Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Feb 7, 2020 12:58 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Women and gays all have the same view? How do you know this? Did you take a poll?

Well, I haven't seen you disagree with any on this subject.

(Feb 7, 2020 01:21 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Feb 7, 2020 12:58 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Women and gays all have the same view? How do you know this? Did you take a poll?

Well, I haven't seen you disagree with any on this subject.

How does that establish the view of all women and gays, and by exclusion the opposite view of all straight men? You can't make such sweeping generalizations based on gender and orientation. I guarantee you most men nowadays don't buy into that sort of macho tough guy facade you advocate. You DO know that's a social facade don't you?

Leigha Wrote:I read something interesting recently about how distorted the term ''masculinity'' has become, to the point where many believe it means to be rude, belligerent and difficult. [(x100 towards women)]

I thought I might just have invented the term 'toxic masculinity' but it seems to exist already. I think it fairly self-evident what it means even if it doesn't mean what I'm using it to mean. Regardless - I've always assumed toxic masculinity to originate in the psychopath zone of human personality traits - I still do.

(Feb 6, 2020 10:02 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(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. 

I just wish there could be interesting or innovative gadflys, SS, not the predictable gimps who you could write their replies in advance for them. Somebody who could actually offer the possibility of enlightenment or discovery rather than the monotony of wasted weeks that in the end were just self-therapy for the other's insecure ego.

There is no edifying and illuminating destination with the boring drudgery of spending 90% of your time correcting projected motivations and distortions/misrepresentations, just to have another one regurgitated afterwards. Especially if it's actually possible that the latter really could be the result of reading comprehension problems rather than literal, exhaustion-inducing tactics of the other party. Either way, the latter cares about nothing but the conflict itself -- not uncovering, introducing, or creating novelty (epistemological or otherwise).

---

(Feb 7, 2020 12:52 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Feb 6, 2020 09:48 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]"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.

<sigh> Stare real hard at this: "...not acting and talking like a sphincter (in the non-jocular sense)" subsumes your "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. "

By labeling the real [serious] sphincter behavior as a "non-jocular" context, the comment is acknowledging what you refer to, or discriminating the two.

(Feb 7, 2020 01:40 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

(Feb 7, 2020 01:21 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Feb 7, 2020 12:58 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Women and gays all have the same view? How do you know this? Did you take a poll?

Well, I haven't seen you disagree with any on this subject.

How does that establish the view of all women and gays, and by exclusion the opposite view of all straight men? You can't make such sweeping generalizations based on gender and orientation. I guarantee you most men nowadays don't buy into that sort of macho tough guy facade you advocate. You DO know that's a social facade don't you?

Learn how to read already.

I literally said "Notice how Yaz' view comports with those of women and gays." How on earth do you expect to "notice" anything about Yaz and his view on this subject outside of this thread? IOW, I was only referring to the women and gay in this thread. Jeez, you are thick.

No one said anything established "the view of all women and gays", nor "all straight men"....as I assume Yaz is straight.

(Feb 7, 2020 02:43 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]I just wish there could be interesting or innovative gadflys, SS, not the predictable gimps who you could write their replies in advance for them. Somebody who could actually offer the possibility of enlightenment or discovery rather than the monotony of wasted weeks that in the end were just self-therapy for the other's insecure ego.

This:

(Feb 6, 2020 09:48 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Overall, you seem to do as good a job of ignoring his barbs and insinuations as I do.

You have to engage to have any possibility of enlightenment. You don't.

Quote:

(Feb 7, 2020 12:52 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]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.

<sigh> Stare real hard at this: "...not acting and talking like a sphincter (in the non-jocular sense)" subsumes your "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. " 

By labeling the real [serious] sphincter behavior as a "non-jocular" context, the comment is acknowledging what you refer to, or discriminating the two.

I'm not so sure you can tell the difference. Especially when that exact same respect, in not treating another man as a woman, is often expressed in a non-jocular fashion...again with no affected persona. At best, you're only making a superficial distinction, only to further an exaggeration of one with the other as justification.

