A pink Question

[gerbilwhisperer]

I'd ask her myself like I did the last time, but I can't expect anything but just another fart of progressive bravado only to be proven false by pink herself the very next time she can't help but air more of her pathetic personal drama on an adult porn site.

So, this isn't a question to pink - it's a question about pink and others maybe like her, and I believe it goes straight to the very heart of the free speech fight ramping-up on the internet now, and what has already happened in real life because of (as so many, many progressives need to believe) mere words on the web.

Here's the question:

Is it even remotely possible that the GB's pink could ever commit suicide because of how her emotions take words written about her - or to her - here on the GB?

Because, if that is even remotely possible concerning pink (or any like her reading this Board), then that's some heavily serious shit to get straight.

And if anyone would commit suicide over words here, is it the duty of ALL posters not to ever post such words that could even potentially offend someone so emotionally unbalanced to the point of suicide, or is it ultimately the responsibility of that person to quit emotionally exposing him/herself to such blatant self-danger? In which case, wouldn't anyone who professes to care in the least for that person consistently insist that that person not participate at all here?

Is a person's life - like Prince's, eg - so worthless to people who profess they care so much about them that they'd much rather be nice and pleasant with a person - DON'T MAKE WAVES - than to point out the factual, deadly danger they're playing with and to flat-out tell them you WILL NOT be part of them killing themselves?

Mean, harsh, despicable words (ie, everyday GB life) are posted about and directly to a person on the GB and that person ends-up committing suicide, even leaving a note which states the only reason for doing so was because s/he couldn't handle what s/he considered nothing but unbearable abuse...

In the certain to ensue debate here after news of the suicide and note broke, whom would you vote mostly responsible:

1. the GB

2. the person

 

[Que]

Is there any way we can make this thread about Hashtag's impending suicide, instead?

 

[Bert Notorius]

natural selection works
every time it's applied.

 

[warrior queen]

Well, damn! gerbil......
Does this mean you're gonna keep trolling me in the vain hope that you can precipitate my demise?
Or the opposite?

 

[Bert Notorius]

Well, damn! gerbil......
Does this mean you're gonna keep trolling me in the vain hope that you can precipitate my demise?
Or the opposite?

pink's gb tales of woe
peril in comparison
to your own.

 

[warrior queen]

pink's gb tales of woe
peril in comparison
to your own.

Peril?
Fuck me, it's all over!

 

[Bert Notorius]

Peril?
Fuck me, it's all over!

i'm drunk
your excuse?

 

[warrior queen]

i'm drunk
your excuse?

I have no excuse, nor do I expect to have one at any time in the future.

 

[deehere]

Peril?
Fuck me, it's all over!

He probably meant pale

 

[warrior queen]

He probably meant pale

Oh, ya think?
Well goshdarn, now that changes everything!!!
I sure am glad y'all came along today

 

[gerbilwhisperer]

Hmmmm...

Perhaps I should've added the progressive option, We reserve the right to blame the Board until after pink kills herself.

 

[hashtag45]

This "keep a stiff upper lip" mentality, and the tendency to stigmatize those who show or share their so-called "weak" emotions is rampant in NZ and Australia too.
Paradoxically, here you also encounter this mentality in some women, depending on area. And these are so-called femministic societies, btw.

I came across this tendency to stigmatize emotions a lot less often in non-e speaking countries in Europe, where even men are not that ashamed to acknowledge that they're more in touch with their emotions.


So my take on that is that the mentality is more prevalent
- either in men (no surprise in that; and just look at pink's critics : 95% of them are men)
- or in areas where people (or their more recent ancestors) had to deal with harsh conditions and "keep a stiff lip" in order to survive.
Or alternatively, I'm not sure if it's just an anglo-saxon thing, because a lot of those that I came across didn't like to show their emotions.

 

[Debbie]

This "keep a stiff upper lip" mentality, and the tendency to stigmatize those who show or share their so-called "weak" emotions is rampant in NZ and Australia too.
Paradoxically, here you also encounter this mentality in some women, depending on area. And these are so-called femministic societies, btw.

I came across this tendency to stigmatize emotions a lot less often in non-e speaking countries in Europe, where even men are not that ashamed to acknowledge that they're more in touch with their emotions.


