“Bites” is so cool…

*Mexican United States.

Also, it’s not about the name but how that name came to be. Mexican United States (Mexico) are called that way because they’re the region around the mexica territory (today part of Mexico City). They’re not ‘stealing’ the name from anyone.

The United States of America (U.S.A.) are called that way because they were the first independent states in America, the continent’s name: a well known fact at the moment. But today, most American countries are independent, so the people from the United States have been rewriting geography and even history saying there are two continents, that there isn’t a continent named America, etc. Sorry, but many countries and thousands of historical documents tell us that America was and is the name of the continent, and that it is not okay to take it for one country alone.

I imagine the outrage this would cause for centuries if France (just to name some country) tried to pull this off. “United Communities of Europe”, “we are the only Europeans 🇨🇵”, “Europe is a country”, “there’s West Europe and East Europe, the Europes, but that’s it”…

Oh! The first part can be about suicide, you’re right. The second part reminds me of antinatalism, and I think it makes sense for breaking the cycle described.

More like: “It is a bad neverending cycle. Break it”.

You reminded me of something I think no one has mentioned yet:

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker’s statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others’ statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available.

From: Principle of charity.

Applying this, I think we can interpret the *independent thinking" not as thinking without conditioning factors but as what is known as “critical thinking”.

Although some feelings are malleable through thinking, but yeah, others come from (and can only be worked by) different places (including the health of our body).

I believe ignorance is a common reason even among professionals. They only think of the grandiose traits; they confuse the vulnerable traits with BPD or MDD; and they think it has to be close to ASPD to be diagnosable.

My loved one developed NPD by having a terrible childhood and early teenage years with undiagnosed AuDHD. Bullying, rejection, isolation, school failures, etc. The solution was to start lying, manipulating, trying to get something (anything) going their way, seeking validation… They received a depression diagnosis only at first 🫥.

Did you know people with ASD score higher in vulnerable narcissism traits? That means this story could be common. Traumatized neurodivergent children are already at higher risk of developing mental disorders.

But no, nobody talks about NPD this way. It’s always about grandiose traits being dangerous for others (which can be part of the experience, but there’s so much more). I hope it changes someday.