You people

Post Reply New Topic

Just because I don't take a position does not mean I have no position ever. It means I don't take sides in an argument. I direct the argument to learn more. I switch sides, ask questions for the purpose of learning. So technically I don't take a position because I switch positions. It is applicable to arguments, discussions and debates. Not to every area of my life.

maybe but the problem was more with what she did in context. As an example I ask for advice on an issue you give me your opinion and I say "oh no thats moronic only an idiot would think of that." You in an attempt from not getting angry say "oh that was too harsh" and I would be denying the severity of the comment and be veiling insults instead of directly saying them.

That was the version of what she was doing then she let her emotions overwhelm her and she started attacking everything (the attacks started on her end from what I remember besides the usual people who were offended right away assuming it was meant towards them. All advice was discarded and later to cover up her actions she used the descrimination card and then people started flocking to her defense in hopes of proving this discrimination and how it should be a viable excuse to hold themselves back.

Emotion has no place in a general discussion about ideas. Passion causes one to strain one's eyes for validation of one's beliefs. Instead of accepting the unknowns or positions contradictory they strain to validate it by using facts (I don't believe there is such a thing as a "true fact" all things become transitory the breakthoughs made in modern times will be overturned in the future). In the end the emotions lead people to get heated and become like that poster and the posters who responded to her emotionally. In emotions theres a certain clouding of the senses a lack of perception that invades ones thoughts and renders them useless.

Of course this is all just my opinion though.

Could be. I've never found it. Does anyone know where...? Err... Never mind. I'll find it myself.

And here I thought I was getting it even better than you were. Well better explain what you think I've gotten wrong then.


Well, you may have been telling yourself that when you wrote it, and you are certainly telling yourself (and everyone else) that now, and it may very well be your (conscious-placating), surface intention; but in my experience any time one stands on a soap box to proclaim ones superiority and finger shake everyone else down to their proper level so that they will see the error of their ways and become more like said soap-box-ee... It's a... Well. It's picking a fight.

To say it's not is just leaving yourself room to feel indignant and transgressed upon when people get upset that you were trying to chastise them. In my opinion, the fact that you do your own share of ad hominem attacks (just sneakier ones) while chastising everyone else for it makes the entire premise of the thread seem more than a little hypocritical.

Unfortunately, more often than not, the soap-box-motive isn't about teaching others, or creating more social order. It is about ego-gratification. It is about self-righteousness. In short, it is about being Right when everyone else is wrong. Now while I acknowledge that none of this may be the case with you; your tendency to insult people, and the overwhelming sense of a (occasionally not so) implicit superiority complex one gets when reading your responses makes me suspect otherwise.



Well it certainly can be. I'll agree with that--situationally at least-- but it depends on subject matter, participants involved in said debate, the intent of the debate, on and on... In my opinion, I would even say that the flame wars around here can get out of hand. However (and again my opinion) the 'brawlers' can try to be more cognizant that some people have a thinner skin than others. However those of the thinner skin variety can be cognizant that not everyone communicates like they do, and they do not have the same emotional need for carte-blanche benign social interaction.

Also, just writing off others communication styles and emotional needs in interaction as 'immature' or even 'counter intuitive to...?' is more often than not, just a form of self placation, or even just a very monochromatic way of looking at human interaction. People don't interact in just your color, or flavor, or whatever metaphor. To try to shame them into it is really manipulative and more than a little dictatorial in it's own way.



Well I would like to give you some credit for trying to diffuse your criticism with some humor. I would really like to. However, 'should, should, should see things my way' is still effectively what you were trying to say. If you couple that with your tendency to throw out veiled insults like confetti your method just looks underhanded, and your intentions just look hypocritical. (To me anyway.)

Case in point...


(Stop me ROFL, if you actually meant this last bit^ and you weren't just trying to be funny here.)

Sure. It can. This place has taught me (anyway) to grow a thicker skin about that one though. People communicate differently.

