![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I think that some people have their over-abstractified post-modern heads shoved up their pseudo-existential asses. One person calls me "inexperienced" and "brainwashed" (hardly!) while another tries to argue that I'm denying the existence and survival-necessity of female lying as a defense against memetic brainwashing.......instead of seeing that it's simply the prejudice of all generalized and unbalanced accusation that I'm taking aim at. They think I'm being personally defensive when all I'm defending is simple fairness and accuracy -- impersonally and without ego-investment or paranoia -- and I'm fairly certain that they're too deep into their jargon to give a rat's ass about objectivity of any kind.
Though, I am aware that being balanced the way I am, in a subculturish neck of these cyberwoods, means that I often tend to be too logical and left-brained for some people's comfort, as they are often too right-brained to maintain practical rational principles on their own behaviour and pronouncements of alleged fact. Their judgmentalism, on the other hand, apparently remains unimpaired.......and then there's that condescending assumption that I must somehow be defending illusions, even though the last time I checked, everything I was saying was attempting to loosen some rather vile and conspicuous delusional attitudes that were being vented in my vicinity and onto my friends page.
If someone writes falsely that all of a certain arbitrary group are "liars", is the person who calls her on that lie defending an illusion that people do not lie, asserting that they ought to be allowed to lie without others' taking note, or even denying that some pathological liars do exist? No. He is pointing out the logical fallacy of her statement. It does not take a genius to understand this, so so why are these pretentious and oh-so-esoteric didacticists, who are all so much more wary with their comment-fields and journal entries than I am, ignoring that simple point with every ego-defense that they can muster and calling me the defensive one?
Ah, well it could be 'cause I'm just not even pretending to be polite about it......>:) It's fun to just have at someone and rip their head off. Especially when they're not using it half as constructively as they pretend to be.
So these now are the wankers of my discontent.....because I may be an intellectual and a smartass but I ain't some paranoid self-pity-wallowing asshat crouching in my techno-fortified online bomb shelter of an LJ to guard my fragile eggshell ego from meeting any direct challenge or question while all the time shooting bitter bile at the virtual heavens, trying to strike blind sympathy from those drifting stars that never fully sleep and whose friction can always be pushed away should it start to burn too closely.
[These people are basically in the category of "those who speak out their arses"....well, you all know that if you've checked out anything of that somewhat-recent fracas. I had this retortical post nearly complete some time ago when my computer froze up and would not let me type (it's called a hyperactive Murphy driver...:-|). But I'd saved it embedded into another open file, and now needing to clean that one out of all unnecessaries I regurgitate this one forth, expressly for the purposes of final purgation. I do have better things to do, afterall, than waste time with such dedicated and narrowsighted sophists....]
Tags:
Found this while trying to look up info on just what the preferred "standard Midwestern American" accent currently consists of.....seems to me the observation can apply to a lot more than just employee situations:
Riding a Dead Horse:
The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. Modern organizations (education, government, military, etc.) often employ a whole range of far more advanced strategies, such as:
* Buying a stronger whip.
* Changing riders.
* Threatening the horse with termination.
* Appointing a committee to study the horse.
* Arranging to visit other countries to see how others
ride dead horses.
* Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be
included.
* Re-classifying the dead horse as ‘Living Impaired’.
* Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
* Harnessing several dead horses together to increase
the speed.
* Providing additional funding/or training to increase
the dead horse’s performance.
* Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders
would improve the dead horse’s performance.
* Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be
fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead, and
therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom
line of the economy than do some other horses.
* Re-writing the expected performance requirements for
all horses.
* Promoting the dead horse to a management position.
I think "Re-writing the expected performance requirements for all horses" applies to the situation of the typical human animal burned in a courtship/mating experience, particularly if they continue trying to ride dead horses while they've convinced themself that live horses do not exist and "horse" automatically denotes "dead horse".
Or "deadbeat" instead of a dead beast......but yeah, you get the general idea.
As opposed to the philosophy of falling off a horse and getting back on, in which "horse" really denotes the entire field of both horses and horse-riding, whether individual or aggregate.....a similar though more nostalgic angle is that ''tis better to have ridden and fallen off than never ridden at all.'
And then there are those who stand in the middle of the battlefield imploring "A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!" but have as of yet no idea how to deal with the reality of that for which they're willing to trade their whole integrity.
