User Tag List

First 789101119 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 263

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    1,232

    Default

    Oh, okay. Glad we got that out of the way.

  2. #82
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    The worst part about MRAs is trying to figure out if Poe's law applies.

  3. #83
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    Perhaps my posts were too long, because this isn't what I'm saying. And yes, I do see what usually counts as a discussion - it doesn't work. Maybe we define good faith differently. I meant it as "honest representation." I didn't mean it as "something positive" - far from it. But I think it's what he believed.

    So, we can get angry and spread more of that, because 'that's what's going to happen anyway', or try something else. Chances are, no matter what, someone is going to come in and trash your opinion, sure, but with a broader, productive discussion going on, that can be something that rolls of your back.
    Who cares what he believes? "Good faith" refers to the extent to which he is open to honest discussion...not the honesty of his beliefs. And it's clear that he's here to shout, but not to listen. So why listen to him? Better just to shut it down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    You might disagree, but I think what I'm suggesting has more potential than the competition that we've BOTH seen does nothing. The other way is pretty much assured NOT to work. Is that good for anyone?
    No, see, I'm not talking about competing with him. That would be giving too much credence to opinions which are not worthy or able to compete. It would be like challenging a four year old in a game of chess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    What do you think my goal is? This is just a small internet discussion, part of this is trying to learn skills which will create benefit, part of this experimentation. But, honestly, this is what I want to do. I've seen the boring repetitiveness of failed competitive arguments all around me. And I've seen some examples of there being a better way, so I'm trying to emulate those.
    The better way is to ignore and shame until they go away. Or at least until outsiders get the picture...until they're able to see the proper hierarchy of opinions and their relative value.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    No, though you did basically say "stop talking" without explanation, and you seemed readily agitated. I was making a clear line - perhaps prematurely, but clarification is worthwhile.
    Yeah, "stop talking [to me, like this.]"

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    Well, this is good feedback. Inevitably, anyone who is passionate about an idea may be seen as self-righteous. I can't say for sure what anyone else saw here. I'm sure I could approach differently to avoid that impression. I think you mistook the intention of me saying that not as a history lesson - I KNEW you knew that. And I'm sorry that you interpreted it that way. I can see why you'd find that condescending. That's why I put down the long explanation. To clarify:

    ...This is a public discussion. Here is the point I'm trying to make, highly condensed: you probably can't reason with truly entrenched audiences. But when their viewpoints crop up, why not go about debunking the myths and half truths that they come from for public benefit? It let's everyone learn something from something unpleasant, and maybe those entrenched people will open up a bit. Maybe. Because angry people WILL show up and want to debate. Why let that ruin things?
    Because it is a rhetorical mistake to give recognition to some opinions by engaging them. It's like giving automatic "this has an equal chance of being correct" points to shit that doesn't deserve it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    I agree, I feel like I tried to make an effort to avoid saying that anyone should or must follow my advice. Truly, I'm trying to convince you, at your option, to consider having more of a discussion.

    Moreso, you don't owe me any explanations, you don't have to respond. However, I thank you for at least giving me some feedback. Not because I think I'm a sage - because I know I'm NOT a sage.

    I believe this is very much on topic. A thread full of conflict - so talk about conflict.
    Well why not? I guess at this point it's better than anything else happening in this thread. That's why I'm still responding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    You shouldn't be convinced just because I say so! I'm saying, here's some possible benefits, consider trying it, and make up your own mind. What are you aimed at?
    But one needn't actually try something to know (or at least have a good idea) the likelihood that it'll turn out good/bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    Perhaps, but if it's never put out there, how can it be refined? It will either never be discussed, or it might be discussed a little bit. See, talking with you right here gave me some ideas and some pointers on how to do this better. Why not persue that on a larger scale?

    I don't think it has to be long winded. It can be quick and to the point - I'll admit I'm not so good at this, but I think it can be done. It might be seen by the hyper competitive as weak, but that's not really important, for me. Let them think what they want. But keep up the valuable discussions anyway.

    What do you think works?
    Hmmm. I'm confused. Is your goal persuasion, or is it to be more gentle and exploratory in conversation for its own sake (or as a matter of principle?) If the former is your goal in any capacity, then you'd might as well resign yourself to the fact that it's an inherently competitive activity. For instance, even though I refuse to dignify DoD's stupid posts by "debunking" them (though they're mostly just drivel, honestly, so there's not much to debunk), and am therefore foregoing competition with him because I don't believe him worthy of competing with me, for those anonymous readers who might be persuaded by this thread as a whole, I'd like to lend the maximum amount of power from my own words to the side I'd like to see "win" the minds of others. And part of doing that unfortunately involves what is basically suppressive fire to the other side. It's cynical, but it's what works.

