Beta is the puberty quadra...Originally Posted by WinnieW
Beta is the puberty quadra...
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
No, obviously epsilon quadra.
Ok, that might be.
Hmm. Weakis the reason I guess. I value and usually I don't invade the personal space of other people.
Thread title is Trump's Babe Potential Scale. Not Sperma's.
Seems satirical on the level of Monty Python.
Sperma's personal preferences are being drawn into this. At least he wasn't apologetic about over the past few years. The socionics divide is real.
I can say that Sperma's opinions on race and sex are bad if it helps. I just think it goes without saying, since he's already ostracized and its no feat of courage or moral accomplishment in the face of adversity to repeat what everyone else is saying.
Sperma's opinions on race and sex are bad.
I know I can be obnoxiously contrarian sometimes but I feel like somebody has to be lol. *dramatically crucifies self*
My ex ESE roomate said that he would never invade personal space unless invited. So he CREATES space instead---> fall into my introverted sensing lair. mmmmmmmmOk, that might be.
Hmm. Weak
edit: mmmmmmm muhahahuauhahau ha ha ha...lick.
Last edited by timber; 07-11-2018 at 11:34 PM.
I'm actually with @Avebury on this. I thought @Spermatozoa's post was pretty funny. He was demonstrating a certain purity of thought which is kind of Neanderthal but still funny, maybe for the very reason that it is over-the-top retrograde. But I also thought he might have a hard time attracting a smart and self-respecting female if he says that stuff in the real world, joking or not.
If he and I hung out together and it turned out he was serious, I'd just try to gently steer him toward a more empathic view. It might not work, thought. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But opinions stop where the other person begins.
Se types for the most part just *are*. The opinions and attitudes on this thread including the OP would seem weird because several of the classifications are Te/Ne/Fi metrics.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I am Don Juan Quixote, the Lord of La Mancha, my destiny calls and I go.
Does anyone actually ever wonder *why* those things are related to Fi-valuing or Fe-valuing or whatever...?
No matter, because none of those thing are even explained in Socionics in the first place.
So it all basically boils down to: "Well I have seen it in Person X, whom I type as Y...", which is a lame non-explanation.
And so you might say that it has to do with Se. Well that just means that the person who is Se will ALWAYS act in such a way that is Se. That person will literally never change his specific behavior for the rest of his life. And yet people are rarely actually that way.
What if I create new functions to categorize those observations or behaviors, like I call it Zi or Xi? Well it makes no difference whether I call it Zi or Xi or Fi or Fe. Because they are just categorizations without any explanations.
Yeah I like that better lol. You know culture is something like repeated behaviour, you let something be ok once then don't get surprised to see it twice thrice and so forth, amplified. It's okay to raise your voice ~
Is there really anyone who doubts that its a joke? The diversion from "sexual attraction into racism" is the joke.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
... so this specific thing isnt a problem?
And yet your being snippy and mean when someone asks what exactly the problem was.... where you above.... said this wasnt a problem....
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Who is more of a fool; the clown or the bystanders who see him as anything but because they can't separate a man from his ideas.
This thread was half satire, half social experiment. Credit goes to @Pookie and @timber for perceiving that; the rest of you were thoroughly duped. The questionnaire itself was just bait. My hypothesis was that your responses would reveal some strong Quadra differences (esp. Merry vs Serious) and this quickly became apparent as the posts piled up. I continue to be amused at how easy Fi-leads in particular are to troll.
Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice, a fooler cant get fooled again.
Everyone get's you sperma. Some just think its stupid.
It makes little sense to take every remark I make literally and assume it implies an action, because that would lead to extreme contradictions (like how can I both be a sexual predator and prefer to be approached and courted by women). You must learn to separate the theoretical from the personal and entertain a concept without necessarily believing in it, as then you will be able to imagine a number of other possible reasons I might've made this thread besides being an evil bigot misogynist who wants to rape your feelings.
If everyone "got me" then this thread would have had no responses
There was always something that bothered me about Milo and I think you put it into words well. Maybe he's not as overt as some narcs but there's just something off in his behavior.
lol I'm being "snippy and mean" by calling out lungs for causing a ruckus over adam strange sexually harassing her (wherein I defended her several times) meanwhile she couldn't care less if that sexual harassment is directed toward other people (and this is just one of many incidents):... so this specific thing isnt a problem?
And yet your being snippy and mean when someone asks what exactly the problem was.... where you above.... said this wasnt a problem....
I think this is one of the many times where you should just learn to keep your nose out of it "pookie" unless you condone such commentary, in which case, thanks for letting the forum know that you think sexual harassment is ok, and maybe you should learn to quote someone's entire post, and not just the portion of the post that corresponds with whatever biased narrative you're trying to spin at any given moment.
my issue was the fact that lungs was being hypocritical, so someone who's barely around should probably refrain from commenting, and that includes lungs, because I don't even think she was around to see that post, however she was around to see even worse posts than that, yet now she's playing the role of the objective observer, but that's not fair. I'd seriously like to hope that she recognizes why such posts would rub certain people the wrong way.
