Criticism of Radical Acceptance

[Duxwing]

Radical Acceptance is madness of the worst sort. Uncriticized, this beast ravages the world, twisting and breaking, ripping and tearing our feelings from us and burying them under denial without a shred of justification. It does the above not by asserting one thing and insinuating the opposite, rendering its victims unable to argue without running afoul of either argument or themselves. Understanding this hideous philosophy requires switching from literal to non-literal argument by turns, carefully ignoring non-explicit arguments during the literal interpretation.

The first assertion is "acceptance" and its insinuation is "invalidation". Only lunatics denies reality; the value of events is irrelevant. Telling a sane person to "accept" a bad event therefore is pointless and instead insinuates either that the person is so psychotic that they think they can change the past or that they should surrender their fight against the wrongs against them, invalidate themselves and pretend nothing happened under a Stepford Smile. The most condemning evidence is that radical acceptance is said to bring relief--end feeling--and never is mentioned in happy situations, when feeling is desirable.

Furthermore is the second assertion "serenity" and its insinuation "madness". Like the previous paragraph mentioned, these invalidated emotions and unresolved conflicts will not fade but fester into hideous phenomena of the unconscious. Few if any radical acceptors will demonstrate their implicitly-alleged immunity to pain by experiencing unpleasant situations over and over again. The pain therefore must go somewhere.

It goes to the will and sense of boundaries, creating a listless, pathetic individual who has desperately feigning such indifference that whoever tramples them might leave before their pent-up rage explodes. To, like radical acceptance argues, always and immediately let past wrongs go un-righted is to invite invasion; e.g., to let others take from you what they will, to let them hit and run, to never ensure that those who wrong you may not rest. These deterrences are cornerstones of social interaction and would persist even in ideal conditions.

For example consider the following two scenarios, wherein the RA is the Radical Acceptor, the M is the malfeasant, and N is the normal person.

RA: [sitting at desk]
M: [takes pencil]
RA: [twitches and buries pain]
M: [takes another pencil]
RA: [repeats]
M: [takes another pencil]
RA: GO AWAY!
M: [runs]

N: [sitting at desk]
M: [takes pencil]
N: Give it back.
M: [returns pencil]

By not immediately trying to let-go of the past, the normal person keeps their pencil instead of losing three and their temper.

Some radical acceptors therefore argue that radical acceptance excludes this madness, advocating only not pursuing impossible vengeance. This argument makes radical acceptance banal because any sane person already knows that pursuing the impossible is insane: the only remaining insinuation is that the conflict is insufficiently fruitful.

This insinuation is especially false because almost everyone has felt great satisfaction upon righting a past wrong. This satisfaction is the result of our inner twisting's being undone--and therefore our boundaries' being maintained--and rewards us for ensuring order and stability. Radical acceptance therefore is not only morally but intellectually bankrupt and figuratively should be discarded into the dust bin of history.

 

[Cognisant]

Your argument is a tautology, you're saying unacceptable stuff shouldn't be accepted because it's unacceptable, which is not to say your argument is invalid, it's perfectly valid, the problem is unless you're specifically referring to the theft of pencils I'm not sure what you're on about.

Please define "unacceptable" because (correct me if I'm wrong) I think a new definition is the crux of what you'd getting at.

 

[StevenM]

It is very common to not accept reality, not only in the external world, but also in the internal world as well. You would be surprised to what extent everybody resists reality.

Duxwing's example was simplistic, but did make the point.

In the first example, most likely, the person resisted the fact that he was being attacked by malfeasant. And most concerning of all, he resisted the fact that he was troubled by it. Thus, the situation keeps happening, and the resisted emotions exponentially grow.

Everybody was raised and brought up with lies that block or resist external, and internal reality, so you would be surprised how many things in reality we are not aware of.

I really want to post some cool examples, but I'm in a rush right now. I'll be back with them.

 

[crippli]

It does the above not by asserting one thing and insinuating the opposite, rendering its victims unable to argue without running afoul of either argument or themselves. Understanding this hideous philosophy requires switching from literal to non-literal argument by turns, carefully ignoring non-explicit arguments during the literal interpretation.

I think if one is in the literal sphere. One should always read things literately first. Non literal aspects that may be included, can be taken into account. Or not, especially if it's the opposite of the literal meaning. That should, and in my case, will be ignored, even if the meaning is clear. It's on the writer to refrain from doing multiple meanings on the same aspect. This principle is valid in all things, non literal ones too. If a person decides to do one thing, but say another thing, it is their responsibility if they are 'misunderstood'.

Maybe it's like this.
"That is a nice human". But insinuating that is not a nice human. I do think it is important to completely ignore the second aspect. With time they will learn to do one or the other. If they later say that the person is not a nice person. One can instantly call them on this, and make them aware they already said it was a nice person. Further one is now set to go in at depth to figure out what is really going on. At some point this person is going to get a severe headache, possible enter a depression. But through learning doesn't always come pleasantly. In the long haul, it should be worth the effort to activate the needed introversion(as I see as a possibility of their handicap).

There is a second aspect to this though. People aren't used, or may not even be psychological robust enough to 'speak the mind'. And as such this is a coping mechanism, similarly to that of religion. Maybe one can even look at it as grandness to accept this inferior way of communication. And instead of being annoyed, one can feel pity. I do not think it is much of a hindrance, as both aspects tend to be rather clear. Perhaps one can make them aware of the advantages of clarity of communication. Take on the teacher robes, and explain to them ,as one would children, why this method of communication is inferior to that of clarity and truthfulness.

 

[Cognisant]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R-sVnmmw6WY

TL;DR making decisions based upon feelings alone is a really dumb thing to do because our knee-jerk emotional reactions don't consider contextual appropriateness or the consequences of our actions, for instance if someone stole your pencil and you punched them in the face that might seem like a good idea until they and their mates catch up with you after school and beat the living shit out of you for being a confrontational jerk.

Is that really worth a pencil?

 

[Cognisant]

Granted asking someone to stop taking your pencils before their actions make you angry is a prudent course of conflict resolution which a learnt tendency to put-up-&-shut-up may undermine.

Still I think most of us already understand the wisdom of standing up for ourselves.

 

[Duxwing]

Your argument is a tautology, you're saying unacceptable stuff shouldn't be accepted because it's unacceptable, which is not to say your argument is invalid, it's perfectly valid, the problem is unless you're specifically referring to the theft of pencils I'm not sure what you're on about.

Please define "unacceptable" because (correct me if I'm wrong) I think a new definition is the crux of what you'd getting at.

My argument is not that the unacceptable should not be accepted but that radical acceptance leads to the absurd conclusion that it should be. Syllogistically:

Radical Acceptance - Accept everything.
Empirical - The unacceptable is some thing.
Therefore - Accept the unacceptable.

Moreover, "accept" is used vaguely because radical acceptance never clarifies whether it is simply against denial of reality (an obvious, trivial conclusion) or for some value judgment of events.