    If the latter is your goal, then like I said before, more power to you. I just don't think it's something that I like to engage in in these types of contexts, and mostly because whether you like it or not, doing so is going to automatically put you in a position of weakness. And that's not a place I'm comfortable operating...not when others are so ready to take the low road. It's like assuming that your captor is going to let you go once you give them the information they want...it's not going to happen, and you're naive if you think so. So why let others take advantage of your time, effort, and goodwill? Save it for situations where it's better served.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    1,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    However, sometimes people really are prevented from reaching goals because of outside social influences. Would you agree?
    As stated earlier: They're not "happy" until they have something to whine about. The issue(s) are irrelevant.

    That's on them.

    This poses a separate, larger problem, but raises some questions. You clearly don't have control over the factors of your birth. Do you feel like people are telling you that it's your fault personally they are experiencing problems?
    It's worse.

    It is cheap stock manipulation and I can smell it a mile away.
    Doesn't work on me. I don't play that bullshit.

    If you're gonna waste my time, the least you can do is have the balls to back up the motions.

  5. #85
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    Sorry wildcat, I saved this in my email cause I wanted to reply to you in a separate post but forgot, twice.



    What was France 1934? And what was England 1910?, that wasn't what I thought it was.

    I think if it's something you never even think to question then you don't. So it's the disparity between two visions that causes you to question what's going on. That's where the change comes, I think. I think that things, even in Saudi Arabia, will be changing as the questions begin to be asked (even if they aren't allowed to be asked, outside contact will come in). Of course, sometimes people find answers for questions that suit them in different ways.

    I wonder what answers they will find palatable.
    I do not object to what you say.
    What I wrote was a side note.
    You wrote:
    .. Out of loss, failure and inequality such a movement would exist.

    It is out of hope such a movement would exist.
    What is the springboard of hope? It is a promise.

    The apex of the feminist movement in England and in France: 1910 and 1934. Respectively.
    They still have microfilms of the early 20th Century newspapers in university libraries.

    WW I changed the position of women in England.
    WW II, in France.

    A promise is first. Events come later.
    Otherwise it would not be a promise.

  6. #86
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    It's just as good as discussing the hypocrisy of slaves or the hypocrisy of abused children.
    Quote Originally Posted by Duck_of_Death View Post
    The two parties you mentioned are helpless.
    These people? They aren't fuckin' helpless.

    They're simply weak and entitled.
    Sometimes people can be put at disadvantage without being made totally helpless.

    Recent news items suggest that women are put at a disadvantage. On an extreme end of a scale, in October a 14 year old Pakastani girl was shot in the head by the Taliban for advocating, among other issues, better access to education for girls. She lived. You might argue that the Taliban shoots lots of people, but women in particular are seen as acceptable targets to control - they had shut down the local girls schools, but the Pakistani military managed to regain control of that area and activists were able to get them reopened.

    While women aren't being shot for wanting education in the US, 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Do you know 5 women? Chances are, you know someone who has been attacked. This is just one example of something that doesn't make women, as a group, helpless, but belies some cultural issues that need to be dealt with, especially because so often it is not some random stranger who does this, but it's an acquaintance who simply believes they are entitled to have sex - without her consent and often against her will, with the woman in question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck_of_Death View Post
    As stated earlier: They're not "happy" until they have something to whine about. The issue(s) are irrelevant.

    That's on them.

    It's worse.

    It is cheap stock manipulation and I can smell it a mile away.
    Doesn't work on me. I don't play that bullshit.

    If you're gonna waste my time, the least you can do is have the balls to back up the motions.
    Who are you talking about, in any of this?
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  7. #87
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    While women aren't being shot for wanting education in the US, 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Do you know 5 women? Chances are, you know someone who has been attacked. This is just one example of something that doesn't make women, as a group, helpless, but belies some cultural issues that need to be dealt with, especially because so often it is not some random stranger who does this, but it's an acquaintance who simply believes they are entitled to have sex - without her consent and often against her will, with the woman in question.
    The endorsement by sacred scriptures can be hard to overcome. It pervades societies to the degree that even atheists aren't immune. We like to think we are more modern and enlightened in the west (or in Christianity), but all we really have is a kinder, gentler sexism. When God is a "he", there is only so equal women can be.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #88
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Who cares what he believes? "Good faith" refers to the extent to which he is open to honest discussion...not the honesty of his beliefs. And it's clear that he's here to shout, but not to listen. So why listen to him? Better just to shut it down.
    Good faith, in a legal context, refers to presenting something honestly without intent to defraud the other person. Maybe the goal is to troll, but I think he's upset and is making a whole lot of blanket statements that are too broad to be meaningful. To constructively solve a conflict requires listening to the other party. I care what he believes - within limits. There are nuggets of belief that reflect views that people actually hold.

