Bullshit. Heroin is addictive no matter your biology or background. So are certain psychological triggers and mechanisms. Even the well adjusted get angry when they see various forms of abuse, for example. So if news is framed as abuse, victimization, etc it will trigger your oh so well adjusted self.

To illustrate my point I’ve deliberately inserted “bullshit” as my preface and “oh so well adjusted” as sarcasm. Be honest with yourself about how this anger inducing copy compels you to reply. You may not. But the feeling exists because you have similar triggers to the rest of us, and it is these that are being exploited.

Ps: Sorry about the sarcasm. Hopefully it makes the point.

Sure, people will have instinctual reactions; but if I dangle a naked girl in front of a man, most will get an erection and desire for sex. But even in this fantastical scenario, it doesn't make rape any more tolerable- because we expect human beings to be able to control their basic instincts. Isn't that what separates us from animals after-all?

Even animals have some ability to control their basic instincts; dogs can be trained to hold a treat right on their nose until a command is given.

We're separated from animals by tools and culture and language. Our basal emotions and desires are shared heavily with other primates, many humans would cheat on their spouse in your scenario. But dogs can't use JavaScript or go to school to learn to use JS either.

I would say that weaponization of outrage for the purposes of accomplishing goals is what's ruining lives. I've seen it happen. Seems like it's the new innovation.

We didn't used to have mechanisms for so efficiently manipulating populations in distributed ways, before. Social media's got a lot to answer for. I had to quit it, myself. I'm sure it's still a huge pile of bad-faith and manipulativeness, but I can't justify trying to keep track of how bad it's become.

I don't think its fair to completely blame Social Media and relieve people of all responsibilities. After all, human beings aren't lemmings, if they are being manipulated, then they should bear responsibility for being manipulated.

My theme is basically: no, statistically, they are lemmings, and they can't. An individual human can resist propagandization, can resist bad faith, can take responsibility for their perspectives.

Get access to a large enough population and humanity, viewed as an aggregate, can't. The capacity for individual choice is real and it's not enough.

It's great to be one of the exceptions: I totally endorse it, as an individual. It won't matter, which is why we gotta find collective solutions for collective problems that absolutely will not be fixed by personal responsibility.

Social media does bear responsibility for how it is designed. From AI algorithms that detect what you react to (actively learning to show you your triggers) to upvote/downvote mechanisms that promote the most reactionary content.

Before social media, the aphorism was that an angry customer will tell 10 people. The modern version is that an angry person will broadcast to the world and may also be picked up by groups that exist to amplify anger.

> When somebody says something offensive to a well-adjusted person, do you know what they do? They shrug it off, because words are just that.

Doormats gets bullied. I have seen this dynamic multiple times already and was on receiving end of it multiple times.

Shrugging makes them do it again and again, then others join, and originaln person escalates. And you not just be insulted, but they wont take your ideas seriously, cause they will have you fixed as someone without respect.

You have to stand up for yourself.

Shrugging off insults doesn't equate to being a doormat.

If you insult your boss, do you expect him to flip out and lash back at you to prove his status within the company? Or does he just laugh it off and then ask his assistant to make a memo to fire you later in the day?

Do you realize that the first boss actually sounds way better then the second one? The first boss in your example is safer to deal with, cause if you overstep you have chance to learn. And he is still not doormat.

The second boss is someone who is to be avoided and also someone who will create shitty culture.

I expect the ideal boss to react to the situation, shut the thing down. I don't expect him to fire everyone involved.

That's not the point. The point is that you can stand up for yourself without throwing a fit, because genuine power doesn't come from how angry you can get.

The second boss did threw fit and did not stoop up for himself. He even needed secretary to do the firing.

Also, he literally runs business based on his emotions. He had power, but also does not seem to me like someone I could respect. He does not seem well adjusted. Also, he did not had power that would be related to his own personality or skills, if someone he cant fire would insult him, he is powerless.

His power against employee is purely from his ability to fire them. And yes, if you have that sort of power, a lot of things are easier, because people end up scared of very real damage you will cause them. Getting angry, if it achieves the same goal is more ethical and does not require disproportionally harming people.

Isn't it possible that the more or less adjusted people that you speak of are simply naturally, inherently that way? If they didn't do anything to make themselves impulsive or reactive, why is it their fault? Shouldn't it be on social media for blasting everyone with it, knowing it will harm naturally sensitive people?

People shrugged off all the anti-Asian rhetoric pushed in American politics for the past five years especially the last year. Now we have major increase in anti-Asian hate crimes and attacks including one mass shooting. I guess the Asian-American community should continue to shrug it off, as you say.

I'm sorry, but how does this have anything to do with "addiction to outrage"? Unless you're implying the Asian-Americans upset are unjustifiably "addicted to outrage" or "less-adjusted", which I'm going to assume isn't your intention.

This is admittedly a low quality comment, but I really feel like saying: herewego.jpg

I haven't heard anything about "anti-Asian" sentiment till last week. Maybe it, you know, doesn't exist at the level you think it does?

The other alternative is that it was happening, but happening outside the places (virtual and physical) that you inhabit. A lot of things happen in this world that we aren’t aware of.

Sometimes, our bubbles pop and we are shown something that has been happening, it wasn’t in our view. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a bid deal or that it isn’t real, just that we don’t see most of the world at any given time.

I've noticed this too.

It is like suddenly this whole anti-asian hate thing popped out of nowhere. From 0 to it being everywhere; friends re-posting things on insta, etc...

BLM also seems to have disappeared suddenly (Now I can support asian developers instead of black developers on the apple store!!!). Guess the propaganda machine got a new narrative to push.

Am I crazy or just being gaslit super hard?

Isn't being gaslit sort of the theme of the age? I know some specific sources, but I hardly think it comes down to just one Big Enemy gaslighting us super hard.

More likely that's become the immediate go-to approach for a host of state and organizational actors, just as soon as they worked out they could direct populations through social pressure. It ain't in just one direction, so we're looking at some serious chaos out there. Only common denominator is engagement.

People are not some static thing (e.g. "well-adjusted"), but change constantly. And todays external influences push everyone to this outrage culture, even if they come from environment where this culture did not exist.

I would argue that people whose emotions are easily affected by an external influence is the definition of not-well-adjusted.