CDZ Trump Hysteria and Dissociation Theory

[jwoodie]

In order to understand the hysterical response to Donald Trump's election, one should become familiar with the dissociation theories of Pierre Janet, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. In short, hysteria can result from a split between the mind's conscious and subconscious functions.

http://www.onnovdhart.nl/articles/dissociationtheory.pdf

 

[Fenton Lum]

Who's more hysterical than Don?

 

[Compost]

Sure! What not! So traumatized by the Obama years, some Trump voters suffer a fugue state. Meanwhile, leftists maintain a constant level of hysteria, so an uptick after a crushing loss is to be expected.

 

[forkup]

In order to understand the hysterical response to Donald Trump's election, one should become familiar with the dissociation theories of Pierre Janet, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. In short, hysteria can result from a split between the mind's conscious and subconscious functions.

http://www.onnovdhart.nl/articles/dissociationtheory.pdf

Oh you mean when somebody says he didn't win the popular vote because illegal 3 to 5 million illegal immigrants voted against without having a shred of evidence he isn't disassociated from reality? Or when press secretaries tell obvious lies and then claim the press is to blame? Or when certain people claim sexual assault is acceptable if you're a celebrity? Or might it be that those are the reasons people get hysterical when someone like that gets elected to the highest office? Or, and here's a good question. The fact that people completely deny that their is any objective connection between people saying and doing outrageous things and other people reacting negatively to it? Is that dissociation?

 

[jwoodie]

The fact that people completely deny that their is any objective connection between people saying and doing outrageous things and other people reacting negatively to it? Is that dissociation?

Good example of hysteria: Inability to distinguish form and substance.

 

[forkup]

The fact that people completely deny that their is any objective connection between people saying and doing outrageous things and other people reacting negatively to it? Is that dissociation?

Good example of hysteria: Inability to distinguish form and substance.

Ok, since you are able to distinguish the 2 help me out and tell me how you separate. Grab them by the pussy" form or substance? Impersonating disabled reporters. Form or substance? Claiming millions of illegals voted. Form or substance? I can go on and on. If you like psychology so much I'll tell you about Trump. He's someone who lived until seventy without hardly ever having to deal with the word no. In his head there is no room for self-reflection, doubt or empathy. To him everything he says is true. His entire self image is build up around he being right. But unlike most people who have to deal with reality, his money and birth has shielded him from that. He is however now come in a position where denying reality is a recipe for disaster. What we saw with the inauguration controversy is small potatoes with the disappointment he will face when dealing with congress and even more, nations. He will lash out as he has proven time and time again, when faced with any type af adversity and now you guys gave him heavy weapons. So I might be hysteric and realise that I'm probably wrong about him blowing up the world but the potential for him doing it is larger then any president I've ever heard of.

 

[jwoodie]

Ok, since you are able to distinguish the 2 help me out and tell me how you separate. Grab them by the pussy" form or substance? Impersonating disabled reporters. Form or substance? Claiming millions of illegals voted. Form or substance?

Words constitute form. Actions constitute substance. Does that help?

P.S. "Grab them by the pussy" is a figure of speech (not intended to be taken literally).

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Ok, since you are able to distinguish the 2 help me out and tell me how you separate. Grab them by the pussy" form or substance? Impersonating disabled reporters. Form or substance? Claiming millions of illegals voted. Form or substance?

Words constitute form. Actions constitute substance. Does that help?

P.S. "Grab them by the pussy" is a figure of speech (not intended to be taken literally).

Grab them by the pussy was uttered 12 years ago.

 

[forkup]

Ok, since you are able to distinguish the 2 help me out and tell me how you separate. Grab them by the pussy" form or substance? Impersonating disabled reporters. Form or substance? Claiming millions of illegals voted. Form or substance?

Words constitute form. Actions constitute substance. Does that help?

P.S. "Grab them by the pussy" is a figure of speech (not intended to be taken literally).

Grab them by the pussy was uttered 12 years ago.

Ah so you contend he has grown up since he was a "youth" of 58 years old. Can you tell me what makes you come to that conclusion? What act of now president Trump supports your opinion that what he said 12 years ago isn't his actual feelings?

 

[forkup]

Ok, since you are able to distinguish the 2 help me out and tell me how you separate. Grab them by the pussy" form or substance? Impersonating disabled reporters. Form or substance? Claiming millions of illegals voted. Form or substance?

Words constitute form. Actions constitute substance. Does that help?

P.S. "Grab them by the pussy" is a figure of speech (not intended to be taken literally).

Lets just pretend that , "he was only figuratively saying sexual assault as a celebrity is alright", is not a marginal improvement at best. I will instead point out that he wasn't speaking like he was speaking hypothetical but rather descriptive in the Bush tape. And that later a dozen woman then verified his own words, by claiming he did it to them. You also blew right past my question. How do you know that Trump speaks figuratively. I can state my reasoning why I take what he says literal, can you? This brings me right back to your OP and my reply. I can distinguish between what I know and what I think. I can point out exactly what actions of Trump make me hysterical like you try to say. I'm not talking about some media instituted controversy, I'm talking about stuff that is on tape, or on twitter, or said during white house press briefings. You on the other hand speak like I shouldn't take him literally, without offering any type of explanation as to your reasoning. Seems to me I'm firmly grounded in reality, while you just seem to equate your opinion with reality.

