WesternInfidels

You clearly know literally nothing … The fact you even suggested it in the first place shows you lack even a bare minimum understanding

You’ve written so much abuse, without explaining a darn thing.

whatever spaghetti-at-the-wall trash you’re doing

Yeah, an anonymous internet message board is a pretty irresponsible place to throw spaghetti at the wall, I guess. Seeing as how the entire APA board is refreshing this very thread feverishly. I guess I better find a mop, huh?

You cherrypicked “sensationalized”, somehow offered something more sensationalized anyway,

No no, I did it the other way around. I started with the spaghetti-at-the-wall trash, and then I discovered the resources you so kindly provided supported my point pretty much exactly.

I think the psychology community is probably mistaken, outdated, or out of touch on the “stigmatizing” point. The TESCREAL assholes love to think of themselves as “dark triad” or “dark personality,” they fantasize about bringing about a “dark enlightenment.” “Dark” isn’t stigmatizing, it’s cool. It’s sensational. For that reason, I think it would be great to have a different term. One that wasn’t cool.

(A little aside here: You think the psychologists should be trusted to choose the most appropriate terms, yes? Where did the current “dark” terminology, which is apparently so problematic, come from? I don’t actually know the answer. Do you?)

So my suggestion was specifically to find a term that wasn’t cool like “dark” is. My focus wasn’t on avoiding stigma, because I don’t care if the sorts of people who would be happy to put me and my family in a concentration camp felt stigmatized. But hey, if you want to stick up for their feelings and dignity, you go ahead. You’re still free to do that. You will always be free to stick up for them.

So you don’t like “defective.” Okay. Maybe “antagonistic” would work.

I am very smart, and frankly, anyone who says my idea is obviously fucking stupid is contradicting the psychology community

The contrast you think you see is there because you’re not absorbing my point. Maybe that’s partly my fault. I think it’s partly your fault, though. You’ve charged into this with a chip on your shoulder.

whose opinions on this I’m literally just now glancing at

Yup! Is that a scientific argument, though? Should it matter if I’m an expert or not?

If you seriously think “defective personalities” is a less sensationalist alternative, then boy, whatever’s left of your brain must be dripping out of your ear like melted candlewax.

Is there a name for the kind of personality that hurls uncalled for insults as a first resort?

I honestly don’t understand how you think that’s any kind of parallel.

I think “dark” is a problematic word, it’s sensational and attractive to exactly the wrong people, I think we should use another term.

As you point out, the psychology community has been contemplating a similar conclusion. Starting before me, I wager.

Somehow, this makes me a moron, though.

Okay but it says:

It is past time to abandon the term “dark” as a descriptor of antagonistic traits

And this is exactly what I’m advocating for, even if I’m approaching from another angle.

Maybe we should talk about “defective personalities” or “weak personalities” or “malformed personalities” or something else that sounds less cool to some people than “dark personalities.”