Stop trying to be one of the Sheeple and do your own thing!

Page 7 of 7 [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,967
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

19 May 2013, 9:20 pm

marshall wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
marshall wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
billiscool wrote:
1000Knives wrote:

I think you can be as eccentric as you want as long as you have power to back it up.


I have no idea what that means.


Money, nice clothes, bearing, attitude, control, and connections.

Some of the most powerful people (men, in particular) are the most eccentric. The point is not being eccentric or normal. The point is being powerful or weak. With men, being normal is inversely related to monetary and social success, as is being weak.

If you struggle in life, it means not that you're eccentric, but that you're weak.


Actually I don't think that is the true dichotomy. It's more bimodal. If you're eccentric you have a higher chance of being successful AND a higher chance of winding up completely screwed. I'll admit the latter seems more likely though if you don't have an exceptional talent. If you're "normal" and well balanced on the other hand you have a much better chance of finding a comfortable place somewhere in the middle.

Also, what about people who work their ass off to have tons of money only to fall into boredom, burnout, and existential depression, because they don't have anything that truly makes them happy anymore? What about people who don't take a raise to become a middle manager because they prefer to do their own work rather than the stress of being put in charge of telling other people what to do and having to deal with other people's f**k ups that are out of their control? Are they just weak for that? Are people weak for not having a preference for power? For not wanting to have to control and manipulate other people? True, society rewards people with power more, but what's the point if you just don't care about that and can't make yourself care about that? I think it's part of our asinine right-wing culture that puts business people at the top of the social totem and just assumes that must be everyone's ideal and the only other option is being a loser, parasite, bum, or starving on the street. If you don't care that much about power and competing it must be drilled into your head that you are unworthy of respect or happiness.


I have boredom, burnout, and existential depression, and I don't have money or power either. Lose-lose. :(

I am a far-left socialist, to the left of Hugo Chavez and just as crazy, and I still ascribe to those notions of power. I have a love-hate relationship with society where, like you, I have contempt for society and love to flout its idiotic rules but also have some ingredient of self-interest. It's a weird mix. Sometimes, flouting society's rules is a good way to get ahead. Hence, my point about power being different from conformity.

I think what makes people strong or weak is their capacity to get what they want -- note, I said capacity, not actually getting it. So, people on here who can't get a girlfriend or boyfriend are weak (yes, I said it, and I include myself in that but for other reasons).

I really, really hate competition. I just like to get what I want. So, in a way, I'm weak too.


Knowing what you want and being able to get it == "strength"
Knowing what you want and not being able to get it == "weakness"
Not knowing what you want in the fist place == my weakness
Being biologically incapable of being fulfilled == I don't know. Misery?

According to evolution if you don't produce spawn and pass on your genes you are "weak". Has nothing to do with what you actually want out of life.

I'm far left at heart but I don't think anarcho-communism will work in the modern world that is based on large scale trade and mass produced goods. People just aren't empathetic enough to cooperate without being forced to in groups of more than 100 individuals. Anarcho-capitalists are even dumber in thinking people unable to compete by the rules to survive won't just break the rules.

Sorry if I'm rambling off topic.


I am a totalitarian leftist. I think most people are stupid sheep who will follow whomever has the loudest voice and the biggest gun. This is usually a bad thing, but it could be a good thing if the loudest voice and the biggest gun belong to people who agree with me. :wink:

Evolution isn't a good explanation. People breed like rabbits. So I don't think reproduction is an important survival advantage anymore. What's important is what you do with your life within the greater society. We could always create new kids in test tubes with 180 IQ's if we really had to.

Thus, Evolution--and the nature and purpose of life--have completely changed with modern technology. In fact, individual reproduction was never necessarily a goal. Groups evolve, not simply individuals. So, even in the past, traits with weaker reproductive capacity could be favored if they impacted human society to the extent that it made the offspring of others more likely to survive. This is probably why the genes of eccentric aspie geniuses never died out. Thanks to Edison, Newton, Flemming, Einstein, and others with limited individual reproductive capacity, the reproductive capacity of millions more has been enhanced. I think Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene might give some perspective here.



EmoGlambertAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 573

20 May 2013, 2:47 am

OP, what do you define as "shallow"? If I'm not attracted to someone whether looks or personality wise or indeed am repulsed or irritated by them, why should I waste both our time and lead them on? I dated a guy for a couple months once who was physically repulsive to me - it grossed me out to kiss him - only giving him a chance because he was smitten with me. Long story short we've been broken up nearly a year and he's still trying to contact me on occasion despite my telling him to stop numerous times, and it's reached the level at which I can now press felony charges against him. Is that REALLY better than being "shallow"?


_________________
"More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion." - Harvey Milk


Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929

20 May 2013, 9:05 am

EmoGlambertAspie wrote:
OP, what do you define as "shallow"? If I'm not attracted to someone whether looks or personality wise or indeed am repulsed or irritated by them, why should I waste both our time and lead them on? I dated a guy for a couple months once who was physically repulsive to me - it grossed me out to kiss him - only giving him a chance because he was smitten with me. Long story short we've been broken up nearly a year and he's still trying to contact me on occasion despite my telling him to stop numerous times, and it's reached the level at which I can now press felony charges against him. Is that REALLY better than being "shallow"?

