Was it an invisible attack on U.S. diplomats, or something stranger?

Re:Was it an invisible attack on U.S. diplomats, or somethin... by asveikau on Saturday May 18, 2019 @09:07PM (#19950723)

I'm afraid you misunderstand. If popular belief is that this happens to somebody because of weakness, or because they are weak people, people will resist talking about it and letting on that they show symptoms ("showing weakness") and there will be no treatment.

Then in real life, some people do react that way when people have the courage to admit to it, and if people are made to believe their symptoms are a character flaw, then again, no treatment, only people feeling bad.

I didn't make this stuff up, I've seen it happen.

And it doesn't happen to people from "their weakness". It is a very jerk move, and absurd, to go anywhere near that phrasing. Just as we don't get cancer or a broken leg from being weak people.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Was it an invisible attack on U.S. diplomats, or somethin... by wswkb on Saturday May 18, 2019 @09:14PM (#19950743)

I understand your point. Still I disagree. I want to call things by their name even if calling them by their name might make people feel bad (not seek help, etc).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Was it an invisible attack on U.S. diplomats, or somethin... by asveikau on Saturday May 18, 2019 @09:35PM (#19950844)

You say you understand it but I think you do not. If someone has cancer, do you say, "I guess a stronger person wouldn't have gotten that tumor"?

There are correlations with genetics that can make someone predisposed etc. but it is absolutely wrong thinking to say it happens because of "weakness", it is, however unfortunate, a natural part of the spectrum of human condition.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Was it an invisible attack on U.S. diplomats, or somethin... by DuskStar on Saturday May 18, 2019 @10:05PM (#19950941)

It isn't "you got cancer because you were weak", it's "getting cancer makes you weaker". There's a rather critical difference there.

[ Parent | on HN ]