Can't This Pompous Ass Take What He Dishes Out?

Dean,

Boo-hoo, "womanish". Nothing like using the word we use for the opposite sex as an insult. I'm not necessarily trying to be PC, no? I'm just... I don't think its a good idea to use a name that you use to refer to someone you value as an insult.

Actually, the word we use for the opposite sex is "woman". The word we use for a fella, or even a gal, who whines about inconsequential things is "womanish". It's a good ol' Anglo-Saxon adjective with a little punch to it. That's why I used it instead of a more clinical word bled dry of the "impure" connotations that drive the P.C. contingent of the New Puritans batty.

If you want to bowdlerize the English language, be my guest. Meanwhile, I will continue to savor it with all its pungency.

Andy

Post 61

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 7:56am

Andy, hey, your right! The word "woman" isn't the same as the word "womanish". "woman" is a noun, "womanish" is "woman" converted to an adjective which modifies nouns to give it the characteristic 'like a woman'.

Then you go on to say that you are not using it like that. Instead you are meaning to use it as _____. But _____ came from some person generalizing some aspect of some woman, and that person was using it in a derogatory way towards woman.

Post 62

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 9:30am

Dean,

Andy, hey, your right! The word "woman" isn't the same as the word "womanish". "woman" is a noun, "womanish" is "woman" converted to an adjective which modifies nouns to give it the characteristic 'like a woman'.

Sigh. Break open your English 101 primer. "Womanish" does not mean "like a woman". That word is "womanly". The suffix "-ish" often connotes a negative stereotype, whereas the suffix "-ly" does the opposite. (I do hope we don't have to get into the alleged evil of stereotypes. Stereotypes are perfectly fine unless misapplied.)

Consider "mannish" versus "manly". What man in his right mind would take offense qua male, if someone called a woman mannish? Likewise, no woman qua female can rationally take offense at a man being called womanish.

Andy

Post 63

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 9:53am

Adam- You are attempting to distinguish "Randroids" from later, where you talk about "Randian" thought.

That is tricky ground, but I have faith in your ability to navigate it. You were there from near the beginning, no? I have faith (yes, faith, or gut instinct, if you prefer) that you will know the right thing to do as things progress. I trust you.

Now this, from another:

My point was not to exonerate the flamer but to get the flamed to look beyond the flame.

I find that to be a dodge. It makes me think that there is some entitlement for someone to subject another to suffering through some process, one that mainly involves the mindset of the author. I do not believe that dog ever hunts. More importantly, I do not find it honest. It appears to be a dodge, to me. This is not value for value exchange, even of ideas- what you are doing is forcing, and I cannot abide by that idea, which mainly consists of you saying you know better. This is a right that is not possessed, although it is one that many people find most entertaining.

Perhaps I have mistook, if so, I apologize in advance. But, I don't think so, because I trust my mind and my instincts.

Respectfully,
rde

Post 64

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 10:19am

Rich,

You quote me:

My point was not to exonerate the flamer but to get the flamed to look beyond the flame.

You then responded:

I find that to be a dodge. It makes me think that there is some entitlement for someone to subject another to suffering through some process, one that mainly involves the mindset of the author. I do not believe that dog ever hunts. More importantly, I do not find it honest. It appears to be a dodge, to me.

You missed my point entirely. Implicit in the statement is that the flamer is in the wrong, and in the post you clipped this from, it was explicit. So it's nonsense that I have advocated any entitlement to anyone to cause another "suffering". (I'll leave unaddressed how anyone actually can suffer from a flame except through his own lack of self-respect.)

The grievance against the flamer is a given. What I am asking of those who have a grievance against a flamer is this: What value is there in holding onto it? What good does it do you? What justice worth pursuing can be had by pressing for redress? Keep in mind, we're talking about someone delivering an insult over the internet! Of all the wrongs that can be done to you, this ranks at the bottom.

So what is the self-interest in being obsessed with a flame?

Andy

Post 65

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 11:01am

Long before I heard of Rand�s view of Kant, I�ve heard similar assessments and often by people who�ve applauded Kant. By Rand�s view, I mean her bottom-line assessment of the cultural impact of Kant�s philosophy � not some textual exegesis resulting in the moral condemnation of Kant himself. Whenever I read Rand�s explanation of another philosopher�s views I substitute �He says� with �His philosophy amounts to� or �The cultural impact of his work� or even �He�s inspired a movement to �� Rand has a certain way of writing � at times I find it annoying but at other times I find it invigorating. So be it.

