The Net and Emotion

[Forever]

I'd say there's a good chance of it, similar style of posting anyway.

Let's wave hi to Xann.

Hi

 

[Ace_]

The point of the original post is pretty obvious.

I would add that the key to life is excess in moderation. You can't play in the middle of the road if you've never seen the far curb. You don't know where middle really is.

 

[Tater]

Dupe account?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

 

[Qlip]

I'd say there's a good chance of it, similar style of posting anyway.

- - - Updated - - -



Whatever happened to Napster?

Apparently the name has been appropriated and weaponized; it has been turned into a Spotifier wannabe: Home | Napster. Much like "emotion" has been used by the OP.

 

[ducks]

Dupe account?

 

[Forever]

What motivated you to speak such about mole being here in such a short time?

It takes one quite a bit of time to know the godship of the Mole.

 

[ducks]

He should be flattered by my satire of him.

But I don't know. Just wanted to.

 

[Forever]

He should be flattered by my satire of him.

But I don't know. Just wanted to.

Haha, you quack me up.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

There is a lot of communication, particularly social communication, that is based on emotion, so why would the net be any different?

Something has come to my mind lately - there isn't a socially acceptable way to express authentic anger. I've noticed that when you are dealing with genuine anger, there are some strange taboos on just saying it. It often leaves me not knowing what to do or say because it is hard to define what the social costs are. I can't define it exactly, but authentic anger processing is horribly suppressed in society. I think this is why people resort to angry memes and snarky comments online. It is as though that is the only way it is allowed. If you ever experience something in your life worthy of a genuine anger response, then you see how much trouble you will get into if it is ever expressed in a straightforward way.

 

[rav3n]

mole can be seen
on the lip of typologycentral
positioned to preen
at the expense of the dorsal

inwards he buries
trolling with all his might
but when lit up, he scurries
running fast from the light

black and white is his shtick
attention the aim
it works, his trick
since members post in disdain

 

[Qlip]

mole can be seen
on the lip of typologycentral
positioned to preen
at the expense of the dorsal

inwards he buries
trolling with all his might
but when lit up, he scurries
running fast from the light

black and white is his shtick
attention the aim
it works, his trick
since members post in disdain

I respond to Mole occasionally precisely because I do not believe he's a troll. Sure, maybe he he doesn't listen, or can't/won't construct an argument or a rebuttal. But I sense he has something to say, something he's trying to do, not for the lulz. If I had to label him, I'd label him a crusader, not a troll. I shine the light, either he'll scuttle away or maybe he'll engage. I'm pretty happy with either result.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Crusader seems like a very derogatory term to me and also quite wrong. As he only shares his perspective, but does not attempt to infringe upon your freedom of taking his perspective for whatever you will.

I've always seen his posts as him sharing his perspective, feeling like his intention is for people to take a step back and perhaps reviewing their opinions and beliefs. And this is regardless of the value or weight of his perspective, as that is something he clearly leaves to the reader to decide.

Though he might be viewed as a scourge to close minded people that hate to have their opinions challenged and prefer to continue their existance in their premade box. He is a breath of fresh air for all those interested in enriching their perspectives.

I've never seen him personally attack someone or try to forcefully put his opinion onto people. To those that don't like him, I'd ask wether it is really him you don't like, or wether it is a part of yourself you don't like.

 

[Lark]

I respond to Mole occasionally precisely because I do not believe he's a troll. Sure, maybe he he doesn't listen, or can't/won't construct an argument or a rebuttal. But I sense he has something to say, something he's trying to do, not for the lulz. If I had to label him, I'd label him a crusader, not a troll. I shine the light, either he'll scuttle away or maybe he'll engage. I'm pretty happy with either result.

There's a hell of a lot of projecting of peoples own ideas, both positive and negative, when it comes to Mole.

I tend to try not to do that and instead base my judgements entirely upon what he has explicitly said himself, I'll just mention here:-

- He mainly cites tabloid sources, material that's triggered a particular response in himself, ie pride, loathing, whatever. I recall one exception to this and it was someone speaking to him about his having left labels from the shop on his clothes, this triggered a particular response in him and he took it online.

- He has praised trolls as clever, insightful and praiseworthy individuals. He considers their behaviour commendable.