Yeah, yeah, I just had to drag Shakespeare into this.....and Tennyson......:P
Riding a Dead Horse:
The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. Modern organizations (education, government, military, etc.) often employ a whole range of far more advanced strategies, such as:
* Buying a stronger whip.
* Changing riders.
* Threatening the horse with termination.
* Appointing a committee to study the horse.
* Arranging to visit other countries to see how others
ride dead horses.
* Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be
included.
* Re-classifying the dead horse as ‘Living Impaired’.
* Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
* Harnessing several dead horses together to increase
the speed.
* Providing additional funding/or training to increase
the dead horse’s performance.
* Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders
would improve the dead horse’s performance.
* Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be
fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead, and
therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom
line of the economy than do some other horses.
* Re-writing the expected performance requirements for
all horses.
* Promoting the dead horse to a management position.
I think "Re-writing the expected performance requirements for all horses" applies to the situation of the typical human animal burned in a courtship/mating experience, particularly if they continue trying to ride dead horses while they've convinced themself that live horses do not exist and "horse" automatically denotes "dead horse".
Or "deadbeat" instead of a dead beast......but yeah, you get the general idea.
As opposed to the philosophy of falling off a horse and getting back on, in which "horse" really denotes the entire field of both horses and horse-riding, whether individual or aggregate.....a similar though more nostalgic angle is that ''tis better to have ridden and fallen off than never ridden at all.'
And then there are those who stand in the middle of the battlefield imploring "A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!" but have as of yet no idea how to deal with the reality of that for which they're willing to trade their whole integrity.
Yeah, yeah, I just had to drag Shakespeare into this.....and Tennyson......:P
Tags:
After reading this link on picking up women, I'm just glad that I very very rarely go to bars and such where people are actually doing this stuff. It's supposed to be "sincere" and not "cruel" but you're trying to "penetrate her bitch-shield"? That's rather callous language.....but then, I suppose anyone who really chooses to study techniques to manipulate women into liking them isn't exactly going for something that deep, lasting or ultimately fulfilling on the individual level. Especially if you're never supposed to take "her" words seriously or even listen to them compared to the primal rhythms and counter-beats of body language under the microscope.
But then, imho, anything addressed to picking up/controlling/satisfying "women"/"your woman" or"men"/"your man" is too crudely generalizing for me to want to have anything to do with -- afterall, we do come in all kinds and then some. Best to consider whether a person's someone I really want to have anything to do with (i.e., some amount of listening to what they do say) before trying to lay on a certain type of prescribed pseudo-charm to worm under their defenses. I can flirt and tease and do it quite well when I'm inclined, but it has on occasion temporarily landed me with women I should have thought twice about (and learned more about) as themselves, rather than just as being the most attractive opportunities for conquest and showing off my success.
No use just bein' able to catch the fish if it ain't the kind that'll feed your real needs, and vice versa. Though, if all that's really wanted is a mutually-stringless fuck, it's probably as good a skill as anything (but in that case, why pretend to even be in possession of a personality?).
I can't stand dishonesty in people's relations with each other, particularly when there are so many crappy marriages/liaisons and children born unwittingly out of the assumption and maintenance of this "never the twain shall meet" dichotomy. It makes me want to take the entire habitual readership of this kind of manual and just throw them into breeding ranges that happen to look like nightclubs (probably more for anthropological entertainment than for fertility purposes, but we'd harvest the kids anyhow, as they don't deserve to be actually reared by people who only hooked up 'cause some program or technique enabled one to snare the other, or both to sink in their indiscriminate claws).
Somedays I just scorn 99.999% of humanity for acting like animals and not having the integrity to admit it. Not that everyone's the same kind of animal...but this is all pretty much lion-pride/ape-tribe behaviour, this trying to score and nice-guys-finish-last stuff. Tigers don't dick around with socializing and status -- they mate when they're in the mood, and they don't waste time worrying about it when they're not. Only humans are stuck in perpetual rutting behaviour running through the whole rest of their lives -- which, incidentally, is why most men tend to overestimate women's sexual interest in them, regardless of the actual scenario. We're primed to see the potential of a situation, and that can wishfully blur what's actually going on. And women, being mainly encouraged to be friendly at all times unless actually pissed/depressed enough to not maintain it, often wind up giving off "friendly & approachable" non-verbal signs that men pick up on regardless of actual interest -- and then sometimes insist are the only "real" attitude, and refuse to believe anything else. Which is extremely offensive to assume...but then, there's always that type of chick who really gets off on having guys tease her and unsolicitedly tell her what she oughta do with her hair, makeup, clothes, etc., etc., without really listening to what she actually says atall.