Granted asking someone to stop taking your pencils before their actions make you angry is a prudent course of conflict resolution which a learnt tendency to put-up-&-shut-up may undermine.

Hence the normal person's not using violence in my example. Only a lunatic would fight for a pencil.

Still I think most of us already understand the wisdom of standing up for ourselves.

The radical acceptors evidently do not.

It is very common to not accept reality, not only in the external world, but also in the internal world as well. You would be surprised to what extent everybody resists reality.

The possibility is banal: one always might be in denial.

Duxwing's example was simplistic, but did make the point.

In the first example, most likely, the person resisted the fact that he was being attacked by malfeasant. And most concerning of all, he resisted the fact that he was troubled by it. Thus, the situation keeps happening, and the resisted emotions exponentially grow.

The normal person resists not the fact--how can a fact be acted upon?--but the malfeasant. Ironically, were the normal person resisting or denying the facts of the situation, they could not have done what they did because they would have not known that their pencil was gone or that the malfeasant took it. Your argument seems to have implications: would you please state them?

Everybody was raised and brought up with lies that block or resist external, and internal reality, so you would be surprised how many things in reality we are not aware of.

Yes, certainly, denial happens: it's also detectable only in hindsight or from without, making it negligible in immediate self-concept.

I really want to post some cool examples, but I'm in a rush right now. I'll be back with them.

Bring 'em!

-Duxwing

 

[AngelOne]

Duxwing, I don't think you understand what radical acceptance is. You seem to think that to radically accept something means that you meekly accept everything that happens as if it were incontrovertibly true.

To radically accept something does not mean to just sit and take it forever, or to be meek. It means to see and accept the situation as it is in this moment. By seeing things as they are instead of as we wish they were, we can see what needs to change and what we're capable of changing.

In your example above, radical acceptance is not to let the pencil thief continue to take your pencil and then to blow up at them. Instead, during and after the first pencil is stolen, it is to accept that the other person stole your pencil AND to accept your feelings about it (anger, hurt, or whatever). With that information, now you can decide what, if anything, to do. It is the first step in making an informed decision about how you choose to respond to a situation.

 

[Duxwing]

Duxwing, I don't think you understand what radical acceptance is. You seem to think that to radically accept something means that you meekly accept everything that happens as if it were incontrovertibly true.

Ok.

To radically accept something does not mean to just sit and take it forever, or to be meek. It means to see and accept the situation as it is in this moment. By seeing things as they are instead of as we wish they were, we can see what needs to change and what we're capable of changing.

But is that not merely the trivial maxim, "Remain sane"? I see nothing "radical" about that idea unless, beyond my awareness, people so regularly lose their minds that not losing them is novel.

In your example above, radical acceptance is not to let the pencil thief continue to take your pencil and then to blow up at them. Instead, during and after the first pencil is stolen, it is to accept that the other person stole your pencil AND to accept your feelings about it (anger, hurt, or whatever). With that information, now you can decide what, if anything, to do. It is the first step in making an informed decision about how you choose to respond to a situation.

But this is banal to sane people because they already accept that they perceive reality: neither hypothetical person psychotically denies the pencil's absence, and neither would I. I think "accept" is supposed to imply something more.

Hazarding a guess, I counter that not "accepting" the pencil's absence drives the normal person to retrieve it and thereby restore order and justice; whereas were they to "accept" the pencil's absence, their feelings of anger would become buried under a Stepford Smile. Furthermore, the person cannot simultaneously 'accept' their anger and the pencil's absence because 'accepting' anger drives the retrieval and 'accepting' the absence prevents it.

-Duxwing

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Yep other people are totally responsible for our own transgressions. We shouldn't have to ask permission to take other people's property. And if people get tired of being tactful, or can't stand up to us then they don't have the right to be angry.


Yes it would cause less problems if people were more assertive. But you can't impose an "ought" in a social context like this. Some people let things go out of tact or insignificance, and they are partly responsible for not representing themselves in an emotionally authentic manner. But you also have others who don't let things go and ignore these situations because of issues of confidence and awkwardness. Do you really consider it reasonable to rationalize away psychological dispositions?

 

[Duxwing]

Yep other people are totally responsible for our own transgressions. We shouldn't have to ask permission to take other people's property. And if people get tired of being tactful, or can't stand up to us then they don't have the right to be angry.

Whom or what are you mocking?

Yes it would cause less problems if people were more assertive. But you can't impose an "ought" in a social context like this. Some people let things go out of tact or insignificance, and they are partly responsible for not representing themselves in an emotionally authentic manner. But you also have others who don't let things go and ignore these situations because of issues of confidence and awkwardness. Do you really consider it reasonable to rationalize away psychological dispositions?

You just said that assertiveness would be better, and now you're saying that you can't say that anything would be better: which did you mean?

Obviously, deontological codes cannot be complete, and if the person cares not about the pencil, then they need not pursue the malfeasant; I never asserted any contrary argument.

Ironically, radical acceptance is deontological because of its black-and-white imperative, "Accept everything".

What people do need not be what they should do; e.g., alcoholics drink, and they should not drink. Likewise, someone who surrenders because of "tact" (barring bizarre exigencies) is just being cowardly. Arguing contrariwise--that what happens ought to happen because it happens--is the naturalistic fallacy and would only revert us to barbarism.

-Duxwing

 

[EyeSeeCold]

By abstracting psycho-social relationships like this into philosophical contexts you lose the irreducible human element of irrationality. People aren't robots that can change their programming at will, Duxwing.

Plus you're blaming the victim here which is wrong on many levels.

 

[Duxwing]

By abstracting psycho-social relationships like this into philosophical contexts you lose the irreducible human element of irrationality. People aren't robots that can change their programming at will, Duxwing.

Humans are not irreducibly irrational: they can reason and empathize and change their ways if shown good cause. Their ascent from the dark of ages past evinces this quality. And without abstraction, ethics, which are indubitably necessary, would become incomprehensibly particular because every possible situation would require prejudice rather than be governed by a universal 'fine line' accommodating each situation; e.g., murder is "malicious, premeditated homicide".

And even if the above reasoning is invalid, I nonetheless rightly decried Radical Acceptance because it includes the abstract imperative "accept everything," which you argue cannot be applied because every situation whereto it could is so different that generalizing any of them is pointless or counterproductive.

Plus you're blaming the victim here which is wrong on many levels.

How have I blamed the victim?

-Duxwing

 

[Polaris]

It's highly contextual, but I guess you knew that.

To be able to discuss this in a meaningful way, one has to define the context first.

Spoiler

If someone is pointing a gun at you and you decide to try to grab the gun off them, you'll probably get shot. You will not accept the situation in your mind, but you have to in order to save your life.

If someone threatens to attack you in a dark alleyway and you are a smaller and weaker person than the attacker, you'll be more likely to hand them whatever to avoid being hurt.

I guess you weren't thinking of these obvious situations when you wrote the OP, but you'd have to be more specific so that a meaningful discussion can take place.

