Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Kunga » Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:17 pm

Cahoot wrote:Is that a pickup line down at the bar ... association, or what they teach girls these days.
did you just pull that out of your ass ? lol

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by Jamesh » Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:44 pm

Jamesh wrote:The more equality those once weakly organised, lowly gay folk obtain the closer they are to our status, which signifies a loss in mean status.

Here, you are saying that if gay folk are to gain status we (the herd?) must lose status. If status can be gained by status deprivation, whoever inflicts more loss in status is rewarded with greater status, that is, if you want to gain status you must take it from someone else. So what would be gain, loss and mean status?
That comment was meant to indicate the subconscious thinking of the homophobic, and was poorly worded as I'd gotten drunk by the time I wrote that.

Groups are merely people associated by having commonality in valuing similar memes, where there has formed some sort of recognisable ”set of accepted values and actions”, organised or not, that an individual can attach to. This positive value attachment; this mutual value with others; this perceived potential protection of a group, relieves competitive fear and allows individuals to take actions to protect the status quo, even if this just entails arguing for, or defending, ones set of values.

The loss in mean status relates to the power groups those who actively oppose homosexual freedom would feel they would lose, not to the whole herd, and if those groups lose status, the individuals will also. A decrease of that groups power to control human events becomes recognisable, as in where they once had some degree of control over how X meme was valued, they find they no longer have that control, so their status has been diminished.

A decline in the groups status will mean that they are less attractive to others seeking an increase in personal status. Most humans are conformers to current status, “non events”, but those whose ego’s seek an increase in personal status will be stronger causal agents who have a greater preparedness to use others. A loss of attracting such types means the group will end up with fewer risk takers and fighters for the cause, who are or would become leaders, and thus the group will become less powerful. Groups with decreasing status levels run the risk of losing entirely the groups power, which induces fear and thus rejection of those causing the potential or perceived loss of status.

When there is fear, then there is often irrational and indiscriminate aggressive defensive reaction to display existing power, a bit like how a hissing cat, or maybe even a peacock reacts to danger. You can see this pretty clearly in Islamic middle eastern countries. It is why Islam there is now more fundamentalist than say 40 years ago, due to the intrusions of memes from the west into established power bases. It is why the Taliban shot that schoolgirl in the head recently.

Leaders, predators, have a different hierarchical value system. They value direct control over others, above that of their groups relative status, whereas conformists place a higher value on the groups status. As they value direct control themselves they will also associate with the like minded, so they associate as peer group leaders of other groups their group is not in direct conflict with. They even associate positive status value with those they are in conflict with where such other predators provide information or “tips” on methods in which to control others. Individuals they lead are regarded merely as tools to be utilised to gain more power, and to feed the predatory-styled-ego’s power trip. Followers, worshippers, sheeple “makes real” and completes the self and validates, it “guilt relieves”, their predatory existence.

Predators have guilt as everyone has many levels of group association, each association with different weightings that change as the world changes, as experiences change. Power rebalancing of the most powerful groups, or the most active world groups, causes status weighting re-evaluations all the way down to immediate personal associations. Some of the actions predators take conflict with the values of other groups they are linked to.
So what would be gain, loss and mean status
Whenever one feels they are gaining or losing “their overall place” in the world.

Gaining would be being more attached, by having success in desired outcomes, or seeing such success for others within the relevant group, which leads to increasing the positive-weightings associated with that attachment in ones value system, including group dynamic weightings. The desire for increasing ownership of things is an expression of perceiving a gain in power over the direction of one’s future. Those we all give a higher status assessment to, as they demonstrate an example to follow, are those who display the most control/power over what would appear likely to occur to them in their future.

[i wrote the above on Sunday morning thinking I'd later revisit it to improve or expand on what I was saying - but nah, have since lost interest]

oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Your Attitude Towards Gay Rights

Post by oxytocinNA » Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:11 pm

"That comment was meant to indicate the subconscious thinking of the homophobic, and was poorly worded as I'd gotten drunk by the time I wrote that."

"[i wrote the above on Sunday morning thinking I'd later revisit it to improve or expand on what I was saying - but nah, have since lost interest]"

Hey you worked harder on this then anyone else - you have a right to say - "eh, I'm done"

Lot of old stuff in there about leaders and followers and power etc. All fine and dandy. I am always amazed that people just don't account for actual individuals - as if no one can actually be outside the typical parameters.

Humorous.

edit: actually I remember at least one study (can't remember who and exactly when - back around 2003-ish is when I saw it) that did acknowledge that a small percentage of people actually do fall outside of the leader follower syndrome. Sadly it did not point to a positive outcome for such people.
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23

Post Reply