If anyone decides to read this and is aware of what has gone down, I would REALLY APPRECIATE it if you could throw your thoughts in. I hope they will be reasoned and reasonable and respectful (something lacking in many of my interactions with Satyr). Maybe they will support what I write, maybe they will contradict them. I’m tired of this and would really like to read someone else’s thoughts on the matter. No tricks here…no secret motives…I would just like to see others’ thoughts (one of my favourite techniques I have my clients do in such situations):
Satyr,
While responding to aspacia in the other post, I got to thinking about one thing from your post: What you believe I think of you. I truly find your impression of me hilarious and have no idea if you REALLY think so or if that’s just part of your game. No matter.
I want to clarify something as well as put an official end to my part of our interactions–at least in the manner we’ve interacted.
First, for the record, I NEVER thought of you in the way you’ve portrayed. I figured you’d have realized that by my repeated references to what I like about your writings, even in the midst of our silliness. My impression of you is limited to what I’ve written in this and the other thread. I’ve been very clear about that. It’s based on how/what you write and, equally important, how you respond to others. I’m not going to re-hash what you’ve done–it’s all there both in my words and in your actions.
Second, I am finished with these interactions. I’ll admit that I let you suck me into countless, meaningless interactions. Yes, emotion got the better of me. And for the record, this emotion was FRUSTRATION. Not anger, not fear. Heck, RESENTMENT must be there too–resentment at the way you distorted so much of what I wrote and failed to take responsibility for your role in things. And both these feelings at your refusal to answer some of my questions SIMPLY and DIRECTLY. I think it would have been far more honest of you to say “I’m sorry, I prefer to keep such things private.” Simple. Can you honestly say that you can’t understand many people likely make certain inferences as to the reasons for your dancing around the questions?
I know you say these things are not relevant, but how can you not see that they are? I’ve said often that you are PASSIONATE about what you write about. And when people write about things that you do in the way that you do, especially when you eschew “science” and instead rely on YOUR experiences and observations, do you not think that people want to know where such thoughts/experiences come from? Aren’t the histories/biographies of all of the great thinkers available to everyone? Maybe the answers are scattered all throughout your many essays, but it would be very narcissistic to expect others to read through all that instead of getting the answer directly from you when asked.
Maybe you thought my direct questions were “personal attacks” or some “trap” or something like that. I’m telling you they were not. They were initially written out of genuine curiosity, as were my other questions to you, which you DID answer.
Anyway, I’m not all of a sudden changing my impressions of your actions/reactions on ILP. I’m just trying to put an end to all of this and trying to make a final attempt at expressing why I think things went down as they did. Please do not respond to this sentence by sentence (you MUST know that such a tactic–which essentially takes the words out of context–is not cool). That’s the equivalent of pruning a semi-rotted olive branch…
It happened AGAIN. I was almost finished when the page clicked and I couldn’t get back to my original post.
I’m pretty sure my original post was more conciliatory than the one I ended up posting afterwards. It really WAS meant to be a polite (yet honest) request for an end to these interactions.
Also, I realized that one paragraph ended up being far less clear/specific than originally written. I was referring to how you sarcastically referred to your being on welfare, a virgin, etc. (I forget if you alluded to the axe-murdering again… ). I NEVER thought any of that (not sure why you would think I thought that, but I NEVER did). I JUST WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT YOU…
Hi psyche, I am not FULLY aware of whats going on, because I could not bear reading all 6 massive pages of the sexual tension thread, by I have an idea.
Satyr is right in that this is a site with no censorship. People come to say what they wish, and if you find it offensive, you can pass it on by. If you only wish to make the point that the way Satyr presents his arguments is detrimental to clarity because it may mess with people’s emotions, and Satyr is being somewhat irrational in not taking into account the inevitability of human emotion, than I would have to agree with you as well. And yet the way Satyr argues resembles my way. I try to be contraversial as well. For example, I argue for the disalution of morals, and I always end up saying that “Murder is not wrong, rape is not wrong, theres no absolute reason not to kill and rape. If it brings you pleasure, go ahead, kill and rape.” I am well aware that Murder and rape are sensiteve subjects, and this form of arguing brought out some emotion in the threads I have participated in. I have been called some pretty bad names. But here is where I agree with Satyr. Even though I am alienating some people, to tell you the truth, the people that I am alienating are the ones that are stuck to something. The portrayel of emotion tells me something about their ability to reason.
