when a good thing is intertwined with a bad thing, such that people don't have words to refer to them separately, two kinds of responses:
1) "thing bad, people who are trying to get it are bad"
2) "thing good, people who are trying to prevent me from getting it are bad"
Conversation
attempts to point out the nuanced presence of contextual goodness and badness in the thing trigger both the people for whom it's load-bearing to believe that no badness exists in the thing *and* the people for whom it's load-bearing to believe that no goodness exists in the thing
Replying to
it's actually way worse than "what if it's good for some people and bad for others" which is like nuance 101. the most fucked up examples are frankenstein mixes of
1) good thing you intensely want / desperately need and can't find anywhere else, and
2) extremely bad thing
1
16
when you have a thing like that it can be crazymaking feeling like you can't talk about it with anyone because by default they'll either be polarized into seeing it as all good or all bad. everyone is sort of collectively borderline splitting the thing for you
1
18
it's a kindness to accurately name and distinguish good things and bad things, and it's a kindness to show people that they can have the good things without the bad things
2
1
13
Quote Tweet
the completely human and understandable desire to be taken seriously, to treated with dignity and respect... this has led to people falsifying their preferences and misrepresenting themselves and each other, which is unfortunate on so many levels
Show this thread
3