Making it Better: The future of WP

Post Reply New Topic

What if there are times we don't understand your simple, concise explanations? How are they best then?

Case in point: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=382120

He gives no real explanation why his and the professor's answer is right and mine and the student's are wrong.

The attitude Fnord (in my impression since once again he explains absolutely nothing) has is this is the right answer, this is the way it, these are the facts, etc, etc. No explanation! No explaining how we get to the answer at all! No reasoning behind it? No looking behind the curtain at all!

How can there be a supportive and intellectual based community on WP with answers such as his which are really non-answers and he wants yes men it seems like? Someone who accepts things w/o question.

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 06 Aug 2020, 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Lush commentary Teach51 ~ instantaneous classic! Love it!

Stating things like "It seems that . . . " or "It appears that . . ." and using ". . . maybe?", ". . . perhaps?", and ". . . possibly?" at the end or the beginning of the statement can be useful too, and not using the spirit of judgement but rather the spirit of inquiry possibly?

For some people of course yes, whilst others require context involving examples and anecdotes etcetera.

Anyway some of our readers appreciate a longer more informative read and there are more concise writers that are like yourself appreciated here also. Yes?

One way to make WP better is to not harp on semantics all the time.

It makes for an unpleasant atmosphere here.

quite

Yes, that's it. This is the basis for a discussion rather than a conflict. I, as a very open and communicative NT often think I know what someone means but I am actually completely wrong. We are all subjective in our interpretations according to our own culture and life experiences. It's similar to watching a movie, twenty people will have twenty different subjective impressions and can pick up different points of importance and significance.

There will always be a proportional few "Look how bad . . . see if you can stop me!" boundary testers that have not had their primary needs for affection and intimacy met, as had to seek or steal facilitation and affirmation by way of domination and negation instead ~ i.e., breaking a window or upseting and angering people in order to be treated as significant or even existential.


I have difficulty with this racism business as I relate so much less with the human body and so much more with the human being. When people speak of different colours even people's auras are different colours and not just their skin tones.

It is like people not liking others because they support a sports team that wear different colour uniforms, which just seems odd to me, but then I have no competitive drives so ideologies about winning and losing are just foreign concepts to me that others hold to.

My take on racism is that is an enforced ideology that ignores the fact that the human race is singular, and involves comparing members of the human race with other species of race (such as chimpanzees etcetera) as if those species are lesser beings ~ in the same sense or actually nonsense of saying that one tool in a tool box is superior to every other tool involving every job.

One real problem that so very few seem to notice is that calling out racism in terms of it being universal tool for every argument or discussion to divert it; is that it is like trying to swat flies whilst doing nothing about the rotting corpses that are piling up and from which all the flies are emanating from.

All or nothing thinking involving the 'Will to Power' (to be bigger, stronger and cleverer) and 'Elitism' (to have superior status in terms of being a superior, mediocre or inferior person) is the problem, as involves the Id as being the reproductive-aggressive driver of the hide, freeze, flight or fight reflex that in the last instance is linguistically orientated here by the word 'attack'.

Being able to attack someone's belief system or life narrative makes about as much sense as not being able to harm someone ~ whilst being permitted to break their bones. "Grow a thick skin!" and all that.

Not being able to attack a person here but being able to attack their written statements works very well to an extent, but thereafter involves attacking people's self concept ~ and most people are red raw or bruised numb by the time they get here, so people that have become for no fault of their own predatory attackers ~ are let loose to play with those who are not driven to be as such, and the compassionate carers are the ones the predatory attackers seek or steal facilitation and affirmation from ~ involving domination and submission.

Last edited by Deepthought 7 on 06 Aug 2020, 12:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Just as there will always be people who pretend to know the intent and motivations of others without ever having met them, and without ever having earned the appropriate credentials to do so.

I find fault with anybody who becomes a “predatory attacker.”

No matter how much trauma one has gone through.

There is no excuse, ever, for someone becoming any sort of physical or emotional predator.

It is fascinating that people imagine they know people on the basis of just written statements ~ as it would not apply even with however many qualifications could be attained. Characteristics or traits can be ascertained such as psychological typology and writing style and all that ~ but no matter how many of those may be known they are only a hint of what is to be known.

Of course not with there being no excuse ~ did you perhaps mistake my explanation of the developmental compensation as a contrivance to accept predatory attackers rather than as methodology to facilitate and affirm their needs, whilst ignoring for the most part and obstructing their wants?

Last edited by Deepthought 7 on 06 Aug 2020, 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Another reason why I don't use the PPR is because admittedly I don't know much, and when you are giving an opinion or argument about something you don't understand, you are more likely to unintentionally offend someone or make an idiot of yourself. I mean, I don't understand what words like ''socialism'' means. And whenever I look up the word ''communism'' it always says that it means ''equality but within personal circumstances'', which sounds rather fair and peaceful, but it also seems to mean ''a country that is run under limited government rules that counteracts freedom'' or something. I just find it all hurts my brain and so I will not be suited for PPR and probably will get myself called ''racist'' or ''dumbass'' or something.

I feel that sometimes on WP arguments become a battle of words, and that if you describe things using big intelligent words then more people will listen to you and even agree that you are right. I'm not so good at that.

We should not “compensate” for predators, nor try to justify their actions within their therapy. It’s black and white in this instance...and the predator should have this conveyed to him/her, etc in no uncertain terms.

Anybody who has experienced trauma should have a way to speak of it to therapists, or to sympathetic non-professionals.

Predators should have access to therapy...but in no way should their actions be justified through such phrases as “through no fault of their own.”

The fact that you feel and think in the orderly way that you do is what in respectful debate would make you particularly welcome, and as such you would be accompanied by others who would explain things and encourage you rather than slam you for your abilities.

Respectful debate is unheard of to large degree and is often mistaken for domineering argumentation for the most part.

It is not that we should compensate for predators and justify their actions and whatnot ~ as I was describing that predatory attacks are 'their' compensation for being ignored in terms of getting their needs met, and that is what makes them feel, think and act as if they are justified in preying upon others ~ as that is how they learnt to get attention.


The thing is though this can be what got them to be just as they are and is exactly in part what they are seeking ~ "NEVER BREAK WINDOWS OR HURT PEOPLE AGAIN!" ~ as essentially being parental or authoritarian domination, which they enjoy rebelliously submitting to for their facilitation and affirmation that they have desired since childhood. After being condemned they may become anything from frustrated and aggravated to exhilarated and excited.

But calm, consistent conveyance of acceptable behaviour is of course the most effective methodology in that their basic need gets met and the frozen and bruised numbness of their childhood defrosts.


Most certainly ~ although the only safe option for that currently is Private Messaging here.


It was not meant as such in any way to be ~ given that your statements involve a different line of reasoning than mine. Very simply one cannot for example be held responsible for speaking the language they speak ~ (i.e., English, American, Canadian, Spanish, French, German etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera) ~ but they can certainly be held responsible for contravening the freedom of expression.

If that helps make better sense to you kraftiekortie?

I did follow the rules
. Your statement was redundant and implied ( as well as outright stated in 1 sentence )something that did not occur while the people I am thinking of actually did what you claimed I did.

Anything I said that I am referring to was mild and suggested peaceful routes to dealing with discomfort if outright confrontation is not possible and for that I would never be 'mod fodder' in a sensibly moderated forum.



But enough harping on this from me- it is only to correct what I know to be a misunderstanding or assumption that was clearly stated by you.
Amything alluded to was stated as an example of the type of behaviour that I've seen which can escape notice but is part of the problem and unconducive to the type of atmosphere you supposedly want.