- He states his opinion, or the opinion he is passing on from another source, but will not elaborate upon it if he is asked questions, going so far as to consider this as others "trolling" or harassing him.

- He has stated that online posting is cathartic, he net is a place to give vent to emotions.

That's the summation of what's known for a fact with respect of Mole, I dont believe the content of his posts are actually as important, or even intended to be as important, as what its possible to tell from this information here.

Describing him as a crusader I think is mistaken, not because of any negative connotations of the term, nor any positive connotations either when I think about it. Describing him as a troll I think may be mistaken too though, it would require that that term is defined, as Mole has defined it in the past positively its just possible that he believes his action conforms to that positive definition but I would not agree as to what a troll or trolling is.

 

[Lark]

There is a lot of communication, particularly social communication, that is based on emotion, so why would the net be any different?

Something has come to my mind lately - there isn't a socially acceptable way to express authentic anger. I've noticed that when you are dealing with genuine anger, there are some strange taboos on just saying it. It often leaves me not knowing what to do or say because it is hard to define what the social costs are. I can't define it exactly, but authentic anger processing is horribly suppressed in society. I think this is why people resort to angry memes and snarky comments online. It is as though that is the only way it is allowed. If you ever experience something in your life worthy of a genuine anger response, then you see how much trouble you will get into if it is ever expressed in a straightforward way.

I do think there's a lot of anger washing around the web, I see a lot of behaviour online which I can only conclude are different sorts of emotional catharsis or venting, a lot of the time its guilty of precisely the things it accuses others engaging in or, often, alleging that others are the soul/only preserve, as opposed to the principle source, of emoting and venting.

The only thing about it is that anger can be motivated by a lot of different things, lack of a better coping strategy or the over taxing of a coping strategy, whether its that good a strategy or not, stress, needs for validation, attachment needs, maturational age and stage, even whether you are hungry, tired etc.

I'm not sure about the whole idea of publicly expressed righteous indignation, not anymore, when I was much younger I may have but I think even then it was mistaken, really mistaken, and it might be good therapy, depending how you define therapy even, but its poor strategy, personally or any other sense.

Society I dont believe is horribly suppressed when it comes to expressing anger, it is expressed, A LOT, in all sorts of inappropriate, wrongful ways, its why there are so many crimes of violence, domestic violence, abuse of others and rampages or spree killings. I think surely it is the appeal of terrorism to some of its perpetrators and also the appeal of extreme politics to most of their followers, I seldom hear of someone who professes really radical ideologies or identity politics and lives a reserved, quiet, retiring life free of malice towards others at the same time. I would say there are a lot of other emotional states which are not experienced in anything other than a shallow or very occasional fashion, people can behave in a manner at news of their teams winning at a sports event for instance in a way they wouldnt upon being reunited with long lost friends or family members. I think that shallow or suppressed emotional state makes for lots of anger and rage which is expressed so much more readily.

You can see lots of people posting online as a form of emotional catharsis when it involves expressing outrage, affront, upset, anger, disappointment, loathing, injured pride but seldom as many people marking how happy they are that day, how happy they are that others are happy etc. Or even consider which more quickly solicits the sneering cynical response and which appears the more credible.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I do think there's a lot of anger washing around the web, I see a lot of behaviour online which I can only conclude are different sorts of emotional catharsis or venting, a lot of the time its guilty of precisely the things it accuses others engaging in or, often, alleging that others are the soul/only preserve, as opposed to the principle source, of emoting and venting.

The only thing about it is that anger can be motivated by a lot of different things, lack of a better coping strategy or the over taxing of a coping strategy, whether its that good a strategy or not, stress, needs for validation, attachment needs, maturational age and stage, even whether you are hungry, tired etc.

I'm not sure about the whole idea of publicly expressed righteous indignation, not anymore, when I was much younger I may have but I think even then it was mistaken, really mistaken, and it might be good therapy, depending how you define therapy even, but its poor strategy, personally or any other sense.

