The price of respect

HED:

You did not respond to what I wrote. You responded to horrific misinterpretations. It is not worth my time to correct you. Re-read what I wrote a few thousand times after having removed staved your ego long enough to do so. I'm right on all counts. Perhaps I'm just beyond you.

Further, you claim you intend to minimize the vitriol and then proceed to call me stupid and "an thick headed arrogant piece of shit".

Check yourself.

Rosa:

"I would consider this as an *assault*, not as an offense. The reactions and sanctions for an assault are different from those for an offense.
We have slightly different definitions, but I think we can understand eachother now."

But would you not be offended by such an assault? I do agree that it is an assault, but the point was "being offended" is a very very valid state of being depending on the circumstances. I was pointing to the extreme case of an assault to easily make the point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, very clear. I completely agree. This fits perfectly with your summation of "respect is a modern luxury" in the sense that people generally recieve at minimum a modicum of respect from each other to begin with (via the whole tribal survival thing). I assume your point would be that such respect should be dropped immediately when you're assaulted eh? In other words, why empower someone who is simply trying to push your buttons? Perfectly consistent with what I've been getting at.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I responded to precisely what you said. Don't give any crap about being "beyond" me, for you know that is plain nonsense. If you claim that I had not responded directly, show it, else cease with this shit.

I said you ought to, but then as your post progressed, I simply got annoyed with you insulting me again and again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can understand this view point, but I think that sometimes, the audience at hand may also be important as to why some get offended. Also, certain things do in fact offend some people regardless of who says them. This could be due to principle, psychological makeupe, etc.

I think the only time I get offended by an insult is when I have relegated to an extent, some of my emotional makeup to them. For example, a loved one. Simple respect induce disappointment-- perhaps

you have a point

 

F:

Nice try.
You were fucking ignored.
Gee, wonder why.

Read it again, Illerato:

Simple shit, Fountain.
Men made tribes, tribes made cities, cities made crowds and crowds unmade men.
In the unmaking, personality and character is substituted with attitude.
Haven't you noticed that attitude is the easiest clone?
Every last human on the street sounds just like the one next to him, with each nursing a quiet insecurity of being Nobody.
So the attitude becomes a victimization demanding validation from the outside in the form of Respect, as Nobody simply insists on being Somebody.

Along comes someone to prove nobody is just that, and *poof* he is vilified by the Nobodies.
Therefore, the Unmade man (like the thousand plus members on this site) is the kind of prey that believes his predators should be held accountable for their being prey.

This is what Rosa is saying, roughly. Squint when you read next time.

 

Incorrect.

I'll give you the crap I think you deserve. That you would think "nothing is beyond me" is as arrogant a statement as has ever been stated.

I've already said what I had to say. Your inability to comprehend it isn't really my problem. I'd rather you attempt to re-read what has been said rather than trying to re-state the same shit over and over. It's a waste of my time.

Show me where I insulted you ONCE in that post. Regardless of your annoyance, you said one thing and did another. That is YOUR responsibility as is your annoyance.

 

By you? I think someone did reply. The truth still remains that I attemped to read the thread and couldn't.

Stop right there. Personality and character is substituted with "attitude"? I suppose you use attitude as a diminished state of personality and character? I still think it is utter nonsense. Do you somehow claim that in the unmaking of the tribe to the city we somehow lost our character and personality? That if I were to somehow go into the amazon and compare a tribal member to the modern man, the modern man would somehow lack in personality and character? Firstly, define personality and character for the sake of avoiding a needless side argument. The modern man does in fact feel lost amongst the many, but I think it is simply because of a loss in intense/meaningless socialization, the feeling of a community. It is not a loss of the self as in a loss of personlaity or character

I do not see this in the manner in which you see it. I think that everyone is in the street crying deep inside for society's insistencce that he be like everyone else, when he cannot and does not want to. I do agree that most habour a feeling of being a nobody as a result of this loss of community, but I think they seek the affirmation of self importance not in respect but rather in a sense of importance. This sense of self importance is manisfested in many ways.

You are attempting to somehow bring that you were banned into this issue. I don't but that. What makes you able to separate yourself from these so called nobodies? Have you created a delusional space whereby all that surround you are mere minions? People react as you accuse them if what you are saying is false or if it is true and they are unable to accept it. What makes you think the latter is the case?