If someone takes your pencil, yes, you probably should speak up and confront the person about their motivations in a neutral way. They could have taken it without really thinking about it; they just needed a pencil quickly, and were going to put it back.

If their motivations were to intimidate, or some sort of display of superiority, then that is different.

To judge all possible situations of acceptance wherein someone is trespassing another person's freedom or property as 'radical acceptance' is too simplistic.

So if I understand OP right, when you talk about radical acceptance, are you talking about more 'trivial' contexts of intimidation?

That if we, as people in situations where we are supposedly on an equal footing with our opposing force , that we should always stand our ground, and thus set a social precedent for equality wherein nobody will be conditioned one way or another, that is; if the intimidatee (word?) does not accept the actions of the intimidator, the continued conditioning will thus be halted and social injustice will cease to exist?

It is a highly idealistic scenario, and relies on the emotional strength and foundations the individual has to begin with. If one is brought up with intimidation right from childhood, one may not recognise subtle intimidation and dominance in other situations because one has nothing to compare with.

 

[AngelOne]

Ok.
But is that not merely the trivial maxim, "Remain sane"? I see nothing "radical" about that idea unless, beyond my awareness, people so regularly lose their minds that not losing them is novel.

It isn't about sanity (as if there was such a thing). It's about coping with the world around you in a healthy and socially acceptable way. Its similar to mindfulness, in a way. Having maladaptive coping behaviours or reactions does not make a person insane, and to imply otherwise is insulting.

But this is banal to sane people because they already accept that they perceive reality: neither hypothetical person psychotically denies the pencil's absence, and neither would I. I think "accept" is supposed to imply something more.

Hazarding a guess, I counter that not "accepting" the pencil's absence drives the normal person to retrieve it and thereby restore order and justice; whereas were they to "accept" the pencil's absence, their feelings of anger would become buried under a Stepford Smile. Furthermore, the person cannot simultaneously 'accept' their anger and the pencil's absence because 'accepting' anger drives the retrieval and 'accepting' the absence prevents it.

-Duxwing

You seem to think that everything is simple, that it's always one way or another, and that just isn't true. When it comes to people and the way they think, there are no absolutes but infinite variety.

The brain is lazy and likes to react the same way to similar situations - even if that way is unhealthy or harmful - because that reaction pathway is already there and it's easy to reuse it. This is true for all people. If a person discovers that these reactions don't help them, then radical acceptance might help them learn to respond in a healthier way than to just do the same thing they've been doing by forcing the brain to stop to see the situation.

 

[AngelOne]

And even if the above reasoning is invalid, I nonetheless rightly decried Radical Acceptance because it includes the abstract imperative "accept everything," which you argue cannot be applied because every situation whereto it could is so different that generalizing any of them is pointless or counterproductive.

No, you did not rightly decrie it because it seems that you do not (want to) understand what it means. It means to see everything as it really is and accept that it is as it is without making it into something else or lying to oneself.

I have a question: have you been asked to practice radical acceptance, and if so, are you trying to find reasons to discredit it instead of trying it? I ask because your vehemence against it suggests that there's something personal about this topic.

 

[Duxwing]

It's highly contextual, but I guess you knew that.

If it's highly contextual, then what's the point of reasoning about it?

To be able to discuss this in a meaningful way, one has to define the context first.

Radical acceptance has no context: it is absolute.

If someone is pointing a gun at you and you decide to try to grab the gun off them, you'll probably get shot. You will not accept the situation in your mind, but you have to in order to save your life.

Eh? Why would you think of grabbing it in the first place? You would have to be a lunatic to, like the scenario implies, be suddenly possessed by the urge to seize the weapon and require a new form of therapy to restrain your recklessness.

Again, consider the alternative, which is such psychotic denial as "He holds nothing. He is not holding a weapon. I will now grab the non-existent weapon I suddenly believe exists." Not even lunatics think like that.

If someone threatens to attack you in a dark alleyway and you are a smaller and weaker person than the attacker, you'll be more likely to hand them whatever to avoid being hurt.

I see no added-value from radical acceptance here, either. Fighting is a means to an end and therefore obviously should not be used when ineffective; fighting the bigger person is as crazy as leaping from a building. Perhaps I already adhere to this philosophy because my reaction would be, "Uh-oh! Big guy wants my stuff!" which seems to be the 'acceptance'. Why is this mode of thinking radical?

I guess you weren't thinking of these obvious situations when you wrote the OP, but you'd have to be more specific so that a meaningful discussion can take place.

I cannot be more specific. (see before)

If someone takes your pencil, yes, you probably should speak up and confront the person about their motivations in a neutral way. They could have taken it without really thinking about it; they just needed a pencil quickly, and were going to put it back.

Which is what the normal person did. Am I missing something?

If their motivations were to intimidate, or some sort of display of superiority, then that is different.

Take the pencil regardless.

To judge all possible situations of acceptance wherein someone is trespassing another person's freedom or property as 'radical acceptance' is too simplistic.

Hence my criticism of radical acceptance.

So if I understand OP right, when you talk about radical acceptance, are you talking about more 'trivial' contexts of intimidation?

I am talking about all of life because the radical acceptors are. The intimidation examples were meant to exemplify contradictions.

That if we, as people in situations where we are supposedly on an equal footing with our opposing force , that we should always stand our ground, and thus set a social precedent for equality wherein nobody will be conditioned one way or another, that is; if the intimidatee (word?) does not accept the actions of the intimidator, the continued conditioning will thus be halted and social injustice will cease to exist?

Precisely. Never accept violation: prevent and undo it wherever possible. Should the necessary response be impractical, either make it practical or wait for someone else to; once it is practical, do it. If no response is practical due to any contradiction inherent in 'the system,' then so change the system as to prevent the contradiction. For example, consider someone whose house burned down because of its bad wiring. Were the wirer of the house, for example, reckless during his wiring, he owes his client restitution for economic and psychological injury and perhaps punitive damages to deter future misbehavior. Whereas the radical acceptor would move into an apartment, leaving the reckless wirer to cause fire after potentially-deadly fire.

It is a highly idealistic scenario, and relies on the emotional strength and foundations the individual has to begin with. If one is brought up with intimidation right from childhood, one may not recognise subtle intimidation and dominance in other situations because one has nothing to compare with.

Every ethical theory--e.g., radical acceptance--relies on these qualities.

It isn't about sanity (as if there was such a thing). It's about coping with the world around you in a healthy and socially acceptable way. Its similar to mindfulness, in a way. Having maladaptive coping behaviours or reactions does not make a person insane, and to imply otherwise is insulting.

Sanity exists, and if you think it does not, then how can you find being called insane insulting, and even if you could, then you're just arguing from emotion. Denying such brute facts as "my pencil is not here" makes one insane. What you describe is not a means but an end whereto without further argument either of our ways could lead.

