Stigmatisation Puns

Hey, unsure if this is allowed here or not (doesn't seem to be anything against it in the community rules but please let me know and I can take it down!!).

I'm a fourth year psychology student doing my dissertation about the link between stigma against tattoos and its effect on mental health. If you are over 18 and have a tattoo/tattoos it would really help me out if you could take 5-10 minutes and fill out this survey! All data is anonymous!

https://uws.questionpro.com/t/AUMaLZpp0l

Thanks in advance!

Edit - survey now closed ! thank you to everyone that helped out !

I saw a video from a YouTuber I follow about his abusive relationship with a girl with diagnosed BPD and another he recommended from a friend that included more screenshots and voice recordings as proof. Had I known it was about BPD abuse I wouldn’t have engaged, but once I’d opened Pandora’s box I decided to finish the info on this situation. Like if your day’s ruined either way, may as well I guess.

I’d have loved a trigger warning! But it’d need to warn about BPD abuse specifically, not just abuse. He didn’t put any warning, but I’d have probably watched if it warned of abuse, but I wouldn’t touch a video about BPD abuse because I know it’s too much for me. The thing is, nobody would ever label something a BPD abuse but we talk about narcissistic abuse online so often the term is getting watered down. Why? I know it’s about stigma, but why is it okay to acknowledge the specific kind of abuse from one personality disorder but not another?

Both creators I watched went out of their way to repeatedly stress that the ex isn’t a monster because she has BPD, she just is a monster that happens to have BPD. I hate it. The things the ex did that were abusive were BPD things, that’s just a fact. If the actions you’re victimised by come directly from the list of BPD symptoms then the problem is the BPD. That’s just the fact of the matter. The fact they felt like they had to go out of their way not to make it seem like problem with that person was their BPD behaviour was really upsetting to me… I was weirdly personally offended by it.. It felt like they were still protecting that person over themselves and anyone else that person hurt. I hate it.

Why do we have to treat BPD this way? Why are they still the victim to be protected even when they are the clear villain in the story doing such horrible things??

I considered commenting something like “…but that’s what BPD is” but I was afraid the internet would bombard me with hate for it. I feel like if we pretend that’s not what BPD is like that we set other people up to get hurt the same way. That girl’s behaviour was so on the nose that I sent the shorter of the videos to my fiancé and captioned it “growing up with my mom be like.”

Why???

Hey!

I'd like to hear perspectives on the following, please.

To my mind, there is a popular idea in, at least, western 'democratic' culture that by not voting, someone therefore loses their right to complain about the current government.

Particularly, I'd be interested to hear critical sociological perspectives regarding why this view arises? What it represents? How, if at all, does it retain the perceived legitimacy of contemporary societies, and their accompanying ideologies?

Thank you in advance.

_________________________

Small note:

For the activist types out here on these forums, an effective way of doing MRA is too amplify, promote voices of those who have done the hardwork, produced the good content. You will achieve more spreading/sharing good articles, videos, mens issues social media accounts (e.g. tinmenblog, male psychology network and their new EXCELLENT books released, etc) per unit time then arguing with someone about MRA issues.... move on and focus on those who support the message or in the middle ground instead of getting stuck spending all your internet time that day arguing with someone who isnt arguing in good faith etc... ignore those small groups of haters and getting into long reddit threads with them.... of course its fantastic to hear genuine critique of your POV, in fact its really important etc I mean its pointless spending 60% of your MRA time speaking to someone who says I dunno men have no issues in society or university is male dominated or whatever blah blah patriarchy.... when you could spend 1% of your internet time supporting people who are already spreading MRA messages full time by amplfying their work

Another side note, Quilette is filled with articles like below. I saw an interview with founder years ago... back then (so probably even more now) it was getting millions of views per month despite only having four full time staff..... just shows how much you can get done with focused work

________________________

Here is the article:

https://quillette.com/2021/05/26/the-gathering-resistance-to-the-stigmatisation-of-masculinity/

On the face of it, Brilliant Bob is an unremarkable character for a children’s book—a playful boy who loves football and embarks upon fun adventures with his friends Dazzling Dave, Genuine George, and Superboy Sam. But Bob and his three friends were created with the clear purpose of celebrating masculinity. They are brave, competitive, curious, persistent, risk-ready, strong, and stoical—traits that enlightened sections of society now frown upon and which educators tend to present to children as negative.

The perceived need for stories and role models that reaffirm traits and values like these is suggestive of how widespread and pernicious the attack on masculinity has become. A [section of the books’ website](https://www.brillia

So just before I get into this I want to make it clear that I am not referring to any particular artist or fandom. I am merely highlighting an issue in fan culture.

My first ranting point: Why is ‘Big 3 Privilege’ such a dirty word? Why does it rub so many people the wrong way? Is it the use of the term ‘privilege’? Perhaps it could be referred to as ‘Big 3 Notoriety’ instead?

My point is these companies are successful profit making enterprises, surely part of their goal is to establish and carve out a market reputation of some sort? Something uniquely theirs, that way when they develop and debut new artists they are fortunate to somehow benefit from the notoriety and platform their predecessors established. This could be media coverage, preferential treatment by broadcast companies etc.

We have seen time and time again the politics of knowing someone, some sort of company nepotism (highly doubt that’s the term but it’s the only one I could think of, apologies - please notify me if there is an actual term for this) etc. help artists in all music industries. Entertainment companies seek to build a rapport of some sort with companies and broadcasters they engage with, it’s basic networking.

All I’m saying is, this sort of brand reputation is something companies want - the idea is that it’ll make things easier for future talent. And that will definitely vary from rookie to rookie in these Big 3 companies.

But it would be dishonest to claim that artists from these industry giants have the same struggles as those from relatively unknown companies. That’s simply not true.

It is also worth noting that no doubt these 3 companies also have more expertise, more established behind the scenes talent and a wealth of funds to invest in their newer talent.

Nonetheless, using the term as a means of disregarding the achievements of artists in these 3 companies should be refrained from. No group hits big from Big 3 “Privilege” alone.

Furthermore, viewing it as a taboo or a means of dismissing an artist’s accomplishments solely, has dirtied the term and made it next to impossible to use in a neutral manner. One will see the term, “Big 3 Privilege” and instantly assume it is an attack on their beloved artists. And to be honest, in some cases it is. It has morphed into a loaded term.

And in a way I believe it has fostered my next rant: the Culture of being Obsessed with pushing a Struggle Origin Story. In an effort to further their groups from the most

After doing my daily meditation I have been thinking about that the stigmatisation, that I have been told by everyone and that i have been telling myself, might actually hold me back in the way that I give 99% of my energy into looking for solutions to a problem that may not even exist?!? I mean the raw data that supports this stigmatisation is there if I look back into my past, but isn't bringing the past into the present the main problem?

Can anyone relate to this?