The perceived lack of emotional security is your opinion. This is where I'm beginning to disagree with you, but I'll get to that in a minute.


Nope. Agreed. Except in some rather extreme circumstances.


Okay. Here we go. Qualifying or quantifying someones communication style or emotional needs that they are seeking fulfilled through it as 'flawed' ,'insecure', 'immature', or (good grief) 'less developed', or any number of negative labels is a very narrow way of looking at any individual. Also, as a bonus you get to feel better about yourself at their expense, because their way is 'flawed'. Hmmmm...

People make mistakes communicating sure. But sometimes they are just communicating in a way that is most effective for them on many levels. Just because it is different than how you would approach a circumstance, interaction, or debate doesn't mean your way or theirs is better or worse.

On a slightly different note, in my experience the perception of a series of steps up a ladder to self enlightenment is bunk. People are complex. One mans road to enlightenment is another womans slide to depravity and emotional chaos.

...and their obligation to themselves. However why is it your obligation to qualify the value of the steps on their journey for them (or more to the point, for yourself)? Coupled with your earlier negative categorizations this looks condescending and dismissive to me.

Well no. You're right here it doesn't. Trying to define the parameters of interaction within a thread I suppose is the choice of the OP. I try not to do that personally, because if I ask for opinions... Well. But that's me.

If they put up a 'tone' or rules, if I'm going to contribute, I try to abide by them, but I do rebel if the 'rules' mean that the OP is trying to define the 'debate' so they only get what they want to hear. (I'm not saying she's doing that, but I've seen a few threads like that.) And believe it or not, I'm actually trying to be 'civil' (by her definition, as much as I understand it anyway) here.

However, asking for more civilized discussion from an implied majority of members across the board is more than a little dictatorial. Passing judgment upon argumentative/debate/communication styles as 'less than...', comes across as condescending and narrow minded. Couple the admonishing tone with her own tendency to insult people right and left looks unbelievably hypocritical. Add all of that to the fact that she insults people, tells them their wrong, implies she is better, and then says 'No, no. I'm not trying to fight with you. What ever do you mean? Why, oh why are you offended?' leaves me torn between laughing and shaking my head.



Well I suppose. I'm not sure if you are talking about here on WP specifically, or historically in general.

If it is the latter, there were always those societies throughout history that taught a more 'civilized' form of debate. This had it's value, but it could also be stunting. There were also historically those societies that didn't (for various reasons) value that sort of conflict resolution very much. Or even those niches within said societies (based on socio-economic status, religion, or what have you that did or didn't value it.)

Societies tend to evolve pretty organically, and the ability to resolve conflict with soft words and not screaming or blows may or may not have actually solved anything based on social pressures--obtuse, or very narrowly and contemporarily defined. Often it was just a veneer and the whole conflict would go crunch eventually anyway.

Which isn't to say that self control in a conflict doesn't have it's value. Their are definitely times when that is very valuable. There are even times in debate and attempts and conflict resolution (as when there are actually lives on the line) when one not only should either throw out their emotions completely, (or be damn sure they can channel them with out compromising their logic), but be willing and able to throw out their belief system if it gets in the way. I'm reminded of the Greek vs. Roman perception of rhetoric and it's purpose here.



Hmmm... This makes me wonder of you don't see the whole of human history as ascending to some 'civilized' glory age that we in our decline cannot achieve any longer. If you do. I disagree. If you don't please forgive the insinuation.

Also, I don't feel that embracing emotions necessarily negates logic. There are those (myself included here) who must at times 'embrace', acknowledge or simply 'allow' the emotions and channel them in a more productive manner, or they very well may. Although, I acknowledge that there are people who cannot have the two coincide--emotion and intellect, that is. Or their emotions will convolute their logic. No judgment. Folks is folks.

but thats what makes this website so much fun

you people? what do you mean, you people?

^This is pretty much the crux of the point I was trying to make in my first post in this thread, albeit in a roundabout way.




