Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: Random thoughts/comments
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
No one said you said anything at all. Learn to read. Did your post mention "friends"? No? Then it was probably not about your post.
(Feb 6, 2020 04:39 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]No one said you said anything at all. Learn to read. Did your post mention "friends"? No? Then it was probably not about your post.

Then who the fuck are you posting about?
Again, learn to read. Not too hard to find who mentioned both friends and bullies.
(Feb 6, 2020 05:22 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again, learn to read. Not too hard to find who mentioned both friends and bullies.

So you're calling Yazata a milquetoast because he likes talking to friends and hates bullies? WTF is wrong with you?
(Feb 6, 2020 04:43 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
(Feb 6, 2020 04:39 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]No one said you said anything at all. Learn to read. Did your post mention "friends"? No? Then it was probably not about your post.

Then who the fuck are you posting about?

I think that he's attacking me this time.

Syne seems to think that male friendship, kindness and peaceful cooperation, in a word not being an asshole, is only for wimps. 'Milquetoast', timid or feeble. He seems to favor kind of a kick-ass bar-fight caricature of hyper-masculinity, where every interpersonal interaction is a battle intended to identify a winner and a loser.

I disagree and damnably persist in thinking that things like the ability to function well with in groups is important for males just as it is for females. We wouldn't have civilization or any kind of large organizations without social instincts. Paleolithic hunting bands wouldn't have succeeded in bringing down enraged Mammoths unless each participant could trust his companions. Apparently having that idea makes me effeminate. (I think that it makes me civilized.)

The conflict model of male interaction doesn't sound very healthy, psychologically speaking (I'm not a mental health professional and won't say more) and I kind of feel sorry for somebody who rejects friendship and companionship, since that person must live a very lonely life.
(Feb 6, 2020 05:53 AM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]I think that he's attacking me this time.

Meh. Syne is just Syne, kind of like a boulder wedged deep in a hill. Overall, you seem to do as good a job of ignoring his barbs and insinuations as I do. He's online for no other reason than to provoke people into battling him, so he can practice and stay mentally fit for his prog and radical menaces. 

Quote:Syne seems to think that male friendship, kindness and peaceful cooperation, in a word not being an asshole, is only for wimps. 'Milquetoast', timid or feeble. He seems to favor kind of a kick-ass bar-fight caricature of hyper-masculinity, where every interpersonal interaction is a battle intended to identify a winner and a loser.

I disagree and damnably persist in thinking that things like the ability to function well with in groups is important for males just as it is for females. We wouldn't have civilization or any kind of large organizations without social instincts. Paleolithic hunting bands wouldn't have succeeded in bringing down enraged Mammoths unless each participant could trust his companions. Apparently having that idea makes me effeminate. (I think that it makes me civilized.)

The conflict model of male interaction doesn't sound very healthy, psychologically speaking (I'm not a mental health professional and won't say more) and I kind of feel sorry for somebody who rejects friendship and companionship, since that person must live a very lonely life.

"Like" seems more grounded in conditions (like shared interests) than certain types of love (like agape?) that are based on duty. There have been male fellowships and cliques since time immemorial, where "being accepted" means satisfying conditions either blatantly stated or taken for granted as commonsense. 

So yeah, men other than misanthropes want to be "liked", although some conditions might indeed be unique to males while are others are more commonplace. With regard to the latter: Simply being competent, avoiding nuisance characteristics, and not acting and talking like a sphincter (in the non-jocular sense) could make a particular individual "likeable" in the average community. Whereas other social niches (like gangs and frat houses and cynical antihero subcultures) might require having a 24/7 asshole persona, even to the point of being a movie caricature.

Church outreach to surrounding neighborhoods and members supporting each other would arguably be of the duty ilk -- but the "love" might be mitigated in universality and feature conditions sometimes -- depending on how elite and full of it itself an organization is or how bible-thumping or recruitment-intense or hypocritical, or profit oriented it is.