You seem to think that everything is simple, that it's always one way or another, and that just isn't true. When it comes to people and the way they think, there are no absolutes but infinite variety.

Everything is 'simple' by that definition: it is what it is, is not what it is not, and for simplicity's sake has only one name per language. For example, a car is a car, not an orange, and should not be called a spleeglesplarf in English.

The brain is lazy and likes to react the same way to similar situations - even if that way is unhealthy or harmful - because that reaction pathway is already there and it's easy to reuse it. This is true for all people. If a person discovers that these reactions don't help them, then radical acceptance might help them learn to respond in a healthier way than to just do the same thing they've been doing by forcing the brain to stop to see the situation.

Or one could reason with patients instead of ramming a categorical imperative down their throats and hoping it works.

Also, your argument is incoherent and banal: you support radical acceptance, a bluntly-categorical imperative, and criticize my ethical abstractions for not reflecting the "infinite variety". It is banal because its conclusion is obvious to any sane person, who who already by definition is against cognitive distortions.

Last, none have asked me to do radical acceptance. I saw the philosophy, was revolted, and posted my polemic OP to calm myself and warn you.

-Duxwing

 

[Polaris]

Radical acceptance has no context: it is absolute.

The two extreme examples below were different contexts of acceptance. So you are saying radical acceptance is the acceptance of situations where the individual is capable of acting in their defense, but chooses not to, right? I get it.

Well, certainly in the ideal world we shouldn't accept these things, but as I said, people are conditioned differently with varying emotional platforms and coping mechanisms. The idea is good, but performing the action is a reality that some people cannot cope with for various psychological reasons.

Eh? Why would you think of grabbing it in the first place? You would have to be a lunatic to, like the scenario implies, be suddenly possessed by the urge to seize the weapon and require a new form of therapy to restrain your recklessness.

Again, consider the alternative, which is such psychotic denial as "He holds nothing. He is not holding a weapon. I will now grab the non-existent weapon I suddenly believe exists." Not even lunatics think like that.

These were examples I provided to attempt to clarify what you were talking about.

Hence my criticism of radical acceptance.

OK.

I am talking about all of life because the radical acceptors are. The intimidation examples were meant to exemplify contradictions.

So by your definition of radical acceptance, it applies to all of life where the potential oppressed and the oppressor are on equal footing initially. Of course.

Precisely. Never accept violation: prevent and undo it wherever possible. Should the necessary response be impractical, either make it practical or wait for someone else to; once it is practical, do it. If no response is practical due to any contradiction inherent in 'the system,' then so change the system as to prevent the contradiction. For example, consider someone whose house burned down because of its bad wiring. Were the wirer of the house, for example, reckless during his wiring, he owes his client restitution for economic and psychological injury and perhaps punitive damages to deter future misbehavior. Whereas the radical acceptor would move into an apartment, leaving the reckless wirer to cause fire after potentially-deadly fire.


Every ethical theory--e.g., radical acceptance--relies on these qualities.

Okay, I understand now. So what are the solutions for individuals who have no perception of their short-comings because of social and emotional/psychological conditioning? Or were you not looking for solutions?

 

[StevenM]

Might be a little off topic, but there is also a philosophy I'm not fond with either. It is the philosophies found in the books and documentary called "The Secret". It's main focus is basically on the law of attraction.

I've only seen the documentary, and I found some things that I didn't agree with. First of all, I was wary because I picked up on a lot of persuasion tactics. Some examples - "All successful and meaningful people have used 'the secret'" - which is a basic persuasive tactic used by marketers. Another crazy thing they do is slip in something that seems illogical, but mixed in a whole bunch of obvious truths that I do accept. Politicians use this tactic alot - "The economy is poor! Global warming is a threat! We are at war and it needs to end! I'll make a great president!"

In this philosophy, it is believed that our thoughts are the sole cause of everything that happens in our life. Which I'll accept to a certain extent. But then they come out with examples like "If you think that someone is going to steal your bike, then that causes a ripple of energy in the universe, and you will find your bike stolen!"

It bugs me, because I really have a hard time seeing a thought having any consequence of that happening in that example. Sure, if you think grateful and positive, you will have a better outlook. If you plan goals and work towards them, I can see some success. But I have a hard time believing things "magically" happen just because you think them, especially if there is no realistically direct or indirect cause.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I noticed that this "radical acceptance" seems to be like a new philosophy or beliefs for personal growth. I didn't read up anything about it, I just visited a site, and didn't have much motivation to get into it. Perhaps, you can outline the things that don't agree with you and explain why.

When I read your post, it really made me think about this book I'm currently reading by Robert Anthony. I guess one of the big points the book makes, is becoming aware of things that I may be resisting through confirmation bias. When I read your OP, it made me want to express what I've been learning, but it might be a little too soon. Some things are already a little off-putting in the book, but I always like to initially approach things with an open mind, and then carefully process it after. (The best that I can)

 

[crippli]

It isn't about sanity (as if there was such a thing).

Sanity is defined. Soundness, rationality and healthiness of the human mind. I'm not claiming that there as anyone who exist that posses these attributes. But theoretically I think one can imagine such a group or person. At least to make a point.

 

[AngelOne]

Sanity exists, and if you think it does not, then how can you find being called insane insulting, and even if you could, then you're just arguing from emotion. Denying such brute facts as "my pencil is not here" makes one insane. What you describe is not a means but an end whereto without further argument either of our ways could lead.

Everything is 'simple' by that definition: it is what it is, is not what it is not, and for simplicity's sake has only one name per language. For example, a car is a car, not an orange, and should not be called a spleeglesplarf in English.

Or one could reason with patients instead of ramming a categorical imperative down their throats and hoping it works.

Also, your argument is incoherent and banal: you support radical acceptance, a bluntly-categorical imperative, and criticize my ethical abstractions for not reflecting the "infinite variety". It is banal because its conclusion is obvious to any sane person, who who already by definition is against cognitive distortions.

Sigh. You're willfully not understanding the point. You seem to have these ideas that people see things as they are or else they're insane, and that radical acceptance has to do with the physical world. Maybe I'm not explaining radical acceptance well enough but you're not even trying to see my point of view.

I'll try again to explain how and where radical acceptance is used. I'd appreciate it if you made an effort to understand what I'm saying instead of dismissing it because you've made up your mind already.

People don't see situations - ie reality or the world around them - for what they really are. Everyone filters reality through their own perceptions and history and experience. This means that everyone has cognitive distortions to some extent. It's a way for the brain to take a shortcut in processing reality, and is necessary because the brain only has so much processing power and saves power where it can.

Obviously there's a continuum of filtered reality, from seeing things as they are to the filtered reality having no link to reality, but most people's filtered reality falls somewhere in the middle - that is, there's some distortion of reality but not too much. Leaving aside the point that "sane" isn't a clearly-defined term, this continuum is why it's simplistic to label people as sane or insane - where on the continuum is the demarcation point? By seeing things as a dichotomy, some people will be incorrectly classified, which is an insult to them.

