Brandon Rivera2 said:I guess "homophobia" is just such a massive umbrella term at this point... it covers everything from violent skinheads looking for a fight to religious zealots, all the way down to those polite, suburban haters just sitting on their couches watching the news...
Edward Wilson82 said:"Homophobia" is just a lazy, unprofessional label used for people who feel some level of aversion toward homosexuals. It’s an instinctive reaction—a gut feeling regarding what many see as an unnatural lifestyle. Look, people have a natural revulsion toward things like necrophilia, incest, or pedophilia. By that same logic, someone could try calling a normal person's disgust toward those acts "necrophobia" or "incestophobia"—but we all know that's nonsense. A mentally healthy person is naturally going to recoil from those deviations.
So, yeah, the term "homophobia" is a total fabrication; it has zero connection to the actual medical definition of a phobia. In clinical terms, a specific phobia is an irrational, persistent fear triggered by an object or situation that isn't actually dangerous. Exposure causes intense anxiety or an overwhelming urge to flee. These symptoms can seriously mess with a person's ability to function daily. Most adults with a real phobia realize their fear is irrational, yet they still can't control it.
When facing a true phobia, you get hit with physical symptoms—sweaty palms, flushing, racing heart, chest pains, shortness of breath, trembling, or a shaky voice. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that the people being slapped with the "homophobe" label aren't experiencing any of this clinical symptomatology. They don't fit the definition.
Originally, "homophobia" was psychiatric jargon used to describe an individual's fear of their own homosexual inclinations. But then activists hijacked the term and rebranded it to mean any negative attitude or "fear" directed at homosexuals. It’s a rhetorical weapon designed to discredit and humiliate anyone standing against homosexual behavior or its legalization.
The problem is that they don't distinguish between different types of opposition. Sure, activists will reserve the "homophobe" tag for violent bigots—like skinheads—to frame them as the true villains. But in everyday conversation, they’ll pin that label on anyone who thinks homosexual behavior is wrong, abnormal, or harmful. If these activists actually had a leg to stand on, they’d be able to explain the difference between a hateful bigot and someone holding a moral opposition to homosexuality.
Furthermore, the term "homophobia" frames opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. This is a sweet deal for activists since homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973. Now, they get to claim they are the healthy ones, while anyone disagreeing with them is labeled mentally unstable. Obviously, changing a line in a manual doesn't fix a disorder, nor does it make someone else crazy.
Third, the term is used as a semantic substitute for "racism." The goal is to convince the public that opposing homosexuality is identical to racial prejudice. All these tactics serve one purpose: to silence and shame opponents. If you speak out against the lifestyle, the parades, or the legal shifts, you're immediately branded as either mentally ill or a bigot.
Bottom line: "homophobia" is a ridiculous concept cooked up by activists to use as a blunt instrument against anyone who disagrees with them.
Yeah, right—as if they actually want us to legalize it!
Next thing you know, these activists will be coming for our crosses, too...
It’s all just some twisted social experiment run in a lab...
Eventually, they'll be teaching kids about sex, necrophilia, and abortion in every public school across the country!
That's their ultimate goal...
But in all seriousness, homophobia is really just a symptom of what happens when people meddle in matters that simply don't concern them... I mean, who anyone sleeps with, who they choose to marry, or where they hold hands... that's nobody else's business, and there shouldn't be any reason for anyone to object... It's as if certain people act out so provocatively just because they know it bothers others—perhaps they're just bored and looking for a fight, those various activists...
Sandra Parker3 said:Are you actually being serious right now? You aren't being critical because you have some grand agenda; you're just reacting because your gut is telling you something feels off.
Then again... you just sort of sense when you're ready to push forward. At least that's how it works for me. I don't really bother checking off a list of requirements to decide if I'm done. 🤷 What does an apology even mean anymore? You see people handing them out like candy every five seconds, almost like they're just filler words to smooth things over, but where’s the actual credibility? It’s all about what happens after the words are spoken. Words carry weight, sure, but on their own? They don't amount to much of anything.
Guilt? Not really.
Quincy:
I know exactly what I’m doing and exactly how I could fix it, but I just can't bring myself to actually change anything. It's frustratingly predictable. I've got no excuses, and there isn't a damn thing I can do to change it.
You just can't. The only thing you can actually do is just admit that you messed up. It’s tough, but there isn't any other way to play it.
No...
It's more about shame, contempt, and a deep-seated hatred for oneself...