Perhaps that was what she meant to say, but that is clearly different from what she said.

 

I was quoting your statement-- your claim that you were perhaps beyond me.

What is a waste of my time is to re-read shit I obviously understood, thought it nonsense, and then showed for it as nonsense.

Said what and did what?

"once"?
how the childish change of fountainhed to "brainded"?? Pathetic wes.

 

F:

Ah, now I see.
The man didn't read the Fountainhead, he flirted with it.

In that case:
"Keating let himself be carried by the torrent: He needed the people and the clamor around him. There were no questions and no doubts when he stood on a platform over a sea of faces......He was great; great as the number of people who told him so. He was right; right as the number of people who believed it. He looked at the faces, at the eyes; he saw himself born in them, he saw himself being granted the gift of life. That was Peter Keating, that, the reflection in those staring pupils, and his body was only its reflection"

Keating is the modern man in that all alone in a room there is Nobody.
He’s only a reflection, as in attitude.
Personality is the unified whole of one's definition, flexible but impenetrable.
Its a creation born and made from the inside, with external personalities being allies- not obligations or intoxicants.
It defines a man at any one point in his life- its not the chameleon that Attitude is.

A man without character or personality will ask for its definition:

See?

Oh?
The hippie, the Goth, and the angsty teen are all tiny hermit crabs protesting from within the warmth of camaraderie.
Remove that shell of category and they'll scurry away like all nobodies do when there is nothing to hide in.

And how is one made to feel important?
Yoga?

Something tells me you don't even read your own gibberish.

No.
You are.

 

Again I'm absolutely sure that I'm beyond you about some things, and not about other and vice-versa. Hence the statement about YOUR arrogance.

You thought it nonsense because you didn't understand it. Hence my request that you reconsider.

And you claim you can read? You SAID "Let's keep the vitriol light on this one, old man wes, because clearly you are one who takes offense very quickly to what is said to you. I wouldn’t want your dick shrinking anymore than it already has."

... contradiciting yourself in the sentence that followed your proclamation. Further, if you had the capacity for comprhension as you claim, you'd note a complete lack of vitriol in my post in question. You project it there. The comments you were responding to in your statement about vitriol were directed towards the general "you" which had been established in the exchange prior. That you would take it personal and find it vitriolic is clear evidence that you indeed do not understand what was said.

Okay, so you were getting "sick of all the insults", you found one (barely), show 3 more so you can make your case for "all the insults". One questionable insult (because you obviously aren't brain dead, it was a play on your name giving you hell about the fact that you don't seem to understand what you read before responding) doesn't constitute "all the insults". So bring forth your evidence.

 

I read the crap and thought it mostly generalized nonsense.

Rand created a character who is not simply a reflection of the modern man. He is a reflection of man, period! Keating's need to reaffirm his importance, his need to bleed others for the sake of his own elevation has been a characteritic of man dating from God knows when. It prompted Khan to conquer half the world, and for Louis XIV to ..., for Hitler to ...., etc etc

And you have either decided to ignore the fact that a person's personality is indeed a product of their environment and psychological makeup, and instead relied exclusively on some romanticized conception of man as should be. Man, when alone is a nobody; man seeks the affirmation of his importance through other avenues. You seem to forget the character Wynard, and the importance wealth played in Keating's being. Respect was a part of self affirmation, but so was jealously, envy, authority, power and all the other wants of man.

A person using words without realizing their meaning would make such a claim.

The hippie, goth and angsty teen are seeking a sense of belonging or community as was previously said. Besides, said groups are merely a minority of the groups existing in the modern world. It is funny how your worldview is dominated by the occurences in this country.

Look above

Something tells me you think your generalities and jumps in logic as statements of brilliance.

You brought it up. But fine, we shall drop it.

 

Ooohh.
Its modern men, my dear. The man born from mass, and I ain't talking 1984 or 90.

Quipped the nobody.
And as anybody, that is somebody, knows this body is a cannibal.
Ta.

 

Move on wes. If you think I misunderstood what was said, show it.