People use their filtered reality to determine how they'll react to the world. If the filtered reality is similar to actual reality, then there's no problem unless the brain ignores reality in determining how to react, in which case the person needs another kind of help than radical acceptance can provide. There are some people whose filtered reality causes them to react inappropriately, which can happen because the brain short-cuts along a much-used path.

If those people are dissatisfied with their inappropriate reactions, then radical acceptance can help them change. By slowing down and seeing things as close as possible to what they really are, without their perceptions and experiences filtering them, and by choosing how they want to respond, the person can override the brain's lazy pathways. For these people, using logic doesn't help in the same way because by the time logic is involved, the brain has done its filtering; while the person could change their behaviour, they aren't making the same kind of change to the way they think. There's also no ramming of a categorical imperative going on.

Radical acceptance is not for everyone and is not appropriate in every situation. Just because you can't see a use for it doesn't mean that it isn't useful. Maybe it is overrated but your "revulsion" seems to be a rather disproportionate reaction.

Sanity is defined. Soundness, rationality and healthiness of the human mind. I'm not claiming that there as anyone who exist that posses these attributes. But theoretically I think one can imagine such a group or person. At least to make a point.

Heh heh. Some might say that Wikipedia can't really be trusted to provide the truth. My point about the definition of sanity is that it's a continuum (by your definition, a 3D one), and it's difficult to determine where on the continuum the line between sane and insane should lie.

 

[Duxwing]

The two extreme examples below were different contexts of acceptance. So you are saying radical acceptance is the acceptance of situations where the individual is capable of acting in their defense, but chooses not to, right? I get it.

Radical acceptance would also apply to any other problem; e.g., having a broken-down car or being in a burning building.

Well, certainly in the ideal world we shouldn't accept these things, but as I said, people are conditioned differently with varying emotional platforms and coping mechanisms. The idea is good, but performing the action is a reality that some people cannot cope with for various psychological reasons.

I am unsure of your point: is it that what I suggest is too frightening for some and therefore not applicable to all?

These were examples I provided to attempt to clarify what you were talking about.

Thanks.

So by your definition of radical acceptance, it applies to all of life where the potential oppressed and the oppressor are on equal footing initially. Of course.

I understand Radical Acceptance to encompass all conflict, whether involving other people or not.

Okay, I understand now. So what are the solutions for individuals who have no perception of their short-comings because of social and emotional/psychological conditioning? Or were you not looking for solutions?

I was not looking for solutions but to debunk Radical Acceptance and (embarrassingly) displace my anger against it onto the page. People ignorant of their shortcomings ideally would be informed thereof--perhaps by a yearly psychological check-up. Until mental healthcare improves, I believe them not morally insufficient but haplessly-ignorant and needing help.

I would not seek punishment or retribution against even malicious or reckless people because those responses have been scientifically debunked and because malice and recklessness evince such deeper problems as emotional disturbance or psychosis.

-Duxwing

 

[Duxwing]

Sigh. You're willfully not understanding the point. You seem to have these ideas that people see things as they are or else they're insane, and that radical acceptance has to do with the physical world. Maybe I'm not explaining radical acceptance well enough but you're not even trying to see my point of view.

Perhaps the website I read misrepresented the philosophy.

I'll try again to explain how and where radical acceptance is used. I'd appreciate it if you made an effort to understand what I'm saying instead of dismissing it because you've made up your mind already.

I have considered what you have said and dislike being insulted.

People don't see situations - ie reality or the world around them - for what they really are. Everyone filters reality through their own perceptions and history and experience. This means that everyone has cognitive distortions to some extent. It's a way for the brain to take a shortcut in processing reality, and is necessary because the brain only has so much processing power and saves power where it can.

Everyone's interpreting their perceptions and these interpretations' sometimes containing human errors is common knowledge.

Obviously there's a continuum of filtered reality, from seeing things as they are to the filtered reality having no link to reality, but most people's filtered reality falls somewhere in the middle - that is, there's some distortion of reality but not too much. Leaving aside the point that "sane" isn't a clearly-defined term, this continuum is why it's simplistic to label people as sane or insane - where on the continuum is the demarcation point? By seeing things as a dichotomy, some people will be incorrectly classified, which is an insult to them.

Whoever perceives absent things or cannot perceive obviously-present things is obviously psychotic and therefore insane.

People use their filtered reality to determine how they'll react to the world. If the filtered reality is similar to actual reality, then there's no problem unless the brain ignores reality in determining how to react, in which case the person needs another kind of help than radical acceptance can provide. There are some people whose filtered reality causes them to react inappropriately, which can happen because the brain short-cuts along a much-used path.

Your bottom line seems banal: people make mistakes.

If those people are dissatisfied with their inappropriate reactions, then radical acceptance can help them change. By slowing down and seeing things as close as possible to what they really are, without their perceptions and experiences filtering them, and by choosing how they want to respond, the person can override the brain's lazy pathways. For these people, using logic doesn't help in the same way because by the time logic is involved, the brain has done its filtering; while the person could change their behaviour, they aren't making the same kind of change to the way they think. There's also no ramming of a categorical imperative going on.

In other words, you're saying calming down and not jumping to conclusions is a bad idea. Well yeah, duh.

Radical acceptance is not for everyone and is not appropriate in every situation. Just because you can't see a use for it doesn't mean that it isn't useful. Maybe it is overrated but your "revulsion" seems to be a rather disproportionate reaction.

In other words, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and it's just another name for what we knew already.

-Duxwing

 

[AngelOne]

Perhaps the website I read misrepresented the philosophy.



I have considered what you have said and dislike being insulted.



Everyone's interpreting their perceptions and these interpretations' sometimes containing human errors is common knowledge.



Whoever perceives absent things or cannot perceive obviously-present things is obviously psychotic and therefore insane.



Your bottom line seems banal: people make mistakes.



In other words, you're saying calming down and not jumping to conclusions is a bad idea. Well yeah, duh.



In other words, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and it's just another name for what we knew already.

-Duxwing

Your statements do not summarize the description I gave. Either you suck at reading comprehension or you're deliberately being an asshole.

Either way, fuck it. And fuck you. This is clearly not the right place for me and I'm out of here.

 

[Duxwing]

Either way, fuck it. And fuck you. This is clearly not the right place for me and I'm out of here.

I accept your surrender and therefore declare victory.

-Duxwing

 

[Polaris]

I am unsure of your point: is it that what I suggest is too frightening for some and therefore not applicable to all?

Yes, this was the crux of the issue. This is what I'm suggesting; it's not applicable to all for some reasons I will outline below.

Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you know you are being treated unfairly, and you know you should speak, but feel too intimidated by the situation/person to speak up? Have you ever felt powerless? I don't know, perhaps you always speak up -- and in that case I do admire your courage.

