Nicki Minaj

[EyeSeeCold]

Well, Sir Dagonet, if you'd care to rescue glam from the pitfalls of her self-defeating mind then you're certainly invited to swing your deadly marotte my way.

When you're done personifying a fancy Frenchman:

Whether you have a (dys)functional need to entrench and fortify your linguistic context with complexities, or happen to do it all unconsciously, you aren't communicating. And having knowledge of that, and not considering elucidation is equal to obfuscating your words with duplicitous intent, and therefore it can only be inferred* that you seek to "win" in your confabulations and not to gain informational insight into the discussion at hand from your interlocutor.

[mu4]

This thread is becoming a lot of ass-grabbing and backslapping mixed in with the snide ad-hominem attacks. Chill with that and stick to evidence and real criticism.

As far as typing Nicki, her act/performances are always without any regard to sensory perception, it's a provocation and that is imo . Her act also is without reference to experience, it's basically impossible to comprehend her act without some level of imagination and cerebral athletics.

Look at the music of a actual SEI and it's pretty clear the sensory experiences as well as the emotion of these experiences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p62rfWxs6a8&ob=av3e

You are my sweetest downfall

I loved you first, I loved you first
Beneath the sheets of paper lies my truth
I have to go, I have to go
Your hair was long when we first met

Samson went back to bed
Not much hair left on his head
He ate a slice of wonder bread and went right back to bed
And history books forgot about us and the bible didn't mention us
And the bible didn't mention us, not even once

You are my sweetest downfall
I loved you first, I loved you first
Beneath the stars came fallin' on our heads
But they're just old light, they're just old light
Your hair was long when we first met

Samson came to my bed
Told me that my hair was red
Told me I was beautiful and came into my bed
Oh I cut his hair myself one night
A pair of dull scissors in the yellow light
And he told me that I'd done alright
And kissed me 'til the mornin' light, the mornin' light
And he kissed me 'til the mornin' light

Samson went back to bed
Not much hair left on his head
Ate a slice of wonderbread and went right back to bed
Oh, we couldn't bring the columns down
Yeah we couldn't destroy a single one
And history books forgot about us
And the bible didn't mention us, not even once

You are my sweetest downfall
I loved you first

One of the defining characteristics of valuing writers is a ability to create a sensory experience in others thru words. I think when compared to a actual SEI, Nicki Minaj is found wanting. I would say she's EIE or IEI as she's pretty clearly valuing.

[Korpsy Knievel]

It seems Regina Spektor the "real" SEI shares a few traits with Nicki Minaj:

A rich fantasy life centered on the creation of imaginary identities:

• "Spektor's songs are not usually autobiographical, but rather are based on scenarios and characters drawn from her imagination."
• "Her lyrics are equally eclectic, often taking the form of abstract narratives or first-person character studies, similar to short stories or vignettes put to song."

Exaggerated vocalizations:

• "Spektor has a broad vocal range and uses the full extent of it. She also explores a variety of different and somewhat unorthodox vocal techniques, such as verses composed entirely of buzzing noises made with the lips and beatbox-style flourishes in the middle of ballads."
• "Part of her style also results from the exaggeration of certain aspects of vocalization, most notably the glottal stop, which is prominent in the single "Fidelity". She also uses a strong New York accent on some words, which she has said is due to her love of New York and its culture."

As for Minaj, I will grant that is she Fe as fuck, but so are many xEIs. And if both Minaj and Spektor are SEIs then their dissimilarities, other than life opportunities and experiences* accrued in the course of inhabiting entirely unique brain-possessing bodies, can be chalked up to subtypes.

Nor I am sold on all SEIs being sweetness and light. If we use Kam as an available example, he is widely regarded as a harmless individual. However, he's quickly flown off the handle a few times I've talked to him, which demonstrates an easy recourse to confrontational dramatics. I don't think this invalidates his self-typing or his suitability as a mate for an ILE. I do think, however, that the reflexive manner in which he resorted to theatrics is indicative of a textbook creative-Fe mechanism that has organically developed and reinforced itself through years of generally successful application (because if it wasn't a profitable tactic, and if he is assumed to be sufficiently self-aware and sane to be self-correcting, he'd have implemented other primary measures long ago). And so I'm going to argue against SEIs being incapable of aggression or combativeness according to their necessity or whim.

I am still undecided on quadra or type, but I definitely stand with Radio's analysis concerning temperament.

Lastly, whether a "sensory experience thru words" occurs is dependent on the listener's resonance with the song via projection and identification. It is arguable that this is of even greater importance than the intention or mental qualities of the song's creator.

Quotes sourced from wikipedia.

* Such as one coming from a fairly privileged background while the other grew up within a grittier corner of reality, in which case a comparatively "harder" SEI is a quite possible result.

**********

Clippity clop, Br'er Dagonet: I don't explain every single thing because when I'm on a roll I don't like to wait for people to catch up.

[mu4]

It seems Regina Spektor the "real" SEI shares a few traits with Nicki Minaj:

A rich fantasy life centered on the creation of imaginary identities:

• "Spektor's songs are not usually autobiographical, but rather are based on scenarios and characters drawn from her imagination."
• "Her lyrics are equally eclectic, often taking the form of abstract narratives or first-person character studies, similar to short stories or vignettes put to song."

Exaggerated vocalizations:

• "Spektor has a broad vocal range and uses the full extent of it. She also explores a variety of different and somewhat unorthodox vocal techniques, such as verses composed entirely of buzzing noises made with the lips and beatbox-style flourishes in the middle of ballads."
• "Part of her style also results from the exaggeration of certain aspects of vocalization, most notably the glottal stop, which is prominent in the single "Fidelity". She also uses a strong New York accent on some words, which she has said is due to her love of New York and its culture."

As for Minaj, I will grant that is she Fe as fuck, but so are many xEIs. And if both Minaj and Spektor are SEIs then their dissimilarities, other than life opportunities and experiences* accrued in the course of inhabiting entirely unique brain-possessing bodies, can be chalked up to subtypes.

Nor I am sold on all SEIs being sweetness and light. If we use Kam as an available example, he is widely regarded as a harmless individual. However, he's quickly flown off the handle a few times I've talked to him, which demonstrates an easy recourse to confrontational dramatics. I don't think this invalidates his self-typing or his suitability as a mate for an ILE. I do think, however, that the reflexive manner in which he resorted to theatrics is indicative of a textbook creative-Fe mechanism that has organically developed and reinforced itself through years of generally successful application (because if it wasn't a profitable tactic, and if he is assumed to be sufficiently self-aware and sane to be self-correcting, he'd have implemented other primary measures long ago). And so I'm going to argue against SEIs being incapable of aggression or combativeness according to their necessity or whim.

I am still undecided on quadra or type, but I definitely stand with Radio's analysis concerning temperament.

Lastly, whether a "sensory experience thru words" occurs is dependent on the listener's resonance with the song via projection and identification. It is arguable that this is of even greater importance than the intention or mental qualities of the song's creator.