Ideally, family love should be grounded in duty -- even if one finds an immediate family member dull and unrewarding (insufficient conditions), they're still duty-bound to care about them. Not solely based on something like storge, which sounds a little too much like contingent affection feelings and mutable empathy, although "commitment" seems to be emphasized (but contracts spoken or unspoken can still be shifty and fragile).
(Feb 6, 2020 09:48 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Meh. Syne is just Syne, kind of like a boulder wedged deep in a hill. Overall, you seem to do as good a job of ignoring his barbs and insinuations as I do. He's online for no other reason than to provoke people into battling him, so he can practice and stay mentally fit for his prog and radical menaces.

Yep, a gadfly.

Every forum needs at least one.  Wink
(Feb 6, 2020 09:48 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]
(Feb 6, 2020 05:53 AM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]I think that he's attacking me this time.

Meh. Syne is just Syne, kind of like a boulder wedged deep in a hill. Overall, you seem to do as good a job of ignoring his barbs and insinuations as I do. He's online for no other reason than to provoke people into battling him, so he can practice and stay mentally fit for his prog and radical menaces. 

Quote:Syne seems to think that male friendship, kindness and peaceful cooperation, in a word not being an asshole, is only for wimps. 'Milquetoast', timid or feeble. He seems to favor kind of a kick-ass bar-fight caricature of hyper-masculinity, where every interpersonal interaction is a battle intended to identify a winner and a loser.

I disagree and damnably persist in thinking that things like the ability to function well with in groups is important for males just as it is for females. We wouldn't have civilization or any kind of large organizations without social instincts. Paleolithic hunting bands wouldn't have succeeded in bringing down enraged Mammoths unless each participant could trust his companions. Apparently having that idea makes me effeminate. (I think that it makes me civilized.)

The conflict model of male interaction doesn't sound very healthy, psychologically speaking (I'm not a mental health professional and won't say more) and I kind of feel sorry for somebody who rejects friendship and companionship, since that person must live a very lonely life.

"Like" seems more grounded in conditions (like shared interests) than certain types of love (like agape?) that are based on duty. There have been male fellowships and cliques since time immemorial, where "being accepted" means satisfying conditions either blatantly stated or taken for granted as commonsense. 

So yeah, men other than misanthropes want to be "liked", although some conditions might indeed be unique to males while are others are more commonplace. With regard to the latter: Simply being competent, avoiding nuisance characteristics, and not acting and talking like a sphincter (in the non-jocular sense) could make a particular individual "likeable" in the average community. Whereas other social niches (like gangs and frat houses and cynical antihero subcultures) might require having a 24/7 asshole persona, even to the point of being a movie caricature.

Church outreach to surrounding neighborhoods and members supporting each other would arguably be of the duty ilk -- but the "love" might be mitigated in universality and feature conditions sometimes -- depending on how elite and full of it itself an organization is or how bible-thumping or recruitment-intense or hypocritical, or profit oriented it is.

Ideally, family love should be grounded in duty -- even if one finds an immediate family member dull and unrewarding (insufficient conditions), they're still duty-bound to care about them. Not solely based on something like storge, which sounds a little too much like contingent affection feelings and mutable empathy, although "commitment" seems to be emphasized (but contracts spoken or unspoken can still be shifty and fragile).
What can be derived from provoking people into battle online? Hmm. But, I agree with your assessment. lol

Regarding ''being liked'' when it comes to men, I read something interesting recently about how distorted the term ''masculinity'' has become, to the point where many believe it means to be rude, beligerent and difficult. (x100 towards women) Men who are seen as kind, cooperative, generous ...gasp...chivalrous, are considered ''beta.''

Unfortunately, those are labels often given by men to other men, but thought it was interesting.
(Feb 6, 2020 05:28 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
(Feb 6, 2020 05:22 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again, learn to read. Not too hard to find who mentioned both friends and bullies.