Sandra Parker3 said:Are you actually being serious right now? You aren't being critical because you have some grand agenda; you're just reacting because your gut is telling you something feels off.
Then again... you just sort of sense when you're ready to push forward. At least that's how it works for me. I don't really bother checking off a list of requirements to decide if I'm done. 🤷 What does an apology even mean anymore? You see people handing them out like candy every five seconds, almost like they're just filler words to smooth things over, but where’s the actual credibility? It’s all about what happens after the words are spoken. Words carry weight, sure, but on their own? They don't amount to much of anything.
Guilt? Not really.
Quincy:
I know exactly what I’m doing and exactly how I could fix it, but I just can't bring myself to actually change anything. It's frustratingly predictable. I've got no excuses, and there isn't a damn thing I can do to change it.
You just can't. The only thing you can actually do is just admit that you messed up. It’s tough, but there isn't any other way to play it.
But that part—the acceptance—is already understood; otherwise, I wouldn't even care. If I didn't feel like I had failed, none of this would carry any weight at all...
Personally, I don't hold much against others—I don't really have anyone to blame or forgive, at least not regarding the things that happened back when I was a bit more... immature. I’ve simply reached the conclusion that people are just animals, much like myself, and we shouldn't expect anything different from the collective whole. In the end, we are just what we are.
There are a few things from my distant past that I can't quite let go of, but that was a lifetime ago; I barely even recall them now. It isn't really about forgiveness at that point—it's more a matter of pure resentment, though there isn't much left to actually forgive anyway.
It's only myself that I find impossible to forgive. A day can be perfectly fine—truly decent—and then I'll stumble upon some memory of something I said or did, and suddenly there's this eruption of shame and self-loathing so intense it leaves me miserable for hours... sometimes an entire day, or even until tomorrow, depending on how many years have passed since the incident—five years, ten years, longer...
I don't understand what there would be to forgive in others; I know I am the one responsible for everything. There is no metric for forgiveness when you are fully aware of every single step and every passing thought—knowing exactly where I could have consciously corrected my course or simply chosen a different path—yet, I didn't. I have no excuses, and I cannot change any of it.
It creates this sensation... almost as if you want to tear your own bones out with your bare hands.
Donna Wood52 said:Everyone loves to claim, "Oh, I'm a good person, I would never do that, I'd never touch this." It’s a constant refrain—everyone's a saint in their own eyes. So, if that's the case, where exactly 🤷 are all these "bad people" everyone keeps talking about hiding?
Betty Long14 said:Must be nice being all high and mighty with your advice, but you clearly don't see how kids actually flock to a target because: he's quiet and keeps to himself doesn't have a smartphone has no Facebook profile has some kind of speech impediment and all that other stuff........................
This isn't about hatred—it's just pure, unadulterated group catharsis. It's how they reinforce their sense of belonging, participation, friendship, and identity... it bleeds off stress, and frankly, the kids find it fun and comfortable.
If we didn't have a structured system of control or certain authorities they fear, they would be doing much worse things to those few individuals who get picked out by the sheer force of group dynamics...
So, it's not that anyone actually hates them—even if the victim probably hates them as much as humanly possible.
gentlewolf10 said:Well, look, the word "intelligence" actually stems from the Latin *intelligere*, which essentially means to perceive or to understand. So, when we talk about emotional intelligence, we're really talking about the ability to identify and label emotions—both our own and those of the people around us. It’s about using those emotions to fuel thought, regulating them, and making accurate assessments... If you hold it up against standard cognitive intelligence—which is all about navigating new environments, grasping abstract concepts, learning from experience, and adapting—you start to see the parallel. They both fall under the umbrella of "intelligence." One simply focuses on the emotional spectrum, while the other deals with more traditional cognitive processes. At their core, they share the same foundation: understanding, applying knowledge—whether that's about logic or feelings—and the capacity for regulation and adaptation.
So, by extension, emotional intelligence implies the ability to reason through emotions and consciously modify one's behavior or exercise self-control...
But how exactly is that "understanding" achieved? Is making a judgment about an emotion actually a cognitive process? Are we using a specific type of "emotional intelligence," or are we simply applying standard cognitive intelligence to the subject of emotion—essentially treating the emotion as an object of conscious scrutiny to reach a logical conclusion?
In that scenario, are we utilizing one distinct form of intelligence, or two separate ones working in tandem?
Regarding the rest of your point: the process of adopting emotional intelligence is pretty standard stuff. First, you grasp the theoretical concept, then you accept it as a genuine value worth pursuing—essentially integrating it into your personal standards—and finally, you put that knowledge into practice. It’s nothing groundbreaking.
