Low self esteem destroying relationship

Yes, quietvoice, it is.
But in this case, it is a case of modifying your beliefs to suit another person's will.
Which is perfectly acceptable in many cases and lots of people do it all the time.
But if you do compromise your beliefs, you have to live with that decision and many people struggle with that part.

davidanthony wrote:I posted my opinion and you replied that I was talking "Bull".
Word to the wise; when you tell someone that their beliefs are "bull", you have pretty much lost any hope of getting their respect.

But you should respect my beliefs and not trivialize my beliefs. If you don't that is wrong! Why are you a bully and victimizing me? Oh...I'm so distraught, because you are not doing what you "should". Is the term "bull" a word that "should" be removed from language, because a person might take offense to it?

I don't know who fed you your worldview, but I do understand it is popular in the "safe space" community. When you enable people to shift blame onto others and tell them what others "should" believe, then you are handing out a victim card. In the context of self-esteem it matters what they believe, not what some 3rd party believes.

Can I get back to what I came here for now?

I don't know, can you? What I or anyone else says in a public forum does not compel you or stop you. If you believe it does, I would disagree. In my worldview, you are free to do what you like, even if I use the word "bull".

davidanthony wrote:Yes, quietvoice, it is.
But in this case, it is a case of modifying your beliefs to suit another person's will.
Which is perfectly acceptable in many cases and lots of people do it all the time.
But if you do compromise your beliefs, you have to live with that decision and many people struggle with that part.

Yes, I did take it out of the context of changing a particular belief.

Perhaps, it's more along the line of having conflicting values, such as, in this case, "I value having a boyfriend in my life right now" and "I value having a boyfriend who is 'above' having an interest in viewing other women in sexual situations".

As well, each of us has a hierarchy of values, and decision making will be easier for one who is clear about their hierarchy of values than one who is not.

I agree quietvoice.
I see this kind of discussion as a 'pick-and-mix'.
We present our opinions and beliefs, but they can only be based on our life experiences.
People can look at all the different beliefs and opinions, pick the ones which appeal to them and discard the others.
I that sense, everyone can be 'right' and everyone can be 'wrong'.
Personally, I don't see Game of Thrones as a question of values, but rather, a question of taste. But this is not about me. It's about a 17 year old woman. My daughter was 17 once, and if she was sticking to her principles, I would have been the last person to tell her to change them.
I don't tell people what to think. My job is to get them to think for themselves. After all, what do I know about being a 17 year old female.
Actually, with that in mind, should I even be commenting on a post like this? What do you think?

davidanthony wrote: My daughter was 17 once, and if she was sticking to her principles, I would have been the last person to tell her to change them.

Even if those principles were not working out very well? You would tell your daughter, "Stick to your principles," even though those principles are making her unhappy and have resulted in negative impacts to her life?

When people come to the forum with an issue, it most often is because whatever their principles, values, or beliefs, it isn't working for them...hence the mental struggle that they present to the forum. It isn't necessarily about a belief, value or principle being "true" but rather functional. Usually true and functional align, but not always.

Actually, with that in mind, should I even be commenting on a post like this? What do you think?

In my opinion, of course you should comment if you feel so inclined. The old adage of until you walk a mile in another's shoes is nonsense. It goes back to the idea that everyone is unique and different, in fact so unique and different that you can't possibly understand where I am coming from and therefore are unqualified to comment. It is the divisive, place a label on yourself, identify with a particular group and then shut out or ignore anyones opinions that doesn't fit. It is an extremely common psychological bias, allowing people to take offense and shut down a discussion.

In my opinion, in a public forum such as in here, all opinions are welcome and I have no expectation of how a person "should" respond to my opinions. They are welcome to respond however they like. This forms the basis for an open dialogue, and does not artificially restrict how others need to conform to what might offend me.

Nice Richard, I like it. Opening me up to a whole new world of thinking.
Let me go out on a limb here, just for varieties sake.
Are we trying too hard? Are we over-complicating this with our analytical minds?
Is the answer, in fact, simple?
Dump your boyfriend, or let him watch the t.v. Do whatever you feel is best?
That's the kind of thing my wife would say and believe me, I have never heard a single word of BS come out of her mouth, in over 30 years. In fact, I consider her opinion to be fact, lol

I've just noticed your earlier comments Richard.
The answer to your question is yes, the word bull should be removed because it offends people.
In fact, in my world, the world of training young and vulnerable people, it has been removed.
In my world, my country, my profession, it is irrelevant what you intended. It only matters how the other person interprets what you say or do. It is the law and you can get into some serious trouble if you get it wrong.
And the safe space community that you speak of is exactly what is required, it is what people are looking for and when it comes to the education authorities, it is a demand.

davidanthony wrote:I've just noticed your earlier comments Richard.
The answer to your question is yes, the word bull should be removed because it offends people.
In fact, in my world, the world of training young and vulnerable people, it has been removed.
In my world, my country, my profession, it is irrelevant what you intended. It only matters how the other person interprets what you say or do. It is the law and you can get into some serious trouble if you get it wrong.
And the safe space community that you speak of is exactly what is required, it is what people are looking for and when it comes to the education authorities, it is a demand.

What you wrote is such a horrific, flawed ideology. It offends me, it nauseates me. Should we ban what you just professed, because what you believe is not what I believe? I don't think so. The discomfort you imparted on me is not a trauma in need of being banned.

