GENIUS FORUMS

Hello, my name is ed. I am new to forums. I am interested in acquiring wisdom. I love to listen. I would like to start a subject: How people de-humanize... I have created a list of slang words based on de-humanization. There are about 250 different labels of denigration. I would like to listen to your ideas, subjects and labels on the issue.

Hello Ed; welcome along. Could you possibly post your list of de-humanising labels?


Dan Rowden

did himmler, genghis khan, pol pot, sadam hussein, bush, macnamara first have to label human groups as subhumans before atrociously destroying them as one destroys vermin? a random selection of pejorative labels readily provided by a recent kaffeeklatch suggests the surprising range of types that some self-described humans have wished to be swatted like flies:

terrorists
insurgents
gooks
satan worshippers
bottom feeders
fifth columnists
snitches
usual suspects
suspected madmen
outsiders
drug kingpins
starkers
limpwristed englishmen
fellow travellers
towelheads
schwarzers
illuminati
psychopaths and sociopaths
sheeple
spazzes
mansonite creepy-crawlers
trustfunders
scammers preying on the elderly
chicken hawks
bible students aka witnesses
people whose eyes are oddly made
people who score below a certain iq level (below that of the would-be executioner)...

we were collectively amazed at the ease with which we could extend quaker nixon's enemies lists!
thanks for your speedy welcome i (we) are honored, indeed.
ed

Dan Rowden wrote:Hello Ed; welcome along. Could you possibly post your list of de-humanising labels?


Dan Rowden

to which ed responded:

did himmler, genghis khan, pol pot, sadam hussein, bush, macnamara first have to label human groups as subhumans before atrociously destroying them as one destroys vermin?

Yeah Dan, what did you want the list for?

Ed:
I have created a list of slang words based on de-humanization. There are about 250 different labels of denigration. I would like to listen to your ideas, subjects and labels on the issue.

For that matter Ed, what did you create the list for?

Dehumanization is one of the facets of the four related properties of evil, as I have listed below:

Elitism
Deception
Dehumanization
Intimidation

Millipodium:

Dehumanization is one of the facets of the four related properties of evil, as I have listed below:

Elitism
Deception
Dehumanization
Intimidation

Telling someone that there essay is 'trash' is dehumanizing, intimidating and elitist.

And thus going around a preaching the evils of elistism is practicing deception.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Millipodium:

Dehumanization is one of the facets of the four related properties of evil, as I have listed below:

Elitism
Deception
Dehumanization
Intimidation

Telling someone that there essay is 'trash' is dehumanizing, intimidating and elitist.

And thus going around a preaching the evils of elistism is practicing deception.

No. It's not. It's an accurate assessment of the same worn out communist rhetoric. A way to develop a NON elitist morality is to ask oneself :"What if everyone acted this way?" If everyone felt it was ok to insist others pay for their needs because they are involved in "intellectual work the value of which will only be realized 200 years from now" society would collapse and those willing to work would simply be enslaved by a bunch of nihilistic, irrational, narcissistic losers.

Milli,

I'm not going to get into this with you again in too much detail.

But to put it simply.

Elitism means giving favorable, friendly and supportive treatment to those who appear to you as superior.

Judging someone as inferior and telling them that they are inferior is not favorable treatment.

You do this all the time.

Therefore you are elitist.

So give it up already.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Milli,

I'm not going to get into this with you again in too much detail.

But to put it simply.

Elitism means giving favorable, friendly and supportive treatment to those who appear to you as superior.

Juding someone as inferior and telling them that they are inferior is not favorable treatment.

You do this all the time.

Therefore you are elitist.

So give it up already.

I am simply favoring some ideas over others. By your wild definition anyone who thinks some ideas are correct and some are incorrect is an elitist. This is your nihilism showing.