If Satyr was going out into the public, and trying to convince the majority of his conclusions, than indeed, the way he presents his arguments would significantly hinder his progress, because he is not taking into acount the nature of the masses. But when he comes to this site, he is merely testing the validity of arguments, and the presentation really shouldn’t matter. He is not trying to convince us here, he is merely presenting the reasons and hoping we would critique it using only logic, and that emotion would not play a role in the deliberations. I have this hope too. I personally believe that rhetoric has no place here, and in general I think rhetoric only works on less rational people.
About Satyr’s actual arguments. I am more inclined to agree with you. I have noticed that bitterness and emotion play a significant role in Satyr’s arguments. I feel like he has an agenda against women and is not stopping and analyzing his feelings fully. He apparently resents the fact that people are becoming less and less confrontational and individual power is not promoted. He seems not to realize that the way he is suggesting would lead to alot of people being extremely unhappy. He suggests that we shouldnt care if the weak people get the shaft, we shouldnt lessen ourselves for the weaker. Well those weaker people, they will feel real bad about your suggestions. They would not like the world you are suggesting at all. So much so that they will get together to protect themselves from the stronger. And all the weaker people together will be much stronger than any of the stronger people. They will be a society, infringing on the freedom of the stronger individuals, as is what happens now. But this is only because their freedom was being infringed upon by the stronger. Society and societal norms are indeed a tool of the weak, but what do you (Satyr) expect them to do, sit back and get shited on by the strong. No, its a natural reaction, and it will always be this way. It IS inevitable, because en mass, they are stronger than you. So you can go ahead and rebel against the system, but the system will kill you… So all of your ideas Satyr are useless. There can be no other way.
I probably should have put the above in the sexual tensions thread. Sorry, but I hope ive added something new Psyche.
Thank you for the input, RussianTank. I appreciate the insights. You know, I try to be “open-minded” and empathic in all of my jobs, but sometimes I say things in class that hurt a student. In almost all cases, this “hurt” is “inappropriate” (b/c people see things through their own filters, they sometimes interpret meanings or see things that aren’t there). But sometimes I realize I was insensitive. When it comes to topics such as, e.g., rape, I think we have to acknowledge that, with rates of sexual assault of up to 40% or higher–and the devastating effects such acts can cause–making statements such as “go ahead and rape if it feels good” ARE going to get you called many things. I don’t CONDONE such reactions, but I certainly understand them.
I recently mentioned a study somewhere that showed pretty clearly that certain hypothetical scenarios, despite being pretty similar in content, cause different parts of the brain to light up. In one case, it was the “rational” part, whereas in the other it was the “emotional” part, even though “rational decision” was called for in each scenario. So I guess I believe that, given that we are humans, it is not realistic to believe that we can state certain things without evoking an emotion. But again, I don’t condone many of those reactions, since we DO have the theoretical capacity to not be totally overwhelemed by these emotions (e.g., in another thread, vortical mentioned something that triggered a memory of a horrible thing in me–a girl I knew was killed by a red light runner, yet vortical was saying red light running wasn’t so bad–but I didn’t all of a sudden turn around and say “You bitch! How dare you say such things???” That wouldn’t be constructive…I just let her know why I disagreed with her.) Those are my thoughts on the matter.
As for the other stuff you wrote, thank you for sharing and giving me more to think about.
