Xev: You've just described yourself, gendy and many other women in that last sentence. But there's one thing you seem to have missed in your generalisation. Not all women want to be tamed. If that's how you view yourself, then fine. But don't clump all women together into the little box that you've created for yourself. Neither can you. I seem to recall that you went away on holidays and still posted in here. And if she didn't, you'd call her a bad mother and a bitch. Gendy: Taking yourself a tad too seriously there aren't you? You a few others in here view yourselves as queens and you assume that the rest view you as such. You assume that it puts you above everyone else. What you've failed to realise is that it makes you just as sad as everyone else. You crave the attention. You post certain comments in the bid that 'your kind' would swarm to you. You see yourselves as outside the norm, as the rebels, but in reality you aren't. The rebels are the one's who went before you and you are merely followers basking in their wake, claiming their lives as your own. You see gendy, women like Arditezza and I have no need for 'needy romance'. We've been there and done that. We no longer dream of shagging movie stars like Johnny Depp. You could say that we've grown up. You think because we love we are needy, cripples and part of the herd. But in truth, it is you who actually seeks to be 'in wuv'. You make fun of it, but your words only show that you are merely making fun of something you know nothing about but want to know so much. In short gendy, people like Arditezza and I don't need a platform to talk about love or life. We live it on a daily basis. We don't seek it out because it's simply there. So do you. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting here at all. Let me guess. You take aspirin on a daily basis just in case you develop a clot, don't you? Well I've had enough. Goodbye for now.
I threw that bone to see what the response would be -- and I'm surprised. I thought you were above and over that sort of social criticism. That "taming of the shrew" can be understood in so many ways, yet you have the one that is most self-sabotaging and self-harming. As if to you, being an individual means to oppose authority and society; as if the individual is defined by this opposition. A review of the big romantic conflict -- the one that was practised by the German and English Romantics. I don't really know what to tell you. I suppose the specialness you and Gendanken maintain here at the forum derives greatly from your isolation. On the one hand it is the isolation that your fans and entourage put you in, by enthroning you on some sort of a piedestal. If you have "entourage", being the cetre of the clique, this gives you the air of being untouchable, and others will naturally try to keep a distance from you. On the other hand, you get isolation from those who are trying to be cooperative and participate in debates, as you often bring up interesting topics and arguments -- but you shy them away with your sometimes scary social antics and lack of tact. So, I suppose it fits: Totalitarian individualism and self-sufficiency is achieved by social isolation.
Bells: No, I haven't. You don't know me, presumably you don't know gendanken, and you don't know many other women. Your (and Arditezza's) attempt to insult on this matter is about as silly as yelling: "You're fat and don't have a boyfriend!" Of course, you assume too much and merely parrot the prevailing misogyny. (Not that I have anything against misogyny) "Ooh, everyone knows that a woman truely wants -- someone stronger than her, to be subdued by." The ugly slur human nature, for they know nothing better than themselves. Which may have worked for men. But then there are the pathetic women who repeat it. Did you miss something, brainiac? You're just ascribing to me the very theory I was mocking. Which proves....? I never said I could. Nor did I start whinging about "co-dependancy" You know that? How do you know what she thinks? Gendanken was given that title by another member, who thought as you do. And maybe she plays with it. But why the hell should she not, if she gains amusement thereby? And Gendanken likely never went through that phase. You know nothing about her. You do not know whether she's loved or not - and it is quite truely none of your business. That makes sense, let's apply it to other scenerios: "X thinks that German schiess porn is disgusting, they must want to do those things!" Yeah... "The lady doth protest too much" is occasionally a valid point, but not always. This may come as a shock to your delicate, tolerent, multicultural "let's accept everyone for who they are!" sensibilities, but a person may oppose something - may mock and degrade it - because they truely feel it to be vile. RosaMagika: I try to avoid it, being an easy subject on which I can pontificate. I'm not "above" anything. I've made it clear many times that I do not believe this, however - maintaining individual existence often requires that one oppose authority and society, profoundly anti-individualistic entities. In my case, the American transcendentalists. Pfft, what "specialness"? I'm accused simultaneously of being socially ungraceful and of having followers to put me on a pedestal. First, totalitarianism is the most profoundly social movement. I presume you're using the word to refer to Arendt's "mass movement of atomized individuals" - but that hardly makes totalitarianism individual! Second, complete social isolation is not possible. That's been part of my point throughout this thread: "Since one cannot be completely immune from the social, since if we are Aristotelian animals we are bound by the social, by what token can anyone criticise love?" I mean jeez, I obviously post here for social interaction. We all do. I get all y'all riled up and my entertainment therefrom -what's that but social interaction?