I�ve seen a variety of opinions on Kant and I certainly wouldn�t attempt to put forth a definitive interpretation. However, some are compatible with Rand�s assessment of Kant�s impact on cultural history. I find the subject interesting but I�d rather be reading Ancient Philosophy or the British Enlightenment � if only I had the time.

I don�t see why you�re so upset, Jeff. Your one-line insults generally come across as a pompous �if you weren�t so ignorant you�d realize how stupid you look.� It gets tiring. I remember two young men, when I used to read Invictus, who struck me as promising intellects. One of them I still enjoy reading.

Post 66

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 12:08pm

So what is the self-interest in being obsessed with a flame?

Are you asking yourself this question, or me? I am unclear about that.

Either way, the answer is the same, now that we have gone to metaphor.

It is about control.

I find that most people who present via attempting to control conceptual frameworks are usually trying it out on someone else, before they try it on themselves.

In the end, it is a communications issue, and that usually involves self-esteem.

Simply an observation, no foul intended.

rde

Post 67

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 1:07pm

Rich,

I sanctioned that last post because it is pretty right on. However there is another issue that hurts feelings - rejection.

When a person approaches another in a spirit of good will and gets his or her head taken off over nothing or a complete misunderstanding, that comes across as rejection on a very fundamental level. Your good will and use of your rational capacity are rejected wholesale. If you were expecting a friendly response, such rejection can cause a bit of shock and hurt at the moment. (Muttnik principle of psychological visibility in reverse.)

There is a very prevalent attitude by some Randroid-type Objectivists of poking fun at someone's feelings when they get hurt, and belittling those who like to take these feelings into account. They act as if gratuitous macho rudeness on first contact were the only alternative. These are the ones who have the hardest time saying, "Sorry for the misunderstanding - that was not my intention." These people are ones with huge control issues - especially if they always have to be right - both to themselves and to others. The ones who get offended or hurt from being gratuitously insulted are not always control-oriented in their reaction.

I am not against kicking ass - I certainly do enough of it. I always try to understand first, though. I try to give the benefit of the doubt until the issue is clear. It takes a pretty long bit of back-and-forth before I smell a rat start tearing into a person for real.

But there are exceptions. I have rules of respect for myself. If a line gets crossed, I react accordingly and I am usually very clear about that line. That is when my fuse is much shorter. Is that control? I guess it is. I rarely give a shit about what another does or says when I am not involved. But when I am, there are rules of engagement.

In Brazil there is a saying I like a lot.

I would pay one head of steer not to get into a fight. But after I am in it, I would pay a whole herd to stay until it's over.

I'm a bit like that, but I always respond positively to those who engage me on my terms in good will. As my terms are completely rational and are very few, I usually have no problem at all with people. I like people a lot and it usually comes across.

I have even been characterized as one of the nicest posters on Solo recently (I can't remember who right now, but thank you whoever it was). I can be a real asshole when I choose to be, too, with no shame, compunction or regrets.

Michael

Post 68

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 1:16pm

Michael-

And your good words, along with what I saw Kat say, lead me to believe that you could be the next person to leave.

But, I go with gut, and think you will not do so in the end.

The subject you brought up is exactly what I was reflecting on, trying to forumulate a reply to.

I am sure that alone is unacceptable on some level out there, but it means no matter to me. I can only work on my own behavior; and in so knowing that I am free of the behavior of others.

I used to let it touch me more, but no longer.

Best Regards,
rde

Post 69

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 2:08pm

Rich,

I have no intention of leaving Solo, ever. Neither does Kat. She used a colloquial expression in a fit of anger (very justified fit of anger, by the way) and, in the context of so many leaving, this got interpreted as a preparation for a grandstand exit.

Ain't gonna happen.

Not me.

Not Kat.

Not ever.

If the management wants to throw us off one day, that is another matter. However, that ain't ever gonna happen either.

I am at profound odds with a lot of irrational belligerence I see going around here recently. But I am no shrugger. I will not give up what I value so highly on Solo. I don't expect to win any popularity contests doing it either.

But who gives a shit about popularity anyway?

My thing is way off in the horizon. Solo is helping me get there. No brat or loud mouth is ever going to interfere with that. They can try, though. They can try.

Michael

Post 70

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 2:26pm

Rich,

I asked:

So what is the self-interest in being obsessed with a flame?

In summary, you replied:

In the end, it is a communications issue, and that usually involves self-esteem.

Well, yes, Rich, and that's the rub. Isn't it your lack of self-respect that makes the flamer's attack effective? (And by you, I mean everyone generally.) It's kinda like a lawsuit. A business associate breaches a contract with you, but you suffer no damages. So you have no claim against him. Your grievance against the flamer is the same. Yes, he did wrong to you, but there's no way he could have harmed you unless you have so little self-respect that his insults could carry any force against you.