I’m sorry but I may be analyzing your argument too much or maybe I’m missing something. Your post implies that Satyr’s arguments are correct but there is nothing that he can do to make his ideas dominant in society. And I assume you’re indicating that Satyr has the dominant ideas, since you’re suggesting that the people who do not agree with him are in the weaker group. According to Marx, the ideas of the dominant group of a society are considered the norm. Since the majority of the people don’t agree with Satyr’s ideas (as you’ve indicated), doesn’t that mean that Satyr’s ideas would be considered to be that of an inferior group. Hence, he is the weaker group. Marx also talked about the members of the weaker group trying to over throw the dominant group and making their ideas the ruling ideas in order for a revolution to occur. Usually, the idea of the inferior group that leads to the occurrence of a revolution is constructed so that a majority of people seems to benefit in some way from it. I guess what I’m saying is that Satyr’s ideas can not be that of the dominant group because it is not the norm of society (as the majority doesn’t agree with it, as you’ve indicated). Unless you’re implying that we’re in the midst of a revolution where the inferior group is about to over throw the once dominant group.
Here’s something new. First and final response to the THIRD “triangulation” of the Sexual Tensions thread.
You say Satyr normally responds in a way you do not like – just because the majority of you’ve never gotten responses like that before to your behavior.
He does not respond that way with me.
I do not behave like you do with him. This is not because I am “masochistic” (as you said in the other thread). Listen: he does not respond that way with me! If he /did/ – /then/ I would be “masochistic” – if I liked it. Don’t call yourself masochistic unless you like it (I say that assuming you are starting this thread for reasons /other than/ trying to cause more conflict, rather than resolve it).
It is because he responds “in kind”. You get responses you don’t like, because you (everyone but myself – so… the “norm” of responses) gave responses you were not willing to receive (I did that once with him… he responded in a way with which I was not comfortable… and rather than reacting emotionally and gathering the mob, I “checked myself”). Yeah, yeah – it’s all in the thread for everyone to see. I saw it, too. We came away with different interpretations about went went down between the mob and Satyr.
He responds “in kind” to me as well. I get back what I give.
If I started acting like an irrational ass, he would put a mirror in front of my face and show it back to me (with his responses).
I would then change my behavior (unless I /wanted/ to wrastle… if I did, I’m sure he would oblige me, and enjoy it… as would I, in the spirit of debate-for-the-sake-of-debate… or mental masturbation, as you call it), rather than blaming him for showing it to me.
A more tempered person would say “thankyou for showing me how I’m such an irrational ass” (maybe not in words… but atleast in changed behavior… or tougher skin…) rather than creating two threads to try to get the mob to help him in his denial. A more tempered person would see how maintaining an objective view would be beneficial to actually getting to the bottom of things.
I am not in any mob, just for the record. I’m not choosing sides. Just 'cause I’m not with you, doesn’t mean I agree 100% with everything Satyr says, or that I would do things exactly the way he goes about doing them. But – if more people /did/ do things his way… maybe there’d be less people acting like irrational asses? That would be nice.
I think Satyr is correct that the stronger individuals are forced to sacrifice their strength to accomidate the weak. I do not know what you mean when you say that Satyr has the dominant ideas. Satyr’s ideas cannot exist succesfully in a society because the weak, who are a majority simply because there can only be 1 strongest person in a given society, or isolated place, and everone else is weaker than that person, the weak will do something in order to protect themselves from the stronger individuals. They will form a group, power in numbers, and thus they will become stronger as a group than the strong individual. The only way that individual strength can thus be expressed effectively is when it apeases the majority, the weaker individuals who use society as protection against the stronger individuals. Using physical strength is expression of strength that very few if any societies in the world are happy with. The phisicly weaker people of the world will not stand for getting their ass kicked. Capitalism apparently is expression of skill and strength that apeases alot of people in the world. Apparently the people who are weaker at making money are not numerous enough or unhappy enough to do anything about it in those countries where capitalism stands. Communism apparently has very little expression of strength. All the countries that switched to communism from capitalism apparently had enough unhappy, economicly inneficient people to instigate a change. Only time will tell which system is more conducive to the success of the society.
I am writing this off-line and have not seen any posts after somenewname’s. I’ll make any subsequent changes (in a new post) accordingly. And, nothing I write below should change my apology for engaging in silliness with Satyr. I believe everything I wrote below, but I still feel embarrassed and regret over allowing myself to have let our silliness continue as long as it did.