Bit of a straw man isn't it? Because I have chosen to have people in my life, I am incapable of being alone. Or independant or self-sufficient for that matter. I have spent a tremendous time alone before my marriage, without human contact either on the internet or face to face. For several months, in fact, I was working on a network project for major downtown buildings, where I would spend weeks in my apartment designing server rooms, and planning the implementation. Every two weeks or so, a trip to the grocery store for supplies and maybe an Office Max, but that was it. I've never been a telephone talker, and my family was 1200 miles away at the time. Friends were a commodity at the time, and I could afford to waste my time. I do not mind being alone at all, I simply choose not to be because I do get fufillment from enriching the lives of others. I relish my alone time greatly, and it was the main reason for my not moving closer to my work. The two hours I spend in my car going to and from work are precious alone time that I would sorely miss. I put my family first, because they need more than I do. When I need something, I get it. It's as simple as that, but they need me to help them, and that is my role. My husband however, does not need me to love him. And without me, he would also be self-sufficient as he was when I met him. But we all make choices in life, and occasionally those choices appear to be dependant choices, even when they are logical and rational choices. Maybe that's the part you don't understand and are confusing with depandancy. As for the slinging of insults, Xev... it was you who started;
You are very assertive, you come across as very sure of yourself -- this creates an air of being (or at least seeming to be) "above the fray". It is not so much what one says, but much more how one says it, how self-assured that person seems, and what renomé this person has. The hello-effect is hard to escape. I admit that if you started a thread about Donne's poetry today, I would think that you are mocking it, inspite of souding perfectly serious, or that the whole thing is some sort of a prank. (Do you know how Cortez, when realizing he would have to fight a large army of native Indians, much too large for the army he had, ordered his ships to be burned, for everyone to see? The Indians, upon seeing such surety in oneself as Cortez displayed it, fled to the mountains, and Cortez won. Simply displaying your power (even though it is just a show), has a great effect on everyone who's watching.) Yes, but with what I've mentioned above, it is simply hard to tell what you are about. Surely, one can weigh arguments each time anew, completely disregarding the person who made them and disregarding the precedent conversations. But as this is a social setting, some "history" develops, allies and enemies are made, the hello-effect does its work. An honest person can be trusted to tell the truth, but can a liar be trusted to tell a lie? With people who play charades, pranks and such, one can never know when they mean what they are saying, and when they don't mean it. In the end, this leads so far that one cannot trust you and believe you when you want to be trusted and believed. And this is unfair to all involved, you and the other person. Being socially ungraceful does not mean that you won't have followers who will put you on a pedestal. Some people adore "bad manners". No, I was using the term "totalitarian individualism" without referring it to Arendt, I don't know enough about her work. I meant "totalitarian" as in "totalitarian regime" or "totalitarian church" and such -- "totalitarian" as in 'allowing for only one option, and pursuing it mercilessly'. Firstly, some in this thread have suggested something like "social isolation" -- as if one would supposedly be perfectly alright without other people. Secondly, I think that love *can* be criticised, and it is criticised -- but this doesn't mean that it also *should* be criticised. Just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it. It seems to me that those who do criticise love, preach consequent relativism, and I don't think this is healthy. Just because something doesn't kill you, doesn't mean that it can't be bad.