Quotes sourced from wikipedia.

* Such as one coming from a fairly privileged background while the other grew up within a grittier corner of reality, in which case a comparatively "harder" SEI is a quite possible result.

**********

Clippity clop, Br'er Dagonet: I don't explain every single thing because when I'm on a roll I don't like to wait for people to catch up.

Um Samson is a song about taking care of her boyfriend who died of cancer.... Song is so literal it hurts, "ate a piece of bread and went back to bed", "Not much hair left on his head"


Nicki Minaj sings about her alter ego's Barbie, Roman, and various other characters which are based in her need to escape her rough upbringing, thus retreating into her imagination.

So both Fe, both capable of being aggressive or whatever you want to call it, I'm not even sure what that has to do with it, but different coping mechanism for the tragedies of life.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Um Samson is a song about taking care of her boyfriend who died of cancer.... Song is so literal it hurts, "ate a piece of bread and went back to bed", "Not much hair left on his head"

I'm pretty sure this is a treatment of the story of Samson and Delilah. If you'd read the bible or talked to a rastafarian about the Nazirite vow you'd have recognized it. Do you have a definitive source such as an interview for this cancer bit or are you just repeating conjectures from various sites where people trade opinions of what they think songs mean?

Mira: http://www.theage.com.au/news/music/...e#contentSwap2

Piano girl Regina Spektor has led a fascinating life but she prefers making stuff up, she tells Michael Dwyer.

THERE'S only one thing Regina Spektor honestly wants to say to the world and it's on the front of her album: Begin To Hope. It has no literal bearing on anything inside, which is just a bunch of stories she made up at her piano, like a musical Franz Kafka: ordinary/surreal stories that reveal nothing whatsoever about Regina Spektor.

That's her story and she's sticking to it. "For me, if I wasn't gonna be a musician, I'd probably be an actor, you know what I mean?" she squeaks down the phone from her New York apartment. "I love roles and I love portraying people.

"Also I'm a pretty tough girl. I'm tougher than I sound. I sound like a nine-year-old but, you know, I grew up in the city, so I'm all right." She adds this last bit because Begin To Hope has a vulnerable, occasionally dark quality that, if she were Tori Amos or Fiona Apple, might lead one to suspect she was an ingenue adrift in a bad world.

"Could you imagine somebody listening to this record and thinking 'Wow, she hates the city, she does drugs, she cut her boyfriend's hair, she's this, she's that, she's lonely'?" she cackles. "I guess some people do that but what do they think when they read Kafka? They must be those worrisome people who think Eminem is really going to go strangle women and shoot gay people."

Imagine that, Minaj is also quite interested in acting, just like this "real" SEI. There's more:

Spektor is an arresting artist on any stage. An unpredictable performer, she might bang a drumstick on a chair with one hand while playing the piano and coaxing a litany of gulps and hiccups from her delicate throat. People who write about her tend to lean on adjectives like kooky, funky and uninhibited.

She is also elusive, equal parts charmer and chameleon, and her songs often amount to character studies of widely different personalities—a first love, a teenager flirting with suicide, a mother battling cancer.

Slipping into different personalities and musical styles lets Spektor toy with the boundaries between truth and fiction, high and low culture, a foreigner's perspective and an American outlook. It's a virtuosity that attracts both mature listeners and legions of teen fans. And yet Spektor manages always to keep something for herself and leaves her audience asking a seductive question: Just who is this curly-haired, cherry-red-lipsticked, bilingual songstress?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/specia...#ixzz1n14qc62k

So, there probably was no boyfriend dying of cancer, and in any event this business of "hurt" is on your end, because you've made an identification with this song and projected the contents of your personal unconscious onto its vague outlines while further subjectivizing the significance you've read into it. See addendum below.

Nicki Minaj sings about her alter ego's Barbie, Roman, and various other characters which are based in her need to escape her rough upbringing, thus retreating into her imagination.

But also transcending her predicament by leveraging herself with personas that enable her to say what she felt she couldn't otherwise. Just like Spektor imagining herself into an old legend in order to write a song. Both are presenting alter egos and ersatz identities as extensions of their creative selves and methods. Also, contrary to what was suggested in the line glam pasted about EIEs losing themselves in a surfeit of false fronts, I don't see any sign of Minaj doing likewise. Goofiness aside she gives me no reason to believe she isn't psychological sound, or that she isn't enjoying her acting out of different personalities.

So both Fe, both capable of being aggressive or whatever you want to call it, I'm not even sure what that has to do with it, but different coping mechanism for the tragedies of life.

It has to do with understanding behavior as a result of its underlying psychological causes, peeking under the hood of the mind, not just making snap judgments about actions' appearances being equivalent to actuation of IEs.

**********

As an explanation of your identification with and response to the song "Samson":

Aesthetics has to deal, not only with the aesthetic nature of things, but also and in perhaps even higher degree with the psychological question of the aesthetic attitude. Not for long could such a fundamental phenomenon as the opposition of introversion and extraversion escape the aesthetic standpoint, since the form and manner in which art and beauty are sensed and regarded by different individuals differ so widely that one could not but be struck by this opposition. Disregarding the many, more or less, sporadic and unique individual peculiarities of attitude, there exist two contrasting basic forms, which Worringer has described as 'feeling-into ' (' empathy') and 'abstraction'. His definition of ' feeling-into ' is derived principally from Lipps. For Lipps, feeling-into is "the objectification of my quality into an object distinct from myself, whether the quality objectified merits the term 'feeling' or not". "While I am in the act of apperceiving an object, I experience, as though in it or issuing from it, as something apperceived and present in it, an impetus towards a definite manner of inner behaviour. This appears as given through it, as though imparted to me by it." Jodl interprets it as follows : "The sensuous appearance given by the artist is not merely an inducement which brings to our mind kindred experiences by the laws of association ; but, since it is subordinated to the universal laws of externalization, and appears as something outside of ourselves, we also project into it those inner processes which it reproduces in our minds. We thereby give it (esthetic animation an expression which may be preferred to the term ' feeling-into ' because, in this introjection of one's own inner state into the picture, it is not feeling alone that is concerned, but every sort of inner process." By Wundt feeling-into is reckoned among the elementary assimilation processes.

Feeling-into, therefore, is a kind of perception process, distinguished by the fact that it transveys, through the agency of feeling, an essential psychic content into the object ; whereby the object is introjected. This content, by virtue of its intimate relation with the subject, assimilates the object to the subject, and so links it up with the subject that the latter senses himself, so to speak, in the object. The subject, however, does not feel himself into the object, but the object felt into appears rather as though it were animated and expressing itself of its own accord. This peculiarity depends upon the fact that the projection transfers an unconscious content into the object, whence also the feeling-into process is termed transference (Freud) in analytical psychology. Feeling-into, therefore is an extroversion. Worringer defines the aesthetic experience in feeling-into as follows: "Aesthetic enjoyment is objectified pleasure in oneself". Consequently, only that form is beautiful into which one can. oneself. Lipps says: "Only so far as this feeling-into extends are forms beautiful. Their beauty is simply: this my ideal freely living itself out in them." The form into which one cannot feel oneself is, accordingly, ugly. Herein is also involved the limitation of the feeling-into theory, since there exist art-forms, as Worringer points out, whose products do not correspond with the attitude of feeling-into. To a certain extent the feeling-into attitude presupposes an emptiness of the object, which can thereupon be imbued with its own life.