So my take on that is that the mentality is more prevalent
- either in men (no surprise in that; and just look at pink's critics : 95% of them are men)
- or in areas where people (or their more recent ancestors) had to deal with harsh conditions and "keep a stiff lip" in order to survive.
Or alternatively, I'm not sure if it's just an anglo-saxon thing, because a lot of those that I came across didn't like to show their emotions.

I beg your pardon? Or more simply what are you on about?

This "keep a stiff upper lip" mentality, and the tendency to stigmatize those who show or share their so-called "weak" emotions is rampant in NZ and Australia too.

 

[hashtag45]

I beg your pardon? Or more simply what are you on about?

Much less in NZ than in Australia, indeed.
But at least at work, that was my observation.

I saw employees who lost family members just weeks before, for example. And despite the fact that they were obviously in emotional pain (pale complexions, bags under their eyes, losing weight and all that) they still tried to keep that professional appearance and smile.
If I were in their place, I wouldn't have been able to keep myself from crying or talking about it.

Not to diminish anyone's experience (in some cases the more contained individuals were even more grief-stricken than someone more expressive).

But either they were keen to keep up a 'dignified' appearance, or they worried that some asshat from management might misinterpret their showcasing understandable emotions with "inability to cope at work". (I actually witnessed the latter too)

 

[Debbie]

Much less in NZ than in Australia, indeed.
But at least at work, that was my observation.

I saw employees who lost family members just weeks before, for example. And despite the fact that they were obviously in emotional pain (pale complexions, bags under their eyes, losing weight and all that) they still tried to keep that professional appearance and smile.
If I were in their place, I wouldn't have been able to keep myself from crying or talking about it.

Not to diminish anyone's experience (in some cases the more contained individuals were even more grief-stricken than someone more expressive).

But either they were keen to keep up a 'dignified' appearance, or they worried that some asshat from management might misinterpret their showcasing understandable emotions with "inability to cope at work". (I actually witnessed the latter too)

None of your post elaborates on the word you used - stigmatize
ˈstɪɡmətʌɪz/
verb
verb: stigmatise
1.
describe or regard as worthy of disgrace or great disapproval.

What you seem to be saying now is people who had lost loved ones or experienced something tragic kept their emotions in check for the most part. Very different from someone stigmatizing another person because they were displaying their emotional state.

 

[cfuhrer]

Anyone who gives the GB that much control over them... well, they are giving control to the wrong damn "people".

 

[Emerson40]

This "keep a stiff upper lip" mentality, and the tendency to stigmatize those who show or share their so-called "weak" emotions is rampant in NZ and Australia too.
Paradoxically, here you also encounter this mentality in some women, depending on area. And these are so-called femministic societies, btw.

I came across this tendency to stigmatize emotions a lot less often in non-e speaking countries in Europe, where even men are not that ashamed to acknowledge that they're more in touch with their emotions.


So my take on that is that the mentality is more prevalent
- either in men (no surprise in that; and just look at pink's critics : 95% of them are men)
- or in areas where people (or their more recent ancestors) had to deal with harsh conditions and "keep a stiff lip" in order to survive.
Or alternatively, I'm not sure if it's just an anglo-saxon thing, because a lot of those that I came across didn't like to show their emotions.

Much less in NZ than in Australia, indeed.
But at least at work, that was my observation.

I saw employees who lost family members just weeks before, for example. And despite the fact that they were obviously in emotional pain (pale complexions, bags under their eyes, losing weight and all that) they still tried to keep that professional appearance and smile.
If I were in their place, I wouldn't have been able to keep myself from crying or talking about it.

Not to diminish anyone's experience (in some cases the more contained individuals were even more grief-stricken than someone more expressive).

But either they were keen to keep up a 'dignified' appearance, or they worried that some asshat from management might misinterpret their showcasing understandable emotions with "inability to cope at work". (I actually witnessed the latter too)

http://www.cutecatgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Facepalm.gif

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Pink and Hashhag are licensed franchisees of DOLF WORLD INTERNATIONAL.

The DOLFWORLD girl offwes a perfect blend of mystery, utter confusion, surprise, and alarm.

 

[Bert Notorius]

Pink and Hashhag are licensed franchisees of DOLF WORLD INTERNATIONAL.

The DOLFWORLD girl offwes a perfect blend of mystery, utter confusion, surprise, and alarm.

