| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 10/18/2005 : 20:48:00
Used as a slang term in reference to people.
Used it?
Had it used on you?
What is your definition? |
| 28 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 22:46:11
Prozacrat, we need to get the forum's collective medical expertise together and heal that. It has been way too long. It seems that all responders here almost agree that it would be mean to use the term on other people and that they see themselves as damaged.
Carolyn, no one called me that - not openly anyway...its something i've kind of cooked up - thinking maybe that others are thinking this but won't say it for fear of seeming to be an ass and/or causing more damage...but have heard it used...once back in the summer from a girl that warned me not to get involved with her after a break up, "...as for now i'm damaged goods..."...which was a warning i should have heeded...and, like some here, its seems im starting to look at myself this way.
It comes and goes.
Some days are better than others, etc...
Tre - you're always so damn strong in your worldview.
I agree - what doesn't kill us makes us stronger...but damn...the recovery can be a trial, eh?
There are two kinds of emotionally unstable/damaged people we're talking about...one being the kind that was damaged way back in childhood and have "scars" that are dealt with in much the same way a tree deals with a wound and the other being people that have been recently wounded.
The recent wounds tend to heal faster than those endured during the developmental years - you agree?
I think so.
Maybe.
Next time i start worrying about this, im going to act like tre and avoid/ignore those that give me that vibe.
Wait, tho...what if thats everyone?
*queue scary music* |
| prozacrat |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 18:57:52
In my personal experience, I've used the term referring to myself at times when I've felt less than thrilled about having a broken collarbone, but in my case it's rather literal, in addition to the emotional effect it has on my psyche. I've always considered my body to be my most important posession, since it's what's going to carry me through the rest of my life. It's a tool, or a vessel to achieve what my self desires in life. Now, if I were window shopping for a body and I came across mine, I can imagine a small sign on it reading "Damaged Goods." It's by no means trashed or unusable, but it certainly doesn't function properly, i.e. I think it'd be worth buying, but only if you don't mind dealing with its limitations. Now, since I've been stuck with feeling like that physically, it can have the same effect on me emotionally. I know I'm not the person I was before being injured. Professionally speaking, shortly before my accident I received my degree in theatre, and I would always give 110% effort to my performances, physically, mentally, and emotionally. With a broken collarbone, at best I can physically muster 70%, which drags down my mental and emotional commitment. So, mentally there's a big difference, and I can't see my current state as an improvement. So does that make me damaged goods? I don't know. I don't like the idea of seeing any person as damaged goods, but I can relate to those who do see themselves as such. Any thoughts on that point of view?
http://www.prozacrat.com |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 11:12:18
I can't get the fucking radiohead song out of my head thanks to this thread.
Used it?
Never have, it seems to me to be a cop out generalisation used to broadly dismiss or categorise people, it's a lazy term.
Had it used on you?
I have, I laughed, then nodded. Then avoided and ignored the person(s) who used it because they're obviously lazy fucking armchair psychologists who know nothing about me, who want to know nothing about me but assume they know my 'type'.
What is your definition?
Damaged goods? I suppose to refers to a person who has either undergone something or has a characteristic that someone else finds to be unsavoury or less than normal. Like bruised fruit, some people like the bruises others freak out at them.
Actually erebus kicked up another term that I don't like so much and that is "baggage", I just find them to be really dismissive and ignorant terms (no offense meant there erebus), and again terminally lazy. I'd be surprised if you could show me an individual without baggage or issues or who couldn't in some respect be termed as damaged goods.
Anyway, as far as imperfection/perfection goes I don't think I believe in perfection. If there is no perfection how is damaged qualified and characterised? I think it's done on a person to person viewpoint, one persons damaged being anothers tortured artistic soul. People compare to and judge by what they know, and what most people know best is themselves. It doesn't, I don't think, make them right or wrong in their judgements it just means there's no real standard for this sort of thing.
Besides, isn't being damaged a good thing, from a personal evolutionary sense as in what does not kill us makes us stronger (great phrase, I fucking love it, cliche be damned), each hit we take we learn a little more from and the more we learn the better we are as individuals. This maybe doesn't work for everyone though so are the damaged goods those who keep taking the hits and never learn from them and not those who have had the bad stuff and learned and moved on. If thats so maybe the damaged goods are just throwbacks who are going to breed themselves out at somepoint.
