Mass Hysteria in the U.S. | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Mass Hysteria in the U.S.

smh nevermind dude, I didn't say that and you're obviously just looking for some kind of conflict here

Funny, You literally said you agree with George. Is that not what he said? I can talk to people I disagree with with an open mind. Can you? I disagree with most of what you say, I don't hate you for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aeon
I disagree with most of what you say

lol I don't know how that's possible considering you don't understand what I say.
Again, you're just continuing to antagonize me here. I'm not interested.
I don't know why you've built up some imaginary fight here, but I'm not trying to do anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K
lol I don't know how that's possible considering you don't understand what I say.
Again, you're just continuing to antagonize me here. I'm not interested.
I don't know why you've built up some imaginary fight here, but I'm not trying to do anything.

None of that represents me or how I feel. I guess no bridge will be built on this day. :sorrowful: Sucks.
 
None of that represents me or how I feel. I guess no bridge will be built on this day. :sorrowful: Sucks.

You weren't trying to build any sort of bridge, don't kid yourself.
I attempted to explain what I meant, but you are just triggered about me agreeing with a single point that Soros made because you don't like the guy.
You didn't even try to understand why I agree, you just baited me to expand on it so you could attack me further.
I don't like the guy either. Your frustrations toward me are being entirely misplaced, and you instead chose to try to further irritate me by claiming you don't agree with me on mostly everything.
That is not bridge building, that is bridge burning. I've not said anything like that.

And again, I'm not even interested. You are choosing to waste my time on inconsequential things because of some sort of anger within you.

My original point was very straight forward and literal, but you conflated it to mean a lot more.
And you seem to think I carry other agendas simply because I agreed with that single point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jexocuha and John K
But yeah let's sit here and argue about the obvious fact that if a person shows that something is possible, then other people will see that it is also possible.
What a baffling concept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jexocuha
I don't think there has been an increase in hysteria. If you study history people have always been hysterical about everything. It is human nature.

I agree that history will show humans in a consistant state of hysteria, however it has nothing to do with human nature and everything to do will control over the population.

I tend to think that which is in human nature transcends culture and socialization—to the point of it existing despite those things.
This seems to me to be a disagreement about semantics rather than fundamentals. I took slant to mean that it was a common trait of humans to act hysterically - I don't think she meant that it was necessarily a hard wired feature of our biology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jexocuha and aeon
Triggered? Spare me. Its not me cherry picking a single point you made. It was the only thing close to a point in anything you said. For real I'm not mad. You seem to be kindy touchy. I'm not picking I am trying you understand your mindset. You have every right to not share it though.
 
I like the content of this video - it has a lot to say about the way people en masse can be manipulated. It needs to be absorbed in a critical way of course, but I'm quite convinced that we humans are prone to psychic epidemics, and that they are much harder to resist than those caused by infections. I think that hysteria is a response to fear, and that fear in large groups of people is vulnerable to fake news that amplifies the collective fear. It makes more sense to me to tackle the underlying fears rather than attack the reaction.

Hysteria is a loaded term of course, and is itself one of those fear words designed to ramp up the tensions. I think it makes more sense to talk about collective anxiety in our societies rather than hysteria - and save that word for the most extreme situations.

 
  • Like
Reactions: aeon and Wyote
Its not me cherry picking a single point you made.

You literally asked me directly

I'm not picking I am trying you understand your mindset.

I attempted to explain, you didn't understand.

And followed up by saying these antagonistic statements

Lol I don't need your help silly.
Show me please. I want to see what is so convincing.
Funny, You literally said you agree with George.
I disagree with most of what you say
You seem to be kindy touchy.
 
@Moranga what exactly is it that you perceive that we disagree on?
 
Hysteria is a loaded term of course, and is itself one of those fear words designed to ramp up the tensions.

It’s also a word rooted in the most vile misogyny. Accursed woman, with thy foul uterine lunacy! :rolleyes:

FFS,
Ian
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jexocuha and John K
This seems to me to be a disagreement about semantics rather than fundamentals. I took slant to mean that it was a common trait of humans to act hysterically - I don't think she meant that it was necessarily a hard wired feature of our biology.

Hi John, I see you point. My thoughts on humans acting hysterically being a common trait. I think it is not a common trait. I think with a deeper look it will show hysterics are more often the result of an outside and unwelcome influence. For the most part. I think there is a difference between nature and conditioning that should be noted.
 
@Moranga what exactly is it that you perceive that we disagree on?