 

So Ghengis is modern man, eh? Shall we go futher back and pick alexander?

Perhaps we have here yet another attempt by one to discuss the personality of prehistoric man? You know shit about man as he was when he lived in caves-- his personality and character.

What a bunch of crap. Dismiss my argument because you have nothing in response and attack one bloody line? The fact is, man needs reaffirmation, and unless he is able to rise above this mindset, he's forever stuck. You gendanken, need reaffirmation. You can bloody well hide behind your visage but it shows though. I certainly won't make the claim otherwise for myself, but I am much more absent from this need that I assume 99.99% of the population. And the people who preach nonsense about man as once was-- prehistoric man, are clearly romantics

 

Too to consider is this fallacy of being value neutral.
Everyone here logs on claiming sticks and stones- yet cry over sticks and stones.
Why?

Men personalize everything, yet claim otherwise.
But at least they have their boyfriends and girlfriends to keep them nice and strong and fluffy wuffy. Ha.

 

I'm back -- I'll sum up:


As far as tribal matters are concerned: This whole tribal issue was brought up for one sole reason: re-establishing the tribe.


One:

Even though human society may now look as one big tribe, and that as such, throughout the whole of human society the same tribal sense for respect and mutual dependency is pursued, this pursue is a faulty one. There are only 24 hours in a day, and each man has only one body -- there are inavoidable limitations that prevent us from feeling an active and meaningful respect and mutual dependency for everybody.

If we agree that humans have an individualistic as well as a gregarious side to their personalities, it is flawed to pursue strict individualism, and explain everything from a strictly individualistic perspective.
This means that sometimes, certain others are responsible for how we feel, and we are responsible for how certain others feel.



Two:

Re-establishing the tribe is about making a tribe on the basis of choice. And within this tribe, respect and mutual dependency can be exercised in an active and meaningful way.

Here, within the tribe, compliments and criticisms make full sense, and also have consequences that are agreed upon.

A sign of acting on this "modernized" tribal sense is to seek allies, and deem something an offense (when your respect and self-respect suffer a blow) only if it is said by those you deem to be of your tribe -- those whom you respect and love.

Within such a tribe, a mutual responsibility for eachother and eachother's feelings exists.


Three:

However, this choice is now a hard thing to do; the original tribe was defined by blood, it was pre-choice. Modern humans bear the burden, as well as the duty to choose and make their own tribe.

And this burden, and duty, are for many too hard a thing to bear -- so they refuse to choose, or try to avoid this choice, and try to feel respect and mutual dependency for everyone.

We can see these two loudest phenomena resulting from this generalization (and dilution) of respect and mutual dependence: 1. Political correctness. 2. People who feel easily offended by what a stranger says.

The price of respect in such a non-tribal social organization is political correctness. As such, this respect is not worth much.

 

Though I may be the cause, it is impossible for me to be responsible for how you feel.

I am not you.

I am not responsible for your behavior.

I am not responsible for your reaction to my behavior.

I am responsible to deal with my reaction to your behavior.

I am responsible for my behavior (including my emotions).


In a sense, this is akin to a recursive relationship when looked at from a POV outside of either you or I (like for instance, me observing the action of others) as in the points above. We are both responsible for our behavior and our reactions to the behavior of others.

If I respect the lessons of my experiences, I should expect that if I assault you, I may incite any number of reactions. You will react as your psyche dictates. I am still responsible for my reaction to your behavior. You are still responsible for yours.

I get stuck here:

If I'm not you, how can I be responsible for your thoughts?

If I attack you, it is inherent that I feel justified in doing so even if you deem that it has no reason. Though my reason may be a chemical imbalance or wrong (lacking ethics or fairness as you see them), I still feel justified or the behavior would be quelled before actualized. Your sense of fairness or ethics do not apply to me no matter how much you think they should. Saying that I am responsible for your emotional state due to my assault on you is projecting your sense of fairness or ethics onto me. It's a nice thought but it's fantasy or we wouldn't see people assaulting other people and not giving a fuck about it. Your sense of ethics and fairness exist only in you, yet it seems to me the gist of this conversation attempts exactly the contrary. You're "me-thropomorphising" this issue by projecting your own perspective of ethics upon it.