I waffle, I should be doing something else.
I'll never learn.... |
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 06:41:38
Hey who told you you were damaged goods anyway ksr?
__________
Don't believe the hype. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 01:24:47
quote:
Originally posted by KimStanleyRobinson
Isn't this where there a big cracking sound in the brain and Phaedrus is born in Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance?
Its all semantics.
E, yeah - i'm one of those jealous people that says "hey - dammit -lemme play..just cause i can't play that well doesn't mean i don't want to.." and since i want something and i was raised in this society i believe hegemonically that i deserve to have what I want simply because i want it.
and i still dont know if i spelled believe right.
Thanks for the reference to Pirsig. Don't know if it's all semantics, but I do think it's all tautology, or at least I used to, I think. re E, yeah. You got it bad. Nature provides opportunity, but as little as necessary. You get that first chance but if you don't got game you go down. And the world smacks its lips and looks around for another. Meanwhile the well-intentioned offer up another McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry, Dean, or Clinton. Go wonder. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 01:10:59
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodJablome
You lost me at 'everything is perfect'.
Don't believe in alternatives. Makes me thing of Candide's professor who held forth on the "best of all possible worlds". I think the world, with all its particulars, could not possibly have been other than as we find it, human "will" notwithstanding. So, if there is only necessity, how will one define something as damage? Where everything is simply what it must have been, how does one stand at a distance and identify something as damaged, or as something that might have something different, i.e. better? You see, if there can be no true alternatives, what is perfection? Why do I think there are or can be no alternatives? That's a different debate of course, which the forum has mostly declined to entertain. Perhaps too many sacred cow swing in the balance. Without an illusion of possibility, what could an organism want? |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 10/20/2005 : 00:39:18
Isn't this where there a big cracking sound in the brain and Phaedrus is born in Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance?
Its all semantics.
E, yeah - i'm one of those jealous people that says "hey - dammit -lemme play..just cause i can't play that well doesn't mean i don't want to.." and since i want something and i was raised in this society i believe hegemonically that i deserve to have what I want simply because i want it.
and i still dont know if i spelled believe right.
...and do my best not to be all totally ...whatever in the hell it is I am...too something.
Gonna try to not be that.
I think.
|
| HeywoodJablome |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 17:21:02
You lost me at 'everything is perfect'. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 17:03:57
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodJablome
I would think the only people who aren't damaged goods are newborn babies. What some call damage others would simply call experience.
Agreed. To some extent it is a matter of semantics. I sometimes think that everything is perfect, in that it is what it is, without regard standards, potential, expectations, or whatever. Which is to say that everything is perfect if one completely rejects the possibility of imperfection. Which is to say that perfection, and damage, have been stripped of their meanings. |
| HeywoodJablome |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 16:51:52
I would think the only people who aren't damaged goods are newborn babies. What some call damage others would simply call experience. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 14:42:03
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
Second: if someone uses that term to describe themselves, it's code for "I am a drama queen and I will mess with your head, this is a warning that you should not get involved with me any further."
You would define the term interrelationally, wouldn’t you? It’s not about the person speaking, it’s about you, isn’t it? It’s about the dependent connections between people, not about self-awareness or self-honesty. It’s not about understanding, it’s about feeling. It’s all about precious you.
I am not sure I understand your point. What I was trying to get across is, yes, based on my own experience, that personal experience being that the few times I have heard people describe themselves as "damaged goods" it was people who were high-maintenance and self-aggrandizing and who loved to create drama.
I think I misunderstood you. Given that I had admitted above to seeing myself as damaged, I took your statement as a direct shot at me (ironically seeing it as about me while accusing you of being all about you).
Gosh, no, I wasn't taking a shot at you.
Ironic, indeed.
As the kids like to say, no worries.
Swimming in the heavy water, buried in the sand
Happy hearts fall from my shaking hands
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 14:17:29
quote:
Originally posted by zub_the_goat
ive never really liked the term myself, nobody is undamaged, it seems so final too, that yes your damaged, we'll just write you off here and now, its great for hiding behind too
The point that the term "damaged" is "great for hiding behind" is a double-edged sword. If to call oneself damaged can be seen as a defense mechanism, so can a categorical denial that humans can be seen as damaged. I assume you see the defensiveness involved in arguing against the appropriateness of seeing certain people as damaged. It's as if, when confronted with an abhorrent but plausible paradigm about human nature, one says loudly and with a stamp of the foot, "I cannot accept a view in which it is possible to see people possessing degrees of viability or even value, because such a view HURTS me. It calls into question the very foundation of what I believe about the human condition."
