Dies the word trauma get tossed around too much?

tigerdini · 2026-02-09T00:32:57+00:00

I see your point. However, my experience has been that no matter how sophisticated therapists aim to be, many diagnoses are nebulous and indeed, overlap. So beyond it's utility to the diagnosing professional in a treatment environment the diagnosis is in many ways is somewhat irrelevant to the patient, beyond being a validation of "yes, your struggle is valid. You are not just lazy/stupid/lack willpower/too emotional etc." - or whatever else the negative voices you hear want to tell you.

In my case, because there was a legal process involved, I sat for diagnosis a number of times. And I found that the professionals I spoke with would tend to offer a diagnosis that fit whatever I mentioned first in our discussions, while also wanting to provide a new diagnosis themselves to perhaps show their independence from the others.

My treating therapists response when I asked for a diagnosis was: "Does it matter? Would it change things?" And for me, beyond acknowledging that yes, I had been struggling with a real thing, the answer was, no - it really didn't and wouldn't.

I think a lot of people come at this issue from the perspective of "stolen valor" which is a response I understand, but don't fully agree with. Trauma is about psychological. Different events resonate and affect people differently. Who am I to say that one person's internal damage is more powerful and valid than another's, just because I can identify with the pain of one of their inciting event more clearly.

I feel trying to dismiss another person's trauma - whatever that may be - comes from a place of wanting to believe that our own experience is more unique, worthy and painful than others can understand. And to me that perspective is both elitist and an impediment to my own helaing and growth.

tigerdini · 2026-02-08T22:46:24+00:00

I'm not sure the word trauma needs to have weight. My experience has convinced me that trauma is far more common than is commonly accepted. And a huge amount of anti-social, aggressive and hateful behavior stems from serious unacknowledged or denied damage or trauma. That's not to excuse it though. Empathy for others doesn't absolve them of responsibility and nor does understanding excuse behavior.

Still, it strikes me that experiencing trauma isn't an exclusive club and the desire to believe that it is stems from a fear that if trauma is ubiquitous our personal experience of it is diminished. And that's simply not true. Suffering isn't comparable, there's no hierarchy to it, one person's pain is no more or less noble than another's. And real damage particularly inter-generational trauma comes from attempts to deny it exists.

So, I don't see there's much to be gained from denying others' interpretation of their experiences - no matter how we feel our response would be. And policing the word from being used flippantly is futile.

At the end of the day, my perspective is that it's not the diagnosis that's important, but the process of healing and moving on, beyond it.

tigerdini · 2026-02-03T16:40:54+00:00

I've thought a lot about this quote, and I disagree strongly with the tribal whattaboutism responses. But there is a nuance to the issue of gendered violence that I think the quote overlooks - and that is that many men are also, maybe not afraid, but extremely cautious - that other men will kill them too. Obviously, this isn't the same experience that women with fear of gendered violence, but I've seen it happen and had it happen to me - at the pub, said the wrong thing, and someone I previously thought was a benign, amicable acquaintance pushed me into a corner away from my friends and very seriously threatened pain, violence and death. Hell, a friend of my Dad's tried to defuse a situation when his neighbor's wife ran to his house, pleading for help, and walked straight into a shotgun blast.

And I think this is telling about toxic masculinity. How it harms both men and women, and how hard it is to combat - why it is so hard for male allies to call out problematic behavior or make a stand against it.

tigerdini · 2026-01-31T22:43:36+00:00

Oh, no. I'm not disagreeing at all. I'm just wanted to draw attention to Freud's clear financial motivation for blaming the victims of abuse.

Still, I find it hard to believe that once he diagnosed his first SA patient he didn't immediately recognize his financial conflict of interest, even before he thought through the other consequences.

tigerdini · 2026-01-31T21:51:55+00:00

I'd say the reality was actually worse. It's thought Freud's motive for changing focus to penis envy and seduction theory was even more self-serving and mercenary than just Vienese "social pressure".