No. Not at all. I was mainly refering to guys who complain about female shallowness or the nature of the dating game only to turn around and fall back on the same shallow standards and rules.

If you aren't physicaly attracted to someone it usually just means you don't have chemistry. The fact that you were willing to give a guy a chance despite being "physically repulsed" by him would be quite the opposite of shallow. I assume you were hoping physical attraction would grow over time (sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn't.)



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

20 May 2013, 10:12 am

Tyri0n wrote:
marshall wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
marshall wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
billiscool wrote:
1000Knives wrote:

I think you can be as eccentric as you want as long as you have power to back it up.


I have no idea what that means.


Money, nice clothes, bearing, attitude, control, and connections.

Some of the most powerful people (men, in particular) are the most eccentric. The point is not being eccentric or normal. The point is being powerful or weak. With men, being normal is inversely related to monetary and social success, as is being weak.

If you struggle in life, it means not that you're eccentric, but that you're weak.


Actually I don't think that is the true dichotomy. It's more bimodal. If you're eccentric you have a higher chance of being successful AND a higher chance of winding up completely screwed. I'll admit the latter seems more likely though if you don't have an exceptional talent. If you're "normal" and well balanced on the other hand you have a much better chance of finding a comfortable place somewhere in the middle.

Also, what about people who work their ass off to have tons of money only to fall into boredom, burnout, and existential depression, because they don't have anything that truly makes them happy anymore? What about people who don't take a raise to become a middle manager because they prefer to do their own work rather than the stress of being put in charge of telling other people what to do and having to deal with other people's f**k ups that are out of their control? Are they just weak for that? Are people weak for not having a preference for power? For not wanting to have to control and manipulate other people? True, society rewards people with power more, but what's the point if you just don't care about that and can't make yourself care about that? I think it's part of our asinine right-wing culture that puts business people at the top of the social totem and just assumes that must be everyone's ideal and the only other option is being a loser, parasite, bum, or starving on the street. If you don't care that much about power and competing it must be drilled into your head that you are unworthy of respect or happiness.


I have boredom, burnout, and existential depression, and I don't have money or power either. Lose-lose. :(

I am a far-left socialist, to the left of Hugo Chavez and just as crazy, and I still ascribe to those notions of power. I have a love-hate relationship with society where, like you, I have contempt for society and love to flout its idiotic rules but also have some ingredient of self-interest. It's a weird mix. Sometimes, flouting society's rules is a good way to get ahead. Hence, my point about power being different from conformity.

I think what makes people strong or weak is their capacity to get what they want -- note, I said capacity, not actually getting it. So, people on here who can't get a girlfriend or boyfriend are weak (yes, I said it, and I include myself in that but for other reasons).

I really, really hate competition. I just like to get what I want. So, in a way, I'm weak too.


Knowing what you want and being able to get it == "strength"
Knowing what you want and not being able to get it == "weakness"
Not knowing what you want in the fist place == my weakness
Being biologically incapable of being fulfilled == I don't know. Misery?

According to evolution if you don't produce spawn and pass on your genes you are "weak". Has nothing to do with what you actually want out of life.

I'm far left at heart but I don't think anarcho-communism will work in the modern world that is based on large scale trade and mass produced goods. People just aren't empathetic enough to cooperate without being forced to in groups of more than 100 individuals. Anarcho-capitalists are even dumber in thinking people unable to compete by the rules to survive won't just break the rules.

Sorry if I'm rambling off topic.


I am a totalitarian leftist. I think most people are stupid sheep who will follow whomever has the loudest voice and the biggest gun. This is usually a bad thing, but it could be a good thing if the loudest voice and the biggest gun belong to people who agree with me. :wink:

Evolution isn't a good explanation. People breed like rabbits. So I don't think reproduction is an important survival advantage anymore. What's important is what you do with your life within the greater society. We could always create new kids in test tubes with 180 IQ's if we really had to.

Thus, Evolution--and the nature and purpose of life--have completely changed with modern technology. In fact, individual reproduction was never necessarily a goal. Groups evolve, not simply individuals. So, even in the past, traits with weaker reproductive capacity could be favored if they impacted human society to the extent that it made the offspring of others more likely to survive. This is probably why the genes of eccentric aspie geniuses never died out. Thanks to Edison, Newton, Flemming, Einstein, and others with limited individual reproductive capacity, the reproductive capacity of millions more has been enhanced. I think Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene might give some perspective here.


I agree its more complicated than reproduction but didn't want to go into it. My point was more that strength/weakness is somewhat subjective opinion. What most people want is acceptance. People feel "weak" when they aren't accepted by others, even the most antisocial rugged individualists. We are wired for dependence on the group for survival. There's no such thing as true independence. Humans are physically weak and slow compared to almost any other mammal.