Machismo, Homophobia, Ignorance

[Epiphany]

Ooh, are we playing psychoanalyst! This INFJ wants to play! In my most humble of opinions, the way you take his impersonal posts about his views so bizarrely personally belies some frailty due to the fact that they strike a chord in you.

Agreed.

This is a disagreement and a topic that you and I have found ourselves having again and again.

It hurts going either way, so in the future try and not presume others to be assholes just because they happen to be masculine.

And it seems that we are never going to agree on this subject. You continue to refer to your subjective view of masculinity as the absolute definition of masculinity, instead of analyzing personality traits for what they are, regardless of gender.

I'm getting kind of confused, as I try to follow this line of conversation.

Can you clarify for me what the "positive assessment of a masculine male" is that you think is being denigrated in this thread, since a few have been put out there? I just want to make sure I am understanding what you're upset with.

This is where the disagreement arises. Disco views certain traits as positive and then attributes those to masculinity. I view those traits as negative and not relative to either gender.

Mask manifests immediate observation about how much men of my ilk suck (not in so many words), after I had posted that I am what my life has made me.

What the men of your ilk suck is none of my business.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

continue to refer to your subjective view of as masculinity as the absolute definition of masculinity

I said this where?

I merely try and acknowledge my interpretation of it as equally valid as yours.

What the men of your ilk suck is none of my business.

I have nothing to say to you.

 

[Thalassa]

The problem with men like this is that they are spontaneous, react too soon, make quick decisions that may not be the best solution and are too stubborn to reconsider because they have been brainwashed by society into believing that it's unmasculine to be thoughtful and considerate: the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality which is more primal than civilized. It's not really an indication of masculinity.

I agree with this statement as a generality. It makes me think of the fact that the LAPD recently shot a man to death for completely harmlessly watering the lawn in the wee morning hours at his friends house while being drunk because they thought it was a gun. Apparently a neighbor called and was paranoid because there was some drunk dude in the back yard.

My ex is also, generically speaking, like this, though he doesn't actually shoot people. It's not a good thing, and I'm pretty certain he needs a doctor.

 

[Randomnity]

Mask manifests immediate observation about how much men of my ilk suck (not in so many words), after I had posted that I am what my life has made me.

Actually no,
he said (paraphrasing) "society teaches men to be aggressive boneheads!"
Then you were like, "but, but, I'm an aggressive bonehead!!!!"
Then he was like "being an aggressive bonehead is dumb because of X Y and Z"
Then you were like

I know, I'm good.

 

[Epiphany]

I have nothing to say to you.

Oh, sorry! I misinterpreted this post:

If anyone else has a bone to pick hop in the thread while the gettins good!

 

[Hate]

I may not be masculine... I may not be macho, but you know what, I like me. Why? Because I'm the real article.

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Dp_C6ZX6c&feature=related"]-[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Nicodemus]

I said this where?

In there, kind of:

It's offends me to be lumped in with such miscreants just because I happen to be masculine.

It hurts going either way, so in the future try and not presume others to be assholes just because they happen to be masculine.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

+1.
.
The whole sissy-boy thing makes me want to vomit, though. Men should be men. Period.
If some aren't, maybe they should have therapy, but not violence.
Violence is sometimes a solution, but it really isn't if you're going to reform someone who is mentally ill.

Homosexuality is not a good thing that should be embraced by society, just dealt with on a personal basis, and perhaps with professional help.
Just like people who want to do other really disgusting and horrible things has to keep it in their pants because it's against the law, as it still should be.

I might sound like a conservative Christian, here, and in fact this is one of the few points where I agree with them.
Why? Because they're somewhat right, and people just don't dare to step on anyones' toes anymore. What's next? Legalizing pedophilia? Necrophilia? Zoophilia?

This is just my opinion, and I know some people won't like it one bit, but I have a right to it and a right to express it in civil discussion.
If this gets me an infraction, it was so worth it.

wow. you are incredibly ignorant.

 

[Totenkindly]

Mask manifests immediate observation about how much men of my ilk suck (not in so many words), after I had posted that I am what my life has made me.

Okay, thanks for explaining.

I had a lot of trouble telling from that post of yours (where you described how you were raised vs what life made you) how you felt about either of those views of masculinity. In fact, when I read that post, I thought you were actually criticizing "what life had made you" as if that was something bad, so your reaction to Mask confused me.

This is where the disagreement arises. Disco views certain traits as positive and then attributes those to masculinity. I view those traits as negative and not relative to either gender.

Okay, thanks. I think I got that part.

 

[Valiant]

wow. you are incredibly ignorant.