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 13:58:59
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
Second: if someone uses that term to describe themselves, it's code for "I am a drama queen and I will mess with your head, this is a warning that you should not get involved with me any further."
You would define the term interrelationally, wouldn’t you? It’s not about the person speaking, it’s about you, isn’t it? It’s about the dependent connections between people, not about self-awareness or self-honesty. It’s not about understanding, it’s about feeling. It’s all about precious you.
I am not sure I understand your point. What I was trying to get across is, yes, based on my own experience, that personal experience being that the few times I have heard people describe themselves as "damaged goods" it was people who were high-maintenance and self-aggrandizing and who loved to create drama.
I think I misunderstood you. Given that I had admitted above to seeing myself as damaged, I took your statement as a direct shot at me (ironically seeing it as about me while accusing you of being all about you). With further irony, in so doing I dropped into damaged mode and took my own shot at those who habitually define such things socially. I was so sure your statement was a reply to, or “at”, me, that I confidently responded on that basis.
Regarding those who seem to have moral objections to characterizing human beings as damaged, permanently or otherwise, for me speaking of humans this way is as easy as noting a weak tree that still shows the effects of having lacked sufficient nourishment when it was younger. It is a simple matter of fact, and therefore instructive as such. Moral objections to labelling humans reminds once again of the thinking/feeling or is/ought divide. Foremost, I want to understand, the feelings be damned, while others reverse the priorities. Not that that’s wrong. To put it crudely, there will always be the scientist who is open to seeing the human brain as something of a machine, and there will be those who think such understanding comes at too high a price, that of our “humanity” (whatever that means).
|
| speedy_m |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 10:57:23
As ever, Seinfeld has the answer:
"Jerry goes to the dentist and notices a Penthouse magazine in the reception area. Later when he is anesthetized for his dental work he awakes and sees the doctor and his assistant getting dressed. He wonders if his shirt was tucked out or in earlier and ponders if he has been violated or not. Jerry thinks this incident may make him "damaged goods." Elaine retorts with join the club."
and you are ill prepared to fight
living in a world of soft and white
in air conditioned battle zones
I pity you!
|
| kathryn |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 10:28:27
To be blunt (and perhaps sexist?), the only time I hear that expression is when a guy friend asks me what it means that the woman he's started dating warns him "I'm damaged goods." And I say "get away from her."
Swimming in the heavy water, buried in the sand
Happy hearts fall from my shaking hands
|
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 10:20:16
I think it prolly originally referred to what Andy is saying and came to mean more of what erebus is saying. Especially those with baggage that insist on throwing it at you on a regular basis.
Fuck, I am totally surrounded by crazy people!
__________
Don't believe the hype. |
| Surfer Rosa |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 10:05:00
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
Second: if someone uses that term to describe themselves, it's code for "I am a drama queen and I will mess with your head, this is a warning that you should not get involved with me any further."
You would define the term interrelationally, wouldn’t you? It’s not about the person speaking, it’s about you, isn’t it? It’s about the dependent connections between people, not about self-awareness or self-honesty. It’s not about understanding, it’s about feeling. It’s all about precious you.
I am not sure I understand your point. What I was trying to get across is, yes, based on my own experience, that personal experience being that the few times I have heard people describe themselves as "damaged goods" it was people who were high-maintenance and self-aggrandizing and who loved to create drama.
Swimming in the heavy water, buried in the sand
Happy hearts fall from my shaking hands
Agree - very very much so.
Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way myself. |
| Carl |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 07:14:53
Damaged Goods, that's me!! |
| kathryn |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 07:12:47
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
Second: if someone uses that term to describe themselves, it's code for "I am a drama queen and I will mess with your head, this is a warning that you should not get involved with me any further."
You would define the term interrelationally, wouldn’t you? It’s not about the person speaking, it’s about you, isn’t it? It’s about the dependent connections between people, not about self-awareness or self-honesty. It’s not about understanding, it’s about feeling. It’s all about precious you.
