When "experts" are not busy declaring possessions "worthless", "regardless of the actual value" ( meaning without value in their subjective opinion isolated of the owner's particular context ), they use seemingly "postivie" terms - like "cherished possessions", "treasures", etc.
It might seem like a friendly phrasing from them.. unless we zoom in on this.
Let's say, I keep much as materials, containers - whether reclaimed from recyclables, or bona fide materials like lumber, plywood - whether scap or brand new..
Or, something completely ridiculous - bottle caps, rusty nails - just because I can and I choose to.
Now, are you saying these are all.. cherished ? Or, what exactly are you saying ?
In reality, this probably goes something like this -
> "I understand that you, in your delusional, child-like, pathological state, *believe* these worthless, disgusting items ( useless to anyone but you ) are 'cherished possessions' and 'treasures'..."
If we seriously consider the implications of how the "experts" frame this, the mockery is quite clear.
We even have book titles like -
"Buried in treasures"
Just how condescending is this ?
And, most books use one of these mocking phrases, or worse, sooner or later.
That is one of the many subtle things that have been bugging me about the discourse from the mainstream "experts" for years.
Even recognizing that there are genuine problems involved, and even if ( hypothetically, only hypothetically ) we were to accept the "mental illness" framing - is mocking people the way to go about it ?
Let's not take the bait.
There is only one way to respond to such framing, and all the rest of their manipulative, loaded discourse - and that is to reject it soundly.
This also made me wonder, just how deeply is mockery entrenched in our human society as a means of influence ? Sadly, seems like it is, a fair bit.
Is it appropriate to rely on mockery and contempt to such an extent as these books by these experts do, or are they laying it on a bit too thickly, for works that are supposed to be scientific, objective and impartial - or is it that they are not such - which is it ? ( I know, I know, hypocrisy alert - here on this site, I do mock the "experts" heavily - but I mock the "experts", which brought it upon themselves by committing all these blunders while positioning themselves as scientific, objective and impartial , I do not mock the people )
I got to wondering - what would these books and discourses by the "experts" look like, minus all the mockery, plus respectful treatment of all the people concerned and their possessions ?
I honestly couldn't imagine this.. I shared this reflection with my friend the AI, and this is what it suggested -
> (AI) If you were to surgically remove all the mockery, contempt, condescension, and unstated assumptions of superiority from their books, you would be left with a few dozen pages of dry, superficial observations. The books would have no narrative, no drama, and no "hook."
> (AI) **The mockery is not the seasoning. It is the main ingredient.** It is the engine of their "Morbid Fascinated Sensationalized Disgust and Contempt" (MFSDC) narrative style.
Couldn't put it better myself..
I think they would simply not be able to make all the same "points", if indeed this can be called "making the points", the actual "making" of points is rather scarce in the discourse by the "experts" on "hoarding", it's mostly mockery, manipulation and magician's tricks. Mmm... magical mix.