The true definition of elitism is one who believes there are certain classes of people, for instance, deep thinkers doing invaluable yet worthless work, and WORKERS who are obligated to pay their way. That's elitism. Nice try at turning the world upside down, but you have failed again. Now let's see if you really want to get into with me again. I bet dollars to donuts you will be going into more detail, spouting your illogic. You simpy cannot let the obvious truth stand. You must pervert the truth so you can feel good about yourself and your upside down values system.

ok, ok - fine, I'll thrash this thing out with you again.

Milli wrote:

I am simply favoring some ideas over others

And you think that a person is somehow different from his ideas?

People ''are' their ideas. What else is there to them? Some sort of soul? No there is not. But maybe you want to debate about that.

If you give favorable treatment to certain ideas, you give favorable treatment to certain people, because people ARE their ideas.

The fundamental thing that all people want is attention. To favor one set of idea is to either ignore and neglect people with opposing ideas, or let them know that you think they are inferior to you. Either way, its unfavorable treatment to certain people, and positive attention and treatment to others.

Cory Duchesne wrote:To favor one set of idea is to either ignore and neglect people with opposing ideas, or let them know that you think they are inferior to you. Either way, its unfavorable treatment to certain people, and positive attention and treatment to others.

When you put it that way, I don't see anything wrong with it. Shouldn't we give preferential treatment to honest people over crooks?

Cory, what Millipodium is saying is that a person doesn't become elitist until he enslaves those whom he feels are his inferiors.

Cory: To favor one set of idea is to either ignore and neglect people with opposing ideas, or let them know that you think they are inferior to you. Either way, its unfavorable treatment to certain people, and positive attention and treatment to others.

Elizabeth: When you put it that way, I don't see anything wrong with it.

That's because there isnt. Elitism is perfectly natural and correct. Milli just has an oversimplified interpretation of the situation.

There are vulgar, sensual, emotional, and high maintenance elitists. (george bush, hitler, generic guru's, etc)

And then there are sophisticated, stoic and wise elitists.

Those are the two extremes anyway.

Shouldn't we give preferential treatment to honest people over crooks?

Yes, preferential treatment should be give to those who we deem as superior.

The problem is that each person has different notions of what superior is. Most people regard that which is bad as superior, and thus pay no attention or even sling mud at that which is superior.

The crucifixtion of Jesus is a good example of one form of elitism triumphing over another.

There was the common everday elite, and then there was Jesus's sense of superiority. The two clash, then someone gets killed.

jMatt wrote:

Cory, what Millipodium is saying is that a person doesn't become elitist until he enslaves those whom he feels are his inferiors.

Sure, maybe that's what he is saying - - but what he is saying doesnt match the dictionary definition of elitsm.

Ironically he accuses my definition of elitism as 'wild'. It is his that is wild.

My sense of elitism conforms nicely to the dictionary definition.

Milli's does not.

Just making sure you two are talking about the same thing! A=A and all that...

Matt Gregory wrote:Just making sure you two are talking about the same thing! A=A and all that...

Who knows. Cory redefines words to suit his purposes. And when he's really in a jam, nothing means anything. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Hi, elizabeth. thanks for responding re the dehumanization list.
Why did I submit the list? I think it was because the participants in list creation were surprised at how readily we could think of dehumanization categories. i thought perhaps reaction to this small sample would get us onto the wavelength of the group, and spark a thought-out discussion
of the phenomenon of dehumanizing as an immediate prelude to destroying. question: as a new member, have I already missed the boat and stepped into the midst of a closed famiily debate? Perhaps you could help me find a more relevant forum?
i found that including dehumanization as one of 4 branches of evil was a good start. again thanks.

No, Ed, you're fine. Your idea just sparked an ongoing debate that Cory and Millipodium have been engaged in. It really belongs in a different thread, and it's unfortunate that individual posts in a thread can't be moved to a new thread by a moderator. But oh well.

As to de-humanization, I would like to know what you consider the opposite to be. What does "humanize" mean to you in a general sense, what are its benefits, and how is humanizing linked to those benefits?