But for some people, the very thought of any confrontation is a mammoth cause of anxiety, and it is usually caused by fear-based conditioning right from childhood. These people would do anything to avoid conflict, because doing so causes actual physical reactions like constricted breathing, excessive sweating, shaking, and an immobilising and crippling kind of fear completely disproportionate to the situation at hand. Extreme anxiety that stops the person from leaving their own house so that they do not have to face situations like these, which consciously or sub-consciously remind them of past abuse.

Spoiler

I have been there, and I know several people who have the same issues. It has taken me years to learn how to stand up for myself, and intitially, I did not even know that I was acting completely 'out of the norm' for what people should accept and not accept...because I was used to being beaten and bullied into submission by people close to me from about two years of age.

How can a child, who has grown up in these kinds of environments be prepared to stand up for themselves if they do not even know what the boundaries are for what is acceptable or not? Often, these young children start to blame themselves for the abuse, particularly if it's from a parent or a loved one. They think because they keep being the target of a loved one's anger or psychopathy, that they are the cause of the abuse, and thus directs blame upon themselves in order to understand why the abuse happens to begin with. Children will attempt to rationalise everything that happens to them, and they will use different coping mechanisms, but that is one of them.

These people will do anything to avoid situations that will trigger the same fear reactions later in life. They will react with self-doubt in situations where they are intimidated, and fear and doubt gets the better of them. So they rather let other people walk all over them than going through the emotionally taxing task of confrontation again. It is physically exhausting and some people simply cannot put themselves through it, despite the fact they may be aware of their own irrationality.

There are of course also people who have a more Buddhist/nihilist approach to these situations, and prefer to be non-confrontational for more philosophical reasons. I still haven't made my mind up whether I agree with this approach or not. I guess it depends to what extreme one takes it.

I don't know whether I'm coming across as lecturing here or not, and I'm sorry if that is the case because I'm not sure how much you already understand. I'm trying to present the minds of some of the people who 'practice' Radical Acceptance.

I understand Radical Acceptance to encompass all conflict, whether involving other people or not.

^ Would you mind giving a few examples from the whole range?

I was not looking for solutions but to debunk Radical Acceptance and (embarrassingly) displace my anger against it onto the page. People ignorant of their shortcomings ideally would be informed thereof--perhaps by a yearly psychological check-up. Until mental healthcare improves, I believe them not morally insufficient but haplessly-ignorant and needing help.

You share your anger with many, including some of those who practice Radical Acceptance, because they don't want to be trampled as individuals. However, they are brought into this world with an emotional handicap, and, as you correctly outlined below; they need help to overcome their fears. This can take years, and for most people who have been through abuse, it scars one's mind for the rest of one's life. However, one can learn to live with the anxiety and use cognitive reprogramming to change patterns of behaviour.

I would not seek punishment or retribution against even malicious or reckless people because those responses have been scientifically debunked and because malice and recklessness evince such deeper problems as emotional disturbance or psychosis.

I think we definitely agree here. All individuals are sufferers of their own psychological issues, whether they are the victims of abuse or the abusers.

The sad thing is, wherever you find yourself in the world, the approaches to solving these issues in an ethical way is often either short-sighted and/or subject to a faulty supporting mechanism, whether public or private.

But principally, it all starts with parenting.

 

[Duxwing]

Yes, this was the crux of the issue. This is what I'm suggesting; it's not applicable to all for some reasons I will outline below.

Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you know you are being treated unfairly, and you know you should speak, but feel too intimidated by the situation/person to speak up? Have you ever felt powerless? I don't know, perhaps you always speak up -- and in that case I do admire your courage.

I have not spoken-up when I thought speaking-up would do more harm than good or when I was overwhelmed. I cannot remember a time when such disproportionate fear as you describe prevented my speaking-up.

But for some people, the very thought of any confrontation is a mammoth cause of anxiety, and it is usually caused by fear-based conditioning right from childhood. These people would do anything to avoid conflict, because doing so causes actual physical reactions like constricted breathing, excessive sweating, shaking, and an immobilising and crippling kind of fear completely disproportionate to the situation at hand. Extreme anxiety that stops the person from leaving their own house so that they do not have to face situations like these, which consciously or sub-consciously remind them of past abuse.

Yep.

I have been there, and I know several people who have the same issues. It has taken me years to learn how to stand up for myself, and intitially, I did not even know that I was acting completely 'out of the norm' for what people should accept and not accept...because I was used to being beaten and bullied into submission by people close to me from about two years of age.

*hugs* I therefore am doubly-glad you stand-up and debate!

How can a child, who has grown up in these kinds of environments be prepared to stand up for themselves if they do not even know what the boundaries are for what is acceptable or not? Often, these young children start to blame themselves for the abuse, particularly if it's from a parent or a loved one. They think because they keep being the target of a loved one's anger or psychopathy, that they are the cause of the abuse, and thus directs blame upon themselves in order to understand why the abuse happens to begin with. Children will attempt to rationalise everything that happens to them, and they will use different coping mechanisms, but that is one of them.

Yep.

These people will do anything to avoid situations that will trigger the same fear reactions later in life. They will react with self-doubt in situations where they are intimidated, and fear and doubt gets the better of them. So they rather let other people walk all over them than going through the emotionally taxing task of confrontation again. It is physically exhausting and some people simply cannot put themselves through it, despite the fact they may be aware of their own irrationality.

Are we therefore agreed that radical acceptance is irrational?

There are of course also people who have a more Buddhist/nihilist approach to these situations, and prefer to be non-confrontational for more philosophical reasons. I still haven't made my mind up whether I agree with this approach or not. I guess it depends to what extreme one takes it.

That approach is rationalized dissociation: denying oneself caring and attachment in order to avoid pain is incoherent because one would thereby also become detached from one's pain and therefore not care about feeling it and therefore feel it, contradicting the initial maxim.

I don't know whether I'm coming across as lecturing here or not, and I'm sorry if that is the case because I'm not sure how much you already understand. I'm trying to present the minds of some of the people who 'practice' Radical Acceptance.

It's alright. *huggles* The single quotes around "practice" are appropriate because these people practice "radical acceptance" not because of sound moral argument but because, due to horrific abuse entirely beyond their control, they are too scared to protect themselves. Hence the old, heroic vow to "...defend the weak..." and the analogous need for law enforcement.

^ Would you mind giving a few examples from the whole range?

-Problem -> "Response"
-My horseshoe is missing a nail I could easily replace. -> "I will keep riding without it"
-My horse is missing a horseshoe I could easily replace. -> "I will keep riding without it"
-My horse has broken its leg I could easily heal. -> "I will keep walking without it."
-I am thirsty and have water. -> "I will keep walking without drinking it"
-I have fallen, suffering heat-stroke, and can recover in nearby shade. -> "I will lie motionless until the heat kills me."

This

You share your anger with many, including some of those who practice Radical Acceptance, because they don't want to be trampled as individuals. However, they are brought into this world with an emotional handicap, and, as you correctly outlined below; they need help to overcome their fears. This can take years, and for most people who have been through abuse, it scars one's mind for the rest of one's life. However, one can learn to live with the anxiety and use cognitive reprogramming to change patterns of behaviour.