Since feeling-into, like abstraction, is a conscious act, and since the latter is preceded by an unconscious projection, we may reasonably ask whether feeling-into may not also be preceded by an unconscious act. Since the nature of feeling-into is a projection of subjective contents, the antecedent unconscious act must be the opposite viz. a neutralizing of the object, i.e. making it inoperative. For by this means the object is, as it were, emptied, robbed of spontaneity, and thereby made a suitable receptacle for the subjective contents of the feeling-into individual. The feeling-into subject seeks to feel his life into the object, to experience in and through the object ; hence it is essential that the independence of the object and the difference between it and the subject be not too manifest. Through the unconscious act preceding the feeling-into process, the independent power of the object is thus depotentiated or over-compensated, because the subject forthwith unconsciously superordinates himself to the object. But this act of superordination can happen only unconsciously, through an intensification of the importance of the subject. This may happen through an unconscious phantasy, which either deprives the object forthwith of its value and force, or enhances the value of the subject placing him above the object. Only by such means can that difference of potential arise which the act of feeling-into demands for the subjective contents to be transveyed into the object.

The man with the feeling-into attitude finds himself in a world that needs his subjective feeling to give it life and soul. Confidingly he bestows his animation upon it.

- excerpted from Psychological Types, Ch. 7 - The Type Problem in Aesthetics, by Uncle Carl

[mu4]

I'm pretty sure this is a treatment of the story of Samson and Delilah. If you'd read the bible or talked to a rastafarian about the Nazirite vow you'd have recognized it. Do you have a definitive source such as an interview for this cancer bit or are you just repeating conjectures from various sites where people trade opinions of what they think songs mean?

Mira: http://www.theage.com.au/news/music/...e#contentSwap2

Yea, and they had wonder bread in the bible. You focus on the least important aspect of the story and that is it's origin but it's actually the presentation that matters. It's kinda of obvious the story is about Samson and Delilah, but it's also about someone losing their hair, eating wonderbread and going back to bed, love, kissing, downfall.

It's true that one cannot know if this story refers to a real life experience or perhaps just a very good story, some people keep their life private, but it doesn't mean the song isn't about dying of cancer. If you've every dealt with someone with cancer, they lose their hair and they can't eat much more than basic foods like white bread, and they die.

Just read the lyrics, it's a clear sensory experience. It's fictious or non-fictious nature is irrelevant to the presentation. One of the qualities of SEI writers and ESE writers like Dumas and Hugo is their ability to convey great realism of situations, in a very sensory fashion which make the fictious seems present and concrete.

Samson's story is about him losing his strength when he loses his hair and dies. However this story is modern and about someone who eats wonder bread and goes back to bed, about someone who loses his hair and dies. Regardless, it's a very concrete song, with a strong sensory experience. Maybe this never happened to her and she's just a great story teller.

Imagine that, Minaj is also quite interested in acting, just like this "real" SEI. There's more:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/specia...#ixzz1n14qc62k

So are EIE's. Except Regina Specktor specifically says she has tried to take takes a third person perspective vs first person perspective as far as her characters.

So, there probably was no boyfriend dying of cancer, and in any event this business of "hurt" is on your end, because you've made an identification with this song and projected the contents of your personal unconscious onto its vague outlines while further subjectivizing the significance you've read into it. See addendum below.

But also transcending her predicament by leveraging herself with personas that enable her to say what she felt she couldn't otherwise. Just like Spektor imagining herself into an old legend in order to write a song. Both are presenting alter egos and ersatz identities as extensions of their creative selves and methods. Also, contrary to what was suggested in the line glam pasted about EIEs losing themselves in a surfeit of false fronts, I don't see any sign of Minaj doing likewise. Goofiness aside she gives me no reason to believe she isn't psychological sound, or that she isn't enjoying her acting out of different personalities

It has to do with understanding behavior as a result of its underlying psychological causes, peeking under the hood of the mind, not just making snap judgments about actions' appearances being equivalent to actuation of IEs.

**********

As an explanation of your identification with and response to the song "Samson":

- excerpted from Psychological Types, Ch. 7 - The Type Problem in Aesthetics, by Uncle Carl

Dude, you keep bringing ad hominem attacks, it's kinda of a joke your method of assessment and criticism.

The only identification I have with this song is the fact my mom had ovarian cancer and went on chemotherapy and I saw her hair fall out and all she could eat was plain rice and she lost tons of weight and almost died. So this song matches up with that experience quite a bit. Having experienced someone going thru cancer treatment myself, this song invokes that experience, as it should due to it's concrete nature.

As far as the typings.

I would say Regina Spector presents her personalities as third parties first and as a actor second.

“You don't ever know the true lineage of your songs,” reveals Spektor. “Maybe I'm becoming less of a narrator and more of a character these days. I was always used to observing and writing third-person narrative stories about things I was seeing. Then, as time went on, I started placing myself in these scenes, more like an actor.”

She is relating what she sees, but only as time went on did she place herself in these scenes. This is very different than Nicki, who did it for very different reasons.

While growing up, Minaj's home life was often chaotic, with her parents constantly fighting.^[50] As a means of escape, she would create characters and live her life through them.^[50] In an interview with ​New York she stated, "To get away from all their fighting, I would imagine being a new person. 'Cookie' was my first identity – that stayed with me for a while. I went on to 'Harajuku Barbie,' then 'Nicki Minaj'. Fantasy was my reality."

As far as Nicki, she specific states that her characters are a coping mechanism for the fighting.

For her debut album, Minaj created another alter-ego named "Roman Zolanski".^[51] She stated that in songs like "Bottoms Up" with Trey Songz it is not Minaj rapping, but instead Roman Zolanski, and claims that Roman is her "twin sister". She claims that he was born inside her, out of rage, and becomes him when she is angry. She has also said 'He is a demon inside her'. Roman has been compared to Eminem's alter ego Slim Shady, and on the song "Roman's Revenge" from Pink Friday, Minaj and Eminem collaborate, using these alter egos.^[52] On the collaboration, she said "The new album is going to have a lot of Roman on it ... And if you're not familiar with Roman, then you will be familiar with him very soon. He’s the boy that lives inside of me. He's a lunatic and he's gay and he'll be on there a lot." Roman also has a "mother" called "Martha Zolanski",^[53] who also appeared on the song Roman's Revenge, with a British accent.^[54] Martha appears in the video for "Moment 4 Life" where she appears to be Minaj's magical Godmother. In songs such as "All I Do Is Win (Remix)" it is Minaj rapping.^[51] Minaj stated that on her debut album, fans will get to "meet" Nicki, Roman and Onika.^[51]On November 18, 2010, Minaj assumed a different alter-ego named "Nicki Teresa".^[55] Wearing a colorful scarf around her head, she went around as the "healer to her fans" as she visited them at The Garden of Dreams Foundation at Fuse studios in New York City.^[55] Minaj made an appearance on Lopez Tonight on December 6, 2010 and presented a different alter-ego for the Spanish-inspired occasion, named "Rosa" (pronounced Rrrrrosa).^[56]

About her other various characters which she creates, and these characters are symbolic of other figures, like Roman Polanski, Mother Teresa, Barbie, it's all symbolism based and not sensory based.