Syrians need a safe space currently as they are being killed, gassed, raped, slaughtered. People being exposed to the word "bull" do not need a safe space, they need to learn that ideas certainly can be uncomfortable, but they do not need a place to run and hide, that they can not only survive, but can thrive. In fact, claiming a need of a safe space so as to be protected from the word "bull" marginalizes those in the world that do need protection from much more than a single syllable.

You want to and have removed the term "bull" from language? What a horrible disservice to those people you are attempting to help. You enable them, treating them as weak, incapable victims in need of protection from a word. It's good business to make others depend on you. It is the same thought process of wanting to rewrite history, removing any indication of anything that might offend a "vulnerable" person, people you explain have a right to be traumatized. Write textbooks not to offend, create safe spaces to protect, teach that ideas that make any person ever feel the slightest discomfort are ideas that need to be squashed, because they lack sufficient tolerance. Such a sad, sad, horrible disservice.

The ideology you have learned and endorse is the path to book burning and censorship all in the name of moral superiority, that you or a government is protecting a vulnerable population that if they hear the word "bull" it is an unacceptable discomfort. Well, that is bull. I used the term with you and you did not wither away. You are more than capable of dealing with this minimal discomfort and it has not led to any devestating consequences for you. You did no need a safe space to formulate a response to my use of the word "bull". Instead of banning language and becoming the thought police, why not teach those you believe are incapable of hearing the word how you can successfully hear such a word and be okay?

You should read the book 1984. Of course if you read the book you might want to rewrite it in order to remove any words or ideas that you disagree with.

You're not listening. It's not ideology, it's the law.
I can't teach what you have written, it's not in the curriculum. And believe me, they enforce the curriculum fiercely.
Ok, you are right. Every word you have said is right. So what? I'm not talking about ideas here, I'm talking about the real world. I know you are probably not, but you seem to be "raging against the machine", wanting to "stick it to the man".
It is about behaviour. And your behaviour would be deemed as completely unacceptable.
I'm not endorsing an ideology, I'm playing by the rules, and not my rules either.

davidanthony wrote:You're not listening. It's not ideology, it's the law.

I'm not endorsing an ideology, I'm playing by the rules, and not my rules either.

Davidanthony, that is the rational many people try to use. It is agentic state decision making, saying, "It wasn't my decision, the government decided, its the law!"

Sorry Davidanthony, but while it explains a rational why you make a decision, it does not excuse you from that decision. The work of Milgram shows people torturing other humans and then using your same philosophy, "It wasn't my decision, the researcher told me to shock the person."

I'm not raging against the machine. I'm distinguishing right from wrong for myself. You can do the same. Do you agree with the law? Do you really think censorship is the correct path for your community, for your daughter?

You are in a public forum, not a government office. You want to blame the government or endorse the government? It depends on what you truly believe and from what you posted it sounds like you agree with censorship. Am I wrong about what you believe? You agree that people are strong enough to survive if the word "bull" is used or does society need to be protected from such things? I'm not interested in your governments opinion, I'm interested in your opinion.

When it comes to entertainment consumption and what society views as "appropriate", we live in a completely convoluted world where very little lines up to suggest a rationale that denotes anything other than a heard mentality composed of knee jerk moods from people caught up in a moment.

Dukes of Hazzard is quietly considered taboo because of a car that carries the Confederate flag, even though black characters were always treated with respect and often carried titles of authority in the show. But Hogans Heroes gets a free pass where they routinely use the Nazi salute, while the three leading German characters are played by actors that are of Jewish decent. Roll that around for a while.

Society constantly talks about women's right's and treating them in a dignified manner and not as sexual objects, yet the entertainment world is probably more entrenched in making money off the old stereotype than ever before. You can watch Game of Thrones were female nudity is a weekly plot device, but then go out for dinner at Hooters where you're just there for the "wings". Why don't they make a restaurant called "Packages" where they sell weenies and foot longs? Too obvious?

It's these kinds of contradictions that make me chuckle when I hear people talk about how easily they are "offended' by something. It's such an abused and ignorantly used word, my skin crawls when I hear the term. The two words our world are badly in need of rediscovering is TOLERANCE and more importantly CONTEXT. People have conveniently forgotten they carry the responsibility to understand what it is they're looking at before they define intent. And too often society blinds itself for the purposes of political correctness rather than actually looking at factual accuracy.

With regards to this person's situation, she feels Game of Thrones caters to that old stereotype that degrades and diminishes the female role in society. She has researched the show to understand what she is seeing and fully comprehends the context here. Her boyfriend chooses not to see that and hides behind the shallow concept it is only a "television show". So there is a value clash occurring here. The show promotes females in a manner that is demeaning and she understands that.

We can pick apart the discussion as a issue of someone being insecure over a television show or we can look at the bigger picture which is we have two people who do not share similar value systems. It would be far fetch to believe this is not a precursor for other value clashes. There's a deeper problem in play here. This program is just the vehicle that has brought that difference to the surface. If I were her, I would examine that closer to see where the broader scope of this issue resides.

Anonymous_girl wrote:How can I sit back and let that happen? How can I sit back and accept that he's sat there being excited by this action? I can't. It destroys me

Hi beauty, I first want to tell you that I'm so sorry that this is affecting you, to feel destroyed must be very powerful and I'm sure doesn't feel good.

What comes up for you (how do you feel, or what are you scared of) when he watches the show?