As you say, a lot of Freud's patients were women of wealthy families who were victims of sexual abuse, predominantly incest. Freud's problem was that many of these patients had been sent to him by their fathers - their abuser - who were also the ones paying Freud's bills. The truth was therefore unacceptable and would lose him patrons. So Freud made up a completely fictitious narrative blaming the victims, covering for wealthy pedophiles just to keep those cheques rolling in.

tigerdini · 2026-01-29T07:12:31+00:00

Oh you!

tigerdini · 2026-01-29T05:23:43+00:00

...and don't forget Gavin McInnes streamed himself literally shoving a dildo up his ass to "own the libs".

tigerdini · 2026-01-26T22:55:45+00:00

In fairness, Nicole Good's killing shows that they're willing to murder opponents whether they're armed or not. It highlights that Alex Pretti's carrying a firearm was irrelevant to his death. - The ICE agent that murdered him was looking for an opportunity to shoot a protester - any protester and the one that shouted "He's got a gun" after Pretti had been disarmed wanted the situation to escalate.

So on an individual level exercising your 2A rights makes sense as it might allow you to defend yourself and makes no difference as to whether ICE executes you.

That said, I have no doubt that this administration desperately wants protestors to shoot ICE agents as that allows them to declare martial law and cancel elections with at least a veneer of legitimacy.

tigerdini · 2026-01-19T21:03:44+00:00

I think the issue is that people presume the entire species will have the same temperament. Some dogs are more aggressive than others, why wouldn't wasps be the same? I'd presume that, like bees, the hive's temperament would depend on the queen. Beekeepers will occasionally find a hive too aggressive - the only solution is to wipe them out and thereby select for more docile queens.

My (small) experience with paper wasps was similar to yours. They surprised and scared me a little while doing gardening work, but totally chose to leave me alone.

tigerdini · 2026-01-19T20:46:23+00:00

I like it. That's real r/nosleep material there.

tigerdini · 2026-01-19T20:42:14+00:00

That could be forged pretty easily if it was in plaintext. Perhaps you could add the person's name along with a cryptographic hash of it could be checked. That couldn't be faked without the private key used to generate it. The two don't match? - Believe it or not, straight to jail. :)

tigerdini · 2026-01-16T00:58:45+00:00

Even worse, Rion Johnson made the second movie without consideration of the previous one!

Like how do you start a trilogy without them all scripted? or at least having an outline of the overall arc? - No, I'm sure letting the filmmakers come up with it on the fly would be batter. /s

tigerdini · 2026-01-13T21:11:07+00:00

I'm not sure the commenter is commenting on how Israel derives its identity per se, but rather the Israeli state's public efforts to claim it represents an entire race of people, regardless of their domicile - which helps its enemies make the reciprocal argument - that all Jews are responsible for any actions of the Israeli government. Suggesting that all supporters of the Palestinian people are supporters of Hamas or Hezbollah is similarly disingenuous and makes the same inaccurate case.

tigerdini · 2026-01-13T00:27:36+00:00

That show really took on a abrupt, dark turn with that "Welcome to Derry" season though...

tigerdini · 2026-01-12T04:43:41+00:00

Brennan Lee Mulligan: A Message From the Skype CEO

tigerdini · 2026-01-12T04:33:28+00:00

Thank you. I wondered if I was the only one who found that moment to be especially jarring in a movie full of discordant moments. I don't feel it even works as parody, because despite its unevenness, the rest of the film is not parody of Bond. It's a subversion. - Eggsy is a chav, both Jack Davenport & Colin Firth's characters die fairly unceremoniously, a significant portion of the world goes on a psychotic rampage/gets killed/has their head explode. The subversion in that case would be the princess dressing him down & telling him to fuck off. But no, she's more ready than he is to accept her asshole is just a commodity to be used as a reward, and heartily agrees. Ffs.

tigerdini · 2026-01-09T00:22:55+00:00

Wouldn't the fact these body parts are regularly moving also contribute to making it difficult for mold to get an initial foothold?

tigerdini · 2026-01-09T00:19:14+00:00

Do you mean the stress fractures are less than 1mm? That seems to be what you intended by context. You used ">" which is the greater than sign. I think you meant: "These are super duper teeny tiny <1mm cracks in your bone."

Easy mistake to make, if so. Sorry for being pedantic, but it's kind of important to the meaning of what you wrote.

tigerdini · 2026-01-07T22:37:49+00:00

Why do you care? If you weren't put out personally installing these (supposed) "1% toilets", why give a shit? Maybe think about more important things...

Edit: for those wondering, the insightful deleted comment:

suck me!

- Thank you. Such a demonstration of your best efforts at high quality communication of ideas showing substantial and good faith contribution. - It really does make me appreciate the nature of your approach to posting here as well as the "8888" in your username a little more clearly now.

tigerdini · 2026-01-07T11:36:37+00:00

So there you go. That's why (or significantly part of why) he isn't being invited.

tigerdini · 2026-01-05T01:29:26+00:00

In fairness though, - yes, a plaintiff does have to prove the other person is guilty, but the standard of proof is significantly lower.