You should stop your personal attacks, because you've insulted quite a few people by making it about them and not the subject, just stop. You stopped making good arguments a long time ago when you started making ad homimem attacks and calling people names. And although everyone in their way bring their personal experiences and opinions to a discussion, people recognize that and make their presentation. Are you sure you're not talking about yourself in regards to Aesthetics? Maybe you are typing a certain way because of something you react against.

[golden]

I'm curious about the "Samson" lyrics, because if they are autobiographical (can't readily pin that down fact-wise, and anyway, they do revisit the Samson/Delilah story, use characters), that represents a departure from Spektor's typical m.o. In her own words:

She also talks about how, unlike many songwriters, her songs aren't personal.

"I think songwriters are more related to fiction writers," she says. "The Odyssey was a story in song. To me, that's so beautiful, all those painted characters, all those travels and adventures."

And of songwriters who sing in their own voice, Spektor says, "It's almost like putting a ball and chain around your foot and being sentenced to being yourself. Who the hell wants to be themselves all the time? It's so boring."

I really don't care much about Nicki Minaj's type, anyway. Not sure.

ETA: I watched one of those music videos the other day and was not engaged by the material. So I had to force myself just now to watch a couple of interviews, like one where the narration was structured a la "this happened, and then this, and then this," and here:


Wow, she seems like a twit, and totally boring. There you go--I've typed her. Also, her way of expressing ideas is not very linear, is it?

[Korpsy Knievel]

Yea, and they had wonder bread in the bible.

I said it was a treatment of a mythological tale, meaning that Spektor gave herself poetic license to use it as the basis for a new song-story, and in the process she removed some elements and added or accentuated others to make it more her own. Each person is a product of their society and its place in time, so modern features being introduced to antique narratives is perfectly normal.

You focus on the least important aspect of the story and that is it's origin

Simply because I've pointed out its archetypal source to note its place in framing the song's fiction, that doesn't mean I've given it primacy above all its other aspects.

but it's actually the presentation that matters.

To a degree, yes, but we have to consider it in conjunction with an array of other factors. Otherwise we become guilty of haphazard arguments and we open ourselves to the strong possibility of arriving at false conclusions.

It's kinda of obvious the story is about Samson and Delilah but it's also about someone losing their hair, eating wonderbread and going back to bed, love, kissing, downfall.

Which means it shares the same general outlines and symbolism as the Samson and Delilah myth, which shouldn't be surprising coming from a Hebrew-reading Jew interested in Judaica. If you'd like to talk about the symbolic significance of bread as sustainer, sacrament, and destroyer I would be glad for the opportunity.

It's true that one cannot know if this story refers to a real life experience or perhaps just a very good story, some people keep their life private, but it doesn't mean the song isn't about dying of cancer.

It's equally true that in multiple interviews Spektor has stated clearly that all the stories and characters on that album are the products of her imagination without any solid basis in her life's events. Without knowing her personal history in detail it would be foolish to argue that Spektor hasn't seen an ill person live on soft bread, but since that image's symbolic content is only guessed at and not, to my knowledge, explicitly declared, then its significance in the song is ambiguous. And it's that vagueness which lends the "Wonderbread" universality as a vessel for projective identification and thus makes it a ready vehicle for an aesthetic, sensory-affective, meaningful experience to be had by a broad audience. See below.

If you've every dealt with someone with cancer, they lose their hair and they can't eat much more than basic foods like white bread, and they die.

That exact same sentiment was repeated by many people on the various "what is this song about?" sites I visited.

Just read the lyrics, it's a clear sensory experience. It's fictious or non-fictious nature is irrelevant to the presentation.

It is relevant to your support for Glam's argument that the manifestation of personas is characteristically EIE > SEI.

One of the qualities of SEI writers and ESE writers like Dumas and Hugo is their ability to convey great realism of situations, in a very sensory fashion which make the fictious seems present and concrete.

And I repeat (as per Lipps, Worringer, and Freud via Jung) that this sensation of immediacy you describe is a faculty of the observer's resonant participation mystique with a creative artwork.

So are EIE's. Except Regina Specktor specifically says she has tried to take takes a third person perspective vs first person perspective as far as her characters.

And why is that of vital importance, other than attempting to segregate the lyricist from the actor within the same person?

Dude, you keep bringing ad hominem attacks, it's kinda of a joke your method of assessment and criticism.

No, I brought up a description of the common human psychological mechanism of empathy. The process in rough terms:

conscious subjective identification with an object ---> subjective de-potentiation of the object to neutralize it and remove some of its objective values ---> projection of unconscious contents into the diminished object ---> assimilation of the object, newly charged with the significance of unconscious contents, into the subjective consciousness

This is applicable to everyone, not just you. That also includes me.

The only identification I have with this song is the fact my mom had ovarian cancer and went on chemotherapy and I saw her hair fall out and all she could eat was plain rice and she lost tons of weight and almost died. So this song matches up with that experience quite a bit. Having experienced someone going thru cancer treatment myself, this song invokes that experience, as it should due to it's concrete nature.

Exactly.

I would say Regina Spector presents her personalities as third parties first and as a actor second.

She is relating what she sees, but only as time went on did she place herself in these scenes. This is very different than Nicki, who did it for very different reasons.

As far as Nicki, she specific states that her characters are a coping mechanism for the fighting.

And so we could say that similar imaginative, persona-creating faculties resided in both of them but were put to different purposes owing to environmental differences. Now how does this demonstrate that they aren't of an identical type?

About her other various characters which she creates, and these characters are symbolic of other figures, like Roman Polanski, Mother Teresa, Barbie, it's all symbolism based and not sensory based.

Samson and Delilah are figures of myth and thus they are symbolic. Eating Wonderbread in the song has a symbolic value, as does all this going back to bed and hairloss and whatnot drawn from the original biblical archetype. All in all it's a basic tragedy of seductive betrayal. Were the case otherwise the lyrics' appeal would have less universality as they would be more specific to the writer as an individual and not something addressing the common threads of the collective mind. It is a nose and an ability with the latter that is the key to broad accalaim. See Agape's recent post on his aunt's comments to him on this same matter. I can also speak on it from personal insight since my lack in that area has also restricted the breadth of my creative output's appeal.

