> trick yourself into thinking something is beautiful
No. It's about directing your attention at the memories that, as you correctly say, scars may remind you of, and appreciating this. This perspective was hidden insofar as beauty standards reduced scars to the physical appearance, turning a blind eye to their signifying properties.
> Beauty is a word expression a sensation.
Interesting take. Is beauty the sensation or that which is being perceived? Are you meaning to say that the same tentatively beautiful things always illicit the same 'sensation' type in all people? What about the different kinds of aethetic experiences (such as the experience that viewing my scar might ellicit when it wakes good memories)? And what about cultural differences in what is perceived as beautiful?
> that you should be able to trick yourself into thinking something is beautiful is just as valid as the assumption that it will change the power of the word for you
Again, it's not about changing the word or tricking yourself. It is about directing attention and disclosing a new perspective on things. It's not black-and-white beautiful or ugly - it also depends on the context you are assesing this with.
If there is a 6 on the floor and one person is standing on the top end while another is standing at the bottom end, one will say its a 6, the other will say its a 9. Who are you to decide that one of them is wrong? However, if someone claimed that its a spaceship, they are clearly wrong. Noone is claiming that you can do anything if you just use different words. Thats your straw people. What is hindering you from accepting the existance of multiple perspectives/points of view?
> It's positivity for the heck of it, to get clicks. In internet parlance, it's gas-lighting yourself.
You might have a point here. Some positivity is really shallow and performative. Whether that applies here I don't know. But even if so, they still make a valid point about the beauty of scars (from a symbol perspective).