Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
16
General Discussion / Re: Fuck Sexism
« on: December 29, 2011, 09:19:31 pm »
I wonder if the "long conversations" flag for males has anything to do with the presumption that men are supposed to be closed off emotionally. Like, we're supposed to hide or withhold our feelings, and so the thought of a girl wanting to 1) express herself and 2) try to get you to express yourself, triggers us to think that she's into us. Or maybe I'm just missing something.
Hey tush, work your psychobabble and figure this out.
Hey tush, work your psychobabble and figure this out.
17
General Discussion / Re: Fuck Sexism
« on: December 28, 2011, 10:39:50 pm »
Rome had already "fallen" by the time of Mohammed too; I just wanted to address the "Christianity" aspect of it.
18
General Discussion / Re: Fuck Sexism
« on: December 28, 2011, 05:39:49 pm »
@Zeality: Rome did do that. Incidentally, that's why Christianity spread the way it did.
@Magus: I'll give you an example. A boy and a girl are friends. The boy starts feeling that his relationship with the girl could be more than friendship, and starts dropping hints or even going so far as to ask her out. The girl, either unaware or not interested, drops hints that she doesn't think of him that way, outright rejects him, etc., and usually says that she would like to "remain friends." When the boy knows that he will never have more than a platonic friendship with the girl, that is called being put in the "friend zone." A lot of "nice guys" complain about being "friendzoned" because they typically project their feelings onto the girl and think that they were being led on, and that her rejection was cruel and shallow.
Of course, my example emphasizes the male side of things, but that's because I happen to be male and the incidence of this sort of thing tends to be more heavily male.
@Magus: I'll give you an example. A boy and a girl are friends. The boy starts feeling that his relationship with the girl could be more than friendship, and starts dropping hints or even going so far as to ask her out. The girl, either unaware or not interested, drops hints that she doesn't think of him that way, outright rejects him, etc., and usually says that she would like to "remain friends." When the boy knows that he will never have more than a platonic friendship with the girl, that is called being put in the "friend zone." A lot of "nice guys" complain about being "friendzoned" because they typically project their feelings onto the girl and think that they were being led on, and that her rejection was cruel and shallow.
Of course, my example emphasizes the male side of things, but that's because I happen to be male and the incidence of this sort of thing tends to be more heavily male.
19
General Discussion / Re: Fuck Sexism
« on: December 28, 2011, 03:48:46 pm »
I cannot deny that I was once a "nice guy," in the sense of complaining about shallow women. This is one of those instances where you hang around the type of people that reinforce certain ideas with personal experiences, and, of course, it's often hard to crawl out of those delusions.
I think the main reason I got caught up in that mindset is something that tush brought up; in order to get dates, the common perception is that you have to be a 'player.' You have to have all the right moves, know the right words, and overall be a manipulative asshole. Obviously that's not the case, and today I realize that being manipulative in that case is often a sign of an abusive relationship or the 'seduction community,' but in high school where perception matters that's what it was. Since I was not a player, it often occurred to me that I had some kind of flaw that made me unable to get a date, which also coupled with the (correct) opinion on my part that the players were giant skeezbags anyway.
So the "nice guy" community was a perfect fit for me. It wasn't MY fault for not being a player; it was the girls' faults for only liking jerks. Those shallow girls were the reason that I couldn't get a date, and it had nothing to do with anything else that even related to me, except that I wasn't a "jerk." Of course this brings up the problem of the "nice guy" getting friendzoned and whatnot. xkcd can explain it better:
In the end, while "seduction" types are manipulative assholes, the "nice guy" and his emotional manipulation of himself and others is often just as bad. I'd like to think I've kept the good parts of the "nice guy" in me and have begun using that sort of patience and empathy in platonic relationships, but really, you're not much of a nice person or a friend if you can't commit that much anyway.
I think the main reason I got caught up in that mindset is something that tush brought up; in order to get dates, the common perception is that you have to be a 'player.' You have to have all the right moves, know the right words, and overall be a manipulative asshole. Obviously that's not the case, and today I realize that being manipulative in that case is often a sign of an abusive relationship or the 'seduction community,' but in high school where perception matters that's what it was. Since I was not a player, it often occurred to me that I had some kind of flaw that made me unable to get a date, which also coupled with the (correct) opinion on my part that the players were giant skeezbags anyway.
So the "nice guy" community was a perfect fit for me. It wasn't MY fault for not being a player; it was the girls' faults for only liking jerks. Those shallow girls were the reason that I couldn't get a date, and it had nothing to do with anything else that even related to me, except that I wasn't a "jerk." Of course this brings up the problem of the "nice guy" getting friendzoned and whatnot. xkcd can explain it better:
In the end, while "seduction" types are manipulative assholes, the "nice guy" and his emotional manipulation of himself and others is often just as bad. I'd like to think I've kept the good parts of the "nice guy" in me and have begun using that sort of patience and empathy in platonic relationships, but really, you're not much of a nice person or a friend if you can't commit that much anyway.
