My parents tell me they love me unconditionally, but only if I fit their expectations, which I do not.
I’m with you on that one. I’m still grappling with attempting to be their good son but also trying to accept myself for who I am right now.
Good luck, my Fedifriend. Take things one step at a time. You aren’t alone.
There is this saying that is misinterpreted.
blood runs thicker than water
People saying this mean to say that family bonds are more important than friendships.
But it’s incomplete. The full expression:
blood runs thicker than water from the womb
Meaning blood bonds, friendships, are stronger than family connections, the water from the womb.
I have a brother who votes for a conspiracy right wing party. My mother keeps spreading racist slurs and follows right wing populists and media. My father is more like me, but is afraid to get into conflict so he always takes my mother’s side.
I told them, after countless chances, I’m done with them. I broke off all contact, with a long explanation without convictions, attacks, blaming or what so ever. Just explaining I feel hurt by how I feel treated and I feel helpless as any form of conversation ends in full scale attacks onto me, blaming me for everything, calling me a child in its puberty (I’m 39) who never takes responsibility (while I always take full responsibility for my actions, while they have never done so).
I’m happy with my group of honest and deep friendships. I don’t need my family. They wrote me out of their will. I don’t care. I don’t need anything from them anymore. I’m surrounded by amazing and loving people, while they are going to die sad and alone.
The version of the expression I’ve heard is
The blood of the covenant runs thicker than the water of the womb
And it’s also total BS. This was never the expression until someone tacked it on recently.
Why would you just repeat some bullshit you heard somewhere without looking it up?
As not one of “the golden children” sometimes it’s best to just focus on your (or you own families) happiness.
Mine said that a lot but it turns out one never cared at all which I kinda knew and the other decided I was not the kid they wanted and so deserved to die on the street that’s the one who I think died on the street a couple months ago so that’s equal parts amusing and sad
The only thing that will ever love unconditionally is a dog.
men in particular say this all the time, too
“i would kill for my wife” would you do the dishes for your wife? the laundry?
it’s easy to talk about sacrifices you’re never going to have to do, especially when they make you sound so badass
but actually doing stuff to improve people’s lives around you is much harder than just talking
“I would die for my wife”
How about living for them instead? Dedicate your life to them while it’s still valuable.
For years my wife and I have talked about who would outlive the other and we both constantly say the other will (it’s pretty damn sad to think about going on without each other). Very recently I changed my thought process and would prefer to live longer, if only to spare her the pain of going through that feeling of loss.
Absolutely, I think humans want the honor of spectacle and not the labor of the mundane
Especially in an age of spectacle and shallowness.
I do.
In fact I do most of the chores in my house because my wife’s hobby requires frequent absences.
In my opinion “I would cross border for better life for my children” is looked down because it lacks “patriotism” or whatever the call pointless nationalism nowadays. Personally if my country was in any danger of being invaded, you can find me and my family at the border faster than media can send their crew there to film it. And I say it while my country borders Russia.
In loving relationships it’s mutual. Wifes would probably also kill for their husbands. The division of labour would also be split somewhat equally.
When one would do labour or killing depends on context. I’m more likely to accept some labour on request from my spouse, than i am to accept an order to kill their enemies. But we are still honest when we say we would kill for eachother. When it would make sense, in some extraordinary situation, that is. I don’t expect that hypothetical situation to ever come up though.
Away with thee walldoms 🌬
Dissolve the beatling 🧼 ❤
Birth hives of samhold 人人
It’s the same people who love Trump if he were to shoot some one on Fifth Avenue.
But would hate him if he gave people the COVID vaccine on Fifth Avenue
They would not hate him for that, they would move the goalposts like they always do for their precious leader.
Violent racist boomer narcissism strikes again!
Cherish something and potentially sacrifice yourself for it?
No.
No, kill, main, destroy randomly assigned enemies, then tell your kids you did it for them, and they’re ungrateful if you do not worship their hateful bloodlust!
The people complaining about the border crossing thing are logically equivalent to the people getting killed for somebody else’s children, rather than the people doing the killing for their children.
So that tweet is not a like to like comparison and it IS logical that some people both and at the same time would kill for their children AND dislike people crossing borders for theirs - not the same side of the action and not the same kids.
The beliefs of the anti-immigrant crowd are Logical if they genuinelly believe that the downsides of immigration for themselves outweigh the upsides. Where these beliefs are open to dispute is in the truthfulness of the “information” which they used to reach the conclusion that immigration is bad for them and in the Ethical and Moral aspect of how they think immigrants should be treated.
PS: And I just want to add that it’s a personal peeve how the whole Immigration subject has been reduced (probably by slimy Politicians and Think Tanks) to one-dimensionality by both sides of the Identity Politics theatre in broken “Democracies” and then parroted by unthinking simpletons, when even putting the whole “should there be nations and borders or not” aside, I can think of at least 3 different Moral principles that should inform one’s views on the subject of people from some other country coming to live in one’s country: The Duty to Help those suffering (which yields the concept of Refugee), the Duty of a Host to invited Guests (which applies to the treatment of Legal Immigrants) and what is acceptable to do to uninvited outsiders (which applies to Illegal Immigrants who came to improve their personal upsides, not because of “suffering”) all of which yield way more moral conundruns than the one-dimensional take (for example, how bad one’s lot in life needs to be to trigger the Duty Of Help of others), introduces the question of were are the limits of one’s capability to help (the Duty Of Help takes in account on how far one is capable of helping) and even introduces an additional Active element (should we activelly seek the worst off to help them?)
Without the slimy fake left (or just plain incompetent) politicians doing their loud performative “moralism” on top of the Think Tank created hyper-simplification of the subject of Immigration, the Far-Right would have way more trouble engaging people with their simpleton anti-immigration slogans, because for example only the worst of the worst kind of people would deny the Duty Of Help or the Duty of a Host to invited Guests - this shit should be discussed in the context of a Moral framework, not dealt with with sloganeering.
Only if it happens to others. Never when it’s about themselves
Well killing is fine especially if its someone who doesn’t look like me but borders are actually important
This sounds like someone who doesn’t have an actual kid who’s got friends he doesn’t want to lose by moving to a far away place that may still be at risk of a right wing decline by the time we get there too.