Today I would only disagree with George Soros having any genuine good intentions for anything. Show me a single thing he has influenced that ended better than it started out except for him personal gain. I agree that there are invisible strings on both sides. I have little faith in either.

Before today just off the top of my head

"Most people are too stupid to think for themselves. They should be forced until they realize it was best for them from the start." - Wy

or something to that effect regarding vaccines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aeon
Hi John, I see you point. My thoughts on humans acting hysterically being a common trait. I think it is not a common trait. I think with a deeper look it will show hysterics are more often the result of an outside and unwelcome influence. For the most part. I think there is a difference between nature and conditioning that should be noted.
Hi Moranga!

I think that fear is part of human nature in the sense that, in common with other higher animals, we are hard-wired to experience fear in response to perceived threats of many different sorts. Anxiety, hysteria, aggression, courage, compassion, understanding, etc, are all possible responses (amongst many others) of humans to fear. Of course, a lot of these will be responses conditioned by social forces, moral codes, personal integrity or lack of it, etc. I think that fear is the common base underlying the sort of issue raised in the OP - and as the video I posted earlier pointed out, a lot of such fear is generated on the back of delusions and fake news, as well as on genuine threats.
 
Today I would only disagree with George Soros having any genuine good intentions for anything.

I did not claim otherwise. This was an assumption on your part if you believe that I feel this way. We are in agreement, generally.

I even already stated this
I don't like the guy either.


"Most people are too stupid to think for themselves. They should be forced until they realize it was best for them from the start." - Wy

or something to that effect regarding vaccines.

Whatever this is, it's out of context and is another thing you did not fully understand.
I was probably speaking cynically at the time. Of course I don't believe this.

If you(not you directly, anyone) bothered to get to know me better, you'd understand that freedom of choice is essentially a core piece of my entire being.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: aeon and Jexocuha
I did not claim otherwise. This was an assumption on your part if you believe that I feel this way. We are in agreement, generally.



Whatever this is, it's out of context and is another thing you did not fully understand.
I was probably speaking cynically at the time. Of course I don't believe this.

If you(not you directly, anyone) bothered to get to know me better, you'd understand that freedom of choice is essentially a core piece of my entire being.

Like I said something to that effect and not verbatim. Look, I'm just going off your comments man, I'm not a mind reader and neither are you. You asked. As a Moderator maybe you should reel it in a bit if neutrality is a characteristic sought after for that position. Shutting people down does little to encourage dialog or create any hope of mutual understanding. My original point of stepping back and looking at the big picture stands. You decided to chime in. I didn't attack you unless attacking means asking for more input. Chill
 
  • Like
Reactions: aeon
Like I said something to that effect and not verbatim. Look, I'm just going off your comments man, I'm not a mind reader and neither are you. You asked. As a Moderator maybe you should reel it in a bit if neutrality is a characteristic sought after for that position. Shutting people down does little to encourage dialog or create any hope of mutual understanding. My original point of stepping back and looking at the big picture stands. You decided to chime in. I didn't attack you unless attacking means asking for more input. Chill

So even after I just tried to get us on the same page and explain that I have no real disagreement with you,
you now choose to make further accusations about my moderating and tell me to chill despite it being obvious that you have been the aggressor.

Look, I don't know what your issue is Moranga but you used to be pretty solid yourself.
Whatever is going on, I hope you figure it out.
 
Last edited:
I like the content of this video - it has a lot to say about the way people en masse can be manipulated. It needs to be absorbed in a critical way of course, but I'm quite convinced that we humans are prone to psychic epidemics, and that they are much harder to resist than those caused by infections. I think that hysteria is a response to fear, and that fear in large groups of people is vulnerable to fake news that amplifies the collective fear. It makes more sense to me to tackle the underlying fears rather than attack the reaction.

Hysteria is a loaded term of course, and is itself one of those fear words designed to ramp up the tensions. I think it makes more sense to talk about collective anxiety in our societies rather than hysteria - and save that word for the most extreme situations.

Great points, this was more in line with what I was thinking too
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K
The line between factual news and entertainment or rage-bait is virtually gone. I almost don't consume news at all because I'm only interested in what factually happened, and only in happenings which are significant.

I have no patience for media which spends 5min on something which can be reported in 30sec. Moreover, I don't consider politicians' choice of clothes, food, slips of tongue, or personal lives newsworthy.

The news headlines now reminds me of the covers of gossip magazines in the doctor's waiting room, when I was a child.

Finally, this vacuous form media has taken has been guided by audience choices and commercial pressures. Pandering to what audiences will tune in for, which at times seems paranoid, partisan, or hysterical, has tuned me out.