 

[jwoodie]

Lets just pretend that , "he was only figuratively saying sexual assault as a celebrity is alright", is not a marginal improvement at best. I will instead point out that he wasn't speaking like he was speaking hypothetical but rather descriptive in the Bush tape. And that later a dozen woman then verified his own words, by claiming he did it to them.

1. He also (jokingly) called one of the other men on that tape a "pussy." Do you also take that literally?

2. Your attempt to link these statements to "sexual assault" is typical Democrat BS just like it was used against Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain. Why weren't these crimes reported at the time of their alleged occurrence?

3. At least you admit that you are hysterical. That is a good first step.

 

[forkup]

Lets just pretend that , "he was only figuratively saying sexual assault as a celebrity is alright", is not a marginal improvement at best. I will instead point out that he wasn't speaking like he was speaking hypothetical but rather descriptive in the Bush tape. And that later a dozen woman then verified his own words, by claiming he did it to them.

1. He also (jokingly) called one of the other men on that tape a "pussy." Do you also take that literally?

2. Your attempt to link these statements to "sexual assault" is typical Democrat BS just like it was used against Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain. Why weren't these crimes reported at the time of their alleged occurrence?

3. At least you admit that you are hysterical. That is a good first step.

Unlike you who is not able to demonstrate why I shouldn't take what he says seriously. You refuse to answer my premise, why is that I wonder? I'll try again

You on the other hand speak like I shouldn't take him literally, without offering any type of explanation as to your reasoning.

 

[jwoodie]

Unlike you who is not able to demonstrate why I shouldn't take what he says seriously. You refuse to answer my premise, why is that I wonder? I'll try again

Here you go:

noun, plural figures of speech. Rhetoric.
1. any expressive use of language, as a metaphor, simile, personification, or antithesis, in which words are used in other than their literal sense, or in other than their ordinary locutions, in order to suggest a picture or image or for other special effect.

I also provided you with another example in that same (illegally) taped conversation, wherein Trump referred to one of the other men as a "pussy." Do you really think that he was confusing a human being with a cat?

Even you used a figure of speech when you said:

What we saw with the inauguration controversy is small potatoes

Shall we take you seriously and assume you think that the "inauguration controversy" to which you refer is about the size of potatoes?

 

[forkup]

Unlike you who is not able to demonstrate why I shouldn't take what he says seriously. You refuse to answer my premise, why is that I wonder? I'll try again

Here you go:

noun, plural figures of speech. Rhetoric.
1. any expressive use of language, as a metaphor, simile, personification, or antithesis, in which words are used in other than their literal sense, or in other than their ordinary locutions, in order to suggest a picture or image or for other special effect.

I also provided you with another example in that same (illegally) taped conversation, wherein Trump referred to one of the other men as a "pussy." Do you really think that he was confusing a human being with a cat?

Even you used a figure of speech when you said:

What we saw with the inauguration controversy is small potatoes

Shall we take you seriously and assume you think that the "inauguration controversy" to which you refer is about the size of potatoes?

Deflecting again I see. My question is not. What is the definition of figure of speech. My question is What is your reasoning behind assuming Trump isn't supposed to be taken at his word. Why do you believe he wasn't serious about " Just grab them by the pussy"? Just to answer your bullshit deflection. Calling people a pussy is something that is used in the English language as a known idiom. Just grab them by the pussy, I have never heard outside that tape.

 

[jwoodie]

Just grab them by the pussy, I have never heard outside that tape.

Your ignorance and feigned outrage are getting tiresome. Do you really think that Trump needed to attract women by walking up to them and grasping their vaginas? Why are there no verifiable contemporaneous accounts of this behavior? Because it is nothing more than partisan BS.

Since you have nothing else to think about, I will not bother with further attempts to educate you.

 

[forkup]

Just grab them by the pussy, I have never heard outside that tape.

Your ignorance and feigned outrage are getting tiresome. Do you really think that Trump needed to attract women by walking up to them and grasping their vaginas? Why are there no verifiable contemporaneous accounts of this behavior? Because it is nothing more than partisan BS.

Since you have nothing else to think about, I will not bother with further attempts to educate you.

Need no, felt entitled to, yes. There are plenty of actual rapist who have absolutely no problem getting women the regular way. They just like the power it gives them. And there were a dozen accounts of this behavior claimed. Which leads me to conclude that it is likely. Going by Trumps character, his actual saying it happened and woman coming forward he did it. Note I say, likely not certain. Which brings me to the point I've been making from the beginning before you started to try to deflect from the OP you yourself started. I have plenty, rational reason to not like Trump. And the pussy tape doesn't scratch the surface of what Trump has said and done since he entered the public conscience I do not disassociate. You on the other hand, by trying to make an OP with as premise that people are irrational and hysterical when reacting to Trump's behavior negatively have failed. You are instead defending and trying to rationalise things that you probably wouldn't want to teach your children.