Maybe all that getting
slapped around
Has finally addled
Her brain

 

[hashtag45]

None of your post elaborates on the word you used - stigmatize
ˈstɪɡmətʌɪz/
verb
verb: stigmatise
1.
describe or regard as worthy of disgrace or great disapproval.

What you seem to be saying now is people who had lost loved ones or experienced something tragic kept their emotions in check for the most part. Very different from someone stigmatizing another person because they were displaying their emotional state.

As it often happens, my poor e communication skills didn't help in getting my point across clearly.
I'm not talking about the individual's character (kindness or such things).
I'm referring to cultural stances towards more surface things like expressing versus containing one's emotions. (As perceived by myself and several of my overseas friends)


1.Because, as far as the first issue is concerned:
I can honestly say (without trying to suck up to anyone) that overall I had better experiences with the "locals" (NZers and Australians) than I had with people of other nationalities or even with my own kind. I had "locals" stand through thick and thin by my side and they did things for me that none of my extended family or co-nationals would've done.


2.But as far as "stigma" re superficial expression of emotions are concerned:
I noticed that NZers and Australians seem to take pride in being laid back and appearing to be self-contained (emotion-wise). And that some of them confuse expression of emotions or simple superficial "histrionics" with emotional imbalance or inability to cope.

And I encountered that too (long stares or "would you like a cup of tea or take a deep breath and don't be anxious") in my first year there too, whenever I tried to show transient emotions like enthusiasm or so on. I learned quickly to copy their way of expressing themselves, in order to avoid misunderstandings.

Re NZ: I once told a friend that I'm puzzled by a co-workers attitude (she kept rejecting people's supportive words saying that "she's doing great".) My friend told me that, being from the West Coast herself, she understands her attitude; because in certain areas there, any potential signs of weakness in coping with stress are looked down upon.

 

[hashtag45]

Btw:
Can Noirtrash, BertNotorious and any other dudes please bugger off from this conversation?

Concepts like "emotions", ventilating and listening are obviously foreign to them.
Their idea of offering emotional support are "do this, do that, try that" or "Why do you care if x said that you're stupid or fat? And even if you are stupid or fat, you can't change it so don't think about it."

 

[Bert Notorius]

Btw:
Can Noirtrash, BertNotorious and any other dudes please bugger off from this conversation?

Concepts like "emotions", ventilating and listening are obviously foreign to them.
Their idea of offering emotional support are "do this, do that, try that" or "Why do you care if x said that you're stupid or fat? And even if you are stupid or fat, you can't change it so don't think about it."

I don't
"Bugger off"

Remember
pink
Is the woman
That let
Krc fuck her


Allegedly

Pink raises
Niavety
To an art form

 

[hashtag45]

I like pink.
There are plenty of misogynistic idiots on this board that I'd gladly humilliate and kick in the nuts all day long, tho.
86 (aka Emerson40) used to be one of them, but now *yawn*.

 

[Debbie]

I understand english is not your first language and the whole complexity of the english language and somethings getting muddled/misunderstood/lost in translation.

I emphasize my query was on the word stigmatize.

Sure we are laid back. Agreed to the stiff upper lip - many new zealanders can claim english ancestry. I myself am a descendant of an english grandmother who didn't wear her heart on her sleeve. Meaning she rarely cried in public or was known to be exuberant. That is the way she was raised in english society and the same way she raised my sister and I. In my experience most english people and New Zealand people we are very private. We try not to make a scene because of emotional outbursts but we do love to make some noise when it comes to rugby.

For the most part New Zealanders are known to be generous, caring people who will give as much as they can and expect nothing in return. It's in our nature and the way our society is. But it is not rampant in New Zealand that we stigmatize people who have lost loved ones or suffered a tragedy. Behind the scenes in private most kiwis will be making and giving the bereaved kai (food) or saying Karakias (prayers)

As a small country we rally behind people and communities and we are there to support them and help any way we can. We may not be effusive (adjective
1.
unduly demonstrative; lacking reserve:
effusive greetings; an effusive person.
2.
pouring out; overflowing.)

but please don't associate the New Zealand way of not being overly emotional and assume we stigmatize people who do display their anguish and loss. Because if this did happen the people who were behaving unkindly to someone who was showing their grief would be chastised by other kiwi's and told to sod off or pull their head in.

 

[Bert Notorius]

I hope to God
It's

"Pink"