You should stop your personal attacks, because you've insulted quite a few people by making it about them and not the subject, just stop.

I haven't made a single ad hom since you stepped in to stop your buddies from taking a beating, and I was verrrrrrry easy on Glam in my last response to her. Per request I also provided additional, topically relevant media for inspection to help determine Minaj's type. But here we are now with you making ad homs about me making ad homs.

And note too that the credibility of your refereeing is negated by your regular passive support (such as "likes") for smears made by your pally-wallies against mine. You're also making a few not-exactly-hidden insinuations to cast aspersions on little ol' me, though I'll gladly accept your charges with a grin.

You stopped making good arguments a long time ago when you started making ad homimem attacks and calling people names.

Correction: you don't care for my arguments when they invalidate your own or your friends', or when meta-analysis indicates they're originating from unreliable sources. Hardly unusual or surprising, that, nor your reaction to my critiques being colored by your personal sentiments. Still, there's a difference between poor arguments and arguments that are personally unsatisfying, and we should remain mindful of that to avoid accepting error.

And although everyone in their way bring their personal experiences and opinions to a discussion, people recognize that and make their presentation.

I heartily agree.

Are you sure you're not talking about yourself in regards to Aesthetics?

I certainly am talking about myself, and also all of humanity with an IQ above 40. Nice inuendo though.

Maybe you are typing a certain way because of something you react against.

You should actually say what you mean instead of talking out the side of your mouth. And what I've reacted against here is sloppy thinking.

Anyhow, I'll provisionally accept Spektor's SEI-ness, but I'm still unpersuaded that Minaj isn't one as well, or what it is that her type is reasonably supposed to be. Shall we talk about that?

[Krig the Viking]

lol wth, "krigweedian"? Krig and niffweed don't even have similar approaches to socionics from what i can tell. and tbh, i happen to think whatever niffweed does isn't even really socionics, since he rejects so much of the theory (such as intertype relations) and has so many typings i completely disagree with. i can't take his socionics views seriously.

I've noticed that I tend to agree with Marie quite a lot when it comes to typing, and Niffweed to a lesser extent (certainly more so than Ashton and his group). I have no idea what Niffweed believes in terms of theory, though.

I have Ekpyrosos on ignore, because his posts tend to be substanceless and inflammatory and really not worth bothering with. Unfortunately, I have a lot of people on ignore these days.

[ashlesha]

Lol, substanceless? seriously??

[Korpsy Knievel]

Be sure to get those easy potshots in now that you know it's safe, leprechaun champion.

Plenty of sensory imagery in the lyrics as well as the videos and Minaj is obviously quite at ease in inhabiting her body. And if those videogame/anime/cosplay getups aren't alpha I don't know is. Betas can be pretty flossy and flashy with their attire but I'm drawing a blank trying to think of any of them who've sported rave-riot colors like these. And she's waaaay too Fe to belong to a Serious quadra.



This one is for the boys with the booming system
Top down, AC with the cooler system
When he come up in the club, he be blazin' up
Got stacks on deck like he savin' up
And he ill, he real, he might gotta deal
He pop bottles and he got the right kind of bill
He cold, he dope, he might sell coke
He always in the air, but he never fly coach
He a muthafuckin trip, trip, sailor of the ship, ship
When he make it drip, drip kiss him on the lip, lip
That's the kind of dude I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped if you're lookin' hoe
I said, excuse me you're a hell of a guy
I mean my, my, my, my you're like pelican fly
I mean, you're so shy and I'm loving your tie
You're like slicker than the guy with the thing on his eye, oh
Yes I did, yes I did, somebody please tell him who the eff I is
I am Nicki Minaj, I mack them dudes up, back coupes up, and chuck the deuce up

Boy you got my heartbeat runnin' away
Beating like a drum and it's coming your way
Can't you hear that boom, badoom, boom, boom, badoom, boom, bass
Yeah that's that super bass
Got that super bass boom, badoom, boom, boom, badoom, boom, bass
Yeah that's that super bass
Boom, badoom, boom, boom, badoom, boom, he got that super bass
Boom, badoom, boom, boom, badoom, boom, he got that super bass

This one is for the boys in the polos
Entrepeneur niggas in the moguls
He could ball with the crew, he could solo
But I think I like him better when he dolo
And I think I like him better with the fitted cap on
He ain't even gotta try to put the mac on
He just gotta give me that look, when he give me that look
Then the panties comin' off, off, uh
Excuse me, you're a hell of a guy you know I really got a thing for American guys
I mean, sigh, sickenin' eyes I can tell that you're in touch with your feminine side
Yes I did, yes I did, somebody please tell him who the eff I is
I am Nicki Minaj, I mack them dudes up, back coupes up, and chuck the deuce up

See I need you in my life for me to stay
No, no, no, no, no I know you'll stay
No, no, no, no, no don't go away
Boy you got my heartbeat runnin' away
Don't you hear that heartbeat comin' your way
Oh it be like, boom, badoom, boom, boom, badoom, boom, bass
Can't you hear that boom, badoom, boom, boom, badoom, boom, bass



I came to win, to fight, to conquer, to thrive
I came to win, to survive, to prosper, to rise
To fly
To fly

I wish today it will rain all day
Maybe that will kinda make the pain go away
Trying to forgive you for abandoning me
Praying but I think I’m still an angel away
Angel away, yeah strange in a way
Maybe that is why I chase strangers away
They got their guns out aiming at me
But I become near when they aiming at me
Me, me, me against them
Me against enemies, me against friends
Somehow they both seem to become one
A sea full of sharks and they all see blood
They start coming and I start rising
Must be surprising, I’m just summising
Win, thrive, soar, higher, higher, higher
More fire

I came to win, to fight, to conquer, to thrive
I came to win, to survive, to prosper, to rise
To fly
To fly

Everybody wanna try to box me in
Suffocating everytime it locks me in
Paint they own pictures than they crop me in
But I will remain where the top begins
Cause I am not a word, I am not a line
I am not a girl that can ever be defined
I am not fly, I am levitation
I represent an entire generation
I hear the criticism loud and clear
That is how I know that the time is near
So we become alive in a time of fear
And I aint got no muthafucking time to spare
Cry my eyes out for days upon days
Such a heavy burden placed upon me
But when you go hard your nay’s become yay’s
Yankee Stadium with Jay’s and Kanye’s



I fly with the stars in the skies,
I am no longer trying to survive,
I believe that life is a prize,
But to live doesn’t mean you’re alive,
Don’t worry bout me and who I fire
I get what I desire it’s my empire
And yes I call the shots I am the umpire
I sprinkle holy water upon a vampire, vampire
And this very moment I’m king
This very moment I slay Goliath with a sling,
This very moment I bring
Put it on everything that I will retire with the ring,
And I will retire with the crown, Yes!
No I’m not lucky I’m blessed, Yes!
Clap for the heavyweight champ, Me!
But I couldn’t do it all alone, We!
Young Money raised me, grew up out in Paisley
Southside Jamaica, Queens and it’s crazy
Cuz I’m still hood, Hollywood couldn’t change me
Shout out to my haters, sorry that you couldn’t faze me
Aint being cocky we just vindicated, best believe that when were done
This moment will be syndicated, I don’t know this night just reminds me
Of everything that they deprived me of, kuhh!
Ppppp put ya drinks up, it’s a celebration every time we link up
We done did everything they can think of
Greatness is what we wanna brink up.

