Luna Bliss Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: 2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said: .I thought the purpose of a discussion was to learn from others No, that's not a "discussion" that's an educational lecture, you want to learn from others, attend their lectures. A "discussion" is where people disagree with each other and try to either a) convince each other they are wrong, or b) convince neutral 3rd parties to choose their side. It's a simple mistake to make, probably caused by the scent of burning incense, and the mind warping effects of mumbling meaningless mantas. Hope that helps you learn. From the time we're born we're learning, and we're learning in every interaction that follows -- our brains are geared that way. Part of that learning can, yes, involve disagreeing with each other and trying to convince the other of our position. And we can also be open to some of the points revealed from the other side (if we aren't bathing in self-righteous arrogance). The end result of the discussion is learning (we're either convinced of our correct position, or we might be persuaded to see some value in what the other side presents too. Quite often the truth lies in a bit of both sides). Some, however, are totally convinced they are right about everything, and lack the empathy to see the perspective of others. I won't go into what we've named these people in the DSM, but it's not a good label to have. Typically they are very negative though, and bully others who differ from themselves, exuding arrogance and ego. Edited June 6 by Luna Bliss 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PheebyKatz Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Peeve: Scrolling down the whole page and still having no idea what all the peeving is about. *gets more coffee, will try again* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaerolleClaudel Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said: Abuse is abuse and wrong -- it's not defined by whether someone is an 'alpha' or a 'beta'. My understanding was that her point was that people who ID’d as those things might have different perspectives than say, I do. Or that (my interpretation) people who ID as men might have a different perspective in general than people who ID as women. Though I could be wrong. In the end, defining abuse is not that simple and is not an objective standard that everyone agrees on, though hopefully most people agree on the most extreme sorts of behavior. Even that is almost certainly only ‘most’ though and not ‘all.’ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 6 minutes ago, CaerolleClaudel said: 2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said: Abuse is abuse and wrong -- it's not defined by whether someone is an 'alpha' or a 'beta'. My understanding was that her point was that people who ID’d as those things might have different perspectives than say, I do. Or that (my interpretation) people who ID as men might have a different perspective in general than people who ID as women. Though I could be wrong. In the end, defining abuse is not that simple and is not an objective standard that everyone agrees on, though hopefully most people agree on the most extreme sorts of behavior. Even that is almost certainly only ‘most’ though and not ‘all.’ If someone blames their problems on another, and feels they have a right to harm that other because this other won't meet their needs, they are wrong plain and simple. Feeling you have the right to harm others if they don't give you what you want is wrong. I'm sure there are mitigating circumstances regarding the ability of a person to conduct themselves appropriately, but this doesn't mean we need to accept that a person taking what rightfully belongs to another is okay. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaerolleClaudel Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said: If someone blames their problems on another, and feels they have a right to harm that other because this other won't meet their needs, they are wrong plain and simple. Feeling you have the right to harm others if they don't give you what you want is wrong. I'm sure there are mitigating circumstances regarding the ability of a person to conduct themselves appropriately, but this doesn't mean we need to accept that a person taking what rightfully belongs to another is okay. I am not referring to mitigating circumstances, some people just see some things as fine (at least if they do them) that almost everyone else considers wrong. My point was not that I felt all points of view should be given equal weight (I am not the US mainstream media), I was just trying to put what was said into perspective. We have a very clear, very public example of what I just described, and that person has the support of most of the parts of their government on top of the support of tens of million of people. I feel pretty sure that you and I would come down to pretty close the same feelings about what is right and wrong, but my point is that, as is well evident in the Forum, their will be a strong and vocal contingent that feels pretty much the opposite. So, those perspectives with which we do not agree are there, and will find voice no matter what we or even a majority feel is wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 6 minutes ago, CaerolleClaudel said: 13 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said: If someone blames their problems on another, and feels they have a right to harm that other because this other won't meet their needs, they are wrong plain and simple. Feeling you have the right to harm others if they don't give you what you want is wrong. I'm sure there are mitigating circumstances regarding the ability of a person to conduct