GENIUS FORUMS

Hmm, I don't think calling yourself an idiot is an inference that could sensibly be drawn from the general theme of your post, Elizabeth. However, I think the main point is that "elitism" doesn't mean anything as a term. We're all "elitist" in our own way and we all exhibit the features of it.

Dan Rowden wrote:Hmm, I don't think calling yourself an idiot is an inference that could sensibly be drawn from the general theme of your post, Elizabeth.

Knowingly drawing fire for something I know I can't change isn't exactly the brightest maneuver in the world Dan, it's just something I have to do at times.

Elizabeth,

I was going by David's recent claim that anyone who chides someone else is an elitist of sorts.

Eliza:
I suppose clyde just needs to think for a bit; he'll probably come back in a few months, or with a different username. I was surprised when I discovered I was talking to the same person who came in here with the do-no-harm attitude. He's actually starting to "get" it.

Arktos over-wrote his first post, and was calling everyone in this forum an idiot by his second. I imagine he never really intended to stay in this forum unless he got praise and confirmation of his own genius.

Leah had some potential, coming in here with strong, well-thought-out opinions and able to keep up with the debates. But she seemed to get over-worked by the masculine/feminine thing, and was completely oblivious to why it's an issue. I'm quite sure that's why she left: I would have recommended she use a more gender-neutral username and simply observe the masculine/feminine debates until she got a handle on exactly what was being discussed.

Considering that clyde was so much at odds with the general run of the forum when he arrived, and managed to stay for so long... I would say he is the one most interested in truth, enlightenment, and ultimate reality, no matter where it leads. I predict he's the one most likely to return.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I would have recommended she use a more gender-neutral username and simply observe the masculine/feminine debates until she got a handle on exactly what was being discussed.

Why should biological females have to hide the fact of what biological gender we were born into? Isn't it the thoughts that count? What's the difference if the username is Leah, or Elizabeth, or One Moot Point, or Trevor? Does the gender associated with the name change one single thing about the post itself? Are the members here so shallow that we should all have our usernames changed to member numbers to not tempt people to think about philosophy in the context of Reality too much?

No, it would have been entirely for her own benefit. She was associating "feminine" with herself, and was assuming that everyone else was, as well. If she had a gender-neutral username, she would have had no reason to suspect that the discussion was directed directly at her.

The train of thought is a simple one: "I have a female username, therefore when they talk about femininity they are actually -- unconsciously or abstractly -- talking expressly about me."

That is not the case at all, but it is an easy delusion to believe. She was the one worked up about the masculinity/femininity thing, not the other way around. Honestly, I thought she had a lot of potential otherwise, and had told her that if she didn't believe that these discussions pertained to her, that she would do best to simply ignore them. ...rather than misinterpret them.

Well, at least you can recognize one of the ways how the vocabulary itself is a barrier to biological females being able to access the qualities on this site, and you can see a way how the vocabulary self-perpetuates some of the very attitudes it accuses females of and enhances the perception that females act that way (by its illiciting particular resopnses) - when males would do exactly the same thing if the genders of the vocabulary were arbitrarily reversed. Although there are truths in the vocabulary as it stands, the vocabulary can also generate some illusions.

Up is better than down.

In other words, you are saying that "not thinking about up and down" (Up) is better than "thinking about up and down" (Down). You're still operating in dualistic mode as much as the rest of us.

-

David Quinn wrote:In other words, you are saying that "not thinking about up and down" (Up) is better than "thinking about up and down" (Down). You're still operating in dualistic mode as much as the rest of us.

-

Never said that, you inferred it again with your imagination. :)

You will operate and think as you must. This is fine.

But I realize that thinking comes and goes, if you see it for what it is, what is left to do or argue about?

Up is better than down? A joke.
You can take it seriously, or see it for what it is...either way is fine.

Did anyone else just get a shiver?

"it's hilarious!"

I'm pretty sure I was a partial factor in Leah not staying (though the main reason would be the totally of all the ego displays we see here, myself included). I overdid the smartarse game playing - which was a mistake, but I was just trying to find out how much substance she had (I can't pick this as well as David and Dan seem to be able to). She had a good brain and seemed to have strong individualistic qualities for a younger woman.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I would have recommended she [Leah] use a more gender-neutral username and simply observe the masculine/feminine debates until she got a handle on exactly what was being discussed.

If she had a gender-neutral username, she would have had no reason to suspect that the discussion was directed directly at her.

it would have been entirely for her own benefit. She was associating "feminine" with herself, and was assuming that everyone else was, as well.

I'm surprised you advocated this, Trevor. Even for her benefit. I thought we value real names here.

With Leah I think the real issue was jumping in with both feet, (which you also noted) instead of maybe reading here for a while and then beginning to comment. Also, her avatar was too provocative for her at this board; it created uneccessary attention, with which she bravely dealt at first, and then couldn't handle. I hope she decides to return.

BTW, I've noticed the jumping-in-fast pattern with various newbies. Those who begin by starting threads with posted essays, links, and complex questions right off the bat seem to wilt quickly. It appears to go better for those who take the time to find the groove more slowly.