Rosa wrote: That may be somewhat true, however, I think some people just like to sit back and watch all of you writhe around each other as snakes in a pit. I find it entertaining...and possibly even intimidating. At least knowing what one may comment on will eventually be ripped to shreds could be intimidating, but a person may need that every so often. I had a thought last night as I read through all of the goings on in this thread- that this whole forum could be one huge social experiment. "Let's stick a bunch of people in one place and see how long it takes for them to devour each other." It almost gave me a feeling of being used... It never fails to amaze me how little it can take to get a handful of females to start clawing and scratching at each other. Hmmmm.
And you don't know me and Gendy doesn't know me. I do however know many other women. And I can tell you that the women I know would balk at your comment that women want to be tamed. Just as you have riled up against my placing you in your own category. We've all assumed too much in this thread. And yes there are women who like to be subdued by the stronger male, I know a few. But it doesn't mean that all women feel that way and I would never assume that all women do feel that way. No I didn't miss anything and yes I guess I did. I never said she shouldn't gain amusement by it. What I did say was that she should keep things in perspective. You were saying about my not knowing you or gendy? I shall say it again. You don't know me either, and neither does gendanken. This is amusing and frankly the perfect tonic for my current bad mood. You feel no qualms at making generalisations about others, but when you are clumped within your own words, you try and bite back. How do you know? You're not privy to her innermost thoughts and desires. But I'm willing to bet that does. No, I don't know anything about her nor do I care if she's loved or not. And yes it is none of my business. But it is amusing to see the shackles raised. Of course. The same as I mock little teenagers who know nothing about life except what they have gleaned from a book.
Mephura: I'd like to understand you comments. qua ( P ) (kw, kwä) prep. In the capacity or character of Who taught you that one? A qua mother? = A person in the capacity or character of mother? Did you just ask if her mom taught her that? "oh yeah? what else does your mommy tell you?" wtf There are plenty, if not most/all, teenagers that do not know much about life other than from books, fantasy, or each other. I know, I live with one. They are all insane. When I am an old woman I shall wear purple With a red hat which doesn’t go, and doesn’t suit me. And I shall spend my pension on brandy and summer gloves And satin sandals, and say we’ve no money for butter. I shall sit down on the pavement when I’m tired And gobble up samples in shops and press alarm bells And run my stick along the public railings And make up for the sobriety of my youth. I shall go out in my slippers in the rain And pick the flowers in other people’s gardens And learn to spit …
This thread is fucking weird. Bells: Did you type this while drooling over your "trainable" t-shirt? I never said that. I made fun of it. I said the opposite Eeeh. I'm not so much 'riled up' as hyper. I don't. Then again, I don't know many women. But then, most women who sought such an experience are probably wrapped up in plastic and stuffed under someone's crawlspace. So we don't hear much about them. "And yes there are some niggers who are lazy criminals, I know a few. But that doesn't mean all niggers are lazy criminals and I would never assume all niggers are indeed lazy criminals" Back at'cha. I don't know, hence my use of the word likely. It is an assumption based on the premise that her online persona is not radically different from her physical being. RosaMagika: Yup. Because people are all stupid and we need the racial holy war to occur so that the world is purged of their stupidity. Dada. I do not want to be trusted or believed. I have no ideology, no creed, no dogma to push. I am often silly and occasionally sophistic, a bastard daughter of empiricism and dialectic argument. I am not a person but a mind, I illustrate the Foucaultian 'death of the author' and am no more reliable than goat entrails. In short, I rule. But they require a special kind of social grace. I just act like the irrelevent crackpot with undiagnosed Asperger's syndrome. Oh. Gotcha, sorry.
woot woot...and it goes on I wonder what will captivate me once this display is over..... could be that it never will be...... ineither case I will prance about nekkid...beacuause this thread deserves no less and no more....