So you're calling Yazata a milquetoast because he likes talking to friends and hates bullies? WTF is wrong with you?
Not for either reason alone, but it fits with other things he's said:
(Feb 5, 2020 01:20 AM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]In real life, being likable among men is kind of a mix of appearing to not be aggressive towards others in social groups, cooperative, not an asshole, humane, trustworthy in terms of being somebody that other people can count on, and stuff like that.
As if you cannot be aggressive and cooperative or aggressiveness somehow being synonymous with being an asshole. Many of the most likeable guys I know like to make fun of other guys, which could be considered both aggressive and bullying (by dumb internet standards). It's a sign of respect that they think you can handle it, and don't feel like they need to pussyfoot around another guy, as if he were a woman.
And that's not even addressing that some people think faceless strangers online are friends or that what strangers simply say online can be bullying.

It adds up, but then Yaz does live in California.



(Feb 6, 2020 05:53 AM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Syne seems to think that male friendship, kindness and peaceful cooperation, in a word not being an asshole, is only for wimps. 'Milquetoast', timid or feeble. He seems to favor kind of a kick-ass bar-fight caricature of hyper-masculinity, where every interpersonal interaction is a battle intended to identify a winner and a loser.
No, that caricature is all your own, and seems to be an exaggeration born of a lack of association with such men. You don't have to be a milquetoast to be cooperative and not an asshole. Nor are all aggressive men (by dumb internet standards, where teasing somehow becomes bullying) interested in bar fights or win/lose scenarios.

Quote:I disagree and damnably persist in thinking that things like the ability to function well with in groups is important for males just as it is for females. We wouldn't have civilization or any kind of large organizations without social instincts. Paleolithic hunting bands wouldn't have succeeded in bringing down enraged Mammoths unless each participant could trust his companions. Apparently having that idea makes me effeminate. (I think that it makes me civilized.)
Yep, social instincts like male leadership. You don't bring down a mammoth by committee. You do so by having a plan and/or following the orders of a leader to coordinate effectively. Same goes for war. Men have always trusted their leaders, knowing that anyone derelict in their duty would suffer for it. Trust is a relatively modern contrivance, where simple threat of consequences offered much more surety in our evolutionary history.

Having your views makes you Californian.

Quote:The conflict model of male interaction doesn't sound very healthy, psychologically speaking (I'm not a mental health professional and won't say more) and I kind of feel sorry for somebody who rejects friendship and companionship, since that person must live a very lonely life.
If men hadn't been strengthened by lesser conflicts of their peers, they would have never been up to the task of conflict from their enemies. What's unhealthy is being unable to withstand the simple aggression of ideas offered on forums that typically preclude flaming, no-holds-barred insults, threats, etc..

And it's a telling exaggeration that you think being aggressive must somehow mean people "reject friendship and companionship".



(Feb 6, 2020 09:48 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Meh. Syne is just Syne, kind of like a boulder wedged deep in a hill. Overall, you seem to do as good a job of ignoring his barbs and insinuations as I do. He's online for no other reason than to provoke people into battling him, so he can practice and stay mentally fit for his prog and radical menaces. 
It's always so cute how people take views that simply do not comport with their own as combative. They like to imagine that no one could possibly be that genuinely contrary, but that's just their own incredulity and lack of exposure.

Quote:"Like" seems more grounded in conditions (like shared interests) than certain types of love (like agape?) that are based on duty. There have been male fellowships and cliques since time immemorial, where "being accepted" means satisfying conditions either blatantly stated or taken for granted as commonsense. 

So yeah, men other than misanthropes want to be "liked", although some conditions might indeed be unique to males while are others are more commonplace. With regard to the latter: Simply being competent, avoiding nuisance characteristics, and not acting and talking like a sphincter (in the non-jocular sense) could make a particular individual "likeable" in the average community. Whereas other social niches (like gangs and frat houses and cynical antihero subcultures) might require having a 24/7 asshole persona, even to the point of being a movie caricature.
And that betrays your lack of understanding. Men do not tease each other as a persona. They do it because it is fun/funny, even for the target, who tends to be man enough to take it with some good grace, if not a barbed comeback of their own. It's how camaraderie is built.



Notice how Yaz' view comports with those of women and gays. That's not a great indicator that he's familiar with likeability among men.
Quote:Notice how Yaz' view comports with those of women and gays. That's not a great indicator that he's familiar with likeability among men.

Women and gays all have the same view? How do you know this? Did you take a poll?