The only harm is that which you invite. A flamer can only bother you if you choose to dance to his tune. So why do that? Why be his puppet and then complain about it? If he wants to harm you, why let him? The only way a flame hurts is if you say ouch. In a very real way, taking offense from his flame is to sanction it.

You have a choice, Rich. You can buy into the womanish therapeutic culture of self-esteem, as Michael K advocates, or you can bootstrap yourself with a manly self-respect, as I advocate.

Andy

P.S. Memo to Michael: Yes, I used "womanish" and "manly" fully aware that I risk annoying you with the use of these strong words. But they are effective in communicating what I think.

Post 71

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 2:38pm

Michael K,

I'm glad that you have no intention of leaving this forum. I think it is unfortunate that you have had to say so. Even though I firmly believe your reaction to me has been irrational, I would regret being the catalyst for your departure.

Andy

Post 72

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 2:55pm

Andy has been too hard on the sales books lately, and attempts a bizarre reductive close, I believe it is known as the "I think I control the universe from my bedroom" variation (popular in the evangelical door-to-door missionary world, amongst other hip spots). Clearly, testosterone is involved as well:

You have a choice, Rich. You can buy into the womanish therapeutic culture of self-esteem, as Michael K advocates, or you can bootstrap yourself with a manly self-respect, as I advocate

Oh, Rhett, come take me. No means yes! Come do your dirty man business on me! I will lay back and try to enjoy it.

rde
Cleaning my own puke off of what were once pretty nice Italian loafers.

Post 73

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 2:30pm

It seems to me that everybody leaves, but no one has the balls to fight and prove the opponent wrong.

Do not worry about getting those little atlases, just say what you think, but make sure you are honest and above all tell the truth, and in addition to that be ready to fight.

Everybody leaves; I wonder what the hell are these people going? Once they leave solo they all disappear from the face of this earth.

Where is Mr. Kelbourn? Did he prove that what he said wasn�t a lie? no!

I though he was being honest. I wonder how can you trust anyone else of being honest on this forum when someone as

intelligent as Mr Keilbourn make a false statement like that.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/08, 8:13am)

Post 74

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 11:57am

"I don�t see why you�re so upset, Jeff."

As I've mentioned before, I'm not. I was when I thought my reply to Linz had been suppressed. Since then, I've felt only minor exasperation. See my post #16, above.

"Your one-line insults generally come across as a pompous 'if you weren�t so ignorant you�d realize how stupid you look.'"

When I'm dealing with people of whom it might truthfully be said that if they weren't so ignorant, they'd realize how stupid they looked, how else would I want to "come across"?

"It gets tiring."

So take a nap or something.

"I remember two young men, when I used to read Invictus, who struck me as promising intellects. One of them I still enjoy reading."

Then go read him.

JR

Post 75

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 5:02pm

Rich,

I wrote a constructive post to you. It was written in good faith with no purpose other than to clearly state to you what I believe. In response you had this to say ...

Cleaning my own puke off of what were once pretty nice Italian loafers.

Earlier you wrote how insults delivered through the internet cause suffering, which distresses you. I assure you that your last remarks have caused me no suffering whatsoever, so do not be distressed. I am curious to know why you would do what you think is harmful to others.

Andy

Post 76

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 7:43pm

Andy,

Feel free to use gender in any manner you wish. That does not annoy me at all, and neither do the wholesale rationalizations and psychologizing (from a hypocritical soldier in the anti-psychology brigade) you constantly engage in. Other things have and I have commented on them at the time.

You can rest very easy that you have absolutely no influence whatsoever, neither as catalyst nor as cause, as to why I am on Solo. You are not of any value to me, intellectual or otherwise. But thank you for your concern.

Michael

Post 77

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 7:49pm

Michael, Andy is a serious voice here who has logically and intelligently argued every point on here, instead of resorting to long chains of LOLs and what have you. If you choose to devalue his intellectual contributions, not only is it your loss but it reflects poorly on your character.

And no, I was not spoiling for a fight. You were wrong and started to get snide and make backhanded insults instead of admit you were mistaken, and I just wanted you to name some names instead of saying "CERTAIN individuals are immature whatevers". Say what you mean, to whom you mean.

Post 78

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 7:59pm

Steven,

You can have him. Keep him. He's all yours. Enjoy.

You still have not answered any of my points at all, not one from several posts addressed to you, but you constantly insist in psychologizing my "character" and macho posturing.

None of that has any intellectual value (nor any other) to me either.

Just crap and a big waste of time.

Michael

Post 79

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 9:34pm