I wish that I could have this moment for life, for life, for life
Cuz in this moment I just feel so alive, alive, alive

I wish that I could have this moment for life, for life, for life
Cuz in this moment I just feel so alive, alive, alive

This is my moment, I waited all my life I can tell its time
Drifting away I’m one with the sunsets, I have become alive.



It’s Barbie (barbie, barbie, barbie)

We got Tom tom’s over here bigger than a monster
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
We got Tom tom’s over here bigger than a monster
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla

Tom tom like in Lebanon
Hotter than in Pakistan
Click click click Young Nick the atomic bomb
yeah, see ya then you lick ya tongue, bet that
It tastes good getcha some
Wicked, got ten bad b-tches
We sh sh shut it down
Now the club got glitches, dig it?
and while you do that GT’s pullin up
yeah, spaceship E.T’s in the cut, yeah
Pop a bottle just to get my head right
Tell the doctor go and get my med’s right
Monster, you know it wouldn’t be proper
If we didn’t return with a big rocket launcher

Massive attack, mm Massive attack
Got the bomb bombs make the whole club go back, eeeh
Bend the knees, jig em bring this one back back, eeeh
like a swagger mum, bring on this track, eh
Massive attack, mm Massive attack
Whats the numba mean, no more say that’s that eh
Never find me in the club laid back
I wanna jump to this jam all night until we see the sun

So, so hot in here it feels like a jungle (yeah)
Me don’t like boys that aint Jumbo (yeah)
One time bust a shot for my champion
girls, tell em guys super size me a combo
Kn-kn-know I got the ammo, that’s why I bulletproofed the Lambo
In the Middle East on a camel
Running through the jungle – Rambo
Liberace tango
Swinging on a vine, mango (mango)
So call me Simba little mama
‘Cause Mufasa couldn’t stop a bitch
I fly in on that choppa just to buy Balenciaga
It’s just me Mr. Miyagi and the phantom of the opera
Goin blocka muthaf-cka
Got that big rocketlauncher

Detonate in the palms, detonate in the fire
Rose by the bucket
Money make an attire
Detonatin my bomb, detonatin them hits
Gonna buy out the bar
Oh my (oh my) bitches is rich
Ya better duck when it comes
better duck cause it’s comin
Best believe when you ru-ru-ru-runnin
Now tell that bitch that Nicki said this
We got Tom Tom’s over here bigger than a monster!

[mu4]

Except Sean Garrett also helped to write massive attack.

Ester Dean and Daniel Johnson helped write Superbass.

Writing for Fly = Writing: O. Maraj(Nicki), J. Rotem, K. Hissink, W. Jordan, C. Rishad

A lot of sensory images in her songs are and not

"We got Tom Tom’s over here bigger than a monster!" Nothing introtim about this

Also the sensory experience in her songs are not similar to the examples I've made.

Massive attack, mm Massive attack
Got the bomb bombs make the whole club go back, eeeh
Bend the knees, jig em bring this one back back, eeeh
like a swagger mum, bring on this track, eh

Or express a desire to make a impact, which could be interpreted as Super-id verbalization

I came to win, to fight, to conquer, to thrive
I came to win, to survive, to prosper, to rise
To fly
To fly

Her songs don't really attempt to create a experience as there is no solid experience in those songs, but a desire for movement, for action and for success.

Anyways, you try to say that I am biased because I identify with the song to a certain extent, but that is not the case. This is a clear ad-hominem.

CircumstantialAd hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

It doesn't make my arguments good or bad, it's actually irrelevant to the quality of the argument.

I've said you're making bad arguments because you've engaged in logical fallacies, which is your sloppy thinking.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Except Sean Garrett also helped to write massive attack.

Ester Dean and Daniel Johnson helped write Superbass.

Writing for Fly = [COLOR=#000000][FONT=sans-serif]Writing: O. Maraj(Nicki), J. Rotem, K. Hissink, W. Jordan, C. Rishad

I omitted lyrics indicated as belonging to others.

A lot of sensory images in her songs are and not

And a lot are Si as well if we follow the model of your Spektor selection.

"We got Tom Tom’s over here bigger than a monster!" Nothing introtim about this

Now demonstrate whether Minaj wrote the line or one of her co-writers did.

Also the sensory experience in her songs are not similar to the examples I've made.

Word on the curb is that there's great room for variation in each sociotype. And the sensation of being kicked in the teeth is no less Si than inhaling the aroma of a holiday pie.

Or express a desire to make a impact, which could be interpreted as Super-id verbalization

It's pretty easy to move IEs anywhere in model A and create explanations or excuses for behavior on that basis, though I'll admit Minaj's stance in that regard is what has left me open to her being beta.

Her songs don't really attempt to create a experience as there is no solid experience in those songs, but a desire for movement, for action and for success.

Which for some people, such as those growing up in poverty and hard urban envirobnments, is a highly desirable experience. By the way, eating a piece of bread is an action, not a sensation. That you found it evocative enough to misidentify is, once again, all in your head.

Anyways, you try to say that I am biased because I identify with the song to a certain extent, but that is not the case.

That you've experienced a strong identification is a surefire sign of being biased. Without being predisposed to certain biases then identification and your subsequent affective-sensory resonance with the symbolism in Spektor's song wouldn't have occurred.

This is a clear ad-hominem.

And to which you've clearly admitted as being true.

It doesn't make my arguments good or bad, it's actually irrelevant to the quality of the argument.

The concern here is whether arguments are correct, not whether they're weighted with ethical values like good and bad.

I've said you're making bad arguments because you've engaged in logical fallacies, which is your sloppy thinking.

See above.

[thePirate]

Pretty sure what I posted was sarcasm at glam. Why are you and ESC throwing yourselves out there as bait? Are you two really that gullible and defensive?

figured you were, wasn't responding to you

my post was directed at galen's shameless crony mentality, not the validity of your post.

[Korpsy Knievel]

figured you were, wasn't responding to you

my post was directed at galen's shameless crony mentality, not the validity of your post.

To my knowledge Galen typed Minaj SEI well before announcing it to anyone else. I've disagreed with him on Minaj being any sort of parodist, stating instead that her goofiness is simply a part of her overall expression, and that if she's acting with deliberate intent it's to set herself apart from competitors. Other topics exist where Galen disagrees with me, and with others, even among his so-called "cronies". Galen is subservient to no one that I'm aware of, and he forms, promotes, and defends his own opinions. Don't be so eager for a big take-down that you'll pounce at figments of your own imagination.