20
General Discussion / Re: Stuff you hate
« on: December 28, 2011, 03:29:37 pm »
tushantin, from what I can tell, I think your heart is in the right place. You want there to be more that society can do for sociopaths, and you dislike the negative perception they automatically get. Unfortunately wanting something to occur does not make it so. We're still years away from any type of breakthrough in therapy or psychology that could effectively treat sociopathy, if any exists. It's not fair that people are born into a disorder that makes them a textbook example of "evil," but such is the world, and nature doesn't care about our wishes for reform.
21
Site Updates / Re: "Fuck SOPA" - ZeaLitY
« on: December 27, 2011, 10:34:51 pm »
I'm still of the opinion that this bill won't pass and if it does nothing significant will come of it, but for all of you who think otherwise, here's a list of people to vote out and companies/organizations to boycott.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money
22
General Discussion / Re: Stuff you hate
« on: December 27, 2011, 10:25:10 pm »I'm sorry, but I just need to ask: am I the only one in the world to actually sympathize and empathize with sociopaths?
Probably not, but for my two cents I have to say I do not do either of those for sociopaths that end up causing harm to others.
23
General Discussion / Re: Fuck Sexism
« on: December 22, 2011, 12:52:34 pm »
I checked out the subreddit for Men's Rights a while back, for no other reason than that the name caught my eye while browsing. The posts there seemed horrific, but in order not to misrepresent them based on memory, I went back today. Here's what I found:
For those of you who don't know how reddit works, these are posts by members, either with links or text, that have been "voted up" because a mass agrees on them. This is about as clear a view of a men's rights' consensus as you'll find in one place. Here's the link if you care to explore it more on your own:
http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights
-------
Now I think there's some good on here. I think we would all agree that female-on-male domestic abuse is an issue that's often ignored or goes unreported because men fear a lack of respect as a result. It's also an issue that I feel feminism on its own does not address effectively, although we all probably would not agree on that. Either way, some advocacy on it is a net benefit. Unfortunately, as Syna said, there's also a bunch of whining about a loss of privilege, and those guys need to grow up.
For those of you who don't know how reddit works, these are posts by members, either with links or text, that have been "voted up" because a mass agrees on them. This is about as clear a view of a men's rights' consensus as you'll find in one place. Here's the link if you care to explore it more on your own:
http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights
-------
Now I think there's some good on here. I think we would all agree that female-on-male domestic abuse is an issue that's often ignored or goes unreported because men fear a lack of respect as a result. It's also an issue that I feel feminism on its own does not address effectively, although we all probably would not agree on that. Either way, some advocacy on it is a net benefit. Unfortunately, as Syna said, there's also a bunch of whining about a loss of privilege, and those guys need to grow up.
24
General Discussion / Re: Fuck Sexism
« on: December 22, 2011, 10:58:45 am »
I visited the National Council of Men's page last week when looking up SC custody law to see if we have an accountability measure for child support payments(we do not). I considered sending an email asking what the law was or how we could go about changing it, but even to contact them you need to enroll in counseling, which I'm immediately suspicious of.
But I'm not asking about the activists, I'm asking about the causes. Would you say you support their causes(the skirt thing I mentioned, child custody laws, etc.), even if their actual activism grates you?
But I'm not asking about the activists, I'm asking about the causes. Would you say you support their causes(the skirt thing I mentioned, child custody laws, etc.), even if their actual activism grates you?
25
General Discussion / Re: Fuck Sexism
« on: December 22, 2011, 12:40:19 am »
So men shouldn't be allowed to wear skirts if they feel like it?
26
General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« on: December 17, 2011, 11:59:27 pm »
I liked him in the Christmas Carol musical. Probably my favorite adaptation of that story.
And no, I'm not contributing anything more with this post. 'Cause I don't wanna.
And no, I'm not contributing anything more with this post. 'Cause I don't wanna.
28
General Discussion / Re: Stuff you hate
« on: December 11, 2011, 12:40:04 am »
The "dropped out of school at the age of three" line is actually from a parody rap song.
Lord J, I acknowledge your post and will either respond when time permits me or do something else. Iono.
Lord J, I acknowledge your post and will either respond when time permits me or do something else. Iono.
29
General Discussion / Re: Park Your Amusements Here
« on: December 10, 2011, 07:11:11 pm »
That's definitely a Poe's Law. I know this because most of the ones from real conservatives are heartbreaking, not humorous.
30
General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« on: December 10, 2011, 12:02:08 pm »Quote
"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced." -- Vincent Van Gogh
Well of course it was silenced for Van Gogh, he chopped his bloody ear off!