We therefore should do something to help them.

I think we definitely agree here. All individuals are sufferers of their own psychological issues, whether they are the victims of abuse or the abusers.

The sad thing is, wherever you find yourself in the world, the approaches to solving these issues in an ethical way is often either short-sighted and/or subject to a faulty supporting mechanism, whether public or private.

This system therefore needs bolstering. Would you rather write the polemics or grand speeches?

But principally, it all starts with parenting.

Says she who was abused. *

-Duxwing

*I apologize if I jest in poor taste. >_<

 

[redbaron]

So what's your point, in two sentences or less?

 

[Duxwing]

So what's your point, in two sentences or less?

My point is that radical acceptance is a bad idea because it would cause us to give up on life and therefore suffer terribly.

-Duxwing

 

[redbaron]

Cutting one's jugular is a bad idea because it causes blood loss.

 

[Duxwing]

Cutting one's jugular is a bad idea because it causes blood loss.

Would you please elaborate?

-Duxwing

 

[Absurdity]

Sigh. You're willfully not understanding the point...

I'd appreciate it if you made an effort to understand what I'm saying instead of dismissing it because you've made up your mind already.

Sounds like every "conversation" I've ever had or witnessed someone having with Dux ever.

People use their filtered reality to determine how they'll react to the world. If the filtered reality is similar to actual reality, then there's no problem unless the brain ignores reality in determining how to react, in which case the person needs another kind of help than radical acceptance can provide. There are some people whose filtered reality causes them to react inappropriately, which can happen because the brain short-cuts along a much-used path.

Quack quack.

Maybe it is overrated but your "revulsion" seems to be a rather disproportionate reaction.

My guess is that someone recommended it to him as a means to overcome his tendency to act exactly as you described: misperceive situations and react inappropriately. I've seen it too often on this site and now it also seems to be causing waves over at Wikipedia.

I accept your surrender and therefore declare victory.

-Duxwing

I already know this will fall on deaf ears but you should stop being a dick and arguing with people who aren't try to start a "debate" but rather help you understand something you are clearly failing to understand. You started this thread with an obvious strawman and have been childishly trying to defend it as an accurate depiction rather than actually listening to people who are providing different and arguably much more accurate descriptions.

... but I already know you're going to pick this apart and refute it line by line, so I'm not sure why I've bothered.

 

[Kuu]

Your statements do not summarize the description I gave. Either you suck at reading comprehension or you're deliberately being an asshole.

Either way, fuck it. And fuck you. This is clearly not the right place for me and I'm out of here.

I accept your surrender and therefore declare victory.

Fuck it Dux, why are you so thick? Oh Cthulhu give me the power to accept that which can't be changed! What's that, it's irrational? Damn, guess it's time to rightly decry.

To start, logical victory does not follow from opponent surrender. If that was intended as a joke, then it's a stupid, egotistical one (see below).

Second, you insist on turning every thread into a sort of battle you've got to win, and this drives people away. Driving people away in frustration is most definitely not a victory from a moderator's point of view, but rather a massive defeat. It's a big red flag. Individuals that drive other users away are undesirable nuisances.

Third, this apparent drive to victory often seems you really don't want to understand anything at all. You readily dismiss people as banal and incoherent and swiftly move on to misrepresent their point of view and beat them with your big fail-logic stick.

EyeSeeCold called you out, and you pulled a Dux on him. He obviously saw no point in continuing communication, being savvy of this scenario. AngelOne called you out again, and you Duxed him too. Apparently this was the first encounter of a Dux kind AngelOne had, and thus foolishly attempted to discuss with you his point of view. Like most, it ended with frustration, but unlike most, he decided to clearly externalize his frustration before he departed...

Says she who was abused. *

-Duxwing

*I apologize if I jest in poor taste. >_<

You don't jest "in poor taste". You utterly fail at jesting. I really think you have a severe incapacity to grasp emotions and emotional context, particularly those of others. Your attempts at expressing sympathy and other emotion in text seem so contrived and even dishonest, it's sickening. You constantly dismiss people and then expect them to laugh at your insensitive comments because you put a smiley next to them? Please deliver us from such unbearable duxswag.

My point is that radical acceptance is a bad idea because it would cause us to give up on life and therefore suffer terribly.

Perhaps people that practice Dux version of radical acceptance should give up on life and make space for more rational, logical individuals?


@Polaris:

I admire your patience.

EDIT: Damn you ninjabsurdity!

 

[BigApplePi]

Radical Acceptance is madness of the worst sort. Uncriticized, this beast ravages the world, twisting and breaking, ripping and tearing our feelings from us and burying them under denial without a shred of justification. It does the above not by asserting one thing and insinuating the opposite, rendering its victims unable to argue without running afoul of either argument or themselves.

Totally agree with Duxwing and just happened to notice this thread.

I like the issues Duxwing presents. They always get me to thinking. I like to address these problems. Sometimes the problems are just intellectual exercises as was the case when we once engaged in a situation about Form and Content. But sometimes they are important life issues as here. The issues don't always get resolved which doesn't make them go away.

When Duxwing presents an issue the way he does so sometimes gets our emotions involved. Take care. We have to deal with our emotions as well as the issue.

 

[BigApplePi]

Kuu. I'm really busy just now. I will consider what you've said but it may take considerable consideration. As I just implied Dux has a way of speaking. That to me is just something to be overcome. I'm sure he can be set upright but then I'm an optimist ... or rather it is a realistic problem to be addressed and I wouldn't give up on the problem.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

One surely could form a tag team. When the young is radical and the old is stale.

 

[BigApplePi]

One surely could form a tag team. When the young is radical and the old is stale.

Don't know if I can radically accept that. How about when the young are restless and the old are at peace? Okay. I tag you.

Anyway, be that as it may, this thread seems to be about bullydom. There is the bully and the bullied. The bully bullies. That is, he/she acts against another in a morally questionable way. The bullied responds below the threshhold of altering the questionable way.

 

[Base groove]

I just get guilty pleasure from watching people get driven away by the utter ineptitude of another.

 

[Cavallier]

Says she who was abused. *

-Duxwing

*I apologize if I jest in poor taste. >_<

This is a vicious and simultaneously dismissive thing to say. If you did not mean it to be then you are simply an idiot. I am disgusted and disappointed with you. Regardless of the point you are trying to make with this thread your style of discourse is alienating and undermines your own objective here.

 

[BigApplePi]

I just get guilty pleasure from watching people get driven away by the utter ineptitude of another.

You mean you don't step in and try to ept the inept? Surely there is an ept way to do things.

 

[BigApplePi]

Cav. I'm only one tenth way through this thread and can't believe Dux did a bad thing. If a fellow is wallowing in quicksand I say, "Pull him out."