[717495]

Don't be so eager for a big take-down that you'll pounce at figments of your own imagination.

Assuming you're quoting who I think you are, then yes his imagination could use a strong diet.

[Gilly]

If you want to play the "agreement = indoctrination!" game, you might as well as accuse me of parroting Galen.

Now that's downright bullshit and you know it.

[Creepy-female]

Galen is subservient to no one that I'm aware of

Galen is subservient to ME.

We weren't planning on telling anyone about this development until you let the cat out of the bag. :/

[Galen]

Now that's downright bullshit and you know it.

I had her down as SEI long before I even mentioned her name to either korp or ashton, or anybody else I talk with regularly. You're an idiot.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Galen is subservient to ME.

We weren't planning on telling anyone about this development until you let the cat out of the bag. :/

And now that I've played my part your grand scheme can unfold.

[thePirate]

To my knowledge Galen typed Minaj SEI well before announcing it to anyone else. I've disagreed with him on Minaj being any sort of parodist, stating instead that her goofiness is simply a part of her overall expression, and that if she's acting with deliberate intent it's to set herself apart from competitors. Other topics exist where Galen disagrees with me, and with others, even among his so-called "cronies". Galen is subservient to no one that I'm aware of, and he forms, promotes, and defends his own opinions. Don't be so eager for a big take-down that you'll pounce at figments of your own imagination.

it's not so much about him being unwilling to disagree as much as it is about him being unwilling to consider for half a second the correlations which ESC drew (which, btw, was what my remark was directed towards) in favor of coming to ashton's defense through pure idiocy and combativeness - why ESC pointed out the fallacies he did were pretty apparent to anyone with either half a brain or access to google.

[Korpsy Knievel]

it's not so much about him being unwilling to disagree as much as it is about him being unwilling to consider for half a second the correlations which ESC drew (which, btw, was what my remark was directed towards) in favor of coming to ashton's defense through pure idiocy and combativeness.

Prior to lucicrously prancing about the internet and puffing himself up as a hot intellectual commodity, your boy ESC first made the mistake of defending Glam's overly simplistic typing, which itself was a very weak inductive argument. He then doubled down on his own fallaciousness by attacking a rather obviously sarcastic comment under the pretense that it was meant earnestly. Since ESC answered that sarcasm with some of his own before claiming that he couldn't identify the stuff, he invalidated his bogus stunt, achieving a hat trick against his own team in the process. So I don't blame Galen for questioning ESC's haughty, faulty, and disingenuous bullshit. The fact that he recognized that mess for what it was shows Galen has brains to spare, and that he only parried ESC's nonsense instead of ripping him a new asshole demonstrates that Galen isn't a brawler. Cook up better accusations.

[EyeSeeCold]

Reductio ad absurdum + Strawman fallacy + Ignoratio elenchi = 2500 pts

Nice combo

How is it any more absurd than what glam said? He's not reducing the argument to anything, he's just pointing out the inherent absurdity in the claim itself.


See above.


How?

1.) Reductio ad absurdum. You took glam's usage of a Socionic stereotype which was in the effort to give a general idea of what is being considered(not to mention the stereotypes have been chosen for the reason that they portray the types to an extent, and therefore are not random), and focused solely on that as if it was her main and only argument and ridiculed it as a senseless argument.

2.) Ignoratio elenchi. You extracted a single portion of glam's argument and focused only on that and directed the discussion to something else which allowed you seem more reasonable yet you avoided analyzing her rationale and reality-checking her information.

3.) Strawman. For similar reasons as the previous fallacies, you misrepresented glam's argument and ridiculed it.


If Ashton wants to proclaim empty sarcasm after-the-fact then it just goes to show the lack of credibility and sincerity his person, rationale, and arguments have.

To my knowledge Galen typed Minaj SEI well before announcing it to anyone else. I've disagreed with him on Minaj being any sort of parodist, stating instead that her goofiness is simply a part of her overall expression, and that if she's acting with deliberate intent it's to set herself apart from competitors. Other topics exist where Galen disagrees with me, and with others, even among his so-called "cronies". Galen is subservient to no one that I'm aware of, and he forms, promotes, and defends his own opinions.

Begging the question and hearsay.

Galen's suspected of being you and your associates' crony, therefore you aren't a valid source of a counter-argument against that.

This is true. FTR,

Hearsay, begging the question.

Why? Galen typed her 1st as SEI, and I'm inclined to agree that's probably right.

Hearsay, lack of evidence.

I had her down as SEI long before I even mentioned her name to either korp or ashton, or anybody else I talk with regularly.

Begging the question and lack of evidence, no one, outside of who you talk with regularly, knows that.

Prior to lucicrously prancing about the internet and puffing himself up as a hot intellectual commodity, your boy ESC first made the mistake of defending Glam's overly simplistic typing, which itself was a very weak inductive argument. He then doubled down on his own fallaciousness by attacking a rather obviously sarcastic comment under the pretense that it was meant earnestly. Since ESC answered that sarcasm with some of his own before claiming that he couldn't identify the stuff, he invalidated his bogus stunt, achieving a hat trick against his own team in the process. So I don't blame Galen for questioning ESC's haughty, faulty, and disingenuous bullshit. The fact that he recognized that mess for what it was shows Galen has brains to spare, and that he only parried ESC's nonsense instead of ripping him a new asshole demonstrates that Galen isn't a brawler. Cook up better accusations.

Empty attacks and projections on your adversaries' character as usual. You never change, k0rpsey, stop drinking the hatorade.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Galen's suspected

Via hearsay. Invalidated.

If Ashton wants to proclaim empty sarcasm after-the-fact then it just goes to show the lack of credibility and sincerity his person, rationale, and arguments have.

+

Empty attacks and projections on your adversaries' character as usual.

= Mooted.

[Absurd]

Looks like Lady Gaga.

[Galen]

1.) Reductio ad absurdum. You took glam's usage of a Socionic stereotype which was in the effort to give a general idea of what is being considered(not to mention the stereotypes have been chosen for the reason that they portray the types to an extent, and therefore are not random), and focused solely on that as if it was her main and only argument and ridiculed it as a senseless argument.

2.) Ignoratio elenchi. You extracted a single portion of glam's argument and focused only on that and directed the discussion to something else which allowed you seem more reasonable yet you avoided analyzing her rationale and reality-checking her information.

3.) Strawman. For similar reasons as the previous fallacies, you misrepresented glam's argument and ridiculed it.

If Ashton wants to proclaim empty sarcasm after-the-fact then it just goes to show the lack of credibility and sincerity his person, rationale, and arguments have.

If you're so emotionally retarded as to not understand what Ashton said as sarcasm then that's your own damn fault.

Galen's suspected of being you and your associates' crony, therefore you aren't a valid source of a counter-argument against that.

Begging the question, hearsay, lack of evidence.
(See? I can make snarky, passive-aggressive one-liners too.)

