[matrix87]

> it's more much more likely those who have been traumatised are seeking understanding, rather than healthy then traumatised by their curiosity

The fact that trauma is now everywhere sort of de-legitimizes it to the point where there's no way of knowing in the average case. Also the fact that it's essentially a business at this point

> but you've got no idea of how much damage this attitude unwittingly propagates the trauma on succeeding generations

Sounds like you're saying: become emotionally pure or else. Personally I'd rather have "trauma" than play this little head game. And imo the younger generations will be better off, on average, not playing it either

If anything, we're doing significantly more damage by teaching upcoming generations to trust the pharmaceutical industry

[pm]

> The fact that trauma is now everywhere sort of de-legitimizes it to the point where there's no way of knowing in the average case.

I can tell you that trauma is very real for the person experiencing it, and it's this kind of flippant dismissal that stops people from seeking help.

Trauma everywhere, in what fashion? Perhaps because more people are talking about it, more people are getting the courage to talk about it.

> Sounds like you're saying: become emotionally pure or else.

Emotionally pure? What does that even mean? It was phrased as a warning, because I've experienced this attitude within my family, and seen the damage it's caused, and continues to cause. Eventually, the damaged start damaging others, people put their hands over the ears pretending nothing's happening, and the cycle continues.

> Personally I'd rather have "trauma" than play this little head game.

What head game is being played?

> If anything, we're doing significantly more damage by teaching upcoming generations to trust the pharmaceutical industry.

The argument I was making had nothing to do with the pharmaceutical industry. It was about how trauma gets suppressed, and how that can institute a cycle of trauma, so be wary of how you approach it. It's all about taking care of people.

[matrix87]

> Trauma everywhere, in what fashion? Perhaps because more people are talking about it, more people are getting the courage to talk about it.

Social contagion is a thing. Just because more people are taking about something doesn't mean it's true

> Eventually, the damaged start damaging others, people put their hands over the ears pretending nothing's happening, and the cycle continues.

It doesn't take therapy or a bunch of trauma ideology to know that hurting people is wrong. Someone could have a perfect upbringing and still be a piece of shit. Alternatively someone could have a shitty upbringing and be a good person. The latter case doesn't require the person to "come to terms with their trauma" in the methodology that gets dictated to them by this decade's version of psychology

> The argument I was making had nothing to do with the pharmaceutical industry.

Maybe not directly, I was suggesting a more productive alternative than the one in the comment I was responding to

[throwaway2037]

Social contagion affects girls and women much more than boys and men.

    > It doesn't take therapy or a bunch of trauma ideology to know that hurting people is wrong.

If that simple explanation is true, why do the abused so frequently become the abusers? And why do they struggle to stop before therapy?

[matrix87]

> Social contagion affects girls and women much more than boys and men.

How is this related?

> And why do they struggle to stop before therapy?

Sounds like you're implying that they stop after therapy also

Do they, long term? Is it because of therapy or because courts/law enforcement are involved?

> why do the abused so frequently become the abusers?

I'm not saying that abuse does not make people more likely to abuse, I'm saying that therapy alone does not reliably make them better people