The tribe is comprised of individuals. Thus individualism is reality.

"If we agree that humans have an individualistic as well as a gregarious side to their personalities, it is flawed to pursue strict individualism, and explain everything from a strictly individualistic perspective."

I don't think everyone has a gregarious side. Even if they do, it still only exists in the individual. As such, it should be explained from that perspective. The interactions of perspectives is an interesting topic of discussion, but is is inherently explained from a strictly individual perspective, even if that perspective attempts to project itself elsewhere.

IMO, there is no weaker position than to hold others responsible for your internal status. By doing so, you become their slave.

Note that this doesn't negate respect as in my respect for others. In fact IMO it promotes it, but remains wary that respect comes in many forms and sometimes not at all. My experience teaches me how people react to my words. If I wish to avoid negativity or badness as I see it in general, I will modify my behavior such that I do not assault or attack, since I've learned that it may incite a reaction that I don't desire. Assaulting or attacking you may well risk my survival. If I value assaulting or attacking you more than than I value not taking the risk, I will assault or attack you and take the risk.

 

Wes, I understand your position, but I am not talking about any two people or any group of people.

As soon as there is a close or intimate relationship, there exists a certain repsonsibility for eachother's feelings, and also for eachother's actions.

You don't treat your wife the way you do a stranger on the street, and you don't treat your children as if they were nothing to you.
What you say to them, can deeply move them, be it in a positive or negative way, and the same goes for you for what they say to you.

Because of this intimacy, there exists a sensitivity and vulnerability in the persons involved, and this sensitivity and vulnerabilty apparently must be there, or the relationship wouldn't be perceived as intimate.


If I'm not you, how can I be responsible for your thoughts?

Take you and one of your daugthers. You are not her, and she is not you. But because of the intimacy that exists between you two, you are responsible for eachother's well-being.

If you'd call her an idiot, she'd cry and be hurt. If she'd call you an idiot you'd be hurt too. Why? According to your logic, neither of you should be -- but because of the intimacy between you two, you are, and you are supposed to be hurt. If you wouldn't be, this would be a sign of a lessened intimacy.

 

This is not sarcastic: Who then are you talking about? Isn't all this about people? I though my comments relevant. My apologies if you disagree. I'll butt out if you'd rather me do so.

I understand, but disagree on the part about the responsibilty of course.

You're right. I'm still not responsible for their internal state. I affect it by my actions for sure, but that doesn't make me responsible for it. If I desire their happiness (which I do) I will undertake actions that I think will lead to that end.

Of course. That still doesn't speak to responsibility. I can take that responsibility, but it cannot be forced on me. I may FEEL responsible for it, but ultimately I cannot affect it unless they allow it. Note the inconsolable person.

Agreed.

Intamacy implies you have chosen to take that responsibility. Once intimacy is attained, you are correct, but intamacy is fragile and generally conditional. It may seem that children have little choice in most cases... but many parents have little to no intamacy with their children. Intimacy comes in many forms. Generally I'd think it involves accepting responsibility for part of the other person's state, but it's different in the dynamic between any two people.

Doesn't that depend on how I say it, or how she has learned to understand it, or how emotionally stable she is regardless of what responsibility for her I've taken?

That would depend. Actually I probably wouldn't be because she wouldn't do that unless her emotions had gotten the better of her. Since I care about her, I'd ignore the words for the meaning underneath "I'm hurt and emotional and I'm lashing out at you for help". If I am hurt, that's my problem to deal with. If she loves me, she might care that I've been hurt and try to help me deal with that problem.

No, according to my logic everyone will react in the manner they must by the nature of who they are.

It could very well be, or it could be like the example of the underlying meaning I referred to in the example above. If we were a couple and you called me an idiot everyday and I thought you meant it to hurt me, I doubt we'd be a couple long.

 

If someone apparently fails to contribute in an intelligent manner more than not, then what is the harm done to the community when he/she is banished?

However: To err is human, to forgive is divine.

I do not know that if gendanken were allowed back she would accept or if she did come back she would change whatever offensive display she masqueraded. Does she have to comform to group standards in order to be 'acceptable' on an internet forum?

The culmination:
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but a harsh word will never heal.