Thank you for the thoughts, seomenewname. I understand what you’re saying and will quickly (I always say that…doesn’t always work out that way… ) respond to a few points. If I’ve misunderstood or mis-represented something you’ve written, I trust you’ll let me know.
Actually, his responses are quite common–I’m sure most of us have seen similar types of interactions, for a variety of reasons, including “responding in kind.” And the fact is he DID start to respond like that to you (you state that it was in response to your own actions), though you’re right–he stopped doing that mostly (instead, he and you appear to be talking in circles…not really agreeing on much or coming to common ground…that would be frustrating for me personally, but that is me. And the fact is I haven’t read your posts with him in depth b/c that was YOUR conversation, so my cursory look could very well be wrong and I could be missing common ground and direct responses (heck, maybe I’m even merely projecting my own experiences… ).
Actually, not to be too anal, somenewname (great, I lasted __ seconds before using that word… ), but you obviously don’t know what masochism means. In the clinical sense (and probably even general sense), masochism also refers to being COMPELLED to do things that are not pleasurable, or being compelled to do things that are painful or difficult/frustrating/trying. LIKING it does NOT have to fit into the picture. When I choose my words, I choose them carefully. Notwithstanding my admitted superficial reading of your interactions with Satyr, I would be surprised if you claimed that none of your interactions with him have been “trying,†given what I’ve seen of the tone of some of your messages.
I’m not so narcissistic to think you read the entire thread or even the other thread, somenewname, but I’ve got to stress that it IS all there in black and white. And you are wrong, at least as it pertains to me (I’ll let others speak for themselves). That is, when Shyster appeared, Satyr distorted her interjection, along with Tabula’s response, as a “mob reaction.†He lumped ME into the picture. Two people do NOT make a mob. His OWN schemas and prejudices and past experiences caused him to make WRONG ASSUMPTIONS about MY role and MY intentions and the purpose of MY questions. This is the turning point for me.
I can understand WHY Satyr would make such mistakes. But when I CLEARLY and CONSISTENTLY explain what REALLY happened, at least from MY END, yet he continues to deny and distort it, how can I NOT form certain impression of Satyr the poster?. If you are going to perpetuate this mistake, it tells me much about your reasoning abilities (I have to write it that way so you do not mistakenly assume I am making statements about your character…).
If you can show me how I am wrong in THAT part especially, I will be more than happy to acknowledge my mistake. If you cannot admit that you have made a mistake about THAT part, as it pertains to ME, then there’s nothing more to talk about. And if you cannot admit that mistake—which really is nothing in the grand scheme of things–then you might want to ask yourself why you cannot do so. I mean really….
First, I agree about the mental masturbation part and have taken the step of apologizing for my role in all of this. It got silly and useless and I take full responsibility for my part. However, see directly above for why you are wrong about the whole “holding up the mirror†element b/c he directed the mirror at the wrong person at the beginning. In essence, I ended up holding the mirror to HIM, since HE changed the tone with ME. SATYR placed me in the “mob†when I was not there. Simple.
And I agree with that. Now here are a few thoughts to consider, in addition to what I’ve written above (and repeated often throughout the two threads…). You are, by the strictest definition of the word, being “irrational†in this post because you are allowing your feelings and thoughts/memories to distort your perception of what went down between Satyr and myself IN THE BEGINNING (everything after that was just silly and, once again, I acknowledge my role in that). It’s all there in black and white. And I’ve referred to it so many times. Now, if you are going to get “irrational†over something that is essentially inconsequential (which is why I am embarrassed over my own role), then I hope you and others can understand why some of Satyr’s posts, which truly are inflammatory (btw, each time I use that word, I am not suggesting it is a “negative†meaning…it just means to evoke strong emotions), can cause some others to act “irrationally.†Such reactions, as well as your own here, are NATURAL and HUMAN. We are ALL affected by our emotions, but some people are affected more or less by them. As I alluded to Russiantank, I would have to be pretty unrealistic (and he’s been called other words to go along with that) to think that saying something like “rape is fine†is cool or will NOT cause some pretty “irrational” (by the strictest definition of the word) reactions, when so many people have had their lives ruined by rape; to say “blacks are intellectually inferior†when so many blacks have been discriminated against covertly and directly; to say “gays are abnormal†when so many gays and lesbians have lived tortured lives due to their orientation; to say “women are intellectually inferior†when women have fought for so many years to be considered as more than property, to be able to vote, to be able to receive education; to be able to get more than 25 cents on the dollar for equal work (feel free to apply these points to the black example as well…); etc etc.