Last edited by wasp; 07-12-2018 at 02:53 AM.
Translated: "If you blow me I'll give you a green card."
Deep inside the liberal enclaves of Silicon Valley, the spirit of the casting couch endures.
I thought the issue was his opinions and humor, i didn't know about any targeted harassment. Sorry for being invalidating.
@wasp
I don't condone, or care about any of that behavior.
It just didn't make sense her statement leading to your response. So I didn't get the snippy-ness of it.
I left the rest out because it would have muddied the point. It wouldn't have made what I said make less sense, it would have just made what I was replying to less clear.
The whole keep your nose out of it unless you support sexual harassment is a strawman. His statement in the OP wasn't even sexual harassment, just vulgarity. Sexual harassment has to be directed at someone.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
right, except if you read my first post, then you'd know it's not this particular thread I take issue with, it's an accumulation of very similar threads/posts, which have made a lot of female members uncomfortable. I only pointed it out because lungs, who has dealt with sexual harassment in the past, used to take issue with very similar behaviors in other people, yet it's no longer an issue now that the sexual harassment is being directed toward other females.
it's only invalidating because you expected a lot of sympathy for your cause (and I actually did sympathize, and I still do, otherwise I wouldn't have said anything) but you seemingly don't understand why other people would dislike that same treatment being directed toward themselves. I understand that you may not have been around for all of it, but I do know that you were around for some of it, and it's not hard to figure out why some people might take issue with this thread, if only because it's one of many very similar threads/posts, and eventually they get tired of dealing with it.
Sperma has said vulgar things to me. I have a different comfort threshold. He shouldn't direct it at people who are obviously uncomfortable with it.
We conflict because you assume that I might sexually harass someone based on what I post; in other words that my words are inherently connected to physical action (forcing a woman). Because this action would cause harm to someone else, you feel morally obligated to belittle and shame me in public.
Yet your assumption is just that. You have actually considered only one out of many possible actions, let alone motives, and thus you've misinterpreted the situation. You take everything you read at face value, cannot entertain an idea in your mind without forming a moral judgement about it, and continually flame conflict by personally insulting people whose ideas you dislike. This is going to make you a lot of enemies when you might otherwise have friends.
If someone makes direct, personal vulgar comments to you then yes, of course, you have every right to ask them to stop and to seek redress if they refuse. Myself included.
However nobody has the right to a heckler's veto over speech which they just so happen to hear, unless it is directly threatening to another person (e.g. "ash is an evil bitch. I wish she was gang raped and chopped up into pieces". That kind of stuff).
This distinction is made very clear in law - one's view that another is uncouth/vulgar is on its own not enough of a reason to censor their right to express themselves. Otherwise you would see mob rule and popularity rather than truth determine what is acceptable, which means that the vulnerable and marginalised suffer the most.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 07-12-2018 at 03:39 AM.
no I quite literally do not perceive you as a serious threat. I've read your reasoning for why you hold the opinions you do, and I can understand why you'd hold them, even if they seriously conflict with my own opinions. it seems to come from a place of hurt, not malice, and that's something I try to keep in mind while reading your posts, but some of the stuff you say... I feel like even you know that's not ok. what you said to ooo that day wasn't ok. it came from left field, meanwhile she's one of the more well-intentioned people on this forum (and you know this) but you still spoke to her that way, and I'm irritated that some people fail to understand why such behaviors aren't ok (even if they admittedly didn't understand the full extent of it, and I'm sorry if I jumped the gun but it seriously baffled me at the time)
Essentially, then, the difference is how we assess "what's OK". How do you determine this and why?
I made my criteria clear in the above post: all speech is assumed (at the beginning) to be permissible unless it is made illegal. I assume that people are capable of governing their own behaviour, and that people's words do not always imply a subsequent action (often we just say something to explore it for fun, out of curiosity, open to a number of responses, in fact that may be the interesting part - comparing what happens to what we guessed would happen, like in this thread). People's motives and intentions can't be categorised (inherently changeable) so they are a poor means to decide on what's acceptable.
I like to propose outlandish things simply to see where they might lead, as someone responds, I get more ideas. I enjoy the process of examining contrasting things (e.g. pieces of music by two or more composers writing in the same period/style esp their means for constructing the music. Why? I don't necessarily know at the time. I find out as I go along), so it is all a stimulating mental exercise for me, which may be why you consider me insensitive - feelings are just not what I am focused on, they may arise as a natural consequence of what I am discovering but nothing more.
I think there's some confusion about the similarities between the two situations and what generally bothers me and what doesn't. This isn't a commentary on the validity of anybody's feelings or reactions or anything like that. If I seem terse it's because I feel like I'm being positioned to rehash the past which is making me feel uncomfortable and clammed up. It sounds like the situation here might involve more than sperma being sexist and having an abrasively crude sense of humor, in which case my comments were based in ignorance.
