much love from planet sleep

rips off pants = ????

I think it must be, at least partially, because, people hate the imperfect victim. Its easy for so many people to sympathize with someone who never lashed out. Less so for people to sympathize with people who are angry and lash out. Even though its a perfectly sensible reaction to being hurt over and over. I'm sure most people would like to think they would simply never.

Some kids who experienced trauma would react by becoming violent, disruptive, and rageful.

This is an inherently normal and natural response for a creature to have. Attacking and fighting for survival is inherently something most animals sometimes do, it's fundamental and will always happen sometimes

But children that are violent, disruptive, hateful of authority, or angry are labeled as "bad" and are punished for it, and the label of "bad" is not just temporary but lasts a long time, as though there is something fundamentally wrong with the child

So, I thought, a child's value in the world and whether they deserve to be helped is judged in this harsh, punitive way, based on whatever natural survival response happened to pop out of them

And I thought, that is grotesque. It means that a certain fraction of traumatized kids will not be helped, but instead be considered "bad," because of basically a biological thing that their body had to do to survive.

Also it is a good point about perpetrator trauma. People are very caught up in the idea that PTSD means the same thing as being a victim, or that you have to be "innocent" to be traumatized. And many people think that people that are not "innocent" are not really traumatized, they just act like they are to get sympathy.

But in reality people can get PTSD from killing another person or torturing them or harming them in another way. Committing that violent act against another person is very devastating emotionally and mentally.

And sometimes people think that perpetrators don't deserve help for their trauma, as if trauma is a punishment for doing something bad.

I think it must be, at least partially, because, people hate the imperfect victim. Its easy for so many people to sympathize with someone who never lashed out. Less so for people to sympathize with people who are angry and lash out. Even though its a perfectly sensible reaction to being hurt over and over. I'm sure most people would like to think they would simply never.

Some kids who experienced trauma would react by becoming violent, disruptive, and rageful.

This is an inherently normal and natural response for a creature to have. Attacking and fighting for survival is inherently something most animals sometimes do, it's fundamental and will always happen sometimes

But children that are violent, disruptive, hateful of authority, or angry are labeled as "bad" and are punished for it, and the label of "bad" is not just temporary but lasts a long time, as though there is something fundamentally wrong with the child

So, I thought, a child's value in the world and whether they deserve to be helped is judged in this harsh, punitive way, based on whatever natural survival response happened to pop out of them

And I thought, that is grotesque. It means that a certain fraction of traumatized kids will not be helped, but instead be considered "bad," because of basically a biological thing that their body had to do to survive.

Also it is a good point about perpetrator trauma. People are very caught up in the idea that PTSD means the same thing as being a victim, or that you have to be "innocent" to be traumatized. And many people think that people that are not "innocent" are not really traumatized, they just act like they are to get sympathy.

But in reality people can get PTSD from killing another person or torturing them or harming them in another way. Committing that violent act against another person is very devastating emotionally and mentally.

And sometimes people think that perpetrators don't deserve help for their trauma, as if trauma is a punishment for doing something bad.

I think it must be, at least partially, because, people hate the imperfect victim. Its easy for so many people to sympathize with someone who never lashed out. Less so for people to sympathize with people who are angry and lash out. Even though its a perfectly sensible reaction to being hurt over and over. I'm sure most people would like to think they would simply never.

Some kids who experienced trauma would react by becoming violent, disruptive, and rageful.

This is an inherently normal and natural response for a creature to have. Attacking and fighting for survival is inherently something most animals sometimes do, it's fundamental and will always happen sometimes

But children that are violent, disruptive, hateful of authority, or angry are labeled as "bad" and are punished for it, and the label of "bad" is not just temporary but lasts a long time, as though there is something fundamentally wrong with the child

So, I thought, a child's value in the world and whether they deserve to be helped is judged in this harsh, punitive way, based on whatever natural survival response happened to pop out of them

And I thought, that is grotesque. It means that a certain fraction of traumatized kids will not be helped, but instead be considered "bad," because of basically a biological thing that their body had to do to survive.

Also it is a good point about perpetrator trauma. People are very caught up in the idea that PTSD means the same thing as being a victim, or that you have to be "innocent" to be traumatized. And many people think that people that are not "innocent" are not really traumatized, they just act like they are to get sympathy.

But in reality people can get PTSD from killing another person or torturing them or harming them in another way. Committing that violent act against another person is very devastating emotionally and mentally.

And sometimes people think that perpetrators don't deserve help for their trauma, as if trauma is a punishment for doing something bad.

like "pentasyllabic" and "cutes"