 

[Base groove]

Cav. I'm only one tenth way through this thread and can't believe Dux did a bad thing. If a fellow is wallowing in quicksand I say, "Pull him out."

Is this a P statement?

 

[BigApplePi]

Is this a P statement?

It's a BAP statement.

 

[Duxwing]

@Mods

Whatever I may be doing in other threads, I created this thread thinking that its purpose of beginning a debate was obvious because of the thread's title and opening post; were it not, I apologize and ask how threads intended for debate should make their purpose obvious. Also, have I resumed derailing threads? If I have, uh-oh...

I also apologize for what I said to Angel: I noticed it was mean-spirited after I hit 'Submit Reply,' and I will not say things like it anymore. You can verify the first part of the claim by checking the the mod-box, wherein you should find a request to delete the post for "unnecessary meanness" timestamped about a few seconds after the post.

About the abuse joke, lest we should become angry over nothing, have we asked Polaris if it offended her? I ignored my better judgment against making it partly because that bit of wit was very tempting and also because I wanted to see whether my better judgment against making it were due to sound empathy or simple anxiety: in hindsight, just asking Polaris if she joked about her past would have sufficed!

Wow, I feel kinda bad now that I review the figurative path of destruction I carved here. Angrily posting in the middle of the night after bad sleep and doing half-baked experiments on my friends... man... what a fiasco.

So... what should I do now and moving forward?

-Duxwing

 

[Cavallier]

About the abuse joke, lest we should become angry over nothing, have we asked Polaris if it offended her? I ignored my better judgment against making it partly because that bit of wit was very tempting and also because I wanted to see whether my better judgment against making it were due to sound empathy or simple anxiety: in hindsight, just asking Polaris if she joked about her past would have sufficed!

If I can not be offended for her then I don't know what friendship means.

 

[Minuend]

I rarely feel disgusted, but that "joke" did the trick.

 

[Polaris]

I have not spoken-up when I thought speaking-up would do more harm than good or when I was overwhelmed. I cannot remember a time when such disproportionate fear as you describe prevented my speaking-up.

That's what I mean; a Radical Accepter may experience disproportionate fear even in the most trivial of circumstances.

*hugs* I therefore am doubly-glad you stand-up and debate!

Debating is not an issue for me. I am here to learn something, and I certainly don't see this discussion as me 'standing up' in that sense. I want to understand where you are coming from, and I do now after clarifying a few points.

Are we therefore agreed that radical acceptance is irrational?

Of course, it's always irrational.

That approach is rationalized dissociation: denying oneself caring and attachment in order to avoid pain is incoherent because one would thereby also become detached from one's pain and therefore not care about feeling it and therefore feel it, contradicting the initial maxim.

Perhaps. I cannot speak for those individuals and their motivations though, as it is somewhat alien to me.

It's alright. *huggles* The single quotes around "practice" are appropriate because these people practice "radical acceptance" not because of sound moral argument but because, due to horrific abuse entirely beyond their control, they are too scared to protect themselves. Hence the old, heroic vow to "...defend the weak..." and the analogous need for law enforcement.

Yes.

-Problem -> "Response"
-My horseshoe is missing a nail I could easily replace. -> "I will keep riding without it"
-My horse is missing a horseshoe I could easily replace. -> "I will keep riding without it"
-My horse has broken its leg I could easily heal. -> "I will keep walking without it."
-I am thirsty and have water. -> "I will keep walking without drinking it"
-I have fallen, suffering heat-stroke, and can recover in nearby shade. -> "I will lie motionless until the heat kills me."

This

Hmmm...okay.

This system therefore needs bolstering. Would you rather write the polemics or grand speeches?

Polemics are more my strength.

Says she who was abused. *

-Duxwing

*I apologize if I jest in poor taste. >_<

This is precisely the point I was trying to make when hinting towards the role of parents. As someone coming from a background of early abuse, I can see how incredibly difficult it is to remedy these issues because the absolutely critical phase of a person's development is the early childhood stage. It sets one up for life. Therefore, when speaking with such passion about the need to help such individuals to regain some sort of emotional integrity and strength, we have to take into account the fact that these people are already seriously damaged, and thus, remedies for the improvement of their lives will be a very timely and costly process.

In the ideal world, such parents should not have children -- but this is not how it works, of course.


Addendum:

While I agree that Duxwing's last comment/joke was highly inappropriate and clumsy, I did not take personal offense. I never take offense to things like these as I know people well enough to understand that these sorts of comments are more a reflection on them than the person it is directed at. Plus, I know Duxwing. He means no harm.

But I strongly discourage further comments or jokes like these directed at anyone else.

 

[Kuu]

About the abuse joke, lest we should become angry over nothing, have we asked Polaris if it offended her?

You lucked out that Polaris is quite grounded and mentally resilient and found no offence. But you really could have wrecked someone's day/week/month by carelessly trashing on someone's open wounds. This kind of joking should only be done with people you know enough to be certain they won't mind, and even then it's just best not to.

Wow, I feel kinda bad now that I review the figurative path of destruction I carved here. Angrily posting in the middle of the night after bad sleep and doing half-baked experiments on my friends... man... what a fiasco.

So... what should I do now and moving forward?

Don't post when angry. Nor with bad sleep. Triple check your judgment. And do remember people aren't logicbots.

Cool-headed apology appreciated.

Plus, I know Duxwing. He means no harm.

You've got a point...

Anyway, enough derail. I'm out.

 

[DaviPop]

So I Googled radical acceptance and I have to wonder if Dux even put that much effort into understanding the philosophy.

Sorry Dux but you haven't even made a successful strawman of radical acceptance. More like a straw!pacifist.

 

[Duxwing]

That's what I mean; a Radical Accepter may experience disproportionate fear even in the most trivial of circumstances.

Makes sense.

Debating is not an issue for me. I am here to learn something, and I certainly don't see this discussion as me 'standing up' in that sense. I want to understand where you are coming from, and I do now after clarifying a few points.

Oh, good.

Of course, it's always irrational.

Agreed.

Perhaps. I cannot speak for those individuals and their motivations though, as it is somewhat alien to me.

Alright.

Polemics are more my strength.

Excellent.

This is precisely the point I was trying to make when hinting towards the role of parents. As someone coming from a background of early abuse, I can see how incredibly difficult it is to remedy these issues because the absolutely critical phase of a person's development is the early childhood stage. It sets one up for life. Therefore, when speaking with such passion about the need to help such individuals to regain some sort of emotional integrity and strength, we have to take into account the fact that these people are already seriously damaged, and thus, remedies for the improvement of their lives will be a very timely and costly process.

Agreed.

Addendum:

While I agree that Duxwing's last comment/joke was highly inappropriate and clumsy, I did not take personal offense. I never take offense to things like these as I know people well enough to understand that these sorts of comments are more a reflection on them than the person it is directed at. Plus, I know Duxwing. He means no harm.

But I strongly discourage further comments or jokes like these directed at anyone else.

Agreed.

-Duxwing