^And this is what I was trying to say in my last post. Props. Maybe in another ten years I'll be break down my position that clearly, but I doubt it.

Perhaps. I'll be honest, it's been awhile since I read most of the pages in the thread where the argument got ugly. I just remember coming back to the WP forums after a few months hiatus and being appalled by how ugly the behavior toward her and another female poster had become. When she was provoked into more aggressive responses(and understandably so, it seemed to me), she accused people of attacking out of fear of an intelligent female. That generalization about everyone else's motives could certainly seem insulting- but in light of some of the responses she was getting, it wasn't as if she didn't have a leg to stand on. What really seemed unfair was that when any woman pointed out this sort of discrimination can/does occur by citing personal experience, people belittled them by trying to assert that either:
A)they were too emotional, and therefore their opinions not worthy of consideration, or
B)their experiences of sexism were invalid because other posters had not witnessed this in their own life experience


Anyhow, I'm getting way off topic...different thread...but the point being that dismissing any supporting evidence presented with emotion, simply on the basis that it contained emotion, seemed illogical and unfair.

acutally its kind of opposite. I don't feel better or worse about myself because my conversations aren't powerplays. Do I look at myself as more higher up the ladder yes but thats only because people didn't make the same choice I did. Thats fine but when your attacking everything around you it reeks of the emotional insecurity that you cannot be confident in your point enough to let people dissagree with you.



Not following if someone chose to better themselves in the same way that I spent years doing that would hardly bring them to the states you acknowledge as a possible outcome.



Thats fine and I just calling it as I see it. I've developed if I make a mistake thats not blamed on other factors it is simply a factor of I didn't do x,y,z that could of made the situation better. You dissagree with my tone since you don't have the pretext or any indiction of the message behind it. Thats fine in the end I just spoke from a logical standpoint which always seems cold but its just a neutrality that is unavailable where there is great passion behind it. In the end though I quantified development based on my opinion is my opinion ultimately right? who knows but in the end its simply that an opinion.



Funny I don't see it thats just a difference in my opinion. I've seem to misunderstood parts of it I guess I missed the nuance behind it (which is not something new). Lets assume thought there was no nuance for the sake of this conversation. ou apparently saw emphrella and several women as being attacked but they seem to fit alot under the criteria your presenting for your dislike of this thread.



I don't see the way it can be stunting maybe elaborate so I understand the point behind it more. I don't see where the idea of sitting down and being able to have an intellectual debate being able to not totally accept but agree on the points of conversation whether or not your in agreement. could be a bad thing. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.



I am not saying embracing emotions as it is a part of who you are causes your logic to be negated but it changes perception and allows for irrational behavior for those people who don't temper it with self control to keep its focus in the areas of the life that is needed. I guess thats where I'm at a disadvantage since my opinion on that is different from the majority so my desire to stay centered appears as distanced and a sense of superiority.

I am more talking about the individuals who let it overcome them. I feel emotions have a certain place in the scheme of things but when it becomes part of everything its a determiment to the development of a conversation that can lead to some point of understanding.

As far as your comments regarding my negative view of society do I believe that we as people are in a decline? yes I believe the idea of being flawed has been promoted as desireable. I don't really understand the concept but thats just my lack of understanding of people. It's one of the issues I'm currently working on I understand the base psychological responses I don't seem to understand the nuances of that and the rationalization behind it. I'm not one to follow psychology though I know a few theories of Carl Jung and other people I try to find my own understanding.

Do I believe people have a choice in exalting above that to become a better person? yes but in the end theres multiple factors that affect that. Most of them are not favorable to self improvement. I could be wrong but I think in the battle of contesting wills that is life any attempt at improvement is belittled or deemed undesireable.

It takes a very special person to go beyond those base desires so thats why I'm very selective of the people I associate with that I'm not paired through in a common focus (school, work, etc). In those instances I usually conversate with people who I usually wouldn't in the interest of getting along with people. Either way its all my opinion but it just seems that way.

