User Tag List

First 4989979899100101109149 Last

Results 981 to 990 of 1614

  1. #981
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    What gets me is that a large number of people involved just want to talk about something. i.e. they're essentially bored. In so many discussions all of the parties involved have no intention of ever doing or changing anything. Most of the people reading it have no intention of doing or changing anything.
    It's even worse when it's obvious that someone has done little research or thinking about a topic, and doesn't appear to care about it as much as they pretend to. They act loud and obnoxious about it, and drown out or attack people who have actually researched and thought about these things because it's more important that they stick to their orthodoxy. They are unsatisfied with their life, and they think that by participating in a cause and being a righteous warrior they can find a purpose in life. This behavior is extremely common.

    There's nothing wrong with getting involved in causes or being passionate about things, but someone's attachment should be genuine, rather than something they're trying to get themselves worked up about because they're bored with life.

    I like the people who are genuinely passionate about this stuff; unfortunately, the ones who do so only as a means of resolving their boredom and loneliness tend to sabotage this kind of thing for everyone else.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  2. #982
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    It's even worse when it's obvious that someone has done little research or thinking about a topic, and doesn't appear to care about it as much as they pretend to. They act loud and obnoxious about it, and drown out or attack people who have actually researched and thought about these things because it's more important that they stick to their orthodoxy. They are unsatisfied with their life, and they think that by participating in a cause and being a righteous warrior they can find a purpose in life. This behavior is extremely common.

    There's nothing wrong with getting involved in causes or being passionate about things, but someone's attachment should be genuine, rather than something they're trying to get themselves worked up about because they're bored with life.
    Interesting - I reached an almost opposite conclusion:
    • Talk to any neonazi - The chances that he's going to know more about the matter then you is almost certain. He'll be able to quote to you from the elder's of zion, he'll know more then you about the history of eugenics, he's going to know and have a well made analysis of Hitler's speeches, he might also have an extremely well established read throughout holocaust-denial literature. A skeptic might know about it, do some research, dismiss it and and move on.
    • Talk to an alien believer - Again, he's going to know about it a hell of a lot more then you, from every story of alien abduction, to evidence of ancient astronauts and how they tie in with Atlantis, which politicians are secretly lizard people and have a very exact explanation about how tin foil and telepathic energy waves interact. And again, a skeptic might know about some of this, but he's unlikely to know just as much, he's not going to be quite as passionate in studying it.
    • The same is true for most religions, cults, extreme ideologies, they are all full of very passionate people with a lot of very detailed analysis about how to argue for their beliefs. And let's not start about Flat-earthers, who are so absolutely brilliant in this department that it's not clear if they mean it or if depicting this is their entire point.

    I was surprised when I first observed this (Yesterday afternoon), but I think if you'd trace critical thinking with specialized knowledge, you won't get a diagonal line, you will get a bell curve. You need some level of knowledge to be a skeptic to begin with - you need to know other dogma's exist to know that there's a choice involved in adhering to one before you can question the validity of making that choice. But after a certain point, it goes the other way around: The more fanatic someone is of anything, the further down the rabbit hole they go and the more likely they are to be more knowledgeable about the subject matter.

    If you want just a conversation between people who believe deeply, your going to have nothing but people with the best of excuses for why anyone who disagrees with them isn't worth listening too. Adopting that mentality is how they came to believe in it passionately in the first place - they aren't curious what others have to say, they know the right answer. That is how you end up with what we've seen here.

  3. #983
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Interesting - I reached an almost opposite conclusion:
    • Talk to any neonazi - The chances that he's going to know more about the matter then you is almost certain. He'll be able to quote to you from the elder's of zion, he'll know more then you about the history of eugenics, he's going to know and have a well made analysis of Hitler's speeches, he might also have an extremely well established read throughout holocaust-denial literature. A skeptic might know about it, do some research, dismiss it and and move on.
    • Talk to an alien believer - Again, he's going to know about it a hell of a lot more then you, from every story of alien abduction, to evidence of ancient astronauts and how they tie in with Atlantis, which politicians are secretly lizard people and have a very exact explanation about how tin foil and telepathic energy waves interact. And again, a skeptic might know about some of this, but he's unlikely to know just as much, he's not going to be quite as passionate in studying it.
    • The same is true for most religions, cults, extreme ideologies, they are all full of very passionate people with a lot of very detailed analysis about how to argue for their beliefs. And let's not start about Flat-earthers, who are so absolutely brilliant in this department that it's not clear if they mean it or if depicting this is their entire point.