Carl G,

I'm surprised you advocated this, Trevor. Even for her benefit. I thought we value real names here.

I do think real names are important, but I'm quite sure that her use of her real name ended up being a large cause of her leaving the forum. I distinctly remember her posting once that she regretted that she used it.

She may have actually been treated differently, or she was simply perceiving that such was the case: either way, the name was an impedement.

Between a bright person leaving the forum or using an alias, I would choose the lesser of two evils. For instance, I used an alias for years before I was comfortable that I could use my real name without being distracted by it.

Hades wrote:

H: Up is better than down.

DQ: In other words, you are saying that "not thinking about up and down" (Up) is better than "thinking about up and down" (Down). You're still operating in dualistic mode as much as the rest of us.

H: Never said that, you inferred it again with your imagination. :)

No, it's there in your words. As soon as you push forward a particular point of view, or speak against another point of view, which you have been doing all along during these discussions, you immediately engage in the game of saying "up" is better than "down".

You will operate and think as you must. This is fine.

But I realize that thinking comes and goes, if you see it for what it is, what is left to do or argue about?

In other words, realizing that thinking comes and goes (Up) is better than arguing (Down). You're still engaging in dualistic behaviour.

It is hypocritical to tick people off simply for being dualistic when the very act of your ticking off is also dualistic.

-

David Quinn wrote:
No, it's there in your words. As soon as you push forward a particular point of view, or speak against another point of view, which you have been doing all along during these discussions, you immediately engage in the game of saying "up" is better than "down".

Neither one is better or worse. Thats the whole point.

In other words, realizing that thinking comes and goes (Up) is better than arguing (Down). You're still engaging in dualistic behaviour.

It is hypocritical to tick people off simply for being dualistic when the very act of your ticking off is also dualistic.

-

I'm not pushing any sort of behavior, or manner of thinking people should adopt.

I never said "realizing that thinking comes and goes (Up) is better than arguing (Down)" or implied it in any shape or form, this is your own creation, a fantasy, you desire to categorize everything and inject your value system upon your abstract nonsense. This is Fine. What I'm pointing to is different, neither your deluded manner of thought or my wise clear thought is better or worse than the other(lol, relax). The only difference is that I do not associate or identify with my thoughts, I see them for what they are and simply laugh at the comedy that follows.

It is hypocritical to tick people off simply for being dualistic when the very act of your ticking off is also dualistic.

People tick themselves off for being dualistic.

:)

Maybe one day you will see this. Maybe not, either way, its fine.

Yeah, it's too bad Leah left.

[takes another pull off a whiskey bottle]

Yeah, Leah was cool.

How do we know she left?

How do you know she's not me?

She's a lot snootier than you.

A good point

She could be you.

Hmmm...

Matt Gregory wrote:She's a lot snootier than you.

She had spunk.

I'm not snooty here because I'm an outsider. But Leah was an insider, I assume.

Steven,

She had spunk.

Yeah, she was cool. I was looking forward to talking with a Buddhist.


Shahrazad,

I'm not snooty here because I'm an outsider. But Leah was an insider, I assume.

A lot of us know you from TPG, though. I think she came in ready to do battle with the gender ideas and had her shields up.

Hades,

DQ: No, it's there in your words. As soon as you push forward a particular point of view, or speak against another point of view, which you have been doing all along during these discussions, you immediately engage in the game of saying "up" is better than "down".

H: Neither one is better or worse. Thats the whole point.

But you are explicitly presenting your point of view to be superior to mine, and to every other point of view. So your rhetoric here is hollow.

You even label your own views as "seeing it for what it is" and every one else's views as deluded imaginings, which implies that, as far as seeing things as they are is concerned, you consider your own views to be better than anyone else's. In other words, you still think Up is better than Down.

The fact that you try to deny this only compounds the hypocrisy. It doesn't negate it.

DQ: In other words, realizing that thinking comes and goes (Up) is better than arguing (Down). You're still engaging in dualistic behaviour.

It is hypocritical to tick people off simply for being dualistic when the very act of your ticking off is also dualistic.

H: I'm not pushing any sort of behavior, or manner of thinking people should adopt.

Simply by arguing your case, you are doing this. If you really didn't care about influencing other people with your thought, you wouldn't bother coming onto a philosophy forum and arguing with them.

You'd go and chase hot babes instead, or whatever else you are mindlessly attached to.

I never said "realizing that thinking comes and goes (Up) is better than arguing (Down)" or implied it in any shape or form, this is your own creation, a fantasy, you desire to categorize everything and inject your value system upon your abstract nonsense. This is Fine. What I'm pointing to is different, neither your deluded manner of thought or my wise clear thought is better or worse than the other(lol, relax). The only difference is that I do not associate or identify with my thoughts, I see them for what they are and simply laugh at the comedy that follows.

It is clear from your behaviour that you try to identify with the thought that all thoughts are empty comedy. It is the one thought that you don't consider to be empty comedy, but rather seriously true. You're seriously locked into that one idea. It is imprisoning you.

DQ: It is hypocritical to tick people off simply for being dualistic when the very act of your ticking off is also dualistic.

H: People tick themselves off for being dualistic.

Unless they pretend they are not being so, of course.

-