This is fantastic.
like I said before, my issue isn't with this specific thread, even though I dislike it. I've noted that more than a few people have called you out for your sexist commentary, but even after they've made it clear to you that it's "not ok", you've still treated them that way, but you don't get to determine other people's boundaries. this thread is an outlier in the sense that you aren't targeting anybody specifically, but that doesn't make it any less disconcerting to those who've had to deal with you on a personal basis, so I determine "what's ok" based on other people's reactions, and so should you, otherwise I guarantee you it's going to result in worse outcomes than a simple lecture online.
the point is that it's not just about what bothers you, personally, and I'm sorry if it seems like I'm rehashing the past for any other reason than to clarify my stance. I believe you when you say that you weren't aware of the full extent of his behaviors, I'm just pointing out that the forum's issue isn't with this specific thread, so they're not reacting negatively to this thread alone, they're reacting negatively to his general presence, and, in that sense, it's no different from your own issues with similar behaviors in other people, so it is absolutely unfair to call out other people for taking issue with him when you are no different in that regard. you know why these behaviors would cause other people discomfort.
I know why they would cause discomfort. Almost everybody knows why they would. That's why you don't have half the entire forum crawling up your ass and berating you in response to you being fed up. I was never targeting you with my posts in the first place. I'm going to bed.
Conflict from other threads is tangential to our argument, and it should be dealt with at the time, rather than resurrected from the dead by you months later as some kind of gavel to beat me with. Imagine what would happen if you adjusted your behaviour whenever somebody complained about it.
I just don't think it's legitimate for you, me or anyone else on this forum to shut down a discussion that isn't about them (the few exceptions to this, like violent threats, very rarely occur). So sure, you might find this thread uncomfortable, but that's life. I find a lot of shit stupid/obnoxious too, but in such a situation, I always weigh up the possibility of hurt/offence vs the certainty of a fun, interesting train of thought for someone else being suppressed.
So in general:
If I make a comment about you, you have a veto right over my speech.
If I make a comment about anything else, my speech trumps any hurt feelings.
And vice versa.
This is all I expect from other people.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 07-12-2018 at 05:09 AM.
I think you speak in a way that is indirect a lot of the time, and that makes it difficult for people to understand what you're really saying. Like you resort to sarcasm and other indirect speech a lot of the time.
Anyway, this forum has always been insane, and a lot of people would have been banned a long time ago.
And then they make these long-winded, overly analytical and intellectualized posts and "Socionics analysis" that really go nowhere.
In its own odd way, this thread has helped me understand the way some others make moral judgements and hence why they might've found the OP post distasteful. It is a hard type of thinking for me to get my head around, but hm, sort of..."this would be offensive to a lot of people -> majority opinion = evidence of wrong, bad person -> call out the person so he/she does not do harm to himself and others -> rejects my help -> bad person confirmed"?
But then again these seem like very flawed assumptions at every stage.
1. This would be offensive to a lot of people. So what? It is either offensive or not. However many people are likely to be offended is irrelevant.
2. If the number of people offended influences the gravity of the offence, then this could mean the person claiming injury wouldn't consider it wrong to abuse someone unlikely to receive sympathy in the eyes of others (hypocrisy -> values status more than truth)
3. How can you assume that a statement made in one context would be repeated exactly in another context (which might be less desirable)? Why not consider other possibilities like that the statement would never be repeated at all, or that it might be revised in some way? Even if the exact same situation was to occur, there's no reason to believe that the same sentiment would be repeated, in fact more likely than not it would be changed, just for sake of variety.
4. How can you assume that disagreement with your values equals immorality/ill intent? Again, there are so many other reasons that someone might disagree.
To me, it seems like "ugh disgusting IM OFFENDED ugh so creepy WEIRD ugh i bet ur a rapist" #MeToo *Facebook likes*
It's more likely that if we were to take your ideas seriously, then it would lead to harm or undesirable results. Or your assumptions about people don't conform to the realities of people.
But even beyond that, you say so what if it offends people? But you forget the fact that this is a public forum. If you start pissing and defecating and masturbating in public, then people would rightly get annoyed, and you have no right to say so what?, because the public space does not only concern you. There are other people who are also sharing the same space as you do. If you want to piss and defecate, then go to a toilet, as in do it in private.
Everybody knows how I feel about Adam but it still doesn't sit right that there's a public narrative that he "sexually harassed" me. This is in spite of me saying he didn't sexually proposition me, and is partly due to stressed/bad ambiguous communication on my part and partly due to some forum members excitement at the chance to portray me as an "SJW" by framing it that way. He's intrusive and objectifying and doesn't respect boundaries but he didn't impose sexuality on me, and I feel like that should be on record.
I slept like shit last night because there was a lot I wanted to say but whenever I talk about this, I get a lot of vitriol from the community, so I had no way to explain myself with inviting another shitfest. I should at least say this. Have fun
Last edited by suedehead; 07-12-2018 at 03:48 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
