I think the key to solving the root of the problem here is understanding that there is such a thing as: "Cooperative compliance disorder", which is the other end of the spectrum of "Oppositional defiant disorder".
So the question becomes: How did this person get to believe that when the desires of other men are of higher priority than your own physical health.
Like cell in your own hand, it did not object when the mind decide to send the hand through the fire, he gave his life so that the whole might complete its objective. Cooperative Compliance disorder.
We really don't need to pathologize everything. In a sufficiently perverse environment, choosing to sacrifice your own well being for the good of someone else can be a rational decision - it can be the only rational decision.
When gatekeepers control access to wealth, stability, and a good life - and the alternative to working for the gatekeepers is poverty and disease - you basically will do anything the gatekeepers want, because the alternative is nearly as good as death itself.
Without knowing more about this incident, it strikes me as a symptom of a broken system, not a broken man.
This is precisely why our slow boil in the pot of American Fascism is so troubling. The frog is all but cooked, and it is none the wiser, even one minute to midnight...
Advocates of liberty and privacy are constantly savaged by the media, meanwhile the erosion of personal rights continue unhindered. I sincerely hope we begin to act before it is too late.
You have no idea what Fascism is and are doing more harm than good to your side of this debate. People like you can get the whole group painted as historically illiterate idiots with nothing to contribute.
Very interesting, did you bother to read your link?
“Fascism is a form of political and social behavior that arises when the middle class, finding its hopes frustrated by economic instability coupled with political polarization and deadlock, abandons traditional ideologies and turns, with the approbation of police and military forces, to a poorly-defined but emotionally appealing soteriology of national unity, immediate and direct resolution of problems, and intolerance for dissent.”
I will leave the drawing of parallels to the current paradigm as an exercise to the reader.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I blame the confusion around the word fascism on polarizing concepts from movies like "Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo.
The forces in this world to mis-inform the general population on these very important subjects is so strong, that I would say most people fail to truly understand what is reality and what is fantasy.
The word fascism just has no clear concept behind it. It's a hodgepodge of historical movements and political ideas. It's impossible for it to not cause confusion.
If Oppositional Defiant Disorder gets a spot in the mental illness book to be medicated, than Excessive Cooperation to your own detriment should also be medicated.
I believe women suffer from this mental illness a lot more than men. The fact that one end of the spectrum gets to be a mental illness and the other end of the spectrum is just someone choosing to be a doormat illustrates a big problem. Either they are both mental illnesses, or they are both just ways of going about things.
Humans who always cooperate or always defy to the detriment of their own life means that the module in their brain which decides when to comply, and when to resist, is a malfunction to be corrected by available means.
This is not my opinion on the point you and Potatolicious are debating, but rather my opinion on the way you replied.
You present an idea (that it might benefit people for society to consider excessive cooperation a treatable mental illness). You posit the parent article as evidence for this idea.
Potatolicious replies, expressing his doubts. He presents an idea (that the system the man was working in caused his death, not an innate psychological condition). If valid, his idea eliminates the evidence for your idea, making it less credible and no longer relevant to the article.
What I see as a rational response to this is to either point out a flaw in Potatolicious's idea (if one exists) or to introduce information that would make it so that Potatolicious's idea doesn't invalidate yours.
Instead, you restate your initial point (albeit in greater detail), and introduce a kind of argument from continuum ("if people who are excessively oppositional are medicated, why shouldn't the other end be as well?"), which, although not invalid, doesn't do anything to refute Potatolicious's point about the relevance of your argument to the parent article. Furthermore, you introduce a new opinion, which is not related to your previous points or supported by evidence, and only serves to polarize people.
I'm trying to explain this in the hope that we as a community can move toward more directed and effective debates. I hope that helped.
I'm playing a cat and mouse with ideas a few layers deeper than your logic structures are outlining. (perhaps getting lost in the weeds and losing the main point as a result).
Potatolicious is right, that the system is partially responsible for his death. And if most of the responsibility ends up on the evil system, then it could be said his excessive compliance should be praised and admired. That compliance isn't an illness at all. He was just eaten by a larger critter than he, and used as fuel for ulterior motives.
But his claim does not invalidate mine because suppose this evil corporation is 100% guilty, and they used all the Jedi mind tricks to brainwash him into working himself to death for their own gain. He complied when he should have defied. They were offering him money, the lack of which may be as bad as death to the victim, but ultimately the source of the error was when an instruction which results in destruction was followed by the unit.
If the unit had said: "I would rather be unemployed than deal with this terrible situation", he may be alive now. He's removed from the gene pool anyway, so evolution agrees with me, whatever that subunit did, it is to be destroyed.
I'm suggesting we destroy the faulty subunits in his mind during school, by labeling "Cooperative compliance disorder" as a real thing that can remove you from the gene pool.
