I think much of what were seeing in the U.S. and on tariffs may relate to psychology and normalization.
Desensitization – gradually making someone less sensitive to something shocking or extreme.
Rationalization – trying to justify or explain something irrational or crazy as if it makes sense.
Acceptance of the abnormal – a more general phrasing used in social contexts.
We could ask, is it normal for any leader have a melt down on social media when someone is critical of them?.
AI- "Just because something is “common” doesn’t make it psychologically or socially healthy. A meltdown in response to criticism usually signals poor coping strategies for stress, criticism, or accountability."
Similar to Gaslighting, Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where someone tries to make another person doubt their perception, memory, or reality—essentially saying, “You’re wrong, crazy, or imagining things.”
Of course the obvious question is, if we were a little critical of someone and they had a melt down and stormed out of the room what would we think?... no mystery here.
What you did above is commonly called "leading the witness." What constitutes "a meltdown"? What part of his post about the ads do you consider a "meltdown" and, what does the AI think a meltdown consist of. Do you think that the posts about the Ads from the Ontario leaders are meltdowns? I generally believe or envision the following for a "meltdown":
A physical and emotional response to being overloaded, not a form of manipulation, and can involve screaming, crying, and lashing out. Loss of control of ones self, and self soothing.
Tantrum might be more realistic but then we have to determine what everyone means by that.
For your obvious question. If you were in a room of people and were being insulted or criticized and you felt it was unfair, would you simply remain calm and quiet? Would you just sit there and take it? I am not defending the president.
I have stated a number of times that he can act very childish. He loves to troll and use all the trappings of modern social media to his advantage. The two nations involved here are equally responsible for being in the trade negotiations. They both just acted the same.
I don't need AI to help me understand that what both countries did was childish.
A meltdown is defined as a situation where someone experiences a sudden loss of control over their emotions, often resulting in extreme distress or outbursts. Like watching an ad, getting angry/emotional and then cancelling trade negotiations. Letting our emotions dictate our actions rather than reason. Case in point, you don't see other world leaders having a melt down on social media due to a little criticism.
If I was in a room of people and was being insulted or criticized I would laugh my ass off. Once we understand the psychology or reasoning behind the actions or insults it has no real effect. It reflects more on the other person than us imo.
I have stated a number of times that he can act very childish. He loves to troll and use all the trappings of modern social media to his advantage. The two nations involved here are equally responsible for being in the trade negotiations. They both just acted the same.
Ah, the old were all the same fallacy. Well no we are not the same because our PM does not act like a child ranting on social media and if he did he would soon find himself unemployed. Your trying to normalize psychotic behavior the rest of the world has little tolerance for.
You see, I don't think we'll have a reasonable discussion. You didn't address any of the points I made about issues in your statements.
I also think you're feeding your feelings into AI and then plastering the output from it in some form here.
A person is in melt down if they have lost control, crying, screaming, generally non-coherent and will take some time to become functional again. Your definition says that the person gets pissed off and takes an action. That would be more along the lines of a tantrum or fit. He's known to have tantrums and fits for sure.
Similarly, the Ontario government having a tantrum and taking out 75 million dollars in ads is the same thing.
In fact you claim that because the US president does "X" then it is reasonable that Ontario politicians do do "X" which is precisely the "Bandwagon fallacy".
There is no "were all the same fallacy". No normal person is going to sit in a room and laugh while being criticized and name called. That as you say, would be psychotic. I know I wouldn't sit there unless forced to. Why would anyone sit there and take it?
1)I'm not addressing all your questions because your spam posting on 12 different subjects at once.
2)Here in Canada having a melt down tends to mean acting irrationally or childish.
3)First, the government of Ontario is not the government of Canada. Should our PM have a meltdown and nullify a trade agreement just because one governor in one state did or said something?. Well no, that's absurd.
4)I never claimed to be normal or like you. I'm a professional and am okay to watch other people acting irrationally which I interpret as weakness or lack of control over their emotions. If you saw two people screaming at each other would you jump in and start screaming?, well no that's absurd. As adults were expected to act like adults, is that so hard to understand?.
I read an article relating to psychology which explains our differences pretty well. Canadians are very similar in values to Americans 50 years ago. In effect, were more like your parents than you. Do you think your parents would have tolerated a president who constantly lies, is a felon and accused of being involved with a pedophile ring 50 years ago?. We have no tolerance for it either, it's that simple.
Thanks for letting about not handling multiple points at the same time. I assume you're implying you're abnormal but somehow how a superior kind of abnormal.
Pro-tip, if you don't want to handle a lot of topics or points about your statements at once, maybe you shouldn't make them.
You don't have search AI for your answers to these. Just take it as your leisure.
1. SPAM is commercial email, I didn't send you any.
2. Your points were refuted but you are allowed to keep your views.
3. I'm here in Canada all the time. I don't find Canadians to be intolerant.
4. The presidents first response to the ads was "meh".
Check the facts As the CBC reported,
At the same event, Ford said he and Carney are on the “same page” when it comes to trade, adding he supports the prime minister “1,000 per cent.”
The whole thing is childish and even the simple minded could expect that it wouldn't be helpful closing a deal on trade. Why try to negotiate in good faith when they spend 75 million on Ads that they know will be inflammatory?
5. The ads didn't cause any "nullification of a trade agreement". They caused the planned sessions to be shelved. Don't lie.
8. Careful, your superiority complex is showing.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that the Ads were childish and got the exact results that you expected. Is it that hard?
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