    I was surprised when I first observed this (Yesterday afternoon), but I think if you'd trace critical thinking with specialized knowledge, you won't get a diagonal line, you will get a bell curve. You need some level of knowledge to be a skeptic to begin with - you need to know other dogma's exist to know that there's a choice involved in adhering to one before you can question the validity of making that choice. But after a certain point, it goes the other way around: The more fanatic someone is of anything, the further down the rabbit hole they go and the more likely they are to be more knowledgeable about the subject matter.

    If you want just a conversation between people who believe deeply, your going to have nothing but people with the best of excuses for why anyone who disagrees with them isn't worth listening too. Adopting that mentality is how they came to believe in it passionately in the first place - they aren't curious what others have to say, they know the right answer. That is how you end up with what we've seen here.
    Well, I suppose what I mean is that there is an extreme selectivity in their knowledge. Information is only permissible from acceptable sources; information from non-canonical sources is automatically suspect. Data that contradicts the narrative is thrown out without considering how factual it may or may not be. We don't only see this with feminism vs. MRAs, but with other things, as well. There is research that the obnoxious folks have done, but it's just research that feeds their confirmation bias. Anything suggesting nuance makes them uncomfortable (which we can't possibly have, that's the worst thing in the world), and so it is discarded as "false" information.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  4. #984
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Well, I suppose what I mean is that there is an extreme selectivity in their knowledge. Information is only permissible from acceptable sources; information from non-canonical sources is automatically suspect. Data that contradicts the narrative is thrown out without considering how factual it may or may not be. We don't only see this with feminism vs. MRAs, but with other things, as well. There is research that the obnoxious folks have done, but it's just research that feeds their confirmation bias. Anything suggesting nuance makes them uncomfortable (which we can't possibly have, that's the worst thing in the world), and so it is discarded as "false" information.

    True. And the sad thing is.... Well, not one to be the bearer of bad news, I'll just let the really depressing research talk for itself. When I first read it I had such a strong confirmation bias against accepting how prevalent this is in human nature - I tend to be optimistic about people - but I was also aware of the irony of dismissing it for that.

  5. #985
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    What gets me more than that with feminist debates (and global warming and... well nearly everything really) is not the disagreement.

    What gets me is that a large number of people involved just want to talk about something. i.e. they're essentially bored. In so many discussions all of the parties involved have no intention of ever doing or changing anything. Most of the people reading it have no intention of doing or changing anything.

    Most of these forum debates are quite literally a waste of time, in the sense of there's no point in ever talking in the first place. So the real punchline is that even though both sides can be closed minded and think it's pointless because the other side won't see their point of view, a lot of them are just full of pointless words that accomplish nothing in a practical sense - because talking is all they do.
    I can agree in principle with the bolded part. Thought, without it's opposite, action (at some point), is just so much thought-masturbation. I would point out that spending energy and creating/responding to a post is a form of action, although I know that's not the kind of action you are referring to.

    About controversial thread topics. Hegel believed that human beings could understand things only from opposing views. A balance and an imbalance, a binary opposition. He maintained a belief that there were extreme views that were polarized (absolutes). This played on our egos/self esteem all the time through politics with the political paradigm (controversial thread topics). These oppositions were resolved through a process he called the Dialectic; thesis <---> antithesis (arguing back and forth in these kinda threads) and eventual resolution via synthesis, which necessarily creates a new thesis (progress) and the process starts over. He also believed that "eventually" no new antithesis could arise.

    This is particularly relevant to this thread since Hegel was the tutor of Karl Marx who employed Hegel's teachings into his writing of the Communist Manifesto and of Das Capital. Marx and Engels would collaborate and create the concept of dialectical materialism and both would later be instrumental in Women's Liberation.