The shift is more about clearly separating logic from feeling. It involves learning to control and manage emotions intelligently, recognizing them in others, and not letting the negative vibes of those around you get under your skin. It's about being an emotional transmitter rather than a receiver. You learn to take a deep breath and pause to settle the physiological triggers—things like high blood pressure or hormone spikes—that tend to cloud judgment. That way, reason can finally take the lead where it belongs.
Something like that, anyway.
So, we are essentially talking about a structured body of knowledge—a set of skills involving learned self-control methods and psychological defense mechanisms. It's a blend of various social competencies with a heavy emphasis on empathy.
Essentially, what's being developed is a conscious awareness regarding the rational management of one's own emotions.
If that's the case, why on earth is this labeled "emotional intelligence" instead of, say, "conscious self-regulation"?
Melissa Torres4 said:There’s this book called Emotional Intelligence—I can’t recall the author offhand, just Google it.
I actually studied EQ back in college. The takeaway was pretty clear: people with high emotional intelligence tend to crush it in their careers and life in general, often outperforming those who rely solely on raw IQ.
The core pillars of EQ are basically: - understanding your own feelings - managing the intensity of those emotions - self-motivation—you know, that internal drive - reading other people's emotions—empathy (which is huge) - building and keeping solid relationships
I'll dig through my old coursework to see what else I can find. Might have more info later.🙂
Based on this description, the concept of EI refers to a specific set of skills and knowledge...
Naturally, these skills and levels of knowledge vary depending on the interplay between individual potential and environmental influence—though I suppose that goes without saying...
Still, we are left with the fact that the operational definition of EI is simply a collection of skills and knowledge...
So, where does the "intelligence" actually fit in? Did I misunderstand something fundamental here? What is the generally accepted definition of intelligence these days, anyway? Isn't intelligence defined as the inherent potential to develop skills and acquire knowledge? If so, shouldn't emotional intelligence be viewed as the innate or developed capacity to eventually master the aforementioned skills, depending on one's circumstances?
And how, exactly, is EI measured? From what I gather, it's graded based on how productive a particular behavior or thought pattern is within a given situation... using criteria like career success or general life satisfaction, for instance...
In other words, when we measure EI, we aren't really measuring the ability to develop skills, recognize patterns, absorb knowledge, adapt to new conditions, or exercise critical thinking... instead, we are mostly just measuring an individual's adaptability and their level of behavioral functionality within a specific system...
Based on what I’ve managed to observe from my surroundings—and after digging through various, more or less scholarly sources—one realizes that mentality is simply learned or internalized. It happens during the process of upbringing, growing up, and general personality formation... much like how one absorbs an entire sequence of behavioral patterns, thought processes, and value systems. People often adopt ready-made personality types or identify themselves with a specific demographic slice, a certain cultural circle, an ideology, a faith, or an intellectual movement—and then they call this "individuality."
In this dynamic, the stronger force shapes the weaker one; family, society, and the media exert far more influence over an individual than that individual can exert upon themselves during their formative years. One might manage to assert some agency, but usually only quite late in life and in truly exceptional cases—and even then, they are often merely choosing between alternative prefabricated personalities or established ways of thinking, which they might slightly modify...
Furthermore, mentality is sustained and reproduced over time, as individuals pass their mindset onto those in their immediate environment who are still in the stages of development and personality formation. This process multiplies exponentially through culture and mass media...
Mentality does change with the times. It is primarily driven by technological advancement and shifts in the requirements and conditions of economic and political systems—or, in extreme scenarios, sudden changes in living conditions and social regulations. Think of things like the imposition of different manufacturing regulations, the sanctioning of certain social activities, sudden famines, prolonged wars, and so on... or perhaps as a consequence of the isolation of a specific segment of the population, such as the prison mentality. Mass media plays a significant role here, mostly by repeatedly broadcasting specific personality models, phrases, modes of thought, and norms over time—or simply by exposing the public to one ready-made mindset instead of another. Religious organizations also have an influence, though they generally serve to maintain the status quo. There have even been recorded shifts in mentality due to changes in diet or the regulation of hygiene habits.
An individual may have a marginal impact on society, whether through some form of activism, or quite simply by consciously altering their own behavior, forming their own opinions, and sharing them with others—or most concretely, through the raising of their own children.
Then again, a larger group of organized individuals might have a slightly less marginal influence, though in those instances, they often end up creating a new form of mentality without even being aware of it.