I'm ignorant because I don't agree with you? How incredibly Rosie O'Donnell of you.
I'm just sick of having to accept and even venerate something that I really loathe, and always have, because media and people tells me to.
How can men behaving like sissies and/or not being able to procreate due to psychological reasons possibly be a good thing?
Seems like something bad to me, objectively speaking.
On an emotional level, though, I think it's just freaking disgusting as well. Much like I think water is wet. It just is.

I'm generally open to new ideas, i'm actually sort of progressive politically speaking, but I refuse to just follow when i think it's wrong.
Don't assume that anyone is ignorant just because they don't happen to agree with you or most people.
If anything, just gliding along agreeing with everyone can't exactly be viewed as being very enlightened.

 

[Qlip]

I'm ignorant because I don't agree with you? How incredibly Rosie O'Donnell of you.
I'm just sick of having to accept and even venerate something that I really loathe, and always have, because media and people tells me to.
How can men behaving like sissies and/or not being able to procreate due to psychological reasons possibly be a good thing?
Seems like something bad to me, objectively speaking.

On an emotional level, though, I think it's just freaking disgusting as well. Much like I think water is wet. It just is.

I'm generally open to new ideas, i'm actually sort of progressive politically speaking, but I refuse to just follow when i think it's wrong.
Don't assume that anyone is ignorant just because they don't happen to agree with you or most people.
If anything, just gliding along agreeing with everyone can't exactly be viewed as being very enlightened.

'Seems' and 'Objective' aren't words that go together. You are entirely commenting on your feeling on the matter, and this is how I disagree with you.

You are implying that a male's value is entirely in reproduction. - disagree
You are stating that Men who don't act like vikings are worthless. - disagree

Explain why you think this. I can give reasons to back up why I disagree with you.

I won't argue with you that you think homesexual sex is gross, because that's a feeling. And I agree with you, and that's what I'm not interested in it anymore than a gay male is interested in watching straight porn. But it's clear that the subject is more than just icky to you, it strikes a deeper chord.

I don't think you can rationally back up your stance.

 

[Totenkindly]

How can men behaving like sissies and/or not being able to procreate due to psychological reasons possibly be a good thing?

Questions:
- Does it have to be a good or bad thing? Why are you assigning moral value to a biological process?
- Do all gays and lesbians act like sissies? Who defines what is a sissy? Is being a sissy good or bad, morally? Why or why not? Is there just one type of gay person, or a variety of them, just like with straight people? Is sissy a defining characteristic of gay? Who determines the social standard of what a man and a woman are supposed to look like?
- Why is procreation being dragged into this? Is sexual activity that does not result in procreation necessarily wrong? Is birth control wrong? Why or why not? If people are sterile, are they damaged and their relationships ruined?
- Does homosexuality come from a psychological source or is there a biological component? (We clearly have scientific precedent in other species that cross-gender sexual behavior can have a biological mechanism driving it. That's been known for how many decades now? Basic research, regardless of whether you accept it for human beings...)

Personally, your emotional reactions to gay people don't concern me. They are what they are. We can't help our emotions. As you say, "On an emotional level, though, I think it's just freaking disgusting as well. Much like I think water is wet. It just is." Fine. I might have similar emotional reactions myself.

I just see you reacting to emotions in kneejerk fashion rather than processing them as data and trying to sift through what they mean. Prejudice (not just in this area, but ANY area), racism, bigotry, and a whole host of social evils are driven primarily by people reacting primarily to their emotional impulses, rather than processing and critiquing them, to determine what to act on and what to set aside. That's what bothers me about the attitude I've typically seen here.

Seems like something bad to me, objectively speaking.

Please. It's not objective in the least, it's clearly emotional and SUBJECTIVE.

Even your few "objective" points (such as the "sex w/o procreation") are habitually argued in other contexts (politics, religion, etc.) without people ever being able to agree.

So if the strength of emotional impulse is what matters, which one of us gets to determine reality? You? Me? Someone else? What a load of bunk.

You're going to have to make your case on something other than the degree of your emotional response.

I'm generally open to new ideas, i'm actually sort of progressive politically speaking, but I refuse to just follow when i think it's wrong. If anything, just gliding along agreeing with everyone can't exactly be viewed as being very enlightened.[/

Which is fine.

I'd just like to see an actual argument, rather than the emotional lashing out.

For some reason, you seem to think it's your conclusion that is attracting negativity to your opinion, where actually it's the process you use to reach your conclusion that seems to be creating offense. You can control that. You're a smart guy.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I grew up in the rural western U.S. in a state where those attitudes are prevalent, but didn't experience directly. I am so sorry to hear that you have to live surrounded by such ignorance. I hope you can leave and not go back. I think you should write more about your experiences. The OP has an intriguing writing style that I think many people would appreciate in terms of content and writing style. I think you should write a book about your experiences there. I've found it the most perfect way to tell the world to F-off by turning its troubles into creative successes.