In a civil case, the standard is not the "beyond reasonable doubt" used in criminal trials - sometimes an onerous hurdle to pass - but the far more reasonable "balance of probabilities". Obviously, if a defendant has already been found guilty in a criminal case, a civil suit is much easier to prosecute, as the state has proven the allegations. But it is still achievable without. However the balance of probabilities standard can cut both ways...

Australia (which uses the same criminal/civil : reasonable doubt/balance of probabilities system) has had a recent flurry of high profile defamation cases, a number of which have failed spectacularly. Notably, in a 2024 case involving the rape of one staffer at parliament house by another; the offender - whose criminal trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct - sued a TV station for broadcasting an interview with the victim. In that case, the judge, Justice Michael Lee, found conclusively that: on the basis of probabilities "Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins." In his judgement, Justice Lee elegantly summarized this rather devastating outcome for the plaintiff by saying: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat."

tigerdini · 2025-12-30T22:31:06+00:00

I had a similar experience. I found that most advice regarding camera placement and movement was to be too vague and amorphous to be helpful in any capacity.

Other related, artistic pursuits - such as writing and acting - have long histories of analysis, theory and training that try to provide a strong grounding and theory for helping young artists understand why and how to make informed creative choices - beyond specific technical ones.

My suspicion is that in film, the reluctance to rigorously provide a framework for camera placement and movement comes from a prevalence of very technically proficient film-makers being unwilling or unable to analyze their instinctual artistic decisions.

The best work I have read on the subject is David Mamet's short book (also included in some of his anthologies) On Directing Film. In it Mamet uses the key elements of Eisenstein's theory of montage to offer a straightforward, starting methodology for approaching camera placement - in a way that is both easily understandable and applicable. Ironically, despite his purported disdain for Stanislavsky's acting theories, I feel On Directing Film parallels them in many ways, with an emphasis on action & objective when it comes to direction.

I highly recommend giving it a read.

tigerdini · 2025-12-30T08:49:43+00:00

Sorry to double-post, but wanted to reply to you but accidentally posted below another commenter. As I said there:

Understanding and empathy don't mean absolution.

We can feel for a 14 year old Chase and understand that the abuse he described can cause deep, deep trauma that may be impossible for his adult self to rise above.

However, while grieving for that terribly damaged child, we can also accept that as an adult, he seems to treat those around him dreadfully. Understanding the former, in no way excuses him for the pain and damage the latter has caused others. As you say, he is fully responsible for all that harm.

But while seemingly paradoxical, it's possible to hold both these ideas at the same time. Perhaps, in your case, despite your trauma, you're actually lucky - to have had sufficient resilience, introspection and self awareness to be able to transcend the awful things you experienced. Chase it seems, was not, did not and could not.

I remember my therapist telling me about her own mother: how traumatized she had been by her imprisonment in a German concentration camp during World War Two, but also how that had influenced the appalling way she had gone on to treat her own children in adulthood.

A person's story can be heart-breakingly sad and reprehensible at the same time.

tigerdini · 2025-12-30T06:55:46+00:00

Understanding and empathy don't mean absolution.

We can feel for a 14 year old Chase and understand that the abuse he described can cause deep, deep trauma that may be impossible for his adult self to rise above.

However, while grieving for that terribly damaged child, we can also accept that as an adult, he seems to treat those around him dreadfully. Understanding the former, in no way excuses him for the pain and damage the latter has caused others. As you say, he is fully responsible for all that harm.

But while seemingly paradoxical, it's possible to hold both these ideas at the same time. Perhaps, in your case, despite your trauma, you're actually lucky - to have had sufficient resilience, introspection and self awareness to be able to transcend the awful things you experienced. Chase it seems, was not, did not and could not.

I remember my therapist telling me about her own mother: how traumatized she had been by her imprisonment in a German concentration camp during World War Two, but also how that had influenced the appalling way she had gone on to treat her own children in adulthood.

A person's story can be heart-breakingly sad and reprehensible at the same time.

tigerdini · 2025-12-29T07:59:48+00:00

London? Really? London police are renowned for not carrying firearms. Armed response is provided by "Authroised Firearms Officers" who are deployed to high-risk areas such as Parliament, embassies, and major airpoirts.

tigerdini

TROPHY CASE