If you're going to accuse me of being a crony, then stop using the passive tense about what other people say and actually demonstrate the shit you're claiming, lazy hypocrite.

Hearsay, lack of evidence.

Begging the question and lack of evidence, no one, outside of who you talk with regularly, knows that.

What possible evidence could I provide that would be good enough for you? You're blindly attaching yourself to other people's paranoid delusions about who I am and how I function without posing any actual proof of these claims' validity.

[Absurd]

Dabbling in formal logic again? Tsk-tsk.

Better watch out ESC or woofwoofl is going to have to move you to Gulenko's C-D with the rest few who do that as well and still claim something else.

And when that is going to actually take place I'm going to pull an Ashton out of a dusty closet referencing to being able to understand C-D writing the most.

(See? I can make snarky, passive-aggressive one-liners too.)

No doubt about it.

[thePirate]

Prior to lucicrously prancing about the internet and puffing himself up as a hot intellectual commodity, your boy ESC first made the mistake of defending Glam's overly simplistic typing, which itself was a very weak inductive argument. He then doubled down on his own fallaciousness by attacking a rather obviously sarcastic comment under the pretense that it was meant earnestly. Since ESC answered that sarcasm with some of his own before claiming that he couldn't identify the stuff, he invalidated his bogus stunt, achieving a hat trick against his own team in the process. So I don't blame Galen for questioning ESC's haughty, faulty, and disingenuous bullshit. The fact that he recognized that mess for what it was shows Galen has brains to spare, and that he only parried ESC's nonsense instead of ripping him a new asshole demonstrates that Galen isn't a brawler. Cook up better accusations.

Questioning sincerity is different than attempting to argue that obvious fallacies aren't apparent in a post - if what you say is what he was doing a more direct approach would have been more respectable and less ignorant (although I highly doubt this to be the case, I think you are pinning motivations on him that he didn't have). Also, it's more than just a little hypocritical to attack ESC for false pretenses, yet if what you claim is true Galen would fall under the same category yet he 'has brains to spare'. That's bullshit.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Questioning sincerity is different than attempting to argue that obvious fallacies aren't apparent in a post - if what you say is what he was doing a more direct approach would have been more respectable and less ignorant (although I highly doubt this to be the case, I think you are pinning motivations on him that he didn't have). Also, it's more than just a little hypocritical to attack ESC for false pretenses, yet if what you claim is true Galen would fall under the same category yet he 'has brains to spare'. That's bullshit.

Shouting "It's obvious!" is simply a reaction, it is not an explanation, and repeating it does nothing to make your case. Kindly provide a write-up with relevant quotes from page 1 onward describing which arguments you find faulty and why.

[EyeSeeCold]

If you're so emotionally retarded as to not understand what Ashton said as sarcasm then that's your own damn fault.

For injecting sarcasm loaded with fallacies into a serious argument, Ashton is intellectually dishonest and immature. Of course, if you are not able to understand that and must resort to character attacking-polemics, then it's okay, I forgive you.

Begging the question, hearsay, lack of evidence.
(See? I can make snarky, passive-aggressive one-liners too.)

Yes, I can see you know how to meaninglessly parrot.

If you're going to accuse me of being a crony, then stop using the passive tense about what other people say and actually demonstrate the shit you're claiming, lazy hypocrite.

What possible evidence could I provide that would be good enough for you? You're blindly attaching yourself to other people's paranoid delusions about who I am and how I function without posing any actual proof of these claims' validity.

Whether you are actually a crony or actually did have Nicki Minaj as SEI before current events, is none of my concern. If you can't back up empty assertions then don't claim them, that's all that is required of you.

[Absurd]

Shouting "It's obvious!" is simply a reaction, it is not an explanation, and repeating it does nothing to make your case. Kindly provide a write-up with relevant quotes from page 1 onward describing which arguments you find faulty and why.

Get him.

[Galen]

Whether you are actually a crony or actually did have Nicki Minaj as SEI before current events, is none of my concern. If you can't back up empty assertions then don't claim them, that's all that is required of you.

I ask the same of you, hypocrite.

[EyeSeeCold]

I ask the same of you, hypocrite.

Naturally, of course. Just don't call people names only because you like the way the words look.

[Galen]

Naturally, of course. Just don't call people names only because you like the way the words look.

Galen's suspected of being you and your associates' crony

Parroting complete hearsay without posing evidence for justification = empty assertion. Ergo, you are a hypocrite for demanding that I not do the things you yourself are doing. How hard is this to spell out for you?

[EyeSeeCold]

Parroting complete hearsay without posing evidence for justification = empty assertion. Ergo, you are a hypocrite for demanding that I not do the things you yourself are doing. How hard is this to spell out for you?

Galen, there is a difference between parroting & supporting assertions and reminding people of the etiquette of argumentation.

The full quote(and not your context-distorting extraction) shows it was the latter.

[Galen]

Galen, there is a difference between parroting & supporting assertions and reminding people of the etiquette of argumentation.

You demonstrated exactly 0 evidence for my crony-hood other than "other people say so." This is, in words you seem to have taken a liking to today, hearsay.

The full quote(and not your context-distorting extraction) shows it was the latter.

How did I distort the context? You made a claim, I repasted it.

[EyeSeeCold]

You demonstrated exactly 0 evidence for my crony-hood other than "other people say so." This is, in words you seem to have taken a liking to today, hearsay.

The provision of evidence for a claim rests upon the claimant, which I am not. You confused my explication of proper argumentation etiquette with the reassertion of a claim. This is the difference which you have not yet understood, Galen.

How did I distort the context? You made a claim, I repasted it.

Firstly, it wasn't a claim, it was a statement. Secondly, yes Galen you re-pasted it, but out of context.

[Galen]

The provision of evidence for a claim rests upon the claimant, what I am not. You confused my explication of proper argumentation etiquette with the reassertion of a claim. This is the difference which you have not yet understood, Galen.

Of course you're the claimant, you just said it. It doesn't matter what other people provide, since you are the one now saying it you have the burden of backing it up. This game of semantics you're dancing around is pointless.

Firstly, it wasn't a claim, it was a statement. Secondly, yes Galen you re-pasted it, but out of context.

How did I distort the context? How did I distort the context? How did I distort the context? How did I distort the context? How did I distort the context? How did I distort the context? How did I distort the context? How did I distort the context? How did I distort the context? How did I distort the context?

[EyeSeeCold]

Of course you're the claimant, you just said it. It doesn't matter what other people provide, since you are the one now saying it you have the burden of backing it up. This game of semantics you're dancing around is pointless.

Galen, the problem seems to be that you don't understand the difference in terms.

Please define the following in your own words:
- A claim
- A claimant
- A statement
- An explication
- Parroting

[Galen]

Galen, the problem seems to be that you don't understand the difference in terms.

Please define the following in your own words:
- A claim
- A claimant
- A statement
- An explication
- Parroting

Look, you condescending twit. I'm not going to play your pointless game of semantics. Either provide me with evidence of me being a crony or stop talking.