Tricking/getting someone out of their defenses is no favour to them unless you’re certain you have something to give them of equal-or-better value in return...otherwise it’s just getting what you want and not really caring whether they get anything worthwhile out of the experience. All the items that I’ve read in this line sound like things you do to someone you hate, or whom you’re trying to get hooked on you like a drug, with subterfuge and calculation and withholding and always angling for advantage. Exactly at what point is real sincerity supposed to enter into any of this? Or is it just a forbidden concept in the war between the sexes, something pushed away with a firm hand every time the author refers to women as thinking too much of themselves, as having “bitch-shields”, or as not to be listened to for what they say?
But then, imho, anything addressed to picking up/controlling/satisfying "women"/"your woman" or"men"/"your man" is too crudely generalizing for me to want to have anything to do with -- afterall, we do come in all kinds and then some. Best to consider whether a person's someone I really want to have anything to do with (i.e., some amount of listening to what they do say) before trying to lay on a certain type of prescribed pseudo-charm to worm under their defenses. I can flirt and tease and do it quite well when I'm inclined, but it has on occasion temporarily landed me with women I should have thought twice about (and learned more about) as themselves, rather than just as being the most attractive opportunities for conquest and showing off my success.
No use just bein' able to catch the fish if it ain't the kind that'll feed your real needs, and vice versa. Though, if all that's really wanted is a mutually-stringless fuck, it's probably as good a skill as anything (but in that case, why pretend to even be in possession of a personality?).
I can't stand dishonesty in people's relations with each other, particularly when there are so many crappy marriages/liaisons and children born unwittingly out of the assumption and maintenance of this "never the twain shall meet" dichotomy. It makes me want to take the entire habitual readership of this kind of manual and just throw them into breeding ranges that happen to look like nightclubs (probably more for anthropological entertainment than for fertility purposes, but we'd harvest the kids anyhow, as they don't deserve to be actually reared by people who only hooked up 'cause some program or technique enabled one to snare the other, or both to sink in their indiscriminate claws).
Somedays I just scorn 99.999% of humanity for acting like animals and not having the integrity to admit it. Not that everyone's the same kind of animal...but this is all pretty much lion-pride/ape-tribe behaviour, this trying to score and nice-guys-finish-last stuff. Tigers don't dick around with socializing and status -- they mate when they're in the mood, and they don't waste time worrying about it when they're not. Only humans are stuck in perpetual rutting behaviour running through the whole rest of their lives -- which, incidentally, is why most men tend to overestimate women's sexual interest in them, regardless of the actual scenario. We're primed to see the potential of a situation, and that can wishfully blur what's actually going on. And women, being mainly encouraged to be friendly at all times unless actually pissed/depressed enough to not maintain it, often wind up giving off "friendly & approachable" non-verbal signs that men pick up on regardless of actual interest -- and then sometimes insist are the only "real" attitude, and refuse to believe anything else. Which is extremely offensive to assume...but then, there's always that type of chick who really gets off on having guys tease her and unsolicitedly tell her what she oughta do with her hair, makeup, clothes, etc., etc., without really listening to what she actually says atall.
Tricking/getting someone out of their defenses is no favour to them unless you’re certain you have something to give them of equal-or-better value in return...otherwise it’s just getting what you want and not really caring whether they get anything worthwhile out of the experience. All the items that I’ve read in this line sound like things you do to someone you hate, or whom you’re trying to get hooked on you like a drug, with subterfuge and calculation and withholding and always angling for advantage. Exactly at what point is real sincerity supposed to enter into any of this? Or is it just a forbidden concept in the war between the sexes, something pushed away with a firm hand every time the author refers to women as thinking too much of themselves, as having “bitch-shields”, or as not to be listened to for what they say?
...because my love is pure?
You are pansexual.
Take this quiz!