    So why listen? Why not just shut it down?

    This goes back to what I said before - the big goal is for groups to be able to work as a whole without unreasonable prejudice. I don't believe in a Utopia where all people will be able to be in this group. There are going to be shitty people out there who will hold on to all sorts of hatred. In that case, the best we could do might be to minimize their impact.

    However, to get to the larger goal, it will require talking with the other side. If there is no room for dialogue, the other side will quite possibly continue in holding on to the same beliefs forever unless they are constructively challenged. Maybe they won't change their minds anyway, but if you drive them away, they will not change.

    No, see, I'm not talking about competing with him. That would be giving too much credence to opinions which are not worthy or able to compete. It would be like challenging a four year old in a game of chess.
    But alas, you are competing. In conflict, people have a variety of competitive strategies they use to try and gain an advantage. Refusing to compete is one such strategy, as is calling him a four year old. That's a way you've learned to "not lose."

    The better way is to ignore and shame until they go away. Or at least until outsiders get the picture...until they're able to see the proper hierarchy of opinions and their relative value.
    The shamed person might go away, but has anything changed? Sometimes, having a conversation is improved by getting rid of the angry pissed off people in the room who just want to yell. But it's important to remember they are still out there, unchanged.

    This is also a competitive strategy. I'd say it has potentially ugly repercussions. What happens to all these shamed people?

    Maybe they will reform and conform to the "proper hierarchy of opinions", but in all likelihood they will become more extremist.

    Let's say you have someone spewing a hate filled rant.

    Easy question: what emotion fuels their hate filled rant? Hate.

    Filling a hate filled person with shame is going to accomplish...? All I can see is that it might knock them down a bit, and that can be a good thing sometimes, (sometimes a good idea if it can open people up and follow it with something useful) but if you just shame them, and then they put up their blinders and walk away, then what are you left with?

    A more angry person who's ideas are unchanged but their emotions are now more intense. The conflict will escalate in the direction of destruction or, people who sense the impending danger will simply avoid the topic - normal people avoid fights. Many topics go about this way, to the extent that people become apathetic about the discussion of serious issues - the issues that need to be discussed the most!

    But could there be value in shaming someone? - I think there can be. But it needs to be limited and backed with positive direction, otherwise it isn't effective. (Making jokes at someone's expense can be a form of this, if the idea is to provide support) Could there be value in having a hierarchy of what's culturally acceptable? Sure, but I think that needs to be limited by an understanding that what is acceptable is relative.

    Could you accomplish what you wanted to do without shame?

    Yeah, "stop talking [to me, like this.]"
    Well why not? I guess at this point it's better than anything else happening in this thread. That's why I'm still responding.
    You're still talking with me so I'm going to keep talking with you. Interesting enough.

    Because it is a rhetorical mistake to give recognition to some opinions by engaging them. It's like giving automatic "this has an equal chance of being correct" points to shit that doesn't deserve it.
    Hmm. I'd say it's a tactical mistake, if someone is going to use it against you. It's a rhetorical positive! It's true, some people think that because they get recognition that they are correct, or that it's a meaningful gauge of how potentially correct they are. In this case, they might twist what you're saying. I'll agree with this.

    This can be a danger because it might entrench their beliefs, but it might also give them enough courage to advocate their beliefs to an extent that trashes their public image. Which may or may not lead to change.

    I don't know.

    But one needn't actually try something to know (or at least have a good idea) the likelihood that it'll turn out good/bad.
    You're going to need to provide some amount of explanation if you want me to think you're not simply prejudiced against the concept.

    Hmmm. I'm confused. Is your goal persuasion, or is it to be more gentle and exploratory in conversation for its own sake (or as a matter of principle?)
    Persuasion, but the larger goal is cooperation where possible. I'd advocate exploration, but I'm not a pacifist. I do think being cautious and sensitive can provide opportunities with less strain than

    If the former is your goal in any capacity, then you'd might as well resign yourself to the fact that it's an inherently competitive activity.
    I've noted that when someone competes with you that you are in a state of competition with them, by default.