Xev Isn't it just. No. Over my bib. It has a picture of a train on it. And ok. Calm down. So you said the opposite. Don't get your knickers in a knot. The way you stated it had me thinking that you hadn't. And I'm in a bad mood, trying to find something with which to amuse myself. This thread provided a mediocre level of amusement. Heh. Unfortunately I do and they are love being subdued so much that they love spending hundreds on make-up to hide the bruises. Cute. Just as there are some white trailer trash who are dumb and partake in criminal activity. But not all of them. And like you would never assume that all niggers are lazy criminals, I too do not assume that all white trailer trash are dumb and criminals. I'm sure some of them attend community college in between pumping gas at the petrol station. Mmmm hmmmm. I'm sure. Another holy war? I'd suggest tweaking their DNA. Cheaper and less destruction. MagiAwen Xev was right. This is getting weirder. Try the Home Shopping Network. I hear the fake diamonte earings are absolutely blindingly captivating. Thanks for that mental pic. Prance? What, you're a horse now? Let me guess, you're the type who is typing on a sticky keyboard with electrodes attached to your genitals for that gentle buzzing feeling.
Writhe like snakes in a pit? A handful of females to start clawing and scratching at each other? Hm? This is what you see here? I don't see it this way -- at least not the talks I am involved in. *** Heh. Why can't people just simply love the ones they love, and hate the ones they hate? Why this "oh, we're all good and nice and we should be tolerant and yadda yadda yadda"?! Why the rationalizations and intellectualizations, and "we must have understanding, we must *all* work together"? One cannot love everyone, just as one cannot hate everyone. Oh. But I'm afraid it will be to your own demise. Revolutions (and all sorts of -isms) eat their babies. Yes, you indeed rule, but only as "often silly and occasionally sophistic, a bastard daughter of empiricism and dialectic argument", you don't rule as "a person" but as "a mind", you "illustrate the Foucaultian 'death of the author' and are no more reliable than goat entrails" -- which I find sad. I think it is common that a person wants to be trusted and believed -- and this has nothing to do with "pushing an ideology, a creed, or a dogma". Oh, and if the author is dead -- who wrote the book? To Barthes, Foucault and co. the author only seemed dead, because they took him for granted. Nope. You have "that thingie under your username", you are not irrelevant, no matter how hard you try to be so. You are betraying your own hierarchical position. And I bet the experimental part in this is to see who would go so far as to prove you unfit for your position -- in a world of relatives, nothing is falsifiable. We need ourselves a war. The world is out of joint! O cursed spite that ... *** The issue you have in mind is about the *mode* of God's existence, not about the *veracity* of God's existence.
Bells Interesting.. I'd check it out but I don't have a television. I have doubts that it would be as captivating as this, though. I was quite intoxicated actually, got home late and had some wild things going on....I might have been a horse......it was a rough night. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You do not do well guessing and I would have thought it would have provoked a more creative response. I would have remembered electrodes. Rosa: In my perception, yes, that is what I see here. ---hmmm so Bells...how do you hook these electrodes up?
Xev: Since the issue just won't fucking die. I'm not 'above' anything either and nobility is no one here. I don't even have an ICQ number- and not having one says shit. We're all here, case closed. That said- the sweater is dying to fit dearly but the bulky fabric just won't let it as it stinks of guano. But the color's pretty. And moaning over sweaters and nailpolish and yeast infections is for girls drunk on bathroom gossip so this issue, dead as well. An excellent point is made: If someone comments on an STD, does this mean they envy it? So why would you take someone's comments as a death wish to know, Bells? For example, I'm usually in a group of males and must suffer their oogling tripe about hot chicks every now and then, I make fun of their inadequacy and yet nothing they can say or I say will make me attracted to women. I'm hetero. Yeah, and me delightfully torturing someone else’s hemrrhoids is tantamount to envying some of my own. Magi: No. And that's just it really. The best books discourse on philosophy, sadism, violence- so Bells would have a point if I never read good books. I learn nothing about love in books, save what it is mechanically or logically those few times it even pops up.