    "In Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Frederick Engels drew on the work of early anthropologists to show how women's oppression developed in pre-history when communal, matrilineal societies were violently replaced with patriarchal societies in which individual wealth and private property were key. (Patriarchal, profit-driven societies became dominant by conquest and colonialism, though remnants of matrilineal culture survived in tribal societies throughout the world.) From a position of early leadership and respect, women became powerless domestic slaves. Engels describes this as "the world historic defeat of the female sex." Marx and Engels viewed women's entry into the paid labor force as the first step toward liberating women from stifling dependence on men, though it does not free them from the class oppression they share with male workers. To achieve the full liberation of women and of the multi-racial, working class of all nations, international socialism is necessary, which is in essence a return in modern form to the cooperative egalitarian foundations of early human existence."

    I hope any white cisgendered heteropatriarchs who read this, find it useful

    I think someday, history will look back and view threads like this: feminism (thesis) <---> anti-feminism (anti-thesis) = humanism (synthesis)? In my opinion feminsim's days are numbered, a few more decades. It is my belief that the best way to arrive at this point (humanism) is in opposition to feminism or anti feminism. The more feminism grows, the more it becomes opposed and opposition grows feminism, all of which will eventually lead to it's downfall via synthesis. Paradoxically then, best way to oppose feminism then is to help it grow Unless of course you believe in 'truth'
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft
    Likes Mane, asynartetic liked this post

  6. #986
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpankyMcFly View Post
    I think someday, history will look back and view threads like this: feminism (thesis) <---> anti-feminism (anti-thesis) = humanism (synthesis)? In my opinion feminsim's days are numbered, a few more decades. It is my belief that the best way to arrive at this point (humanism) is in opposition to feminism or anti feminism. The more feminism grows, the more it becomes opposed and opposition grows feminism, all of which will eventually lead to it's downfall via synthesis. Paradoxically then, best way to oppose feminism then is to help it grow Unless of course you believe in 'truth'
    I think this is going to have to happen politically exactly like that, though their are a few unknown variables to be worked out.

    Ideally:
    The MRA will peak just as feminism declined to about the same point.
    Their will be some changes, but they will reach gridlock pretty fast.
    They will both alienate a lot of people, finding a home in Gender egalitarianism.

    The GES won't consume the MRA or feminism into it completely, it probably won't grow as strong as either, because let's face it, moderate activists are kind of rare. But it might grow strong enough to be the swing vote. Which is important, because by themselves, feminism and the MRA are more likely to succeed in blocking each other's agenda's then in improving their own. The wouldbe-GES, or whichever form the synthesis would take, can be the swing vote that flips that over. But it has to emerge from a time of relative balance - otherwise it will just naturally become synonymous with whichever one of the apposing forces is the weaker one.
    Likes BadOctopus, SpankyMcFly liked this post

  7. #987
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    I don't know if I agree with that, an old friend/mentor of mine used to say "nothing sharpens a knife like it's peers blade", and I think there's truth in that. There is value and a learning experience in facing people you disagree with, even if for most people the value isn't a change in perspective but to be able to use the contrast of others to better define their own. This has a stronger effect in less campy debates where it's more likely to trigger devil advocacy among people who hold the same opinion, usually from those closer to the middle.

    As far as not having concrete effect beyond talking... Well, if anyone here admitted to be in a position to change legislation, participating in typoC would probably make for good blackmail to remove them from that position.
    Well when you see pretty much the exact same discussions take place over and over for 20 - 30 years, very little changes, and hardly anyone ever seems to show an increase in critical thinking, [when they don't already have it] it may leave one to wonder.

  8. #988
    Super Ape Luke O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    954
    Posts
    1,742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BadOctopus View Post
    @Jarlaxle Unless you think GES stands for Gynocentric Evil Succubi. Then you're pretty much screwed.
    That would be a great name for a band.

  9. #989
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BadOctopus View Post
    @Jarlaxle Unless you think GES stands for Gynocentric Evil Succubi. Then you're pretty much screwed.
    Sorry, I meant Gender Egalitarian Society. It's not 2034 yet where you are? Damn time zone differences...
    Likes BadOctopus, SpankyMcFly liked this post

  10. #990
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke O View Post
    That would be a great name for a band.
    That's a triple redudant Succubi are female therefore 'inherently' gynocentric and succubi are ALL evil It does have a cool ring to it though.
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Feminism
    By GZA in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 07:31 PM
  2. The Ocean Waves: a NF introduction
    By music_educe in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 08:00 PM
  3. *waving*
    By Sandy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 08:29 PM
  4. Hello :D *waves*
    By Indranizia in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 04:40 AM

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