Society I dont believe is horribly suppressed when it comes to expressing anger, it is expressed, A LOT, in all sorts of inappropriate, wrongful ways, its why there are so many crimes of violence, domestic violence, abuse of others and rampages or spree killings. I think surely it is the appeal of terrorism to some of its perpetrators and also the appeal of extreme politics to most of their followers, I seldom hear of someone who professes really radical ideologies or identity politics and lives a reserved, quiet, retiring life free of malice towards others at the same time. I would say there are a lot of other emotional states which are not experienced in anything other than a shallow or very occasional fashion, people can behave in a manner at news of their teams winning at a sports event for instance in a way they wouldnt upon being reunited with long lost friends or family members. I think that shallow or suppressed emotional state makes for lots of anger and rage which is expressed so much more readily.

You can see lots of people posting online as a form of emotional catharsis when it involves expressing outrage, affront, upset, anger, disappointment, loathing, injured pride but seldom as many people marking how happy they are that day, how happy they are that others are happy etc. Or even consider which more quickly solicits the sneering cynical response and which appears the more credible.

My position is that all of this maladaptive anger is the result of repression of healthy anger in society. I plan to do something about it. I'm going into an arts therapy field next year and plan to do my thesis on anger processing through the arts.

 

[Lark]

My position is that all of this maladaptive anger is the result of repression of healthy anger in society. I plan to do something about it. I'm going into an arts therapy field next year and plan to do my thesis on anger processing through the arts.

If your thesis is correct then you would be doing a great service. I wish you well.

 

[Mole]

Crusader seems like a very derogatory term to me and also quite wrong. As he only shares his perspective, but does not attempt to infringe upon your freedom of taking his perspective for whatever you will.

I've always seen his posts as him sharing his perspective, feeling like his intention is for people to take a step back and perhaps reviewing their opinions and beliefs. And this is regardless of the value or weight of his perspective, as that is something he clearly leaves to the reader to decide.

Though he might be viewed as a scourge to close minded people that hate to have their opinions challenged and prefer to continue their existance in their premade box. He is a breath of fresh air for all those interested in enriching their perspectives.

I've never seen him personally attack someone or try to forcefully put his opinion onto people. To those that don't like him, I'd ask wether it is really him you don't like, or wether it is a part of yourself you don't like.

Good on you Fluffywolf, as this is how I see myself.

I do welcome criticism of my ideas and civil criticism of myself.

I might add, I encourage epiphanies in myself, which are a form of revelation, and then I give my revelations some solid form by sharing them on Central.

My epiphanies arise unbidden, they are not bidden, I do not bid my epiphanies. And being outside my control I must first give up my control to receive an epiphany. And I received it with gratitude.

 

[Qlip]

Crusader seems like a very derogatory term to me and also quite wrong. As he only shares his perspective, but does not attempt to infringe upon your freedom of taking his perspective for whatever you will.

I've always seen his posts as him sharing his perspective, feeling like his intention is for people to take a step back and perhaps reviewing their opinions and beliefs. And this is regardless of the value or weight of his perspective, as that is something he clearly leaves to the reader to decide.

Though he might be viewed as a scourge to close minded people that hate to have their opinions challenged and prefer to continue their existance in their premade box. He is a breath of fresh air for all those interested in enriching their perspectives.

I've never seen him personally attack someone or try to forcefully put his opinion onto people. To those that don't like him, I'd ask wether it is really him you don't like, or wether it is a part of yourself you don't like.

I almost missed this, huh. I think it can be a value neutral term. What I do know is he has very specific themes he posts on very persistently, negative themes (again, non critical, just an observation that they are essentially anti positions), and shoehorns them into very disparate subjects. Anti: Abuse of minors, the Catholic Church, MBTI, Islam. He's on a mission, which is a synonym for crusade. Anyway, I stand by what I said, I don't think he's a troll.

 

[Mole]

mole can be seen
on the lip of typologycentral
positioned to preen
at the expense of the dorsal

inwards he buries
trolling with all his might
but when lit up, he scurries
running fast from the light

black and white is his shtick
attention the aim
it works, his trick
since members post in disdain

In psychoanalysis we know we are getting somewhere when we meet the resistance, because then we analyse the resistance.

Distain is a fine form of resistance, and all we need to do is realise that distain is our gold, with distain we have struck psychological gold, and all we have to do is dig to enrich ourselves.

 

[Mole]

My position is that all of this maladaptive anger is the result of repression of healthy anger in society. I plan to do something about it. I'm going into an arts therapy field next year and plan to do my thesis on anger processing through the arts.

The alchemists turned base metal into gold, and the psychological alchemists of today turn anger into exuberance.