PS: note I apologize if I used wrong words or improper grammer I tried to sleep a little while ago it didn't work as planned.

thank you

actually, it doesn't just appear as a sense of superiority, you state yourself that you do feel you are farther up the ladder than most....that is a direct statement of feeling superior to most. if you're wondering why it appears to people that you feel yourself superior to others, it's because you are presenting yourself that way with your own words.

"You people"??? We prefer to be called "reality impaired".

feeling superior would indicate that people would not be able to come to the "level" for lack of a better term as I do. That would be false its a personal choice to get to where I am. In that way anyone is capable though most choose not to. The difference between me and the average individual is that I systematically find and destroy my flaws others let it run their lives and choose their fate for them.

Of course in this example it would not be hard to point out that you just have an emotional issue with me and use any thread in opposition of mine as an example to defend your view. Most of your perception is due to demonizing anything I say to defend your view that I'm wrong and a bad person. The difference between that is that I don't feel one way or the other towards you so theres no blinders on my perception except for my own personal biases (even though I have far less then most people I still have them).

In the end your a prime example of this topic. In not observing your own behavior you portray a victim mentality which offsets the people you currently need in your life and attracts the predators that you accuse most (if not all) men of being. Instead of focusing on those flaws that could help you attract the right people you chose to let it be and blame the issues on everyone else. This is counter productive because it will not fix your problem neither will not leaving your house.

To go back on your statement though. I have acutally asked people why they feel that way and it seems to be an thing with body language and posture which is something I'm not aware of. They have said that when I am not in a good mood I come off as people are wasting my time. As I have little knowledge of this I have attempted to correct this issue. In most ways this confronts the issue though I am attempting to make it more natural so that I don't have to be conciously aware of my body posture and how I am presenting myself.

Its like socializing till I was about 15 it was a lost art to me many of the things came off as robotic and cold. I had to work on socializing so that people would not take that image to heart. I do believe though that its more with their insecurity that they worry that I'm not exactly leaning in towards them and I've noticed that while with one person it may be effective others it may not be effective. In return though it seems when I gave them an understanding (Most people who I have consulted on this are unaware of my AS) of my lack of noticing these qualities through that understanding they came to understand my quirks in personality.

This is a double edged sword which means that I may even attempt cold approaches in social situations because now that they understand I can't be sure if I am developing or if they are just keeping in mind how oblivious I was to how I was coming across. The problem with it also lies in the fact that I have to manage pros and cons the more I accomodate people it seems the less of an interest it portrays from other people. Hence when I am in a good mood and being humorous I attract one kind of people while other times I attract people in what people consider my standoffish mood. Finding a medium will be an interesting challenge.

Note: since your personal dislike of me is contained in what 3 threads so far. I think its either better you continue it in pms with me or make a thread. Either way its gearing most threads off topic though in this case it hasn't really or ending them prematurely. Its up to you you can either confront your issue directly with me which I really don't mind as I don't really have a ego to speak of and I will answer most questions candidly or you can keep on your course. It's up to you. I know I have geared this off course as well but its all in the interest of responding candidly. I have editted this 4 times cause I'm tired and not making coherent statements at times.

if you need to believe that i have an emotional issue with you, then you are free to do that. i actually have no personal dislike of you, and i don't believe i have ever expressed a personal dislike of you. i hardly know you at all, and have not read many of your posts. i'm still relatively new here. i don't always agree with you, but it doesn't mean i don't like you. i'm sorry you feel that way. i don't believe i said you were a bad person either.

and can you please stop bringing information from my personal life into discussions that have nothing to do with my personal life, just because i may have mentioned an event from my history in another, totally unrelated post? dragging my personal history into the discussion is not very cool, especially considering the obvious sensitivity of the issue (rape).

i actually would like to refrain from making this any sort of personal issue, so if it's all right with you i think i'll pass on the pms. i'm not even sure why you're talking to me.