But people seek out therapy, they generally don’t want it from their friends and family without prompting.
Let me be clearer and more concise then.
Yes, people shouldn't give unsolicited advice by default, but if one wants a precise style of listening without reaction, the onus is on one to say that up front, or pay a therapist, and, finally, venting will elicit comments and/or criticism regardless of the taboo of advice, depending on the nature of one's culpability.
If one vents and needs commiseration over problems with glaringly obvious solutions, especially if the problems are self-caused/imposed, they are immature assholes who don't want to or have the capacity for self-reflection, nor respect for others' time.
This only my opinion about this video; it's not gospel.
I'm what some call a "normie" Linux user, so I like desktop environments. I run KDE Neon on my main workstation, and then I have a laptop running CachyOS.
You seem like an expert who has strong opinions. I'm interested to listen and read about people's likes and dislikes about niche subjects, such as desktop environments.
Your condescension notwithstanding, it's safe to say we're certainly not friends, by any stretch.
Here some more fun takes from a language model, that "dares to know'.
"Sapere aude" means 'dare to know,' the motto of Enlightenment reason.
It's ironic you use it as a closing remark after relying on a Straw Man fallacy ("voting bears") and an Ad Hominem attack ("autocomplete") instead of engaging the ethical distinction I explicitly made regarding ethically sourced meat.
Applying reason means addressing the actual argument, not running from it with a haughty, snide attitude, citing your Latin phrase as a dismissal.
Since we're having so much fun, here's another language model's critique of your reply:
Yes, I did use a language model to analyze and structure my previous reply. My goal was to provide the most logically precise critique of the fallacy in your response.
Your choice was to attack the source of the critique, call my argument 'autocomplete,' and question my 'human mind.' If a logically sound, structured argument—even one assisted by AI—is superior to your subsequent move of simply linking two Wikipedia articles, that reflects poorly on the substance of your own position.
Your attempt to paint me as a sophist relying on 'buzzwords' while your contribution is uncontextualized links to remedial philosophy is a textbook example of intellectual posturing. An accusation that admittedly could be leveled at me for using an AI to detail your logical fallacies, if it wasn't for the fact that you had already shifted the tone with their dismissive "voting bears"
My argument was not a simple Appeal to Nature. You committed a Straw Man by reducing my statement—that humans are omnivorous predators with an ethical duty to minimize suffering—to the claim that humans and bears share identical ethical agency.
I used the bear analogy to establish the 'Is' (our biological capacity for predation).
'Ought' (the ethical duty to source meat humanely) is evident in the initial comment I made to someone else, which you glossed over on purpose.
My core point is that we apply our higher ethical reasoning to how we fulfill our natural capacity. Your 'voting bears' reply failed to address the ethical distinction I explicitly made.
My call for ethically sourced meat consumption is the direct result of applying the 'Ought' to the 'Is.' I accept the biological reality but reject the factory farming industry based on ethical and environmental responsibilities. You rely on disingenuous debate tactics intended to dismiss the premise.
Let me be clearer and more concise then.
Yes, people shouldn't give unsolicited advice by default, but if one wants a precise style of listening without reaction, the onus is on one to say that up front, or pay a therapist, and, finally, venting will elicit comments and/or criticism regardless of the taboo of advice, depending on the nature of one's culpability.