- cross-posted to:
- asklemmy@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- asklemmy@lemmy.world
One that comes to mind for me: “Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” is not always true. Maybe even only half the time! Are there any phrases you tend to hear and shake your head at?
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s been a millenium since I’ve heard it, as I no longer qualify as young.
But
“You’ll understand when you’re older”
I’m older.
I’m thirty.
The only thing I “understand” is that all the rules are arbitrary as all fuck, society was made up by idiots with giant sticks up their arses, and everyone should go fuck themselves.
The only “progress” I made is that I stopped hating myself for “failing at society” and started hating society for failing so many people.
The only thing I “understand” is that all the rules are arbitrary as all fuck, society was made up by idiots with giant sticks up their arses, and everyone should go fuck themselves.
See? They were right, you do understand now. 😜
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.”
This is literally not the definition of insanity.
“Boys will be boys”
How about you teach your kid how to behave and respect others so they don’t grow up to be an entitled asshole.
I think this one just morphed over time to be misused to excuse poor behavior. I always took as like boys rough housing each other and mucking about or eating dirt etc.
“It is what it is”
No it isn’t
It’s what it’s
It is what it isn’t?
Oh my god this sentence is used whenever I try to take the conversation to a slightly “deeper” level i hate it
That is definitely a thing.
A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language, often passing as folk wisdom, intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance.
If you’re a massive overthinking pile of anxiety these are very helpful for stopping yourself
Definitely. It’s best to know your own limits. (Akin to dropping something too heavy before hurting yourself.)
Thanks for this, very useful!
It ain’t what it ain’t?
That would depend on what the meaning of the word “is” is
“Whatever is worth doing, is worth doing well.”
Most things I do, most of what we all do, we do *well enough *. Ain’t nobody got time for doing every bloody thing to perfection.
I generally advocate for the complete opposite, as a person with AuDHD and a lot of executive dysfunction:
If an activity has value, then it is worth half-assing.
If you can go whole hog on it and do it with full effort, great! – But you are often better off doing it kinda half-assed, knowing full well you didn’t put your all into it, then you’d be if you just didn’t do it because you can’t do it “properly” and felt bad about it.
Be it work, schoolwork, cooking and eating, cleaning, self-care things. Whatever.
If it is an activity that has any value, it will still have more value when half-assed then it would have if you felt guilty for your inability to do it whole-ass and then just didn’t do it.
Yes! After many years some family members realize they have adhd and this is exactly it! Thank you!
“Can’t teach an old dog new tricks” is one that’s very pertinent to my life right now.
So, I was a pretty dedicated musician in my younger years, but I’ve never quite gotten around to learning how to produce music digitally. Recently, I’ve been trying to learn. Thing is, since I’m in my early 30s, I’m only just now hitting that age where my neuroplasticity isn’t what it was when I was 20, and learning things is starting to become noticeably a little more difficult.
So, that’s where I think the expression comes from. You get older, you try to learn something new, you underestimate how much more difficult learning that new thing is at your current age (because, honestly, you have no way to gauge how hard it’ll be until you’re doing it), the challenge gets the better of you, and now you have to admit defeat.
“Can’t teach an old dog new tricks” is basically a different way of saying “No, no! I’m not owned!! I didn’t lose!!!” It’s a way of shielding oneself from the sting of defeat by framing it as “well, that’s just the way things are when you’re older.” It’s not that you couldn’t rise up to the challenge of learning. You just cannot teach old dogs new tricks, and that’s a fact. Don’t you hear people say that all the time? Why would people say it so much if it weren’t true? So, yeah. I didn’t lose. I’m not owned.
It’s an especially harsh process when you’re learning to do something related to something you already know really well, and struggling with it, like I am with music production. It makes you question how well you really knew that thing in the first place. But, like I said, I’m only in my early 30s. If I were 60 and struggling to learn a new way to do something I’ve been doing my whole life, I’m sure it’d be wayyy more demoralizing. I’m sure I’d want to guard my feelings from that.
So, I get why the expression exists. I just don’t think it holds any real weight. People treat it like it’s some fact of life, but it’s just an excuse. You’ve just gotta keep pushing, be prepared to accept failure when it rears its ugly head, and then muster the energy to get back up and get back on as many times as you can before you’re beat. Easier said than done, though.
I reckon if you focus on learning how to learn in your 20s, then you can really head off that aging problem in a big way (not completely, but a fair bit).
“It’s human nature” used to describe something horrific like war or rape.
It’s not. Human nature is as when we were children, playing with friends and loving each other.
Militaries have to condition humans to do violence to each other and to follow orders from “superiors”. Half of school is quashing kids’ creativity and making them follow arbitrary rules because “the adults” say so.
I’d say aggressivity IS a part of human nature. Even kids can be aggressive while playing. It is there inside of us. Whether we use it for good or bad causes and in good or bad ways is what matters.
“This is human nature”
Looks inside
19th century anglo customs.
The people who loudly proclaim that they “don’t care what anybody else thinks!” almost always care a great deal what other people think. The ones who truly don’t seldom announce it.
“Religion is a personal choice.”
Rarely is that true.
“AI Will Soon Make Human Programmers a Thing of the Past”
It can’t even do simple sql stuff correct. Uses functions in the query that have not been created. Even though I specify by version of sql.
“Autistic people lack empathy”
Wierd how the fact that a group of people don’t see the world as you do makes then somehow inferior and deficient, huh?
As someone who self identifies as on the spectrum ( I’m over 60, so I doubt I’m going to be tested, but I have many – but not all – typical autism traits), I would say that it’s true for me. I have never been close to people, even my own family. I’ve never had a very good friend, and when I move away from people, I typically don’t keep in touch.
Foe example, both my parents died in the past 2 years, and while I feel a sense of loss, no strong emotions. If I lost my wife or children, I think I would continue without feeling significant trauma. I know that I’m supposed to be devastated by those kinds of losses, but it just doesn’t happen. I don’t really have strong attachments to anything or anyone.
I don’t think I’m a bad person, it’s just the way I’m wired. I don’t like to see people suffer, and I have a strong aversion to conflict, so I don’t believe I’m a sociopath.
So count me In as one of the people who believes that autism can be related to a lack of empathy, based on personal experience.
I don’t like to see people suffer, and I have a strong aversion to conflict
I think this right here is empathy. The fact that you have a wife and kids who you presumably have emotional attachment to also suggests you can understand their feelings.
Just because you don’t respond to feelings in the same way as a neurotypical person doesn’t mean you don’t feel them.
if they knew how many times a week they meet somebody autistic…
Autistic people do have significantly reduced cognitive empathy. That’s literally part of being on the spectrum. Some will have better cognitive empathy than others. If a person is not capable of reading the emotion that an NT is projecting, then their reactions are going to appear to lack affective empathy as well.
Your closing sentence hints at the root of the misunderstanding here. It also fails to strengthen your initial claim at all. This study’s Lay summary sets it out perfectly.
Many autistic individuals report feelings of excessive empathy, yet their experience is not reflected by most of the current literature, typically suggesting that autism is characterized by intact emotional and reduced cognitive empathy. To fill this gap, we looked at both ends of the imbalance between these components, termed empathic disequilibrium. We show that, like empathy, empathic disequilibrium is related to autism diagnosis and traits, and thus may provide a more nuanced understanding of empathy and its link with autism.
Autistic folks don’t always exhibit the socially defined traits of autism. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, right? So while your [claim] [double-down] [pre-emptive concession] [claim] ends with a claim that’s reasonable it is also fundamentally disconnected from the initial claim (which is, at best, half-true). Social and non-social traits are additional dimensions on a complex spectrum. Defining autism only by it’s more visible / stigmatized traits perpetuates the false equivocations of abnormal with disordered and disordered with diseased.
Sent with love ❤️
Yes yes, I’m well aware that people can define “empathy” in many different ways to make their point. But honestly, “Autistic people don’t feel empathy” is pretty much a dogwhistle for “They’re broken and I’m better than them”. Autistic communication and non-autistic communication are different and neither are “right” or “wrong”.
Also, interestingly the criteria for autism doesn’t actually mention empathy: https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/topics/diagnosis/assessment-and-diagnosis/criteria-and-tools-used-in-an-autism-assessment
I’m not the one making the distinction.
