TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,813
As far back as I can remember, I always hated the people who were "concerned" for me (except maybe parents and family since they are well meaning and supported me when I was growing up due to unconditional love - even though not always in the best relations or best interests, but that's another topic altogether so I won't go on that tangent). This always annoyed me simply because these people would meddle into my affairs, my business, my life, and then decide what is best for me even if they don't know the situation. It vexes me even more because these people are simply just virtue signaling and stroking their egos. They don't "really" care about my real problems, let alone offer any concrete solution to them (or if there is none, then respect my decision, even if they don't like it.).
This brings me to a second point, the other point is that they feel like this gives them "permission" and the right to do so. Using that same logic against them, then it would be ok to stalk someone under the pretense that one is "concerned", but oh no, if someone does that, it is suddenly viewed as criminal, and socially unacceptable (creepy behavior). Talk about double standards and hypocrisy. It's basically like saying when someone thinks about suicide or is disturbed, suddenly society has all the right and ability to intervene, to violate that person's agency, privacy, freedom, and even peace of mind, whether out of genuine concern or not (most likely not out of genuine concern as their actions speak otherwise). Being "concerned" isn't a license to bypass the other person's agency, privacy, and rights. It is really disgusting how people can just claim to do that and get away with it.
So in conclusion, I resent the people who are concerned for me (especially when they feign it and are doing it just to appear to be a "good" person) because not only does it violate my privacy, freedom, rights, peace of mind; it also inconveniences me. It is very hypocritical that just because someone has the wrong think, doesn't maintain or agree or keep up with the status quo (what society deems ok), then suddenly their privacy, freedom, rights, and what not are irrelevant and that others are justified in doing what that do. No, fuck that, I won't accept this clown standard.
This brings me to a second point, the other point is that they feel like this gives them "permission" and the right to do so. Using that same logic against them, then it would be ok to stalk someone under the pretense that one is "concerned", but oh no, if someone does that, it is suddenly viewed as criminal, and socially unacceptable (creepy behavior). Talk about double standards and hypocrisy. It's basically like saying when someone thinks about suicide or is disturbed, suddenly society has all the right and ability to intervene, to violate that person's agency, privacy, freedom, and even peace of mind, whether out of genuine concern or not (most likely not out of genuine concern as their actions speak otherwise). Being "concerned" isn't a license to bypass the other person's agency, privacy, and rights. It is really disgusting how people can just claim to do that and get away with it.
So in conclusion, I resent the people who are concerned for me (especially when they feign it and are doing it just to appear to be a "good" person) because not only does it violate my privacy, freedom, rights, peace of mind; it also inconveniences me. It is very hypocritical that just because someone has the wrong think, doesn't maintain or agree or keep up with the status quo (what society deems ok), then suddenly their privacy, freedom, rights, and what not are irrelevant and that others are justified in doing what that do. No, fuck that, I won't accept this clown standard.