 

[Valiant]

People, you're using the oldest counter-arguments in the book. It's all fine, but you are blind.
I won't argue with you, because there is no way that it will lead to any change in opinion.

I have, on the other hand, tried to make myself see things your way. Not possible, even though I have tried the tolerant attitude most of my life.
Some of what I wrote was deliberately misinterpreted, as usual. I'm just too tired of you to react on it.

A sophist can argue any point and make it true.
We are, even if we try to believe otherwise, animals.
Some animals are strong and healthy, others aren't.
Morals is an extension of our instincts to crack down on the unnatural and decadent and further what is good.
Let's continue doing so, because it won't further human evolution to make that stuff okay.
Humanity evolved through ever-changing climate and a need for adaption.
The strong survived and the weak didn't get to procreate.
Society today is different, even if it contains all the same stuff.
All the stuff that was previously washed out gets a free pass nowadays due to surplus resources and comfort.
This, however, leads to a slow decline in human strength because the weak get to influence us.
It has all gotten to a point where strength of will and physical force are looked at with scorn.

Where we before left the weak of our tribe in the woods to die, or threw them off the Tarpeian rock in Rome, we now take care of them and let them have children of their own.
We let half-wits and weaklings dictate the terms of our existence instead of warriors.

This isn't just about a bloody bag, I really don't care much about that crap, to be honest. Fashion changes.
Biological and psychological weakness in humans, however, needs to be suppressed firmly and decisively.
Attitudes needs an adjustment, there won't be plenty of everything for very long due to imminent over-population.
That, on the other hand, will change us forever and most people who can't hack it will die anyway.

In the long run, you can't stop nature. Trying to hinder human progress can temporarily screw up the machinery, though.
This is my final reply to this thread. I still don't think you'll get what I am saying, but I really tried.

 

[Epiphany]

Biological and psychological weakness in humans, however, needs to be suppressed firmly and decisively.

 

[Red Herring]

I'm afraid I understand you all too well.

What you just explained is picture book Social Darwinism. And that can lead to some pretty nasty stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism#Criticisms_and_controversies

Not only that but, as has been said before, it is based on a shaky definition of "strong" and "healthy".

 

[Qlip]

I'm going to give a short reply anyway. First, I don't see how orignality of an argument factors into anything. Second, almost all of your post was preinvalidated by Jennifer's post, if you had bothered to read it. Third, homosexuality is a trait that by proof of its own existence is a result of evolutionary 'forces'. Fourth, homosexuals currently, and through history have genetically propogated the species.

 

[Valiant]

Call it what you want, it is how it is, and most people are in dire need of a reality-check.
Had to forget that I wasn't supposed to reply again, but it felt like a good idea ^^

 

[sleepy]

I'm ignorant because I don't agree with you? How incredibly Rosie O'Donnell of you.
I'm just sick of having to accept and even venerate something that I really loathe, and always have, because media and people tells me to.
How can men behaving like sissies and/or not being able to procreate due to psychological reasons possibly be a good thing?
Seems like something bad to me, objectively speaking.
On an emotional level, though, I think it's just freaking disgusting as well.

You should go to intp central. The administration there are bigots and sexists just like you. They will receive you with open arms. You know. It's kinds stupid to spew this stuff on a diverse forum. You should take it where it belongs and is appreciated.

It's probably awesome to rape a handicapped child if you are so inclined. Yeah, you should go by your emotions. Forget about critical thinking, it will ruin your feeling of superiority by abusing those 'of lesser worth' who have not done anything to you.

 

[erm]

Ah, the classic "evolution is a moral theory" view, which goes hand in hand with "tradition makes right" view it seems.

It's not correct to imply homosexuality is an evolutionary weakness, nor that the strong outlive the weak. The strong tend to outlive the weak, and their definitions are tautological as such, so who tends to survive is called strong, and who tends to die is called weak. As such, if homosexuals have tended to survive they fit the definition of "strong". If you use different definitions for those words, then there is no guarantee that the strong will beat the weak at all (as with most of Social Darwinism's definitions).

If you want to derive your morality from such a system, I'd recommend you base it on more modern evolutionary advances. One where physical strength, health, endurance and genetic breeding capability are no longer the advantages they were, and where creativity has replaced manufacturing (which replaced manual labour) as the new driving force behind society, with memetic breeding replacing genetic breeding as the more advantageous form of reproduction (in terms of survival). If you do not adapt to that, you will likely fall to your own "moral" system and die out.