themselves appropriately, but this doesn't mean we need to accept that a person taking what rightfully belongs to another is okay. Expand I am not referring to mitigating circumstances, some people just see some things as fine (at least if they do them) that almost everyone else considers wrong. My point was not that I felt all points of view should be given equal weight (I am not the US mainstream media), I was just trying to put what was said into perspective. We have a very clear, very public example of what I just described, and that person has the support of most of the parts of their government on top of the support of tens of million of people. I feel pretty sure that you and I would come down to pretty close the same feelings about what is right and wrong, but my point is that, as is well evident in the Forum, their will be a strong and vocal contingent that feels pretty much the opposite. So, those perspectives with which we do not agree are there, and will find voice no matter what we or even a majority feel is wrong. That was obvious from their statement though (that different people he cited would view the issue differently), so not sure why you're pointing it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said: They are valid terms in the zoology field to describe social hierarchies existent among animal groups. Maybe we are too complex for that but in many ways we aren't. 1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said: In the zoological field of ethology, a dominance hierarchy (formerly and colloquially called a pecking order) is a type of social hierarchy that arises when members of animal social groups interact, creating a ranking system. A dominant higher-ranking individual is sometimes called an alpha, and a submissive lower-ranking individual is called a beta. This is a predictive model used to describe the apparent relationship between individuals in a particular context -- as, for instance, one particular pride of lions. It is NOT implying that "Alphas" and "Betas" are pre-existing "classes" of male lion. There aren't "two kinds of male lion" based on this model -- only power relations between individuals. Introduce a new lion into the herd, and those relationships change. Incel culture, on the other hand, literally argues that there are two kinds of men and two kinds of women; it splits genders into pre-existing models -- "Chads" and "normies," "Stacys" and "Beckys." And that's about as reductive as you can get. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 (edited) Perhaps Incel-ina's should form, and just like Incels punish women who reject them and choose these so-called "alpha males", women can also can whine about not being chosen and so gun down men who are choosing the most beautiful women for mates while rejecting women not so beautiful! Except.....women seldom murder, compared to men. <<< facetious post Edited June 6 by Luna Bliss 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaerolleClaudel Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 10 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said: That was obvious from their statement though (that different people he cited would view the issue differently), so not sure why you're pointing it out. Because I thought you had maybe misunderstood and was trying to help clarify things. Seems I was not too helpful, I guess. Sorry for upsetting you (at least it seems that way…and being snarky with someone who is not making personal attacks falls in my ‘not nice’ category even if it perhaps does not fall into yours…I guess our perspectives are just different). 🤷🏻♀️ 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PheebyKatz Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: And that's about as reductive as you can get. I could go further than that based on (over five decades) my own observations of humans as organisms, and say all people act like dogs, but then people or dogs might think I was insulting either people or dogs, when it wasn't my intention. So yeah, I just try to let everyone have their dignity, and ignore my own autistic perspective when it comes to others. Peeve: Being autistic in a world full of diversity and constant change. The Onion's "Autistic Reporter" newscast sketches are only funny because they're so accurately portraying people like me. I would literally be that person who was relieved and excited that the train was okay, lol. Edited June 6 by PheebyKatz 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Just now, CaerolleClaudel said: 14 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said: That was obvious from their statement though (that different people he cited would view the issue differently), so not sure why you're pointing it out. Because I thought you had maybe misunderstood and was trying to help clarify things. Seems I was not too helpful, I guess. Sorry for upsetting you (at least it seems that way…and being snarky with someone who is not making personal attacks falls in my ‘not nice’ category even if it perhaps does not fall into yours…I guess our perspectives are just different). 🤷🏻♀️ I was not feeling snarky-ish...I simply could not understand why you would point out something so obvious, so I tried to guess what you might be trying to say. Thanks for trying to clarify what you thought I misunderstood. I was irritated, but not upset with you. My irritation comes from the actual viewpoint of the person who made the statement. And also the fact that we have to discuss such things guardedly and this makes it difficult. We can't actually reference other threads with examples, so this makes it very difficult to discuss! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Peeve: When 99% of what you're looking for on the MP are resale gachas that are no mod. I get why gachas are/were transfer and no copy, but WHY no mod???? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PheebyKatz Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 37 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Peeve: When 99% of what you're looking for on the MP are resale gachas that are no mod. I get why gachas are/were transfer and no copy, but WHY no mod???? So you had to buy one of every color, instead of being able to recolor your one copy to suit different outfits. As for other gacha items being no-mod, I think it just became a habit people got into. No excuse for selling only one particular style of, say, wardrobe or wall-hanging that you can't change from full-bright or tint a different hue, otherwise. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 30 minutes ago, PheebyKatz said: So you had to buy one of every color, instead of being able to recolor your one copy to suit different outfits. As for other gacha items being no-mod, I think it just became a habit people got into. No excuse for selling only one particular style of, say, wardrobe or wall-hanging that you can't change from full-bright or tint a different hue, otherwise. Yeah, fair. Except that this was a BULL. A literal, actual, BULL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PheebyKatz Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Yeah, fair. Except that this was a BULL. A literal, actual, BULL. At the risk of sounding incredibly sexist, all bulls should be modifiable. I'll make it fair and say all cows should be mod, too. Edited June 6 by PheebyKatz 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Couturier Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 26 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Yeah, fair. Except that this was a BULL. A literal, actual, BULL. Soo... then what you got was bull sh**? Peeve: Bad puns at 2AM 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 3 minutes ago, PheebyKatz said: At the risk of sounding incredibly sexist, all bulls should be modifiable. I'll make it fair and say all cows should be mod, too. Mum always told me, "You'll think you can change the bull. But you never can." 2 minutes ago, Roxy Couturier said: Soo... then what you got was bull sh**? Peeve: Bad puns at 2AM *groans softly and painfully* 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 4 hours ago, CaerolleClaudel said: Because I thought you had maybe misunderstood and was trying to help clarify things. Seems I was not too helpful, I guess. Sorry for upsetting you (at least it seems that way…and being snarky with someone who is not making personal attacks falls in my ‘not nice’ category even if it perhaps does not fall into yours…I guess our perspectives are just different). 🤷🏻♀️ It's nice to see a positive attitude! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Mum always told me, "You'll think you can change the bull. But you never can." *groans softly and painfully* Bulls? Did the bears leave? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Yeah, fair. Except that this was a BULL. A literal, actual, BULL. Peeve: MP purchases are now literal and actual! And I missed it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 6 hours ago, Luna Bliss said: <<< facetious post So, business as usual then. Mkay. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Legion Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Only just noticed the most recent thread that spun off of the recent (unneeded) kerfluffle ... Talk about inventing drama where there isn't any. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modulated Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Peeve: Folks that think being very vocal about something means one is well informed about any given subject. The old opinion parading as insight nugget-which I have been guilty of myself. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 10 hours ago, Luna Bliss said: Except.....women seldom murder, compared to men. Peeve: This got me curious. From the "UN Office on Drugs and Crime", "Global Study on Homicide": https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/GSH2018/GSH18_Gender-related_killing_of_women_and_girls.pdf 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 38 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Peeve: This got me curious. From the "UN Office on Drugs and Crime", "Global Study on Homicide": https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/GSH2018/GSH18_Gender-related_killing_of_women_and_girls.pdf I looked too and found studies that say women have a higher incidence of starting violent behaviour in domestic disputes. Quote When physical aggression is the subject of inquiry, studies consistently find that as many women self-report perpetrating this behavior as do men; some studies find a higher prevalence of physical aggression committed by women (for a review see Archer, 2000). For example, the National Family Violence Survey (Straus & Gelles, 1990), a nationally representative study of 6,002 men and women, found that in the year before the survey, 12.4% of wives self-reported that they used violence against their husbands compared to 11.6% of husbands who self-reported using violence against their wives. Furthermore, 4.8% of wives reported using severe violence against their husbands, whereas 3.4% of husbands reported using severe violence (Straus & Gelles, 1990). Studies with college samples also find that men and women commit similar rates of physical aggression (Cercone, Beach, & Arias, 2005) or that a higher prevalence of women commit physical aggression (Straus, 2004). It is a complicated and nuanced topic and not nearly as straightforward as some make it out be. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now