    For instance, even though I refuse to dignify DoD's stupid posts by "debunking" them (though they're mostly just drivel, honestly, so there's not much to debunk), and am therefore foregoing competition with him because I don't believe him worthy of competing with me, for those anonymous readers who might be persuaded by this thread as a whole, I'd like to lend the maximum amount of power from my own words to the side I'd like to see "win" the minds of others. And part of doing that unfortunately involves what is basically suppressive fire to the other side. It's cynical, but it's what works.
    See explanation of competition earlier in post. This is a form of competitive behavior.

    It works, but it has some serious repercussions, and reinforces the concept that the other side's loss is your win. I think my way works too, but it's a slow, long haul and requires a lot of coordinated effort if it's something to be attempted across groups. The benefits are gained in increased cooperation and fuller engagement of the issue.

    If the latter is your goal, then like I said before, more power to you. I just don't think it's something that I like to engage in in these types of contexts, and mostly because whether you like it or not, doing so is going to automatically put you in a position of weakness. And that's not a place I'm comfortable operating...not when others are so ready to take the low road.
    I don't understand the weakness thing. If you engage an opponent who fights dirty and has significant power over you, that is putting you in a position of exposure, but where is the power here? It's the internet. You have lots of power here on this forum. People can say things that are annoying or disruptive, and that can be unpleasant.

    In a public context, people's power to take the low road stems from if other people fall for it. If it's considered unacceptable (see your hierarchy of acceptable beliefs concept) than it doesn't have power. I think it's possible to engage someone without condoning or supporting their beliefs.

    It's like assuming that your captor is going to let you go once you give them the information they want...it's not going to happen, and you're naive if you think so. So why let others take advantage of your time, effort, and goodwill? Save it for situations where it's better served.
    I think there will be angry groups always. They will say things and it will get a lot of attention.

    Why not make the best of that and capitalize?

    I'm not trying to be released from my captor...or waiting for all the angry guys in the thread to turn around and say "Hey friend you're right my bad." I'm trying to refocus how we, as a group, handle these sort of situations.

    Some people say ignore, other people say counter protest. I don't think either is really useful or can cause much change.

    Why not take the opportunity to raise awareness for real things that are happening and to reaffirm your commitments to non-prejudiced behavior? Boom, taking a shit situation and making it a positive one. You can involve the other party in the discussion which keeps some tension on 'em, it keeps your party open and active, it's informative, and it provides real benefits because it encourages people to keep having discussions instead of avoiding them, and it sucks the power right out of any haters because their disruptions only encourage people to get more involved in the good fight.

    I'm trying to create a mindset of providing a positive outlet for the emotions virtually always stirred up when exposed to hate.

    Remember what I said about interdependence? You need interdependence to have conflict.

    If you are forced into a competition by haters, than you want to win, yeah? A group effort helps that, right? If we bond as a group over seeing the errors of the other side than we are dependent on their foolishness to maintain our identity - we need more and more examples of why they suck to make us feel justified. If we bond over something positive than we can actually work toward a goal. See how that interdependence shifted? In the second case it's nice if the haters would change up a little and be in our group, too, but it doesn't really matter, because we're focused on doing our thing.

    Think about it.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  9. #89
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    I do not object to what you say.
    What I wrote was a side note.
    You wrote:
    .. Out of loss, failure and inequality such a movement would exist.
    Yah, I'm basically agreeing with you.

    It is out of hope such a movement would exist.
    What is the springboard of hope? It is a promise.
    It can be. Sometimes hope can come from other things, a promise helps. Maybe it comes from internal forces too.

    The apex of the feminist movement in England and in France: 1910 and 1934. Respectively.
    They still have microfilms of the early 20th Century newspapers in university libraries.

    WW I changed the position of women in England.
    WW II, in France.

    A promise is first. Events come later.
    Otherwise it would not be a promise.
    So who made these promises? (history lesson?)
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  10. #90
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    Yah, I'm basically agreeing with you.



    It can be. Sometimes hope can come from other things, a promise helps. Maybe it comes from internal forces too.



    So who made these promises? (history lesson?)
    Nobody made them.
    People who make them eat their cake. And their hat.
    A promise that comes to pass is not made.
    It is. What is, is an -ing.

    Promising, a.

    A ground.
    Likely.
    Encouraging.
    Hopeful.

Similar Threads

  1. Guns ARE equal rights.
    By SpankyMcFly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 294
    Last Post: 06-28-2016, 10:08 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-11-2013, 11:20 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-13-2011, 03:32 PM
  4. Catholic ban on women priests 'illegal under Harriet Harman equality bill'
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 01-14-2010, 06:59 AM
  5. UK Lesbians Given Equal Birth Rights
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 04:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO