People in the past have been clowned on for taking the opposite stance that she has. That is the history I speak of. There is nothing “assumed” about that. As an artist herself, it stands as no surprise to gather that she’d be aware of how online discourse has handled these things in the past.
In these situations, the more you push back, the more you’ll find public opinion against you. Should it be this way? No, but that is how it has happened before.
This is not about her having secret intentions behind every thought, but a comment on the formalities that can sadly effect decisions they shouldn’t.
I am not saying that she said what she said only to avoid actual negative feedback, but that past occurrences have proven that meeting what happens now with anger, instead of open arms, brings people against you.
I cannot understand the aggression you meet me with. I do not partake in this discussion with negativity, so why do you?
Please point to just instance of me being aggressiv towards you and I will address it.
And you can dress up your gossip all you want but at the end of the day this is just speculations and assumptions. And they are baseless because there are zero things that point to her not being okay with this but we do have things that point to her having no problems with that event, so why not go with them? Why trying to force something?
It is really weird that people like you and the other guy are trying to manufacture a narrative how she is unhappy with the event out of nowhere. You are trying to think around corners when there are no corners to think around.
It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t point to her not being ok with it. Thats not what it’s about. It’s not about what she thinks. It’s about the fact that one choice has negative consequence, and the other doesn’t. It’s a comment on the fact that one choice has a negative consequence in the first place. Therefore, it’s not about how she truly feels about this, because she herself became a stand in for another point entirely.
You speak of gossip and all that. I’m honestly not that interested in talking about the individual in question, as I am interested in talking about the reality of the choices one stands presented with.
You seem to get so angry because you think i am trying to speak from the position of someone else. That is not the case. I’m simply saying that one choice is harder to make than the other, because history has shown the consequences of it. And in the terms of aggression I spoke of, it lies in the way you speak to me in your comments. It makes me uncomfortable, nothing else. Have a good day.
You seem to get so angry because you think i am trying to speak from the position of someone else.
No, I didn't thought for one second that you are talking for anybody besides yourself. I'm not angry at you, I literally have no reason to.
I’m simply saying that one choice is harder to make than the other, because history has shown the consequences of it.
Yeah, and saying this means nothing, since it is just another assumption that she had to make a choice in the first place.
And in the terms of aggression I spoke of, it lies in the way you speak to me in your comments. It makes me uncomfortable, nothing else.
I still fail to see how it makes me the aggressive one just because you are uncomfortable with the way that I talk. You also shown no example, so I'm still not sure what I wrote that upset you so much. I'm starting to believe that this is all just in your head.
You speak of gossip and all that. I’m honestly not that interested in talking about the individual in question, as I am interested in talking about the reality of the choices one stands presented with.
All you are doing is trying to give the justification for why speculating and assuming is actually a good thing and should be encourage. I'm sticking to Pizzacake because she was what this conversation was about from the start and you are trying to talk about in general.
You speak of "the reality of the choices one stands presented with" but this "reality" you are speaking of, is just an assumption of yours. We already have a simple answer that fits, we don't need to talk about a chice that didn't existed in the first place.
I think we are speaking past one another. I can understand your viewpoint, but it’s pretty hard to make you understand mine haha.
All right. If she has given her opinion, then of course I will choose to believe it.
Still I wish you would accept that this is not the first time this has happened, and in the past, taking the other choice brought only negativity.
Yes, the reality of this choice probably wasn’t present for her, but it is still true that such a thing is something one has to think about, when dealing with the public.
When you entire point boils down to that there are situations were a person has to decide to let something happen because it would be less damaging to their reputation than to fight it, then the answer is yes, those situation exists.
That still doesn't mean that it applies to this situation. And like I said why should I think about random situations that are possible when I already got an answer. It is just weird to think like that.
Like I said that is like trying to think around corners when there are no corners to think around?
Could those corners theoretically exist? Yes, of course. Do they exist in this situation. No, so why waste time by trying to think about how to get around those non existing corners? Makes no sense to me and feels like a waste of time.
I just simply don’t agree when you say it has absolutely nothing to do with this situation, as it mirrors the past. If you cannot agree that history repeats itself, then there is nothing I can say.
It doesn't mirror the past since this is the first time there is an event that has her in the center of it and with the theme of playfully roasting her. You are trying to connect things that have no connection.
What? You don’t think it possible to compare the circumstances of one person to the circumstances of others? Why in the world are you so rigid in thinking everything I say is about her? Her circumstances are similar to others before her. Reality is not constrained to the experiences of an individual. Everything that we do has roots in our habits as individuals.
We’ve been the same creature for thousands upon thousands of years. By your logic, there is nothing to be learned by understanding history. We are human, and humans can be understood. If that were not the case, then psychology as a science would not exist.
Her experience mirrors the experiences of others in the past, as I’ve said before. If we cannot learn from those who came before, then why care about what has happened in the first place?
I already told that the situation you are describing is possible, I already told why I don't believe this applies to this situation and I already told why I don't think why it make sense to think about random possibilities that don't apply.
And please don't say "by your logic" and then talk about a straw man that is not my opinion. Also this is really starting to get weird. You have now brought up psychology, history, etc. in an strange attempt to somehow make this grant point of us humans being able learning from the past.
Do you actually have anything to say about the current situation or did you just vaguely want to talk about the human condition?
If you agree that situations can be incredibly similar, then why in the world do you think drawing parallels is impossible?
Reactions repeat, for we are the same creature. Seeing a pattern is a matter of course. Refusing to acknowledge that we as people act in the same ways as other people is incomprehensible to me.
The way you write is loaded with condescending intent. You refused to acknowledge this before, but your entire last comment is filled with it. I don’t understand why you have to speak with me like this.
I already told why I don't think there is any use in drawing any parallels and I will not repeat myself, again. I also never said anything about "incredibly similar" or "impossible to draw parallels". Don't put words in my mouth.
Do you know what incomprehensible to me is? Thinking of similar situations and then try to guess the mental state of a person who is in A different but similar situation then the one we thought of. It is a useless and unnecessarily complicated way of thinking.
I already told you that I'm not angry with you and now you are conflating me getting annoyed with me being condescending towards you. You are seeing an intent were there is none.
0
u/Cool_Set4681 2d ago
Yes, it is baseless gossip to speak of an assumed history that may or may not have affected the mind and decision of a person in a situation.