Generally speaking, mentality is difficult to change. For instance, it would be easier to shift a worldview or a way of thinking, largely because mentality is mostly unconscious within the individual and tends to form irrationally. Changes in mentality often manifest as a reaction or an adaptation, making it incredibly difficult to predict how—or by what means—one could intentionally alter the mentality of a population, other than through the methods of mass media, where a new model is simply imposed through repetition until the old one is pushed aside...
Historically speaking, the most effective methods for changing or shaping a mentality are organized education and the training of discipline within a population, or the long-term combined influence of a particular worldview and specific economic or political conditions.
At least, that is my personal opinion; I am certainly no expert.
And yes, obviously, one can refrain from judging—that happens every day. Whether that is right or wrong, and by what criteria we should judge it, is a different question entirely...
So, the prevailing standard seems to be that psychedelic experiences are essentially dismissed as "meaningless"—as if they don't actually count toward a clinical picture. If a client or patient were to sit down and describe a deeply personal, transformative encounter with such a substance, would a psychiatrist or psychologist simply check a box noting a "psychotic episode" and call it a day? Is that really where the conversation ends?
I’m asking whether anyone actually considers the entire cognitive and emotional discourse an individual carries away from such a state—those profound, albeit sometimes chaotic, realizations... or even the specific shape and content of the hallucinations themselves, which could serve as a window into the person's psyche. Or is all of that just brushed aside as nothing more than side effects of intoxication?
Furthermore, how does the psychiatric approach to dreams differ from how they treat psychedelic experiences? One is studied, the other is dismissed... or so it seems.
I recall some researcher—maybe an Eastern Bloc academic, a psychologist from somewhere near the old Soviet sphere—who conducted certain studies back in the day. I can't quite pin down the name right now, but there should be plenty of documentation online if you look for it.
If we were to assume a set of perfectly idealized conditions—where recruiting ten to a hundred volunteers isn't an issue, you have a full team of specialists on hand, and nobody is asking where the LSD, salvia, or psilocybin actually came from... how would one even go about conducting functional experimentation using legitimate scientific methods given a sufficient sample size?
For instance, what kind of hypotheses or core questions would actually justify launching such an experiment? How would one control for variables, or what sort of standardized questionnaires could be utilized—or perhaps some other methodology—to properly assess the subjects? What exactly would the objective be?
Let’s say this was all being run as a "B-side" production—nothing fancy, no budget for high-end laboratory equipment. We're talking nothing more than a digital camera, a kitchen scale, some paper, and a pen as the primary instruments... and the human brain, obviously.
Most people have probably heard those stories about using LSD to help folks kick an alcohol addiction I saw this one documentary on YouTube claiming a 50% success rate, but honestly, as far as I can tell, none of that is actually verified—it could just be someone talking nonsense, as the old saying goes...
But what does the actual medical establishment say? What’s the consensus regarding psychedelic substances in general? How do they view the states they induce, what are the potential risks, and has anyone actually documented any real benefits?
I’m initiating this discussion within the realm of psychology—it feels like the most appropriate lens through which to analyze this specific pop-culture phenomenon and its various implications. While the answer might seem somewhat obvious to some, perhaps someone with more specialized expertise could uncover deeper layers or at least articulate the mechanics behind it in a more compelling fashion.
I'm curious if anyone else has picked up on that massive Mac that Thompson drives into the stage floor during the opening of his sets. What exactly is the psychological function of such a prop? Beyond the surface-level symbolism of power or, of course, peace... Is it an attempt to establish a connection with the earth? An assertion of traditional authority?
Looking at it from a historical perspective, certain political movements have always been fond of phallic imagery—axes, clubs, eagles, and so on. It makes one wonder if there is a non-accidental link here. But can we truly assume the similarity is intentional? Or is this something more profound—perhaps a subconscious manifestation of a specific state of consciousness?
One really has to account for the fact that if someone abruptly stops taking a medication after an artificially induced surge in serotonin, there’s often a subsequent crash—either just a dip proportional to the dose or something much more substantial. This typically manifests as sudden mood swings, irritability, or general agitation...
Now, perhaps for a perfectly "healthy" individual, this wouldn't be such a massive issue—it likely hinges on the dosage—but one can never be entirely certain. It only takes one person who isn't even clinically depressed to experience a crushing wave of depression after a day or two of chemically-induced euphoria... it hits you out of nowhere, straight to the gut, and suddenly things aren't so simple anymore...