Comments
I think the key to solving the root of the problem here is understanding that there is such a thing as: "Cooperative compliance disorder", which is the other end of the spectrum of "Oppositional defiant disorder".
So the question becomes: How did this person get to believe that when the desires of other men are of higher priority than your own physical health.
Like cell in your own hand, it did not object when the mind decide to send the hand through the fire, he gave his life so that the whole might complete its objective. Cooperative Compliance disorder.
We really don't need to pathologize everything. In a sufficiently perverse environment, choosing to sacrifice your own well being for the good of someone else can be a rational decision - it can be the only rational decision.
When gatekeepers control access to wealth, stability, and a good life - and the alternative to working for the gatekeepers is poverty and disease - you basically will do anything the gatekeepers want, because the alternative is nearly as good as death itself.
Without knowing more about this incident, it strikes me as a symptom of a broken system, not a broken man.
This is precisely why our slow boil in the pot of American Fascism is so troubling. The frog is all but cooked, and it is none the wiser, even one minute to midnight...
Advocates of liberty and privacy are constantly savaged by the media, meanwhile the erosion of personal rights continue unhindered. I sincerely hope we begin to act before it is too late.
You have no idea what Fascism is and are doing more harm than good to your side of this debate. People like you can get the whole group painted as historically illiterate idiots with nothing to contribute.
http://www.anesi.com/Fascism-TheUltimateDefinition.htm
Very interesting, did you bother to read your link?
“Fascism is a form of political and social behavior that arises when the middle class, finding its hopes frustrated by economic instability coupled with political polarization and deadlock, abandons traditional ideologies and turns, with the approbation of police and military forces, to a poorly-defined but emotionally appealing soteriology of national unity, immediate and direct resolution of problems, and intolerance for dissent.”
I will leave the drawing of parallels to the current paradigm as an exercise to the reader.
If you think that's what's going on you're not paying attention.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I blame the confusion around the word fascism on polarizing concepts from movies like "Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo.
The forces in this world to mis-inform the general population on these very important subjects is so strong, that I would say most people fail to truly understand what is reality and what is fantasy.
The word fascism just has no clear concept behind it. It's a hodgepodge of historical movements and political ideas. It's impossible for it to not cause confusion.
If Oppositional Defiant Disorder gets a spot in the mental illness book to be medicated, than Excessive Cooperation to your own detriment should also be medicated.
I believe women suffer from this mental illness a lot more than men. The fact that one end of the spectrum gets to be a mental illness and the other end of the spectrum is just someone choosing to be a doormat illustrates a big problem. Either they are both mental illnesses, or they are both just ways of going about things.
Humans who always cooperate or always defy to the detriment of their own life means that the module in their brain which decides when to comply, and when to resist, is a malfunction to be corrected by available means.
This is not my opinion on the point you and Potatolicious are debating, but rather my opinion on the way you replied.
You present an idea (that it might benefit people for society to consider excessive cooperation a treatable mental illness). You posit the parent article as evidence for this idea.
Potatolicious replies, expressing his doubts. He presents an idea (that the system the man was working in caused his death, not an innate psychological condition). If valid, his idea eliminates the evidence for your idea, making it less credible and no longer relevant to the article.
What I see as a rational response to this is to either point out a flaw in Potatolicious's idea (if one exists) or to introduce information that would make it so that Potatolicious's idea doesn't invalidate yours.
Instead, you restate your initial point (albeit in greater detail), and introduce a kind of argument from continuum ("if people who are excessively oppositional are medicated, why shouldn't the other end be as well?"), which, although not invalid, doesn't do anything to refute Potatolicious's point about the relevance of your argument to the parent article. Furthermore, you introduce a new opinion, which is not related to your previous points or supported by evidence, and only serves to polarize people.
I'm trying to explain this in the hope that we as a community can move toward more directed and effective debates. I hope that helped.
I'm playing a cat and mouse with ideas a few layers deeper than your logic structures are outlining. (perhaps getting lost in the weeds and losing the main point as a result).
Potatolicious is right, that the system is partially responsible for his death. And if most of the responsibility ends up on the evil system, then it could be said his excessive compliance should be praised and admired. That compliance isn't an illness at all. He was just eaten by a larger critter than he, and used as fuel for ulterior motives.
But his claim does not invalidate mine because suppose this evil corporation is 100% guilty, and they used all the Jedi mind tricks to brainwash him into working himself to death for their own gain. He complied when he should have defied. They were offering him money, the lack of which may be as bad as death to the victim, but ultimately the source of the error was when an instruction which results in destruction was followed by the unit.
If the unit had said: "I would rather be unemployed than deal with this terrible situation", he may be alive now. He's removed from the gene pool anyway, so evolution agrees with me, whatever that subunit did, it is to be destroyed.
I'm suggesting we destroy the faulty subunits in his mind during school, by labeling "Cooperative compliance disorder" as a real thing that can remove you from the gene pool.