No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
It's clear by your post and comments that you're living in a SUV due to your lifestyle, not due to deprivation.
So let's get practical:
Beyond that, it is not your problem any more. And that includes their emotional state.
Now, on why they do it. Frankly, I don't know, but if I had to guess:
A lot of people who desire to help others don't really do so because they want a better world; they do it for the sake of their own fee fees, because they want to feel like a good person who helps others out. As such, they're willing to violate the others' agency and consent and force their "help" down your throat, even if they aren't actually helping jack shit but being just a burden; and they get really pissy when you correctly highlight that they are not helping and impose some boundaries. (inb4 "but I have good intentions" - go pave Hell with them dammit.)
That is not just social workers, mind you. You see people like this in all professions and environments. However, I believe that there's a disproportionate large amount of those among social workers due to the nature of their job, simply because social work is all about helping others out.
Couple that with bureaucracy. There's a high chance that your info is in some database as "refused help". Guess how someone who, unlike you, needs and wants help but declines it due to pride would get into that database? "Refused help". So the next social worker checking your entry will see it as someone who potentially might want and need help.
Any social worker who violates your agency and consent is in breach of their legal obligations and should be reported to their state board. Any social worker who takes things a patient says personally, and responds from emotion based on that, is also a terrible social worker. I've been a social worker a long ass time and the people I know and work with do neither of these things.
In theory it's all flowers. In practice, no, not really, regardless of country. And since you claim to be a social worker, odds are that you know it.
I'll go further than that. Even the social workers who are not naturally inclined towards insistence ad nauseam are trained to be this way. You could claim that it is for good reasons (as some people avoid help out of fear, pride, etc.); but you can't truthfully claim that it is not a violation of both things, because insistence is a violation of agency and consent, like it or not.
Typically, when confronted with that, plenty social workers start babbling about their "it's our policy...", as if evading responsibility + hinting that they do it regardless of situation.
And, if OP's description of the events is accurate, in their case it gets worse: it isn't just individual workers doing it, but the whole system. If multiple people ask you to do something, even if none of the individuals are being pushy, the system is still being pushy.
Emphasis mine. That "responds" misrepresents what I said.
No, they're not, and laws and licensing standards actually vary widely by country. I'm talking about the US, where we have a national accrediting body for social work graduate schools. Nowhere in there is anything about "insistence," quite opposite in fact.
OP's experience that happened twice at the same doctor is in no way indicative of a pattern across the whole profession lol
Lastly, looking at your other comment, I have absolutely no idea what "voluntary reinforcement classes in a shantytown" are or how a social worker would be involved in them, or what they did that relates to this topic
Yes, they are. And odds are that you know it, and why (again: because if they don't do it they fail to support people who need and want it).
The principles and motivations behind those laws and licensing standards are still the same, regardless of government, so you're bound to see a convergence on the effect of those things.
And this is so blatantly obvious that your "ackshyually" is pointless.
OP is likely from USA (due to reference of living in cars), so all your babble, implying that said "nashunal accreriring bory in muh caunrry" makes any practical difference, is just babble.
(Surprisingly consistent with both what I've attested myself, and what I've seen people across multiple countries complaining about.)
Do you understand the difference between what's written in a paper versus reality?
Don't assume "twice". "Couple times" can mean anything between "twice" and "multiple times" depending on the utterance and context.
At this point you already misrepresented what another person said, then tried to pull off an "ackshyually", then changed the goalposts from practical reality to some bureaucratic organisation. As such I'm not wasting my time further with you or your comment.
I wasn't born yesterday.
Ok
I am sorry that you feel this way.
How I "feel" doesn't matter here. What matters is if my claims are accurate or inaccurate on a large scale.
What I say is based on personal experience with voluntary reinforcement classes in a shanty town*, for almost three years, interacting with social workers and the people they work on/with, all the bloody time. And then having enough insight to check for sampling biases (i.e. to check if my views were consistent with the views of other teachers, and people outside my own country. They were).
*the sort of shanty town that teaches you that, upon hearing gunfire, you should drop on the floor.
In general I don't really like to hurt other people's feelings. But I also like to have my freedom to decide to do things the way I want. I can see your point but it seems kind of harsh.
At no point should you ever be so concerned about protecting a licensed professional's feelings that you don't ask for what you want, in this case to be left alone. If they get their feelings hurt, that's totally on them, because they're (supposed to be) the professional in this situation.
Good point. And I might have come across a little defensive, as someone else mentioned. My next strategy is simply not to ever bring it up again. It's apparently not a fun topic of conversation when it comes to doctors and hospitals.
I get not wanting to hurt the others' feelings, but agency and consent take priority. Specially when it comes to one's own life.
Can you explain what you felt was harsh?
A lot of people who desire to help others don't really do so because they want a better world; they do it for the sake of their own fee fees, because they want to *feel* like a good person who helps others out.
--Here you're saying that they are being disingenuous and glorifying themselves which means you probably think they don't really want to help people at all.
As such, they're willing to violate the others' agency and consent and force their "help" down your throat, even if they aren't actually helping jack shit but being just a burden; and they get really pissy when you correctly highlight that they are not helping and impose some boundaries. (inb4 "but I have good intentions" - go pave Hell with them dammit.
--Here you seem to be saying that they're forceful and arrogant and should probably go to hell
That is not just social workers, mind you. You see people like this in all professions and environments. However, I believe that there's a disproportionate large amount of those among social workers due to the nature of their job, simply because social work is all about helping others out.
--You see this across the board in similar professions and bureaucracies which could be true, I'll admit
Couple that with bureaucracy. There's a high chance that your info is in some database as "refused help". Guess how someone who, unlike you, needs and wants help but declines it due to pride would get into that database? "Refused help". So the next social worker checking your entry will see it as someone who potentially might want and need help.
--Here you say that I probably could be put on some blacklist and every time I open my mouth they're going to come shove it down my throat again.
Now, I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, I just don't think I would have put it so bluntly.