There’s a reason that ASD is a disability.
Ehh… The autistic and academic communities have been butting heads for a while. Academia has a rich history of marginalising and dehumanising those that they consider “lesser”, and I have no reason to beleive that we’ve moved past that.
Autistic and non-autistic brains work in different ways. And it’s hard for one type to understand the other. Usually called the “double empathy problem” ( https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/professional-practice/double-empathy ). And because neurotypical people have problems reading autistic people, they assume that the person they’re reading must lack “something”.
In addition, all the tools that academics use to measure the worth of a person tend to be tailered to a specific type of person. You can see it with IQ tests; once racism went from being normal to being frowned upon, scientists had to scramble to figure out why Africans suddenly started seeming to be characterised as intellectually deficient.
Being gay also used to be a disability, but now it isn’t. It’s not unreasonable to assume that in 10 years autism will be the same.
Personally, my experiences have been that I have too much empathy. Other people’s suffering hurts me so much more than my neurotypical friends. I think this is a common autistic trait (“hyper-empathy”) other people have. I have theories on how this all relates to their reactions to emotional stimulus, but this post is already too long.
… Of course, there is a group of people who think that Academia is Law and that things aren’t true unless they’re in a journal. If you’re that kind of person, I doubt my hearsay is convincing, but I figure it might interest people travelling this thread.
“Let’s agree to disagree”.
No, you asshole, we are getting to the bottom of this: you expose your reasoning for your position and I will do the same and this ends when reason doesn’t support anymore one of the 2 sides.
Some things are truly just up to personal preference. “Agree to disagree” is a perfectly valid thing to say when discussing how to cook a steak in my opinion.
True. How to cook a steak, whether coffee or orange juice is better in the morning, are topics upon which reasonable people may differ, and for those, agreeing to disagree is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However, an aggravating number of people genuinely believe that whether or not trans people should be allowed to exist is one such topic, and say this to avoid having their beliefs challenged.
Of all things, cooking a steak is the worst example maybe. Also, there is no reasoning around not allowing things or people to exist because, for one, they exist.
You can always put them to sleep, you know? The fact they exist doesn’t mean they will be allowed to continue doing so. Cooking a steak is a great example, but perhaps too emotionally charged.
That is not the same as making them cease to exist. A lot of people wish that was the case, but hundreds of martyrs, saints and not, prove them wrong.
Yes, you’re right. I just think the original comment was not about people wanting trans to not exist as a phenomenon, it was about people who know it exists, but who want trans people to be punished for being what they are.
Isn’t that sort of the point? They can’t actually get rid of us, but they think they can and should. That’s not something I’ll “agree to disagree” on.
It is not the point of this discussion in particular because I am talking about positions held on the basis of reasoning. The wet dreams of an American conservative are not exactly a bright example of logic.
Reason alone rarely if ever supports only one side or the other. You choose how you are weighting things; that’s an emotional response, not a logical one.
Everyone answering me seems to not allow for the option that I may not counter the other person with an alternative I defend with reason. My dislike for that expression assumes that I find myself in a discussion over something worth defending with reason, otherwise there is no discussion in the first place.
“[Thing] is a game changer!”
Almost always used in the context of brand-speak/commercial marketing. What’s the game, guys? Corporate propaganda? Cause no, using an app to book a handyman that pays to be advertised on your service, or buying microplastic encapsulated detergent is not a goddamn “game changer” for anyone, besides the shareholders.
“God will provide”.
“which begs the question …”
I hate this phrase a lot. First, it comes from the term ‘begging the question’ which is a stupid name for a particular type of logical fallacy that doesn’t even make sense for its intended meaning. But no one uses in the intended way anyway. They use it to mean “raises the question” or “prompts the question”.
As in: John hasn’t been to work for a couple days, which begs the question ‘is he sick?’". No it doesn’t beg the question, it raises it. You beg for something, so you can beg a person for money or beg a dog to stop barking, etc. but you can’t beg a question for anything.
So it’s a doubly stupid phrase that makes me cringe every time I hear it whether it’s used “correctly” or not.