Again, I am NOT condoning how some people react when they read/hear such statements. I am merely saying that I UNDERSTAND their reactions. And Satyr is intelligent enough to KNOW that his comments will cause reactions that make it difficult to have a “rational debate.†He has had the same experiences more than once in more than one forum.
Again, this does NOT mean that he SHOULDN’T post his thoughts. I’ve NEVER said that (though he’s accused me several times of doing so, despite my clear words to the contrary…please don’t forget THAT, somenewname). But if he is TRULY trying to have an impact beyond just pissing people off, then should he not realize that his posts will cause certain reactions and thus, instead of “mirroring†these reactions, he could respond in a different way that will encourage people to return to the “rational� THAT is what I’m trying to say, somenewname.
YOU returned to the rational…good for you. That’s ONE person. Woohoo. However, as demonstrated above, you are actually IRRATIONAL because YOU have also distorted what went down between Satyr and myself in the beginning.
Now of course, part of my premise is that Satyr had a PURPOSE for posting his ideas—to try to convey his thoughts to an audience (he’s posting publicly…). Most people would think one purpose of that is to influence people’s thoughts on a matter; otherwise it’s just mental masturbation. But there are other alternatives, which he and/or you have stated: 1) to get others’ feedback…to challenge his thoughts. Okay, that’s fair. However, if the only people who will give such feedback are those who already agree with him or who are “totally rational†(b/c he pisses everyone else off), then he’s really limiting his potential “market.†2) to find someone who is his “equal†or “superior†and to learn from them. I’ll admit that I hadn’t considered that till he mentioned it. That was my lack of flexibility. In my defense, Satyr’s tone and his apparent lack of ever ceding ANY ground (from what I can see) did not lend itself to considering such an option. But that is MY interpretation. I could be wrong. But when I saw how horribly he distorted what I said to him and how he denied and distorted everything that went down—again, all in black and white—I had a hard time believing that he could see ANYONE as an equal, let alone his superior.
I’m not saying that I am necessarily his equal (while in certain areas I have no doubt I am his superior), but I DID see this distortion on many occasions. If it’s distortion for the sake of distortion, that’s mental masturbation. And it applies to your distortions as well, somenewname. I am not writing this out of anger or spite, though I will admit that the tone of your message left an unpleasant taste in my mouth, so to speak, thus MY tone is not as gentle as it could be; but that does not change the FACTS I’ve presented here—VERIFIABLE facts. If you cannot admit the points I’ve raised here, or cannot show me where I am wrong (and there’s every possibility that I AM wrong about certain things), then all you’re doing is mentally masturbating. And I can’t believe I’m saying this, but mutual mental masturbation with EITHER sex just ain’t fun…
Being a cynical old sod - I’d say he was cornered into being civil with SomeNewName, for these simple reasons:
A) Without her there’d be no-one actually left on the thread to talk to.
B) To salvage an iota of sympathy, in that he’s saying - “Look - I can communicate like a normal person, and with a… a… Girl…!” Killing two birds with one stone, esp. given the original premise of the thread.
What can I say, I’ve an awful mind.
Insurance policy:
In the above sentence, I use ‘awful’ in the sense of 'always seeing what is awful’ not in the ‘my mind works inefficiently’ sense…
This paranoia business must be catching… But am I paranoid enough…?
). I NEVER thought any of that (not sure why you would think I thought that, but I NEVER did). I JUST WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT YOU…
) respond to a few points. If I’ve misunderstood or mis-represented something you’ve written, I trust you’ll let me know.