102
103

MetaWhy you need to shut up and listen: A litmus test you all failed. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by 1 Mredpillschool - stickied post

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Overkillengine 11 ポイント12 ポイント

And you cherry picked only part of my comment and left off the portion that identified and predicted this very reaction. Go you. Sounds like you could take a spoonful of your own advice. I could give two shits if the information is PC, I care about accuracy.

[–]1 Mredpillschool[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

I used your comment as an example of being either willfully or ignorantly obtuse. It was critical of my work, not positive.

[–]ILU2 3 ポイント4 ポイント

I'm replying to RPS, can I get some gold?

[–]Overkillengine 5 ポイント6 ポイント

If the point is good and valid, it will stand up to critique and possibly even be improved by it.

And here comes the reply about it being a generalization. No shit. There is a difference between a well executed generalization and a poorly executed generalization. A poorly executed one leaves a person with the handy excuse that they never have to evaluate and adapt their behavior to the situation, then "TRP failz dem". Blaming the student only goes so far.

[–]1 Mredpillschool[S] -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

That's not really the case. If the point is politically correct or avoids anything slightly edgey, it will be upvoted and discussed. How do you suppose moderators battle that?

[–]Overkillengine 1 ポイント2 ポイント

By all means, post edgey non PC stuff. (Especially since anything that does not fall under "women are wonderful" is considered edgey and non-PC in modern society)

People should just be prepared to defend/discuss the accuracy and precision of what they say instead of auto filing critiques under "concern trolling".

Not doing so has the potential to encourage people to wallow in the anger stage and comfortable bigotry which is just exchanging one delusion for another.

For example:

"All people are shit" vs "All people have the potential to be shit"

Both are generalizations. Both have very similar content. One however, has a greater tendency to engage critical thinking and situational evaluation that the other does not.

[–]1 Mredpillschool[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Because you may not have noticed my point- when you start arguing about whether it's all, most, or some when somebody makes a generalization on a board about generalizations- you are detracting from the point.

You can say that, no, female psyche is prone to taking responsibility and is often marked by strong wills and a desire to modify behavior. Then we've got ourselves an interesting discussion.

What you've done here is added literally nothing to the conversation, and instead critiqued language and tone.

"All people are shit" vs "All people have the potential to be shit"

Not all people have the potential to be shit, I know of quite a few people who could never be shit, they were saints. It should be "Some people have the potential to be shit..."

[–]creativepositioning 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Not all people have the potential to be shit, I know of quite a few people who could never be shit, they were saints. It should be "Some people have the potential to be shit..."

And the slightest understanding of even non-formal logic would reveal to you that in fact "not all" and "some" are the same exact categories.

Isn't funny how the things we don't know make us look stupid?

[–]1 Mredpillschool[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント

And the slightest understanding of even non-formal logic would reveal to you that in fact "not all" and "some" are the same exact categories.

Isn't funny how the things we don't know make us look stupid?

And so here it stands where the point flew over your head. Why do you suppose I said that? Really think about it for a second.

Take a deep breath, relax, and think to yourself, "Gee, creativepositioning, am I being needlessly pedantic and missing the point entirely?"

Yes, yes you are.

To quote Whisper on our functioning definition of troll:

Basically, someone who assumes you are sane, tries to understand your argument in the most compelling interpretation he can, and then tries to refute it, is a debater.

Someone who assumes you are insane, or tries to find weak interpretations of your arguments that will be easy to refute, or reifies metaphors, is a troll.

[–]creativepositioning -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Honestly, I have no fucking idea why on earth you would say that or what your point is. I'm not a mind reader and I'm not going to try and guess what you mean. Why would I want to play a stupid game like that.

But it's you that's being needlessly pedantic because the words literally mean the same fucking thing. I don't think you are insane as much as obviously not a thinker. It's not a weak interpretation of what you said, it's literally the only fucking interpretation. I'd love for you to provide me with an example where "not all" and "some" don't mean the same exact thing.

[–]1 Mredpillschool[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント

But it's you that's being needlessly pedantic because the words literally mean the same fucking thing.

My job as moderator is to set the rules, enforce the rules, explain the rules, and ensure members understand and abide by them.

I'd love for you to provide me with an example where "not all" and "some" don't mean the same exact thing.

And that's my point. I corrected you to show you by example how pointless the correction was, and to show you how fruitless discussing it was. To demonstrate by example why the needless correction did not add to the conversation, or bring it forward in any way.

[–]DeathbyBluePill 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I could be wrong, but I think he was being needlessly pedantic on purpose to hold up a mirror to the poster he was replying to. His entire point is the delivery shouldn't matter, it is the content that should be discussed.

[–]Overkillengine -1 ポイント0 ポイント

As far as the observed female behavior in the original post, my observation is that it often runs hand in hand with a weak father figure or no father figure. Thus they look for a replacement.

But that is separate from my observation that the method of conveying the point was not of peak utility if the goal was to relay the point.

Now if the goal was to troll for reactions, ok, goal met.

[–]1 Mredpillschool[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント

So, you've noticed that this effect happens specifically in girls with weak father figures-- or perhaps your theory is that the girls exhibiting this behavior may have had weak father figures.

Now that's interesting.

Care to elaborate on that?

Because that's how you contribute to a discussion.

The mods (and myself) do use this coarse language to weed out trolls, it's true. The question is whether or not you can understand the point and discuss it, or whether you'll see red and go SJW so we can ban you.

[–]Overkillengine 0 ポイント1 ポイント

It's a theory I have based on some child psychology.

Children crave boundaries. They act poorly when you don't provide them. They never grow up all the way into adults without them.

Think about how often women get raised as "Daddy's Princess" when a father figure is present. (weak father figure)

Or the frequency of single mom house holds. (no father figure, and most likely a mother figure that did not place boundaries on her own behavior and thus cannot adequately put them on a child as well.)

So they end up physically maturing, which is unavoidable, but not mentally maturing, because they were not provided with a key portion of child development.

Hell, I've seen it in males. It's getting pretty damn frequent there too. Think about how tamely many men these days follow a strong leader instead of their own compass.

They were never taught to lead themselves properly.

[–]TheOpposingView 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Oh dear lord, first the petulance and then the dramatic swing to obsequiousness. Look at how quickly he turned you from fighting into what you really craved: acceptance, approval, appreciation.

Now that, to me, is fun psychology.