Matt: No, Ed, you're fine. Your idea just sparked an ongoing debate that Cory and Millipodium have been engaged in. It really belongs in a different thread, and it's unfortunate that individual posts in a thread can't be moved to a new thread by a moderator. But oh well.

Yeah, I'll try to avoid taking a thread too far away from its dwelling point in the future, but somtimes two things that seem non-related are actually quite vital to each other.

Me and Milli have different ways of communicating what is close to being the same thing. My only beef is that by wagging your finger at the bad guys for being elitist, you end up being oblivious to the root of the problem - and the root of the problem is being a human who values sensuality, emotions, and oversimplified explanations in contrast to just valuing truth. That is the root if it. Elitism is just a word to coverup a much deeper disease.

Matt: As to de-humanization, I would like to know what you consider the opposite to be. What does "humanize" mean to you in a general sense, what are its benefits, and how is humanizing linked to those benefits?

That's a good question.

To be a de-humanizer is to treat an individual or a group of people as an object of your own gratification.

Lovers and friends are de-humanizers of each other.

As for being 'humanized'.......I'd like to hear Ed.

Matt Gregory wrote:No, Ed, you're fine. Your idea just sparked an ongoing debate that Cory and Millipodium have been engaged in. It really belongs in a different thread, and it's unfortunate that individual posts in a thread can't be moved to a new thread by a moderator. But oh well.

As to de-humanization, I would like to know what you consider the opposite to be. What does "humanize" mean to you in a general sense, what are its benefits, and how is humanizing linked to those benefits?

Yeah. Oh well. Like decomposing the word dehumanize is a "more appropriate" direction. It's perfectly fine for the two of us to contribute our respective inputi when a topic comes up, even if we talked about it before. Ok, buster?

No need to get defensive, you big, blubbering vagina. I was just trying to convince Ed there not to leave just because of the thread getting frayed.

Matt wrote:

No need to get defensive, you big, blubbering vagina.

LOL - very poetic. Some great imagery there, Matt.

Cory Duchesne wrote:ok, ok - fine, I'll thrash this thing out with you again.

Milli wrote:

I am simply favoring some ideas over others

And you think that a person is somehow different from his ideas?

People ''are' their ideas. What else is there to them? Some sort of soul? No there is not. But maybe you want to debate about that.

If you give favorable treatment to certain ideas, you give favorable treatment to certain people, because people ARE their ideas.

The fundamental thing that all people want is attention. To favor one set of idea is to either ignore and neglect people with opposing ideas, or let them know that you think they are inferior to you. Either way, its unfavorable treatment to certain people, and positive attention and treatment to others.

No. People are not ideas. Just as perception is not action. you've gone retarded. A debate is not a war. you're ridiculous and you have bad ideas.

Matt Gregory wrote:No need to get defensive, you big, blubbering vagina. I was just trying to convince Ed there not to leave just because of the thread getting frayed.

Shut your deformed rectum mouth, assjacker.

No. People are not ideas. Just as perception is not action. you've gone retarded. A debate is not a war. you're ridiculous and you have bad ideas.

You ARE that which you identify yourself with.

That's why some people have a nervous breakdown when they get a scratch on their car, or have a fit because of a new stain on the posh couch. Some people get insecure when you criticize food that they really like. That food is a part of who they are, part of their daily routine, part of their security. Their favorite food is, in a sense, partly, what they are.

Likewise, a man falls apart when is woman leaves him, or cheats or something. His woman is apart of who he is.

People identify with certain material things. They ARE their material things.

Some people are a bit deeper and they instead identify with intellectual achievements, original thoughts, books they've written, essays.

If their ideas get threated by more intelligent ones, they also feel pain, fear and anger. That's becaues they identify with their thoughts.

The deepest of humans identify with the totality.

Therefore, from my perspective Milli, I am you.