Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 3616 to 3621 (20th to 24th November 2017)
Gyrre:
--- Quote from: Tova on 21 Nov 2017, 15:37 ---
--- Quote from: HornedOwl on 21 Nov 2017, 11:56 ---So to me, the question we should be asking isn't why isn't Tilly respecting Hannelore's wishes, but why would Beatrice, a known ruthless manipulator, send a fool to Hannelore, the only person Beatrice cares for in any way, in the first place?
--- End quote ---
You're right. This doesn't really make sense. Maybe it's time to step back and examine your assumptions.
Everyone is assuming malicious intent on Beatrice's part.
But maybe she's just a bad mother.
It fits what we've seen until now a lot better.
--- End quote ---
I've said it twice now, having a PA is a point of pride for Beatrice. She practically said as much herself. To her, it's just something her family has.
Zebediah:
--- Quote from: themacnut on 22 Nov 2017, 07:44 ---That all assumes that Tilly will even want to be deprogrammed. Remember, she joined the corporation of her own free will, and allowed/is allowing herself to be molded to the corporation's needs in a way that she hopes will benefit her as well (for advancement, raises etc). Deprogramming could interfere with that and potentially ruin her career, probably costing her a job. She would not want that to happen and would resist it, maybe with all her might.
--- End quote ---
Uh, I don't think anyone ever actually wants to be deprogrammed. The whole point of it is that their free will has been compromised so that they willingly choose to stay with their abusers.
thedevilissix:
--- Quote from: JimC on 22 Nov 2017, 07:24 ---It might be interesting to know age range of people with reactions to Tilly. Just comes across to me as a naive teenager with big hopes and loads of misconceptions about the world outside school. Seen lots of them. Sure she's turned up to 11 because comic, but its all kinda familiar. You just have to cut them a bit of slack in between keeping on pointing them in the right direction because otherwise they'll never be any use for anything, and sadly school did very little for their socialisation.
So I wonder if some of the folks with great antipathy haven't had quite as many dumb kids they need to train up across their tracks yet? I could be completely off the track, but some aspects of what Hanners is trying to cope with ring some bells for me.
--- End quote ---
This to me is a very good point. Tilly to me has never read as a sociopath, potential abusive character, or some big creep (though I can well understand why people would get bunny boiler vibes from her actions). I just think that she's probably young, impressionable, overeager, hypersensitive in her self (though not necessarily to others, yes) and really doesn't have much concept of how the working world really works yet. This is probably exactly why Beatrice recruited her. (There's some sociopathy right there.)
I used to be a University administrator and you'd be surprised how many 20-year-olds I came across who took rejection or things not going to their plan very badly. They've in my view just not been taught or learnt emotional intel or resilience properly (I think you need both to be a good PA without having a nervous breakdown, incidentally) and that's as much a shortcoming of the schooling system they've come from as it is of them to not look up how to do that independently (which of course shows good emotional intelligence and self-awareness).
thedevilissix:
I say this because I'm a bit of a reformed character now in my early thirties - I was probably a lot like Tilly in my early jobs, and people probably and understandably found me really fucking annoying too :laugh:
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that Tilly hasn't grown much as a work colleague or a person yet, but hopefully she will in both.
Case:
--- Quote from: Gyrre on 22 Nov 2017, 01:13 ---Firstly, the violet text was inserted in the wrong area of the post, hence there being nothing below your statement aside from my signature. That post has been edited.
--- End quote ---
Cool, thanks for the clarification. To add a one of my own: Re-reading my post with a bit more distance, it does sounds vaguely like I'm accusing you of 'dishonest posting' - While I'd tried to pre-empt that impression by assuring you I didn't want to insinuate any motivations, that ... doesn't really help much, does it? I'd had tried to pack too many thoughts into in point, and several edits to make it better ended up making it worse. The perils of neuro-atypical myopia - it ended up sounding totally different than what I'd had in mind. This is not my impression of you. My apologies for any discomfort I caused you.
--- Quote from: Gyrre on 22 Nov 2017, 01:13 ---Secondly, a backslash (/) inserted between two words is often done to represent the word "or". Thusly, the latter portion would be 'subconscious thought' or [poor word choice] 'subconscious awareness'. Not sure if I had meant those in the reverse order as the choice applied to both the words 'conscious' and 'subconscious'. [font size=8]12 hour holiday shifts. yay -_-[/font size]
Now I actually have time to explain what I meant since I'm responding at the start of my break instead of the end of it. (No promises of coherence.) Many people form subconscious filters through which they process information. Usually speaking, these involve an individuals preconceptions and worldview. Things that violate this filter settings are ignored. The least controversial example I can think of would be the 'weirdness censor' trope, sometimes called 'reality blindness'.
--- End quote ---
Ok - question is whether you're interested in continuing that line of discussion, or whether we let it rest? Personally, I'd be happy to, since I've always found the topic "(pre-)consciousness" fascinating, ever since reading "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance".
(click to show/hide)My personal opinion is: Can there by a layer of the mind which has its own form of 'awareness' that the layer that we call consciousness cannot access? I've read that some experts say yes, others say no - personally I've no real opinion, and consider myself the most ignorant of laypersons.
Thing is that the word 'awareness' that we use in everyday parlance only really make sense when it refers to our 'conscious awareness(es)' - I can't really tell you much about my 'subconscious awareness' other that if it exists, it doesn't talk to me, least not in any way I could express to you in words.
That was why I used the 'argumentatum ad dictionarum', an argument that I normally abhorr - since my point was one of semantics.
--- Quote from: Gyrre on 22 Nov 2017, 01:13 ---Now then, haven't we already had a discussion in the forums about not jumping to conclusions to try to prove one's own mental superiority? Earnest question. I'm tired, so I might be mixed up with a discussion on tumblr a few months back.
--- End quote ---
Hmmmh, what to say? Ok - I'll first give an answer to the literal reading of the question: I don't recall such a discussion on this sub-forum. If there was one, I wasn't part of it. If you consider further clarification necessary, feel free to expand on how you think the above applies to my blurb/me - but I'd point out that I can only reply to what you have posted, not what you had intended to post, but didn't have the time to. I found your thought interesting and had some questions about it, so ask I did.
Random fun fact: I'm not in the habit of investing time into designing minor effort-posts involving bulletpoints and quotations and whatnot to throw at people that I consider idiots, posts I consider uninteresting, or both. So when I do reply to you (or anyone else for that matter), you can safely assume that instead I'm taking you and your thoughts/post seriously and am offering you my honest reflections on it for your consideration and further discussion, should you wish to do so - not as a veiled insult. It's an invitation to "Uhmmmmh - wanna come out and play?".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version