Quote:IOW, I was only referring to the women and gay in this thread. Jeez, you are thick.

Liar. You said women and gays, not the women and the gay in this thread. Don't make a fool of yourself lying to keep yourself from looking like one.

(Feb 7, 2020 05:11 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:IOW, I was only referring to the women and gay in this thread. Jeez, you are thick.

Liar. You said women and gays, not the women and gay in this thread. Don't make a fool of yourself lying to keep yourself from looking like one.

I wasn't trying to single you out as "the gay", but if that's what you prefer in such cases...okay. I did also presume that perhaps more than one gay might share your views, just as I presume more than the few women posting here might as well. All without saying a thing about what the majorities, much less "all", of each group may think. No group identity is monolithic in it views, just as Yaz and I, straight men, do not agree.

(Feb 7, 2020 01:41 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]

Leigha Wrote:I read something interesting recently about how distorted the term ''masculinity'' has become, to the point where many believe it means to be rude, belligerent and difficult. [(x100 towards women)]

I thought I might just have invented the term 'toxic masculinity' but it seems to exist already. I think it  fairly self-evident what it means even if it doesn't mean what I'm using it to mean. Regardless - I've always assumed  toxic masculinity to originate in the psychopath zone of human personality traits - I still do.

Yay, the quote appears when I hit reply!  

I think that the phrase is defined as men who behave in violent ways to express emotions, and come across as usually sexually aggressive. Many feel that it originated as part of the feminist ''agenda,'' and discount any validity to it. Perhaps the main difference between ''masculinity'' and ''toxic masculinity'' is that masculinity (in my opinion), seems to be biological and authentic behaviors of men, whereas toxic masculinity seems to be a facade or performance that some men put on in social settings. (to impress other men, perhaps?)

But, I think you could be onto something as it relates to psychopaths, confused.

Quote:No group identity is monolithic in it views, just as Yaz and I, straight men, do not agree.

Then don't say this:

"Notice how Yaz' view comports with those of women and gays."

(Feb 7, 2020 04:56 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Feb 7, 2020 02:43 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]I just wish there could be interesting or innovative gadflys, SS, not the predictable gimps who you could write their replies in advance for them. Somebody who could actually offer the possibility of enlightenment or discovery rather than the monotony of wasted weeks that in the end were just self-therapy for the other's insecure ego.

This:

(Feb 6, 2020 09:48 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Overall, you [Yazata] seem to do as good a job of ignoring his barbs and insinuations as I do.

Sorry, you get no brownie points for figuring out that those two quotes do wire together in some way. The bulb has to light afterwards (overhead).

Quote:You have to engage to have any possibility of enlightenment. You don't.

Did you borrow that line from a cult guru? Yeah, some people do have to trudge down a 100 kilometer road to find a bag of #### waiting at the end of it. But others can smell it at the start.

Quote:

Quote: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.

C C Wrote:<sigh> Stare real hard at this: "...not acting and talking like a sphincter (in the non-jocular sense)" subsumes your "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. "

By labeling the real [serious] sphincter behavior as a "non-jocular" context, the comment is acknowledging what you refer to, or discriminating the two.

Quote:I'm not so sure you can tell the difference. Especially when that exact same respect, in not treating another man as a woman, is often expressed in a non-jocular fashion...again with no affected persona. At best, you're only making a superficial distinction, only to further an exaggeration of one with the other as justification.

What a quibbling pile of dreck. I'm supposed to be interested in this? Is this what your stupid-as-wood, personally invented male mythos would find captivating enough to be wrangling over for what -- two or four weeks? Two rams butting heads on a mountainside for the sake of dull dog-turds like this?

See ya' in another 6 months or year of further ignoring, Captain Boredom and his faithful, predictable M.O. Don't try stealing Ostro's spot on the bench. Now there's an independent guy who doesn't give a flip whether we engage with his Langan's CTMU or not. He still makes his rounds.