead refers to their actions and/or behaviors, you simply are not bemoaning emotional validation.

danielmarkbruce 10mo ago
>> emotional response (which motivated the behavior) is valid and natural. This is obviously nonsense. If an old woman falls over and breaks her knee, and one's emotional response is happiness - they have real problems - it's not natural or valid to feel that. If the idea of choking women to death makes one feel excited - no it's not natural or valid to feel that emotion, they have serious problems. One could go on. Maybe you haven't met any really bad people in life - when you do you will often find they have very strange emotional responses to things.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10mo ago
  I guess I should make explicit my general assumption that we are not talking about psychopaths given the overwhelming odds that a given individual is not a psychopath. That said... > If the idea of choking women to death makes one feel excited - no it's not natural or valid to feel that emotion, they have serious problems. I disagree. That is surely a natural and valid emotional response for whatever reason this hypotheticals individual feels it. Yes, they also surely have serious problems but I contend that said problems are obviously what lead to this "very strange" emotional response. Their problems are also valid, regardless of the personal damage (read: devoid of outward violence) they cause. In this case, the response might affect their behavior such that they actually do it and that would obviously be tragic; that behavior is not valid regardless of the emotions (or lack thereof) which motivate it. Otherwise, speaking of their emotional response, I don't see a reason to condemn them for a reaction they have such little control over.
  - danielmarkbruce 10mo ago
    You keep talking in circles around a definition of valid. You are just wrong on this. You want to seem sophisticated and understanding, and it's just lazy stupid thinking.
    - n4r9 10mo ago
      I think their definition of valid is consistently aligning with the meaning of "acknowledging and accepting someone's internal experience". As soon as you start trying to apply normative judgements to someone's feelings, as opposed to their behaviour, you inevitably end up drawing an arbitrary and cutlurally informed line between what you or socirty think is okay and what's not. It's only a problem if I feel excited by someone else's pain if my consequent behaviour actually leads to the other person suffering. I have no direct control over my emotions, but I can control my reaction to them. You just telling me it's wrong to feel excited is futile and potentially counter-productive.
      - danielmarkbruce 10mo ago

n4r9 10mo ago

> That's not the definition the others are using For what it's worth, imo this is included in the definition of "accepting" someone's feelings. You are saying "it is acceptable" to have the feelings.