Quizilla |
Join
| Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code
Hmm. I was kinda wavering between bi and pan, I think, just 'cause I really do prefer that I have a fairly clear idea of what a person wants to be called, genderwise, regardless of how they look or present themselves in demeanour. I don't care about whether they're in the middle or shifting over or switching with the situation, but I need to know what they want me to call them, and I have a hard time remembering the declensions of current/preferred gender-neutral pronouns....personally, I think English suffers a lot subculturally by not having a personal+neutral case already, but I really don't feel like wrapping myself around everyone's pet alternativity without having a decent linguistic model for it.....
But bodywise?--not a problem. The most important thing, afterall, is neither sex, gender, or eschewment thereof, but whether a person's actually personally appealing.
NOTE TO WHOMEVER WROTE THIS QUIZ, AND ALL OTHERS AS WELL:
Sex is the biological/physical category, gender is the psychological/socially-enacted category. They are NOT the exact same thing. They should not be restricted as the exact same thing when they are not. Biological sex (and the changing thereof) is not as important as gender, and yet the law still rules distinctions of "gender" on the basis of physical-sexual determinants, instead of by psychological and socially-enacted identity. This is stupid, particularly at a time when all the reason to segregate people by "sex" are really falling apart -- they aren't even necessary for procreation and parenting anymore, much less as reliable class-standards for labour and occupational skills.
So, to people who write quizzes and questionaires, if you are examining social behaviours of any type and wish to establish some kind of M-F comparison (M-F-A, really), that really ought to be termed "gender" ONLY and understood as such by those responding. And I believe it really ought to be the prime distinction in all social and sociolegal situations (social address, employment, marriage, active passports and identification papers), rather than requiring the physicalities of nakedly-apparent "sex" to be satisfied.
The only reason to use biological sex as a prime determinant is if you're assembling medical and/or actuarial evidence, and eventually I foresee that those will have to be supplemented with "gender" as well in order to maintain any relevant accuracy to the total population, which has notably more persons that are transgendered than are full-operatively transsexual. It's a hazy world that we are granted to dwell in, and clinging to the confusions of terminology does no good in clarifying what needs the clarification.
What is your sexual orientation?
You are pansexual.
Take this quiz!
Quizilla |
Join
| Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code
Hmm. I was kinda wavering between bi and pan, I think, just 'cause I really do prefer that I have a fairly clear idea of what a person wants to be called, genderwise, regardless of how they look or present themselves in demeanour. I don't care about whether they're in the middle or shifting over or switching with the situation, but I need to know what they want me to call them, and I have a hard time remembering the declensions of current/preferred gender-neutral pronouns....personally, I think English suffers a lot subculturally by not having a personal+neutral case already, but I really don't feel like wrapping myself around everyone's pet alternativity without having a decent linguistic model for it.....
But bodywise?--not a problem. The most important thing, afterall, is neither sex, gender, or eschewment thereof, but whether a person's actually personally appealing.
NOTE TO WHOMEVER WROTE THIS QUIZ, AND ALL OTHERS AS WELL:
Sex is the biological/physical category, gender is the psychological/socially-enacted category. They are NOT the exact same thing. They should not be restricted as the exact same thing when they are not. Biological sex (and the changing thereof) is not as important as gender, and yet the law still rules distinctions of "gender" on the basis of physical-sexual determinants, instead of by psychological and socially-enacted identity. This is stupid, particularly at a time when all the reason to segregate people by "sex" are really falling apart -- they aren't even necessary for procreation and parenting anymore, much less as reliable class-standards for labour and occupational skills.
So, to people who write quizzes and questionaires, if you are examining social behaviours of any type and wish to establish some kind of M-F comparison (M-F-A, really), that really ought to be termed "gender" ONLY and understood as such by those responding. And I believe it really ought to be the prime distinction in all social and sociolegal situations (social address, employment, marriage, active passports and identification papers), rather than requiring the physicalities of nakedly-apparent "sex" to be satisfied.
The only reason to use biological sex as a prime determinant is if you're assembling medical and/or actuarial evidence, and eventually I foresee that those will have to be supplemented with "gender" as well in order to maintain any relevant accuracy to the total population, which has notably more persons that are transgendered than are full-operatively transsexual. It's a hazy world that we are granted to dwell in, and clinging to the confusions of terminology does no good in clarifying what needs the clarification.
.