I am not sure I understand your point. What I was trying to get across is, yes, based on my own experience, that personal experience being that the few times I have heard people describe themselves as "damaged goods" it was people who were high-maintenance and self-aggrandizing and who loved to create drama.
Swimming in the heavy water, buried in the sand
Happy hearts fall from my shaking hands
|
| zub_the_goat |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 06:34:03
bit harsh Erebus, unless im completely misinterpreting you, if i am, sorry, we're all relating this to our own experiences, or else it would be a pretty dull conversation
ive never really liked the term myself, nobody is undamaged, it seems so final too, that yes your damaged, we'll just write you off here and now, its great for hiding behind too |
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 05:12:29
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
Second: if someone uses that term to describe themselves, it's code for "I am a drama queen and I will mess with your head, this is a warning that you should not get involved with me any further."
You would define the term interrelationally, wouldn’t you? It’s not about the person speaking, it’s about you, isn’t it? It’s about the dependent connections between people, not about self-awareness or self-honesty. It’s not about understanding, it’s about feeling. It’s all about precious you. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 04:16:17
The first thing that comes to mind with that term is the most excellent Gang of Four song.
Second: if someone uses that term to describe themselves, it's code for "I am a drama queen and I will mess with your head, this is a warning that you should not get involved with me any further."
Swimming in the heavy water, buried in the sand
Happy hearts fall from my shaking hands
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/19/2005 : 00:42:59
I admit that I'm not overly troubled thinking of people as objects, or goods. I assume many would see that as a sign of damage. One has to be pretty alienated to become familiar with thinking of people as alien.
KSR, perhaps the anger or discomfort is actually a healthy response to dealing with this somewhat irreconcilable dichotomy of people as people and people as objects. I suggest that only because I deal with something like that, although perhaps more from the opposite orientation. I've grown too comfortable with detachment, to the point that I struggle against involvement, much like the stereotypical adolescent who cynically sees everyone older as a fool who has bought into the game. Not sure which one is the fool. |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 10/18/2005 : 23:43:32
for some reason it gets to me - the phrase.
perhaps i resent the metaphor of the human pshyche being 'goods' at all...or maybe I resent the apparently overlooked possibility that just because one's upbringing did not prepare one for every situation/relationship/experience and that and individual has trouble "getting on" or generally does not seem to thrive that they wil be pidgeonholed as 'damaged goods' and merely tolerated or ignored altogether by thos portions of society that thrive in the mainstream.
or something.
i think i consider myself damaged goods but I find that im angry with myself for my self-assessment...and am not sure why. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/18/2005 : 23:12:50
quote:
Originally posted by KimStanleyRobinson
could you elaborate on what you mean by your use of the word 'terminal'?
Nothing sinister. Just that the individual is stuck with the damage, so that it's terminal, as in unto death. Not that it causes death but instead that it stays with one till death. I know one can live so as to counter negative effects from childhood, but I think the core damage persists. It can be diminished, though most damaged people live so as to make their condition worse, not better. Just my opinion, perhaps misguided by over-reliance upon myself as test subject.
Then again, my perception that such damage is widespread may be a result of the high standards I have for the potential of the average human being. The optimal childhoods I would uphold as examples may be exceedingly rare, leading me to see damage when in actuality my expectations may simply be unrealistic. Then again again, maybe certain types of adult achievement may be impossible without some damage from childhood. If so, is it really damage if it leads to successes that would be less likely or even impossible without it?
But this strays from your original post. Most people would agree that certain people are damaged. I guess those are the cases that fit the phrase "damaged goods". |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 10/18/2005 : 22:04:06
could you elaborate on what you mean by your use of the word 'terminal'? |
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/18/2005 : 21:17:57
Through the years I have often referred to people, including myself, as damaged goods. I always mean it as having emerged from childhood with terminal baggage, usually via dysfunctional families. In my opinion, a strong majority of white Americans are damaged goods. |
| Little Black Francis |
Posted - 10/18/2005 : 21:09:44
A person, especially an unmarried woman who is no longer a virgin, as in A person who has sex before marriage is not considered damaged goods in this day and age. This pejorative expression transfers the reduced value of materials (stock, provisions, etc.) marred in some way to women who have had a sexual experience. [Early 1900s]
I consider myself tampered goods
... Tell your mom to save me a plate. |
|
|
